Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple, Epic, and the App Store

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 781 posts

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#411

Post by ghostwriter »

rndgermandude wrote: post #304
ericmay wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yeah, you're right. That is the outcome that we want. We want multiple stores on iOS. I thought advocates for this position had been really clear, maybe we haven't been clear enough though. Right, and the rest of us don't want that, and I also don't want games or apps that don't adhere to Apple's rules. You want another option of App Stores because you want don't want to pay for the user base that Apple created and…

>Right, and the rest of us don't want that, and I also don't want games or apps that don't adhere to Apple's rules. Then don't install them? But I fail to see why you (or Apple) should be in a position to tell other users what they can install or not. >You want another option of App Stores because you want don't want to pay for the user base that Apple created and maintains. lolwat Honestly, I don't even know what th…

> But I fail to see why you (or Apple) should be in a position to tell other users what they can install or not.

Because it's their platform, they created it, they grew it, they paid for its development out of their pocket, and they offered it as a unique market proposition that satisfies millions of users around the world. Apple doesn't force anyone into their platform, everyone involved are there voluntarily and solely because they know that it's beneficial for them to be on the platform.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#412

Post by kbutler »

yokto wrote: post #407
misnome wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand these arguments either. It's not illegal to have high product margins, right? Why can't they charge whatever they want? It comes across as pure moral "I don't like it" objection, which is fine, but don't use it as a legal argument.

It's about balancing the market. That's why anti-trust exists. Would you want an insulin monopoly to be able to have 95% margin? Probably not. That's why it's illegal. Too many usinesses can't live without access to iPhone users.

Epi-pen approx 97% $8/injector, so $16/two-pack, selling for $700 in 2016 https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/10/01/epipen-outrage-silico...

Of course, software sales have much higher margin of production cost (every copy but the first is free-to-make).

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#413

Post by myhf »

atom-morgan wrote: post #402
myhf wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

V-bucks should be banned completely, along with all other illegal gambling.

Unlike CS:GO, Fortnite skins aren't gambling.

It takes work to implement an ingame premium currency. The only reason to perform that work is because some business person thinks they have discovered a new way to claim that what they are doing "isn't gambling."

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#414

Post by danShumway »

ghostwriter wrote: post #394
danShumway wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to heavy push back against both-sides-isms here. > I think Epic's real motivation here is to run their own App Store Yeah, you're right. That is the outcome that we want. We want multiple stores on iOS. I thought advocates for this position had been really clear, but maybe we haven't been clear enough. For the record, we want there to be multiple app stores on iOS. > build a bigger moat and get the profits…

We want a few more families to move into your house. We don't like the fact that you have a complete control over your home, and I think you're just frightened that other families could run your house better than you. And by the way, you've never invited us for a party, so it is extremely rude and unfair, and just shows your monopolistic stance, so we expect that other families will open the doors for anyone who need…

And if there were only two livable houses in the entire world, then that would be a completely reasonable position for someone to take.

Apple is one half of a duopoly. People keep on bringing up these 'gotcha' arguments about, "how would you feel if Walmart was forced to stock everybody's stuff?" And that ignores the fact that it would be a serious problem if there were only two supermarkets that I could buy from. I would feel exactly the same way if one to two companies had the kind of stranglehold over physical supermarket goods as Apple has over the mobile app ecosystem.

A physical duopoly of that scale would very clearly call for either breaking up the owners or regulating them to ensure that everyone had equal access to the market. Scenarios like that are why we have antitrust in the first place, particularly around the kind of vertical integration that Apple advocates hold in such high regard.

I don't think the people who put forward these arguments have really thought them through. A duopoly is different from a house.

If we could travel back 35-40 years through history, I have no doubt there'd be no shortage of people arguing that Bell's vertical integration of the Internet was the very reason why their service was so good, and that allowing people to hook their own 'unapproved' answering machines to their phone lines would just ruin the entire network, and that allowing one company to own all of the railroads would just mean that shipping became that much simpler and reliable for consumers.

So be careful about making analogies to the physical world when you're supporting Apple, because people might just take them at face value.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#415

Post by cromwellian »

cromwellian wrote: post #385
bttrfl wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Following your logic, Fortnite's add-ons should clearly be free since the cost to make and sell them is minuscule in comparison to 400M Epic made in April alone [0]. [0] https://venturebeat.com/2020/06/15/epic-games-shareholders-s...

Games have a limited shelf life. I don’t really care about Epic. Fortnite won’t be around much longer when the next big game du jour comes out. Whether or not Epic charges for their store is immaterial to whether one of the largest and most important general purpose computing platforms in the world is performing highway robbery.

Not really sure why people are voting this down. It's self evident that Fortnite's "platform" is far more ephemeral than iOS. Team Fortress 2 is probably an example of a skins market that has been around the longest (since 2007), but very few games last this long and run a market that is still selling a lot.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#416

Post by ghostwriter »

enragedcacti wrote: post #340
y7 wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it leads to fragmentation. If developers have a choice of app stores, then users have to install ALL app stores if they want access to the entire market. This happened with streaming services as well: when Netflix was the only prominent one, only that subscription was enough. Now you also need Amazon, Hulu, etc.

If enough users agree with the parent comment that the app store is the best way get software then companies can weigh that user base against the 30% cut. Why should we force the users who don't like the App Store (or want apps that are incompatible with Apple's business model) to suffer on behalf of the users who don't?

Nobody forces anyone into interaction with Apple ecosystem. People want to get onto App Store because they know they can benefit from it, financially big. And they subscribe voluntarily by the most fair means of it, by trading their money in exchange for the service under the rules that are mentioned prior the transaction takes place.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#417

Post by MobileVet »

harryf wrote: post #391
cromwellian wrote: post #352

"But Apple needs to fund the App Store. XCode, payment processing, reviewers, it all costs money". Yes, very little in comparison. Apple made $50 billion in revenue from the App Store in 2019. $50 BILLION. The data centers costs to serve up this are miniscule in comparison. Apple could build 50 datacenters PER YEAR EVERY YEAR for that revenue. Reviewers? A staff of 10,000 fulltime reviewers paid $200k per year would…

This is a great picking apart of Apples justification but I think the issue that most irks everyone who’s not apologizing for Apple is where did this magic number 30% come from? Which market forces created it? Here on HN most of us probably feel that product manager at Apple licked their finger, felt the wind and said “Yeah 30% seems about the most we can get away with” And what irks even more is once Apple set the p…

It is interesting that few people are recognizing that the 30% buys you distribution on a billion devices.

Yes, I know, the web is free...and the App Store search is broken so discovery isn’t what it was... but still. Market access is VERY significant and worth something and the incremental cost to Apple has no bearing on what it is worth.

As discussed, prior mobile cuts were far more one sided. We payed the carrier 50% and then Qualcomm 20% of what was left. Bottom line, we walked away with 40% and we were happy.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#418

Post by yokto »

wrkronmiller wrote: post #278
nemothekid wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume their costs are just, Credit Card Fees, Infrastructure Fees (Bandwidth, Storage), Reviewers Salary. Not sure this adds up to 30%. I think the real reason is that when the Apple store was started, they looked around at the current prices for "software distribution". Retail was like 70%, and other app stores; for example the Danger Hiptop / T-mobile Sidekick charged 60% for their apps store, and the carriers w…

Maintaining XCode, running iCloud app-facing services, building/maintaining SDKs, etc... Apple has to pay for these somehow. They can either get the money by charging more for each iPhone or they can get the money from the real end-users of these products: Developers.

Yes, I'm sure you would buy an iPhone if Xcode didn't exist.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#419

Post by pwthornton »

cromwellian wrote: post #352

"But Apple needs to fund the App Store. XCode, payment processing, reviewers, it all costs money". Yes, very little in comparison. Apple made $50 billion in revenue from the App Store in 2019. $50 BILLION. The data centers costs to serve up this are miniscule in comparison. Apple could build 50 datacenters PER YEAR EVERY YEAR for that revenue. Reviewers? A staff of 10,000 fulltime reviewers paid $200k per year would…

It doesn't cost $450 to make an iPhone. That's insane. It may cost that in parts, but there are many, many highly paid engineers, designers, product managers, etc. who worked on those products. Those people's salaries must be accounted for somehow.

This is something that a commenter on Hacker News should understand!

All of those dumb cost breakdowns for what it "costs" to make iPhones or whatever always miss the fact that you actually have to design and build the software, hardware, and services that makes it all work. Not to mention shipping and other retail costs.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#420

Post by azinman2 »

geerlingguy wrote: post #409
harryf wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a great picking apart of Apples justification but I think the issue that most irks everyone who’s not apologizing for Apple is where did this magic number 30% come from? Which market forces created it? Here on HN most of us probably feel that product manager at Apple licked their finger, felt the wind and said “Yeah 30% seems about the most we can get away with” And what irks even more is once Apple set the p…

There is precedent; the rate was actually much higher in previous mobile app stores (e.g. Symbian and ring tone stores). Additionally, there is related precedent in areas like publishing (ebook stores usually charge 30% or more commission). I don't think 30% is outlandish, though I do think it would be nice if Apple reduced that cut, especially if they wanted to consider some form of graduated rate.

Don’t forget that software publishers were an entire industry previously.
Post reply on HN