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

Proton joins suit against Apple for practices that harm developers and consumers

proton.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 665 posts

Re: Proton joins suit against Apple for practices that harm developers and consumers

#481

Post by thfuran »

GuB-42 wrote: post #455
andrewinardeer wrote: post #20

I'm not an Apple enthusiast—my rarely used iPad mini is my only Apple device—but let me play devil’s advocate. If a company invests billions in R&D to create hardware and its integrated software, shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it? Why should I be forced to open up the carefully designed ecosystem I’ve built? If my pitch is premium, high-speed hardware and intuitive software so user-…

It is complicated, but I think the big thing is that Apple is huge. Not a monopoly, but your may miss >50% of your potential revenue if you take the "other option" of not supporting the Apple ecosystem. But in this case, I still think Apple has a point. It is not a lawsuit so that consumers can truly own their device, it is not about opening bootloaders and things like that. It is just about not paying the 30% tax to…

>Not a monopoly

People get hung up on absolute 100% pure monopolies and how nothing meets that criterion. Monopoly power is a much better way of looking at things. Controlling 100% of a market with insurmountable barrier to entry of course grants a heaping pile of monopoly power, but any company that can influence the market price has some. Generally the higher the market share, the more monopoly power. UK monopoly regulation starts taking a closer look at companies once they have 25% market share.

Re: Proton joins suit against Apple for practices that harm developers and consumers

#482

Post by troupo »

microtherion wrote: post #449
dcow wrote: post #270

> Companies that monetize user data in exchange for “free” services that abuse your privacy aren’t affected by this [the app store tax], as they don’t process payments through the App Store. However, privacy-first companies that monetize through subscriptions are disproportionately hit by this fee, putting a major barrier toward the adoption of privacy-first business models. Huh. I’ve never seen it framed this way an…

Yes, in a way it's a rather good argument. But if you take it to its conclusion, if Apple finds it harder and harder to monetize the App Store through fees, then THEY might eventually decide to switch to privacy violating advertising as their revenue strategy.

> if Apple finds it harder and harder to monetize the App Store through fees, then THEY might eventually decide to switch to privacy violating advertising as their revenue strategy.

Schiller argued that App Store should be free after a billion dollars was earned from it. Apple execs pretend they don't even know how much money App Store makes or loses.

And App Store is already monetized: Apple's hardware pays for everything, and more.

Re: Proton joins suit against Apple for practices that harm developers and consumers

#483

Post by troupo »

al_borland wrote: post #416
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we unpack this argument we can precisely pinpoint the issue. In order for this argument to be true, Apple would need to have market power. Having market power is the thing that makes tying etc. an antitrust violation. Because it can be used for more than allowing people to cancel subscriptions. Like charging a 30% margin in a market where it's normally 3%, or excluding apps that compete with Apple software or serv…

Steam and Android charge a similar 30% fee in their stores. When I hear about a 3% fee, I think of the interchange fees for a credit card. That doesn’t have the same overhead as hosting the software, handling the updates, managing the front end, reviews, etc. I can only assume that 2-3% of the 30% are going to Visa, as I’m sure Apple is paying interchange fees to process the payments. 30% probably still creates a ver…

> Steam and Android charge a similar 30% fee in their stores.

You are free to install any game you want through any other different service on the same OS where Steam runs.

Steam doesn't say "oh, for every transaction you make in those other stores on the same OS we'll take the 30% commission anyway"

Re: Proton joins suit against Apple for practices that harm developers and consumers

#484

Post by eptcyka »

microtherion wrote: post #449
dcow wrote: post #270

> Companies that monetize user data in exchange for “free” services that abuse your privacy aren’t affected by this [the app store tax], as they don’t process payments through the App Store. However, privacy-first companies that monetize through subscriptions are disproportionately hit by this fee, putting a major barrier toward the adoption of privacy-first business models. Huh. I’ve never seen it framed this way an…

Yes, in a way it's a rather good argument. But if you take it to its conclusion, if Apple finds it harder and harder to monetize the App Store through fees, then THEY might eventually decide to switch to privacy violating advertising as their revenue strategy.

Nobody will use an iPhone without Uber, their banking and transit apps. Apple used to think all 3rd party services will be accessed via Safari, but boy was that a long time ago.

Re: Proton joins suit against Apple for practices that harm developers and consumers

#485

Post by nashashmi »

andrewinardeer wrote: post #20

I'm not an Apple enthusiast—my rarely used iPad mini is my only Apple device—but let me play devil’s advocate. If a company invests billions in R&D to create hardware and its integrated software, shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it? Why should I be forced to open up the carefully designed ecosystem I’ve built? If my pitch is premium, high-speed hardware and intuitive software so user-…

Lots of responses here but none of them mention the Hollywood story!

Thomas Edison and Company invented a patent system that separated their inventions from being able to be accessed by indie movie makers, and indie producers. Their lawyers would effectively shut down any such movements. This caused them to go all the way to Los Angeles because it was the furthest from New York and they built a movie studio on poverty row that later became the capital of Hollywood movie making.

Once Hollywood became financially strong enough, the lawyers were sent over to shut it down, but the court sided with Hollywood and killed all of the patents because the courts thought that they had abused the pattern system to only benefit a few, what I would like to call the cartel.

The cartel were chosen movie makers, and producers, who had access to the movie making stuff and cameras and equipment by which they would share a percentage of the revenue of the movie production and the theater income with Thomas Edison and Company. Effectively they had what Apple has currently.

Re: Proton joins suit against Apple for practices that harm developers and consumers

#486

Post by troupo »

jrflowers wrote: post #258
scottjg wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i think there are a lot of folks who would be willing to have a 27% discount (allow for ~3% card processing fee) and forego those features. if apple was saying you had to support their payment processor alongside others (so you could opt into paying +27% and getting easy cancellations), that would be one thing, but they don't allow you to have any other options available in the app, which i think is where the anticom…

> i think there are a lot of folks who would be willing to have a 27% discount (allow for ~3% card processing fee) and forego those features. This makes sense because companies are used to making 70%, so obviously when given the choice to make 30% more overnight they will simply lower prices to avoid having to deal with all that extra revenue

> This makes sense because companies are used to making 70%,

I would love to live in the world you're living in where companies have 70% margin on $5 apps and $10/month subscriptions. And where they ever had those margins.

Re: Proton joins suit against Apple for practices that harm developers and consumers

#487

Post by mjevans »

pjc50 wrote: post #389
ClaraForm wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have disorganized thoughts about this, but it's not just a debate about vertical isolation vs not. 1. The size of Apple/Alphabet/Samsung makes it difficult to enter the market (see: factories having ridiculous MOQs for small-batch phone manufacturing), pushing everyone else out. 2. The size of the smartphone market makes it impossible to not have to deal with one of the above companies for certification, market pen…

Exactly. All the free market logic assumes that barriers to entry are low. They are incredibly high and the market is naturally prone to converging on a single solution. There's basically room for two smartphone ecosystems. Microsoft/Nokia couldn't sustain a third. Android-adjacent things like Amazon Fire and Tizen have little market share. > factories having ridiculous MOQs for small-batch phone manufacturing Ironic…

Laws need to be revised to make it easier to remix off the shelf components.

I argue, default compulsory license fees should be a feature of copyright and patent. A 'reasonable' cap to the maximum it costs to reuse an existing device / idea. (Also that it should be a LOT tougher to patent things, maybe 1 patentable thing per expert examiner's work week, which would be the cost of filing for a patent. That only individuals should be able to own a patent. That companies could create 'prior art' with academic detail releases.)

Re: Proton joins suit against Apple for practices that harm developers and consumers

#488

Post by basisword »

dcow wrote: post #270

> Companies that monetize user data in exchange for “free” services that abuse your privacy aren’t affected by this [the app store tax], as they don’t process payments through the App Store. However, privacy-first companies that monetize through subscriptions are disproportionately hit by this fee, putting a major barrier toward the adoption of privacy-first business models. Huh. I’ve never seen it framed this way an…

It's a good argument but I'm not sure it'll hold up. Apple went to great lengths to clamp down on privacy-abusing advertising via ATT. I think Facebook have been quite open about the huge revenues it cost them alone.

Re: Proton joins suit against Apple for practices that harm developers and consumers

#489

Post by cosmic_cheese »

dcow wrote: post #316
cosmic_cheese wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, does Settings > Apps > Gmail (or whichever other app) > Default Mail App really qualify as “a complex labyrinth”? Sure, it’d be a good thing to add a “Default Apps” section under Settings > General or something, but calling the current route complex almost sounds like an insult to users. EDIT: Actually, there already is a “Default Apps” section right at the top of the page of Settings > Apps. Yeah, if that’s…

I didn't even know you could change the default mail app on iOS and I’ve used it for the better part of a decade now, as a Proton user too. I’ve endured the frustration because I thought it was fixed. Either being allowed to change it is relatively new, region locked, or yeah it’s a labyrinth.

It’s not region locked, and as the sibling post notes it’s been there for a while. I’m not sure how much more simple it can be made (open Settings, tap Apps, and there it is at the top of the page).

I suppose it could be possible for apps to prompt the user to change the default, but I’m honestly pretty sick of that behavior on desktop (e.g. I have several browsers installed for various reasons and they nearly all bug me about being default) and would rather not see it copied to mobile OSes too (I don’t believe Android allows apps to show such a prompt either).

Re: Proton joins suit against Apple for practices that harm developers and consumers

#490

Post by hk1337 »

dcow wrote: post #270

> Companies that monetize user data in exchange for “free” services that abuse your privacy aren’t affected by this [the app store tax], as they don’t process payments through the App Store. However, privacy-first companies that monetize through subscriptions are disproportionately hit by this fee, putting a major barrier toward the adoption of privacy-first business models. Huh. I’ve never seen it framed this way an…

I'm not so sure it's the best argument but I get what they're saying. The problem is, the argument basically says all free apps are bad, all paid apps are good. The price of an app isn't a good indicator of its intentions.
Post reply on HN