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

561–570 of 665 posts

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

#561

Post by bigyabai »

swat535 wrote: post #538
Validark wrote: post #529

I'm still stuck on the whole 30% tax. How is that considered even remotely reasonable?

How is the 30% tax different than other platforms? Further, how much do you think should this be (20%? 10%? 5%?) and if zero, why? Finally, do you believe Apple should be compensated for the services and marketplace that they are offering, if so, what other strategies do you recommend that they deploy to make everyone happy?

> How is the 30% tax different than other platforms?

Because it doesn't have to compete with third-party distributors like MacOS? The App Store on MacOS is almost entirely empty, every real developer abandoned it years ago. It's almost impossible to buy professional Mac software on the App Store, because real developers like Avid or Adobe or Affinity don't think Apple's deal is fair either.

> Finally, do you believe Apple should be compensated for the services and marketplace that they are offering

They already are, through their developer fees. If Apple can't compensate themselves without forcing people to use their services, then they need to redesign their business model.

Installing software is not a service, arguably Apple has no right to demand compensation for it in the first place.

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

#562

Post by strogonoff »

mock-possum wrote: post #515
strogonoff wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire business model that monetises user data, where the actual customer is the advertiser, users do not vote with their wallets, and honest competition is impossible because no one can compete with free, should simply not exist and maybe regulated against—especially in social media, where it incentivises algorithms to push aggravating content in the name of engagement and ad views. Whether Apple should be regul…

What’s weird for me is that users can effectively vote with their wallets - they can refuse to engage with ‘freemium’ or ad-supported media - and they can refuse to consume ads when presented, refuse to engage with calls to action, refuse to pay for products advertised to them in this way. Have you ever been shown a mobile ad, and thought to yourself, “this is a good thing, this is an honest description of a product…

Some of it is more specific to social media, where it is a vicious circle. I wouldn’t latch to voting with your wallet, it’s merely one symptom of a complex issue.

For social it’s key to communicate with others, so as long as you use it you kind of have to be where everybody is, and everybody is where the free stuff is. If you can’t easily leave and continue communicating, because the platform attracts advertisers by the number of figurative eyeballs so it’s not in their interest to let yours go, then you can’t vote with your wallet unless you make yourself an outcast, which humans—extremely social beings—tend to find extremely stressful, which makes it is not really in their best interest no matter their media and marketing literacy.

On the other hand, even if you do make this difficult near-suicide move and leave, you have hardly anywhere to go: because of this phenomenon, any honest competition where you can pay for better service that works in your interest and has actual customer support (remember when that was a thing?) has no chance. All viable competition remains mostly free to use—we have been conditioned that it’s got to be free, but of course if neither users nor advertisers are paying then no one can really demand things that we take for granted from commercial services (like uptime, availability, well-supported convenient clients and so on), and the amount of resources that goes into development and support of these services is much smaller and much less coordinated.

With non-social ad-supported products it’s not as bad, at least in terms of lock-in. I personally would prefer a paid app from a somewhat reputable developer than risk installing a tracking machine from a shady SDK. However, still, most people default to free, and if platform fee is reduced and that honest app costs slightly less but is still not free, will it make any perceptible difference? I doubt it (maybe you’re right, most people lack media/marketing literacy, they can see that with free their economic utility per dollar approaches infinity and are unaware or not concerned about the intangible damage, including to the ecosystem of developers who try to make an honest living) and so I think ad/data mining based model should be fought on another level.

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

#563

Post by bigyabai »

cosmic_cheese wrote: post #192
bigyabai wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN's time-honored scapegoat. "Corporations can't be trusted - that's why I trust Apple to fight them" is a ridiculous pretense to support consolidation. If Apple uses their de-facto position of privilege to demand people use their products as a solution, then they have become the problem. The exact same problem as Wal-mart insisting you download their wallet app. There is a real solution to this, where we codify our…

Legislation would be better, no question. Have you seen US politics, though? Not just lately, but for the past couple of decades. Electing knowledgable politicians who are willing to stay properly abreast of technology and work for the interests of their constituents is nigh impossible. The ones that get into office are most often out of touch and in someone’s pocket because they grandstand on polarizing topics that…

I've seen the politicians that Apple relies on to prevent legislative reform: https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariff-apple-iphone-tax-170...

Are you now going to argue that Tim Cook is a really nice guy who practices genuinely principled leadership? I hope not, he's only there to convert your loyalty to something more liquid and fungible.

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

#564

Post by whstl »

robertlagrant wrote: post #460
whstl wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This phrasing is not the good representation of what I mean at all. And the fact that people have iPhones doesn't invalidate my assertion, also it doesn't affect my right to an opinion.

> also it doesn't affect my right to an opinion No-one's saying you don't have a right to an opinion. Everyone has that right. It's bad faith to try and misrepresent what the person you're talking to is saying.

I didn't say or imply that you suggested otherwise, I was merely making a statement.

> No-one's saying you don't have a right to an opinion

Someone said to me “Who are you to claim that my consumer desires are irrelevant?” so you’re wrong.

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

#565

Post by someperson »

Validark wrote: post #529

I'm still stuck on the whole 30% tax. How is that considered even remotely reasonable?

Why can't Apple set whatever pricing they want? Unless you're arguing that Apple has a monopoly.

Also it's not a tax, though arguably it can be termed an "economic rent" (a technical term) that can be considered excessive, but I'm not sure about that.

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

#566

Post by gruez »

reedlaw wrote: post #546
swat535 wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is the 30% tax different than other platforms? Further, how much do you think should this be (20%? 10%? 5%?) and if zero, why? Finally, do you believe Apple should be compensated for the services and marketplace that they are offering, if so, what other strategies do you recommend that they deploy to make everyone happy?

Amazon charges 15% for physical media, including software [1]. Since Apple is not shipping physical media, it seems something less than 15% would be more reasonable. 1. https://sellercentral.amazon.com/help/hub/reference/external...

>Since Apple is not shipping physical media, it seems something less than 15% would be more reasonable.

The link you provided is only for "Referral fee", not whatever fee charges to fulfill the order (ie. warehousing and shipping), which is separate: https://sellercentral.amazon.com/help/hub/reference/external...

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

#567

Post by gruez »

bigyabai wrote: post #561
swat535 wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is the 30% tax different than other platforms? Further, how much do you think should this be (20%? 10%? 5%?) and if zero, why? Finally, do you believe Apple should be compensated for the services and marketplace that they are offering, if so, what other strategies do you recommend that they deploy to make everyone happy?

> How is the 30% tax different than other platforms? Because it doesn't have to compete with third-party distributors like MacOS? The App Store on MacOS is almost entirely empty, every real developer abandoned it years ago. It's almost impossible to buy professional Mac software on the App Store, because real developers like Avid or Adobe or Affinity don't think Apple's deal is fair either. > Finally, do you believe…

>Because it doesn't have to compete with third-party distributors like MacOS?

Who are the third party distributors for the playstation or xbox?

>They already are, through their developer fees.

It's $100/developer. Considering Microsoft used to charge thousands for Visual Studio, it doesn't seem too unreasonable to claim that $100/year is too low.

>If Apple can't compensate themselves without forcing people to use their services, then they need to redesign their business model.

What's wrong with royalty fee based business models?

>Installing software is not a service, arguably Apple has no right to demand compensation for it in the first place.

Right, which is why Apple characterizes the fee as "core technology fee", ie. for access to its tools and SDKs, not for access to the store.

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

#568

Post by devmor »

thfuran wrote: post #519
adastra22 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the point is that we should not allow such contractual arrangements. You buy the software, you should own it. Regulations are often required to enforce this.

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that we shouldn't allow that sort of contract at all, but it should be considered fraudulent to call it selling or what the customer does buying. If you're only offering limited right of use subject to conditions and restrictions, then you're offering something else entirely. And the limitations should be required to be clearly conveyed before money is exchanged.

It's important to note that we do have contracts like that already. They're called equipment leases.

But those types of contracts also have obligations on the seller, which is why Apple and similar companies don't want to have to treat their equipment that way and would rather call it "selling" with an asterisk.

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

#569

Post by s_dev »

someperson wrote: post #565
Validark wrote: post #529

I'm still stuck on the whole 30% tax. How is that considered even remotely reasonable?

Why can't Apple set whatever pricing they want? Unless you're arguing that Apple has a monopoly. Also it's not a tax, though arguably it can be termed an "economic rent" (a technical term) that can be considered excessive, but I'm not sure about that.

>Why can't Apple set whatever pricing they want?

Same reason any company can't set whatever they want. Vast majority of companies aren't deemed monopolies so this doesn't apply to them but this restriction holds over them once they grow to a certain size nonetheless. Even the most ardent capitalists/free market advocates agree that monopolies have to be regulated by the government.

The real questions are what makes company a monopoly. You can always argue you aren't a monopoly but it's what convinces people that makes most sense and many people are beginning to be convinced that Apple/Google etc are monopolies in certain markets.

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

#570

Post by bigyabai »

gruez wrote: post #567
bigyabai wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is the 30% tax different than other platforms? Because it doesn't have to compete with third-party distributors like MacOS? The App Store on MacOS is almost entirely empty, every real developer abandoned it years ago. It's almost impossible to buy professional Mac software on the App Store, because real developers like Avid or Adobe or Affinity don't think Apple's deal is fair either. > Finally, do you believe…

>Because it doesn't have to compete with third-party distributors like MacOS? Who are the third party distributors for the playstation or xbox? >They already are, through their developer fees. It's $100/developer. Considering Microsoft used to charge thousands for Visual Studio, it doesn't seem too unreasonable to claim that $100/year is too low. >If Apple can't compensate themselves without forcing people to use the…

> Who are the third party distributors for the playstation or xbox?

Plenty. The retail Xbox has supported sideloading for almost a decade now: https://www.howtogeek.com/703443/how-to-put-your-xbox-series...

Nintendo Switch has fully distributed homebrew stores too.

> It's $100/developer.

They can charge more if they don't think they're milking developers enough. They only have, what, a few million of them worldwide.

> What's wrong with royalty fee based business models?

Nothing, if they are forced to compete with other royalty-based services that set a fair baseline price. Otherwise everything is wrong with it. MacOS did this right, although admittedly the App Store didn't quite survive the gauntlet of competition.

Imagine if your favorite band could only make money by signing to a single record label. Do you think their talent would be valued fairly? Do you think they would be respected for who they are, or do you think their likeness would be molested in whichever way was the most profitable for the label?

Post reply on HN