831–840 of 944 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no monopoly here though. Android makes up a pretty substantial proportion of users. That users continue to use Apple devices despite this kind of greed (and that people on HN cheered when Apple defeated Epic in court) shows that users don't care, which is unfortunate.
Cartel arrangements can still be a monopoly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another outstanding decision vetted by Tim Cook. In all seriousness, finance people see everything through the lens of margins and money primarily. Since any company's function is to deliver value to its shareholders, if allowed, bean counters will scorch the earth for it. Ultimately, this is at odds on how Jobs approached things, i.e., money was not the end all be all.
Tim Cook is usually good at politics, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Nobody other some CNBC guests really gets too upset when they take 30% from tinder, music or mobile gaming companies. And those types of apps run by unpopular large companies make up the majority of App Store revenue. However, newspapers and content creators are popular in a way that carries political weight. It'd be wise for Apple exempt t…
They do have carve outs in the agreement, such as the 'reader' exception. Newspapers I believe also fall under the 'reader' exception.
I have suspected for a while that the 15%-after-the-first-year subscription rate drop was a carve out targeted specifically at trying to retain Netflix IAP. However, Netflix was able to operate without IAP because of the "reader" exception.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Visa/Mastercard take like 1 or 2%. That's why they cannot compare to Apple...
Visa/MasterCard take like 0.3% the rest of the interchange fee goes to the issuing and acquiring banks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the board would replace them. It’s their fiduciary duty.
The board could argue that it's damaging to the company's brand and long term bottom dollar to charge such usurious fees and fire the CEO for taking such a harsh stance with app developers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's not how business works. The App Store in current form would not exist without all the collective investment that went into all of Apple's hardware, for instance. While technically true, this argument doesn't provide any merit to the discussion. The App Store backed purchase for the Patreon subscription would not exist at all without the creator's work and investment in creating their form of content. In the…
> The App Store backed purchase for the Patreon subscription would not exist at all without the creator's work and investment in creating their form of content. Both parties are getting the chance to set whatever price they want. Up to the market to resolve supply/demand equilibrium
The app store payment cut harms only creators who have disproportionately high percentages of patrons that primarily consume their content from iPhones - a demographic that they have no control over.
If they wish to increase their price to make up for this, they then are forced to risk turning away their other, non-iPhone-primary patrons. Notably, Patreon is forbidden by Apple from making this pricing scheme transparent and up-charging only iPhone users to keep the creator whole.
The only party with power here is Apple - and they are using it to strongarm.
I don't pay attention to all of Apples behaviors (still running an iphone 11) but this feels quite rent-seeky and creator hostile.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s about convenience in most cases; an “app” to tap on, not a URL to remember and enter or a bookmark to save, name, file, and locate. Just like apps in general, PWAs are mostly a mobile heavy modality. Bookmarks and the browser is largely still fine on laptop/desktop, but even there you see the app design language start prevailing with things like bookmarks and “recent sites” being presented like app icons.
Even if it's not a PWA, on both iPhone and Android you can create an "app icon" that will open a URL in a chromeless window. It's as simple as tapping "Add to home" from your browser. So you get your "app" to tap on.
The mobile ecosystem was built in a way to funnel all users into apps. That's the experience that is optimized for use, that's the experience users feel safe and secure. Barriers were put in place on what apps are even allowed to do (like not having alternative app stores, or a browser in iOs that is not just a webview of Safari). This created an enviroment where developers and companies are forced to develop to this ecosystem, and pay the Apple tax, since that's where the users are. And an alternative system is impossible to be created since Apple uses it's power at the hardware and operating system level to make alternatives impossible.
And someone will probably come and say that this is all users choice to be locked down in the walled garden. That the walled garden is keeping the users safe, so therefore it is only fair that Apple gets to capture 30% of all digital economical activity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have the legal right to do anything to your iPhone that you please, except for DMCA circumvention. Apple, cleverly, designs it so you can't do very much without DMCA circumvention. But it is the government's fault for this loophole, not Apple's.
It is the governments fault that it exists, and apples fault for exploiting it to the extent they do. It’s a choice, and you can tell it’s a choice because many, many other companies choose not to.