[lbacaj]

Unfortunately for Apple, I do think the App Store being an exclusive and default way to purchase and load apps on iOS is in fact causing prices of Apps, in many cases, to be higher than they should be.

The perfect example of this is the subscription services, right now you can get a cheaper subscription to a service such as Spotify if you buy it off the App Store. That is a prime example of how much the 30% payment to Apple is hurting developers and ultimately consumers... Apple is so upset about this they won’t let developers like Spotify link to buying the subscription on their own website anywhere on the app that is sold through their App Store, if that’s not Monopoly abuse I don’t know what is.

As much as I love Apples products I do feel that they have gotten away with a lot here, especially since there is zero other ways to load apps into iOS devices, in the very least consumers are paying 30% more for apps if there was a competing App Store on iOS that charged less to load apps.

Edit: whether the Supreme Court will see it this way or not is a whole other issue.

[ihuman]

How long have you been using the iOS app store for? IMO App prices now are lower than they were when the app store first opened in iPhoneOS 2, and way lower than they were before the iPhone. I remember simple games for Palm OS costing at about $20 [0] . Nowadays that game would either be <=$5, or free to play.

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20040418012411/http://astraware....

[AnthonyMouse]

> IMO App prices now are lower than they were when the app store first opened in iPhoneOS 2

This provides no basis for comparison because the App Store has been the only way to install apps on iOS that whole time, so that changing can't have been the difference.

Moreover, the market they're monopolizing isn't the market for apps, it's the market for app distribution. So the relevant price isn't the price of apps, it's Apple's 30%. Which is obviously higher than in markets where there isn't a single-party distribution monopoly, e.g. payment processing is typically ~3%, various packaging systems like apt are free (or user can download binary from website as on Windows), and the binary hosting cost per user is negligible.

There is also a tying argument. App Store ties payment processing, distribution and curation together when the buyer might want different providers for each.

[RKearney]

> This provides no basis for comparison because the App Store has been the only way to install apps on iOS

This has never been the case. You’ve always been able to side load apps that are either signed by an Enterprise code signing cert (used to be $300/yr), or your own developer code signing certificate ($99/yr). The former allowed for redistribution outside of the App Store.

[AnthonyMouse]

Neither of those methods permits the general public to install the app.

[RKearney]

They absolutely can and absolutely did back in the day. Now it’s even easier because you can load apps on to your own device for free via Xcode.

Anyone who claims Apple prevented side loading clearly never bothered to research that claim.

[askafriend]

Good, imo.

[binomialxenon]

Okay, I used to be an iOS user, I'm not rich, and blowing $99 per year to sign apps is a lot of money for something that should be free. What if I'm just a normal techie who wants to use software that Apple doesn't like? Sure, bury sideloading in the settings or make it only able to be activated from a computer, but charging that much money for the privilege of loading software is ridiculous.

[myhf]

Price of "Angry Birds" in 2009: $0.99 one-time

Price of the same "Angry Birds" in 2018: $0 to install, $1.99 per 80 gems, no way to disable in-app ads or purchases.

Free-to-play is an increase in price.

[GordonS]

I really despise the move from transparent, one-time pricing, to opaque IAP.

[ghaff]

I agree. Unfortunately the complaint is mostly about hating a market dominated by people who increasingly won't pay anything for goods that aren't actually welded in place but will grudgingly fork over money in the form of eyeballs (i.e. ads) and "tricks" (in-app purchases, hidden fees, etc.). Personally, I'd mostly prefer honest up-front pricing (though subscriptions make sense for some things) but the market mostly doesn't want that.

[prewett]

Even if it is an increase in price (debatable), that doesn't mean that Apple's distribution monopoly is responsible. I expect that prices on Android have done the same thing, and Google doesn't even monopolize the distribution there.

[zimpenfish]

The exact same thing has happened in the AAA games market (see EA, Activision, or Jim Sterling's many videos on the topic) which is provably nothing to do with "Apple's distribution monopoly".

[lbacaj]

I have had an iPhone since the first one and access to the App Store since they introduced it in the 3G.

I completely agree that prices on Apps have come down but that is just what happens when a new market is created. Supply and demand has to set in. Developers are guessing what people will pay at first and if they find they can sell millions more if they just drop the price to 99c then they might just do that. In my opinion the Apple App Store has had very little to do with those prices coming down.

While I do admit the App Store was incredibly innovative and has ushered in an era of new ways for developers to create/distribute/monetize this stuff it is hard to deny that if there was any competing way to load Apps that the 30% fee Apple collects would stand... not to mention the many practices that developers (and consumers) disagree with that Apple regularly does such banning apps that may compete with their products or somehow upset them.

Edit: I don’t want to come off as overly negative here, I love Apple and their products. I am simply arguing that a little competition here would do consumers good.

[sbuk]

How would it do consumers good?

[threeseed]

Apple provides a service for that 30% though. They handle the payment processing, they build, moderate and curate the App Store apps and they provide a lucrative channel to market for app developers. So allowing Spotify et al to get all the benefits of the channel without paying for it is actually unfair to Apple.

[samat]

This argument will easily hold if there were any way to have a competing store on iOS devices. Apple banning any competition in that field makes ‘buy they provide value for the money’ look like forcing consumers hand.

Not sure if I want to have a second AppStore (APNS, etc, etc.)

[threeseed]

No. The argument holds irrespective of whether there is 1 store or a million stores.

Spotify wants to use Apple's distribution channel without paying for it.

That's unfair and doesn't reflect what happens in the real world. If I sell my software through a retail store they still take a cut.

[sulam]

Let’s use the Kindle app as an example then. The app cannot link to their site when I search for a book I don’t have. If it did, the app would be banned. So Apple is trying to extract a 30% premium from Amazon and the only way for them to avoid that is to give me a shitty experience that quantifiable harms me (I waste time to search for and then hop through the download behavior, adding friction to what should be a seamless flow). In return for their 30% they are adding very little value. Amazon does it’s own payment processing, curation is surely not worth almost a third of every book I buy, storage is paid for by Amazon, and the transmission costs are paid for by me.

[dwaite]

I disagree with it being called an Apple premium.

Apple has a store. Amazon has a store. Who is to say that Amazon's portion of operational costs and profit isn't the premium?

Amazon could choose to have a Kindle experience which doesn't go through the App store, such as a HTML 5 app. They distribute in the store because of the discoverability (and likely because they prefer to have a native app that can enforce their store's content DRM.)

Amazon could choose to expose more functionality through their app, such as title search, being able to look at reviews, download sample chapters, and even be able to fetch new books through the kindle unlimited and other prime features. They prefer to drive everyone to their own store instead.

[sulam]

Have you used the Kindle app?

You can do title search, look at details of books, see reviews, download sample chapters, and download Kindle Unlimited books directly to your library with one click.

I presume what you _can_ and _can't_ do is directly dictated by Apple's policies, not what the Kindle team has been able to implement. As others have pointed out, native apps are a far superior user experience to HTML "apps".

[GranPC]

Wait, so are you arguing that an HTML5 app is a perfect replacement for a native app?

[binomialxenon]

HTML apps are never even close to working as well as a native app, they're generally a shitty compromise. If $COMPANY makes an app that would be crippled by Apple's policies, they should be free to distribute it through another channel to iOS users.

[drawnwren]

I suspect Spotify would prefer to have their app on iOS without using Apple's distribution channel if they could.

[dwaite]

Only because they could then do direct sign-up and billing without having to pay anyone a cut.

[Tsubasachan]

One of the most powerful things the internet has done for us: cut out the middlemen. Even Amazon is not safe, I foresee a future where people will order directly from the factory.

[Oletros]

Spotify is not using Apple distribution channel

[nothrabannosir]

> Apple provides a service for that 30% though.

Money is universally reviled, and rightfully so: it is a dark, vile, evil thing. It brings out the very worst in the very best of us. It brings entire countries to their knees. Money corrupts. Money is awful.

But there is one thing that money does better than anything else, bar nothing. No contest. No competitor on the horizon. Many have tried, all have failed. Money quanitifies value.

It is not up to you to defend how much money Apple should get. It is not up to us to contradict it. It is up to the market. This is the one and only thing it does well, so let's at least give it that.

Because allowing Apple to get all the benefits of determining the value of their app store, without letting the market give it a go, is actually unfair to Money.

[hamandcheese]

> Money quantifies value

Money quantifies value... in our money based economy. Which is basically a tautology. Money in many cases fails to quantify utility and the same quantity of money has wildly varying utility from market to market.

[gobengo]

> It is up to the market.

Insofar as Apple is a US Company, the US Government also gets a say.

Profit is a privilege. The US has a mixed economy, not a 'free market'.

[lighthazard]

This was true a few years ago but in 2018, it's not a curated place to get software. It's the only marketplace to get software for your device. 30% is disproportionate to what's being offered today.

[ken]

- Payment processing, yes (though no other payment processor charges anywhere near 30% -- Stripe is 2.9%, I think?).

- Build, not exactly -- only in the sense that they can handle minor upgrades via bitcode for new ARM variants, if you choose to enable that.

- Moderate/curate, sure.

- Provide a lucrative channel? Yes, but only because they've made it the only channel by fiat.

I'm not sure I see 30% worth of mandatory value here. Is Apple's moderation so good it's worth 27% the cost of my app? Do developers think they're paying for bitcode upgrades, and do they think that justifies the fee? Recompiling for new minor architectures isn't difficult.

For that matter, is there more value provided in moderation for a more expensive app? If they approve my app at $5, and then I up the price to $25, did their moderation process retroactively become more valuable to anyone?

[sbuk]

Storage/hosting, support and distribution (bandwidth) are missing frim the list. Arguably, it may not cover 30%, but it does provide for more than 2.9%

[Oletros]

Spotify/Kindle/etc subscriptions and purchases are not hosted or distributed by Apple.

[sbuk]

No, but the apps are. Spotify comes in at 98MB, and Kindle at 113MB. That is a lot of bandwidth. Since Amazon don't offer IAP, they get that for free, Spotify do offer IAP, so contribute that way.

[Oletros]

Then Apple or Google can make developers pay for the size.

And no, Amazon doesn't get it for free, they pay the developer fees like ALL the other developers

[ksec]

Apple do offer iTunes Credit and often does discount of up to 15% from Retailers. ( I am betting those iTunes Credit are wholesale at anywhere between 13% to 10% discount, and Retailers takes in ~10 - 8% after deducting processing fees )

Still, not many buy iTunes Credit. Most just use Credit Card direct from Apple Pay. But even if we have included all these, the 30% is still excessive.

The problem Apple is having is similar to their phone, it is not about the price tag or the 30% charges, it is people paying for it fail to see or justify its value. Apple will need to offer more "values". From Developers to its Users.

[darpa_escapee]

If Apple's involvement is worth a 30% cut, surely they can compete in the free market with other App stores and distribution methods.

[zuminator]

So if Ann's a developer and doesn't want their payment processing, and Bruce is a consumer and doesn't want their curation, then the buyer and seller should be able to dispense with the surcharge if they dispense with the "service." But they can't (without jumping through hoops.) And what's more, if Trusty App Corp. were to come along and set up a 20% cut Trusty App store that could be conveniently installed via an exploit, they would be undoubtedly sued for IP violations, due to the state protecting Apple's exclusive right to Apple IP. This is pure rent-seeking on the part of Apple, and ultimately antitrust laws exist to discourage rent-seeking even more than discouraging monopolies per se.

[dd36]

So charge the developers for that underwriting service.

[Tsubasachan]

Developers love Apple because there is no piracy or competition from F-droid. Also the Apple clientele are proven to be bigger spenders.

I love the Android community because they come up with cool things like DNS66 or YouTube Vanced. Ad blocking on iOS is halfhearted.

All that said Apple can do what they want consumers have a choice: buy an Android phone.

[GordonS]

Is piracy really an issue on Android? I've never pirated an Android app in the 10 years or so I've been using Android, and I don't know anyone who was.

Would love to see some unbiased numbers on this.

[Tsubasachan]

Well providing numbers for something that is illegal and happens on shady websites is difficult, just as nobody can tell you exactly how much cocaine enters the port of Rotterdam each year. But I found this to be an interesting read.

https://www.xda-developers.com/piracy-testimonies-causes-and...

[screye]

I think part of the problem is that whales use Apple.

Despite having 80+% of the market mobile market share, most of these customers are low spending people looking for vfm phones and good enough free apps. Apple is the one that captures the top 5% of customers who spend on subscription services and expensive apps.

This gives the false appearance of Android being piracy heaven. Because, why else would a 4 times bigger consumer base generate a smaller revenue.

[delinka]

"...an exclusive and default way to purchase and load apps on iOS"

If the court allows the definition of 'trust' to include "a company gatekeeping developer access to their own operating system" when that operating system represents a much smaller share of the market than the next biggest competitor.

[vatueil]

It's true that iOS has a smaller share of the market globally, including many parts of Europe, but this overshadows the fact that iOS is almost on par with Android in the United States (44.3% to Android's 54.5% as of May 2018), probably higher among affluent users, and the leading mobile operating system in other countries such as Britain: https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held...

I feel this is often overlooked in discussions where users from certain areas where iOS is less prevalent don't understand the perspective of users from other regions where iOS is more popular.

[bilbo0s]

>(44.3% to Android's 54.5% as of May 2018)...

???

Doesn't that mean iOS has the minority market share?

[delinka]

A minority/majority distinction is unnecessary. If the market share is significant and can be shown to harm enough consumers (and especially if the behavior can be shown to harm even users of competitors' systems), then there still could be a decision in favor of consumers.

[zepto]

10% lower than the next competitor, and less than half overall.

Not a monopoly.

[jp555]

But definitely an iOS monopoly.

[scarface74]

And Nintendo, Somy, and MS have monopoles on their stores. Just like if you don’t like what one console offers you are free to buy another one, if you don’t like what’s available for iOS, you are free to buy an Android.

[tokyodude]

4 wrongs don't make right. Nintendo, Sony, and MS should also not be allowed to have monopolies on their stores.

[jp555]

Yep! Monopoly just means there's only one supplier of any commodity. It does not mean there are no alternatives.

A patent is a government-issued monopoly.

[jimktrains2]

> Nintendo, Somy[sic], and MS

You don't need to purchase games directly from Nintendo, nor music or games or video directly from Sony, nor are Sony Videos only playable on Sony devices, nor do you have to only install Microsoft "blessed" executable for Windows.

[zepto]

No. Not an iOS monopoly either. Look up the definition of monopoly.

[jp555]

Apple is the only supplier of iOS devices.

"A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

[GeekyBear]

Didn't we already go through this in the courts when game consoles like Nintendo, XBox, and PlayStation put the same restrictions on game developers?

[MBCook]

Back in the NES era with licensing restrictions, yes. I believe it was Tengen vs Nintendo? Also Atari vs Activision?

But the Switch, PS4, and XBox One ALL have closed app stores exactly the way Apple does.

If Apple loses a lot of people will have to find a new business model.

[p1necone]

I would love game consoles to have third party stores. As it stands I almost never buy console games through the PSN store/xbox store/whatever because (at least with AAA titles) games remain at initial launch price way too long, and are usually more expensive than retail stores.

[p1necone]

Although, it isn't only limited to online console stores, some publishers are pretty terrible on PC too. As an example - in my region (New Zealand) Call of Duty Black Ops is still $99 on Steam, and that released in 2010...

(Activision, you there? I still want to buy it but I can't justify that price for an 8 year old game, or even the half off sale price right now...)

[ariwilson]

You can buy digital codes to redeem games on those stores from third party retailers. Often at a discount.

[MBCook]

Really? I think I’ve only ever seen that for Steam/GOG.

[ariwilson]

Example: https://www.amazon.com/Red-Dead-Redemption-Xbox-Digital/dp/B...

[delinka]

Honestly I don’t recall. Do you have any links I could read?

[bilbo0s]

I think he is referring to the Tengen case.

[AnthonyMouse]

> If the court allows the definition of 'trust' to include "a company gatekeeping developer access to their own operating system" when that operating system represents a much smaller share of the market than the next biggest competitor.

You're talking about two different markets, the devices themselves and the app distribution.

Suppose there are many truck manufacturers and none has majority share, but only one makes diesel trucks. Then that company gets into the market for diesel fuel and makes it so that customers can't use any other provider's fuel in their trucks. They've just leveraged their diesel truck monopoly into a diesel fuel monopoly.

Your argument is that they don't have a truck monopoly, because other people make lots of gasoline powered trucks and electric trucks etc., and truck buyers could reasonably choose them instead. Many of them do. But those aren't relevant when we're talking about the market for diesel fuel. You can't use gasoline in a diesel truck. You can't use an Android app on iOS or install iOS apps on an iPhone with Google Play.

[nickm12]

Setting aside the question of the impact of prices completely, the fact that Apple controls the sites that apps can link to should be abhorrent to anyone. At one point, they even tried to control what programming languages were used to write apps for iOS.

[syntheticcdo]

Your Spotify example is a good argument FOR Apple's model. In that case, consumers have a choice to either a) purchase a Spotify subscription via the web app, or b) purchase the subscription in app -- at a higher cost.

Some consumers still choose to purchase in app- for a variety of reasons: ease of use, speed, accessibility, streamlined with the rest of their Apple purchases, who knows. People choosing to overpay for Spotify shows the Apple ecosystem and model provides value to at least some consumers. Whether it is worth 30% is a different question.

[shaggerty]

How is it a problem for consumers if you can get a cheaper subscription to Spotify by buying it off the App Store?

[kodablah]

I think it's "off" meaning "outside of". It's a problem for consumers when confusing marketplace rules coupled with single-company-enforced limited options unnecessarily cost them more. That said, not sure I would want it illegal.

[sunflowerfly]

Apple does not hold a monopoly, Android is the dominate platform. To use antitrust law you must first prove a monopoly exists, then prove the monopoly is being used in anti-competitive ways.

[jm20]

This is really only an issue with low-margin licensing subscriptions like Spotify and Netflix, where they would lose money on every purchase if 30% of their margins went to Apple. While I definitely think there are some problems with the App Store, the fact is that it is so easy and streamlined for people buying apps that it’s worth the 30% for the vast majority of developers.

[AnthonyMouse]

> While I definitely think there are some problems with the App Store, the fact is that it is so easy and streamlined for people buying apps that it’s worth the 30% for the vast majority of developers.

If people would still choose it even if there were competitors, then why is competition prohibited?

The answer is that the App Store would still exist, but might have to charge less or lose business to lower cost competitors. So you would get everything you want and with lower costs.

[dwaite]

The security model is based on an entitlement system. Which other stores are trustworthy enough to be allowed to issue entitlements?

If the idea would be that an arbitrary other store can publish apps with limited entitlements, doesn't that just shift the "abuse" argument around?

If the idea is that users would be able to vet which apps or app stores should get entitlements... well, we've seen how well that works on Android.

[AnthonyMouse]

> The security model is based on an entitlement system. Which other stores are trustworthy enough to be allowed to issue entitlements?

That's up to the user to decide. It's a lot easier to choose curators from among well-known companies like Apple and Amazon than to choose individual apps that are inherently developed by small shops or individuals.

> If the idea is that users would be able to vet which apps or app stores should get entitlements... well, we've seen how well that works on Android.

Exactly. Some of them do a better job than Google itself. There is probably less malware in F-Droid than on iOS.

And if you like Apple's store then... keep using it. Just because other stores would be available doesn't require you to use them.

[ksec]

I have to disagree where 30% is a low margin. This is different to real estate where there are actually foot traffic in front of your store. The App Store is more like a nation charging 30% tax regardless where you live, and that is on Revenue not Profits.