[hendzen]

Apple takes a 30% cut of all IAP.

Google scrapes info and displays it in widgets above links to the actual content. Google charges trademark holders AdWords ransom to protect searches for their own brands.

Amazon kills OSS business models by offering managed OSS services on AWS at an unbeatable cost. Amazon picks off the best performing market place categories with Amazon Basics ‘recommended’ competitors.

The list goes on and on.

Tech is an industry defined on building scale and then collecting rents. Apple IAP is just the current outrage but the entire industry is working towards building the next ‘platform’ for others to sharecrop on.

[Wowfunhappy]

I can use Google Chrome, and still use a non-Google search engine. I can use a Kindle, and still read DRM-Free epubs.

Yes, all the major tech companies are engaged in rent seeking. But Apple is the only one that says users must either must pay rent or throw away their hardware.

The App Store and its policies are not the problem. The App Store is Apple's store, just like Amazon.com is Amazon's store. But the App Store shouldn't be the only way to get software on my phone. And no, reinstalling apps from a computer every seven days doesn't count.

(The semi-exceptions are game consoles. I don't like that either, but since they're single-purpose devices I find it much less bad.)

[roenxi]

These things are true; and also a significant component of Apple's value proposition. An Apple customer can be sure they will:

1) Never need to learn what a "sideload" is

2) Never be exposed to Apps that havn't been vetted by a trustworthy party (in this case Apple)

Apple is taking the opportunity to milk app developers, but they've done an effective job of positioning the milking process so that it is done in the user's interests. It is quite possible that things like this 30% App Store tax are one of the reasons why iPhones remain so prominent.

[grawprog]

>2) Never be exposed to Apps that havn't been vetted by a trustworthy party (in this case Apple)

And yet, even after being vetted malware still gets in

https://www.bankinfosecurity.com/apple-battles-app-store-mal...

I see this a lot, and to be honest, this 'Apple products are free from malware' meme has been carried on as long as I can remember in one form or another since the early Mac days. The amount of people that used to say they used Macs because 'they didn't have viruses' is about the same as the people who say 'I use iphones because Apple makes sure I'm safe'.

It's been Apple's marketing strategy for a long time, despite being slightly exaggerated, early Macs did have viruses and yes, malware makes its way onto the app store.

But Apple's marketing strategy sure has been working a long time.

[reaperducer]

And yet, even after being vetted malware still gets in

I don't remember ever seeing Apple promise that 100% of apps will be 100% safe 100% of the time. Can you provide a link?

Apple's review process is done by people. People make mistakes. Things get through when bad people are trying to hide that they're doing bad things. But I'll take Apple's 1-in-a-million mistake environment over the anything goes Android environment.

[acituan]

> These things are true; and also a significant component of Apple's value proposition

You're describing the value of an app store, not the App Store. So the problem is not the value proposition, the problem is Apple's monopoly on this value proposition. It is why we can't have a Google iOS App Store, Microsoft iOS App store etc. list from which the user can pick, which would completely satisfy the convenience and peace of mind criterion, would increase competition regarding the cuts, vetting quality, curation quality etc.

[OpieCunningham]

a Cydia App Store

[Wowfunhappy]

> An Apple customer can be sure they will: (1) Never need to learn what a "sideload" is, and (2) never be exposed to Apps that haven't been vetted by a trustworthy party.

But Apple customers can be sure of that anyway--just don't sideload apps. Anything essential is going to want to be in the App Store, in order to reach customers.

[roenxi]

> But Apple customers can be sure of that anyway--just don't sideload apps.

Well, no. At some point they'd need to know what it is to decide if they wanted it or not. At some point they'd encounter an App that isn't in the App store and have to figure out sideloading. We've got a whole heap of people commenting here today who give off a distinct "I want to bypass the App Store" vibe. User hat on, I'd rather they were forced to use it.

I don't think there is enough reflecting here on just how critical a phone is. At the extremes, the US government sometimes targets predator drones based on phone GPS. I suspect an enormous number of phones contain compromising pictures. Phones contain detailed logs of where I am, who I'm talking to, and potentially access to actual records of what was said.

I really don't want to be in a situation where 'Wowfunhappy' is executing arbitrary unknown code on a phone owned by me or my family. I don't want Google and Facebook browsing through and indexing this stuff either. Apple isn't even a good gatekeeper, but they are much better than nothing.

[Wowfunhappy]

> I don't think there is enough reflecting here on just how critical a phone is.

But see, I'm think that's exactly what I'm doing--the app store gives China an easy way to take safety apps from protestors. A phone is too important for it to be out of the user's control.

I understand the security implications, but when I weigh the societal issues, Apple's model seems much more dangerous.

[darkerside]

So the solution to not making people want to sideload is to not let anybody sideload? I hate solving problems by destroying value. It's like solving the real problem of wealth inequality by taking billions from the rich and dropping it in the ocean.

[salawat]

Maybe... Just putting this out there. Just maybe... Instead of having your phone double as an ad delivery platform, and actually fully embracing Open hardware/software standards, and making sure the innards of your phone's operating principles are absolutely visible to you, you wouldn't have to trust your safety to people that look at you like cattle.

Imagine a world, where your Telco or anyone else for that matter can't remotely tell your phone to turn on. A world where you and only you have ultimate control over your phone, and where instead of millions of engineer hours going into making your phone convenient for developers to utilize, it is instead made easier for the user to actually understand.

That is the world I want to see. Hell I want to be part of making. I'll be damned if I can figure out how to make it work with our Market's current optimization function.

[twicetwice]

I mean, I agree with you. I'm right there with you. But you and I both know that that model won't work for most people. They'll be in the same place they are today—having to trust when other people tell them their phone is safe.

Incidentally, to the last paragraph, you can help make it work—go work on Linux mobile UX/UI. Things like the PinePhone and the Purism Librem 5 exist, and there's a market for them, they're just missing a polished user experience.

[wrkronmiller]

> Anything essential is going to want to be in the App Store, in order to reach customers.

The logical extension of that argument is that the Hey app would still be in the App Store and still be facing this exact problem.

[Wowfunhappy]

Hey is a tiny app used by a few people; it's not essential.

If Hey became a cultural phenomenon, I'd bet that Apple would magically reinterpret their rules. This is exactly the purpose of having competition.

[alasdair_]

>If they became a cultural phenomenon I'd bet that Apple would magically reinterpret their rules.

Please trust me on this but, even if your app is far and away the #1 grossing app on the app store and hundreds of media outlets have literally used the term "cultural phenomenon" to describe it, Apple is still a huge stickler on the rules and it still takes forever (and a lot of stress) to get approved, every single update.

This applies even if your CEO has Tim Cook's personal cellphone number and talked to him about the issues with app store approval a week before, in person.

[brodock]

It's not the developers that are being milked up, it's the consumers. The 30% tax is transferred over to you by having a higher price when buying from the IAP.

No one "eats up" that loss.

[Shared404]

> 2) Never be exposed to Apps that havn't been vetted by a trustworthy party (in this case Apple)

My understanding is that neither major mobile app store has done a great job of vetting.

[jzoch]

The app store is quite a bit better at it...neither is perfect but its no comparison.

[amelius]

Yes,

https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2020/04/fleeceware-a...

[sukilot]

iOS is the minority phone OS. It's prominent because it's not been intentionally commoditized as Android was.

[monadic2]

I wonder what people think Apple vets apps for.

[dexterdog]

I assume they vet the apps to make sure there is no other revenue inside the app that Apple is not getting its tax on.

[monadic2]

Well it’s ultimately rather arbitrary isn’t it?

[tathougies]

Apple should then rent their hardware out then or provide long-term leasing. If Apple is selling devices for ownership, then the device should truly be owned. I would rather they be honest, and lease the device out (even for a fixed sum for an unlimited period of time), than to claim ownership.

[woadwarrior01]

They’ve been doing that[1] with iPhones for a while now.

[1]: https://www.apple.com/shop/iphone/iphone-upgrade-program

[baddox]

I don’t agree with that explanation of the gaming console exception. Modern consoles are actually quite similar to smartphones in the breadth of their functionality. To be consistent I think you’d need to include consoles, most smart TVs and media streamers, and even tech-heavy cars.

[Wowfunhappy]

My concern with phones isn't really that they're general-purpose per se, but that they're many people's primary computer--if not their only computer. Game consoles don't have that level of importance in our lives.

[echelon]

Gaming consoles aren't general purpose computers. You're not going to do banking, email your boss, find a lover, or order groceries from them. They're unnecessary leisure commodities.

There are also three major consoles, PC, Steam, and a ton of other ways to distribute games. It's a highly competitive landscape. If you want a phone, you've got only two options.

DOJ, burn the Apple and Google monopolies to the ground.

[kllrnohj]

> If you want a phone, you've got only two options.

That's not true at all. There's 2 primary OS choices, but on the Android side there's dozens of manufacturers, all with their take on things. Android is not a single option, it's hundreds. You even have choice of app stores. There's even options that have zero Google at all - like the Huawei P40 Pro. Or for an older take, silent cirlce's Blackphone or Amazon's Fire Phone. And even if you are in the very small minority that actually buys a Google phone, they even provide instructions on how to unlock the bootloader & flash a different OS: https://source.android.com/setup/build/running#unlocking-rec...

[rydre]

Android if Google as far as I am concerned, for now. Lets hope Huawei gets it's store off the ground fast. But for now: no Google Play Service, and Android is a brick.

[baddox]

I think gaming consoles are general purpose computers. You listed a few things that probably aren't done very often on consoles (although you likely can do them, since consoles have web browsers). But it's also easy to list things that are much better-suited to be done on a gaming console than a smartphone.

[echelon]

> I think gaming consoles are general purpose computers.

This is a contrived point of view, and I'm sure the product managers at Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Apple, and Google would all strongly disagree.

Remember when the PS3 used to be used for super computing? Sony quietly ended that program when they realized that wasn't the business they wanted to be in.

[baddox]

I don't mean that consoles are the best device to do any computing task. Of course they aren't, and of course smartphones also are not. I'm also not making some technical claim, like that they are Turing complete (of course they are, but that's not really relevant). What I mean is that I do not consider modern consoles to be "single-purpose computers." They're more like "the computer for your living room," and they can and often do handle all sorts of media/entertainment and communication/socializing (which, let's be honest, is a huge part of what smartphones do). They can also handle home automation. If you consider "anything you would want to do on your living room TV" to be a single purpose, then sure, but you could construct the same definition for a smartphone.

[fredophile]

Consoles are very different from phones. Consoles sell at a loss and make the money back in sales. The 30% cut to the console makers goes towards paying for the lower price of hardware. Google and Apple do not sell phones below cost.

The certification process for consoles is also a lot tougher and more expensive.

[ric2b]

Games for consoles are sold in many different stores, I don't know why that's even being brought up.

[baddox]

I think the point is that console game’s code has to be signed by the console manufacturer or the console simply won’t run the code at all.

[posterboy]

Webapps, period. (I agree that resource heavy games are the exception; given that I consider music production a form of play, the difference is fleeting, incidently consoles are famous in this space, too; contrast that with your basic map, analogue to sheet music, lol).

No, I don't want to install your lousy app that's only a front-end to your web service anyway. Of course it gives you more control and opportunity for certain features. This only means that web browsers still have a long way to go. If apps were reasonably small, maybe I could install more of them, but as it is, it's just impossible.

Either way the back-end providers profit.

[m3kw9]

That’s a different argument, not related to the current issue.

[jpttsn]

I can’t relate to this. Some vendors sell me hardware, and I can bring my own software. Apple sells me more expensive hardware with the software only from their “partners”, which is “curated” and subject to a steep 30% distribution cut. Apple never tricked me into an iPhone believing I could run any random software. I know what I signed up for. Why should I feel entitled to anything else?

[RonanTheGrey]

> I know what I signed up for. Why should I feel entitled to anything else?

It's interesting you'd say that because it's actually not true (I am not accusing you of lying at all - I take your statement at face value!)

What I mean is the following:

When I buy a phone - no matter the maker - I have deep within me a default assumption that if I want some app, some provider, some service, some feature, on my phone - that it will be, that it can be, and if someone thinks it up it'll be there shortly. I DO NOT assume that because Apple wants to steal people's work, some apps will never appear there.

Do you remember the early days of the app store and the saying "There's an app for that" (usually referring to things like fart generators and TV quotes).

Nowadays you'd NEVER think to say such a thing because Apple is ensuring it cannot be true - and more and more developers and platforms are choosing not to use it.

It's pretty plainly clear to me that Apple ONLY wants large, rich, well-known companies publishing apps; they grudgingly publish apps for small or individual developers, but really deep down wish they didn't have to.

Stuff like what we are seeing now with Hey is their endgame to finally get everyone except their exclusive club off the list.

[TedDoesntTalk]

> I know what I signed up for. Why should I feel entitled to anything else?

I bought an iPhone and had no idea bit torrent clients were banned

[jpttsn]

Did you return it, or did it not matter enough to change the purchase decision?

[TedDoesntTalk]

Fortunately i still have an Android phone and Android tablet where such things still exist (and i use them regularly). So I kept the iPhone because I also develop for the platform now.

[jpttsn]

Apple is not tricking people into buying iPhones, believing every app is available. “There’s an app for that” doesn’t mean “every single app for that is available”. It means there are many apps, all of which found 30% to be acceptable.

If Apple had promised customers that Age of Empires runs on Macs, then they would have a hard time getting Microsoft to give them 30%. But Apple has made not such promise to consumers.

Besides, there’s an email client for the iPhone. If there wasn’t, consumers might complain. If Hey was the only game in town, I’m sure they’d be given a sweeter deal.

[RonanTheGrey]

I never said they're tricking anyone. Although, "There's an app for that" was actually a thing, or would you rather not remember that?

The POINT that I'm making is that people their phone is theirs and they can install what they want on it. Even if that thing comes from the app store. EVEN NOW when I want to do something I go looking for an app. I don't assume my phone can't do it. And I certainly don't assume it can't do it thanks to shenanigans on Apple's part.

The reality however is far different and there are LOTS of things Apple doesn't allow and they are not above using their platform to stifle competition.

[chipotle_coyote]

> If Apple had promised customers that Age of Empires runs on Macs, then they would have a hard time getting Microsoft to give them 30%. But Apple has made not such promise to consumers.

Given that Age of Empires has actually had Mac versions, I'm not sure this is the comparison you're looking for here. :)

[jpttsn]

Off topic but okay, let’s specify Definitive Edition.

[TedDoesntTalk]

Why should software makers share their revenue with Apple? We don’t do it on android, Windows, macOS, linux, or anything else.

The only value added by Apple is some kind of vetting (they don’t do code review, they just check that the app meets their recommendations... and they are called RECOMMENDATIONS not REQUIEMENTS).

My app was recently rejected because i refused to sell in-app purchases and want to keep purchases only on my website.

[pdonis]

> Why should software makers share their revenue with Apple?

Why should Apple care what software makers want?

I get that it's a pain to develop software for the iPhone and then have to pay rent to Apple to get it to users; but that's not Apple's problem unless enough users either complain or switch hardware to cut into Apple's revenue. That doesn't seem to be happening. Sure, there are plenty of users (I'm one of them) who refuse to buy an Apple device precisely because of limitations like this, but there are plenty more users who don't seem to care; whatever they are getting through Apple's curated app store appears to satisfy their needs. As long as that remains true, Apple has no incentive to change its policies, and that's just a business reality that any software developer contemplating making an app for the iPhone is going to have to deal with.

[TedDoesntTalk]

Yeah, it’s a little like the Mafia used to do: give us a monthly payment or we’ll, ya know, make sure you’re of business.

And you’re defending that?

[kd913]

I don't think he is defending it, I think he is correctly rationalising that this is the effect of devs and users buying into Apple's walled Garden. This is what devs and users caused by supporting the Google Apple duopoly. You bought in you play by their rules.

Personally I think devs should just pass the 30% to consumers or withdraw their apps. That is how you get leverage.

[pdonis]

> it’s a little like the Mafia

The Mafia didn't build things. It just came in and took over things others had built.

Apple built its app store. It built the iPhone. It got its users fair and square, by providing a product that users want. If you think that's the same as the Mafia, you have a very skewed view of business.

[paulcole]

Why does the pet store down the street from my apartment have a storefront on Amazon? Because they want access to Amazon’s customer base and are willing to pay for it.

[ratww]

> ...or anything else.

I'll bring it up again: game consoles. Steam. And no, they don't deserve a pass.

[Wowfunhappy]

I do think game consoles kind of deserve a pass [1], but okay, I can see where you're coming from with that.

Why Steam? No one ever has to use Steam--you can install whatever you want on your PC. Steam isn't even installed by default in 99% of cases.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23579943

[ratww]

GP asked "why software makers should share their revenue with Apple" and said "nothing else" is like that. I was just pointing examples of things that were exactly like that.

As for the why: I'm thinking from the point of view of a developer. For me it's all the same. Paying 30% to Apple is the same as paying 30% to Steam or x% to console makers. In practice it doesn't matter if the appliance the user runs my software is essential or not, or if the store is exclusive, or comes preinstalled or not. I'm still paying a percentage to someone.

Sucks in all cases.

[ilikehurdles]

A store owner is not obligated to give you free placement on their shelves.

[brandon272]

What stores take 30% lifetime subscription royalties for products sold on their shelves?

Can you imagine if Best Buy required Apple to add "Best Buy Payments" to MacOS so that Best Buy could collect a 30% fee on top of any services subscription that Apple sells to that MacBook user? All for the privilege of selling their products through the BB stores.

Apple isn't marking up a product for resale in it's retail environments. It is, in many cases, forcing its developers (who provide their valuable products to Apple for free, after paying Apple an annual fee) to completely rearrange their business models in order for Apple to collect a huge portion of their revenues, entirely on their terms.

[ilikehurdles]

It doesn’t matter. These are the terms of the store. If Walmart makes clear an expectation that you have to have an office in Arkansas in order to sell an item in their store, then you shouldn’t be surprised when your item is rejected from their store if you don’t build that office. There’s no expectation that you’d have free placement, certainly.

As for your Best Buy example, Best Buy can make that demand, but Best Buy would lose more from not having Apple’s products than Apple would from not being placed on Best Buy’s shelves.

[stdgy]

And customers aren't required to only shop at a single store. If the store doesn't have what I want, I should be able to go to another store.

[ilikehurdles]

And you have that option.

Your Apple hardware is your Costco Membership Card. You aren’t able to buy Sam’s Club products using your Costco membership, and Costco’s under no expectation to make them available to you.

[TedDoesntTalk]

This store owner bans other stores (markets). That's anti-competitive and would never be tolerated in meat space.

[jpttsn]

It’s totally optional; if you don’t want to participate, don’t. Sell your software any way you want outside their store. Take out ads in local papers or something.

[5Qn8mNbc2FNCiVV]

That's the issue, you can't. Simple as that, you cannot get your software onto an iPhone without paying the 30% (or offloading it to your customers)

[jpttsn]

So don’t sell iPhone versions. Sell software for platforms that support arbitrary software. Or pay Apple for distribution in their walled garden. It’s totally up to you.

The parameters have been clear for over a decade, and it’s really time to stop whining that the iPhone is not an open platform. Apple is the only iPhone app distribution channel and they make the rules. If you don’t want that, don’t buy an iPhone/don’t make iPhone apps. If you make iPhone apps, own it.

[scq]

Apparently not: https://www.protocol.com/hey-email-app-store-rejection

According to Apple, if your app is not a "reader" app it must allow subscribing in-app.

[jpttsn]

Only if you want them to carry it in their store. But you don’t want to do that, or at least not pay for it, so don’t. Make a web app or something.

[kennywinker]

Remember when their slogan was “there’s an app for that”? Implication being - whatever you want, it’s there.

[jpttsn]

Implication being “there’s an app for” a number of needs, but not that “there’s every app” for every need.

When the case in point is an email client this argument seems especially facetious. Is any customer really being defrauded because “there’s not an app for email”?

[simion314]

>I know what I signed up for. Why should I feel entitled to anything else?

Maybe you are happy with one of the 2 shitty choices, but there might be people that would prefer to not be forced to chose what shit taste better, it is live you live in place and you have only 2 drinking water choices, both contain different poisons but you have a choice, why should people complain and try to fix a bad situation when you could chose your poison? I seen lots complaining that there is not enough competiotion in X or Y market (like mobile or ISPs ) but Apple fans don't want more competition on the iOS, you wouild thinkt he average Apple user would have been already scammed 100 times on their Macbooks because of the missing walls , this is how hard the security excuse is mentioned.

[thrwn_frthr_awy]

I haven't found a way to sign in to YouTube without being signed into Chrome.

[sroussey]

Easily done by using Firefox. ;)

[wldlyinaccurate]

Doesn't Android have the same problem? If your app isn't in the Play Store, it may as well not exist.

[Wowfunhappy]

No, because you can sideload Android apps. Fortnite for Android isn't in the Play Store, and it definitely exists.

[jackvalentine]

They capitulated and it’s now on the Play Store.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.epicgames....

[Wowfunhappy]

Whoops, thanks, guess I was out of date! Still, Fortnite was sideload-only for a while, and that's a major game.

[jackvalentine]

Yeah I think we can draw a bit of a line from they were a major game not on the Play Store and now they're a major game on the Play Store - my guess is barely anyone sideloaded it.

[flobosg]

There are alternative software repositories, such as F-Droid.

[IanCal]

I think they've faced antitrust things around the dominance of the app store, however do they actually do the same thing as apple here? I can find a story online of tinder switching to asking users to enter their credit card details in the app.

[dylz]

A large part of the world (China) runs their own app stores for Android.

[SpaceRaccoon]

You can download alternative app stores. For example, here is the Yandex app store: https://store.yandex.com/

[jacobwilliamroy]

It's easier to share android apps. I dont need any extra tools to run non-playstore apps on an android.

[MrStonedOne]

I feel it pertinent to point out that comments like yours help keep the status quo.

Pointing out that apple is not alone in a thread trying to raise awareness about apple's practices both distracts from apple's unethical behavior and contributes to normalizing the behavior in public perception.

So my question to you is: do you want to see these unethical behaviors end? or continue?

[pdonis]

Why is it unethical to charge a fee to developers who want to distribute their software through an app store that Apple owns?

I get that it's unpleasant for developers who don't like the policy, and at some point it might have business consequences for Apple if they don't change the policy, but why is it unethical?

[jeffchien]

>Why is it unethical to charge a fee to developers who want to distribute their software through an app store that Apple owns?

This is only part of the complaint, right? The other parts is that:

* Apple has the only keys to the hardware platform.

* This is in contrast to Google or Steam, who also charge 30%, but do not completely own access to their respective hardware platforms.

* This is also in contrast to physical stores, because if a store does not sell a product (i.e. a grocery store chain does not carry some brand of beer), the product owner can usually still put it somewhere else that the consumer can freely access (excluding transportation costs).

* The policy regarding whether Apple should be entitled to the subscription fee is inconsistent and full of exceptions, which this website illustrates. My cynical take is that these exceptions have no real philosophy behind them, other than the fact that Apple needed certain major apps to be on iOS (i.e. Netflix, Tesla, Bloomberg, etc.).

* Slightly separate point, but still relevant: if Apple is entitled to subscription fees, Apple can make competitors that undercut other subscription services like Spotify, because they don't have to pay themselves the 30% fee. This is what Spotify complained about last year, and what I believe the EU is looking at. [1]

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/16/21292651/apple-eu-antitru...

(edit log: added newlines for easier reading)

[p1necone]

The fourth bullet point is the most egregious to me. These policies are so overbearing that they're actually untenable, but Apple just gets around that by arbitrarily giving exceptions to companies that are big enough to affect their bottom line.

[pdonis]

> This is only part of the complaint, right?

It's the part I'm interested in. I get that Apple's policy is a pain in the ass to a lot of developers, that Apple is inconsistent and arbitrary about how it applies that policy, and that all this greatly restricts developer access to users of Apple's hardware. What I don't get is how any of this is unethical. Bothersome and irritating, yes, but why unethical?

[acituan]

> Why is it unethical to charge a fee to developers who want to distribute their software through an app store that Apple owns?

Developer don't necessarily want to distribute their software through that app store, they are forced to do that if they want to sell their software to people who happen to use that operating system. Operating system and app store are distinct products, but app store exclusively gatekeeps the functionality the user can achieve through the operating system they bought.

If app store was a standalone offering that aimed to benefit the user, there shouldn't be any problem allowing multiple competing app stores people paid for the convenience of vetted and curated apps and letting the market forces decide the winner. That is obviously not happening.

Therefore, strongarming the ecosystem and stifling market dynamics is the unethical move here. Less competition, less innovation, less user benefit, less developer income (which translates into even less innovation) etc is the price everyone pays in aggregate in order for Apple to exact its rent, which goes to their idle pile of cash or comes back to humanity as a 0.002 grams lighter iPhone++ next year.

[reaperducer]

So you increase the price of your app by 30 to make up for Apple's cut%. It's called business. It happens all the time in every single industry.

If a business' property taxes go up, that cost is passed on to its customers. Why do people think that because something is on a phone that it should be any different?

[twicetwice]

That's also not allowed. I think Hey would be fine charging $142 a year for a subscription in their app, with a little note below saying "you can get this for $99 on our website, the difference is Apple's cut." In fact, if I understand it correctly, the price in-app has to be the same as the price anywhere else. They're literally not allowed to do what you're suggesting and pass the cost of Apple's fee on to consumers.

[reaperducer]

You just Charge everyone the same and don't tell the customers that they're paying Apple's cut.

Just like Hey doesn't tell its customers what percentage of its fee goes to the water company, or the electric company, or to company travel.

This is how business works.

[acituan]

> It's called business. It happens all the time in every single industry

And we call those situations market failures. Besides, in this case the market failure is due to a monopolistic mechanism, which doesn't happen "all the time in every industry". If we are going to do markets, let's do it properly.

Increasing price %30 causes a corresponding decrease in the demand, and in aggregate this can cause a decrease in the total profit. The fact that the developer is forced to set a new price point this way is a source of inefficiency for the entire app economy.

Besides forced price increase is not the only harm done by the monopoly of the App Store. As this website exemplifies, it has monopoly over ontological decisions (whether a certain type of app can exist or not), over design decisions (signups, in app purchases etc) and whatnot. These are further points of inefficiency or outright failure. Apple might or might not be doing a good enough job making the best out of these decisions, but the bottom line is we don't have a choice of another player emerging with potentially better choice-making and therefore a better app store.

[pdonis]

> we call those situations market failures.

To the extent that this situation is a "market failure", it's not one that's fixable except by users changing their preferences.

> in this case the market failure is due to a monopolistic mechanism

Apple only has a "monopoly" on their own app store because they built it. Users are not being forced to use iPhones; they choose to because they believe iPhones give them better value overall than the alternatives. That's called free market competition, not monopoly.

[pdonis]

> If app store was a standalone offering that aimed to benefit the user, there shouldn't be any problem allowing multiple competing app stores people paid for the convenience of vetted and curated apps and letting the market forces decide the winner.

And if all that would benefit users more, users would be demanding it, or switching from iPhone to something else. But they're not. Users seem overall to be quite satisfied with what they are getting from their iPhones. So your claim here appears to be empirically false.

> strongarming the ecosystem and stifling market dynamics is the unethical move here

All this depends on your factual claim above being true, which, as I have noted, it appears not to be, based on actual user behavior.

But let's put that aside and assume that your factual claim is true. If that makes what Apple is doing unethical, then probably every single large corporation on the planet is unethical. Certainly every large corporation in the tech industry is. They all do these things; they just don't all do them with an app store.

[acituan]

> Users seem overall to be quite satisfied with what they are getting from their iPhones. So your claim here appears to be empirically false.

A lack of reduction in observable demand doesn't imply an absence of cost.

Let's say the cost of having a singular app store for the user can be expressed as 99$, but the average utility they derive from using their iPhone is valued at 100$. It would be rational for that user to still prefer iPhone despite incurring great cost and we wouldn't see any drop in demand.

> Certainly every large corporation in the tech industry is. They all do these things; they just don't all do them with an app store.

That is appeal to tradition. Indeed, monopolistic nature of tech combined with vertical integration is a large unsolved problem of our era and it haven't completely played out yet.

[pdonis]

> A lack of reduction in observable demand doesn't imply an absence of cost.

Waving your hands and throwing random numbers around doesn't imply a presence of cost.

> That is appeal to tradition.

It is no such thing. I'm just trying to figure out what your actual position is.

> monopolistic nature of tech combined with vertical integration is a large unsolved problem

Which makes it clearer what your position is: you think the problem with tech is "monopolistic nature combined with vertical integration".

I disagree. I think the problem with tech is that it is giving away valuable things for free, or selling them at or below cost, in order to capture users and sell their data and their eyeballs or corner markets. Apple is actually the least guilty of this of the major tech players; I'm far more worried about Google and Facebook and Amazon than I am about Apple. But at any rate, that problem is not a problem of monopoly and vertical integration. It's a problem of shortsightedness in general--putting short term gain and convenience over long term stability and trust.

[MrStonedOne]

Think of a flee market. Lets say this flee market runs their own PoS system that tables can use, they require all sales happen via this PoS system "to protect customers from hacking", and they charge a percentage for providing this service, higher then normal under the guise that the transaction is being conducted on their property, they are "hosting" the "sale" under their roof, so they set the terms for it. Seems fair and good, ish

Now lets say that they also own the city bank, and they are the only one allowed to take their bank's debit card as payment. Most people don't use the other, newer bank because everybody they know is using the flee markets bank as it was first. So if you want to take credit card payments you have to sale at the flee market.

Is it still fair and good for them to continue to set all terms relating to how sales are conducted in a selfish way when they have a monopoly gained in part from first mover advantage? eh, maybe, maybe not.

Now they say that if you sale any spare parts or consumables for a product that was originally sold at the flee market, you must only do so at the flee market.

Is it still fair and good for them to use the fact that the transaction is happening on their property to set higher fees on these follow up transactions when they require these follow up transactions to happen on their property? While exploiting a first mover advantage that causes more of the initial transactions to happen on their property?

Never forget that you can't just look at each piece, the whole matters too.

Each individual piece of the macro is ethically an "eh" at most, but the whole is a bit more then "eh"

[pdonis]

> the whole

Is nothing like the situation with respect to Apple, so I don't see how your extended analogy here is relevant.

[dan-robertson]

I think it would be ethical to charge a fee to distribute software. You can imagine a world where each upload to the App Store would cast say $100. But the issue people complain about is that they are forced to use Apple as a middleman for all their payments and that Apple charges exorbitant fees for this

[reaperducer]

So don't be on the App Store. Problem solved.

Make it a web site. Make it an Android exclusive. Do any of the dozen other things you need to do to be a success. You don't have to be on the App Store to survive. Hundreds of thousands of developers and their programs aren't.

[vore]

Making it a website is inconvenient for many reasons compared to an app. Making it Android exclusive sucks for people who have iPhones, and it's a tall order to ask anyone to switch away from an iPhone they have already purchased. The problem is categorically not solved here.

[pdonis]

> The problem is categorically not solved here.

The "problem" being your convenience. Sorry, that's not anyone's problem but yours.

[curyous]

It’s the size of the fee that is unethical.

[zeroimpl]

Taxes are paid by the consumer. Ideally developers should price things based on how much revenue they want per transaction, and have the 30% fee shown to the user.

If that were the case, there would be nothing unethical about a 30% tax nor a 90% tax.

Therefore, it’s not the size that’s the problem, but the fact that the tax isn’t communicated to the consumer, and also that Apple wants you to charge the same price in-app as elsewhere (though I’m not sure if that part is enforced)

[pdonis]

So what determines how large the fee has to be for it to be unethical? I don't see any principled way to decide, which makes me doubt your argument here.

[Hamuko]

>Google charges trademark holders AdWords ransom to protect searches for their own brands.

Doesn't Apple have its own version of this in the App Store?

[wlesieutre]

Yes

[happytoexplain]

There are so many comments written in this weirdly contradictory tone - I can't tell if you support or oppose the behaviors of these companies.

[jeffmcmahan]

I'd say the term 'sharecrop' clearly carries a strongly negative connotation...

[rbecker]

Comments can do more than just express support or opposition.

[gdsdfe]

it's all this tribalism in the world nowadays ... it's like just tell me, are you with me or against me? as if these are the only options

[Falling3]

And unfortunately, we need to know that information between we are willing to judge the validity of the comment.

[ta17711771]

That way I can downvote you or upvote you, regardless of if you contribute to the discussion.

[gdsdfe]

Why? I was just branching out onto what seemed to be a good conversation ... Like I'm doing right now.

[MattGaiser]

I have never heard the word "sharecrop" used in a supportive way.

[pas]

AdWords ransom. Not a positive thing.

That said, the comment is a simple terse statement of "facts".

[sukilot]

"Amazon accepts gifts freely given to it" is a weird accusation.

OSS authors could distribute on a non-commercial CC license.

[t0astbread]

Let's assume the idea of Open Source is a network of small to medium-sized businesses and individual contributors helping each other out in a mutually beneficial way. A multi-billion dollar corp stepping in by undercutting those businesses' prices and taking without giving back anything of equal value is arguably against the spirit of the idea and a breach of trust. It's technically okay because it is just "accepting a gift" but I'd still say it's exploitation.

Distributing under a NC-license would also go against that idea. (Apart from tipping the perception of "Open Source" towards something more restrictive which is always a bit bitter.)

[MattGaiser]

> Amazon kills OSS business models by offering managed OSS services on AWS at an unbeatable cost.

I don't get the objection to this one. Isn't the point of open source to let the best vendor win?

Too many companies fail to realize that you must relentlessly wage war on cost to survive.

[Barrin92]

Open-source software has large positive externalities and if those are being captured by private entities then this will pretty much lead to a demise of open source software, or open-source software will slowly but surely being turned into software that is more and more incompatible and de-facto in-house software.

This is already happening. A lot of projects that are nominally open source are more and more influenced by the decisions of particular companies which erodes its purpose.

[baddox]

> A lot of projects that are nominally open source are more and more influenced by the decisions of particular companies which erodes its purpose.

I might be ignorant here, but isn’t it the “open source companies” that are actively doing this, rather than Amazon? It seems to me that these companies that represent an open source project are realizing that you don’t get it both ways: it turns out that releasing open source software means that the source code is open, which means that you don’t get automatic business just because the name of your company is the same as the name of the open source project.

[Grimm1]

They do it at no benefit to the OSS providers, that's the issue.

[xyzzy_plugh]

Why do they need to benefit the OSS provider? The license doesn't contain anything suggesting otherwise.

If authors want credit and money, the license needs to state as much. You can't publish something saying "do whatever you want" and then complain that people aren't being fair to you.

[Signez]

> You can't publish something saying "do whatever you want" and then complain that people aren't being fair to you.

Well… you can complain. You just can't sue them. But the complaint would still be valid.

You can act like a jerk and follow all the laws at the same time, it's just that the consequences for you won't be identical.

[sukilot]

Doing exactly as you are told by the copyright holder isn't being a jerk.

[Sean-Der]

Do you believe that authoritarian measures is the only thing that makes people do the just thing?

I am sure some people don't steal/murder because of laws, but I optimistically think the majority don't because they don't wish to hurt others.

[typomatic]

My parents asked me for some money the other day, but I told them to pound sand--if they wanted my help they should have made me sign something before they gave me all that free room and board. Suckers!

[tathougies]

Legally, yes, that is how it should be. even if worthy of criticism socially.

[Grimm1]

1 point by Grimm1 8 minutes ago | edit | delete [–]

The licenses weren't conceived of with the thought of something like AWS. Now that we're in the midst of things that's changing but what is an officially supported open source license [0] is too slow so you can't use the OSS label if you've you're not using the approved licenses. Both Mongo and Elasticsearch have changed their licenses to prevent cloud players from taking advantage of their work and companies like Gitlab make a clear distinction between their FOSS parts and what they make money on by using two different licenses. The issues are only a little over a half decade old now the OSS players are starting to figure it out.

Open source just doesn't mean anyone can use it, there's a definition to adhere to and and org managing that definition. [1]

It was never intended as a free for all.

[0] https://opensource.org/licenses [1] https://opensource.org/about

[baddox]

> The licenses weren't conceived of with the thought of something like AWS.

You mean...a hosting company? I find it hard to believe that the open source movement was blindsided by the realization that there are companies that sell hosting services and that somehow this destroys the viability of their movement.

[MattGaiser]

But isn't that part of the point of open source? If you want people to have to pay for it in some way, it needs to be part of the license. The license is essentially free for all.

[Sean-Der]

Open Source isn't just one mindset. This isn't exhaustive, but the ones I encounter the most.

* You have people that are ideologically driven (FSF)

* You have companies that Open Source as a weapon [0] (Chromium)

* You have projects that are very pragmatic. They believe it is the path to technical excellence.

* You have individuals do it for their resume

* You have individuals that do it just for fun :)

[0] https://www.gwern.net/Complement#open-source-as-a-strategic-...

[Grimm1]

The licenses weren't conceived of with the thought of something like AWS. Now that we're in the midst of things that's changing but what is an officially supported open source license [0] is too slow so you can't use the OSS label if you've you're not using the approved licenses. Both Mongo and Elasticsearch have changed their licenses to prevent cloud players from taking advantage of their work and companies like Gitlab make a clear distinction between their FOSS parts and what they make money on by using two different licenses.

The issues are only a little over a half decade old now the OSS players are starting to figure it out.

Open source just doesn't mean anyone can use it, there's a definition to adhere to and and org managing that definition. [1]

It was never intended as a free for all.

[0] https://opensource.org/licenses [1] https://opensource.org/about

[searchableguy]

Legality doesn't always cover everything because that would result in a lot of problems. People operate on the spirit of the law, not the actual words or at least they are supposed to.

There is an expectation of contribution back.

[sukilot]

The spirit of open source is to protect the users, not benefit the authors.

[ric2b]

With GPL yes, with MIT no.

[searchableguy]

On a more general tone, does anti trust cover knowingly destroying communities and open source tools?

All the problems from app store racket still applies such as the tax. And I am not saying android doesn't need a lot of those changes, it's just they break things without helping. There are many examples if you look around.

1. Disguised ads in search results (they have been making ads less obvious) - https://i.postimg.cc/h4V8TbqF/Screenshot-20200620-041823-Goo...

Even if you search the exact name, it will bombard you with whoever is paying the most.

2. Google closed source their play billing library recently. Apps which use the library can't be put on fdroid.

3. At Google I/O 2018, Google introduced an alternative app distribution format called the Android App Bundle with the file extension .aab. This format requires giving a copy of your app’s signing key to Google. AABs are harder for users to manually sideload as they aren’t natively supported by Android’s package installer and must be unpacked and devs have to do more work to distribute on other platforms.

4. Google killing Termux with Android 10 and many others relying on the functionality by removing the perms to execute binaries.

5. Fdroid can't auto update because of restrictions by google.

6. Broke custom recoveries such as TWRP.

7. Irresponsible automated ban of anything covid. Surprisingly this doesn't or never affect popular apps. Must be because they whitelist them.

2] https://www.xda-developers.com/f-droid-android-apps-google-p...

3] https://www.xda-developers.com/google-play-billing-v3-app-bu...

4] https://github.com/termux/termux-packages/wiki/Termux-and-An...

6] https://www.xda-developers.com/twrp-lead-explains-android-10...

7] https://9to5google.com/2020/05/19/podcast-addict-banned/

[donmcronald]

I wonder how Microsoft would do in the mobile market right now if they came in with the same developer first attitude we're seeing everywhere else.

Microsoft hardware with Android, a decent update lifecycle, MS365, alternate store, MS billing APIs, etc. would make a compelling offering IMO. The only thing I think MS would screw up would be sideloading. They seem to be all in on the current code signing / trust system and it's absolute trash.

There are so many industries that have been turned into complete garbage by rent seekers that I feel like anything that doesn't absolutely screw developers and customers would be super successful. The problem is that we only have about 5 tech companies on the planet that are big enough to compete.

[coin3x]

> 3. At Google I/O 2018, Google introduced an alternative app distribution format called the Android App Bundle with the file extension .aab. This format requires giving a copy of your app’s signing key to Google. AABs are harder for users to manually sideload as they aren’t natively supported by Android’s package installer and must be unpacked and devs have to do more work to distribute on other platforms.

App bundle is a way to reduce hassle of uploading multiple apks for cutting down apk size on different targets. Developers can and always have to build regular apks for other distribution platforms or for users to sideload. I don't see how AAB makes devs do more work.

[lern_too_spel]

> Google scrapes info and displays it in widgets above links to the actual content. Google charges trademark holders AdWords ransom to protect searches for their own brands.

All search engines do this. It doesn't depend on building scale and then exploiting it. The experience is better for the user.

> Amazon kills OSS business models by offering managed OSS services on AWS at an unbeatable cost.

All cloud providers do this. It also doesn't depend on building and exploiting scale. The experience is better for the user.

[manfredo]

The key difference is that the App store is the only way of running apps on an iDevice outside of rooting it (which for >99% of users means it's the only way of running apps).

Apple needs to be transparent that it's not selling devices, it's licensing devices. Users do not control the devices they own.

[ogre_codes]

There are PWAs. I know PWAs have massive limitations, but there are some work-arounds. They just aren't great.

[twicetwice]

Apple deliberately cripples PWAs on their devices for exactly this reason. I get it, but I hate them for it.

[boycaught]

"Sharecrop" is a brilliant metaphor for the entire racket.

[thatMurcia99]

That’s not a tech specific feature that’s society.

Corporations buy up all the viable land, then rent rooms, or sell stock. They “bank” all your money and use it to profit for themselves.

Wax cylinders and vinyl records are like human society: round and round they go, skipping on all the same old knicks.

The financial ownership model is your real problem. Money is speech now in America.

Good luck.