[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.

[TedDoesntTalk]

But they also prevent other stores from being built. And they prevent sideloading. It's their store or nothing. They created a marketplace and ban other marketplaces. wtf?

[pdonis]

> they also prevent other stores from being built

They do no such thing. They just prevent other stores from providing apps for their own product. Which they are within their rights to do, since it's their product.

[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.

[twicetwice]

Well, I don't think paying 30% to Apple is the same as paying 30% to Steam. The former is mandatory, the latter is not. If you don't want to be on Steam, you can put your game in the Windows store/etc, or sell directly from your website. If you don't want to be on Apple's app store, well, too bad, it's the only way to reach 50+% of your potential customers (in the US).

[efreak]

I know quite a few people on Steam who simply refuse to but any games on any platforms other than Steam. Steam isn't an exclusive choice, but there's a nontrivial number of gamers who are loyal to Steam to the point of refusing to purchase anything that isn't available on Steam.

I personally have platforms I simply will not use (or refuse to spend money on directly, like EA's Origin, where I only own/care about C&C) regardless how good of a deal it is.

[ratww]

In theory, yes. In practice, not publishing a game on Steam will also alienate you from a large amount of potential customers. We're only starting to see change recently. But I understand your point and agree in principle. What's your opinion on consoles, though?

[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.

[brandon272]

I agree completely - Apple can have whatever terms it wants within the bounds of the law. And app developers have every right to complain about those terms, loudly and in a sustained fashion, if they wish.

The second part there is what a lot of people seem to have difficulty accepting.

[chipotle_coyote]

Companies have certainly complained, loudly and in a sustained fashion, about dealing with certain brick-and-mortar stores over the years.

(Apple is in a frustratingly unique position compared to Walmart, Target, Best Buy, et. al., of course, in that the App Store is the way to get applications onto iPhones.)

[jpttsn]

It’s easy to accept that you have a right to complain. But after ten years of perfect clarify about how Apple intends to play this, your supposed outrage that the iPhone is still a walled garden seems willfully thick.

I’d be so impressed if one of you would just head over to Android and make a non-iPhone app that took the world by storm. Prove to us all that the 30% is a bad bargain, that Apple needs to change, that your software is valuable even without their store.

I guess it’s disheartening to see instead just another set of entitled complaints and dubious concern over end users, most of whom have no idea your $10 app exists and never thought about it when buying their $1000 phone.

[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.

[stdgy]

Nonsense. The App Store is the Store. For god's sake, it's literally called a store. This couldn't be clearer.

You don't need to muddy the waters by making a ridiculous analogy that somehow equates a computer to a membership card (of all things!).

The computer is a computer. Full stop. There is a store on the computer. There should be other stores on the computer but they're not allowed because the people that make the computer are partaking in anti-competitive, anti-consumer shenanigans.

[Wowfunhappy]

But I can buy a fridge at Costco, buy food from Sam's Club, and still store my food in my fridge. I don't have to throw out Costco's fridge in order to buy food elsewhere.

[jpttsn]

Your fridge is compatible with any food.

Your iPhone is not compatible with any software.

Some things are compatible and some things are not.

Edit: “Compatible” is not about the tech in this case (the binary would theoretically run) but about the terms of your agreement with the manufacturer.

If you buy a Costco fridge and with it a contract to only store Costco-sold food in it, then you have a better analogy. 80% of the world seems to prefer the AnyFood Fridge, and for some reason 20% buy the Costco with the agreement.

[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.

[TedDoesntTalk]

And the other alternative is that governments get involved to force apple to allow other markets on their phones. Ones that charge 5% or ones that are even free.

Instead of, you know, just accepting bad things because they've been bad for a decade. Slavery was around in the US for more than 100 years. Did that make it right? Maybe slave owners said similar things to Abolitionists, "but it's been this way for ages!!"

[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.