[TobyTheDog123]

It's funny how the 30% tax and App Store nonsense automatically makes me want Apple to lose every single court case in perpetuity.

Having such a monopoly on a device you purchase really means the legal system needs to take you down a notch.

[hackernewds]

The saddest event this generation is Epic vs Apple going in favor of Apple. It's tough to imagine Apple weren't a monolopy enforcing monopolistic policies.

[simondotau]

Whether or not you believe Apple is a monopoly, whether or not Apple is benefiting from their current status as one of two dominant smartphone ecosystems, it is obviously false to describe Apple's restrictions around app sales and payment methods as being "monopolistic policies". The policies Apple has been criticised for were not gained as a result of monopoly power.

This is obviously true because the policies in question were substantially in place by 2009, long before anyone could have said "monopoly" in Apple's direction without being drowned in laughter.

[cwp]

I wanted Epic to win too, but c'mon, 57% market share is not a monopoly.

[thfuran]

In the UK, that's over twice the minimum threshold for monopoly power.

[pb7]

"Monopoly power" is not a monopoly and in the UK, public schools are actually private schools, so maybe we shouldn't compare terminology across countries.

[stale2002]

> "Monopoly power" is not a monopoly

Fortunately, "monopoly" isn't the thing that the law cares about.

Everything to do with anti-trust law, and competition laws, is not about monopolies, and is instead about monopoly power.

> so maybe we shouldn't compare terminology across countries

Feel free to look at the the FTC says about this topic then. It to applies to companies with monopoly power, and not literal monopolies.

https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...

"Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power"

[zarzavat]

That’s because competition/antitrust law, be it UK, EU or US, doesn’t care about whether an entity is a “monopoly” or not. It cares about whether a company is engaging in anticompetitive practices or not. The market share is a red herring.

[laxd]

"...maybe we shouldn't compare terminology across countries."

That sounds like cromulent use of HN.

[AndriyKunitsyn]

Eeeh, if only Epic hasn't signed an agreement (as any iOS developer did) where they explicitly agreed with this policy, then it would be so simple.

[musicale]

> 30% tax and App Store nonsense automatically makes me want Apple to lose every single court case in perpetuity

We can only hope that alternative app stores on iOS will force Apple to match Google Play's 30% platform fees:

https://techcrunch.com/2021/03/16/google-play-drops-commissi...

[smoldesu]

If I might dream, maybe they also adopt Google's policy of not insisting upon billing developers[0] for the mere privilege of using their platform.

[0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/02/apple-shocks-ios...

[fennecfoxy]

The difference being of course, on Apple's stranglehold on its customers. 30% either way, app developers know that Apple users are always willing to pay more and Apple knows this, too. That's why many apps only target iOS.

Besides the income from services within Apple's apps: they could take 30% of an app's purchase price (which is still not justified tbh, the app store can't be _that_ expensive to run), but how do they justify trying to take a percentage of a subscription (like Spotify, Netflix etc) when they have nothing to do with it?

That would be like Apple being able to take a portion of banking fees from me because I have my bank's app installed on my phone (and the bank takes fees), which Apple doesn't do of course because as big as they are, you do not fuck with banks.

[JimDabell]

> the 30% tax

15%. Almost everybody pays 15%, not 30%. The only organisations who pay 30% earn over a million dollars a year from things other than long-term subscriptions. That’s a tiny minority.

[smoldesu]

27%, if their demands in the Netherlands are still being taken seriously: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/02/apple-shocks-ios...

[JimDabell]

Nope, 12% in that case. The 27% figure assumes a reduction from the 30% rate virtually nobody pays. If you read Apple’s documentation, you’ll see that they say they will reduce their commission by 3%:

> Apple will reduce its commission by 3% on the price paid by the user, net of value-added taxes. This is a reduced rate that excludes value related to payment processing and related activities.

— https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitl...

[smoldesu]

> virtually nobody pays.

100% of the top 100 paid apps on the App Store pay the full tax. It's a progressive model, and the figure itself is arbitrary anyways. People want a more Mac-like distribution model, and Apple is reluctant to provide it because services are the only thing with wider margin than slave labor cellphones.

[JimDabell]

> > > virtually nobody pays.

> 100% of the top 100 paid apps on the App Store pay the full tax.

There are millions of apps on the App Store. The top 100 is a tiny fraction of that. Virtually nobody pays.

[smoldesu]

The majority of transactions are taxed fully, both by volume and value.

[_piif]

Interesting, I seem to have missed this change from 2021. That's far more reasonable.

[stavros]

I was hoping they'd lose against Epic, but alas.

[brookst]

I can see wanting Apple to lose, but I can't imagine wanting Epic to win. That was such an ugly parasitic business model: let others take the risks to build platforms, let others operate the platforms, get the courts to mandate equal treatment for Epic to swoop in after the risks pay off.

I'd have to sympathy for the phone platforms, but it would have destroyed the console market overnight. No way consoles work if every penny of customer lifetime value has to be in the up-front sale price.

[jdiff]

It's been working out fine for the Steam Deck. Sure, you can install Windows and/or any other storefront, but you won't have the console-like experience that Valve's own software provides.

It's trivially easy to install pirated games on the Deck, without any cracking or modification of the system. You never have to make a single Steam purchase after buying the Deck, but Valve's betting that you will. And they're right, that's enough. Most people don't go redoing or even tweaking the software stack on their hardware, they just stick with what comes out of the box.

[smachiz]

I mean... working fine, in that the only people who buy them are pretty techy.

It's not so easy to get Win 10 working right, it requires a fair bit of effort, and the experience sucks.

I'm not so sure Steam would be super happy if Epic started distributing a new frontend and store through their marketplace. I'm quite sure they wouldn't let them.

[tpxl]

Steam sells games which require third-party launchers to work. For example: Red Dead Redemption 2 requires the Rockstar Launcher to work (many a negative steam review regarding this), and this launcher allows you to buy other Rockstar games (The GTA franchise, LA Noire and more).

So yeah, Steam definitely allows distribution of storefronts.

[rezonant]

I would be extremely surprised if Valve attempted to block Epic from doing that.

[smachiz]

Really? They specifically don't allow distribution of anything but games, which would preclude a storefront, presumably.

[_kbh_]

The steam deck is a way different value proposition compared to consoles though, console manufacturers take a loss for initial consoles sold until they can bring costs.

Whereas the steam deck has likely been sold as a profit from day one.

[8note]

This is why the steam deck is a good example? The console doesn't have to be sold at a loss in order to sell games.

It would be better overall for competition for the games to be decoupled from the console. Same as with phone apps

[brookst]

You’ve made a fair point and that’s a reasonable opinion, but do you think it should be outright illegal for console makers to use a business model of consoles at cost, profits made on a share of game sales?

Because that was Epic’s end game.

[smoldesu]

The Steam Deck probably doesn't have much wider margins than a Switch or a Playstation. It might be sold at a profit, but the base $400 model is a pretty ridiculous deal already. Gabe Newell was upfront about the pricing process being painful for the hardware. He he also said that piracy is a services problem though, and the Steam Deck proves that in spades - if the default experience is superior, why bother with the competitors? You don't need to lock out the user to make that point.

If anything, the iPhone is the odd one out for having hardware margins that don't suck.

[zirgs]

Nintendo also doesn't sell their consoles at a loss.

[stavros]

What if consoles make money from games without turning games into rent-to-play with no resale value?

Platforms are hostile to the consumer and can't die quickly enough for me, that's why I wanted Epic to win.

[pb7]

You are complaining about companies mistreating consumers and you wanted Epic to win? They're as shitty as they come. https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2022/12/245-milli...

Apple has provided the world 1000x more value than Epic ever will. Justice prevailed.

[waboremo]

Apple has made billions (upwards of $300m in pure profit) from Fortnite. If you care about Epic's shitty qualities in that aspect (the case you're linking), surely you also care about Apple profiting off that exploitation as well?

[pb7]

Have you read the details of the judgment? Most of the dark patterns Epic used aren't possible on iOS. In fact, the reason they hate Apple's walled garden so much is because they add too much friction to the dark patterns they want to use, notably authentication for subsequent in-app purchases, so I don't know what exploitation profiting you're referring to. Apple protects consumers from shitty companies like Epic abusing consumers (in this case, children) and for that I thank them.

[Dylan16807]

You're not supposed to cheer on companies by picking favorites like with sports team.

Epic is on the right side of that particular issue.

[pb7]

No, they're not, and I just showed you why. Epic is a scummy company that employs dark patterns to extract as much money as possible from easily manipulated consumers and Apple kneecaps those strategies on iOS by having control. If Epic got their way, this is what you would have to deal with on iOS too.

[pb7]

I'm glad you didn't get your wish. https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2022/12/245-milli...

[hackernewds]

False dichotomy, if I've ever seen one

[anticensor]

That 30% is iVAT :)