[eruleman]

The US should focus on breaking up the app store duopoly that charges 30% on all digital items. Apps are not even allowed to link out to their website or tell users that Apple/Google is taking a 30% cut!

Apple & Google don’t have to pay the app store tax & have products that compete with books, audiobooks, Spotify etc — this is the most blatant antitrust issue. I hope the US lawsuit leads with this.

[eikenberry]

What % should they charge then? It was my understanding that 30% was/is a fairly standard cut taken by retailers in general and they are just aligning with the industry. A quick search seems to confirm this idea with articles like this.. https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut...

[internet101010]

I am guessing the 30% quoted is specifically for digital goods because 10-15% is the fair price for connecting buyers with sellers of physical goods. At least that is the case with platforms like eBay, Walmart, and Amazon.

Maybe someone can explain how the selling/labor costs of digital goods are twice that physical goods and justify 2-3x the commission. I would like to hear it because I am admittedly ignorant when it comes to the costs of content delivery - all I know is that egress can get expensive.

[Barrin92]

>What % should they charge then?

How about we go by European credit and debit card interchange fees capped at 0.2%. Credit Card CEOs seem reasonably happy, healthy and well fed. Maybe we'll get some cultural surplus value out of it if Valve is actually forced to make a video game again, Half Life 3 might actually happen, or maybe we'll get a new Portal or Team Fortress out of it.

[TillE]

All of these platforms do far, far more than just basic payment processing.

[noiseinvacuum]

I think that is why payment processing fees and platform fees need to be separated out.

[kg]

If the market was actually open, people would compete on different cuts and the % would eventually drift towards whatever the right number is.

Epic seems to do just fine charging 12% on their PC games store, vs Valve's variable (maximum of 30%; lower for big rich game studios) cut on Steam.

Apple and Google have also both put in place a lower cut for independent developers, which is further evidence that 30% isn't the 'right' number. It's just a number the market has no choice but to put up with.

I certainly don't blame them for wanting to pocket 30% of the filthy billions of dollars kids and gambling addicts pump into stuff like Genshin Impact. That's free money for Apple.

[telot1]

Epic is in fact not doing just fine charging 12%.

https://www.techspot.com/news/100767-after-almost-five-years...

[kg]

"The losses primarily stem from the millions the company pays game developers to ensure their newest titles are temporarily exclusive to the Epic Games Store"

[moogly]

Well, they are also giving away a ton of games for free to try to bust Valve's defacto monopoly. That's probably not cheap.

[olliej]

Isn't 30% standard across pretty much every App Store? Steam does not have lock in and yet I thought charged 30%, GoG is 30%, etc.

Obviously other app stores could in principle charge lower amounts because they don't actually have to do any development work, unlike google or apple who both actually do real development work for products after they've been sold. Despite that GoG and Steam seem to charge 30% anyway.

I'm curious what you think the development model for companies that aren't just store fronts should be if they aren't able to make money from development, especially given they appear to be charging that same amount as those companies that aren't doing anything other than providing a store front? Maybe software updates should cost money again? Or you should only get one year of updates for a device? Maybe free apps should be banned as well? After all supporting those costs money but makes none?

I'm genuinely curious how you think development should be paid for when 15-30% is too high for developers but fine for store fronts?

[darklion]

> Apps are not even allowed to link out to their website or tell users that Apple/Google is taking a 30% cut!

What business in their right mind would want to sell or stock a product that comes with a label that says, in effect, “Don’t spend your money here, go somewhere else”?

[summerlight]

A large number of products are being sold with some docs that has a link to their own merchandise store and promote them? Apple doesn't have to tell about the competitions on their app store, but they should allow each app whatever they want to do.

[darklion]

> Apple doesn't have to tell about the competitions on their app store, but they should allow each app whatever they want to do.

So you think it's OK that Walmart doesn't want to sell a product that says, "Hey, don't buy this from Walmart", but you think it's wrong for Walmart not to want to sell a product that links to a website, where the website says, "Hey, don't buy any more of our stuff from Walmart"?

[summerlight]

Why not? The former enforces Walmart to do something they don't want to do and the latter enforces Walmart not to do something someone else don't want to do. There is a discrete difference between those two. I don't understand why you don't get this simple old idea?

[error503]

Is that not pretty much exactly what happens when you buy say a Nintendo Switch at Wal-Mart?

Nintendo will encourage you to buy from their online store, competing with Wal-Mart selling physical media (and maybe digital codes too on their own store?).

[ajsnigrutin]

Not just that, but you can buy an iphone in an apple store directly or on amazon, in a walmart, or whatever local tech store is near you.

[darklion]

I'm not sure how that has any relevance here.

So to be clear: if Apple printed on every iPhone box, "This phone is 30% cheaper on Apple.com", you feel that Amazon, Walmart, Best Buy, %LOCAL_TECH_STORE%, etc. should be legally obligated to stock those iPhones?

[ajsnigrutin]

Why should they be obligated to stock them? Grandmas that live in cities with walmarts and no apple stores will just buy a samsung or whatever is available in the store.

A better question is, why aren't iphones cheaper at apple stores?

[munk-a]

A business that effectively feels consumer pressure. With their oligopoly neither Apple nor Google are feeling any consumer pressure to behave as good actors.

[lozenge]

Well exactly, which is why we need regulation to force them to stop treating the iPhone like it's an Apple-operated shopping centre.

[ajsnigrutin]

But this is standard in every other business. Want to buy a samsung phone? You can buy it at a samsung store directly or from amazon/walmart/your local telco. Printer? hp.com, or amazon, or walmart or whatever. You can even buy apple devices directly from apple stores or from other retailers.

[smoldesu]

Is my phone a business, or hardware that I own? That seems to be in contention here.

[darklion]

> Is my phone a business, or hardware that I own? That seems to be in contention here.

It's not in contention: it's both of those things. It's just that some people want it to be exclusively one of those things.

[smoldesu]

Why should the business value of my smartphone impede it's functionality as a computer?

[ApolloFortyNine]

The literal most obvious start is apple, who doesn't allow users to even install another app store, or even an unapproved app at all.

After that sure, they can try to go after Google.

[isodev]

Why is suddenly “able to install another App Store” a thing or even a necessity?

I think this entire situation has been blown out of proportion. There are a few “loud” voices lobbying for stuff that are of no consequence or just false.

[error503]

It seems like a fundamental right that I should have full control of a device which I own outright.

That control, over something I paid for and ostensibly 'own' will be used against me, as in the case of App Store cuts and digital payments. Why should that be allowed? If I own it, it is mine, and control over its technology should be mine as well.

[isodev]

So you’re saying Apple should put a sticker on the box saying it’s a device designed to operate with a specific OS? Then you can make an informed decision and purchase something else?

[error503]

No, I'm saying they should be forced to give me access to run the code I want to run on the device I bought from them.

Ford can't geofence my Bronco to only drive to stores that pay them off, why should Apple be allowed to enforce what I can run on my iPhone?

[m463]

you can't even secure your own device. You have no ability to see what is running, what it is talking to, or prevent the communication in or out.

[isodev]

That would be really nice to have in general. I don’t think an antitrust action is helpful to achieve it though.

Why not some legislation instead? For example, I have a friend who likes to tinker and they would love to be able to “own” their Tesla car, or Samsung smart TV (both also currently running as a black box of sorts… with even less security and transparency than iOS).

[whatever1]

And they definitely increase the prices for the customers. Apps charge you more when you buy from the app/play store vs if you buy from the internet.

[noiseinvacuum]

Exactly. This is the most problematic anti-competitive behavior and it's easily addressable by existing antitrust laws.

[m463]

I thought you even had to agree not to criticize apple.