[shreyansh_k]

I find this argument kind of ridiculous - yes, app developers (such as Spotify) bring value proposition to Apple's products by being available on the platform. But, apps (such as Spotify) probably wouldn't exist and wouldn't have access to the immense value of an App Store and its tooling if Apple didn't exist.

Luckily, by custom there is another solution - respect each other boundaries and stop acting like whiny little children.

[ncruces]

> Luckily, by custom there is another solution - respect each other boundaries and stop acting like whiny little children.

So where does the Apple Music subscription entering the market to compete with Spotify (which came first), without having to pay itself 30%, nor being prevented from advertising how to subscribe in the first place, fit in to that narrative?

For any interesting market that props up on the App Store, Apple is free to: start by extracting 30% from everything in said market; then, develop its own competing product at a technical advantage (with access to private APIs) and a comercial advantage (avoiding said 30% fees); and, finally, bundle and market the shit out of their own thing, all the while restricting other's marketing (with steering and MFN rules).

And according to some people, this is all perfectly fine behaviour, by Apple standards.

[Hikikomori]

What is the value again? Hosting software that can be downloaded?

Apple could just charge for services rendered, ie downloads, rather than a flat fee.

[nozzlegear]

As Matwood pointed out in a sibling comment, the real value of being on the App Store is the ecosystem of highly affluent consumers that Apple has cultivated.

[Hikikomori]

Which has would be worthless without apps like Spotify. Do you also think that Apple is entitled to 30% of anything bought with their browser? Should Microsoft be entitled to the same on windows and their browser?

If the Appstore is so good Apple should not be worried about competition by allowing side loading or alternative Appstores.

[nozzlegear]

You could flip that argument around and say that Spotify might have been worthless without the App Store to grow their userbase. I don't actually subscribe to that viewpoint myself, but I do think many on HN take the benefits of publishing on the App Store for granted.

> Should Microsoft be entitled to the same on windows and their browser?

I don't know, maybe? I'm sure people would riot if they tried it now, but if Microsoft had set that precedent from the start would we be here discussing this today?

[shreyansh_k]

I am just going to flip this argument to put things in perspective and add a bit of contrast.

-----

What is the value again? Playing music?

Spotify could just charge for services rendered, ie number of hours played, rather than a flat fee.

[Hikikomori]

You could, and any other music service could compete with Spotify on pricing. The difference here is that Apple also compete with Spotify with their own music service while they also want a 30% cut on Spotifys income.

[TrickardRixx]

And Apple would still demand 30% of it. Not sure how Spotify's fee structure has anything to do with Apple's fans' arguments that they're totally not behaving anticompetitively.

[madeofpalk]

The iPhone also wouldn't exist without the immense value delivered by all the apps on the App Store.

[ralfd]

The first iPhone had no App Store. All "third party" apps (Google Maps, Youtube) were made by Apple in partnership.

[shreyansh_k]

Apps wouldn't exist without the immense value delivered by all the Apple tooling on the iPhone.