6 ms·

We can still complain about their walled-garden approach to software distribution, particularly the extortionist 30% fee and handicapping of non-native apps. Or

We can still complain about their walled-garden approach to software distribution, particularly the extortionist 30% fee and handicapping of non-native apps. Or their kowtowing to the Chinese censors.

dijit 8y ago
The 30% fee is not baseless. Steam charges 30% to be on its store. Same with PlayStation and Microsoft Store. Seems like it’s the standard distribution fee.
- chatmasta 8y ago
  > The 30% fee is not baseless. I said it was extortionist, not baseless. Of course they deserve a fee. But it's extortionist in the sense that you have no choice, if you want to sell to worldwide mobile users with deep pockets. Apple also forces as many payments as possible to go through their network, and bans apps that try to take payment outside the store if the app does not provide sufficient justification. In fact, they could just probably charge 50% and developers would keep paying them... > Steam charges 30% to be on its store Pretty sure Steve Jobs didn't set the 30% price point by looking at the Steam store, lol. More likely it was the other way around and Steam is 30% because the App Store is 30%...
- walterbell 8y ago
  Apple was the first to lead with this egregious fee. They should be forced to unbundle the fee into optional components, e.g. five components of 6% each, minimum 2 components must be chosen (12%). That would subject each service fee component to competitive quality/demand forces within Apple, e.g. app search, trials/CRM workflow, app distribution. Developers and users can both exert choice on the subset of fees applied to a transaction, so they can provide performance-based feedback to Apple. Even a monopolist can compete with itself, to improve service and product.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    Apple was the first to lead with this egregious fee Before that carriers had much higher fees when you sold J2ME apps on feature phones through thier store.
    - walterbell 8y ago
      What type of customers or market sectors bought those apps?
      - scarface74 8y ago
        The same types of customers. For instance, back in the day around 2003-2006 Sprint sold J2ME games and apps that once you purchased them, you could redownload them on new phones.
  - dijit 8y ago
    Apple's App Store wasn't a thing when Steam Launched, same for the first party bundled licensing. (Playstation, Microsoft et al.)
- hnisgroupthink 8y ago
  > 30% fee This is what decentralized platforms fix. I'd rather keep the money as an app owner, and split the difference with the consumer(or just keep all of it). Even better if there's an avenue to avoid the government taking 50% too.
xenostar 8y ago
> Or their kowtowing to the Chinese censors. And what exactly is the alternative option for them there? They can either follow the rules in China or completely lose all of their business. That is on China, not Apple.
- chatmasta 8y ago
  They can either violate the privacy rights of Chinese citizens, or not sell to Chinese citizens at all.
- azurezyq 8y ago
  And I'm really curious why people here are not mentioning Apple gave Chinese gov access to icloud data for Chinese people. Kind of double standard I have to say...
  - uncleartraveler 8y ago
    People savage Google yesterday for launching a censored search in China. Apple essentially gives iCloud to the Chinese government and the outrage levels don't seem to be the same.
    - harias 8y ago
      Its because google has 'don't be evil' as its unofficial motto. Googlers joined google because they agreed with their ethics. People at apple knew what thy were getting into and consumers knew and expected it to remain the same. Change causes chaos in humanity.
- kodablah 8y ago
  At least letting us know that they don't like it so at least I know it's against their principles and they might push back in other cases when asked. That they seemed so willing to do it should be the fear, not that they had to (and by the way, they didn't have to, losing all of their business is an option for principled companies).
bepotts 8y ago
Their walled garden approach is looking smarter and smarter with every EU fine that gets thrown at Google. As an aside: As an engineer, I dislike their walled garden approach; but I love their approach as a consumer. To be frank, most companies have bad taste and poor UX design. Apple doesn't knock it out the park all the time, but their products are consistently good and their design guidelines for iOS apps enforce some of the same quality. So yeah, I'll take a walled garden approach if the garden is beautiful.
- kodablah 8y ago
  > but I love their approach as a consumer. Quite often anti-competitive actions are beneficial to customers at the expense of other companies.
  - bepotts 8y ago
    I'm starting to see a lot of people charging Facebook/Apple/Google/Amazon with anti-competitive behavior, and yet most of the charges (including a lot of the ones the EU charges Google and Apple for) are just normal business behavior. Nobody cares about whether your smaller firm can compete against larger companies or not. As a consumer, I don't give a damn if Apple is "mean" to your business. Learn to compete better. If these companies are stopping a better product from coming to the market then by all means lets throw antitrust at them; but if your product is just a clone and/or lower quality product that cannot get users, nobody cares. Sorry, but learn to compete.
    - kodablah 8y ago
      While I might agree in general (or at the least for consistent application), my point was that often things that help you hurt others. What the law considers anti-competitive and what I consider anti-competitive are different, and I wasn't addressing the law at all. People should just be aware that their consumer choices may harm others that they cannot easily see, that's all.
    - __sr__ 8y ago
      Exactly — this. There is a major difference between what Microsoft was doing back in 90s and what Apple is doing today.
scarface74 8y ago
I don’t think you were around before the App Store. The carrier were a lot stricter about what you could sell through thier stores and the carrier took a 70% cut. Not to mention the cut the publishers, wholesellers, and the retail stores use to take when you sold boxed software. Their cut is the same as Google’s and Steams.
- chatmasta 8y ago
  I was around. I had a flip phone from Boost mobile, and my ringtone was "Chain Hang Low!"

dijit 8y ago

The 30% fee is not baseless. Steam charges 30% to be on its store. Same with PlayStation and Microsoft Store. Seems like it’s the standard distribution fee.

chatmasta 8y ago
> The 30% fee is not baseless. I said it was extortionist, not baseless. Of course they deserve a fee. But it's extortionist in the sense that you have no choice, if you want to sell to worldwide mobile users with deep pockets. Apple also forces as many payments as possible to go through their network, and bans apps that try to take payment outside the store if the app does not provide sufficient justification. In fact, they could just probably charge 50% and developers would keep paying them... > Steam charges 30% to be on its store Pretty sure Steve Jobs didn't set the 30% price point by looking at the Steam store, lol. More likely it was the other way around and Steam is 30% because the App Store is 30%...
walterbell 8y ago
Apple was the first to lead with this egregious fee. They should be forced to unbundle the fee into optional components, e.g. five components of 6% each, minimum 2 components must be chosen (12%). That would subject each service fee component to competitive quality/demand forces within Apple, e.g. app search, trials/CRM workflow, app distribution. Developers and users can both exert choice on the subset of fees applied to a transaction, so they can provide performance-based feedback to Apple. Even a monopolist can compete with itself, to improve service and product.
- scarface74 8y ago
  Apple was the first to lead with this egregious fee Before that carriers had much higher fees when you sold J2ME apps on feature phones through thier store.
  - walterbell 8y ago
    What type of customers or market sectors bought those apps?
    - scarface74 8y ago
      The same types of customers. For instance, back in the day around 2003-2006 Sprint sold J2ME games and apps that once you purchased them, you could redownload them on new phones.
- dijit 8y ago
  Apple's App Store wasn't a thing when Steam Launched, same for the first party bundled licensing. (Playstation, Microsoft et al.)
hnisgroupthink 8y ago
> 30% fee This is what decentralized platforms fix. I'd rather keep the money as an app owner, and split the difference with the consumer(or just keep all of it). Even better if there's an avenue to avoid the government taking 50% too.

xenostar 8y ago

> Or their kowtowing to the Chinese censors. And what exactly is the alternative option for them there? They can either follow the rules in China or completely lose all of their business. That is on China, not Apple.

chatmasta 8y ago
They can either violate the privacy rights of Chinese citizens, or not sell to Chinese citizens at all.
azurezyq 8y ago
And I'm really curious why people here are not mentioning Apple gave Chinese gov access to icloud data for Chinese people. Kind of double standard I have to say...
- uncleartraveler 8y ago
  People savage Google yesterday for launching a censored search in China. Apple essentially gives iCloud to the Chinese government and the outrage levels don't seem to be the same.
  - harias 8y ago
    Its because google has 'don't be evil' as its unofficial motto. Googlers joined google because they agreed with their ethics. People at apple knew what thy were getting into and consumers knew and expected it to remain the same. Change causes chaos in humanity.
kodablah 8y ago
At least letting us know that they don't like it so at least I know it's against their principles and they might push back in other cases when asked. That they seemed so willing to do it should be the fear, not that they had to (and by the way, they didn't have to, losing all of their business is an option for principled companies).

bepotts 8y ago

Their walled garden approach is looking smarter and smarter with every EU fine that gets thrown at Google. As an aside: As an engineer, I dislike their walled garden approach; but I love their approach as a consumer. To be frank, most companies have bad taste and poor UX design. Apple doesn't knock it out the park all the time, but their products are consistently good and their design guidelines for iOS apps enforce some of the same quality. So yeah, I'll take a walled garden approach if the garden is beautiful.

kodablah 8y ago
> but I love their approach as a consumer. Quite often anti-competitive actions are beneficial to customers at the expense of other companies.
- bepotts 8y ago
  I'm starting to see a lot of people charging Facebook/Apple/Google/Amazon with anti-competitive behavior, and yet most of the charges (including a lot of the ones the EU charges Google and Apple for) are just normal business behavior. Nobody cares about whether your smaller firm can compete against larger companies or not. As a consumer, I don't give a damn if Apple is "mean" to your business. Learn to compete better. If these companies are stopping a better product from coming to the market then by all means lets throw antitrust at them; but if your product is just a clone and/or lower quality product that cannot get users, nobody cares. Sorry, but learn to compete.
  - kodablah 8y ago
    While I might agree in general (or at the least for consistent application), my point was that often things that help you hurt others. What the law considers anti-competitive and what I consider anti-competitive are different, and I wasn't addressing the law at all. People should just be aware that their consumer choices may harm others that they cannot easily see, that's all.
  - __sr__ 8y ago
    Exactly — this. There is a major difference between what Microsoft was doing back in 90s and what Apple is doing today.

scarface74 8y ago

I don’t think you were around before the App Store. The carrier were a lot stricter about what you could sell through thier stores and the carrier took a 70% cut. Not to mention the cut the publishers, wholesellers, and the retail stores use to take when you sold boxed software. Their cut is the same as Google’s and Steams.

chatmasta 8y ago
I was around. I had a flip phone from Boost mobile, and my ringtone was "Chain Hang Low!"