9 ms·

Steam does not sell me a locked down hardware platform preventing me from buying the software directly from the publisher. Nor does Steam force me to buy DLC th

• rlanday 8y ago
  > Apple adds no value there Other than inventing the modern phone, writing the operating system and developer tools, running the store, manufacturing the phones people are consuming Amazon's product on and convincing people to buy them...you can argue about what's "fair," but Apple's certainly adding value.
  • gameswithgo 8y ago
    Anything is fair, but I don't like things that only allow app stores as a first class way to get software on my machine. I have voted with my wallet. But it is getting harder to do so, soon only linux will be left.
    • dkonofalski 8y ago
      That's fine but you're not really the intended market for the App Stores. App Stores are for the people that click "Yes" to everything and end up with Internet Explorer as a strip of their screen because they have 42 toolbars installed. Those people undoubtedly like app stores precisely for being the only way to get software on their machines.
      • voltagex_ 8y ago
        I dunno - I much prefer the Microsoft app store on Windows for simple applications that I don't need to customise much. It's quicker than finding the right exe and keeping it up to date myself.
  • earenndil 8y ago
    All of those except 'running the store' are value paid for in the purchase of the phone, not the software on it.
    • bovine3dom 8y ago
      Money is fungible. I would be very surprised if Apple didn't regard revenue from the App Store as partially due to their investment in the iPhone.
    • Buge 8y ago
      Why? Is it wrong to sell a phone at low cost and charge more for apps? Video game consoles sometimes are sold at a loss in order to make money from games. It's similar to Fortnite's model: sell the game at a low cost (free actually), and then make money from inessential addons (skins).
      • jjeaff 8y ago
        If that were the case, no, nothing wrong... But apple is making a huge markup on their $1200 phones. They aren't making up a loss with their app store. They're just piling on the cash.
        • Buge 8y ago
          Would it be wrong of apple to make the app store fee 5% and then increase the phone price whatever percent is necessary to make up that loss? Would that be considered piling on the cash?
          • jjeaff 8y ago
            At least then, buyers get a more realistic view of total cost of ownership up front, rather than hiding the rest of the profits in the pricing of other people's apps.
      • earenndil 8y ago
        It's fine for a company to sell hardware/os at a loss and recoup the costs with apps, if they predict that they'll make more money that way. However, it's not reasonable for them to, say, refuse me service on the os because all I bought was a hardware+os, not any apps. Nor is it reasonable for them to make me, an app-maker, bear the brunt of the os, since I have nothing to do with the os, just the app store.
  • dingaling 8y ago
    > Other than inventing the modern phone IBM Simon, 1992. Applr popularised, they didn't invent. Ironically given the target of their 1984 ad.
    • deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    • binomialxenon 8y ago
      The ridiculously tall screen was certainly ahead of its time.
  • FireBeyond 8y ago
    > Other than inventing the modern phone Come on now. > writing the operating system Which OS, iOS, that the phone purchaser inherently paid for? Or macOS, that the computer purchaser inherently paid for? > developer tools Which you need to purchase a developer license for to be useful. Apple is adding value, AND double dipping. Most of your examples are things they've already been compensated for.
    • CamperBob2 8y ago
      Come on now. They invented the app ecosystem, which is far more important than just inventing a phone. Without Apple, the application market would still be controlled by Sprint and AT&T and Verizon. Not defending Apple or attacking it, just pointing out the facts.
      • rohit2412 8y ago
        And how is Apple's walled app store any better than the alternative of at&t controlled app store? They can keep their 30% cut if they allow me to sideload apps from external sources.
        • orbitur 8y ago
          > And how is Apple's walled app store any better than the alternative of at&t controlled app store? I don't know if you've used an iPhone, but do you really think AT&T's walled garden would have anything approaching the quality of the best apps on the App Store?
          • CamperBob2 8y ago
            He or she is probably just young. No one who was there would ask a question like that, even rhetorically. Sadly, people have forgotten how much life sucked for mobile developers before the iPhone. Apple's contribution is reflected in various peoples' prejudices and agendas, but not in history books. Only Nixon could go to China, and only Jobs could have stared down AT&T from a position of weakness. I'm not an Apple partisan, and I'm definitely not going to defend the concept of locking a general-purpose computing platform away from its own users, but I'll always give him credit for that.
  • kartan 8y ago
    > but Apple's certainly adding value. Do roads add value? Should trucks pay a 30% of their cargo retail price in road tolls? I agree with your point that Apple adds value. I just do not see that as a justification to take a 30% share of all apps that run on their devices.
    • greedo 8y ago
      Trucks pay fees based on the load they're carrying...
      • fjsolwmv 8y ago
        The weight, not the price.
    • 1123581321 8y ago
      Comparing distribution of physical goods is a poor analogy as the variable costs are high, and low or zero for App Store developers. We know from tariffs that a 30% fee on mining or manufacturing increases costs and reduces trade, but despite Apple’s 30%, the cost of an app has been driven down. This suggests that a high revenue share of a software sale is viable in a way that a high revenue share of a truck load is not.
      • kartan 8y ago
        > This suggests that a high revenue share of a software sale is viable in a way that a high revenue share of a truck load is not. This is a good point. But I would rather see this apps more highly taxed than to allow monopolistic empires to grow.
        • 1123581321 8y ago
          Sorry, are you saying you’d like App Store software taxed enough that sales are low and it’s not viable for Apple to make money, forcing them to allow an unregulated open market if they want a meaningful number of apps on their phones? It’s an interesting idea, but I think the opportunity cost early on would have been that entire software market. And the opportunity cost now would be killing a large percentage of businesses that sell software to that market that can’t afford to handle distribution themselves. This quickly gets into the debate about whether it’s better to have large and many small companies or no large and few small companies.
• jimbokun 8y ago
  As I understand it, if you already have a subscription for Amazon Video through the web, then download the Amazon Video app and login to your existing account, Apple doesn't get anything. Which is why the article emphasized Netflix trying to get customers to sign up through their web site, and not the app.
  • wlesieutre 8y ago
    IIRC this is how the Kindle app works for iOS. You can't buy books, but if you own books on your account you can read them.
    • wilc0 8y ago
      You can wishlist and download samples from the app on iOS, but any purchases have to be done from the website. On android, you can buy/download full books directly from the app.
    • fpoling 8y ago
      One can even download free samples of the books which makes it very convenient to pay on kindle or the website later. But it is sad that Apple decided that apps cannot even mention that purchase has to be done at the website.
  • giovannibajo1 8y ago
    Correct. Apple gets a cut if a customer subscribes through the in-app one-click subscription, which is extremely convenient for any iPhone user (and thus app publishers) because it’s a single click rather than having to insert credit cards, 3D secure and whatnot. In this case the cut is 30% on the first year and 10% afterwards. If the user subscribes through the website, Apple gets nothing. I find this fair. What is more unfair is that Apple forbids apps to open/link websites where subscriptions can be done to “workaround” the iTunes subscription. If you take Spotify for instance and login as free user, there are absolutely zero mentions that you can upgrade to premium, because they decided to lose those potential customers and rather let them know through other channels of their purchasing options (eg: emails). On the other hand, this creates a very safe and simple environment for iPhone users. Absolutely NO app asks for a credit card, ever. You either pay one-click safely through iTunes, or nothing. There is no phishing, no mismanaged credit card handling, no credit cards “stolen by hackers from the app I installed into my iPhone”. I’m not saying this fully justifies the above unfair rule, but it’s at least a partial positive side effect.
• clay_the_ripper 8y ago
  They add value by creating a product that has massive scale, reach, usability and quality. They add value by having branded stores that fix the device for you. They add value by developing stable software that gets updated regularly. If you don’t like the product, don’t buy one, it’s that simple. Go buy a cheap Chinese knockoff that doesn’t have developer support for millions of apps, has lousy quality control, if it breaks you’re shit out of luck. It costs 1/10 the price of an iphone, but the experience is lousy. I value my iphone because it adds more value to my life than it costs to buy, and the company that makes it is entitled to charge whatever they want for it. Apple makes money because they add value and I see no reason why a company that adds value to the marketplace should not turn a profit.
  • cgriswald 8y ago
    > They add value by creating a product that has massive scale, reach, usability and quality. They add value by having branded stores that fix the device for you. They add value by developing stable software that gets updated regularly. Your rant is misplaced and you've missed the point entirely. I never said Apple adds no value. I think they add quite a bit of value, which is why I've bought a number of their products. I am talking about a specific case for which Apple thinks it is due 30%. Apple does not add value by inserting itself into a transaction I am trying to conduct with Amazon. I've already paid for all the value. First to Apple for the device, and then to Amazon for the data. Am I or Amazon supposed to pay Apple for my use of the device as well? And if so... where is the value added?
    • valuearb 8y ago
      It’s really hard to feel sorry for Amazon, or you, given your whine is you have to go to a web browser to complete your transaction. In truth, The App Store is far more than a mere payment processor, though it might be best in the world at that. The costs of hosting, distributing and updating two million apps across hundreds of localized stores, and also vetting every release and update for those millions of apps, is immense. All their work makes the App Store easy and safe to use anywhere in the world and that helps developers sell more apps.
• cbhl 8y ago
  I would bet that Apple would probably rather you not have a relationship with Amazon Video at all, getting your TV and Movies from iTunes instead. But Apple doesn't have a majority of market share (by number of devices), so, in my opinion, antitrust regulators have completely discounted their behavior. On the other hand, the experience of using Apple Pay is miles beyond Google Checkout/Wallet/Pay/Android Pay/whatever marketing's new name-of-the-week-is, and only allowing One Blessed Way of taking payment on Apple devices is a big component of that. Having one consistent flow that I can execute in three seconds from muscle memory really does make buying-from-random-apps-and-retailers experience much nicer and more predictable than it is on the web and on other mobile platforms.
  • YurtleTheTurtle 8y ago
    Apple Pay and app store/itunes payments are completely separate. I had apple pay set-up for awhile and when I went to purchase an app, itunes wouldn't accept apple pay and I had to re-enter all my CC information into itunes.
• lightwin 8y ago
  Apple does not sell to us, we buy from Apple :)
• AckSyn 8y ago
  This is not an argument against the fees but an argument against something you personally don't like. To pretend otherwise is intellectually lazy.
• madrox 8y ago
  Steam is also adding a lot of value for that rev-share. A social network...kickstart-esque backing of projects...cloud saves...great search and discoverability. There is a reason why developers choose Steam even though they operate on platforms that don't require it.
  • UncleMeat 8y ago
    And mobile stores offer search, promotion, distribution, and analytics.
    • cgriswald 8y ago
      In the absence of any alternative methods of developers getting their apps into users hands, it is difficult to say whether "search, promotion, distribution, and analytics" offered by Apple are really valued at what Apple is charging for them. It is also difficult to separate these things from things Apple is doing for its own sake, since they increase sales which benefits Apple directly. I strongly suspect that, given enough time to compensate for the existing momentum of the App Store, if an alternative App Store was an option, Apple would either improve its offerings, lower what it charges, or see a mass migration of publishers away from the App Store. Edit: Clarity of meaning.
      • dkonofalski 8y ago
        You're completely ignoring the hit to both the brand and experience that something like that would cause. There's a big reason why iOS users tend to spend more money on the platform than Android users do on the Google platform and a huge part of that is the trust built by Apple with their users. You can go into the Google Play store (which most people would think was the "official" and "safe" method of getting apps) and still get malware and/or a virus on your Android phone. Now imagine that Google offered both an official Play store and an alternative open Play store. Which do you think the majority of users would use and have a positive opinion of?
        • cgriswald 8y ago
• baxtr 8y ago
  I don’t think Apple sells you anything. You buy stuff from them. You are free as a bird to buy any other products you desire
• dkonofalski 8y ago
  That's not really a fair comparison since Apple has to curate the App Store and is 100% responsible for the service as well. It's not like you're buying an iPhone or iPad without knowing that all your apps come from the App Store and that's part of the value - unlike Android, you know exactly where the app is coming from, what it is and isn't allowed to do, and have an expectation that the app has been reasonably reviewed so it's not a danger to you or the device. Steam is almost exactly the same way because it's not like you can take your Steam purchase and use it without Steam. Yes, you can buy DLC and other add-ons directly from the publisher if you wanted to but that's moreso because of how the publishers have created their products rather than how Steam works as a platform. As for your Amazon example, Apple does absolutely add value there. They manage and keep track of all your purchases and payments so that there's a single, unified method for both paying and resolving issues. Additionally, since Apple functions as the payment processor, you're also paying for the security functionality. The only reason you have to make a purchase from the Amazon website is because Amazon wants to control the purchasing and doesn't want to pay Apple for their payment processing. It's just a difference of whether you prefer the consistency of the experience that Apple prefers at the expense of other companies or whether you prefer to deal with several different experiences that could potentially open everything up for fraud and problems. People who aren't as tech savvy or who don't want to have to wade through a bunch of BS just to make a purchase may prefer Apple's method. Others may prefer digging through and doing all that in order to have a broader pool to choose from.
  • ApostleMatthew 8y ago
    I think your first paragraph is a result of you viewing this from the perspective of someone knowledgeable about technology. The vast majority of people using Android phones get their apps exclusively from the Play Store and assume Android is exactly the same as iOS in that way.
• scarface74 8y ago
  Apple sells me a locked down hardware platform that requires me to go through them for all software purchases and all data purchases made with that software. A. You can choose to buy an Android phone like 80%+ of the smart phone world. B. You can buy content outside of the Apple store and use it within the app (Amazon, Udemy, Spotify, Google Play Music, every video streaming service, etc.) It seems unreasonable to me that Apple should get a cut of my Amazon Video purchases. They don't, in fact you can't buy Amazon content within the app.
  • mrep 8y ago
    Amazon does not offer you the option because the only way they could offer it is if they gave Apple their 30% cut. Same super annoying reason you cannot buy books in the kindle app.
• scentedmeat 8y ago
  > Apple adds no value there I like having all my subscriptions in the same place so I can easily see what I'm paying and cancel.