3 ms·

Basecamp knew what they were doing here - there's no way they can be in the wrong by the community, which comes off as disingenuous to me. They either: 1) win,

Basecamp knew what they were doing here - there's no way they can be in the wrong by the community, which comes off as disingenuous to me. They either: 1) win, and are seen as "David beating Goliath" , or 2) lose, and Apple comes off as the bad guy trying to fleece a private company. (They could also lose because they weren't clear on the actual policies, a la the "malice vs. incompetence" rule of thumb. However Basecamp and its team have been in the game long enough to know what to expect with the App Store. I don't KNOW that, but that's my analysis here.) My argument around this goes back to market share: iOS owns, at best, 25% of the global market share for mobile operating systems [1]. Android is 3x that. If you don't like the platform policies, they're a minor share of the market - you don't _have_ to use them. "But $s3r3nity, that is where the paying users are!" Yes, and the spend per person for lamborghini owners probably is much much higher than Prius owners, even though the latter vastly outnumber the former. That doesn't mean the former needs to support any company that wants to make a carplay / carOS service. [1] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide EDIT: grammar / spelling

jedieaston 6y ago
They specifically didn't know though. Basecamp is distributed without an option to buy a subscription via IAP, and never has had that option. If you do not have a Basecamp account, you get little more than the logo smiling back at you. When Hey got rejected, they asked what the difference between Hey and Basecamp was, and Apple said it didn't matter.
- s3r3nity 6y ago
  As I read more articles about the situation, I'm starting to come around on the idea that it _is_ possible. Nevertheless DHH and the team are pretty experienced for me to immediately buy into that theory. Yet, let's say this were true, or even the most likely scenario. Now you have 3 scenarios, ALL of which portray "Apple = bad, Basecamp = good." When I see something that one-sided, I'm immediately suspicious that there's something missing here that we're not seeing...
  - bjtitus 6y ago
    Perhaps that's because that's what's going on and those are the only real ways to look at this.
  - syshum 6y ago
    So basically you are admitting your favor for apple is so strong you can not possiblly believe Apple is the bad actor in all this HEY is far far far from the only example of Apple abusing their position as gatekeeper to iPhone users
Shank 6y ago
> Basecamp knew what they were doing here - there's no way they can be in the wrong by the community, which comes off as disingenuous to me. Let's assume that everything has been calculated. That DHH knew this would happen and that the whole thing was going to blow up the way it has. On that assumption, is it truly disingenuous to anyone but Apple? It seems like it only benefits customers and smaller businesses, at least economically. I can see the argument that the in-app purchase API is better and easier for customers to use. I actually really enjoy paying for things with Apple Pay. That benefit makes sense, from a consumer perspective. On the other hand though, a 30% commission benefits only Apple. If this was a 5% cut it would be expensive, but comparable to Stripe and Braintree, which fall in the 1-3% range. Even a 10% cut would be similar. In this scenario, Apple would get a substantial amount of cash, users would get the Apple Pay experience, and it would be easier for developers to stomach the cost. The fact of the matter is that the 30% amount is entirely arbitrary. That cost is either eaten by customers or by developers, and doesn't benefit anyone but Apple. Running the App Store isn't free. I can definitely see them asking for some amount of cash for bandwidth or maintenance, and I can see justifying _some_ percentage fee or some proportional fee. It's just that for a lot of people, 30% is exorbitant for the value offered.
- harryh 6y ago
  30% is exorbitant for the value offered. The value offered isn't the service of processing the payment or being listed in an app store directory. These are small things. What you're really paying for is the ability to access the iOS market: one of the largest and most successful platforms in the world. That has tremendous value.
  - nico_h 6y ago
    yeah, but it's kinda self limiting. If the fee was 5% maybe netflix would still be offering subscriptions in the app. And there might be more paid app in the store. And spotify might not be pushing for antitrust in Europe. The kindle app might offer in app purchase. How many developers look at the fee, see the app they want to make and realize they would never be able to charge enough to make it worth it after the cut and the sales taxes? I think that's one reason the iPad software is not the success it could be.
alexashka 6y ago
> My argument around this goes back to market share: iOS owns, at best, 25% of the global market share for mobile operating systems [1]. Android is 3x that. When you enter a store and get robbed by the owner, 'well don't go to that store anymore' is not a very good response, because before you know it, every store will decide to rob you and what happens then? That's why we have a legislative branch of government that makes laws to protect citizens from one another and a judicial branch to interpret the laws to make sure we're doing what's best for everyone involved.
- owenmarshall 6y ago
  This is a ludicrous comparison. I don’t go into a bodega expecting the owner to rob me. But Apple is crystal clear that this violates their terms of use: I don’t even need a paid developer account to see those rules, just Google.
  - alexashka 6y ago
    A mafia can be crystal clear what their fee for 'protection' is. We have a legislative branch of government that has ruled 'protection' fees illegal. You and many others seem to be failing to grasp this point - just because you write something down and call it terms of use, does not mean those terms of use will not or cannot be overruled by the legislative branch of government. They can be overruled and many people feel like they should be overruled in this specific instance.
nico_h 6y ago
Yeah, but what about app store revenue? I think there the proportion is inverted: in 2018 it was supposedly 48B vs 24B in favor of Apple. https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/ https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/
43920 6y ago
I don't think the car analogy really applies, for the reason that there aren't very many third-party services in a car, and not much demand by customers to install software in their car. Cars are essentially a single piece of equipment, where the car itself provides the primary value, and the number of people customizing their car is fairly small. In comparison, with computers there's a much clearer separation between the device itself and third-party integrations. Almost everyone customizes their computer by installing software on it, and the computer and OS itself don't provide the main value - instead, it's a tool to run different software applications on it, and so Apple's attempt to control third-party software based on the fact that they make the hardware and OS is an attempt to use their power in one market to interfere in another, rather than just an attempt to control their product. And to take this further: supposing that cars were people's primary computing devices, and everyone began using apps on their car, I would argue that car companies would be obligated to let people install the apps of their choosing. I think the market share argument also tends to ignore the economics of how the software business works (and as you stated, all the high-paying users are on iOS, because they're generally higher-end devices than Android). If I create a new service that Apple won't allow, and it's only available on Android, iOS users aren't going to switch no matter how good my service is (because that involves spending hundreds of dollars on a new device and transferring all your other services, which is a ridiculously high bar to clear). And without those users, the chances of my service surviving are much lower, so it's most likely going to disappear from Android as well. The result is that even though Apple has a minority market share, they end up controlling the entire ecosystem. And in turn, that means that when consumers are choosing a phone, they don't actually have a free choice to avoid Apple's policies, because even if they buy an Android phone, Apple's policies will affect the services available to them. (And since the available services end up being the same, more people buy iOS devices for various reasons, which increases Apple's power even further).

jedieaston 6y ago

They specifically didn't know though. Basecamp is distributed without an option to buy a subscription via IAP, and never has had that option. If you do not have a Basecamp account, you get little more than the logo smiling back at you. When Hey got rejected, they asked what the difference between Hey and Basecamp was, and Apple said it didn't matter.

s3r3nity 6y ago
As I read more articles about the situation, I'm starting to come around on the idea that it _is_ possible. Nevertheless DHH and the team are pretty experienced for me to immediately buy into that theory. Yet, let's say this were true, or even the most likely scenario. Now you have 3 scenarios, ALL of which portray "Apple = bad, Basecamp = good." When I see something that one-sided, I'm immediately suspicious that there's something missing here that we're not seeing...
- bjtitus 6y ago
  Perhaps that's because that's what's going on and those are the only real ways to look at this.
- syshum 6y ago
  So basically you are admitting your favor for apple is so strong you can not possiblly believe Apple is the bad actor in all this HEY is far far far from the only example of Apple abusing their position as gatekeeper to iPhone users

Shank 6y ago

> Basecamp knew what they were doing here - there's no way they can be in the wrong by the community, which comes off as disingenuous to me. Let's assume that everything has been calculated. That DHH knew this would happen and that the whole thing was going to blow up the way it has. On that assumption, is it truly disingenuous to anyone but Apple? It seems like it only benefits customers and smaller businesses, at least economically. I can see the argument that the in-app purchase API is better and easier for customers to use. I actually really enjoy paying for things with Apple Pay. That benefit makes sense, from a consumer perspective. On the other hand though, a 30% commission benefits only Apple. If this was a 5% cut it would be expensive, but comparable to Stripe and Braintree, which fall in the 1-3% range. Even a 10% cut would be similar. In this scenario, Apple would get a substantial amount of cash, users would get the Apple Pay experience, and it would be easier for developers to stomach the cost. The fact of the matter is that the 30% amount is entirely arbitrary. That cost is either eaten by customers or by developers, and doesn't benefit anyone but Apple. Running the App Store isn't free. I can definitely see them asking for some amount of cash for bandwidth or maintenance, and I can see justifying _some_ percentage fee or some proportional fee. It's just that for a lot of people, 30% is exorbitant for the value offered.

harryh 6y ago
30% is exorbitant for the value offered. The value offered isn't the service of processing the payment or being listed in an app store directory. These are small things. What you're really paying for is the ability to access the iOS market: one of the largest and most successful platforms in the world. That has tremendous value.
- nico_h 6y ago
  yeah, but it's kinda self limiting. If the fee was 5% maybe netflix would still be offering subscriptions in the app. And there might be more paid app in the store. And spotify might not be pushing for antitrust in Europe. The kindle app might offer in app purchase. How many developers look at the fee, see the app they want to make and realize they would never be able to charge enough to make it worth it after the cut and the sales taxes? I think that's one reason the iPad software is not the success it could be.

alexashka 6y ago

> My argument around this goes back to market share: iOS owns, at best, 25% of the global market share for mobile operating systems [1]. Android is 3x that. When you enter a store and get robbed by the owner, 'well don't go to that store anymore' is not a very good response, because before you know it, every store will decide to rob you and what happens then? That's why we have a legislative branch of government that makes laws to protect citizens from one another and a judicial branch to interpret the laws to make sure we're doing what's best for everyone involved.

owenmarshall 6y ago
This is a ludicrous comparison. I don’t go into a bodega expecting the owner to rob me. But Apple is crystal clear that this violates their terms of use: I don’t even need a paid developer account to see those rules, just Google.
- alexashka 6y ago
  A mafia can be crystal clear what their fee for 'protection' is. We have a legislative branch of government that has ruled 'protection' fees illegal. You and many others seem to be failing to grasp this point - just because you write something down and call it terms of use, does not mean those terms of use will not or cannot be overruled by the legislative branch of government. They can be overruled and many people feel like they should be overruled in this specific instance.

nico_h 6y ago

Yeah, but what about app store revenue? I think there the proportion is inverted: in 2018 it was supposedly 48B vs 24B in favor of Apple. https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/ https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/

43920 6y ago

I don't think the car analogy really applies, for the reason that there aren't very many third-party services in a car, and not much demand by customers to install software in their car. Cars are essentially a single piece of equipment, where the car itself provides the primary value, and the number of people customizing their car is fairly small. In comparison, with computers there's a much clearer separation between the device itself and third-party integrations. Almost everyone customizes their computer by installing software on it, and the computer and OS itself don't provide the main value - instead, it's a tool to run different software applications on it, and so Apple's attempt to control third-party software based on the fact that they make the hardware and OS is an attempt to use their power in one market to interfere in another, rather than just an attempt to control their product. And to take this further: supposing that cars were people's primary computing devices, and everyone began using apps on their car, I would argue that car companies would be obligated to let people install the apps of their choosing. I think the market share argument also tends to ignore the economics of how the software business works (and as you stated, all the high-paying users are on iOS, because they're generally higher-end devices than Android). If I create a new service that Apple won't allow, and it's only available on Android, iOS users aren't going to switch no matter how good my service is (because that involves spending hundreds of dollars on a new device and transferring all your other services, which is a ridiculously high bar to clear). And without those users, the chances of my service surviving are much lower, so it's most likely going to disappear from Android as well. The result is that even though Apple has a minority market share, they end up controlling the entire ecosystem. And in turn, that means that when consumers are choosing a phone, they don't actually have a free choice to avoid Apple's policies, because even if they buy an Android phone, Apple's policies will affect the services available to them. (And since the available services end up being the same, more people buy iOS devices for various reasons, which increases Apple's power even further).