6 ms·

Apple may be robbers, but they're not trolling a public highway, they're demanding fees if you want to drive on the highway that they built. Build a better ecos

Apple may be robbers, but they're not trolling a public highway, they're demanding fees if you want to drive on the highway that they built. Build a better ecosystem around better devices, better software, better marketing, and better services, and you can also charge whatever you want, or make it free. That is competition. Wanting to drive on someone else's walled highway (which leads directly to eyeballs and open wallets) and also refusing to pay their fee is not competition.

Hamuko 6y ago
So are we establishing that if you want to create a paid email service with a custom app without wanting to pay 30% of your revenue to Apple, you need to create a competing mobile ecosystem that can rival that of Apple's ($260 billion yearly revenue) and Google's ($162 billion yearly revenue)? How is this beneficial for innovation and for consumers?
- sooheon 6y ago
  What's beneficial for consumers is the fact that the Apple ecosystem exists at all. People pay because it's a good experience. Everyone is welcome to create good end-user experiences with open technologies like PWA, and distribute however they wish. It's strange to me to say on the one hand "we could not survive without the iOS customer pool, we need to make a native app because it's the greatest experience, but we don't want to pay the platform that makes it all possible".
  - Hamuko 6y ago
    >Everyone is welcome to create good end-user experiences with open technologies like PWA Everyone who isn't targetting Apple devices that is. I'd also like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that it is not possible to publish an application on the Apple App Store without paying. Period end. I also don't see why there's an expectation that Hey has to pay Apple for providing the app. They are trying to bring out an app to allow their customers on Apple devices to be able to use their service. It's not like they're just putting their app there for marketing because the App Store is absolutely horrible at any kind of marketing. This is a bit like expecting Netflix to pay Comcast, AT&T and every other ISP for the priviledge of using their networks. Netflix's customers are already paying those companies just like how Hey's customers are paying for their Apple devices.
    - sjwright 6y ago
      > I'd also like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that it is not possible to publish an application on the Apple App Store without paying. Period end. I'd also like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that the same is true for games on the Xbox, PlayStation and nearly every mainstream games console for the past thirty years. Pretty much every games console software title included a healthy cut for Nintendo, Sega, Microsoft, or Sony. And if you didn't have the explicit blessing of these companies, you couldn't publish your games at all. Period end. Where was your outrage then?
      - Hamuko 6y ago
        >Where was your outrage then? Where was the game publishers' outrage? Where was the game developers' outrage? Gaming console makers and game developers have way better relations than Apple and the people developing for the App Store. And the game console makers' cut isn't just pure greed. Sony took an estimate loss of $240-$300 on every PS3 sold at launch just in order to widen out the install base.
        Apocryphon 6y ago
        Microsoft lost money for each Xbox they sold for multiple generations of Xboxes.
        sjwright 6y ago
        > Where was the game publishers' outrage? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade > Gaming console makers and game developers have way better relations Let's set aside the unproven assumptions; so your logic is that if you're a nice platform monopolist, you can charge arbitrary platform access fees. But if you're a bunch of meanies, different laws shall apply to you. I'm sorry, I was under the misapprehension that you were making a serious point. > Sony took an estimate loss of $240-$300 on every PS3 Now I know you're not being serious. Such behaviours are anti-competitive as it would be exceedingly difficult for a new market entrant to compete with such artificially low console prices. What you're saying is that the US Government should enact laws which favour dumping and loss-leader activity. Ridiculous.
  - bgarbiak 6y ago
    I believe no one actually says "we don't want to pay", it's more like "we don't want to pay 30% of our income". I could eventually live with a one-time 30% tax, but taking that much for a recurring payments? Calling it a highway robbery is totally on point.
- millstone 6y ago
  Honestly it's probably easier now than it was in 2006.
throwbackThurs 6y ago
Sure that method works up until a certain point, but with the size of apple now it becomes anticompetitive. I mean, 30% app subscription fees, & not being allowed to tell your customer on your app that they'll get a cheaper deal from your website? Perfect example of a greedy and morally questionable company
boudin 6y ago
To continue with the bad highway comparison, apple don't own the phone, the phone owner does. Apple don't own and run the infrastructure behind the 3rd party apps, their developer does. So, back to the highway, you pay a 30% cut to drive on the highway they don't own for them to run a car dealership without allowing anybody else to run one and reviewing cars offered in the dealership with an arbitrary process. Taking 30% off buying an app, why not. It's insanely expensive but that's their dealership. Taking 30% off subscriptions makes absolutly no sense. I'm really happy that someone start to look into it and if they are not happy with it they can always do what they told many other business to do "change their business model"
apexalpha 6y ago
Apple literally shutting down NFC for everyone in the world except for their own payment method is what I would call the 180 degree opposite of 'That is competition'. That's abuse, and it is more and more clear every day, both in Google, Apple as well as other such as Amazon that it's really not fair for the owners of the platforms to also compete with their customers on their own platforms.
- sooheon 6y ago
  It's their devices, they can add or remove features as they see fit imo. If they make enough choices that negatively impact user experience, there will be a vacuum for a better offering.
  - brmgb 6y ago
    No offense but that's not at all how competition law works. There is a reason regulators in the world are investigating Apple right now and it's not because they are a model citizen.
    - sooheon 6y ago
      None taken, I am definitely not a antitrust lawyer. I'll be following the case with interest!

Hamuko 6y ago

So are we establishing that if you want to create a paid email service with a custom app without wanting to pay 30% of your revenue to Apple, you need to create a competing mobile ecosystem that can rival that of Apple's ($260 billion yearly revenue) and Google's ($162 billion yearly revenue)? How is this beneficial for innovation and for consumers?

sooheon 6y ago
What's beneficial for consumers is the fact that the Apple ecosystem exists at all. People pay because it's a good experience. Everyone is welcome to create good end-user experiences with open technologies like PWA, and distribute however they wish. It's strange to me to say on the one hand "we could not survive without the iOS customer pool, we need to make a native app because it's the greatest experience, but we don't want to pay the platform that makes it all possible".
- Hamuko 6y ago
  >Everyone is welcome to create good end-user experiences with open technologies like PWA Everyone who isn't targetting Apple devices that is. I'd also like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that it is not possible to publish an application on the Apple App Store without paying. Period end. I also don't see why there's an expectation that Hey has to pay Apple for providing the app. They are trying to bring out an app to allow their customers on Apple devices to be able to use their service. It's not like they're just putting their app there for marketing because the App Store is absolutely horrible at any kind of marketing. This is a bit like expecting Netflix to pay Comcast, AT&T and every other ISP for the priviledge of using their networks. Netflix's customers are already paying those companies just like how Hey's customers are paying for their Apple devices.
  - sjwright 6y ago
    > I'd also like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that it is not possible to publish an application on the Apple App Store without paying. Period end. I'd also like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that the same is true for games on the Xbox, PlayStation and nearly every mainstream games console for the past thirty years. Pretty much every games console software title included a healthy cut for Nintendo, Sega, Microsoft, or Sony. And if you didn't have the explicit blessing of these companies, you couldn't publish your games at all. Period end. Where was your outrage then?
    - Hamuko 6y ago
      >Where was your outrage then? Where was the game publishers' outrage? Where was the game developers' outrage? Gaming console makers and game developers have way better relations than Apple and the people developing for the App Store. And the game console makers' cut isn't just pure greed. Sony took an estimate loss of $240-$300 on every PS3 sold at launch just in order to widen out the install base.
      - Apocryphon 6y ago
        Microsoft lost money for each Xbox they sold for multiple generations of Xboxes.
      - sjwright 6y ago
        > Where was the game publishers' outrage? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade > Gaming console makers and game developers have way better relations Let's set aside the unproven assumptions; so your logic is that if you're a nice platform monopolist, you can charge arbitrary platform access fees. But if you're a bunch of meanies, different laws shall apply to you. I'm sorry, I was under the misapprehension that you were making a serious point. > Sony took an estimate loss of $240-$300 on every PS3 Now I know you're not being serious. Such behaviours are anti-competitive as it would be exceedingly difficult for a new market entrant to compete with such artificially low console prices. What you're saying is that the US Government should enact laws which favour dumping and loss-leader activity. Ridiculous.
- bgarbiak 6y ago
  I believe no one actually says "we don't want to pay", it's more like "we don't want to pay 30% of our income". I could eventually live with a one-time 30% tax, but taking that much for a recurring payments? Calling it a highway robbery is totally on point.
millstone 6y ago
Honestly it's probably easier now than it was in 2006.

throwbackThurs 6y ago

Sure that method works up until a certain point, but with the size of apple now it becomes anticompetitive. I mean, 30% app subscription fees, & not being allowed to tell your customer on your app that they'll get a cheaper deal from your website? Perfect example of a greedy and morally questionable company

boudin 6y ago

To continue with the bad highway comparison, apple don't own the phone, the phone owner does. Apple don't own and run the infrastructure behind the 3rd party apps, their developer does. So, back to the highway, you pay a 30% cut to drive on the highway they don't own for them to run a car dealership without allowing anybody else to run one and reviewing cars offered in the dealership with an arbitrary process. Taking 30% off buying an app, why not. It's insanely expensive but that's their dealership. Taking 30% off subscriptions makes absolutly no sense. I'm really happy that someone start to look into it and if they are not happy with it they can always do what they told many other business to do "change their business model"

apexalpha 6y ago

Apple literally shutting down NFC for everyone in the world except for their own payment method is what I would call the 180 degree opposite of 'That is competition'. That's abuse, and it is more and more clear every day, both in Google, Apple as well as other such as Amazon that it's really not fair for the owners of the platforms to also compete with their customers on their own platforms.

sooheon 6y ago
It's their devices, they can add or remove features as they see fit imo. If they make enough choices that negatively impact user experience, there will be a vacuum for a better offering.
- brmgb 6y ago
  No offense but that's not at all how competition law works. There is a reason regulators in the world are investigating Apple right now and it's not because they are a model citizen.
  - sooheon 6y ago
    None taken, I am definitely not a antitrust lawyer. I'll be following the case with interest!