7 ms·

"We didn't get our cut" should only apply if they add value. What value does the App Store provide Hey?

by officemonkey 6y ago

corobo 6y ago
Access to 20 billion unjailbroken iPhones
- gokhan 6y ago
  A competing app store, if allowed, would do equally well
- kjakm 6y ago
  Take away those apps and those iPhone's become useless bricks. Apps + developers add huge value to the platform.
  - threeseed 6y ago
    I think you are vastly overstating the importance of apps. Apple could easily remove the App Store tomorrow, sign deals with a dozen or so companies e.g. Facebook, Netflix, Twitter, Snap, Google, Microsoft etc and they would still sell devices.
    - kjakm 6y ago
      I think if you think back to 2007/8 and people had the choice of Android with millions of apps and a higher priced iOS ecosystem which only has some high profile apps so few people would choose iOS that it would quickly become a waste of money for FB/Twitter/MS to build their apps for it and it would die.
      - majewsky 6y ago
        In 2007/8 people were buying iPhones despite them not having an app store at all.
        kjakm 6y ago
        There was no App Store for the first year, which I believe is a time when Android didn't exist. An app-less iPhone would not be able to compete with an app-store backed Android.
    - mirchibajji 6y ago
      Isn't this part of the problem though? Apple _could_ remove the app store, and consumers would lose the apps that have existed so far, with no alternative.
  - kristianc 6y ago
    The parent complains that apps on phones are mostly useless Barcode Scanners and scam QR readers. Apple could easily do away with third party apps and sign licensing deals with third parties, and they’d still be massively popular. Most people download the same apps, and then there is an enormous long tail with barely any downloads at all.
- horsawlarway 6y ago
  Yes, list more abuse as a reason to justify this particular abuse.
  - corobo 6y ago
    I try to interpret peoples' statements in the best possible light, you appear to do the opposite. I've justified nothing.
- Hamuko 6y ago
  Apparently AT&T Mobility gives access to 144 million subscribers. I think this is an incredible value proposition that AT&T is offering to Netflix, HBO and the likes. For reasons unknown, Netflix apparently hates this incredible offer. https://www.attpublicpolicy.com/broadband/who-should-pay-for-netflix/ https://www.attpublicpolicy.com/broadband/who-should-pay-for...
richardwhiuk 6y ago
Distribution. Access to iOS devices.
- myguysi 6y ago
  Access to a market that they solely own, the definition of antitrust.
  - richardwhiuk 6y ago
    If it didn't provide any value, Hey wouldn't be so concerned with losing it.
  - threeseed 6y ago
    Except that you have artificially defined the market to be "applications on an iOS device" instead of "mobile applications". By that definition Microsoft has a monopoly over XBox games, Tesla has a monopoly over their car apps, Sony has a monopoly over their DSLR apps etc, Salesforce has a monopoly over their marketplace apps etc. Any antitrust action based on your definition would actually set a precedent that would unravel every single marketplace product. Hence pretty unrealistic.
    - horsawlarway 6y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor.... Literally this exact issue - MS was locking Windows to IE as a browser.
      - Redoubts 6y ago
        Windows had 90% market share then.
        horsawlarway 6y ago
        Yes, and between Android and iOS, Apple and Google have captured ~98% of global the smartphone market in 2018. Apple accounts for roughly 47% US market share to Google's 52%. Apple's app store generated 33 billion of the total 57.4 billion in revenue in 2018, with Google taking the rest. They both operate app stores in very similar models, and both of them clearly need attention. Just because two competitors happen to be splitting the profits from abuse doesn't make it any less of an issue. I wish them the best while operating a distribution and marketing channel. I think it should be entirely illegal for them to prevent other channels from being created and installed on their systems. To be clear - this is the definition of cartel behavior. They both operate walled gardens precisely because they know it makes a 3rd party breaking into the market an astonishingly small possibility, and they have both carved out a marketing strategy in the US that mostly doesn't overlap.
donnellycc 6y ago
A distribution platform that reaches millions of users.
- oauea 6y ago
  They already charge an absurd amount for the privilege. $100/year just to have access to the store. Google only charges $25 once. So Apple is already infinitely more expensive with their reoccurring cost.
threeseed 6y ago
I take it you have never run a startup. Otherwise you would realise that having an effective and profitable channel to market is one of the most difficult things to achieve. Apple gives you one on a silver platter and for a pretty fair cost per acquisition compared to other channels.
- libertine 6y ago
  >Apple gives you one on a silver platter and for a pretty fair cost per acquisition compared to other channels. For the Apple system, isn't that the only available channel to sell and distribute apps? It's not like there are other alternatives, or am I missing something?
  - threeseed 6y ago
    Facebook, Google, Twitter etc all offer advertising products targeted at app installs. So if you imagine a fictitious world where anyone could just install apps off the web then you would need to buy ads through the main 3 players above to get any visibility. Just like how it works today for SaaS or eCommerce products. And given that we know roughly how much CPC and volume is for certain keywords e.g email app then it's easy to get a picture of whether Apple is being unreasonable or not.
    - oauea 6y ago
      What on earth are you talking about? I'd just host the .ipa on my website and tell my existing users to install it. Easy and done. Instead in this insane reality I have to pay Apple $100 every year for the privilege of distributing an app to my already existing user base.
      - threeseed 6y ago
        I am talking about the cost of acquiring customers. It's great that you have these existing users but almost all developers don't. And so when people say that 30% is expensive often it's because the are ignorant of how much it costs most businesses to acquire customers. And I have to pay to develop apps for most platforms so pretty confused why you feel like this is somehow unusual.

"We didn't get our cut" should only apply if they add value. What value does the App Store provide Hey?

corobo 6y ago

Access to 20 billion unjailbroken iPhones

gokhan 6y ago
A competing app store, if allowed, would do equally well
kjakm 6y ago
Take away those apps and those iPhone's become useless bricks. Apps + developers add huge value to the platform.
- threeseed 6y ago
  I think you are vastly overstating the importance of apps. Apple could easily remove the App Store tomorrow, sign deals with a dozen or so companies e.g. Facebook, Netflix, Twitter, Snap, Google, Microsoft etc and they would still sell devices.
  - kjakm 6y ago
    I think if you think back to 2007/8 and people had the choice of Android with millions of apps and a higher priced iOS ecosystem which only has some high profile apps so few people would choose iOS that it would quickly become a waste of money for FB/Twitter/MS to build their apps for it and it would die.
    - majewsky 6y ago
      In 2007/8 people were buying iPhones despite them not having an app store at all.
      - kjakm 6y ago
        There was no App Store for the first year, which I believe is a time when Android didn't exist. An app-less iPhone would not be able to compete with an app-store backed Android.
  - mirchibajji 6y ago
    Isn't this part of the problem though? Apple _could_ remove the app store, and consumers would lose the apps that have existed so far, with no alternative.
- kristianc 6y ago
  The parent complains that apps on phones are mostly useless Barcode Scanners and scam QR readers. Apple could easily do away with third party apps and sign licensing deals with third parties, and they’d still be massively popular. Most people download the same apps, and then there is an enormous long tail with barely any downloads at all.
horsawlarway 6y ago
Yes, list more abuse as a reason to justify this particular abuse.
- corobo 6y ago
  I try to interpret peoples' statements in the best possible light, you appear to do the opposite. I've justified nothing.
Hamuko 6y ago
Apparently AT&T Mobility gives access to 144 million subscribers. I think this is an incredible value proposition that AT&T is offering to Netflix, HBO and the likes. For reasons unknown, Netflix apparently hates this incredible offer. https://www.attpublicpolicy.com/broadband/who-should-pay-for-netflix/ https://www.attpublicpolicy.com/broadband/who-should-pay-for...

richardwhiuk 6y ago

Distribution. Access to iOS devices.

myguysi 6y ago
Access to a market that they solely own, the definition of antitrust.
- richardwhiuk 6y ago
  If it didn't provide any value, Hey wouldn't be so concerned with losing it.
- threeseed 6y ago
  Except that you have artificially defined the market to be "applications on an iOS device" instead of "mobile applications". By that definition Microsoft has a monopoly over XBox games, Tesla has a monopoly over their car apps, Sony has a monopoly over their DSLR apps etc, Salesforce has a monopoly over their marketplace apps etc. Any antitrust action based on your definition would actually set a precedent that would unravel every single marketplace product. Hence pretty unrealistic.
  - horsawlarway 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor.... Literally this exact issue - MS was locking Windows to IE as a browser.
    - Redoubts 6y ago
      Windows had 90% market share then.
      - horsawlarway 6y ago
        Yes, and between Android and iOS, Apple and Google have captured ~98% of global the smartphone market in 2018. Apple accounts for roughly 47% US market share to Google's 52%. Apple's app store generated 33 billion of the total 57.4 billion in revenue in 2018, with Google taking the rest. They both operate app stores in very similar models, and both of them clearly need attention. Just because two competitors happen to be splitting the profits from abuse doesn't make it any less of an issue. I wish them the best while operating a distribution and marketing channel. I think it should be entirely illegal for them to prevent other channels from being created and installed on their systems. To be clear - this is the definition of cartel behavior. They both operate walled gardens precisely because they know it makes a 3rd party breaking into the market an astonishingly small possibility, and they have both carved out a marketing strategy in the US that mostly doesn't overlap.

donnellycc 6y ago

A distribution platform that reaches millions of users.

oauea 6y ago
They already charge an absurd amount for the privilege. $100/year just to have access to the store. Google only charges $25 once. So Apple is already infinitely more expensive with their reoccurring cost.

threeseed 6y ago

I take it you have never run a startup. Otherwise you would realise that having an effective and profitable channel to market is one of the most difficult things to achieve. Apple gives you one on a silver platter and for a pretty fair cost per acquisition compared to other channels.

libertine 6y ago
>Apple gives you one on a silver platter and for a pretty fair cost per acquisition compared to other channels. For the Apple system, isn't that the only available channel to sell and distribute apps? It's not like there are other alternatives, or am I missing something?
- threeseed 6y ago
  Facebook, Google, Twitter etc all offer advertising products targeted at app installs. So if you imagine a fictitious world where anyone could just install apps off the web then you would need to buy ads through the main 3 players above to get any visibility. Just like how it works today for SaaS or eCommerce products. And given that we know roughly how much CPC and volume is for certain keywords e.g email app then it's easy to get a picture of whether Apple is being unreasonable or not.
  - oauea 6y ago
    What on earth are you talking about? I'd just host the .ipa on my website and tell my existing users to install it. Easy and done. Instead in this insane reality I have to pay Apple $100 every year for the privilege of distributing an app to my already existing user base.
    - threeseed 6y ago
      I am talking about the cost of acquiring customers. It's great that you have these existing users but almost all developers don't. And so when people say that 30% is expensive often it's because the are ignorant of how much it costs most businesses to acquire customers. And I have to pay to develop apps for most platforms so pretty confused why you feel like this is somehow unusual.