6 ms·

I feel it pertinent to point out that comments like yours help keep the status quo. Pointing out that apple is not alone in a thread trying to raise awareness

I feel it pertinent to point out that comments like yours help keep the status quo. Pointing out that apple is not alone in a thread trying to raise awareness about apple's practices both distracts from apple's unethical behavior and contributes to normalizing the behavior in public perception. So my question to you is: do you want to see these unethical behaviors end? or continue?

pdonis 6y ago
Why is it unethical to charge a fee to developers who want to distribute their software through an app store that Apple owns? I get that it's unpleasant for developers who don't like the policy, and at some point it might have business consequences for Apple if they don't change the policy, but why is it unethical?
- MrStonedOne 6y ago
  Think of a flee market. Lets say this flee market runs their own PoS system that tables can use, they require all sales happen via this PoS system "to protect customers from hacking", and they charge a percentage for providing this service, higher then normal under the guise that the transaction is being conducted on their property, they are "hosting" the "sale" under their roof, so they set the terms for it. Seems fair and good, ish Now lets say that they also own the city bank, and they are the only one allowed to take their bank's debit card as payment. Most people don't use the other, newer bank because everybody they know is using the flee markets bank as it was first. So if you want to take credit card payments you have to sale at the flee market. Is it still fair and good for them to continue to set all terms relating to how sales are conducted in a selfish way when they have a monopoly gained in part from first mover advantage? eh, maybe, maybe not. Now they say that if you sale any spare parts or consumables for a product that was originally sold at the flee market, you must only do so at the flee market. Is it still fair and good for them to use the fact that the transaction is happening on their property to set higher fees on these follow up transactions when they require these follow up transactions to happen on their property? While exploiting a first mover advantage that causes more of the initial transactions to happen on their property? Never forget that you can't just look at each piece, the whole matters too. Each individual piece of the macro is ethically an "eh" at most, but the whole is a bit more then "eh"
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > the whole Is nothing like the situation with respect to Apple, so I don't see how your extended analogy here is relevant.
- curyous 6y ago
  It’s the size of the fee that is unethical.
  - zeroimpl 6y ago
    Taxes are paid by the consumer. Ideally developers should price things based on how much revenue they want per transaction, and have the 30% fee shown to the user. If that were the case, there would be nothing unethical about a 30% tax nor a 90% tax. Therefore, it’s not the size that’s the problem, but the fact that the tax isn’t communicated to the consumer, and also that Apple wants you to charge the same price in-app as elsewhere (though I’m not sure if that part is enforced)
  - pdonis 6y ago
    So what determines how large the fee has to be for it to be unethical? I don't see any principled way to decide, which makes me doubt your argument here.
- dan-robertson 6y ago
  I think it would be ethical to charge a fee to distribute software. You can imagine a world where each upload to the App Store would cast say $100. But the issue people complain about is that they are forced to use Apple as a middleman for all their payments and that Apple charges exorbitant fees for this
  - reaperducer 6y ago
    So don't be on the App Store. Problem solved. Make it a web site. Make it an Android exclusive. Do any of the dozen other things you need to do to be a success. You don't have to be on the App Store to survive. Hundreds of thousands of developers and their programs aren't.
    - vore 6y ago
      Making it a website is inconvenient for many reasons compared to an app. Making it Android exclusive sucks for people who have iPhones, and it's a tall order to ask anyone to switch away from an iPhone they have already purchased. The problem is categorically not solved here.
      - pdonis 6y ago
        > The problem is categorically not solved here. The "problem" being your convenience. Sorry, that's not anyone's problem but yours.
- jeffchien 6y ago
  >Why is it unethical to charge a fee to developers who want to distribute their software through an app store that Apple owns? This is only part of the complaint, right? The other parts is that: * Apple has the only keys to the hardware platform. * This is in contrast to Google or Steam, who also charge 30%, but do not completely own access to their respective hardware platforms. * This is also in contrast to physical stores, because if a store does not sell a product (i.e. a grocery store chain does not carry some brand of beer), the product owner can usually still put it somewhere else that the consumer can freely access (excluding transportation costs). * The policy regarding whether Apple should be entitled to the subscription fee is inconsistent and full of exceptions, which this website illustrates. My cynical take is that these exceptions have no real philosophy behind them, other than the fact that Apple needed certain major apps to be on iOS (i.e. Netflix, Tesla, Bloomberg, etc.). * Slightly separate point, but still relevant: if Apple is entitled to subscription fees, Apple can make competitors that undercut other subscription services like Spotify, because they don't have to pay themselves the 30% fee. This is what Spotify complained about last year, and what I believe the EU is looking at. [1] [1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/16/21292651/apple-eu-antitrust-investigation-app-store-apple-pay https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/16/21292651/apple-eu-antitru... (edit log: added newlines for easier reading)
  - p1necone 6y ago
    The fourth bullet point is the most egregious to me. These policies are so overbearing that they're actually untenable, but Apple just gets around that by arbitrarily giving exceptions to companies that are big enough to affect their bottom line.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > This is only part of the complaint, right? It's the part I'm interested in. I get that Apple's policy is a pain in the ass to a lot of developers, that Apple is inconsistent and arbitrary about how it applies that policy, and that all this greatly restricts developer access to users of Apple's hardware. What I don't get is how any of this is unethical. Bothersome and irritating, yes, but why unethical?
- acituan 6y ago
  > Why is it unethical to charge a fee to developers who want to distribute their software through an app store that Apple owns? Developer don't necessarily want to distribute their software through that app store, they are forced to do that if they want to sell their software to people who happen to use that operating system. Operating system and app store are distinct products, but app store exclusively gatekeeps the functionality the user can achieve through the operating system they bought. If app store was a standalone offering that aimed to benefit the user, there shouldn't be any problem allowing multiple competing app stores people paid for the convenience of vetted and curated apps and letting the market forces decide the winner. That is obviously not happening. Therefore, strongarming the ecosystem and stifling market dynamics is the unethical move here. Less competition, less innovation, less user benefit, less developer income (which translates into even less innovation) etc is the price everyone pays in aggregate in order for Apple to exact its rent, which goes to their idle pile of cash or comes back to humanity as a 0.002 grams lighter iPhone++ next year.
  - reaperducer 6y ago
    So you increase the price of your app by 30 to make up for Apple's cut%. It's called business. It happens all the time in every single industry. If a business' property taxes go up, that cost is passed on to its customers. Why do people think that because something is on a phone that it should be any different?
    - twicetwice 6y ago
      That's also not allowed. I think Hey would be fine charging $142 a year for a subscription in their app, with a little note below saying "you can get this for $99 on our website, the difference is Apple's cut." In fact, if I understand it correctly, the price in-app has to be the same as the price anywhere else. They're literally not allowed to do what you're suggesting and pass the cost of Apple's fee on to consumers.
      - reaperducer 6y ago
        You just Charge everyone the same and don't tell the customers that they're paying Apple's cut. Just like Hey doesn't tell its customers what percentage of its fee goes to the water company, or the electric company, or to company travel. This is how business works.

pdonis 6y ago

Why is it unethical to charge a fee to developers who want to distribute their software through an app store that Apple owns? I get that it's unpleasant for developers who don't like the policy, and at some point it might have business consequences for Apple if they don't change the policy, but why is it unethical?

MrStonedOne 6y ago
Think of a flee market. Lets say this flee market runs their own PoS system that tables can use, they require all sales happen via this PoS system "to protect customers from hacking", and they charge a percentage for providing this service, higher then normal under the guise that the transaction is being conducted on their property, they are "hosting" the "sale" under their roof, so they set the terms for it. Seems fair and good, ish Now lets say that they also own the city bank, and they are the only one allowed to take their bank's debit card as payment. Most people don't use the other, newer bank because everybody they know is using the flee markets bank as it was first. So if you want to take credit card payments you have to sale at the flee market. Is it still fair and good for them to continue to set all terms relating to how sales are conducted in a selfish way when they have a monopoly gained in part from first mover advantage? eh, maybe, maybe not. Now they say that if you sale any spare parts or consumables for a product that was originally sold at the flee market, you must only do so at the flee market. Is it still fair and good for them to use the fact that the transaction is happening on their property to set higher fees on these follow up transactions when they require these follow up transactions to happen on their property? While exploiting a first mover advantage that causes more of the initial transactions to happen on their property? Never forget that you can't just look at each piece, the whole matters too. Each individual piece of the macro is ethically an "eh" at most, but the whole is a bit more then "eh"
- pdonis 6y ago
  > the whole Is nothing like the situation with respect to Apple, so I don't see how your extended analogy here is relevant.
curyous 6y ago
It’s the size of the fee that is unethical.
- zeroimpl 6y ago
  Taxes are paid by the consumer. Ideally developers should price things based on how much revenue they want per transaction, and have the 30% fee shown to the user. If that were the case, there would be nothing unethical about a 30% tax nor a 90% tax. Therefore, it’s not the size that’s the problem, but the fact that the tax isn’t communicated to the consumer, and also that Apple wants you to charge the same price in-app as elsewhere (though I’m not sure if that part is enforced)
- pdonis 6y ago
  So what determines how large the fee has to be for it to be unethical? I don't see any principled way to decide, which makes me doubt your argument here.
dan-robertson 6y ago
I think it would be ethical to charge a fee to distribute software. You can imagine a world where each upload to the App Store would cast say $100. But the issue people complain about is that they are forced to use Apple as a middleman for all their payments and that Apple charges exorbitant fees for this
- reaperducer 6y ago
  So don't be on the App Store. Problem solved. Make it a web site. Make it an Android exclusive. Do any of the dozen other things you need to do to be a success. You don't have to be on the App Store to survive. Hundreds of thousands of developers and their programs aren't.
  - vore 6y ago
    Making it a website is inconvenient for many reasons compared to an app. Making it Android exclusive sucks for people who have iPhones, and it's a tall order to ask anyone to switch away from an iPhone they have already purchased. The problem is categorically not solved here.
    - pdonis 6y ago
      > The problem is categorically not solved here. The "problem" being your convenience. Sorry, that's not anyone's problem but yours.
jeffchien 6y ago
>Why is it unethical to charge a fee to developers who want to distribute their software through an app store that Apple owns? This is only part of the complaint, right? The other parts is that: * Apple has the only keys to the hardware platform. * This is in contrast to Google or Steam, who also charge 30%, but do not completely own access to their respective hardware platforms. * This is also in contrast to physical stores, because if a store does not sell a product (i.e. a grocery store chain does not carry some brand of beer), the product owner can usually still put it somewhere else that the consumer can freely access (excluding transportation costs). * The policy regarding whether Apple should be entitled to the subscription fee is inconsistent and full of exceptions, which this website illustrates. My cynical take is that these exceptions have no real philosophy behind them, other than the fact that Apple needed certain major apps to be on iOS (i.e. Netflix, Tesla, Bloomberg, etc.). * Slightly separate point, but still relevant: if Apple is entitled to subscription fees, Apple can make competitors that undercut other subscription services like Spotify, because they don't have to pay themselves the 30% fee. This is what Spotify complained about last year, and what I believe the EU is looking at. [1] [1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/16/21292651/apple-eu-antitrust-investigation-app-store-apple-pay https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/16/21292651/apple-eu-antitru... (edit log: added newlines for easier reading)
- p1necone 6y ago
  The fourth bullet point is the most egregious to me. These policies are so overbearing that they're actually untenable, but Apple just gets around that by arbitrarily giving exceptions to companies that are big enough to affect their bottom line.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > This is only part of the complaint, right? It's the part I'm interested in. I get that Apple's policy is a pain in the ass to a lot of developers, that Apple is inconsistent and arbitrary about how it applies that policy, and that all this greatly restricts developer access to users of Apple's hardware. What I don't get is how any of this is unethical. Bothersome and irritating, yes, but why unethical?
acituan 6y ago
> Why is it unethical to charge a fee to developers who want to distribute their software through an app store that Apple owns? Developer don't necessarily want to distribute their software through that app store, they are forced to do that if they want to sell their software to people who happen to use that operating system. Operating system and app store are distinct products, but app store exclusively gatekeeps the functionality the user can achieve through the operating system they bought. If app store was a standalone offering that aimed to benefit the user, there shouldn't be any problem allowing multiple competing app stores people paid for the convenience of vetted and curated apps and letting the market forces decide the winner. That is obviously not happening. Therefore, strongarming the ecosystem and stifling market dynamics is the unethical move here. Less competition, less innovation, less user benefit, less developer income (which translates into even less innovation) etc is the price everyone pays in aggregate in order for Apple to exact its rent, which goes to their idle pile of cash or comes back to humanity as a 0.002 grams lighter iPhone++ next year.
- reaperducer 6y ago
  So you increase the price of your app by 30 to make up for Apple's cut%. It's called business. It happens all the time in every single industry. If a business' property taxes go up, that cost is passed on to its customers. Why do people think that because something is on a phone that it should be any different?
  - twicetwice 6y ago
    That's also not allowed. I think Hey would be fine charging $142 a year for a subscription in their app, with a little note below saying "you can get this for $99 on our website, the difference is Apple's cut." In fact, if I understand it correctly, the price in-app has to be the same as the price anywhere else. They're literally not allowed to do what you're suggesting and pass the cost of Apple's fee on to consumers.
    - reaperducer 6y ago
      You just Charge everyone the same and don't tell the customers that they're paying Apple's cut. Just like Hey doesn't tell its customers what percentage of its fee goes to the water company, or the electric company, or to company travel. This is how business works.