4 ms·

"the business model policies of the App Store have resulted in a tremendous amount of resentment. This spans the entire gamut from one-person indies all the way

"the business model policies of the App Store have resulted in a tremendous amount of resentment. This spans the entire gamut from one-person indies all the way up to the handful of large corporations that can be considered Apple’s peers or near-peers." Exactly on point. It is time for change.

pdonis 6y ago
> It is time for change. I don't think independent developers have enough leverage with Apple to force a fundamental change. Particularly since the ones that would be most able to, the large corporations who want their apps on iPhones can get enough attention at Apple to get their apps approved, without having to change the whole developer ecosystem. I think the only way Apple will change is if enough users perceive that Apple's app store policies are preventing them from using apps they really want to use.
- stephc_int13 6y ago
  The most valuable asset of Apple is their brand. Enough people complaining is bad for the brand. They will do something to get rid of the noise.
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    Not just "people" too, but the tech-literate folks who generally lead the herd. If enough devs got annoyed enough to move to something else, then people would start noticing that the "cool kids" were using something else now, and their Macs weren't hip any more.
- Stevvo 6y ago
  I think it's more likely they will change when the EU courts find them guilty of anti-competitive practices. From my layman's perspective, the case looks a lot stronger than it ever did against Google where at-least alternatives to Play Store existed.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > I think it's more likely they will change when the EU courts find them guilty of anti-competitive practices. Such a ruling would, IMO, be wrong. If it's "anti-competitive" to decide the terms on which you will offer a service you produce and own yourself, then pretty much every service business anywhere is "anti-competitive". Unfortunately (from my perspective), I think it is indeed quite possible that the EU courts could make such a ruling.
    - Stevvo 6y ago
      In article 101, "anti-competitive" is not defined as 'deciding the terms on which you will offer a service you produce and own yourself', but as an "abuse of a dominant position" in particular: (a) directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions. I think the 30% IAP tax meets this condition.
m463 6y ago
I will say this is a surprisingly powerful comment from gruber, who has generally been extremely forgiving of apple.
- coldtea 6y ago
  Perhaps there are fractions at Apple wanting to change this, and Gruber has sided with them...
- bredren 6y ago
  He's been uneven. He totally lost his head when Apple made that turn toward Youtubers and left him out of a review cycle a few years back.
- mcphage 6y ago
  > who has generally been extremely forgiving of apple He has his own sense of priorities, which often aligns with Apple (which is why he runs a website about them), but when they don't, he complains. There are times when his front page is all negative articles about Apple, when they're doing a bunch of things he doesn't like.
oezi 6y ago
There are a lot of things wrong with the monopolistic gate-keeping of the Apple/Google app stores, but it is funny that the thing triggering the whole debate is really just @dhh trying to get a better deal than the 30% shakedown. At what percentage point cut, would an in-app sign-up be a no-brainer? 5%,10%, 20%? It is easy to complain about the app store tax when you ride on the streets that were built with the tax.
- plorg 6y ago
  He did an interview with The Verge where he claims to have no intention to sell in-app subscription at any percentage cut, rather to pay something like an itemized fee for app review and hosting/download or allow a distribution model outside of the App Store.
  - zepto 6y ago
    All very well for DHH the multi-millionaire to want to pay a fee for review and hosting. But for anyone who doesn’t already have a pile of profits from prior ventures, having to pay for app review and hosting and downloads is going to simply make the process too risky for small independent developers. The current system where you only pay if the store actually makes you money has a lot of benefits. Seems this is completely self serving on DHH’s part.
- inopinatus 6y ago
  You do a grave disservice in misrepresenting the complaint. Hey.com’s service doesn’t need in-app signup at all, but Apple’s policy obliges developers to not merely offer it, but to never offer, link, or even mention, any alternative. This position is super hostile to both consumer choice (to such an extent that it’s practically a malicious use of market power to deceive consumers), and to any SaaS developer for which the mobile app is merely one of several convenient clients. The sheer size of the cut demanded is merely the follow-up kick in the balls. The common quip “don’t like it? develop your own smartphone and app distribution platform then” is merely reinforcing just how much market power, and consequent distortion, Apple possess.
mortenjorck 6y ago
I get the sense from the tenor of Gruber’s description that this has been simmering for a long time, and that it’s about a lot more than the App Store’s revenue percentage. Everything from search results to upgrade pricing to functional restrictions have long been frustrations, but the long-term combination of inflexibility, lack of transparency, and perhaps a sense of condescension, seems to have stewed to toxic effect.
AtlasBarfed 6y ago
Threaten a strike. Organize openly. The media attention alone will make Apple cave, and if not, a single week of app removal and disablement will make them.

pdonis 6y ago

> It is time for change. I don't think independent developers have enough leverage with Apple to force a fundamental change. Particularly since the ones that would be most able to, the large corporations who want their apps on iPhones can get enough attention at Apple to get their apps approved, without having to change the whole developer ecosystem. I think the only way Apple will change is if enough users perceive that Apple's app store policies are preventing them from using apps they really want to use.

stephc_int13 6y ago
The most valuable asset of Apple is their brand. Enough people complaining is bad for the brand. They will do something to get rid of the noise.
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  Not just "people" too, but the tech-literate folks who generally lead the herd. If enough devs got annoyed enough to move to something else, then people would start noticing that the "cool kids" were using something else now, and their Macs weren't hip any more.
Stevvo 6y ago
I think it's more likely they will change when the EU courts find them guilty of anti-competitive practices. From my layman's perspective, the case looks a lot stronger than it ever did against Google where at-least alternatives to Play Store existed.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > I think it's more likely they will change when the EU courts find them guilty of anti-competitive practices. Such a ruling would, IMO, be wrong. If it's "anti-competitive" to decide the terms on which you will offer a service you produce and own yourself, then pretty much every service business anywhere is "anti-competitive". Unfortunately (from my perspective), I think it is indeed quite possible that the EU courts could make such a ruling.
  - Stevvo 6y ago
    In article 101, "anti-competitive" is not defined as 'deciding the terms on which you will offer a service you produce and own yourself', but as an "abuse of a dominant position" in particular: (a) directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions. I think the 30% IAP tax meets this condition.

m463 6y ago

I will say this is a surprisingly powerful comment from gruber, who has generally been extremely forgiving of apple.

coldtea 6y ago
Perhaps there are fractions at Apple wanting to change this, and Gruber has sided with them...
bredren 6y ago
He's been uneven. He totally lost his head when Apple made that turn toward Youtubers and left him out of a review cycle a few years back.
mcphage 6y ago
> who has generally been extremely forgiving of apple He has his own sense of priorities, which often aligns with Apple (which is why he runs a website about them), but when they don't, he complains. There are times when his front page is all negative articles about Apple, when they're doing a bunch of things he doesn't like.

oezi 6y ago

There are a lot of things wrong with the monopolistic gate-keeping of the Apple/Google app stores, but it is funny that the thing triggering the whole debate is really just @dhh trying to get a better deal than the 30% shakedown. At what percentage point cut, would an in-app sign-up be a no-brainer? 5%,10%, 20%? It is easy to complain about the app store tax when you ride on the streets that were built with the tax.

plorg 6y ago
He did an interview with The Verge where he claims to have no intention to sell in-app subscription at any percentage cut, rather to pay something like an itemized fee for app review and hosting/download or allow a distribution model outside of the App Store.
- zepto 6y ago
  All very well for DHH the multi-millionaire to want to pay a fee for review and hosting. But for anyone who doesn’t already have a pile of profits from prior ventures, having to pay for app review and hosting and downloads is going to simply make the process too risky for small independent developers. The current system where you only pay if the store actually makes you money has a lot of benefits. Seems this is completely self serving on DHH’s part.
inopinatus 6y ago
You do a grave disservice in misrepresenting the complaint. Hey.com’s service doesn’t need in-app signup at all, but Apple’s policy obliges developers to not merely offer it, but to never offer, link, or even mention, any alternative. This position is super hostile to both consumer choice (to such an extent that it’s practically a malicious use of market power to deceive consumers), and to any SaaS developer for which the mobile app is merely one of several convenient clients. The sheer size of the cut demanded is merely the follow-up kick in the balls. The common quip “don’t like it? develop your own smartphone and app distribution platform then” is merely reinforcing just how much market power, and consequent distortion, Apple possess.

mortenjorck 6y ago

I get the sense from the tenor of Gruber’s description that this has been simmering for a long time, and that it’s about a lot more than the App Store’s revenue percentage. Everything from search results to upgrade pricing to functional restrictions have long been frustrations, but the long-term combination of inflexibility, lack of transparency, and perhaps a sense of condescension, seems to have stewed to toxic effect.

AtlasBarfed 6y ago

Threaten a strike. Organize openly. The media attention alone will make Apple cave, and if not, a single week of app removal and disablement will make them.