4 ms·

Apple and Google are both charging 30% fees and together, they own almost the entire smartphone market. It is harming consumers due to the higher costs this 30%

Apple and Google are both charging 30% fees and together, they own almost the entire smartphone market. It is harming consumers due to the higher costs this 30% is imposing on transactions. Whether it is illegal or not is up to the court to decide. But as a customer, I would like to complain about this and state my dissatisfaction. Perhaps if enough people do it, they will change their behaviour. Also as a voter, I would hope that the legislature make these costs come down. In Canada, the government recently intervened to reduce credit card processing fees. I would hope next they direct their attention to app store fees. https://globalnews.ca/news/4379884/canada-credit-card-fee-cuts/ https://globalnews.ca/news/4379884/canada-credit-card-fee-cu...

ntsplnkv2 6y ago
Why? They provide a great service to consumers - a store to get applications easily. They provide a great service to devs - a store to get consumers to see and buy their products. Why is 30% unfair? A company charging a certain percentage for something is neither unfair or anti-competitive. You need to develop your argument further.
- jpdus 6y ago
  Because - at least in Apples case - customer and developers have no alternative and no choice. There isn't a market setting a fair price for Apple's "service". You can't get on iPhones (for which people paid already!) without the App Store. You aren't asked if you want to pay for that "service" and there aren't any competitors. If you want to have an app, Apple owns 30% of your business, even if they didn't generate you a single installation. This is the same as with store owners who have to hand over part of their earnings as danegeld to some gangs controlling their neighborhood. They also pay happily for a great "protection" service. Would be a pity if something happens to your nice store (or app, in Apples case)! I don't get how anyone who stands up for freedom of information, a free internet and a fair economy can still own an iPhone without developing schizophrenia..
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    > customer and developers have no alternative and no choice. They have Android, which dominates the market. I get it, Apple Bad! Bad Keyboards! No Upgrades! Bad Bad Bad! And yet people time and time again want iPhones over Android - because they like the way the App Store is, they like iOS, they don't want malware on their phones that is rampant on Androids. Opening it up will be WORSE FOR DEVS. > This is the same as with store owners who have to hand over part of their earnings as danegeld to some gangs controlling their neighborhood. No, it's the same as store owners who have to pay higher rent to be on a busy street. Which isn't illegal. > I don't get how anyone who stands up for freedom of information, a free internet and a fair economy can still own an iPhone without developing schizophrenia.. There are plenty of avenues for information - the iPhone controls apps - but the rules of engagement are clear and 2 million apps managed to get on the app store. If you can't, that's your problem. Still waiting for a real argument on here.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

ntsplnkv2 6y ago

Why? They provide a great service to consumers - a store to get applications easily. They provide a great service to devs - a store to get consumers to see and buy their products. Why is 30% unfair? A company charging a certain percentage for something is neither unfair or anti-competitive. You need to develop your argument further.

jpdus 6y ago
Because - at least in Apples case - customer and developers have no alternative and no choice. There isn't a market setting a fair price for Apple's "service". You can't get on iPhones (for which people paid already!) without the App Store. You aren't asked if you want to pay for that "service" and there aren't any competitors. If you want to have an app, Apple owns 30% of your business, even if they didn't generate you a single installation. This is the same as with store owners who have to hand over part of their earnings as danegeld to some gangs controlling their neighborhood. They also pay happily for a great "protection" service. Would be a pity if something happens to your nice store (or app, in Apples case)! I don't get how anyone who stands up for freedom of information, a free internet and a fair economy can still own an iPhone without developing schizophrenia..
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  > customer and developers have no alternative and no choice. They have Android, which dominates the market. I get it, Apple Bad! Bad Keyboards! No Upgrades! Bad Bad Bad! And yet people time and time again want iPhones over Android - because they like the way the App Store is, they like iOS, they don't want malware on their phones that is rampant on Androids. Opening it up will be WORSE FOR DEVS. > This is the same as with store owners who have to hand over part of their earnings as danegeld to some gangs controlling their neighborhood. No, it's the same as store owners who have to pay higher rent to be on a busy street. Which isn't illegal. > I don't get how anyone who stands up for freedom of information, a free internet and a fair economy can still own an iPhone without developing schizophrenia.. There are plenty of avenues for information - the iPhone controls apps - but the rules of engagement are clear and 2 million apps managed to get on the app store. If you can't, that's your problem. Still waiting for a real argument on here.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]