7 ms·

It's quite amazing how hard Apple is pushing this now with all of the extra regulatory eyes on the subject. I guess they're fairly confident that they're untouc

by Hamuko 6y ago

It's quite amazing how hard Apple is pushing this now with all of the extra regulatory eyes on the subject. I guess they're fairly confident that they're untouchable.

bilal4hmed 6y ago
They are betting on the fact that arent a majority in any space. Its the best situation for them, then dont have majority market share but make the most revenue. They see Google being split up and therefore being the only game in town.
- wmf 6y ago
  I didn't notice when this happened, but apparently iPhone now has over 50% of the US phone market.
  - bilal4hmed 6y ago
    interesting neither did I. Globally its still 25% however.
    - nrmitchi 6y ago
      But for the purposes of US antitrust and anti-competetive concerns, why does "global" matter?
      - anticensor 6y ago
        Humans are humans, anti-competitive behaviour spreads quickly from country to country. If you get too late preparing for the legal action, the anti-competitive behaviour may well spread without competition enforcement noticing.
    - 9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
      IPhone is expensive, who can spend 1000 euro on a damn phone? Not many even here in Europe. Americans have tons of disposable money, see wealthier and in general like ti consume.
      - edgyquant 6y ago
        Lol most people don't have the latest iPhone you can get an older one for a couple hundred at walmart (same a mid level android)
      - wmf 6y ago
        Postpaid service is around $1000 per year, so why not get a $1000 phone to go with it?
        kuschku 6y ago
        I’m using a 5GB/month, unlimited calls (EU), unlimited SMS (EU) plan for 8€/month, so 96€/year. Even buying e.g. a Pixel several years after release at 270€, the phone is definitely the most expensive part.
      - redwall_hp 6y ago
        My iPhone (SE) cost $400. The iPhone 11 is $699. Competitive hardware on the Android side is trending more expensive from brands like Samsung.
        distances 6y ago
        Competition for SE is the Pixel A line, $350.
        saagarjha 6y ago
        That hardware is hardly competitive.
        distances 6y ago
  - brendawalsh 6y ago
    Maybe when the new SE came out?
- rubber_duck 6y ago
  It bugs me how this is an argument in "app store is not a monopoly". App stores (both Google and Apple) have a huge profit margin which is based on abusing it's position and they are milking the fact that creating competition would cost billions of dollars - this is exactly the situation where a pure market situation ends up being sub-optimal and hurting the consumers. Consider what would happen if Mastercard and Visa proclaimed that you can no longer accept cash if you want to accept their services ! And then someone would say "but Mastercard is not a monopoly neither is Visa". At one point they even managed to make it illegal to transfer the transaction fees to user visibly as surcharge - but you are still allowed to have a "cash only discount" - Apple and Google are effectively killing this option by preventing third party payment systems and people are saying "they aren't a monopoly". Fixing this should be pretty straightforward and should apply to all digital app stores : a) force equal access to these stores (anyone who can legally apply must be able to, irregardless of their relation with store owner, eg. Epic vs Apple, there should be some provisions about what kind of content is not acceptable - but this should be defined on platform basis and enforced consistently, otherwise it should grant you basis for damages suit) b) force app stores to accept all payment forms in-app (that comply to payment processing standards) - people here claim that app store payment provides them with security, convenience, etc. and I agree - but if I was given the option at a 25% markup (other payment providers aren't free either) I go for other option every time. At 10% over standard payment provider it's a different story - and that's still an insanely profitable spot for them. Point is - consumers decide what benefits them. c) force app store reviews to follow specific guidelines: time limit on feedback, require explicit feedback of rule violations when you get denied access - to allow appeals through courts if the review process gets abused
  - nicky0 6y ago
    Or just make a web app instead.
  - matchbok 6y ago
    Credit card companies.... already have those rules. No store can just offer a cheaper cash price. It’s in the agreements.
iphone_elegance 6y ago
I'd imagine they have to start applying it more universally and strictly to make their case
draw_down 6y ago
Is it the case that they are doing something particularly egregious now? Or are they being consistent with the rules for the app store that they've long had established?
snapetom 6y ago
It might be more because Epic is forcing their hand. Up to this point, Apple either just nudged smaller players or secretly negotiated deals with larger ones. With Epic shining a light on this, Apple has to more blatantly enforce this across the board. Now, in a legal setting, Epic can't point out how inconsistent Apple is with this policy.
- Hamuko 6y ago
  Hey was before the Epic thing and that seemed like the start of the recent events.
- caycep 6y ago
  I wonder how much of this is Phil Schiller retiring and control of the App store passing onto to someone else?
- kllrnohj 6y ago
  > Now, in a legal setting, Epic can't point out how inconsistent Apple is with this policy. Well, except they can point at Amazon, who only pays a 15% cut: https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/20/21378156/apple-news-publishers-subscription-deal-app-store-cut-terms-amazon-letter https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/20/21378156/apple-news-publi...
  - dwaite 6y ago
    For what it is worth, Apple _does_ have this arrangement with at least one other company. It is however a partnership deal with extremely specific terms: - The app must be a video subscription app (which can also provide purchases and rentals) - You must support iOS, iPadOS, and tvOS versions of the app - You must integrate into the Apple TV app and into Siri search and playback APIs - You must allow the user to subscribe through Apple, which will result in a 15% cut of the subscription fee (in this case, Apple gets 15% of the cost of Amazon Prime) - Additional purchases made against an apple-backed subscription must be in-app purchases, of which Apple gets a 15% cut (so renting a recent movie or subscribing to Showtime would result in a 15% revenue cut) - (AFAICT) Purchases/subscriptions/rentals against an account with existing billing information are not subject to any Apple revenue share - (AFAICT) Account management such as configuring or troubleshooting payment options for externally subscribed accounts must be outside of the app. I imagine Amazon suspects that they have enough people who have already purchased prime that the in-app purchase usage won't be a significant revenue drain - and I imagine that Apple has a contract with terms specifically to prevent Amazon "pulling an Epic" should it turn out that their assumption of subscription percentages be wrong.

by Hamuko 6y ago

It's quite amazing how hard Apple is pushing this now with all of the extra regulatory eyes on the subject. I guess they're fairly confident that they're untouchable.

bilal4hmed 6y ago

They are betting on the fact that arent a majority in any space. Its the best situation for them, then dont have majority market share but make the most revenue. They see Google being split up and therefore being the only game in town.

wmf 6y ago
I didn't notice when this happened, but apparently iPhone now has over 50% of the US phone market.
- bilal4hmed 6y ago
  interesting neither did I. Globally its still 25% however.
  - nrmitchi 6y ago
    But for the purposes of US antitrust and anti-competetive concerns, why does "global" matter?
    - anticensor 6y ago
      Humans are humans, anti-competitive behaviour spreads quickly from country to country. If you get too late preparing for the legal action, the anti-competitive behaviour may well spread without competition enforcement noticing.
  - 9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
    IPhone is expensive, who can spend 1000 euro on a damn phone? Not many even here in Europe. Americans have tons of disposable money, see wealthier and in general like ti consume.
    - edgyquant 6y ago
      Lol most people don't have the latest iPhone you can get an older one for a couple hundred at walmart (same a mid level android)
    - wmf 6y ago
      Postpaid service is around $1000 per year, so why not get a $1000 phone to go with it?
      - kuschku 6y ago
        I’m using a 5GB/month, unlimited calls (EU), unlimited SMS (EU) plan for 8€/month, so 96€/year. Even buying e.g. a Pixel several years after release at 270€, the phone is definitely the most expensive part.
    - redwall_hp 6y ago
      My iPhone (SE) cost $400. The iPhone 11 is $699. Competitive hardware on the Android side is trending more expensive from brands like Samsung.
      - distances 6y ago
        Competition for SE is the Pixel A line, $350.
        saagarjha 6y ago
        That hardware is hardly competitive.
        distances 6y ago
- brendawalsh 6y ago
  Maybe when the new SE came out?
rubber_duck 6y ago
It bugs me how this is an argument in "app store is not a monopoly". App stores (both Google and Apple) have a huge profit margin which is based on abusing it's position and they are milking the fact that creating competition would cost billions of dollars - this is exactly the situation where a pure market situation ends up being sub-optimal and hurting the consumers. Consider what would happen if Mastercard and Visa proclaimed that you can no longer accept cash if you want to accept their services ! And then someone would say "but Mastercard is not a monopoly neither is Visa". At one point they even managed to make it illegal to transfer the transaction fees to user visibly as surcharge - but you are still allowed to have a "cash only discount" - Apple and Google are effectively killing this option by preventing third party payment systems and people are saying "they aren't a monopoly". Fixing this should be pretty straightforward and should apply to all digital app stores : a) force equal access to these stores (anyone who can legally apply must be able to, irregardless of their relation with store owner, eg. Epic vs Apple, there should be some provisions about what kind of content is not acceptable - but this should be defined on platform basis and enforced consistently, otherwise it should grant you basis for damages suit) b) force app stores to accept all payment forms in-app (that comply to payment processing standards) - people here claim that app store payment provides them with security, convenience, etc. and I agree - but if I was given the option at a 25% markup (other payment providers aren't free either) I go for other option every time. At 10% over standard payment provider it's a different story - and that's still an insanely profitable spot for them. Point is - consumers decide what benefits them. c) force app store reviews to follow specific guidelines: time limit on feedback, require explicit feedback of rule violations when you get denied access - to allow appeals through courts if the review process gets abused
- nicky0 6y ago
  Or just make a web app instead.
- matchbok 6y ago
  Credit card companies.... already have those rules. No store can just offer a cheaper cash price. It’s in the agreements.

iphone_elegance 6y ago

I'd imagine they have to start applying it more universally and strictly to make their case

draw_down 6y ago

Is it the case that they are doing something particularly egregious now? Or are they being consistent with the rules for the app store that they've long had established?

snapetom 6y ago

It might be more because Epic is forcing their hand. Up to this point, Apple either just nudged smaller players or secretly negotiated deals with larger ones. With Epic shining a light on this, Apple has to more blatantly enforce this across the board. Now, in a legal setting, Epic can't point out how inconsistent Apple is with this policy.

Hamuko 6y ago
Hey was before the Epic thing and that seemed like the start of the recent events.
caycep 6y ago
I wonder how much of this is Phil Schiller retiring and control of the App store passing onto to someone else?
kllrnohj 6y ago
> Now, in a legal setting, Epic can't point out how inconsistent Apple is with this policy. Well, except they can point at Amazon, who only pays a 15% cut: https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/20/21378156/apple-news-publishers-subscription-deal-app-store-cut-terms-amazon-letter https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/20/21378156/apple-news-publi...
- dwaite 6y ago
  For what it is worth, Apple _does_ have this arrangement with at least one other company. It is however a partnership deal with extremely specific terms: - The app must be a video subscription app (which can also provide purchases and rentals) - You must support iOS, iPadOS, and tvOS versions of the app - You must integrate into the Apple TV app and into Siri search and playback APIs - You must allow the user to subscribe through Apple, which will result in a 15% cut of the subscription fee (in this case, Apple gets 15% of the cost of Amazon Prime) - Additional purchases made against an apple-backed subscription must be in-app purchases, of which Apple gets a 15% cut (so renting a recent movie or subscribing to Showtime would result in a 15% revenue cut) - (AFAICT) Purchases/subscriptions/rentals against an account with existing billing information are not subject to any Apple revenue share - (AFAICT) Account management such as configuring or troubleshooting payment options for externally subscribed accounts must be outside of the app. I imagine Amazon suspects that they have enough people who have already purchased prime that the in-app purchase usage won't be a significant revenue drain - and I imagine that Apple has a contract with terms specifically to prevent Amazon "pulling an Epic" should it turn out that their assumption of subscription percentages be wrong.