5 ms·

Why do you think this is arbitrary? It makes a lot of sense and is pretty obvious when you look across all apps. This tweet is trying to point out a "gotcha" wh

by baddox 6y ago

Why do you think this is arbitrary? It makes a lot of sense and is pretty obvious when you look across all apps. This tweet is trying to point out a "gotcha" when there is absolutely nothing inconsistent, unreasonable, or shocking here. Apple doesn't take a cut when you order things on the Amazon app, or when you buy stocks on Robinhood, or when you rent a car on Turo. Apple takes a cut from in-app purchases, but that is a term that Apple defines precisely. It obviously doesn't mean "any purchase in any app."

ccktlmazeltov 6y ago
why can't you build your own browser? Why can't you build your own online game shop?
- troygoode 6y ago
  You can. Feel free to deploy it to your device. You just can't distribute it.
  - mike00632 6y ago
    Can you sideload onto an Apple device? Or do you mean that the device you buy isn't actually "your" device?
    - kbenson 6y ago
      > Can you sideload onto an Apple device? Not legally, in most jurisdictions. The only way to compete with Apple in the browsers space on iOS is to build your own app marketplace/store, since Apple controls distribution through the App Store. The only way to compete with Apple in the app store space is to build your own OS, since iOS only allows the Apple App Store, not competing ones. The only way to compete with Apple in the OS space is to build your own hardware (or buy from someone else and distribute), since Apple hardware locks out other operating systems from running. So the only way to compete with Apple in a space where they've decided you aren't allowed to is to replace their entire platform stack, and compete with them at the platform level. So to compete with Apple in the browser space you have to compete at the level of Google, where you make hardware, the OS, and the marketplace, and hope people move over wholesale to your hardware and OS just so they can use your browser. That's why Apple's behavior is anti-competitive. They've put walls to competition in place at every possible level to make it so the amount of money and expertise required to compete at any level is the same to competing at almost all levels.
      - baddox 6y ago
        You explain in detail what it would take to compete with Apple, but you’re trying to make the point that this is impossible to do, when in fact many smartphone manufacturers have done precisely that. Apple has a very small global market share on smartphones and only around 50% in the US.
        kbenson 6y ago
        > when in fact many smartphone manufacturers have done precisely that Yes, if you're already poised at the lowest part of the platform stack, you can sell hardware that competes with Apple's hardware, but it can't fully compete, because you can't offer a better solution to host iOS on, you can only offer to be part of platform that competes. You cannot compete with Apple hardware directly on just the hardware level. > Apple has a very small global market share on smartphones and only around 50% in the US. I'm not making a case that Apple is a monopoly. I'm making a case that their action are anti-competitive (I'm using this term divorced from any specific legal meaning), and thus bad for their users in that respect. Would allowing other hardware to run iOS be better or worse for users of iOS and the rest of the Apple ecosystem? In some ways better, in some ways worse, but we can't rely on the market to tell us the result of that specific question, because the market is constrained. We can look at each level of the platform stack similarly. This is usually brought up as a matter of user choice, but I think it's important to distil that to what it means, competition. Choice means there are at least two competing things to choose from, an given that our economic model requires choice (among other things, such as information about choices) to function correctly. Do I think Apple has a monopoly, as previously defined by law? No. But I think it's important to note that nobody had a monopoly as defined by law before the late 1800's, because that legal definition didn't exist, and was created to deal with harms we saw because of anti-competitive actions. So, I think Apple isn't a monopoly as we currently define it, but I do think their actions are anti-competitive in large and obvious ways, and that we may need to address that in some manner legislatively. That may mean altering the legal definition of monopoly so it matches, or it may just mean putting some select laws in place to hamper specific anti-competitive behavior (for example, a consumer right to be able to run whatever software you want on your hardware would address some small aspect of this). That said, I've been a bit loose here in verifying some of my terminology about legal points, and IIRC you have experience in that domain, so I'm sure you can correct me on that if you feel it warranted (and I would welcome it, as well of course as any specific problems you think my argument has).
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
    I don’t think apps not signed by Apple themselves can mark read/write memory pages as read/execute - that’s needed for any modern JIT-based JavaScript engine to work.
bearcobra 6y ago
But isn't the "gotcha" part the fact that the ads are displayed in the Facebook/Instragram apps? There isn't a real world transaction taking place like your other examples. It's more akin to being able to buy an ebook in the Kindle app.
- ummonk 6y ago
  That’s purchasing a service (advertisement on other people’a computers and phones) not a digital good / enhancement for your own use.
- baddox 6y ago
  The ads you buy on the Facebook app aren’t ads that you then get to see in your Facebook feed. You’re paying to have your own products/services advertised to other people.
DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
You’re not wrong - but there’s some ugly edge-cases when a user’s purchase pays for digital goods where Apple’s share may be considered unwarranted or just greedy: Supposing I have a B2B (not B2C) web-application + SaaS for a hypothetical professional studio photographers’s portfolio app. The app is entirely free (gratis) with self-service signup in the app for a free SaaS service tier - the app itself is only used for uploading photos to the SaaS service (I.e. it’s a utility/companion app). Now, supposing that users on the free tier can pay a one-off fee (in the iOS app or on the web) to enable the ability to set a custom colour scheme for their portfolio page (which doesn’t affect the appearance of the iOS app at all) - that doesn’t count as a purchase which enhances the app experience - it doesn’t enable/disable or change anything in the app - should that be an IAP with the 30% tax - or an Apple Pay purchase with only ~3% processing fees? Now, what if instead of selling that digital-only, app-irrelevant good in the app instead users could buy a physical “welcome pack” in the app which consists of a cheap Zazzle tote-bag with the company logo on - and as a bonus to the user enables the same custom-colour-scheme feature as a “thank you” to the user (like how Reddit and GitHub add flair to your account if you’re a paying user). Does (or should) Apple get 30% or 3% of that? If the cost of selling the tote bag is less than Apple’s 30% fee then I’ve found a loophole in IAP vs. AP.
- AnssiH 6y ago
  > (like how Reddit and GitHub add flair to your account if you’re a paying user) That is not a thing at Reddit (I'm a paying user and there is no special flair nor any setting to add one).
  - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
    I didn't mean the flair that appears next to your username in comment-replies, but you still get the "Reddit Premium" and "Gilding" badges on your profile's Trophy Case section. On GitHub, you get the purple "PRO" badge next to your username on your profile page and in the profile-tooltips elsewhere on GitHub.

by baddox 6y ago

ccktlmazeltov 6y ago

why can't you build your own browser? Why can't you build your own online game shop?

troygoode 6y ago
You can. Feel free to deploy it to your device. You just can't distribute it.
- mike00632 6y ago
  Can you sideload onto an Apple device? Or do you mean that the device you buy isn't actually "your" device?
  - kbenson 6y ago
    > Can you sideload onto an Apple device? Not legally, in most jurisdictions. The only way to compete with Apple in the browsers space on iOS is to build your own app marketplace/store, since Apple controls distribution through the App Store. The only way to compete with Apple in the app store space is to build your own OS, since iOS only allows the Apple App Store, not competing ones. The only way to compete with Apple in the OS space is to build your own hardware (or buy from someone else and distribute), since Apple hardware locks out other operating systems from running. So the only way to compete with Apple in a space where they've decided you aren't allowed to is to replace their entire platform stack, and compete with them at the platform level. So to compete with Apple in the browser space you have to compete at the level of Google, where you make hardware, the OS, and the marketplace, and hope people move over wholesale to your hardware and OS just so they can use your browser. That's why Apple's behavior is anti-competitive. They've put walls to competition in place at every possible level to make it so the amount of money and expertise required to compete at any level is the same to competing at almost all levels.
    - baddox 6y ago
      You explain in detail what it would take to compete with Apple, but you’re trying to make the point that this is impossible to do, when in fact many smartphone manufacturers have done precisely that. Apple has a very small global market share on smartphones and only around 50% in the US.
      - kbenson 6y ago
        > when in fact many smartphone manufacturers have done precisely that Yes, if you're already poised at the lowest part of the platform stack, you can sell hardware that competes with Apple's hardware, but it can't fully compete, because you can't offer a better solution to host iOS on, you can only offer to be part of platform that competes. You cannot compete with Apple hardware directly on just the hardware level. > Apple has a very small global market share on smartphones and only around 50% in the US. I'm not making a case that Apple is a monopoly. I'm making a case that their action are anti-competitive (I'm using this term divorced from any specific legal meaning), and thus bad for their users in that respect. Would allowing other hardware to run iOS be better or worse for users of iOS and the rest of the Apple ecosystem? In some ways better, in some ways worse, but we can't rely on the market to tell us the result of that specific question, because the market is constrained. We can look at each level of the platform stack similarly. This is usually brought up as a matter of user choice, but I think it's important to distil that to what it means, competition. Choice means there are at least two competing things to choose from, an given that our economic model requires choice (among other things, such as information about choices) to function correctly. Do I think Apple has a monopoly, as previously defined by law? No. But I think it's important to note that nobody had a monopoly as defined by law before the late 1800's, because that legal definition didn't exist, and was created to deal with harms we saw because of anti-competitive actions. So, I think Apple isn't a monopoly as we currently define it, but I do think their actions are anti-competitive in large and obvious ways, and that we may need to address that in some manner legislatively. That may mean altering the legal definition of monopoly so it matches, or it may just mean putting some select laws in place to hamper specific anti-competitive behavior (for example, a consumer right to be able to run whatever software you want on your hardware would address some small aspect of this). That said, I've been a bit loose here in verifying some of my terminology about legal points, and IIRC you have experience in that domain, so I'm sure you can correct me on that if you feel it warranted (and I would welcome it, as well of course as any specific problems you think my argument has).
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  I don’t think apps not signed by Apple themselves can mark read/write memory pages as read/execute - that’s needed for any modern JIT-based JavaScript engine to work.

bearcobra 6y ago

But isn't the "gotcha" part the fact that the ads are displayed in the Facebook/Instragram apps? There isn't a real world transaction taking place like your other examples. It's more akin to being able to buy an ebook in the Kindle app.

ummonk 6y ago
That’s purchasing a service (advertisement on other people’a computers and phones) not a digital good / enhancement for your own use.
baddox 6y ago
The ads you buy on the Facebook app aren’t ads that you then get to see in your Facebook feed. You’re paying to have your own products/services advertised to other people.

DaiPlusPlus 6y ago

You’re not wrong - but there’s some ugly edge-cases when a user’s purchase pays for digital goods where Apple’s share may be considered unwarranted or just greedy: Supposing I have a B2B (not B2C) web-application + SaaS for a hypothetical professional studio photographers’s portfolio app. The app is entirely free (gratis) with self-service signup in the app for a free SaaS service tier - the app itself is only used for uploading photos to the SaaS service (I.e. it’s a utility/companion app). Now, supposing that users on the free tier can pay a one-off fee (in the iOS app or on the web) to enable the ability to set a custom colour scheme for their portfolio page (which doesn’t affect the appearance of the iOS app at all) - that doesn’t count as a purchase which enhances the app experience - it doesn’t enable/disable or change anything in the app - should that be an IAP with the 30% tax - or an Apple Pay purchase with only ~3% processing fees? Now, what if instead of selling that digital-only, app-irrelevant good in the app instead users could buy a physical “welcome pack” in the app which consists of a cheap Zazzle tote-bag with the company logo on - and as a bonus to the user enables the same custom-colour-scheme feature as a “thank you” to the user (like how Reddit and GitHub add flair to your account if you’re a paying user). Does (or should) Apple get 30% or 3% of that? If the cost of selling the tote bag is less than Apple’s 30% fee then I’ve found a loophole in IAP vs. AP.

AnssiH 6y ago
> (like how Reddit and GitHub add flair to your account if you’re a paying user) That is not a thing at Reddit (I'm a paying user and there is no special flair nor any setting to add one).
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  I didn't mean the flair that appears next to your username in comment-replies, but you still get the "Reddit Premium" and "Gilding" badges on your profile's Trophy Case section. On GitHub, you get the purple "PRO" badge next to your username on your profile page and in the profile-tooltips elsewhere on GitHub.