7 ms·

It's not irrelevant because there might be other platforms where you can buy the same product cheaper. And the 30 percent cut information might be a good hint t

It's not irrelevant because there might be other platforms where you can buy the same product cheaper. And the 30 percent cut information might be a good hint to look elsewhere. I guess that's why Apple fights this so viciously.

gwd 6y ago
I definitely support Apple's right to charge 30% on their own platform; but I definitely think preventing people from talking about it is unreasonable.
- natch 6y ago
  They aren’t prevented from taking about it though. They are just prevented from talking about it inside the app, for various reasons, such as Apple not wanting its app platform used as a venue for dissing itself, and because that kind of contentious content is not what Apple wants its users to experience when using Apple devices.
  - inopinatus 6y ago
    “What Apple wants” does not trump consumer protection laws. In fact, this becomes even less so, because by having acquired enough market power that they can dictate terms to just about everyone through controlling a marketplace, this triggers additional safeguards against misuse of that power, and in particular, safeguards against misleading the consumer about their options. It is not unlawful to acquire market power, but abusing it is a path to billion dollar fines.
    - RandoHolmes 6y ago
      Can you point to the specific consumer protection laws that Apple is breaking here?
      - inopinatus 6y ago
        In my current operating jurisdiction that would be most likely Schedule 2 of the 2010 Competition & Consumer Act, Part 2-3 (Unfair contracts) with particular reference to s24(1)(a & c); s20 (Unconscionable conduct) with particular reference to s21(4)(c); s18(1) (Prohibition against misleading or deceptive conduct) in general; and possibly (due to the scale of Apple's market power and active limitations on consumer communications) even s47 (Prohibition against exclusive dealing) which covers such an enormous multitude of cases of refusing to trade that it's almost impossible not to be in contravention as a marketplace unless you accept all participants, and with particular reference to s47(10) which makes it clear that substantially lessening competition is the main offence of this section.
        RandoHolmes 6y ago
        I was more asking you to quote the relevant parts with an your interpretation of why they're breaking them.
        inopinatus 6y ago
        Sure! Happy to write that up as a succinct, carefully researched, and coherently argued report for you, along with supporting case history, extracts from current legislation, and recommendations for your commercial options toward avoiding regulatory action and maintaining consumer trust. Where shall I send the consulting invoice?
        RandoHolmes 6y ago
        "Hey man, I don't want to create a 1000 hours of research, therefore I can't take the 5 minutes it would take to respond". IOW, you can't point to the consumer protections that they're breaking. Thank you for admitting it.
        inopinatus 6y ago
        The references are above - feel free to read them; as are my opinions of their consequences - no need to repeat them.
    - natch 6y ago
      Consumer protection works both ways though. Another function of Apple's rules is to protect the consumer from bad behavior by apps that lead the customer off-app to other payment flows for abusive services not under Apple's review. If a company wants to do this, and the consumer wants to fall for it, that's between the company and the consumer. But if they promote it and lead the customer to it using wording and other elements situated on Apple's curated app platform, Apple becomes responsible for having allowed it, and it both hurts the consumer, so they are not protected, and taints the experience on the Apple device. This built in consumer protection is part of why Apple has a reputation as having good user experience. By keeping the rules in place, Apple helps maintain the valuable reputation it has earned for having good user experience which includes, as a vital part, this consumer protection.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- munk-a 6y ago
  I think this is one of the most interesting libertarian reflections out there - a lot of strong libertarians are happy to let the market decide everything but taxes - the US is a platform which you can leave for one of 200 other platforms, it comes with some benefits and some costs and yet if the base income tax rate was 30% there'd be rioting in the streets.
  - johnnyanmac 6y ago
    >the US is a platform which you can leave for one of 200 other platforms if you are native born, it is not trivial to renounce your citizenry nor to become a citizen in another country. Even before taking travel to that other country into account. you also don't really opt into native citizenry since you have no control of who or where you are born into. Regardless of my personal thoughts on this article, this is a strange comparison to make.
    - chillacy 6y ago
      There's a closer analogy between US states. It's expensive to move and all your friends are in the old city, but you could do it.
RandoHolmes 6y ago
Apple isn't hiding how much the user needs to pay for a purchase, they can still make the determination that they need to go somewhere else. This would be like Wal-mart putting up signs telling everyone they have to pay Visa fee's. It's irrelevant to the consumers, what they pay doesn't change.
- hanselot 6y ago
  Walmart == AppStore? Does walmart also only sell things at 30% markup or is there perhaps some possibility that in reality, things are valued differently based on what they are. Buying a computer is not something I do often, therefore it has high markup and cost. Buying groceries, that is a different story. It for sure doesn't cost apple anything to have the bit of information under the approval message. Ironically, it does cost them money to find a way to block it from being displayed.
- SyneRyder 6y ago
  > This would be like Wal-mart putting up signs telling everyone they have to pay Visa fee's. This actually happens in Australia. Because AmEx charges an extra 1.75% to businesses, stores display a warning at checkout that using an AmEx card will incur an extra fee of 1.75%. Edit: Here's an example graphic from the Australian Government website, explaining that it's illegal for a business to charge more than what it costs them: https://www.accc.gov.au/sites/www.accc.gov.au/files/Surcharging%20infographic_1.png https://www.accc.gov.au/sites/www.accc.gov.au/files/Surcharg...
  - RandoHolmes 6y ago
    Apple isn't passing the extra fee onto the customer, neither is FB. I understand your point, but it's not applicable here.
    - amaccuish 6y ago
      I think you're confused because Apple is acting as a payment processor (even though there is another one for the card) and as a marketplace.

gwd 6y ago

I definitely support Apple's right to charge 30% on their own platform; but I definitely think preventing people from talking about it is unreasonable.

natch 6y ago
They aren’t prevented from taking about it though. They are just prevented from talking about it inside the app, for various reasons, such as Apple not wanting its app platform used as a venue for dissing itself, and because that kind of contentious content is not what Apple wants its users to experience when using Apple devices.
- inopinatus 6y ago
  “What Apple wants” does not trump consumer protection laws. In fact, this becomes even less so, because by having acquired enough market power that they can dictate terms to just about everyone through controlling a marketplace, this triggers additional safeguards against misuse of that power, and in particular, safeguards against misleading the consumer about their options. It is not unlawful to acquire market power, but abusing it is a path to billion dollar fines.
  - RandoHolmes 6y ago
    Can you point to the specific consumer protection laws that Apple is breaking here?
    - inopinatus 6y ago
      In my current operating jurisdiction that would be most likely Schedule 2 of the 2010 Competition & Consumer Act, Part 2-3 (Unfair contracts) with particular reference to s24(1)(a & c); s20 (Unconscionable conduct) with particular reference to s21(4)(c); s18(1) (Prohibition against misleading or deceptive conduct) in general; and possibly (due to the scale of Apple's market power and active limitations on consumer communications) even s47 (Prohibition against exclusive dealing) which covers such an enormous multitude of cases of refusing to trade that it's almost impossible not to be in contravention as a marketplace unless you accept all participants, and with particular reference to s47(10) which makes it clear that substantially lessening competition is the main offence of this section.
      - RandoHolmes 6y ago
        I was more asking you to quote the relevant parts with an your interpretation of why they're breaking them.
        inopinatus 6y ago
        Sure! Happy to write that up as a succinct, carefully researched, and coherently argued report for you, along with supporting case history, extracts from current legislation, and recommendations for your commercial options toward avoiding regulatory action and maintaining consumer trust. Where shall I send the consulting invoice?
        RandoHolmes 6y ago
        "Hey man, I don't want to create a 1000 hours of research, therefore I can't take the 5 minutes it would take to respond". IOW, you can't point to the consumer protections that they're breaking. Thank you for admitting it.
        inopinatus 6y ago
        The references are above - feel free to read them; as are my opinions of their consequences - no need to repeat them.
  - natch 6y ago
    Consumer protection works both ways though. Another function of Apple's rules is to protect the consumer from bad behavior by apps that lead the customer off-app to other payment flows for abusive services not under Apple's review. If a company wants to do this, and the consumer wants to fall for it, that's between the company and the consumer. But if they promote it and lead the customer to it using wording and other elements situated on Apple's curated app platform, Apple becomes responsible for having allowed it, and it both hurts the consumer, so they are not protected, and taints the experience on the Apple device. This built in consumer protection is part of why Apple has a reputation as having good user experience. By keeping the rules in place, Apple helps maintain the valuable reputation it has earned for having good user experience which includes, as a vital part, this consumer protection.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
munk-a 6y ago
I think this is one of the most interesting libertarian reflections out there - a lot of strong libertarians are happy to let the market decide everything but taxes - the US is a platform which you can leave for one of 200 other platforms, it comes with some benefits and some costs and yet if the base income tax rate was 30% there'd be rioting in the streets.
- johnnyanmac 6y ago
  >the US is a platform which you can leave for one of 200 other platforms if you are native born, it is not trivial to renounce your citizenry nor to become a citizen in another country. Even before taking travel to that other country into account. you also don't really opt into native citizenry since you have no control of who or where you are born into. Regardless of my personal thoughts on this article, this is a strange comparison to make.
  - chillacy 6y ago
    There's a closer analogy between US states. It's expensive to move and all your friends are in the old city, but you could do it.

RandoHolmes 6y ago

Apple isn't hiding how much the user needs to pay for a purchase, they can still make the determination that they need to go somewhere else. This would be like Wal-mart putting up signs telling everyone they have to pay Visa fee's. It's irrelevant to the consumers, what they pay doesn't change.

hanselot 6y ago
Walmart == AppStore? Does walmart also only sell things at 30% markup or is there perhaps some possibility that in reality, things are valued differently based on what they are. Buying a computer is not something I do often, therefore it has high markup and cost. Buying groceries, that is a different story. It for sure doesn't cost apple anything to have the bit of information under the approval message. Ironically, it does cost them money to find a way to block it from being displayed.
SyneRyder 6y ago
> This would be like Wal-mart putting up signs telling everyone they have to pay Visa fee's. This actually happens in Australia. Because AmEx charges an extra 1.75% to businesses, stores display a warning at checkout that using an AmEx card will incur an extra fee of 1.75%. Edit: Here's an example graphic from the Australian Government website, explaining that it's illegal for a business to charge more than what it costs them: https://www.accc.gov.au/sites/www.accc.gov.au/files/Surcharging%20infographic_1.png https://www.accc.gov.au/sites/www.accc.gov.au/files/Surcharg...
- RandoHolmes 6y ago
  Apple isn't passing the extra fee onto the customer, neither is FB. I understand your point, but it's not applicable here.
  - amaccuish 6y ago
    I think you're confused because Apple is acting as a payment processor (even though there is another one for the card) and as a marketplace.