3 ms·

How should Apple get paid for a free app that has it's own payment system? Apple created a phone, IDE, language and entire ecosystem and from day 1 has charged

How should Apple get paid for a free app that has it's own payment system? Apple created a phone, IDE, language and entire ecosystem and from day 1 has charged 30%. They have not increased that as their marketshare increased. Should Apple be forced to allow an app to be released free and then accept payments outside of Apple?

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
Why shouldn't they? They got paid when the customer bought the phone. If the "free" app is handling payment processing and distribution itself, what is Apple doing that justifies receiving any money at all?
- thrwn_frthr_awy 6y ago
  The ide, language, servers, and platform to support the app aren't worth anything? Really not trying to be dense here, I just don't see how this isn't just Epic thinking a price is too high and wanting to pay less.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    Then where is the option to use some other IDE, language, servers, etc.? The "platform" is the thing the customer paid for when they bought the phone.
    - thrwn_frthr_awy 6y ago
      I guess I just don't see why they should be required to support those other things. I agree that they could do that, but I don't see the reason to force them to. They created what they wanted because they didn't like the current offerings at the time–Epic or anyone else is free to do the same.
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        > I guess I just don't see why they should be required to support those other things. Because not supporting them is anti-competitive. Markets require competition to operate. It is obviously not feasible for an individual app developer to build their own phone hardware and operating system and convince everyone to switch to it from iPhones just in order to avoid Apple's app distribution system, so requiring that is unreasonable.
        threeseed 6y ago
        But you've arbitrarily defined what a market is. By this tortured logic Tesla should be forced to have a marketplace of self-driving implementations which their cars must support because that is technically a market. And they must not unfairly promote Autopilot.
        AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        > But you've arbitrarily defined what a market is. It's not arbitrary. It's based on whether there are reasonable substitutes. Exxon is a reasonable substitute for Chevron when buying gasoline for your 2020 Ford F150, because you can use either one. Google Play is not a reasonable substitute for the Apple App Store when buying apps for your 2020 Apple iPhone, because you can't actually use it for that. > By this tortured logic Tesla should be forced to have a marketplace of self-driving implementations which their cars must support because that is technically a market. It has nothing to do with forcing them to do something. They just shouldn't be able to prevent someone else from producing an autopilot implementation for their cars. And what's so unreasonable about that? It's plainly anti-competitive.
yyyk 6y ago
Oh, I don't know. They could ask the developer for a fee. How about that? To answer your question, yes, Apple should be forced to allow other payment system. The current anti-competitive arrangement both disadvantages non-Apple payment systems, and prevents users from switching to Android if they wish (since subscriptions are managed by Apple, and it difficult to access that without an Apple device...).
- thrwn_frthr_awy 6y ago
  > Oh, I don't know. They could ask the developer for a fee. How about that? Yes, they could do that. I just don't understand the reason why they should be forced to.
  - yyyk 6y ago
    Because their current behaviour is anti-competitive rent-seeking, and limits innovation. Anti-competitive by mandating use of their products, rent seeking because 30% is absurd (but alas legal), and as one twitter thread pointed out, if the web hadn't already existed, no existing web browser could possibly have passed Apple's app store policies.
    - thrwn_frthr_awy 6y ago
      I guess I don't see them mandating the use of their products. You can have your app on iOS or not. I just don't see the moral issue here. They've never raised the prices and have had this price since they had 0 3rd party apps so I have a hard time seeing it as rent seeking. Do they make a lot of money? Yes, they do, but is that enough to force them not too? I'm just not convinced of that yet.
      - yyyk 6y ago
        Apple are mandating the use of their Apple ID and Apple Payment System (aka products). The first might have a security rational, the second does not, yet devs must pay Apple's fees even if they are higher than alternatives[, a defacto price raise]. It used to be possible to get payments on iOS going without using Apple's payments, before Apple set their eyes upon that market.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

Why shouldn't they? They got paid when the customer bought the phone. If the "free" app is handling payment processing and distribution itself, what is Apple doing that justifies receiving any money at all?

thrwn_frthr_awy 6y ago
The ide, language, servers, and platform to support the app aren't worth anything? Really not trying to be dense here, I just don't see how this isn't just Epic thinking a price is too high and wanting to pay less.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  Then where is the option to use some other IDE, language, servers, etc.? The "platform" is the thing the customer paid for when they bought the phone.
  - thrwn_frthr_awy 6y ago
    I guess I just don't see why they should be required to support those other things. I agree that they could do that, but I don't see the reason to force them to. They created what they wanted because they didn't like the current offerings at the time–Epic or anyone else is free to do the same.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      > I guess I just don't see why they should be required to support those other things. Because not supporting them is anti-competitive. Markets require competition to operate. It is obviously not feasible for an individual app developer to build their own phone hardware and operating system and convince everyone to switch to it from iPhones just in order to avoid Apple's app distribution system, so requiring that is unreasonable.
      - threeseed 6y ago
        But you've arbitrarily defined what a market is. By this tortured logic Tesla should be forced to have a marketplace of self-driving implementations which their cars must support because that is technically a market. And they must not unfairly promote Autopilot.
        AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        > But you've arbitrarily defined what a market is. It's not arbitrary. It's based on whether there are reasonable substitutes. Exxon is a reasonable substitute for Chevron when buying gasoline for your 2020 Ford F150, because you can use either one. Google Play is not a reasonable substitute for the Apple App Store when buying apps for your 2020 Apple iPhone, because you can't actually use it for that. > By this tortured logic Tesla should be forced to have a marketplace of self-driving implementations which their cars must support because that is technically a market. It has nothing to do with forcing them to do something. They just shouldn't be able to prevent someone else from producing an autopilot implementation for their cars. And what's so unreasonable about that? It's plainly anti-competitive.

yyyk 6y ago

Oh, I don't know. They could ask the developer for a fee. How about that? To answer your question, yes, Apple should be forced to allow other payment system. The current anti-competitive arrangement both disadvantages non-Apple payment systems, and prevents users from switching to Android if they wish (since subscriptions are managed by Apple, and it difficult to access that without an Apple device...).

thrwn_frthr_awy 6y ago
> Oh, I don't know. They could ask the developer for a fee. How about that? Yes, they could do that. I just don't understand the reason why they should be forced to.
- yyyk 6y ago
  Because their current behaviour is anti-competitive rent-seeking, and limits innovation. Anti-competitive by mandating use of their products, rent seeking because 30% is absurd (but alas legal), and as one twitter thread pointed out, if the web hadn't already existed, no existing web browser could possibly have passed Apple's app store policies.
  - thrwn_frthr_awy 6y ago
    I guess I don't see them mandating the use of their products. You can have your app on iOS or not. I just don't see the moral issue here. They've never raised the prices and have had this price since they had 0 3rd party apps so I have a hard time seeing it as rent seeking. Do they make a lot of money? Yes, they do, but is that enough to force them not too? I'm just not convinced of that yet.
    - yyyk 6y ago
      Apple are mandating the use of their Apple ID and Apple Payment System (aka products). The first might have a security rational, the second does not, yet devs must pay Apple's fees even if they are higher than alternatives[, a defacto price raise]. It used to be possible to get payments on iOS going without using Apple's payments, before Apple set their eyes upon that market.