4 ms·

The thing that really annoys me about this entire argument is that the principal of the thing isn't really controversial. Apple provides a tonne of services (SD

The thing that really annoys me about this entire argument is that the principal of the thing isn't really controversial. Apple provides a tonne of services (SDKs, marketplace, payment processing) that other people also provide and also charge for. It's not that controversial - in fact, Epic's Unreal Engine has the exact same revenue share terms as Apple. The only thing that's really controversial here is that 30% is quite a high share, and Apple has to pull out all the stops to protect that 30% becuase of how high a share that is. I think it's a very hard push to claim Apple is a monopoly. It's just a damn good platform that's able to claim a disporportionate share of the revenue because it's so damn good. The whole moralistic histrionics from Hey, Epic, and Apple are total rubbish though.

inopinatus 6y ago
Sorry to flatly contradict you, but the size of Apple’s cut is not at all controversial. It has never been a crime to be expensive. The legal controversy is that Apple prohibit apps from advertising, linking to, or even mentioning that external account management/payment/service sign-up options are available. This forces vendors to become complicit in misleading the consumer about their options, an anti-competitive position that distorts a market. Some journalists may choose to focus on the 30% out of sheer crassness. Don’t be misled by sub-par reporting.
- Traster 6y ago
  Do you think that I can put "Cheaper on www.mysite.com" in my amazon description? Why would it be controversial to prohibit someone from advertising a competing service on your platform?
  - inopinatus 6y ago
    You’re mistaking the platform for the product. I bought an item through Amazon recently and it did come with a bunch of materials inviting me to visit the manufacturer’s website. I bought an app through the App Store and it is prohibited from inviting me to visit the vendor’s website. In contrast, I bought a MMORPG through the PlayStation store and the first thing it did was direct me to the maker's account sign-up.
    - Traster 6y ago
      It's only prohibited to invite you to visit the website whilst you're still on the Apple platform. If you bought a physical item via an in-app purchase that item could include advertising for the external site -the exact same as Amazon.
      - inopinatus 6y ago
        I'm not on the Apple platform. The product is sold through the Apple platform. Do you think Apple own the apps that are installed on your phone? Do you think they own your phone? Your ongoing relationship with a software developer? Do you think you are the product here? The answer for me: no, no, no, and no, respectively.
- mrkstu 6y ago
  They prohibit the app, that is available from their store to advertise ways of bypassing that store. I'm pretty sure Walmart doesn't sell items in its stores that have text on the packaging about how to buy the item cheaper at Target, and it isn't particularly controversial that they do things that way. As far as I'm aware app's web pages or other communication medium aren't prohibited from advertising whatever they want. Basically Apple is saying, "don't use our platform against us" which is what every for profit platform, ever, has done. In some platonically ideal way it would be nice that it were otherwise, but it is in no way unusual or illegal to do what it is doing. Remembering the time of Verizon flip phones with locked down video services and tiny java apps, the freedom of an iPhone (once the app store was out) was actually unprecedented from day one from a mass consumer point of view- niche Nokia/Windows CE/Pocket phones to the side.
  - inopinatus 6y ago
    Sorry, but what? Once I've bought the app, that analogy is broken. I've taken it home and opened the box, but somehow Walmart think they now get to control any subsequent transactions between me and the manufacturer? Let's say it's a water filter. Now it's a Walmart-specific water filter. When the filter module needs replacing, the vendor is now prohibited from selling me a replacement through any channel but Walmart, or even providing any contact details in the box to obtain a spare from them directly. You'd file that under "WTAF?" and complain to the nearest competition regulator. So yes, this is unusual, and in my country at least, misusing your market power to force another party to mislead the consumer and distort a market is illegal. Don't conflate the product with the platform. Otherwise you implicitly allow that you basically don't own the product even after you've bought it, which is unconscionable.
    - mrkstu 6y ago
      Its par for the course. You can't buy a Kobo book on a Kindle. The question of course is an iPhone a specialized device or a general one. I would say Apple has worked as hard as it has to keep things locked down so it can say, with a straight face, that its platform is no different than a Kindle or a Leapfrog. Its just a very successful specialized device that 3rd parties have decided to come and join the party (hosted by Apple.) So much like Xerox successfully fought off becoming a generic term, Apple is fighting off becoming a legally generic platform.
- chinathrow 6y ago
  > Sorry to flatly contradict you, but the size of Apple’s cut is not at all controversial. It has never been a crime to be expensive. Of course it's controversial. Why should 30% be acceptable? Why not 50% or 70%? Or only 5%? If you look at the app store revenue done by Apple and if you would be able look at the true cost of running it, one can agree that the huge markup is a racket.

inopinatus 6y ago

Sorry to flatly contradict you, but the size of Apple’s cut is not at all controversial. It has never been a crime to be expensive. The legal controversy is that Apple prohibit apps from advertising, linking to, or even mentioning that external account management/payment/service sign-up options are available. This forces vendors to become complicit in misleading the consumer about their options, an anti-competitive position that distorts a market. Some journalists may choose to focus on the 30% out of sheer crassness. Don’t be misled by sub-par reporting.

Traster 6y ago
Do you think that I can put "Cheaper on www.mysite.com" in my amazon description? Why would it be controversial to prohibit someone from advertising a competing service on your platform?
- inopinatus 6y ago
  You’re mistaking the platform for the product. I bought an item through Amazon recently and it did come with a bunch of materials inviting me to visit the manufacturer’s website. I bought an app through the App Store and it is prohibited from inviting me to visit the vendor’s website. In contrast, I bought a MMORPG through the PlayStation store and the first thing it did was direct me to the maker's account sign-up.
  - Traster 6y ago
    It's only prohibited to invite you to visit the website whilst you're still on the Apple platform. If you bought a physical item via an in-app purchase that item could include advertising for the external site -the exact same as Amazon.
    - inopinatus 6y ago
      I'm not on the Apple platform. The product is sold through the Apple platform. Do you think Apple own the apps that are installed on your phone? Do you think they own your phone? Your ongoing relationship with a software developer? Do you think you are the product here? The answer for me: no, no, no, and no, respectively.
mrkstu 6y ago
They prohibit the app, that is available from their store to advertise ways of bypassing that store. I'm pretty sure Walmart doesn't sell items in its stores that have text on the packaging about how to buy the item cheaper at Target, and it isn't particularly controversial that they do things that way. As far as I'm aware app's web pages or other communication medium aren't prohibited from advertising whatever they want. Basically Apple is saying, "don't use our platform against us" which is what every for profit platform, ever, has done. In some platonically ideal way it would be nice that it were otherwise, but it is in no way unusual or illegal to do what it is doing. Remembering the time of Verizon flip phones with locked down video services and tiny java apps, the freedom of an iPhone (once the app store was out) was actually unprecedented from day one from a mass consumer point of view- niche Nokia/Windows CE/Pocket phones to the side.
- inopinatus 6y ago
  Sorry, but what? Once I've bought the app, that analogy is broken. I've taken it home and opened the box, but somehow Walmart think they now get to control any subsequent transactions between me and the manufacturer? Let's say it's a water filter. Now it's a Walmart-specific water filter. When the filter module needs replacing, the vendor is now prohibited from selling me a replacement through any channel but Walmart, or even providing any contact details in the box to obtain a spare from them directly. You'd file that under "WTAF?" and complain to the nearest competition regulator. So yes, this is unusual, and in my country at least, misusing your market power to force another party to mislead the consumer and distort a market is illegal. Don't conflate the product with the platform. Otherwise you implicitly allow that you basically don't own the product even after you've bought it, which is unconscionable.
  - mrkstu 6y ago
    Its par for the course. You can't buy a Kobo book on a Kindle. The question of course is an iPhone a specialized device or a general one. I would say Apple has worked as hard as it has to keep things locked down so it can say, with a straight face, that its platform is no different than a Kindle or a Leapfrog. Its just a very successful specialized device that 3rd parties have decided to come and join the party (hosted by Apple.) So much like Xerox successfully fought off becoming a generic term, Apple is fighting off becoming a legally generic platform.
chinathrow 6y ago
> Sorry to flatly contradict you, but the size of Apple’s cut is not at all controversial. It has never been a crime to be expensive. Of course it's controversial. Why should 30% be acceptable? Why not 50% or 70%? Or only 5%? If you look at the app store revenue done by Apple and if you would be able look at the true cost of running it, one can agree that the huge markup is a racket.