5 ms·

This is a flawed analogy. The correct one would be Cheerios printing "If you buy me at Costco, I cost $1 less" on the outside of the box. No rational retailer t

by dpratt 6y ago

This is a flawed analogy. The correct one would be Cheerios printing "If you buy me at Costco, I cost $1 less" on the outside of the box. No rational retailer that isn't Costco would carry that product.

kevincox 6y ago
However the flaw in your analogy is that there is very little lock-in to particular retailers where is there is a huge lock-in to a phone you just bought.
- realusername 6y ago
  And additionally there's dozens of supermarkets, thin margins and high competition. The mobile app market has exactly two companies with the exact same fees...
danShumway 6y ago
Eh. A better analogy would be Cheerios sticking an insert inside their box of cereal that said, "save $1 at Costco". That kind of behavior is pretty common with physical retailers; most boxed products I buy will contain inserts that advertise replacement parts and other products from other sources. Apple isn't just banning apps from mentioning competing stores in app descriptions, it's banning them from mentioning competing stores inside the app.
- jonny_eh 6y ago
  This! Even better would be an insert in the box saying "buy future Cheerios from Cheerios.com at 30% off".
  - dingaling 6y ago
    I frequently receive inserts like that from sellers on eBay, promoting their own direct-sales site.
    - syspec 6y ago
      And there is a reason the seller is mentioning while trying to hide mentioning that to you from Ebay.
      - yyyk 6y ago
        No hiding required. Inserts are allowed according to eBay policy: https://www.ebay.com/help/policies/payment-policies/offers-buy-sell-outside-ebay-policy?id=4272 https://www.ebay.com/help/policies/payment-policies/offers-b...
        imtringued 6y ago
        It doesn't read to me that way. >Buyers and sellers can't: >In any communications with another eBay member, refer to or promote external websites that facilitate sales outside of eBay I would count sending a "letter" along with your product to be a form of communication. >Use contact information obtained through an eBay transaction to offer to buy or sell an item outside of eBay This would prevent you from adding the insert to the package. >Offer catalogs or other items that are used to order items directly outside of eBay An insert is effectively a mini catalog. So they pretty much explicitly banned inserts. If you aren't even allowed to sell them for a price then sellers clearly wouldn't be allowed to give them away for free. Sending an insert along with a product breaks 3 policy points at once. Can you describe which part of the policy actually allows inserts? All I see is that Ebay wants to have complete control over communications between seller and buyer.
        yyyk 6y ago
        You're interpreting this in the way Apple would, not in the way eBay actually does. >>In any communications with another eBay member, refer to or promote external websites that facilitate sales outside of eBay >I would count sending a "letter" along with your product to be a form of communication. This means one can't use eBay's messaging for promotion, but one can use one's own product. The way you're interpreting this would mean that no one selling in eBay could send letters (or even advertise) anywhere outside eBay because it might reach an eBay member. >>Use contact information obtained through an eBay transaction to offer to buy or sell an item outside of eBay >This would prevent you from adding the insert to the package. This means one can't use the paypal address for direct mail for these purposes. However, you don't even have to know who the customer is to add an insert or to package your product such that it refers to your website. >>Offer catalogs or other items that are used to order items directly outside of eBay >An insert is effectively a mini catalog. It's basically Google's rule on not promoting other App Stores in their Play Store. Fact: Plenty of people do this in practice and eBay is not cracking down. Maybe it's not interpreted the way you think it is?
- ascagnel_ 6y ago
  Serious question: what counts as "inside" the app, when the app itself is free? The free-to-play model that Epic is relying on (and, with some variability, the other players are relying on, where the apps themselves are "free" with a paid service) somewhat breaks the conventions we're used to discussing, and there aren't really analogies. The closest comparison I can make to these services are how PC MMORPGs (think World of Warcraft) used to be sold -- at retail, a user would make a single purchase that included a version of the game's client and a code that granted them some time in the game, so they'd be getting a "complete" product with the purchase. If Fortnite cost $5, but included whatever that'd convert to in VBucks, this discussion would be very, very different; same with if Spotify charged $10 for their app but included the first month free. In this case, Apple & Google, as retailers, would get their percentage (as non-recurring revenue), but Epic and Spotify would be free to continue booking 100% of revenue on an ongoing basis, but would need to invest a lot more in marketing, since free on-boarding is a massive driver for user adoption.
  - danShumway 6y ago
    For me, the price of the app isn't really the distinguishing characteristic of whether you're 'inside' the app or not. If I'm using a free app, and a bug causes it to break, would I report the bug to Apple or to the developer? If I saw something objectionable, or ugly, would I say that iOS is ugly, or would I blame the developer? I think that regardless of the price, when I'm using an app and I find myself in the state of attributing the experience to the developer instead of Apple, that means I'm playing in the developer's space, not Apple's. Getting past all of the analogies, what Apple is doing is saying that you're not allowed to mention competing storefronts even when you're inside your own space. In contrast, if I went to a app store page and the app store crashed, or the app didn't download, I'd contact Apple, because I'm not in the developer's space there, I'm in Apple's. There is some fuzziness there, and there's also some fuzziness around whether or not it's OK for Apple to decide what you can and can't do inside your own 'app space.' Different people can have different opinions on that, and ultimately the courts/Congress will probably end up deciding whether that is Ok. But that's the non-analogy, purely app-centric explanation I would use -- Apple is dictating what you can say to customers when you're in your own space, and they're doing that to a degree that goes beyond protecting users from malware or fraud. I personally think it's very difficult to argue that keeping people from mentioning prices elsewhere is a restriction that's purely designed to protect users. It's not really the same as restricting phishing attacks or fraud inside of an app would be. So to me, that makes me feel less charitable about arguments that Apple should be able to have that kind of control about what happens in the developer's space, because I don't see a compelling reason for them to have that power.
ksk 6y ago
Its not on the outside of the box, its on the inside. Apple forbids in-app discussion. I wonder what Apple would say if the app had a browser component that directs users to a web-page. These draconian rules are such a clusterF* hope these guys succeed. BTW, all analogies are flawed in some manner or another. If you take away the abstraction, every single one breaks down. And then you end up talking about the intricacies of the thing you wanted to abstract away making it moot! :)
- spullara 6y ago
  Their current position protects consumers from being defrauded. I'm all for it.
  - ksk 6y ago
    That is great, you can avoid using app stores you don't trust. Why prevent other users from using stores they trust? Apple isn't the only company that can run an online store. There are countless online web stores selling all kinds of things, and people trust them with their money. Apple is artificially preventing competition in iOS stores here because they can abuse their dominant position.
    - spullara 6y ago
      The biggest issue is that in a native app you can fake the entire display. There is no way to know if it is a store you trust. It could look just like your paypal login down to the last pixel and it instead be bad actors collecting your information.
zamalek 6y ago
Yes, but remember that retailers can (and often do) promise to match the best price that you can find at their competitors. This is because retailers are in competition with each other for the same products. This analogy does not apply to Apple, because it has no motivation to price match, because nobody is allowed to sell i-device apps except for Apple. Edit: in addition, if we follow your analogy further, Costco could demand 30% from Apple on all purchases made through the App Store, for iPhones sold in Costco. Just like Apple demands a cut of all purchases after they sell a product in their store.
hibikir 6y ago
Your own change to the analogy isn't really all that accurate either: What you are saying would be closer to, saying "This game is cheaper in Android" in the Apple store's product description. I have no idea of what the courts will rule here, but if you are limiting this discussion to whether there's precedent to advertising a store the manufacturer themselves controls, there sure are examples. This might not be all that popular a plan with Cheerios, but perfectly normal with all kinds of items available at retail stores: For instance, Simple Modern water bottles will come with a discount coupon for buying replacement caps at a discount on the manufacturer's online store. Some printers have, inside the box a leaflet for ink discounts. At least one major vacuum cleaners brand will point you to their website for replacement bags, with an online coupon. Or, back in software, if I buy a Nintendo Switch at GameStop, I will still get ads on menus for buying games online, even though my relationship with Nintendo started at GameStop. All kinds of retailers carry the products I mentioned, even though there really is far more profit in habituating the customer to buying the consumables in your own store than in the original item. You could argue whether this is good or bad, legal or illegal, but the examples definitely exist.

by dpratt 6y ago

kevincox 6y ago

However the flaw in your analogy is that there is very little lock-in to particular retailers where is there is a huge lock-in to a phone you just bought.

realusername 6y ago
And additionally there's dozens of supermarkets, thin margins and high competition. The mobile app market has exactly two companies with the exact same fees...

danShumway 6y ago

Eh. A better analogy would be Cheerios sticking an insert inside their box of cereal that said, "save $1 at Costco". That kind of behavior is pretty common with physical retailers; most boxed products I buy will contain inserts that advertise replacement parts and other products from other sources. Apple isn't just banning apps from mentioning competing stores in app descriptions, it's banning them from mentioning competing stores inside the app.

jonny_eh 6y ago
This! Even better would be an insert in the box saying "buy future Cheerios from Cheerios.com at 30% off".
- dingaling 6y ago
  I frequently receive inserts like that from sellers on eBay, promoting their own direct-sales site.
  - syspec 6y ago
    And there is a reason the seller is mentioning while trying to hide mentioning that to you from Ebay.
    - yyyk 6y ago
      No hiding required. Inserts are allowed according to eBay policy: https://www.ebay.com/help/policies/payment-policies/offers-buy-sell-outside-ebay-policy?id=4272 https://www.ebay.com/help/policies/payment-policies/offers-b...
      - imtringued 6y ago
        It doesn't read to me that way. >Buyers and sellers can't: >In any communications with another eBay member, refer to or promote external websites that facilitate sales outside of eBay I would count sending a "letter" along with your product to be a form of communication. >Use contact information obtained through an eBay transaction to offer to buy or sell an item outside of eBay This would prevent you from adding the insert to the package. >Offer catalogs or other items that are used to order items directly outside of eBay An insert is effectively a mini catalog. So they pretty much explicitly banned inserts. If you aren't even allowed to sell them for a price then sellers clearly wouldn't be allowed to give them away for free. Sending an insert along with a product breaks 3 policy points at once. Can you describe which part of the policy actually allows inserts? All I see is that Ebay wants to have complete control over communications between seller and buyer.
        yyyk 6y ago
        You're interpreting this in the way Apple would, not in the way eBay actually does. >>In any communications with another eBay member, refer to or promote external websites that facilitate sales outside of eBay >I would count sending a "letter" along with your product to be a form of communication. This means one can't use eBay's messaging for promotion, but one can use one's own product. The way you're interpreting this would mean that no one selling in eBay could send letters (or even advertise) anywhere outside eBay because it might reach an eBay member. >>Use contact information obtained through an eBay transaction to offer to buy or sell an item outside of eBay >This would prevent you from adding the insert to the package. This means one can't use the paypal address for direct mail for these purposes. However, you don't even have to know who the customer is to add an insert or to package your product such that it refers to your website. >>Offer catalogs or other items that are used to order items directly outside of eBay >An insert is effectively a mini catalog. It's basically Google's rule on not promoting other App Stores in their Play Store. Fact: Plenty of people do this in practice and eBay is not cracking down. Maybe it's not interpreted the way you think it is?
ascagnel_ 6y ago
Serious question: what counts as "inside" the app, when the app itself is free? The free-to-play model that Epic is relying on (and, with some variability, the other players are relying on, where the apps themselves are "free" with a paid service) somewhat breaks the conventions we're used to discussing, and there aren't really analogies. The closest comparison I can make to these services are how PC MMORPGs (think World of Warcraft) used to be sold -- at retail, a user would make a single purchase that included a version of the game's client and a code that granted them some time in the game, so they'd be getting a "complete" product with the purchase. If Fortnite cost $5, but included whatever that'd convert to in VBucks, this discussion would be very, very different; same with if Spotify charged $10 for their app but included the first month free. In this case, Apple & Google, as retailers, would get their percentage (as non-recurring revenue), but Epic and Spotify would be free to continue booking 100% of revenue on an ongoing basis, but would need to invest a lot more in marketing, since free on-boarding is a massive driver for user adoption.
- danShumway 6y ago
  For me, the price of the app isn't really the distinguishing characteristic of whether you're 'inside' the app or not. If I'm using a free app, and a bug causes it to break, would I report the bug to Apple or to the developer? If I saw something objectionable, or ugly, would I say that iOS is ugly, or would I blame the developer? I think that regardless of the price, when I'm using an app and I find myself in the state of attributing the experience to the developer instead of Apple, that means I'm playing in the developer's space, not Apple's. Getting past all of the analogies, what Apple is doing is saying that you're not allowed to mention competing storefronts even when you're inside your own space. In contrast, if I went to a app store page and the app store crashed, or the app didn't download, I'd contact Apple, because I'm not in the developer's space there, I'm in Apple's. There is some fuzziness there, and there's also some fuzziness around whether or not it's OK for Apple to decide what you can and can't do inside your own 'app space.' Different people can have different opinions on that, and ultimately the courts/Congress will probably end up deciding whether that is Ok. But that's the non-analogy, purely app-centric explanation I would use -- Apple is dictating what you can say to customers when you're in your own space, and they're doing that to a degree that goes beyond protecting users from malware or fraud. I personally think it's very difficult to argue that keeping people from mentioning prices elsewhere is a restriction that's purely designed to protect users. It's not really the same as restricting phishing attacks or fraud inside of an app would be. So to me, that makes me feel less charitable about arguments that Apple should be able to have that kind of control about what happens in the developer's space, because I don't see a compelling reason for them to have that power.

ksk 6y ago

Its not on the outside of the box, its on the inside. Apple forbids in-app discussion. I wonder what Apple would say if the app had a browser component that directs users to a web-page. These draconian rules are such a clusterF* hope these guys succeed. BTW, all analogies are flawed in some manner or another. If you take away the abstraction, every single one breaks down. And then you end up talking about the intricacies of the thing you wanted to abstract away making it moot! :)

spullara 6y ago
Their current position protects consumers from being defrauded. I'm all for it.
- ksk 6y ago
  That is great, you can avoid using app stores you don't trust. Why prevent other users from using stores they trust? Apple isn't the only company that can run an online store. There are countless online web stores selling all kinds of things, and people trust them with their money. Apple is artificially preventing competition in iOS stores here because they can abuse their dominant position.
  - spullara 6y ago
    The biggest issue is that in a native app you can fake the entire display. There is no way to know if it is a store you trust. It could look just like your paypal login down to the last pixel and it instead be bad actors collecting your information.

zamalek 6y ago

Yes, but remember that retailers can (and often do) promise to match the best price that you can find at their competitors. This is because retailers are in competition with each other for the same products. This analogy does not apply to Apple, because it has no motivation to price match, because nobody is allowed to sell i-device apps except for Apple. Edit: in addition, if we follow your analogy further, Costco could demand 30% from Apple on all purchases made through the App Store, for iPhones sold in Costco. Just like Apple demands a cut of all purchases after they sell a product in their store.

hibikir 6y ago

Your own change to the analogy isn't really all that accurate either: What you are saying would be closer to, saying "This game is cheaper in Android" in the Apple store's product description. I have no idea of what the courts will rule here, but if you are limiting this discussion to whether there's precedent to advertising a store the manufacturer themselves controls, there sure are examples. This might not be all that popular a plan with Cheerios, but perfectly normal with all kinds of items available at retail stores: For instance, Simple Modern water bottles will come with a discount coupon for buying replacement caps at a discount on the manufacturer's online store. Some printers have, inside the box a leaflet for ink discounts. At least one major vacuum cleaners brand will point you to their website for replacement bags, with an online coupon. Or, back in software, if I buy a Nintendo Switch at GameStop, I will still get ads on menus for buying games online, even though my relationship with Nintendo started at GameStop. All kinds of retailers carry the products I mentioned, even though there really is far more profit in habituating the customer to buying the consumables in your own store than in the original item. You could argue whether this is good or bad, legal or illegal, but the examples definitely exist.