3 ms·

Hasn't the pro-Apple argument centered around everyone pays the same amount and people knew what the rules are so stop complaining and pay? The anti-Apple argu

Hasn't the pro-Apple argument centered around everyone pays the same amount and people knew what the rules are so stop complaining and pay? The anti-Apple argument has been that the policy hurts smaller developers and is being applied unfairly. This at least validates the latter argument while suggesting truth to the former. Regardless, it's an interesting development.

dmurray 6y ago
> Hasn't the pro-Apple argument centered around everyone pays the same amount and people knew what the rules are so stop complaining and pay? To me it's looked more like the argument is: it's Apple's store, so Apple gets to make the rules. And that they don't have anything close to a monopoly in mobile hardware or mobile OSes, which is one argument for not allowing them to make their own rules.
systemvoltage 6y ago
At some point when the amount is in multi millions, it becomes a call to the a real person at Apple - negotiations are on the table. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. Unless we see this wrong across the board including the peanut business. Any other argument is hypocrisy unless the App Store is something different than normal business dealings?
dodobirdlord 6y ago
The pro-Apple argument centers on “you got what you signed up for, what’s the problem?” Arguments about uniform treatment don’t play much part. The anti-Apple argument (at least the one that matters) is that Apple has hurt consumers in some way. Whether Apple has made life difficult for developers is pretty much irrelevant.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Given that developers have to pay Apple for access to the app store, they are also consumers, just in a different way.
  - akiselev 6y ago
    I don't think that's how most business relationships work. When I buy a high end sintering 3d printer, for instance, it doesn't come with a mountain of consumer protections because it's assumed that if I'm buying one, I know what I'm doing and will make sure the purchase contract contains warranty clauses, support, and so on. The cheap FDM 3d printer I bought off of Amazon, however, is targeted at Joe Public and thus treated differently by the law with a mandated one year warranty. I'm not sure what the legal test is for differentiating the two, but the difference is definitely recognized by the courts. IANAL but it's unlikely that the courts would decide that app developers are consumers in the classical sense. That said, it doesn't matter (again, IANAL). Consumers are still being harmed, as Apple so graciously showed by removing Epic from the store - removing consumer choice in a free market is anti-competitive.
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      Being a business doesn't render one a non-consumer, otherwise, no business would ever have recourse against another business for non-negotiated transactions. A consumer is simply a purchaser that "consumes" a product or service rather than using it for production (of their own goods or services) or reselling it.
      - akiselev 6y ago
        That assumes that antitrust regulations and the FTC use the common English definition of "consumer". I couldn't find the definition they use with a cursory search but I assume it's a more precise definition related to the definition of "consumer product" (IANAL, assume I'm wrong)
        gamblor956 6y ago
        Antitrust regulations don't make a distinction between consumers and businesses. What matters is how certain market actions interfere with the function or operation of the market. Usually, antitrust actions don't even involve consumer harm--they involve harm to competitors. Consumer products are products consumed by an end user not in the course of their business, simply meaning that the product is not resold or otherwise materially used in the production of the consumer's own products. Thus, for example, your work office is a consumer of staples, but Staples would not be (because they are in the business of (re)selling office supplies, even though they also consume them).

dmurray 6y ago

> Hasn't the pro-Apple argument centered around everyone pays the same amount and people knew what the rules are so stop complaining and pay? To me it's looked more like the argument is: it's Apple's store, so Apple gets to make the rules. And that they don't have anything close to a monopoly in mobile hardware or mobile OSes, which is one argument for not allowing them to make their own rules.

systemvoltage 6y ago

At some point when the amount is in multi millions, it becomes a call to the a real person at Apple - negotiations are on the table. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. Unless we see this wrong across the board including the peanut business. Any other argument is hypocrisy unless the App Store is something different than normal business dealings?

dodobirdlord 6y ago

The pro-Apple argument centers on “you got what you signed up for, what’s the problem?” Arguments about uniform treatment don’t play much part. The anti-Apple argument (at least the one that matters) is that Apple has hurt consumers in some way. Whether Apple has made life difficult for developers is pretty much irrelevant.

gamblor956 6y ago
Given that developers have to pay Apple for access to the app store, they are also consumers, just in a different way.
- akiselev 6y ago
  I don't think that's how most business relationships work. When I buy a high end sintering 3d printer, for instance, it doesn't come with a mountain of consumer protections because it's assumed that if I'm buying one, I know what I'm doing and will make sure the purchase contract contains warranty clauses, support, and so on. The cheap FDM 3d printer I bought off of Amazon, however, is targeted at Joe Public and thus treated differently by the law with a mandated one year warranty. I'm not sure what the legal test is for differentiating the two, but the difference is definitely recognized by the courts. IANAL but it's unlikely that the courts would decide that app developers are consumers in the classical sense. That said, it doesn't matter (again, IANAL). Consumers are still being harmed, as Apple so graciously showed by removing Epic from the store - removing consumer choice in a free market is anti-competitive.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    Being a business doesn't render one a non-consumer, otherwise, no business would ever have recourse against another business for non-negotiated transactions. A consumer is simply a purchaser that "consumes" a product or service rather than using it for production (of their own goods or services) or reselling it.
    - akiselev 6y ago
      That assumes that antitrust regulations and the FTC use the common English definition of "consumer". I couldn't find the definition they use with a cursory search but I assume it's a more precise definition related to the definition of "consumer product" (IANAL, assume I'm wrong)
      - gamblor956 6y ago
        Antitrust regulations don't make a distinction between consumers and businesses. What matters is how certain market actions interfere with the function or operation of the market. Usually, antitrust actions don't even involve consumer harm--they involve harm to competitors. Consumer products are products consumed by an end user not in the course of their business, simply meaning that the product is not resold or otherwise materially used in the production of the consumer's own products. Thus, for example, your work office is a consumer of staples, but Staples would not be (because they are in the business of (re)selling office supplies, even though they also consume them).