6 ms·

That isn't a contractual split, though. Edit: Also, equating the rent of a physical space with what amounts to a webpage and checkout seems ludicrous to me. Ph

That isn't a contractual split, though. Edit: Also, equating the rent of a physical space with what amounts to a webpage and checkout seems ludicrous to me. Physical space, especially one suited to a particular business is limited asset, not to mention the taxes and other costs to the owner of the physical space incur which don't exist for an app store.

sunir 6y ago
There are many mechanics in commercial agreements; they amount on average to similar outcomes. It’s all rent whether it is a percentage of the till or a fixed cost over a term; where the landlord raised costs upon renewal as the business value rises.
- jimktrains2 6y ago
  Rent can be negotiated (although not usually done for residential leases, is for commercial ones) and the length can be, and often is, for more than a year. There isn't even the pretext of being able to negotiate the appstore cut. As I added in my edit, equating the rent of a physical space to an app store seems absurd to me, as well.
  - sunir 6y ago
    Whether or not the landlord is willing to negotiate isn’t a legal right. They are fully allowed to set their own terms. Your own feelings don’t make a basis for law. You’ll need to find a meaningful difference here that constrains the rights of the private parties to draft contracts as they wish.
    - jimktrains2 6y ago
      I never said that a landlord _has_ to negotiate. I said rent, just like purchase price of property, can be negotiated. The appstore fee cannot be negotiated. There is no pretext that parties here will draft a mutual contract. I'm also not sure why you're attacking me and "my feelings" here, especially when it's not that I "feel" that commercial rents should be negotiated, but that they can be and often are negotiated.
      - sunir 6y ago
        You’re arguing a situation seems absurd to you and then working backwards. However we want to live by the Rule of Law so you need to put aside your commitment to your sentiment that this is absurd and investigate what is really happening, and then form a constructive rules-based case that would be fair even to companies that aren’t Apple. The problem with committing to your sense this is absurd is that you are neglecting to check if it is absurd. Perhaps your own assertions are the problem. For instance the Apple App Store fee can also be negotiated. There is nothing preventing Apple or an app developer from negotiating prices. Famously they did with Amazon for instance. The crux of the Apple case is whether they may legitimately control what apps you may install on your own general purpose computer. That element is critical to not just Apple but how much power any computer manufacturer now and into the long future may possess. The shopping mall analogy doesn't hold because both sellers and buyers have access to the entire free market. It's not controlled by the landlord. I would guess your sense the situation is absurd is based on this, but you haven't been able to articulate it. However, it is very common to argue digital freedoms based on what we want and feel rather than what rules make sense, and that is necessarily critiqueable as a bad habit.
        jimktrains2 6y ago
        Yes, because being able to negotiate with apple is an option for the vast majority of developers, whereas negotiating rent is very common. I find the comparison to rent absurd, because as I've said elsewhere, the risk and marginal cost of a property to rent is much higher than the cost of an appstore selling another app.
        sunir 6y ago
        Right, I agree. If we followed the logic to the root cause here, we'd get to the problem. It doesn't matter how much Apple limiting supply in their app store. Stores have the ability to limit what inventory they shelve. However, this is only an issue because there is only one app store allowed on the iPhone that is controlled by Apple. That's the rule-based point of contention that won't cause collateral damage to other retailers who don't have a similar singular point of control.
  - Arnt 6y ago
    If I may ask a question... The app stores perform payment processing, asset distribution/CDN work, malware detection and some minor tasks that AIUI have O(1) cost to them. They charge for only one of those, and make that charge high enough to cover all of the costs. What is it that you're unhappy with — are you unhappy with the payment processing fee but feel that the price level would be acceptable if structured as a sum of three fees, or are you saying that the total fee is too much for the total work they do?
    - jimktrains2 6y ago
      I simply find it hard to believe that such a fee would be fair if alternate app stores were available and as capable (as in capabilities allowed by the device) by default. Even on Android, where it is possible, side loading is a pain and without root the play store has capabilities that cannot be duplicated, I think the fee is only acceptable because of the iOS appstore's fee being the same.
      - Arnt 6y ago
        In that case you'll be interested to hear about the situation in China, where the biggest of the many android app stores has less than 30% market share. And what are the prices like? Bloomberg headline is "China's App Store Fees Make Apple's Look Cheap" and describes 50% as a typical rate. "Now, a handful of Chinese developers have started the fight to push their revenue split down to the global standard." https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2020-10-08/china-s-app-store-fees-make-apple-s-look-cheap https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2020-10-08/china-...
keiferski 6y ago
A lot of restaurants would probably prefer a contractual split, actually, assuming there is no base fee. If the rent price scaled up and down depending on demand, you’d see more openings and less closings.
bserge 6y ago
Aren't you paying for access to the customer base, rather than just a webpage and checkout? Not many people would be willing to side load apps from third party websites.
- HeadsUpHigh 6y ago
  The point here is that Apple being the arbiter of access to customer base is an unhealthy market dynamic.
  - sunshinerag 6y ago
    As a user of Apple ecosystem, I absolutely like that Apple is the curator and arbiter for the ecosystem. I knowingly pay a premium for that.
    - sumedh 6y ago
      You may like that some others wont. If they paid for the phone let them install an App directly from someone's website if they want to.
    - simion314 6y ago
      >As a user of Apple ecosystem, I absolutely like that Apple is the curator and arbiter for the ecosystem. I knowingly pay a premium for that. IMO your argument is NULL, if there were alternatives like an Open source store, a Google, Microsoft and Amazon store on iOS you would not be forced to use them. Check the Android model, most people are using the Google store and the GIANT benefits is that if Google decides or is forced to not allow an application you are not screwed, you can go around that. Again, if you want to consume ONLY Apple approved content then nobody would force you to not do it, see Android.
      - simonh 6y ago
        Epic tried to go round the Play Store with Fortnite and rely on side loading, but gave up and listed on the Play Store. Then they sued Google. Their argument is precisely that not going through the Play Store screwed them commercialy. I actually agree with you on the fact that having other stores on iOS would not stop people from just sticking with the App Store. That’s true. My concern about forcing Apple to support other stores is the ‘forcing’ part. People, throw around the term ‘forcing’ companies to do this and ‘forcing’ consumers to do that very liberally in situations where nobody is forced to do anything, but this is different. Apple doesn’t want to implement the APIs, security controls and services to support third party stores. Mandating that they do so would literally be forcing them to do development and testing work, and support features they don’t want to support. Presumably such a mandate would also have to specify exactly how such features must be designed and implemented in order to be compliant, so now we’d have government specified features and UIs. To me, that seems a few steps too far.
sunshinerag 6y ago
| with what amounts to a webpage and checkout seems ludicrous to me. If all it were was just some webpage and checkout, then why don't someone replicate it and just charge less and undercut. mm?
- thatcat 6y ago
  What more is there that justifies 30 percent cut other than a monopoly market dynamic?
- jimktrains2 6y ago
  I'm not sure what your point is, as that's literally impossible for someone to do on an Apple device. At least with Android, it is possible and does happen. The play store still gives the most reach as it's pre-installed and has special permissions. I still think 30% is ludicrous, but at least it's possible to have competition.

sunir 6y ago

There are many mechanics in commercial agreements; they amount on average to similar outcomes. It’s all rent whether it is a percentage of the till or a fixed cost over a term; where the landlord raised costs upon renewal as the business value rises.

jimktrains2 6y ago
Rent can be negotiated (although not usually done for residential leases, is for commercial ones) and the length can be, and often is, for more than a year. There isn't even the pretext of being able to negotiate the appstore cut. As I added in my edit, equating the rent of a physical space to an app store seems absurd to me, as well.
- sunir 6y ago
  Whether or not the landlord is willing to negotiate isn’t a legal right. They are fully allowed to set their own terms. Your own feelings don’t make a basis for law. You’ll need to find a meaningful difference here that constrains the rights of the private parties to draft contracts as they wish.
  - jimktrains2 6y ago
    I never said that a landlord _has_ to negotiate. I said rent, just like purchase price of property, can be negotiated. The appstore fee cannot be negotiated. There is no pretext that parties here will draft a mutual contract. I'm also not sure why you're attacking me and "my feelings" here, especially when it's not that I "feel" that commercial rents should be negotiated, but that they can be and often are negotiated.
    - sunir 6y ago
      You’re arguing a situation seems absurd to you and then working backwards. However we want to live by the Rule of Law so you need to put aside your commitment to your sentiment that this is absurd and investigate what is really happening, and then form a constructive rules-based case that would be fair even to companies that aren’t Apple. The problem with committing to your sense this is absurd is that you are neglecting to check if it is absurd. Perhaps your own assertions are the problem. For instance the Apple App Store fee can also be negotiated. There is nothing preventing Apple or an app developer from negotiating prices. Famously they did with Amazon for instance. The crux of the Apple case is whether they may legitimately control what apps you may install on your own general purpose computer. That element is critical to not just Apple but how much power any computer manufacturer now and into the long future may possess. The shopping mall analogy doesn't hold because both sellers and buyers have access to the entire free market. It's not controlled by the landlord. I would guess your sense the situation is absurd is based on this, but you haven't been able to articulate it. However, it is very common to argue digital freedoms based on what we want and feel rather than what rules make sense, and that is necessarily critiqueable as a bad habit.
      - jimktrains2 6y ago
        Yes, because being able to negotiate with apple is an option for the vast majority of developers, whereas negotiating rent is very common. I find the comparison to rent absurd, because as I've said elsewhere, the risk and marginal cost of a property to rent is much higher than the cost of an appstore selling another app.
        sunir 6y ago
        Right, I agree. If we followed the logic to the root cause here, we'd get to the problem. It doesn't matter how much Apple limiting supply in their app store. Stores have the ability to limit what inventory they shelve. However, this is only an issue because there is only one app store allowed on the iPhone that is controlled by Apple. That's the rule-based point of contention that won't cause collateral damage to other retailers who don't have a similar singular point of control.
- Arnt 6y ago
  If I may ask a question... The app stores perform payment processing, asset distribution/CDN work, malware detection and some minor tasks that AIUI have O(1) cost to them. They charge for only one of those, and make that charge high enough to cover all of the costs. What is it that you're unhappy with — are you unhappy with the payment processing fee but feel that the price level would be acceptable if structured as a sum of three fees, or are you saying that the total fee is too much for the total work they do?
  - jimktrains2 6y ago
    I simply find it hard to believe that such a fee would be fair if alternate app stores were available and as capable (as in capabilities allowed by the device) by default. Even on Android, where it is possible, side loading is a pain and without root the play store has capabilities that cannot be duplicated, I think the fee is only acceptable because of the iOS appstore's fee being the same.
    - Arnt 6y ago
      In that case you'll be interested to hear about the situation in China, where the biggest of the many android app stores has less than 30% market share. And what are the prices like? Bloomberg headline is "China's App Store Fees Make Apple's Look Cheap" and describes 50% as a typical rate. "Now, a handful of Chinese developers have started the fight to push their revenue split down to the global standard." https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2020-10-08/china-s-app-store-fees-make-apple-s-look-cheap https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2020-10-08/china-...

keiferski 6y ago

A lot of restaurants would probably prefer a contractual split, actually, assuming there is no base fee. If the rent price scaled up and down depending on demand, you’d see more openings and less closings.

bserge 6y ago

Aren't you paying for access to the customer base, rather than just a webpage and checkout? Not many people would be willing to side load apps from third party websites.

HeadsUpHigh 6y ago
The point here is that Apple being the arbiter of access to customer base is an unhealthy market dynamic.
- sunshinerag 6y ago
  As a user of Apple ecosystem, I absolutely like that Apple is the curator and arbiter for the ecosystem. I knowingly pay a premium for that.
  - sumedh 6y ago
    You may like that some others wont. If they paid for the phone let them install an App directly from someone's website if they want to.
  - simion314 6y ago
    >As a user of Apple ecosystem, I absolutely like that Apple is the curator and arbiter for the ecosystem. I knowingly pay a premium for that. IMO your argument is NULL, if there were alternatives like an Open source store, a Google, Microsoft and Amazon store on iOS you would not be forced to use them. Check the Android model, most people are using the Google store and the GIANT benefits is that if Google decides or is forced to not allow an application you are not screwed, you can go around that. Again, if you want to consume ONLY Apple approved content then nobody would force you to not do it, see Android.
    - simonh 6y ago
      Epic tried to go round the Play Store with Fortnite and rely on side loading, but gave up and listed on the Play Store. Then they sued Google. Their argument is precisely that not going through the Play Store screwed them commercialy. I actually agree with you on the fact that having other stores on iOS would not stop people from just sticking with the App Store. That’s true. My concern about forcing Apple to support other stores is the ‘forcing’ part. People, throw around the term ‘forcing’ companies to do this and ‘forcing’ consumers to do that very liberally in situations where nobody is forced to do anything, but this is different. Apple doesn’t want to implement the APIs, security controls and services to support third party stores. Mandating that they do so would literally be forcing them to do development and testing work, and support features they don’t want to support. Presumably such a mandate would also have to specify exactly how such features must be designed and implemented in order to be compliant, so now we’d have government specified features and UIs. To me, that seems a few steps too far.

sunshinerag 6y ago

| with what amounts to a webpage and checkout seems ludicrous to me. If all it were was just some webpage and checkout, then why don't someone replicate it and just charge less and undercut. mm?

thatcat 6y ago
What more is there that justifies 30 percent cut other than a monopoly market dynamic?
jimktrains2 6y ago
I'm not sure what your point is, as that's literally impossible for someone to do on an Apple device. At least with Android, it is possible and does happen. The play store still gives the most reach as it's pre-installed and has special permissions. I still think 30% is ludicrous, but at least it's possible to have competition.