4 ms·

It took me a second to get this argument, but it’s a good one. If there were thousands of marketplaces on iOS and Android, then Pakistan would have to negotiate

It took me a second to get this argument, but it’s a good one. If there were thousands of marketplaces on iOS and Android, then Pakistan would have to negotiate the removal on all of this platforms, as opposed to only two. Spelling it out clearly like that, it makes me wonder if there are many governments that prefer to have monopolies to deal with, rather than many companies. It certainly makes regulation simpler.

username90 6y ago
You can look at how many governments have managed to keep websites they don't like down. Thepiratebay and tons of other illegal sites are still available today in most places of the world even where they are illegal. If we didn't have the free open web and instead just had appstore like gatekeepers none of those sites would be allowed to exist.
jariel 6y ago
I personally worked for a large tech company and was involved with 'content filtering discussions' with questionable regimes. HN doesn't like such arguments, it's not an argument, just an experience. It's common. Pragmatically speaking, it's much harder for Pakistan to filter the entire web, than control international conglomerates which they generally can do. We need diversity in search, and absolutely need to have 'many app stores' and 'direct downloads'. The arguments for 'security' are rubbish, and the plebes supporting Apple's monopoly I don't think understand what's happening. In US anti-trust cases, generally there has be evidence of 'harm to consumers' - well - these 'bans' absolutely represent harm. Bans of Apps (even unsavoury things like Parler) and unquestionably arbitrary controls on choice that harm consumers. Moreover, Apple's 30% cut is a pretty obvious harm once you do the economic calculation. So Apple should be more like Google - and - just as the EU has proposed with search wherein you get to choose your vendor, not defaults negotiated behind the scenes - the same goes with app stores. Once the regulatory action is taken - we will still have secure apps, and there will be greater opportunity. In hindsight it will seem obvious and actually kind of simple.
- zepto 6y ago
  > Apple's 30% cut is a pretty obvious harm once you do the economic calculation. Not really. You have to compare it to a counter-factual, and those are generally made up to support whatever position you already hold. Also, it’s not 30%. It’s 15% for almost all developers.
  - jariel 6y ago
    Evidence of Apple's monopoly are actually baked right into that rate. They are price-setters, not subject to the whims of the market, and adjust their prices given non-market forces (press, threat of regulation etc.) It's a high enough number that it absolutely changes outcomes, meaning at minimum less choice for consumers and higher cost, and implicitly, a whole host of lost opportunity. In particular, there are tons of Enterprise apps that can't feasibly operate on Apple due to issues concerning Apple wanting to take the entirety of their profit. As a small operation, in the corner of the economy, it doesn't matter, but this is unfolding like the Edison/Tesla/Westinghouse battles of the last century and we know how that ended up.
    - zepto 6y ago
      > In particular, there are tons of Enterprise apps that can't feasibly operate on Apple due to issues concerning Apple wanting to take the entirety of their profit. False. Apple doesn’t take a percentage from enterprise distribution. Also, you didn’t provide a counterfactual, which is exactly my point. The 15% on its own is indicative of nothing.
      - jariel 6y ago
        ??? Apple absolutely takes 30% of Enterprise services, depending on how they are paid for, and as they gain more power, they will absolutely lever that power into other sectors. "Apple is demanding 30% commission from Airbnb and ClassPass. That's because the pair have shifted to selling virtual, online classes during the pandemic. It has threatened to remove Airbnb from the App Store if it doesn't comply." [1] How risky is it now to create a startup, used by anyone in a situation of 'individual buyers' that involves any kind of service? Apple is threatening to take 30% of most of the US services economy. If it 'happens on an iPhone' - they want 30%. For small companies, it's 15% - but the difference is irrelevant because they are 'price setters' in a monopoly setting, and those prices cause consumer harm. You cannot currently upgrade Spotify or Netflix using an iPhone - that is a fairly radically obvious example of Apple stupidity/consumer harm. And finally the 15%/30% charge are material because they drive that consumer harm - were there no such charge, you'd be able to a range of other services. " you didn’t provide a counterfactual, which is exactly my point." - yes, I did. A 30/15% tax causes material harm. The 15% is evidence of price setting. You can download apps for 0% all over the Android universe. [1] https://www.imore.com/apple-threatens-remove-airbnb-app-store-over-virtual-experiences-commission https://www.imore.com/apple-threatens-remove-airbnb-app-stor...

username90 6y ago

You can look at how many governments have managed to keep websites they don't like down. Thepiratebay and tons of other illegal sites are still available today in most places of the world even where they are illegal. If we didn't have the free open web and instead just had appstore like gatekeepers none of those sites would be allowed to exist.

jariel 6y ago

I personally worked for a large tech company and was involved with 'content filtering discussions' with questionable regimes. HN doesn't like such arguments, it's not an argument, just an experience. It's common. Pragmatically speaking, it's much harder for Pakistan to filter the entire web, than control international conglomerates which they generally can do. We need diversity in search, and absolutely need to have 'many app stores' and 'direct downloads'. The arguments for 'security' are rubbish, and the plebes supporting Apple's monopoly I don't think understand what's happening. In US anti-trust cases, generally there has be evidence of 'harm to consumers' - well - these 'bans' absolutely represent harm. Bans of Apps (even unsavoury things like Parler) and unquestionably arbitrary controls on choice that harm consumers. Moreover, Apple's 30% cut is a pretty obvious harm once you do the economic calculation. So Apple should be more like Google - and - just as the EU has proposed with search wherein you get to choose your vendor, not defaults negotiated behind the scenes - the same goes with app stores. Once the regulatory action is taken - we will still have secure apps, and there will be greater opportunity. In hindsight it will seem obvious and actually kind of simple.

zepto 6y ago
> Apple's 30% cut is a pretty obvious harm once you do the economic calculation. Not really. You have to compare it to a counter-factual, and those are generally made up to support whatever position you already hold. Also, it’s not 30%. It’s 15% for almost all developers.
- jariel 6y ago
  Evidence of Apple's monopoly are actually baked right into that rate. They are price-setters, not subject to the whims of the market, and adjust their prices given non-market forces (press, threat of regulation etc.) It's a high enough number that it absolutely changes outcomes, meaning at minimum less choice for consumers and higher cost, and implicitly, a whole host of lost opportunity. In particular, there are tons of Enterprise apps that can't feasibly operate on Apple due to issues concerning Apple wanting to take the entirety of their profit. As a small operation, in the corner of the economy, it doesn't matter, but this is unfolding like the Edison/Tesla/Westinghouse battles of the last century and we know how that ended up.
  - zepto 6y ago
    > In particular, there are tons of Enterprise apps that can't feasibly operate on Apple due to issues concerning Apple wanting to take the entirety of their profit. False. Apple doesn’t take a percentage from enterprise distribution. Also, you didn’t provide a counterfactual, which is exactly my point. The 15% on its own is indicative of nothing.
    - jariel 6y ago
      ??? Apple absolutely takes 30% of Enterprise services, depending on how they are paid for, and as they gain more power, they will absolutely lever that power into other sectors. "Apple is demanding 30% commission from Airbnb and ClassPass. That's because the pair have shifted to selling virtual, online classes during the pandemic. It has threatened to remove Airbnb from the App Store if it doesn't comply." [1] How risky is it now to create a startup, used by anyone in a situation of 'individual buyers' that involves any kind of service? Apple is threatening to take 30% of most of the US services economy. If it 'happens on an iPhone' - they want 30%. For small companies, it's 15% - but the difference is irrelevant because they are 'price setters' in a monopoly setting, and those prices cause consumer harm. You cannot currently upgrade Spotify or Netflix using an iPhone - that is a fairly radically obvious example of Apple stupidity/consumer harm. And finally the 15%/30% charge are material because they drive that consumer harm - were there no such charge, you'd be able to a range of other services. " you didn’t provide a counterfactual, which is exactly my point." - yes, I did. A 30/15% tax causes material harm. The 15% is evidence of price setting. You can download apps for 0% all over the Android universe. [1] https://www.imore.com/apple-threatens-remove-airbnb-app-store-over-virtual-experiences-commission https://www.imore.com/apple-threatens-remove-airbnb-app-stor...