38 ms·

It feels a bit hypocritical when Apple laughs at FB for complaining about their new tracking pop-up yet when the shoe's on the other foot and Apple may actually

It feels a bit hypocritical when Apple laughs at FB for complaining about their new tracking pop-up yet when the shoe's on the other foot and Apple may actually have to compete on its own platform they double down and defend their right to be judge, jury and executioner. Apple competing with third party app stores on iOS is going to be amazing. No computer platform should be allowed to prevent sideloading or other stores from competing. This isn't the case on Windows. This isn't the case on Android. Or Linux for that matter. It's more disappointing it takes 10 years for regulators to step-in and say "that's bad, no more, open up your platform".

zpeti 6y ago
One of the absolutely obvious hypocritical things for me is that they don't allow anyone to say in their app that "Apple gets 30% of this fee" That's the equivalent of the IDFA message for Facebook. Which everyone will see, its worded in a very negative way, and it's a must.
- newbie578 6y ago
  Good point. Would love to hear the Apple fanatics on HN defend this. So much for respecting privacy...
  - asimpletune 6y ago
    I don’t know if this is a defense per se, but the reason they do this is to prevent app makers from using that to try and steer customers to out of band ways of subscribing. I guess the analogy would be if a brand forbade a retailers from revealing their margins, so customers don’t go to secondary markets and potentially/almost-certainly have a worse experience. Like counterfeit products or just in general to be subjected to dark patterns. As far as my personal opinion regarding this I am completely fine with it. I think they’ve created something remarkable in the sense that everyday people are starting to pay for software, because they’ve created a valuable ecosystem. Sometimes I think we forget that in the past everyday people wouldn’t really pay for digital products in the same way they’d pay for physical ones. The one thing I’d say though is that maybe the 30% is high, but given they have the small business program that argument is mostly gone. Any way now I’m rambling but that’s my best attempt to honestly explain why they do that.
    - tommilukkarinen 6y ago
      30% is not just for apps but all digital content like Spotify. Now if we see a future where Apple wins and dominates: everyone creating digital content for a living will pay a 30% tax to Apple. Forever including your grandchildren. Now lets take it a step further and think a world where all services like cleaning are bought with Apple products. Everyone will pay a 30% tax to Apple, forever. The thing is, that we cant allow an exception, as we would be allowing the rest of it. Then there's the other side that they make the rules. So for an example if an apple employee makes a mistake and bans your business from the store, you have no way to appeal. Unless you are big enough like Epic. If Apple wins in court and then in markets, we truly have Orwellian reality.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - judge2020 6y ago
        Netflix has shown that they can make bank[0] even after pulling their subscription from Apple's platform[1]. Your entire comment doesn't really add anything since it's all plain-as-day information - Apple's 30% cut is effectively revenue they get for creating the iOS devices, so yes, as long as they continue to sell product, they're going to continue to require 30% of digital content revenue is pocketed as profit. 0: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2021-01-19/netflix-signs-up-record-number-of-subscribers-in-2020 https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/20... 1: https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/31/netflix-stops-paying-the-apple-tax-on-its-853m-in-annual-ios-revenue/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/31/netflix-stops-paying-the-a...
        tommilukkarinen 6y ago
        The point is, that it's not a static situation, but can get worse. I don't know what you are doing, but we are a normal SaaS company. The current situation is that we can pretty much avoid problems with Apple and Google like Netflix is doing. But if FAANG are allowed to go rampant, eventually they will grapple us like they have done for the game industry. And it will not end with us, they will continue to expand their umbrella until there is regulation. OR - our kids will live in a world where FAANG gets 30% of all transactions and it will look like CP2077. If we don't get regulation, we can all just sell our current businesses and buy FAANG stock. And I'm not happy with the current situation. I think game industry too deserves to be free of the tax and FAANG administered regulation. Think about the regulation in the shoes of a business owner. Apple decides if you can make business - they can make a fair sounding rule, but your business is affected by weird chance or by Apple employee mistake. The business you built, the one with all the good intentions and the users in the center, disappears.
- geocar 6y ago
  Same reason the FDA doesn't want growers to list optional tests on the packaging: it implies the producer cares more about food safety than the FDA. The consumer should know better, but they don't.
- MrScruff 6y ago
  The IDFA warning is useful to the consumer. How is the business contract between Apple and the software developer of interest to the consumer?
  - dlubarov 6y ago
    As an example, it would benefit Spotify iOS users if the app could say "FYI, we charge $13/mo on iOS to offset Apple's cut, but you can subscribe for $10/mo on our website if you prefer."
  - summerlight 6y ago
    It will likely bring down the price by suggesting alternative payment options.
dleslie 6y ago
On the one hand, Apple is acting as a store curator and demanding that its customers be made aware of tracking software. On the other hand, Apple is acting as a platform owner and demanding that they continue to act as the sole store curator on their platform. I do not see the hypocrisy.
- aboringusername 6y ago
  Epic demands Apple do thing = bad for Apple (good for Epic) no way Apple demand Facebook do thing = Good for Apple (bad for FB) yes way So Apple is allowed to get its own way, 100% of the time, no questions asked, what they want is what they get end of (by virtue of holding all the cards and owning the platform they dictate the rules on) How about no? You can play by your rules in your sandbox, but Epic has a right to demand it's allowed a sandbox in the same park, maybe Apple will be forced to change its business if everyone starts playing in Epic's sandbox and consumers decide Apple's policies are rubbish? That's the very definition of "competition" something Apple has avoided for over a decade at this point (as far as iOS inter-competition goes)
  - ericmay 6y ago
    > Epic demands Apple do thing = bad for Apple (good for Epic) no way Epic demands Apple do a thing = bad for Apple, bad for customers (good for Epic) > Apple demand Facebook do thing = Good for Apple (bad for FB) yes way Apple demands Facebook do a thing = Good for Apple, good for customers (bad for Facebook) As a customer in these equations, I'm siding with Apple. > That's the very definition of "competition" something Apple has avoided for over a decade at this point Why do I have to use Epic's game store for Fortnite? Why can't I create my own skins with paint and sell them for whatever I want?
    - toinetoine 6y ago
      > Epic demands Apple do a thing = bad for Apple, bad for customers (good for Epic) How is allowing developers to use alternate payment platforms "bad for customers"? Or, if not on the phone, at least to allow them to add funds to their account from the browser/another platform and use it in their iOS app?
ChrisLomont 6y ago
>No computer platform should be allowed to prevent sideloading or other stores from competing. How does this differ from "any programmable electronics should allow sideloading"? I don't see that as a very workable solution, legally, practically, or even in a pro-consumer sense. It would certainly drive the cost of most electronics up incredibly as all devices would need to produce APIs and upgradeability.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  The bar is simple: If they allow third party apps at all, they're already providing those APIs, and must allow competitive use of them.
  - ChrisLomont 6y ago
    And that will be the end of third party apps. Apple will hire devs to make apps, and then you're not third party, and no more royalties....
    - kaba0 6y ago
      That would be a pretty stupid thing to do, like will apple create an app for my bank? Mobile phones are general purpose computers.
      - ChrisLomont 6y ago
        Pretty much all CPUs are general-purpose. The vast majority don't run anything third party. Phones having general purpose computers isn't any kind of argument for who has what access. And if the alternative for a vendor is being forced to lose enough revenue by letting any third party do whatever they want, then Apple will make an app for your bank, by contracting the bank to pay for the development. The reason the third party platform is currently huge is because Apple created a platform for devs to publish on. If the rules were the ones prescribed above Apple would have likely taken a different route. Changing the rules because people are unhappy is simply bad precedent.
jonwinstanley 6y ago
> No computer platform should be allowed to prevent sideloading or other stores from competing What about platforms like Playstation or the computers built into Teslas etc, should we allow sideloading on those? How do you define a platform?
- mikepurvis 6y ago
  TBH I wouldn't be at all surprised if Microsoft is gearing up for this fight with Sony, given that every Xbox Series does in fact allow sideloading once placed into the included-and-supported developer mode.
  - mywittyname 6y ago
    MS is ahead of the curve here. Rather than trying to combat homebrew, they are embracing it within some predefined boundaries. The 360 allowed for homebrew as well. I think they learned a lot from XBMC.
    - IntelMiner 6y ago
      What? The 360 never had any homebrew enabled
      - kevingadd 6y ago
        It was called XBox Live Indie Games, you could sideload anything you wanted once you paid the initial fee, and then you could put it on the store and accept purchases if it got through a peer review system.
      - mywittyname 6y ago
        Sure you could! I used XNA Game Studio to produce games and apps that would run on my 360. They couldn't take full advantage of the hardware. But if you paid a fee, you could sell your game on XBL much like the App Store or Steam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_XNA_Game_Studio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_XNA_Game_Studio
pier25 6y ago
> Or Linux for that matter. Or even macOS.
- null_object 6y ago
  You can load apps on macOS from anywhere you like.
  - pier25 6y ago
    Yes, that's what I'm saying.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    Aren't apple increasing not liking you doing that? e.g. MacOS phoning home to Apple on program startup. I doubt Apple would ever truly stop you but there is a subtle level of friction that can't necessarily be assumed of the user.
toyg 6y ago
> It's more disappointing it takes 10 years for regulators to step-in To be fair, until it was limited to a small section of the population, it wasn't a big deal. So rich people want to live in walled gardens, so what? But when you start talking about 20% or 30% of the whole population, then it's a significant problem. It took a bit for Apple to reach that level but they are definitely there now, and since they don't seem to be willing to change, they have to be forced to accept that it has to happen.
- visarga 6y ago
  Big corporations should be treated more like infrastructure and free markets than private companies. The more impact they have on society the bigger the opportunity to externalize costs and privatize profits. They can strangle creativity and keep us prisoners in their walled gardens for decades, subjecting us to high prices and tarrifs, lack of choice, missed technological opportunities, biased filtering and ranking, whimsical deplatforming of users and blocking of apps, stifling the development of competing and innovative businesses, or buying them outright to keep the risk away.
nabla9 6y ago
It seems you are making category mistake. Using term hypocritical for corporate law seems error just like it does for using it for animals. Apple is engaging in legal battles and hypocritical is not a legal consideration. Apple is not a an entity you can judge using moral psychology. Apple uses "corporate messaging" toward consumers that has ethical content. It may be mistaken as morality, but it's just how a company's management talks to people. It is a marketing message strategy.
dd36 6y ago
Why does there need to be multiple app stores? That sounds terrible. Apple just needs to stop demanding huge chunks from app revenue.
- Humdeee 6y ago
  Apple recently introduced the App Store Small Business Program, slashing their app revenue taken by 50% to accommodate the 'small players' (<1 million annual revenue).
  - kevingadd 6y ago
    The terms of that program are particularly nasty, though. You can't really rely on it unless your revenue is going to be way below a million, because it locks in for the following year. If you have a spike in revenue (hooray, good year!) your cut is suddenly 30% in the next financial year even if your revenue drops way below a million. They didn't have to do it this way, which really makes me wonder what their intent was. They could have gone with a simple system like 'we look at how much you made this year, and everything over 1 million is taxed at 30%', but instead we got a weird complex system.
- ksec 6y ago
  There are multiple argument in this case and it seems everyone are mixing things up. Like Multiple App Store, and 30% cut are different issues. There are people who simply want to access to iPhone without going through Apple. Which is currently the Jury, Judge and executioner. Cutting the 30% you would still have to go through Apple.
alexashka 6y ago
> It feels a bit hypocritical when... You are treating corporate entities as if they are people with emotions. This is a mistake. They are not people. They are legal entities, created to enable their owners and beneficiaries to have special rights regular citizens do not have, such as killing people and never going to prison (Boeing).
the_duke 6y ago
> This isn't the case on Android. I'd argue that it is till the case on Android. Yes, alternate stores are possible, but they are severely handicapped. First, manual APK install has to be enabled in obscure settings that come with a "scary" warning. Then they can't provide auto-updates but require a manual confirmation for each version update. Epic gave up on running their own store on Android due to the difficulties. I do think that regulators need to force Apples hand - not being in control of your own device is not acceptable. But even then most business would remain on the official stores. We also need legislation to curb the excessive fees charged by both Google and Apple. A few years ago the EU limited credit card transaction fees to 0.3% or a fixed maximum, whichever is lower. A similar cap is needed for app stores.
- mfontani 6y ago
  IIRC the (proposed? is it in place yet?) EU cap is 0.2% for debit cards and 0.3% for credit cards.
  - the_duke 6y ago
    I checked and you are right, it's 0.3% for CC, 0.2 for debit. But yes, the regulation came into effect partially in 2015 and fully in 2016. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2015.123.01.0001.01.ENG https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:... It's quite noticeable: all the CC related reward programs have disappeared.
- ecf 6y ago
  > not being in control of your own device is not acceptable. I’m not trying to be snarky here but...don’t buy it?
  - bsaul 6y ago
    We're unfortunalely way past the point where this is an option. Neither Android nor Apple leaves you with nothing truely usable at the moment, unless you're ready to live in the year 2000 again.
- 6y ago
justapassenger 6y ago
Apple isn’t users friend, or defender of the people. It’s biggest company in the word, that tries to make most amount of money by monopolizing markets. And privacy sells nowadays, so they exploit that to grow even more. Of course users get something in return, but that’s not the reason why do that. It’s one of the greatest PR campaigns of modern world, to have people believe that biggest company in the world cares about them and has their backs and interests. It’s almost Orwellian.
- jaegerpicker 6y ago
  This is a pointless statement, does Epic have consumers back? LOL hardly. This lawsuit is about Epic cashing in on Apple's work. No one believes Apple the corp is the defender of the people. Apple is great on privacy compared to all the other options, not because they are good people (they may not be or they may be who knows?) but because it's in their best interest to be. This is about two corp's fighting over their right tomato more money off of you and I. People are casting Epic as for the consumer and it's ridiculous!
  - throw_away892 6y ago
    How you don't see Epic's move as a win for Apple users is ironic given how pro-consumer you seem to perceive Apple to be.
    - jaegerpicker 6y ago
      Epic's move has 0 to do with consumer's. It's only about Epic benefiting from Apple's platform.
      - throw_away892 6y ago
        Epic's move (if it succeeds) would have a direct positive effect on the consumer. Across the board. It's not a gamer issue anymore. It is now bigger than them.
isodev 6y ago
> No computer platform should be allowed to prevent sideloading or other stores from competing. The iPhone is not a computer platform, it's an integrated experience. Raspberry Pi or the PC you assemble is a platform (which you can still choose to do, if you want).
- paulgb 6y ago
  That’s one way of looking at it, but I think the reason the issue keeps coming up on HN is that it feels like a serious regression that we’ve ended up in a world where one of the most ubiquitous platforms is a walled garden. Even in the days of Windows dominance, that wasn’t a problem. The transition happened so gradually that we ended up here without a lot of discussion, which is why the discussion is happening now.
  - EveYoung 6y ago
    But customers who like to have more freedom can still buy Android phones instead. Nobody is forcing them to buy Apple devices. I think it's a positive thing that we have diverse options for different needs.
    - kaba0 6y ago
      2 is not diverse
  - jpttsn 6y ago
    No, Apple has been pestered to make the iPhone an open platform from day one. They’ve consistently said no. I bet you’re right about the motivation for this silly outrage: People claim the iPhone is a PC because they wish it to be, because the cognitive dissonance was so great when “Open didn’t always win”
  - vlozko 6y ago
    Is it a regression, though? In the days of Windows, malware was rampant. There was no sense of sandboxing so installs could get deeply embedded and hard to purge. There was certainly the uncertainty of the validity of software when downloaded. This is not to suggest we should remove this capability from macOS/Windows but I wouldn’t call it a regression.
zepto 6y ago
> Apple competing with third party app stores on iOS is going to be amazing. No - it’s not going to add anything at all for users except being forced to deal with a bunch of shady app stores, some of which will be deeply hostile to privacy. Developers will also be forced to support multiple stores and sets of rules. Dealing with this will eliminate any possible cost advantage. Everyone loses except for the new group of middlemen who get to take a cut. > This isn't the case on Windows. This isn't the case on Android. Or Linux for that matter. It sounds like you are saying there is plenty of choice for people who don’t want a walled garden. > It's more disappointing it takes 10 years for regulators to step-in and say "that's bad, no more, open up your platform". It sounds like you are saying this should never have been allowed, despite there being no legal reason against it.
- rvba 6y ago
  > No - it’s not going to add anything at all for users except being forced to deal with a bunch of shady app stores, some of which will be deeply hostile to privacy. It means lower prices for those who are smart enough to use the cheaper store and those who cannot will stay on the official store that takes its 30% cut. In fact even the bare existence of other stores would mean that the cut probably goes down, since Apple probably will prefer to stop the outflow of users. If someone is inept to use other store than the official apple store, then I guess they have to pay the higher price. Your post sounds comical on a forum called "hacker news". You sound as if using a second app store is some secret knowledge... You also seem to ignore the fact that even computer inept people try to reduce the amount of money they pay for stuff and money is a big incentive (app costs 1 dollar less on other store is a great motivator to learn how to use it).
  - zepto 6y ago
    > It means lower prices for those who are smart enough to use the cheaper store This is guaranteed false. Unless the ‘cheaper store’ has almost all of the customers, you will need to support most of the stores, otherwise you’ll simply lose access to customers. Just to break even, developers will be forced to support multiple stores. If consumers want a cheaper option, there is nothing stopping them from buying a cheap android phone today.
Shivetya 6y ago
The open your platform line looks so good but we just went through a number of stories about how people are being suckered into high cost apps only after initial download and such. so if platforms are going to be forced open, we should go after game consoles too, then there needs to be some means to protect consumers from predatory apps because we are just opening the door to that and more. finally, it also means that apps you don't like will now be easily available so best be good with that and not asking government to judge every app. finally this means apps can do what they will unless we are willing to let platforms still restrict how they use your data.. which to be honest blocking 3rd party apps is at times beneficial as in, you can have it all but everyone gets to as well. So what will you give up for the freedom? Do you want the platform owner to still police for privacy issues? I don't see how it can be done if they cannot control access. Frankly let all apps stores be forced open and it will be fun to watch how fast many demand them locked up or heavily regulated or worse
CivBase 6y ago
Facebook isn't the good guy. Apple isn't the good guy. Epic isn't the good guy. Every now and then their interests align with those of the users, but ultimately they all serve their own interests and will happily stand opposed to the users whenever it suits them best.
munificent 6y ago
Hypocrisy doesn't really exist at the corporate or political level today. Imagine you're playing chess with a friend. Would you call it "hypocritical" if they took you queen but didn't want to let you take theirs? Is it "lying" if you try to appear to be making an attack when really it's a feint? No, it's simply playing the game according to its rules against an enemy adversary. Of course, that behavior makes sense in chess because the entire point of a game is to be an artificial world where only the letter of the rules are what matters and the only tangible outcome is winning or losing. In the real world of business and politics, things like human decency and fairness should come into play. But increasingly, at least in American politics and corporations, the game is played only according to the letter of the law. Anything they can get away with, they will.
thereddaikon 6y ago
The fact that you called it sideloading just shows how successful Apple has been in warping people's perception of it over the years. Installing the software you want on your compute device isn't sideloading. Its just installing software. Apple is aberration here not all of the users who just expect to actually own the products they buy.
- Dma54rhs 6y ago
  It's depressing that even on hackernews where you expect people want to tinker and have control over their machines there's a probably a majority who are happy with the situation and use the think of my grandma (aka children) using iPhone situation. There could be numerous ways for Apple to let people run their own software or other stores without giving your grandma malware.
  - elefanten 6y ago
    Except as soon as it becomes a remotely feasible action (with simple instructions) for the general consumer, a bunch of businesses will start requiring their users to disable "default Grandma mode". Imagine onboarding for Netflix including a pleasantly designed screen saying "Before you can use Netflix, you must Enable Third-party Stores. Go to Settings > Privacy..." If that comes to pass, there will be no highly-guarded, highly-moderated mobile OS to choose from. Apple has tremendous resources and expends tremendous resources, under pressure of tremendous incentives, to moderate it well. Do you think Third-party app stores will be moderated better or worse on average? Not just with respect to content decisions, but privacy, security and the works. There is a very reasonable case that having a solidly-guarded and moderated mobile OS as an option in the market is good for consumers. It may boggle the tech-savvy mind, but another way of reading the incredibly successful 10 year history of this horribly locked-down, oppressive OS is that the market has spoken. And it's happy.
    - pkulak 6y ago
      I've noticed that if something is possible, your children or grandmother with do it, somehow. I hand out Chromebooks to relatives because of the low support requirements, and yet STILL every time I get one of those things back there are dozens of outright dangerous extensions installed. These are folks who know how to click on the icon for their email and that's it, and yet the garbage finds a way in. It's like trying to seal your basement against water in the everglades.
suifbwish 6y ago
The thing is if I wanted or cared about that I would get one of those phones. The consumer gets to decide which phone they use and one of the reasons I like the iPhone is actually the difficulty in adding 3rd party crapware. If I needed a phone that I can install stuff on from unverified markets I would get an android and do it completely separately from my iPhone. I like that Apple is an appliance that is what it’s sold to be. Not everything needs to be the same
- munk-a 6y ago
  I don't accept that - it's leaning into having too much faith in the free market that alternative options must emerge to suit the actual consumer desire. The issue is that we're dealing with an oligopoly where consumers have very little freedom of choice and refusing to use the iStore leaves you with precisely one option. There is a common argument that having such a locked down store is what allowed the device to thrive but I don't believe that is usually made in good faith due to the easy counter example of Android being able to unseat the initial monopoly without using the same tactic and the fact that very little marketing or praise for the device has been specifically focused on the iStore being so locked down. Consumer choice only really counts when there is an open field with healthy competition.
  - llukas 6y ago
    Field is rigged by ad-tech. Opening it up will mean consumer will be product again and choice pretty irrelevant.
- kaba0 6y ago
  That’s the thing, there is no such phone. And frankly, there will not be more mobile platforms because even the current two is already much for companies to develop for. Free market doesn’t work that way. Linux phones might rise, but only if they gain a good android compat layer.
  - mbreese 6y ago
    You can buy a PinePhone now (well, when they are back in stock). It's a decent phone with a completely open Linux stack. The UI might be a bit sluggish, but it is a fully functioning smartphone. If you want to see more apps targeting a third platform, then you should buy one of these phones. That's the way the market works.
leokennis 6y ago
My counter argument is this: Everyone I know who uses an iPhone or iPad is generally using medium to high quality apps, and not suffering from crapware, slowdowns or weird issues. Everyone I know who uses an Android phone is always complains about weird app behavior, ranging from crummy software quality to flashlight apps that request access to your contact list. And my guess is these people use Googles Play Store. Somehow, Apple is doing something that is beneficial to the average Joe buyer of smartphones.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ketamine__ 6y ago
It's only hypocritical in the hypothetical situation you created. It's very disingenuous.
baxtr 6y ago
I really don’t get it. On what basis should a regulator step in? If you don’t like to be part of a closed system, feel free to use Android. Many people actually like the way things are, including me. And, I do even have 2 apps in the App Store and don’t mind paying for what I get a good value for. In the end, apple is a private company serving its customers. They can’t please everyone. And that’s what I like about them.
dillondoyle 6y ago
Even worse Apple doesn't seem to apply the same rules to themselves. Will News, App Store have the same semi-optin warning screen before use? They both have app install advertising somewhat similar to FB.
broknbottle 6y ago
I'm pretty sure you can't side load apps and games on a ps4 or ps5. Both are AMD x86 hardware running a derivative of FreeBSD.
ralfd 6y ago
We are talking about games though. And it is the case for games on Nintendo. For Playstation. Xbox. I don't see a category difference here. A producer should decide what kind of product they want to make and the market will decide if it is bought. Plus: Apple mandated better privacy for users. How could they do that with sideloading app stores? They couldn't.
superasn 6y ago
I feel it's this very nature that made it impossible for Web apps to become mainstream on mobile. Steve jobs made so many bullshit arguments against Flash because he knew if flash was allowed on mobile nobody would purchase games from app store. Now the same shit is happening for web apis / pwa. This is really sad and really makes me hate Apple as a company.
toastal 6y ago
I would LOVE to see Steam on mobile so I could play/sync my game library. The also take a hefty cut, but at least they've taken some of that cash to increase Linux compatibility.
varispeed 6y ago
Wow a reasonable and on point comment that didn't get a rain of downvotes from Apple fan boys.

zpeti 6y ago

One of the absolutely obvious hypocritical things for me is that they don't allow anyone to say in their app that "Apple gets 30% of this fee" That's the equivalent of the IDFA message for Facebook. Which everyone will see, its worded in a very negative way, and it's a must.

newbie578 6y ago
Good point. Would love to hear the Apple fanatics on HN defend this. So much for respecting privacy...
- asimpletune 6y ago
  I don’t know if this is a defense per se, but the reason they do this is to prevent app makers from using that to try and steer customers to out of band ways of subscribing. I guess the analogy would be if a brand forbade a retailers from revealing their margins, so customers don’t go to secondary markets and potentially/almost-certainly have a worse experience. Like counterfeit products or just in general to be subjected to dark patterns. As far as my personal opinion regarding this I am completely fine with it. I think they’ve created something remarkable in the sense that everyday people are starting to pay for software, because they’ve created a valuable ecosystem. Sometimes I think we forget that in the past everyday people wouldn’t really pay for digital products in the same way they’d pay for physical ones. The one thing I’d say though is that maybe the 30% is high, but given they have the small business program that argument is mostly gone. Any way now I’m rambling but that’s my best attempt to honestly explain why they do that.
  - tommilukkarinen 6y ago
    30% is not just for apps but all digital content like Spotify. Now if we see a future where Apple wins and dominates: everyone creating digital content for a living will pay a 30% tax to Apple. Forever including your grandchildren. Now lets take it a step further and think a world where all services like cleaning are bought with Apple products. Everyone will pay a 30% tax to Apple, forever. The thing is, that we cant allow an exception, as we would be allowing the rest of it. Then there's the other side that they make the rules. So for an example if an apple employee makes a mistake and bans your business from the store, you have no way to appeal. Unless you are big enough like Epic. If Apple wins in court and then in markets, we truly have Orwellian reality.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - judge2020 6y ago
      Netflix has shown that they can make bank[0] even after pulling their subscription from Apple's platform[1]. Your entire comment doesn't really add anything since it's all plain-as-day information - Apple's 30% cut is effectively revenue they get for creating the iOS devices, so yes, as long as they continue to sell product, they're going to continue to require 30% of digital content revenue is pocketed as profit. 0: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2021-01-19/netflix-signs-up-record-number-of-subscribers-in-2020 https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/20... 1: https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/31/netflix-stops-paying-the-apple-tax-on-its-853m-in-annual-ios-revenue/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/31/netflix-stops-paying-the-a...
      - tommilukkarinen 6y ago
        The point is, that it's not a static situation, but can get worse. I don't know what you are doing, but we are a normal SaaS company. The current situation is that we can pretty much avoid problems with Apple and Google like Netflix is doing. But if FAANG are allowed to go rampant, eventually they will grapple us like they have done for the game industry. And it will not end with us, they will continue to expand their umbrella until there is regulation. OR - our kids will live in a world where FAANG gets 30% of all transactions and it will look like CP2077. If we don't get regulation, we can all just sell our current businesses and buy FAANG stock. And I'm not happy with the current situation. I think game industry too deserves to be free of the tax and FAANG administered regulation. Think about the regulation in the shoes of a business owner. Apple decides if you can make business - they can make a fair sounding rule, but your business is affected by weird chance or by Apple employee mistake. The business you built, the one with all the good intentions and the users in the center, disappears.
geocar 6y ago
Same reason the FDA doesn't want growers to list optional tests on the packaging: it implies the producer cares more about food safety than the FDA. The consumer should know better, but they don't.
MrScruff 6y ago
The IDFA warning is useful to the consumer. How is the business contract between Apple and the software developer of interest to the consumer?
- dlubarov 6y ago
  As an example, it would benefit Spotify iOS users if the app could say "FYI, we charge $13/mo on iOS to offset Apple's cut, but you can subscribe for $10/mo on our website if you prefer."
- summerlight 6y ago
  It will likely bring down the price by suggesting alternative payment options.

dleslie 6y ago

On the one hand, Apple is acting as a store curator and demanding that its customers be made aware of tracking software. On the other hand, Apple is acting as a platform owner and demanding that they continue to act as the sole store curator on their platform. I do not see the hypocrisy.

aboringusername 6y ago
Epic demands Apple do thing = bad for Apple (good for Epic) no way Apple demand Facebook do thing = Good for Apple (bad for FB) yes way So Apple is allowed to get its own way, 100% of the time, no questions asked, what they want is what they get end of (by virtue of holding all the cards and owning the platform they dictate the rules on) How about no? You can play by your rules in your sandbox, but Epic has a right to demand it's allowed a sandbox in the same park, maybe Apple will be forced to change its business if everyone starts playing in Epic's sandbox and consumers decide Apple's policies are rubbish? That's the very definition of "competition" something Apple has avoided for over a decade at this point (as far as iOS inter-competition goes)
- ericmay 6y ago
  > Epic demands Apple do thing = bad for Apple (good for Epic) no way Epic demands Apple do a thing = bad for Apple, bad for customers (good for Epic) > Apple demand Facebook do thing = Good for Apple (bad for FB) yes way Apple demands Facebook do a thing = Good for Apple, good for customers (bad for Facebook) As a customer in these equations, I'm siding with Apple. > That's the very definition of "competition" something Apple has avoided for over a decade at this point Why do I have to use Epic's game store for Fortnite? Why can't I create my own skins with paint and sell them for whatever I want?
  - toinetoine 6y ago
    > Epic demands Apple do a thing = bad for Apple, bad for customers (good for Epic) How is allowing developers to use alternate payment platforms "bad for customers"? Or, if not on the phone, at least to allow them to add funds to their account from the browser/another platform and use it in their iOS app?

ChrisLomont 6y ago

>No computer platform should be allowed to prevent sideloading or other stores from competing. How does this differ from "any programmable electronics should allow sideloading"? I don't see that as a very workable solution, legally, practically, or even in a pro-consumer sense. It would certainly drive the cost of most electronics up incredibly as all devices would need to produce APIs and upgradeability.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
The bar is simple: If they allow third party apps at all, they're already providing those APIs, and must allow competitive use of them.
- ChrisLomont 6y ago
  And that will be the end of third party apps. Apple will hire devs to make apps, and then you're not third party, and no more royalties....
  - kaba0 6y ago
    That would be a pretty stupid thing to do, like will apple create an app for my bank? Mobile phones are general purpose computers.
    - ChrisLomont 6y ago
      Pretty much all CPUs are general-purpose. The vast majority don't run anything third party. Phones having general purpose computers isn't any kind of argument for who has what access. And if the alternative for a vendor is being forced to lose enough revenue by letting any third party do whatever they want, then Apple will make an app for your bank, by contracting the bank to pay for the development. The reason the third party platform is currently huge is because Apple created a platform for devs to publish on. If the rules were the ones prescribed above Apple would have likely taken a different route. Changing the rules because people are unhappy is simply bad precedent.

jonwinstanley 6y ago

> No computer platform should be allowed to prevent sideloading or other stores from competing What about platforms like Playstation or the computers built into Teslas etc, should we allow sideloading on those? How do you define a platform?

mikepurvis 6y ago
TBH I wouldn't be at all surprised if Microsoft is gearing up for this fight with Sony, given that every Xbox Series does in fact allow sideloading once placed into the included-and-supported developer mode.
- mywittyname 6y ago
  MS is ahead of the curve here. Rather than trying to combat homebrew, they are embracing it within some predefined boundaries. The 360 allowed for homebrew as well. I think they learned a lot from XBMC.
  - IntelMiner 6y ago
    What? The 360 never had any homebrew enabled
    - kevingadd 6y ago
      It was called XBox Live Indie Games, you could sideload anything you wanted once you paid the initial fee, and then you could put it on the store and accept purchases if it got through a peer review system.
    - mywittyname 6y ago
      Sure you could! I used XNA Game Studio to produce games and apps that would run on my 360. They couldn't take full advantage of the hardware. But if you paid a fee, you could sell your game on XBL much like the App Store or Steam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_XNA_Game_Studio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_XNA_Game_Studio

pier25 6y ago

> Or Linux for that matter. Or even macOS.

null_object 6y ago
You can load apps on macOS from anywhere you like.
- pier25 6y ago
  Yes, that's what I'm saying.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  Aren't apple increasing not liking you doing that? e.g. MacOS phoning home to Apple on program startup. I doubt Apple would ever truly stop you but there is a subtle level of friction that can't necessarily be assumed of the user.

toyg 6y ago

> It's more disappointing it takes 10 years for regulators to step-in To be fair, until it was limited to a small section of the population, it wasn't a big deal. So rich people want to live in walled gardens, so what? But when you start talking about 20% or 30% of the whole population, then it's a significant problem. It took a bit for Apple to reach that level but they are definitely there now, and since they don't seem to be willing to change, they have to be forced to accept that it has to happen.

visarga 6y ago
Big corporations should be treated more like infrastructure and free markets than private companies. The more impact they have on society the bigger the opportunity to externalize costs and privatize profits. They can strangle creativity and keep us prisoners in their walled gardens for decades, subjecting us to high prices and tarrifs, lack of choice, missed technological opportunities, biased filtering and ranking, whimsical deplatforming of users and blocking of apps, stifling the development of competing and innovative businesses, or buying them outright to keep the risk away.

nabla9 6y ago

It seems you are making category mistake. Using term hypocritical for corporate law seems error just like it does for using it for animals. Apple is engaging in legal battles and hypocritical is not a legal consideration. Apple is not a an entity you can judge using moral psychology. Apple uses "corporate messaging" toward consumers that has ethical content. It may be mistaken as morality, but it's just how a company's management talks to people. It is a marketing message strategy.

dd36 6y ago

Why does there need to be multiple app stores? That sounds terrible. Apple just needs to stop demanding huge chunks from app revenue.

Humdeee 6y ago
Apple recently introduced the App Store Small Business Program, slashing their app revenue taken by 50% to accommodate the 'small players' (<1 million annual revenue).
- kevingadd 6y ago
  The terms of that program are particularly nasty, though. You can't really rely on it unless your revenue is going to be way below a million, because it locks in for the following year. If you have a spike in revenue (hooray, good year!) your cut is suddenly 30% in the next financial year even if your revenue drops way below a million. They didn't have to do it this way, which really makes me wonder what their intent was. They could have gone with a simple system like 'we look at how much you made this year, and everything over 1 million is taxed at 30%', but instead we got a weird complex system.
ksec 6y ago
There are multiple argument in this case and it seems everyone are mixing things up. Like Multiple App Store, and 30% cut are different issues. There are people who simply want to access to iPhone without going through Apple. Which is currently the Jury, Judge and executioner. Cutting the 30% you would still have to go through Apple.

alexashka 6y ago

> It feels a bit hypocritical when... You are treating corporate entities as if they are people with emotions. This is a mistake. They are not people. They are legal entities, created to enable their owners and beneficiaries to have special rights regular citizens do not have, such as killing people and never going to prison (Boeing).

the_duke 6y ago

> This isn't the case on Android. I'd argue that it is till the case on Android. Yes, alternate stores are possible, but they are severely handicapped. First, manual APK install has to be enabled in obscure settings that come with a "scary" warning. Then they can't provide auto-updates but require a manual confirmation for each version update. Epic gave up on running their own store on Android due to the difficulties. I do think that regulators need to force Apples hand - not being in control of your own device is not acceptable. But even then most business would remain on the official stores. We also need legislation to curb the excessive fees charged by both Google and Apple. A few years ago the EU limited credit card transaction fees to 0.3% or a fixed maximum, whichever is lower. A similar cap is needed for app stores.

mfontani 6y ago
IIRC the (proposed? is it in place yet?) EU cap is 0.2% for debit cards and 0.3% for credit cards.
- the_duke 6y ago
  I checked and you are right, it's 0.3% for CC, 0.2 for debit. But yes, the regulation came into effect partially in 2015 and fully in 2016. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2015.123.01.0001.01.ENG https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:... It's quite noticeable: all the CC related reward programs have disappeared.
ecf 6y ago
> not being in control of your own device is not acceptable. I’m not trying to be snarky here but...don’t buy it?
- bsaul 6y ago
  We're unfortunalely way past the point where this is an option. Neither Android nor Apple leaves you with nothing truely usable at the moment, unless you're ready to live in the year 2000 again.
6y ago

justapassenger 6y ago

Apple isn’t users friend, or defender of the people. It’s biggest company in the word, that tries to make most amount of money by monopolizing markets. And privacy sells nowadays, so they exploit that to grow even more. Of course users get something in return, but that’s not the reason why do that. It’s one of the greatest PR campaigns of modern world, to have people believe that biggest company in the world cares about them and has their backs and interests. It’s almost Orwellian.

jaegerpicker 6y ago
This is a pointless statement, does Epic have consumers back? LOL hardly. This lawsuit is about Epic cashing in on Apple's work. No one believes Apple the corp is the defender of the people. Apple is great on privacy compared to all the other options, not because they are good people (they may not be or they may be who knows?) but because it's in their best interest to be. This is about two corp's fighting over their right tomato more money off of you and I. People are casting Epic as for the consumer and it's ridiculous!
- throw_away892 6y ago
  How you don't see Epic's move as a win for Apple users is ironic given how pro-consumer you seem to perceive Apple to be.
  - jaegerpicker 6y ago
    Epic's move has 0 to do with consumer's. It's only about Epic benefiting from Apple's platform.
    - throw_away892 6y ago
      Epic's move (if it succeeds) would have a direct positive effect on the consumer. Across the board. It's not a gamer issue anymore. It is now bigger than them.

isodev 6y ago

> No computer platform should be allowed to prevent sideloading or other stores from competing. The iPhone is not a computer platform, it's an integrated experience. Raspberry Pi or the PC you assemble is a platform (which you can still choose to do, if you want).

paulgb 6y ago
That’s one way of looking at it, but I think the reason the issue keeps coming up on HN is that it feels like a serious regression that we’ve ended up in a world where one of the most ubiquitous platforms is a walled garden. Even in the days of Windows dominance, that wasn’t a problem. The transition happened so gradually that we ended up here without a lot of discussion, which is why the discussion is happening now.
- EveYoung 6y ago
  But customers who like to have more freedom can still buy Android phones instead. Nobody is forcing them to buy Apple devices. I think it's a positive thing that we have diverse options for different needs.
  - kaba0 6y ago
    2 is not diverse
- jpttsn 6y ago
  No, Apple has been pestered to make the iPhone an open platform from day one. They’ve consistently said no. I bet you’re right about the motivation for this silly outrage: People claim the iPhone is a PC because they wish it to be, because the cognitive dissonance was so great when “Open didn’t always win”
- vlozko 6y ago
  Is it a regression, though? In the days of Windows, malware was rampant. There was no sense of sandboxing so installs could get deeply embedded and hard to purge. There was certainly the uncertainty of the validity of software when downloaded. This is not to suggest we should remove this capability from macOS/Windows but I wouldn’t call it a regression.

zepto 6y ago

> Apple competing with third party app stores on iOS is going to be amazing. No - it’s not going to add anything at all for users except being forced to deal with a bunch of shady app stores, some of which will be deeply hostile to privacy. Developers will also be forced to support multiple stores and sets of rules. Dealing with this will eliminate any possible cost advantage. Everyone loses except for the new group of middlemen who get to take a cut. > This isn't the case on Windows. This isn't the case on Android. Or Linux for that matter. It sounds like you are saying there is plenty of choice for people who don’t want a walled garden. > It's more disappointing it takes 10 years for regulators to step-in and say "that's bad, no more, open up your platform". It sounds like you are saying this should never have been allowed, despite there being no legal reason against it.

rvba 6y ago
> No - it’s not going to add anything at all for users except being forced to deal with a bunch of shady app stores, some of which will be deeply hostile to privacy. It means lower prices for those who are smart enough to use the cheaper store and those who cannot will stay on the official store that takes its 30% cut. In fact even the bare existence of other stores would mean that the cut probably goes down, since Apple probably will prefer to stop the outflow of users. If someone is inept to use other store than the official apple store, then I guess they have to pay the higher price. Your post sounds comical on a forum called "hacker news". You sound as if using a second app store is some secret knowledge... You also seem to ignore the fact that even computer inept people try to reduce the amount of money they pay for stuff and money is a big incentive (app costs 1 dollar less on other store is a great motivator to learn how to use it).
- zepto 6y ago
  > It means lower prices for those who are smart enough to use the cheaper store This is guaranteed false. Unless the ‘cheaper store’ has almost all of the customers, you will need to support most of the stores, otherwise you’ll simply lose access to customers. Just to break even, developers will be forced to support multiple stores. If consumers want a cheaper option, there is nothing stopping them from buying a cheap android phone today.

Shivetya 6y ago

The open your platform line looks so good but we just went through a number of stories about how people are being suckered into high cost apps only after initial download and such. so if platforms are going to be forced open, we should go after game consoles too, then there needs to be some means to protect consumers from predatory apps because we are just opening the door to that and more. finally, it also means that apps you don't like will now be easily available so best be good with that and not asking government to judge every app. finally this means apps can do what they will unless we are willing to let platforms still restrict how they use your data.. which to be honest blocking 3rd party apps is at times beneficial as in, you can have it all but everyone gets to as well. So what will you give up for the freedom? Do you want the platform owner to still police for privacy issues? I don't see how it can be done if they cannot control access. Frankly let all apps stores be forced open and it will be fun to watch how fast many demand them locked up or heavily regulated or worse

CivBase 6y ago

Facebook isn't the good guy. Apple isn't the good guy. Epic isn't the good guy. Every now and then their interests align with those of the users, but ultimately they all serve their own interests and will happily stand opposed to the users whenever it suits them best.

munificent 6y ago

Hypocrisy doesn't really exist at the corporate or political level today. Imagine you're playing chess with a friend. Would you call it "hypocritical" if they took you queen but didn't want to let you take theirs? Is it "lying" if you try to appear to be making an attack when really it's a feint? No, it's simply playing the game according to its rules against an enemy adversary. Of course, that behavior makes sense in chess because the entire point of a game is to be an artificial world where only the letter of the rules are what matters and the only tangible outcome is winning or losing. In the real world of business and politics, things like human decency and fairness should come into play. But increasingly, at least in American politics and corporations, the game is played only according to the letter of the law. Anything they can get away with, they will.

thereddaikon 6y ago

The fact that you called it sideloading just shows how successful Apple has been in warping people's perception of it over the years. Installing the software you want on your compute device isn't sideloading. Its just installing software. Apple is aberration here not all of the users who just expect to actually own the products they buy.

Dma54rhs 6y ago
It's depressing that even on hackernews where you expect people want to tinker and have control over their machines there's a probably a majority who are happy with the situation and use the think of my grandma (aka children) using iPhone situation. There could be numerous ways for Apple to let people run their own software or other stores without giving your grandma malware.
- elefanten 6y ago
  Except as soon as it becomes a remotely feasible action (with simple instructions) for the general consumer, a bunch of businesses will start requiring their users to disable "default Grandma mode". Imagine onboarding for Netflix including a pleasantly designed screen saying "Before you can use Netflix, you must Enable Third-party Stores. Go to Settings > Privacy..." If that comes to pass, there will be no highly-guarded, highly-moderated mobile OS to choose from. Apple has tremendous resources and expends tremendous resources, under pressure of tremendous incentives, to moderate it well. Do you think Third-party app stores will be moderated better or worse on average? Not just with respect to content decisions, but privacy, security and the works. There is a very reasonable case that having a solidly-guarded and moderated mobile OS as an option in the market is good for consumers. It may boggle the tech-savvy mind, but another way of reading the incredibly successful 10 year history of this horribly locked-down, oppressive OS is that the market has spoken. And it's happy.
  - pkulak 6y ago
    I've noticed that if something is possible, your children or grandmother with do it, somehow. I hand out Chromebooks to relatives because of the low support requirements, and yet STILL every time I get one of those things back there are dozens of outright dangerous extensions installed. These are folks who know how to click on the icon for their email and that's it, and yet the garbage finds a way in. It's like trying to seal your basement against water in the everglades.

suifbwish 6y ago

The thing is if I wanted or cared about that I would get one of those phones. The consumer gets to decide which phone they use and one of the reasons I like the iPhone is actually the difficulty in adding 3rd party crapware. If I needed a phone that I can install stuff on from unverified markets I would get an android and do it completely separately from my iPhone. I like that Apple is an appliance that is what it’s sold to be. Not everything needs to be the same

munk-a 6y ago
I don't accept that - it's leaning into having too much faith in the free market that alternative options must emerge to suit the actual consumer desire. The issue is that we're dealing with an oligopoly where consumers have very little freedom of choice and refusing to use the iStore leaves you with precisely one option. There is a common argument that having such a locked down store is what allowed the device to thrive but I don't believe that is usually made in good faith due to the easy counter example of Android being able to unseat the initial monopoly without using the same tactic and the fact that very little marketing or praise for the device has been specifically focused on the iStore being so locked down. Consumer choice only really counts when there is an open field with healthy competition.
- llukas 6y ago
  Field is rigged by ad-tech. Opening it up will mean consumer will be product again and choice pretty irrelevant.
kaba0 6y ago
That’s the thing, there is no such phone. And frankly, there will not be more mobile platforms because even the current two is already much for companies to develop for. Free market doesn’t work that way. Linux phones might rise, but only if they gain a good android compat layer.
- mbreese 6y ago
  You can buy a PinePhone now (well, when they are back in stock). It's a decent phone with a completely open Linux stack. The UI might be a bit sluggish, but it is a fully functioning smartphone. If you want to see more apps targeting a third platform, then you should buy one of these phones. That's the way the market works.

leokennis 6y ago

My counter argument is this: Everyone I know who uses an iPhone or iPad is generally using medium to high quality apps, and not suffering from crapware, slowdowns or weird issues. Everyone I know who uses an Android phone is always complains about weird app behavior, ranging from crummy software quality to flashlight apps that request access to your contact list. And my guess is these people use Googles Play Store. Somehow, Apple is doing something that is beneficial to the average Joe buyer of smartphones.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ketamine__ 6y ago

It's only hypocritical in the hypothetical situation you created. It's very disingenuous.

baxtr 6y ago

I really don’t get it. On what basis should a regulator step in? If you don’t like to be part of a closed system, feel free to use Android. Many people actually like the way things are, including me. And, I do even have 2 apps in the App Store and don’t mind paying for what I get a good value for. In the end, apple is a private company serving its customers. They can’t please everyone. And that’s what I like about them.

dillondoyle 6y ago

Even worse Apple doesn't seem to apply the same rules to themselves. Will News, App Store have the same semi-optin warning screen before use? They both have app install advertising somewhat similar to FB.

broknbottle 6y ago

I'm pretty sure you can't side load apps and games on a ps4 or ps5. Both are AMD x86 hardware running a derivative of FreeBSD.

ralfd 6y ago

We are talking about games though. And it is the case for games on Nintendo. For Playstation. Xbox. I don't see a category difference here. A producer should decide what kind of product they want to make and the market will decide if it is bought. Plus: Apple mandated better privacy for users. How could they do that with sideloading app stores? They couldn't.

superasn 6y ago

I feel it's this very nature that made it impossible for Web apps to become mainstream on mobile. Steve jobs made so many bullshit arguments against Flash because he knew if flash was allowed on mobile nobody would purchase games from app store. Now the same shit is happening for web apis / pwa. This is really sad and really makes me hate Apple as a company.

toastal 6y ago

I would LOVE to see Steam on mobile so I could play/sync my game library. The also take a hefty cut, but at least they've taken some of that cash to increase Linux compatibility.

varispeed 6y ago

Wow a reasonable and on point comment that didn't get a rain of downvotes from Apple fan boys.