3 ms·

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 equiv

by 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.

by zpeti 6y ago

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.