45 ms·

Unpopular opinion: This was a no brainer. Apple wanted 30% (or was it less for subscriptions?) on any business that used apps, no matter if they used apple inf

by zibzab 6y ago

Unpopular opinion: This was a no brainer. Apple wanted 30% (or was it less for subscriptions?) on any business that used apps, no matter if they used apple infrastructure or not. Just think about it: one company is in practice entitled to 30% of what any other business makes (in any industry)!! Also, I think apple brought this to themselves by picking a fight with Spotify (on Watch support).

rusk 6y ago
How is that unpopular? I think all but a fairly vocal minority of people (probably direct/indirect beneficiaries) would agree.
- WA 6y ago
  "Their platform, their rules" – there are many people who say this, especially on HN.
  - bluescrn 6y ago
    Because they're all trying to build platforms, probably
    - numpad0 6y ago
      Are we doing “temporally embarrassed platformers” now
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - anoncake 6y ago
        Aren't startups just temporarily embarrassed FTAANGs?
    - ObserverNeutral 6y ago
      >> Because they're all trying to build platforms, probably Or not building products which collide with platforms. As a general rule, if you have to use offensive lawsuits you are not smart enough to do it cleanly. This is true in business and everywhere else
  - malka 6y ago
    The problem is not the rules themselves. The rules applies to Spotify, but not to Apple music. Apple should make Apple music a separate entity, and make it pay 30%.
    - harywilke 6y ago
      No company should have the power to tell another company that they must split up into separate entities.
      - gambiting 6y ago
        Company? No. But a government can absolutely do this and it's a thing that happens all the time, even in the US.
      - dkirill 6y ago
        No company, but the government should be able to
      - gcthomas 6y ago
        Apple has built itself up into a vertical monopoly, which used to be illegal. There is no good reason to allow anti-competitive behaviours. They shouldn't be allowed to host the platform and compete with applications at the same time.
        simondotau 6y ago
        And yet vertical integration is a big part of why Apple products are so loved. By denying the option of vertical integration, you’re forcing the totality of products we use to be incrementally a little bit more crap.
        malka 6y ago
        you can have vertical integration. But having an advantage at one layer should no be leveraged as advantage to another layer. Apple is free to make a music player. But its music player should abide by the same rules as other players in the market. Either Apple Music has its income cut by 30%, or no one does.
  - gcthomas 6y ago
    If only the refrain was "EU's territory, EU's rules". No platform can operate in isolation from the laws of the places they wish to trade.
- Mindwipe 6y ago
  The vocal minority are very active on HN's voting mechanics.
  - rusk 6y ago
    Ssh don't mention "the thing"!
zibzab 6y ago
Should add, the ruling is not really about the validity of the 30% fee. What EU seems to argue is this: 1. Apple is in phone business, Spotify music. So far so good... 2. Then apple wants to get into the music business too. Now they have an unfair advantage since Spotify must pay 30% to apple while apple music "pays" 0%. So apple use their dominance in one area (phones) to get an advantage in a totally different area (music), which is a textbook violation.
- dustinmoris 6y ago
  I agree with this principle but in this specific case it’s not true because Apple started their music business long before the iPhone and Spotify existed. In fact they started with the iPod and their music business with the iPod is what lead them to invent the iPhone and the AppStore. It’s rich from other music businesses like Spotify to want to benefit from all of the R&D and innovation cost from Apple and the market they created whilst dismissing that in fact they entered the music market with the goal to eat shares from Apple and not the other way around.
  - teknopaul 6y ago
    starting first does not mean you are not abusing your monopoly. Another way of looking at this is that a 30% margin is preventing a lot of businesses from happening until Apple do it. The 30% is less of a concern that the fact that they can shut you down on a whim.
    - dustinmoris 6y ago
      It’s hardly abuse if Apple was the first to invent an iPod and iTunes and the online music business and then evolved their own products around their own offerings. They decided to let others into their own platform to enrich it, not to crush them. Spotify entered knowing that Apple already had a competing product. Why did they enter and start competing if they thought it was an unfair competition from the start? I find it hard to believe given the history of events. If it was in any way different then perhaps I could understand but to me it feels that Spotify just decided that now is the time to look for avenues to increase their profits and see the AppStore as the first opportunity to attack after never having had a problem before. Only a fool would start a business in a platform which tries to crush them so clearly that was never the case. EDIT (cannot reply): So if Apple would basically not have an AppStore for third parties and only distribute their own apps then it would be fair. If Apple was to not allow other Music apps on their AppStore then it would be fair. But when Apple allows others to distribute a competing product to Apple on Apple’s own platform for a fee then it is considered unfair? I honestly don’t understand this logic.
beforeolives 6y ago
> Just think about it: one company is in practice entitled to 30% of what any other business makes (in any industry)!! 1. No, this is limited to the AppStore, those businesses can operate elsewhere. 2. What's the alternative? How is any business entitled to free or low-fee access to a platform that Apple built and maintain?
- zibzab 6y ago
  Well, Apple has created a bunch of rules to address #1. For example, you cannot sell the same goods outside the store with a 30% discount.
- deergomoo 6y ago
  > How is any business entitled to free or low-fee access to a platform that Apple built and maintain? I’m sure many businesses would be perfectly happy to have no access whatsoever to the platform Apple built and maintain (platform meaning the App Store in this context), but if they want to ship on iOS (which is where all the money is), they have no choice.
  - FredPret 6y ago
    So Apple is providing these businesses with a platform that has captured hundreds of millions of high-income users. That’s incredibly valuable
    - deergomoo 6y ago
      Indeed, which is why they took $48bn in revenue for iPhone sales this quarter. Their argument that they are responsible for Spotify’s iPhone-originating revenue to the tune of a 30% cut is a complete farce. If the iPhone didn’t have third party apps, no-one would buy them.
- simion314 6y ago
  >What's the alternative? How is any business entitled to free or low-fee access to a platform that Apple built and maintain? Maybe look at OSX ? Why can Apple be happy with OK with one but not the other? If you want to imply that phones are not computers then tablets are not phones and more like computers, so we all know that if it OSX was created today would be locked.
simonh 6y ago
It's 30% for the first year of subscriptions and 15% thereafter. According to Apple in 2019 Spotify didn't actually pay 30% on any of it's subscriptions at that time, and only paid the 15% on 0.5% of the App's users. The rest are ad supported and Apple gets 0% of the ad revenue. So for every Spotify app user Apple get's a 15% fee for, there are 199 Spotify app users Apple is distributing the App to for which they get nothing. https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-fires-back-spotify-pays-fees-on-less-than-1-percent-of-members/ https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-fires-back-spotify-pays-fees... OK, that's the fact side of things. As for opinion, I think it's ridiculous that App vendors can't point out alternative payment options in their apps. That's a step too far. I'm also a bit concerned about digital sales, I can see why Epic doesn't want to pay 30% on every skin or loot box sold in Fortnite, but it's a free app otherwise distributed on the App Store for nothing so I think some sort of deal needs to be struck there. Other than that, I think the iPhone is Apple's product. They get to decide how it works, and users get to decide whether that's acceptable or not. Apple (and NeXT) spent billions of dollars over many decades, taking huge commercial risks to build that platform. A decade ago we were constantly being told they were inevitably doomed and open always wins. Well no, some of us like the way Apple does things and don't want it to massively change. Some things sure, they're not perfect, but I do not support changes that would severely undermine the integrity of their product. You can always buy an Android phone.
- thayne 6y ago
  But I think the key here, and probably a big reason Spotify went after Apple and not Google, is that on iOS you have to use Apple's app store. You can't distribute your app using your own infrastructure, or an alternative app store even if you want to.
  - ChrisRR 6y ago
    And aren't even allowed to mention in your app that you can sign up outside of the app.
  - simonh 6y ago
    Sure I understand that, but personally as an iPhone user I don't care. Users benefit from consolidation in the app store space, it much easier for me to have all my apps come from one app store with one set of rules and policies. I benefit from the fact Facebook can't bypass the App Store rules for security and privacy through side loading and an alternate store. Why do you want to take that away from me? Also as a user I don't see any evidence that I am suffering from this, are app prices significantly lower on Android App Stores other than the Play Store? The vast majority of Apps are free, or rally pretty cheap. Show me the evidence. I think the idea that competition in this area will benefit users is highly dubious. Does it really benefit users on Android? Side loading didn't work out for Fortnite very well. At the end of the day it's Apple's product and they get to decide what code they do or don't write and what features they do or don't support and how they work. They get to decide, and are accountable for the security architecture. As long as hey are meeting trade, advertising and safety standards it's up to them.
endisneigh 6y ago
Is the issue the percentage or skimming off the top? What percentage is acceptable? How did you come up with it? You might as well say that all percentage based transactions should be illegal.
- dannyw 6y ago
  Any percentage is acceptable if Spotify isn't forced to pay it. Any percentage is also acceptable if Apple wasn't directly competing with Spotify.
  - endisneigh 6y ago
    Isn’t Spotify benefiting from Apple devices? If not, then they can simply not be on Apple devices right? If they are benefiting, then is it unacceptable for them to pay for the benefit?
    - kryptiskt 6y ago
      Is Apple benefiting from selling in the EU? If they want to benefit from Europe, they got to obey the rules.
      - endisneigh 6y ago
        I agree completely, but for now they are following the rules. I’ll be happy to see the EU ban percentage based fees and make all platforms open.
        simion314 6y ago
        Is not about the percentage, are you aware that you can't even mention you can buy a subscription from the website in the iOS application? Apple does not allow alternative app stores and is actively blocking you to inform of alternative methods of payment.
        6y ago
piokoch 6y ago
I think argument about 30% is not that good. There is a number of services that Apple provides like software distribution, updates distribution, reviews (even though they don't benefit software creator directly, they build trust in the platform and attract more users), invoicing, regardless on the location (this one is really big - getting a single invoice from Apple instead of dealing with potentially thousands of documents) and also marketing. I spoke once to a guy who was selling English language courses on CDs in brick and mortar stores plus he was sending courses by snail mail. He's got interested in that new at that time App Store thing, so I've asked him about the fee. He said that comparing to his current packaging and distrubution costs, paying stores only to be able to put his product on a shelf those 30% is a laughably small fee.
- simion314 6y ago
  Steam also has a tax but you still have a choice as a developer or as a gamer. Cyberpunk is on Steam, Gog, Epic and maybe other stores(there are many such games where you as the user can decide what store you trust , what is more comfortable for you or what company you like more). If you are an iOS developer and and 2 other stores would exists, then you would publish on all to maximize your profit, and hard core Apple fans still get their app from the Apple store but it could cost a bit more.
  - bzzzt 6y ago
    That would be great if stores weren't pushing so much for 'exclusives'. I fear that the endgame of multiple App stores is that the guarantee Apple gives (for instance with the privacy labels) will be sidestepped by businesses like Facebook who will force people through their own store without them. Seeing how many people don't read the small print and just install everything available to them that's the most probable outcome.
    - simion314 6y ago
      >That would be great if stores weren't pushing so much for 'exclusives'. Exclusives are not that many and instead of fighting like idiots to have only one store we could ask laws to block artificial exclusives. On PC is not a big deal to install Origin and play a game if you are desperate, on iOS you can't install stuff without a big effort to jailbreak your device (though you can do it on OSX and I did not see any malware/viruses or similar complaints)
mrtksn 6y ago
>company is in practice entitled to 30% of what any other business makes That's not a problem, there's no inartistic correct amount to make for enabling or providing value. For 30 years now, software makes much more than that as numerous industries no longer employ people but software. The problem is, when you own the platform and you start competing on that platform you have an advantage that can be misused. For Apple, the advantage that can be misused is to deny some API or the existence of competing businesses on their platforms. They can also do unfair pricing, for example it could be argued that %30 on Spotify is unfair when Apple has directly competing product. For Amazon for example, they can have analytics on the businesses on their platforms and create competing products and promote them unfairly. There are countless examples of Amazon doing this. Google was also fined many times for using their dominance in one area to force dominance in another. Essentially, it's the good old platform owner getting greedy issue. IMHO we need platform and product separation rules, similar to the Hollywood rules on separation of production and distribution.
- f6v 6y ago
  > The problem is, when you own the platform and you start competing on that platform you have an advantage that can be misused. Except every platform ever built is there to get an unfair advantage. That’s the endgame for all the companies. Why would you build a platform otherwise? There’s a perpetual growth expectation after all.
  - mrtksn 6y ago
    Yes, the incentives are often perverse. However, there are many reasons to build a platform even if your endgame is not extracting all of the value yourself and that is, make money from the commission on the platform or protect your interest in other businesses through the platform(for example, Android and Chrome platforms protect Google from being pushed out of data collection for advertisement). Anyway, businesses might have that kind of aspirations but thats why we have governments. An important argument against influence of the businesses in the government and libertarianism.
  - simion314 6y ago
bennysomething 6y ago
How is apple entitled to 30 percent of what any other business makes? Apple developed a platform and says to developers "pay is 30 percent to use it" sounds fair to me. Huge streaming service comes along "I want to use you platform but not pay the fee". How is that remotely fair? No one is making Spotify use it. What right has any one or any company got to demand special treatment. Many other app developers are fine with the fee. If they weren't, they wouldnt use it. It's a choice. Also "abusing market position" what does that mean. It's purposely broad, it can mean anything.
- f6v 6y ago
  People pretend that for-profit entities are supposed to build platform as a public good. When in fact corporations are incentivized by the market to be a monopoly.
  - simion314 6y ago
    You should not be allowed to build a platform and then compete unfair with apps for that platform.
    - f6v 6y ago
      Why build a platform then?
      - simion314 6y ago
        Don't build one, build good products that users want and not forced to use. But this is from the users point of view. From a capitalistic point of view I agree you need to screw the users and environment as much as legally possible.
        bennysomething 6y ago
        How do apple "screw" users. Anyone buying Apple products is making choice: keep my money or spend on a thing I find beneficial. I think anyone would be forgiven for calling this a first world problem. Getting screwed usually means having money stolen. Here it just means demanding someone else's services cheaper.
xxs 6y ago
>Unpopular opinion: Only if you own Apple stock... or well hackernews is overall unfriendly for anything Apple related.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  How is hackernews in any way unfriendly to Apple? Anything involving Apple Silicon goes straight to the top of the frontpage, comments are full of people absolutely gushing over just about anything - I personally don't really care other than that I find it subtly funny the number of times I see people saying "Wow my new M1 Mac is so much faster than [Different Mac that's almost a decade old, but I'm either not used to thinking about Apple products in terms of their internals, or I'm forgetting the passage of time]"
  - xxs 6y ago
    unfriendly as in "unfriendly to discuss"... not the company, itself - which tends to be favored. (this is why I said unfriendly 'for') Just the topics. It's a download fest (on any side) for anything that doesn't fit their purpose. M1 is a prime example - it was top of the page and most of the comments were nothing about the technology, etc. About M1 - I find nothing spectacular about it, given the amount of transistors it has.
slver 6y ago
The App Store, iOS and Apple's hardware are all Apple's infrastructure.
- simion314 6y ago
  something is missing here, maybe quote the thing you replied to or be more clear. Since is not clear, I might be off topic, Apple can not sell it's stuff in EU or can comply with the laws , it is fun when "our stuff, our rules, use something else if you don't like it" is applied to Apple.
  - Oddskar 6y ago
    It's far from the first time Apple tries to weasel it's way out of EU legislation. I remember it was this way with AppleCare years ago as well. One had to really fight them to uphold the minimum warranty guaranteed by national legislation.
- realusername 6y ago
  I'm sure they'd like to not use those if they could.
Someone 6y ago
I disagree. It’s not that Apple wants 30%, it’s that they get away with it. For most companies, such a demand would be fine, legally (suicidal, but fine. Companies are free to make stupid decisions)
- simondotau 6y ago
  30% has been an industry standard for digital sales for a long time, long before Apple adopted it.
  - username90 6y ago
    Which is what EU intends to fix.
    - simondotau 6y ago
      Fine, so long as they “fix it” for everyone. Whatever rules they come up with must be universally applied. That includes for Sony and Microsoft and the game console online stores.
saynay 6y ago
I believe it is 30% for the initial subscription (or maybe first year?), and then 15% after that. If you are big enough, and probably aren't competing with a market Apple wants, you can negotiate to the 15% (maybe lower?) from the get go, e.g. Netflix.
oaiey 6y ago
They were very accurate about the following: (A) It is only about Music (other cases exists in parallel). (B) They declared that the 30% market share of their devices has a practical vendor-lock-in (so a monopoly without choice there). (C) Apple competes with other Music vendors and cut them by 30% AND blocking them from directly accessing the user AND that they abstract the user away from the App (leaving the other app zero information while they have a monopoly on information)
harywilke 6y ago
narrator voice: they all used apple infrastructure.
- stby 6y ago
  ... because they had to
jVinc 6y ago
> Just think about it: one company is in practice entitled to 30% of what any other business makes (in any industry)!! This seems to be the case for all markets. I don't really see myself winning a case against wallmart if I complain they want a markup on sales of my product and that they are misusing their "monopoly" on "wallmart shelf space" by not allowing me decide to put my products in their store without their say, or without letting them earn money on the transactions that happen through their store.
- gcthomas 6y ago
  Walmart is competing openly with the store down the street. If I have a iPhone I can't use another store — it is a lock-in.
  - simondotau 6y ago
    If you walk into Walmart, you’re not going to find a Target. And you’re certainly not going to find a Target paying 0% commission to Walmart. There you go, another equally ridiculous Walmart analogy.
  - jVinc 5y ago
    Walmart isn't competing openly though. They have a 100% monopoly on wallmart shelf space. Target is a different platform down the street sure, but that's like Apple vs. Samsung. You can't get the Apple app store on a Samsung, and you can't get the android appstore on an iPhone. But Target can't put products on wallmarts shelves and wallmart can't put products on targets shelves.
fastball 6y ago
Yeah, my stance has always been that companies should exist to: 1. deliver value. 2. capture a fraction of that value. I think it is pretty clear in most cases that 30% is well above the value Apple is actually delivering with their App Store. It's not like Apple is building the apps for other people. You still have to build the app entirely on your own, the only thing Apple is doing is letting you distribute your app / distributing it for you, which costs pennies. People keep saying "but you wouldn't have devices to distribute your app to without Apple" and while that is true, Apple is already capturing the value for that part of the deal – they're selling the devices to customers. If they were giving away iPhones for free, that would be one thing. But if the only reason you are able to charge 30% is because you've monopolized distribution on a device that the user "owns", that is not ok. Then there is the dubious value Apple claims to be providing to end-users by "maintaining the quality of the app store", but I don't think this is true anymore. Shit-tier apps get thru every day, and great apps get knocked for arbitrary reasons. Apps are pretty well sandboxed at this point, requiring explicit permission for most worrying features, so I don't really think Apple oversight is needed. Allow 3rd party app stores already.
- sixstringtheory 6y ago
  > I think it is pretty clear in most cases that 30% is well above the value Apple is actually delivering with their App Store. You’re entitled to your opinion. And maybe it is not valuable to you. But I doubt you even know the costs to run the service so my opinion is that you are speaking from a place of ignorance. Part of the value of the service is that you don’t have to go and build it yourself. I’m going to bet that you’d die before you built it. How valuable is your life? > Shit-tier apps get thru every day, and great apps get knocked for arbitrary reasons. My opinion is this will get much worse. Just because you are a cute tinkerer who just wants to publish the app you made for your grandma doesn’t mean there aren’t people out there who can’t wait to get their malware onto the platform that carries the most wealthy consumers.
  - colinmhayes 6y ago
    The app store makes tens of billions of dollars a year. You can't argue it delivers anywhere close to that amount of value.
zuhsetaqi 6y ago
> no matter if they used apple infrastructure or not. That’s not exactly right. If Spotify (just as an example) would acquire all of their customers through their website or desktop app then they would pay nothing to Apple. That fee is only there if a user does use the InApp purchase option which Spotify doesn’t have to offer. So they’re paying only 30% to Apple if the their customer has subscribed through the iOS App.
- oaiey 6y ago
  Where there are forbidden or prevented to inform the user that they can register somewhere else cheaper. This is explicitly mentioned by the EU commissioner in the press conference.
ApolloFortyNine 6y ago
That we've allowed Apple to have a monopoly on all Apple apps this whole time is insane to me. Google at least does allow users to install apps and an entire app stores off the market place, even if many don't take advantage of it. Walmart for example has an average margin of under 2% across their products. For every $1 they bring in, they only expect to make 2 cents. And here we have Apple, who often is simply providing a download button, advertising is extra, to take 30% off the top.
boublepop 5y ago
Same is true for Walmart. If you own shelf space in a store front you get to dictate the terms for people who want to get onto those shelves. The major difference is only that for other phones, the stores decided to let everyone go and put up diy shelves in their stores and now people are demanding the ability to do it in Apple stores too.

by zibzab 6y ago

rusk 6y ago

How is that unpopular? I think all but a fairly vocal minority of people (probably direct/indirect beneficiaries) would agree.

WA 6y ago
"Their platform, their rules" – there are many people who say this, especially on HN.
- bluescrn 6y ago
  Because they're all trying to build platforms, probably
  - numpad0 6y ago
    Are we doing “temporally embarrassed platformers” now
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - anoncake 6y ago
      Aren't startups just temporarily embarrassed FTAANGs?
  - ObserverNeutral 6y ago
    >> Because they're all trying to build platforms, probably Or not building products which collide with platforms. As a general rule, if you have to use offensive lawsuits you are not smart enough to do it cleanly. This is true in business and everywhere else
- malka 6y ago
  The problem is not the rules themselves. The rules applies to Spotify, but not to Apple music. Apple should make Apple music a separate entity, and make it pay 30%.
  - harywilke 6y ago
    No company should have the power to tell another company that they must split up into separate entities.
    - gambiting 6y ago
      Company? No. But a government can absolutely do this and it's a thing that happens all the time, even in the US.
    - dkirill 6y ago
      No company, but the government should be able to
    - gcthomas 6y ago
      Apple has built itself up into a vertical monopoly, which used to be illegal. There is no good reason to allow anti-competitive behaviours. They shouldn't be allowed to host the platform and compete with applications at the same time.
      - simondotau 6y ago
        And yet vertical integration is a big part of why Apple products are so loved. By denying the option of vertical integration, you’re forcing the totality of products we use to be incrementally a little bit more crap.
        malka 6y ago
        you can have vertical integration. But having an advantage at one layer should no be leveraged as advantage to another layer. Apple is free to make a music player. But its music player should abide by the same rules as other players in the market. Either Apple Music has its income cut by 30%, or no one does.
- gcthomas 6y ago
  If only the refrain was "EU's territory, EU's rules". No platform can operate in isolation from the laws of the places they wish to trade.
Mindwipe 6y ago
The vocal minority are very active on HN's voting mechanics.
- rusk 6y ago
  Ssh don't mention "the thing"!

zibzab 6y ago

Should add, the ruling is not really about the validity of the 30% fee. What EU seems to argue is this: 1. Apple is in phone business, Spotify music. So far so good... 2. Then apple wants to get into the music business too. Now they have an unfair advantage since Spotify must pay 30% to apple while apple music "pays" 0%. So apple use their dominance in one area (phones) to get an advantage in a totally different area (music), which is a textbook violation.

dustinmoris 6y ago
I agree with this principle but in this specific case it’s not true because Apple started their music business long before the iPhone and Spotify existed. In fact they started with the iPod and their music business with the iPod is what lead them to invent the iPhone and the AppStore. It’s rich from other music businesses like Spotify to want to benefit from all of the R&D and innovation cost from Apple and the market they created whilst dismissing that in fact they entered the music market with the goal to eat shares from Apple and not the other way around.
- teknopaul 6y ago
  starting first does not mean you are not abusing your monopoly. Another way of looking at this is that a 30% margin is preventing a lot of businesses from happening until Apple do it. The 30% is less of a concern that the fact that they can shut you down on a whim.
  - dustinmoris 6y ago
    It’s hardly abuse if Apple was the first to invent an iPod and iTunes and the online music business and then evolved their own products around their own offerings. They decided to let others into their own platform to enrich it, not to crush them. Spotify entered knowing that Apple already had a competing product. Why did they enter and start competing if they thought it was an unfair competition from the start? I find it hard to believe given the history of events. If it was in any way different then perhaps I could understand but to me it feels that Spotify just decided that now is the time to look for avenues to increase their profits and see the AppStore as the first opportunity to attack after never having had a problem before. Only a fool would start a business in a platform which tries to crush them so clearly that was never the case. EDIT (cannot reply): So if Apple would basically not have an AppStore for third parties and only distribute their own apps then it would be fair. If Apple was to not allow other Music apps on their AppStore then it would be fair. But when Apple allows others to distribute a competing product to Apple on Apple’s own platform for a fee then it is considered unfair? I honestly don’t understand this logic.

beforeolives 6y ago

> Just think about it: one company is in practice entitled to 30% of what any other business makes (in any industry)!! 1. No, this is limited to the AppStore, those businesses can operate elsewhere. 2. What's the alternative? How is any business entitled to free or low-fee access to a platform that Apple built and maintain?

zibzab 6y ago
Well, Apple has created a bunch of rules to address #1. For example, you cannot sell the same goods outside the store with a 30% discount.
deergomoo 6y ago
> How is any business entitled to free or low-fee access to a platform that Apple built and maintain? I’m sure many businesses would be perfectly happy to have no access whatsoever to the platform Apple built and maintain (platform meaning the App Store in this context), but if they want to ship on iOS (which is where all the money is), they have no choice.
- FredPret 6y ago
  So Apple is providing these businesses with a platform that has captured hundreds of millions of high-income users. That’s incredibly valuable
  - deergomoo 6y ago
    Indeed, which is why they took $48bn in revenue for iPhone sales this quarter. Their argument that they are responsible for Spotify’s iPhone-originating revenue to the tune of a 30% cut is a complete farce. If the iPhone didn’t have third party apps, no-one would buy them.
simion314 6y ago
>What's the alternative? How is any business entitled to free or low-fee access to a platform that Apple built and maintain? Maybe look at OSX ? Why can Apple be happy with OK with one but not the other? If you want to imply that phones are not computers then tablets are not phones and more like computers, so we all know that if it OSX was created today would be locked.

simonh 6y ago

It's 30% for the first year of subscriptions and 15% thereafter. According to Apple in 2019 Spotify didn't actually pay 30% on any of it's subscriptions at that time, and only paid the 15% on 0.5% of the App's users. The rest are ad supported and Apple gets 0% of the ad revenue. So for every Spotify app user Apple get's a 15% fee for, there are 199 Spotify app users Apple is distributing the App to for which they get nothing. https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-fires-back-spotify-pays-fees-on-less-than-1-percent-of-members/ https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-fires-back-spotify-pays-fees... OK, that's the fact side of things. As for opinion, I think it's ridiculous that App vendors can't point out alternative payment options in their apps. That's a step too far. I'm also a bit concerned about digital sales, I can see why Epic doesn't want to pay 30% on every skin or loot box sold in Fortnite, but it's a free app otherwise distributed on the App Store for nothing so I think some sort of deal needs to be struck there. Other than that, I think the iPhone is Apple's product. They get to decide how it works, and users get to decide whether that's acceptable or not. Apple (and NeXT) spent billions of dollars over many decades, taking huge commercial risks to build that platform. A decade ago we were constantly being told they were inevitably doomed and open always wins. Well no, some of us like the way Apple does things and don't want it to massively change. Some things sure, they're not perfect, but I do not support changes that would severely undermine the integrity of their product. You can always buy an Android phone.

thayne 6y ago
But I think the key here, and probably a big reason Spotify went after Apple and not Google, is that on iOS you have to use Apple's app store. You can't distribute your app using your own infrastructure, or an alternative app store even if you want to.
- ChrisRR 6y ago
  And aren't even allowed to mention in your app that you can sign up outside of the app.
- simonh 6y ago
  Sure I understand that, but personally as an iPhone user I don't care. Users benefit from consolidation in the app store space, it much easier for me to have all my apps come from one app store with one set of rules and policies. I benefit from the fact Facebook can't bypass the App Store rules for security and privacy through side loading and an alternate store. Why do you want to take that away from me? Also as a user I don't see any evidence that I am suffering from this, are app prices significantly lower on Android App Stores other than the Play Store? The vast majority of Apps are free, or rally pretty cheap. Show me the evidence. I think the idea that competition in this area will benefit users is highly dubious. Does it really benefit users on Android? Side loading didn't work out for Fortnite very well. At the end of the day it's Apple's product and they get to decide what code they do or don't write and what features they do or don't support and how they work. They get to decide, and are accountable for the security architecture. As long as hey are meeting trade, advertising and safety standards it's up to them.

endisneigh 6y ago

Is the issue the percentage or skimming off the top? What percentage is acceptable? How did you come up with it? You might as well say that all percentage based transactions should be illegal.

dannyw 6y ago
Any percentage is acceptable if Spotify isn't forced to pay it. Any percentage is also acceptable if Apple wasn't directly competing with Spotify.
- endisneigh 6y ago
  Isn’t Spotify benefiting from Apple devices? If not, then they can simply not be on Apple devices right? If they are benefiting, then is it unacceptable for them to pay for the benefit?
  - kryptiskt 6y ago
    Is Apple benefiting from selling in the EU? If they want to benefit from Europe, they got to obey the rules.
    - endisneigh 6y ago
      I agree completely, but for now they are following the rules. I’ll be happy to see the EU ban percentage based fees and make all platforms open.
      - simion314 6y ago
        Is not about the percentage, are you aware that you can't even mention you can buy a subscription from the website in the iOS application? Apple does not allow alternative app stores and is actively blocking you to inform of alternative methods of payment.
        6y ago

piokoch 6y ago

I think argument about 30% is not that good. There is a number of services that Apple provides like software distribution, updates distribution, reviews (even though they don't benefit software creator directly, they build trust in the platform and attract more users), invoicing, regardless on the location (this one is really big - getting a single invoice from Apple instead of dealing with potentially thousands of documents) and also marketing. I spoke once to a guy who was selling English language courses on CDs in brick and mortar stores plus he was sending courses by snail mail. He's got interested in that new at that time App Store thing, so I've asked him about the fee. He said that comparing to his current packaging and distrubution costs, paying stores only to be able to put his product on a shelf those 30% is a laughably small fee.

simion314 6y ago
Steam also has a tax but you still have a choice as a developer or as a gamer. Cyberpunk is on Steam, Gog, Epic and maybe other stores(there are many such games where you as the user can decide what store you trust , what is more comfortable for you or what company you like more). If you are an iOS developer and and 2 other stores would exists, then you would publish on all to maximize your profit, and hard core Apple fans still get their app from the Apple store but it could cost a bit more.
- bzzzt 6y ago
  That would be great if stores weren't pushing so much for 'exclusives'. I fear that the endgame of multiple App stores is that the guarantee Apple gives (for instance with the privacy labels) will be sidestepped by businesses like Facebook who will force people through their own store without them. Seeing how many people don't read the small print and just install everything available to them that's the most probable outcome.
  - simion314 6y ago
    >That would be great if stores weren't pushing so much for 'exclusives'. Exclusives are not that many and instead of fighting like idiots to have only one store we could ask laws to block artificial exclusives. On PC is not a big deal to install Origin and play a game if you are desperate, on iOS you can't install stuff without a big effort to jailbreak your device (though you can do it on OSX and I did not see any malware/viruses or similar complaints)

mrtksn 6y ago

>company is in practice entitled to 30% of what any other business makes That's not a problem, there's no inartistic correct amount to make for enabling or providing value. For 30 years now, software makes much more than that as numerous industries no longer employ people but software. The problem is, when you own the platform and you start competing on that platform you have an advantage that can be misused. For Apple, the advantage that can be misused is to deny some API or the existence of competing businesses on their platforms. They can also do unfair pricing, for example it could be argued that %30 on Spotify is unfair when Apple has directly competing product. For Amazon for example, they can have analytics on the businesses on their platforms and create competing products and promote them unfairly. There are countless examples of Amazon doing this. Google was also fined many times for using their dominance in one area to force dominance in another. Essentially, it's the good old platform owner getting greedy issue. IMHO we need platform and product separation rules, similar to the Hollywood rules on separation of production and distribution.

f6v 6y ago
> The problem is, when you own the platform and you start competing on that platform you have an advantage that can be misused. Except every platform ever built is there to get an unfair advantage. That’s the endgame for all the companies. Why would you build a platform otherwise? There’s a perpetual growth expectation after all.
- mrtksn 6y ago
  Yes, the incentives are often perverse. However, there are many reasons to build a platform even if your endgame is not extracting all of the value yourself and that is, make money from the commission on the platform or protect your interest in other businesses through the platform(for example, Android and Chrome platforms protect Google from being pushed out of data collection for advertisement). Anyway, businesses might have that kind of aspirations but thats why we have governments. An important argument against influence of the businesses in the government and libertarianism.
- simion314 6y ago

bennysomething 6y ago

How is apple entitled to 30 percent of what any other business makes? Apple developed a platform and says to developers "pay is 30 percent to use it" sounds fair to me. Huge streaming service comes along "I want to use you platform but not pay the fee". How is that remotely fair? No one is making Spotify use it. What right has any one or any company got to demand special treatment. Many other app developers are fine with the fee. If they weren't, they wouldnt use it. It's a choice. Also "abusing market position" what does that mean. It's purposely broad, it can mean anything.

f6v 6y ago
People pretend that for-profit entities are supposed to build platform as a public good. When in fact corporations are incentivized by the market to be a monopoly.
- simion314 6y ago
  You should not be allowed to build a platform and then compete unfair with apps for that platform.
  - f6v 6y ago
    Why build a platform then?
    - simion314 6y ago
      Don't build one, build good products that users want and not forced to use. But this is from the users point of view. From a capitalistic point of view I agree you need to screw the users and environment as much as legally possible.
      - bennysomething 6y ago
        How do apple "screw" users. Anyone buying Apple products is making choice: keep my money or spend on a thing I find beneficial. I think anyone would be forgiven for calling this a first world problem. Getting screwed usually means having money stolen. Here it just means demanding someone else's services cheaper.

xxs 6y ago

>Unpopular opinion: Only if you own Apple stock... or well hackernews is overall unfriendly for anything Apple related.

mhh__ 6y ago
How is hackernews in any way unfriendly to Apple? Anything involving Apple Silicon goes straight to the top of the frontpage, comments are full of people absolutely gushing over just about anything - I personally don't really care other than that I find it subtly funny the number of times I see people saying "Wow my new M1 Mac is so much faster than [Different Mac that's almost a decade old, but I'm either not used to thinking about Apple products in terms of their internals, or I'm forgetting the passage of time]"
- xxs 6y ago
  unfriendly as in "unfriendly to discuss"... not the company, itself - which tends to be favored. (this is why I said unfriendly 'for') Just the topics. It's a download fest (on any side) for anything that doesn't fit their purpose. M1 is a prime example - it was top of the page and most of the comments were nothing about the technology, etc. About M1 - I find nothing spectacular about it, given the amount of transistors it has.

slver 6y ago

The App Store, iOS and Apple's hardware are all Apple's infrastructure.

simion314 6y ago
something is missing here, maybe quote the thing you replied to or be more clear. Since is not clear, I might be off topic, Apple can not sell it's stuff in EU or can comply with the laws , it is fun when "our stuff, our rules, use something else if you don't like it" is applied to Apple.
- Oddskar 6y ago
  It's far from the first time Apple tries to weasel it's way out of EU legislation. I remember it was this way with AppleCare years ago as well. One had to really fight them to uphold the minimum warranty guaranteed by national legislation.
realusername 6y ago
I'm sure they'd like to not use those if they could.

Someone 6y ago

I disagree. It’s not that Apple wants 30%, it’s that they get away with it. For most companies, such a demand would be fine, legally (suicidal, but fine. Companies are free to make stupid decisions)

simondotau 6y ago
30% has been an industry standard for digital sales for a long time, long before Apple adopted it.
- username90 6y ago
  Which is what EU intends to fix.
  - simondotau 6y ago
    Fine, so long as they “fix it” for everyone. Whatever rules they come up with must be universally applied. That includes for Sony and Microsoft and the game console online stores.

saynay 6y ago

I believe it is 30% for the initial subscription (or maybe first year?), and then 15% after that. If you are big enough, and probably aren't competing with a market Apple wants, you can negotiate to the 15% (maybe lower?) from the get go, e.g. Netflix.

oaiey 6y ago

They were very accurate about the following: (A) It is only about Music (other cases exists in parallel). (B) They declared that the 30% market share of their devices has a practical vendor-lock-in (so a monopoly without choice there). (C) Apple competes with other Music vendors and cut them by 30% AND blocking them from directly accessing the user AND that they abstract the user away from the App (leaving the other app zero information while they have a monopoly on information)

harywilke 6y ago

narrator voice: they all used apple infrastructure.

stby 6y ago
... because they had to

jVinc 6y ago

> Just think about it: one company is in practice entitled to 30% of what any other business makes (in any industry)!! This seems to be the case for all markets. I don't really see myself winning a case against wallmart if I complain they want a markup on sales of my product and that they are misusing their "monopoly" on "wallmart shelf space" by not allowing me decide to put my products in their store without their say, or without letting them earn money on the transactions that happen through their store.

gcthomas 6y ago
Walmart is competing openly with the store down the street. If I have a iPhone I can't use another store — it is a lock-in.
- simondotau 6y ago
  If you walk into Walmart, you’re not going to find a Target. And you’re certainly not going to find a Target paying 0% commission to Walmart. There you go, another equally ridiculous Walmart analogy.
- jVinc 5y ago
  Walmart isn't competing openly though. They have a 100% monopoly on wallmart shelf space. Target is a different platform down the street sure, but that's like Apple vs. Samsung. You can't get the Apple app store on a Samsung, and you can't get the android appstore on an iPhone. But Target can't put products on wallmarts shelves and wallmart can't put products on targets shelves.

fastball 6y ago

Yeah, my stance has always been that companies should exist to: 1. deliver value. 2. capture a fraction of that value. I think it is pretty clear in most cases that 30% is well above the value Apple is actually delivering with their App Store. It's not like Apple is building the apps for other people. You still have to build the app entirely on your own, the only thing Apple is doing is letting you distribute your app / distributing it for you, which costs pennies. People keep saying "but you wouldn't have devices to distribute your app to without Apple" and while that is true, Apple is already capturing the value for that part of the deal – they're selling the devices to customers. If they were giving away iPhones for free, that would be one thing. But if the only reason you are able to charge 30% is because you've monopolized distribution on a device that the user "owns", that is not ok. Then there is the dubious value Apple claims to be providing to end-users by "maintaining the quality of the app store", but I don't think this is true anymore. Shit-tier apps get thru every day, and great apps get knocked for arbitrary reasons. Apps are pretty well sandboxed at this point, requiring explicit permission for most worrying features, so I don't really think Apple oversight is needed. Allow 3rd party app stores already.

sixstringtheory 6y ago
> I think it is pretty clear in most cases that 30% is well above the value Apple is actually delivering with their App Store. You’re entitled to your opinion. And maybe it is not valuable to you. But I doubt you even know the costs to run the service so my opinion is that you are speaking from a place of ignorance. Part of the value of the service is that you don’t have to go and build it yourself. I’m going to bet that you’d die before you built it. How valuable is your life? > Shit-tier apps get thru every day, and great apps get knocked for arbitrary reasons. My opinion is this will get much worse. Just because you are a cute tinkerer who just wants to publish the app you made for your grandma doesn’t mean there aren’t people out there who can’t wait to get their malware onto the platform that carries the most wealthy consumers.
- colinmhayes 6y ago
  The app store makes tens of billions of dollars a year. You can't argue it delivers anywhere close to that amount of value.

zuhsetaqi 6y ago

> no matter if they used apple infrastructure or not. That’s not exactly right. If Spotify (just as an example) would acquire all of their customers through their website or desktop app then they would pay nothing to Apple. That fee is only there if a user does use the InApp purchase option which Spotify doesn’t have to offer. So they’re paying only 30% to Apple if the their customer has subscribed through the iOS App.

oaiey 6y ago
Where there are forbidden or prevented to inform the user that they can register somewhere else cheaper. This is explicitly mentioned by the EU commissioner in the press conference.

ApolloFortyNine 6y ago

That we've allowed Apple to have a monopoly on all Apple apps this whole time is insane to me. Google at least does allow users to install apps and an entire app stores off the market place, even if many don't take advantage of it. Walmart for example has an average margin of under 2% across their products. For every $1 they bring in, they only expect to make 2 cents. And here we have Apple, who often is simply providing a download button, advertising is extra, to take 30% off the top.

boublepop 5y ago

Same is true for Walmart. If you own shelf space in a store front you get to dictate the terms for people who want to get onto those shelves. The major difference is only that for other phones, the stores decided to let everyone go and put up diy shelves in their stores and now people are demanding the ability to do it in Apple stores too.