7 ms·

I think the answer is simple. If it was easy to advertise to the user other payment options, then what would stop developers from making free apps [0] that are

I think the answer is simple. If it was easy to advertise to the user other payment options, then what would stop developers from making free apps [0] that are unlocked in the developers website? Bypassing the Apple's cut. I don't agree with this but I think it would be a good argument by Apple. [0] Assuming that these free apps would be functional but very limited so they don't have the same problem as the Hey app.

sfifs 5y ago
Sure. That's also pretty much the definition of anti-trust. Using a dominant position in one market (distribution of apps on iOS) to gain an unfair advantage in others (payment processing) to make profits in a way that causes consumers to pay more - it's very easy to demonstrate in many apps you pay higher to buy exactly the same content in-app vs. on website. Apple's in very deep shit in this lawsuit and losing this will open a can of worms.
- quackyodata 5y ago
  >Apple's in very deep shit in this lawsuit and losing this will open a can of worms. For example, is it okay to bundle a default web browser with an OS and forbid any other browsers from being installed? All iOS browsers are required to use Safari's WebKit under the hood, despite the appearance of choice in the app store. This cripples the features and performance of 3rd-party browsers like Firefox. And unlike this spat with Epic, there might be some strong precedence on that question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
  - simondotau 5y ago
    > For example, is it okay to bundle a default web browser with an OS and forbid any other browsers from being installed? There are hundreds (or depending on how you count them, thousands) of products where exactly this is the case. Try installing an alternative web rendering engine on your LG smart TV, or your Toyota, or your Playstation. > there might be some strong precedence on that question This precedent isn't analogous. Microsoft had an initial marketplace monopoly over desktop computer operating systems, which was not ideal, but legally fine. They then illegally buttressed and extended their monopoly by arm-twisting the largest OEMs to lock competitive operating systems out of the open market. Finally they used this illegal monopoly to force their way into an existing competitive market of commercial[0] web browsers. Had alternative operating systems such as OS/2 and Linux not been illegally suppressed, or had the question been asked in the iOS/Android era, Microsoft's actions around Internet Explorer wouldn't have justified the same level of scrutiny. For the analogy to hold, you'd have to show that Apple has used their market dominance to illegally suppress market access from its competitors. [0] It's often hard for us to remember in 2021, but web browsers weren't always entirely free. Netscape was commercial software; initially free for evaluation purposes only, then later free for non-commercial purposes only. Netscape was set to be a very successful company through commercial web browser sales.
    - anoncake 5y ago
      > There are hundreds (or depending on how you count them, thousands) of products where exactly this is the case. Try installing an alternative web rendering engine on your LG smart TV, or your Toyota, or your Playstation. Sure, and that's problematic, but let's focus on the bigger fish for now.
      - simondotau 5y ago
        It's not problematic. Just because Toyota happens to sell a product that contains a multi-purpose computer with a display, Toyota is not suddenly obligated to release free tools and libraries to allow third parties to port Firefox to their cars' head units. Having such a requirement would be insane, not to mention impossible given the existence of copyright laws[0]. Toyota's software is proprietary; if they don't want to release tools and libraries, that's their prerogative. [0] And before you start arguing in opposition to intellectual property rights, remember that copyright law is necessary to enforce the GPL. Without the protection of copyright, GPL software cannot exist—everything becomes de-facto public domain, with none of the benefits of copyleft rules.
        anoncake 5y ago
        > Toyota is not suddenly obligated to release free tools and libraries to allow third parties to port Firefox to their cars' head units. Who argued for that? No one, it's a strawman. > And before you start arguing in opposition to intellectual property rights, remember that copyright law is necessary to enforce the GPL. Ordering companies not to lock down the customer's hardware does not require abolishing copyright.
cblconfederate 5y ago
If Apple is not offering a rate that is competitive to whatever the developers use on their own site, then it means their policy is anti-competitive and costing users money. There's no law that says Apple and only apple must make the maximum amount of profit. If apple continues by complaining that they need the extra money to operate their app store then well, they are free to allow alternative app stores.
- xvector 5y ago
  It’s impossible to offer a competitive rate while still taking any cut whatsoever. The App Store is a storefront. Obviously every developer would prefer to transact directly and bypass the cut, while relying on the App Store for advertising and visibility.
  - stock_toaster 5y ago
    Agreed. Also no way for apple to enforce refunds for purchases are even _possible_ if they aren't involved in the payment pipeline.
    - Silhouette 5y ago
      Why should that be Apple's job in the first place? If I go to a big shopping centre, and I buy something from one of the shops there, and subsequently it turns out to be defective, that's between me and the shop who sold it to me. No-one would expect the shopping centre to have any control over that commercial relationship just because the shop happened to be under its roof.
      - dkarras 5y ago
        But then if the shop is a dick to you, or it scams you, otherwise does a dirty on you, it would affect the credibility of the shopping center (how are they allowing scammers to rent shops here), even the concept of doing business with shopping centers as a whole. Also "shopping center" analogy somewhat breaks down because you buy something from a shop and use it somewhere else. When you buy an app, you use it in the device only (inside the shopping center) using the device's affordances. So they are somewhat more intimately tied. In the end, this all boils down to ideological differences. One camp says "it is their store, take it or leave it, they already have competitors - if the value proposition wasn't there, it would fail - and if they screw up it will fail" and I'm in this camp. Apple as a company does not owe anything to anyone. Can they discontinue the app store tomorrow if they wanted? Sure they can, it is their store and platform. Can they decide to get 99% cut from all purchases? Yes, it is their business, their platform. Up to them. If the value proposition isn't there, it will fail on its own. If it is there, whining feels to me like entitlement. The other camp thinks private companies should be bound to rules such that even if they provide immense value, there should be a "limit" to how much return they can get from it, mandated by governments etc. I don't agree, but I can see where they are coming from.
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
>If it was easy to advertise to the user other payment options, then what would stop developers from making free apps [0] that are unlocked in the developers website? Bypassing the Apple's cut. Allow users to install app stores then. "How dare you bypass the App Store!" "Alright, can we make our own app store?" "No!"
stirlo 5y ago
And what's wrong with this? If developers think Apples frictionless payment system is worth their cut then they'd still keep it. Otherwise consumers and developers now have choice. What marginal benefit does apple provide on the purchase of "v-bucks" to justify a 30% cut when processing costs are far lower?
- Silhouette 5y ago
  Exactly. The typical problem with these huge, two-sided online marketplaces is that they are the big guy in any "negotiation" of terms with both sides of the market, which means they can effectively dictate the terms. And yet, they are just an intermediary. The only value they contribute is connecting the other parties and facilitating the transaction. In other words, they are the least important player, yet often they are taking a huge cut that inevitably pushes prices up for buyers and profits down for sellers. I suspect the best way to bust those marketplaces and reduce them to making profits commensurate with the true value they offer is to prohibit them from handling any financial transactions between the two parties at all. Instead, let them simply get paid by the sellers on some agreed terms. If they offer enough value to justify the rate they ask, the sellers will pay it. If they are too greedy, the sellers will go somewhere else. And if they have a monopoly or monopsony position, they are subject to the same competition law as any other business buying or selling anything else in an exclusive or dominant position.
  - simondotau 5y ago
    Whatever your stance is on Apple's control over apps on iOS, it's a little bit beyond the pale to claim that Apple does nothing other than connect parties and facilitate the transaction. Apple literally made the town in which their marketplace resides. They attracted residents to their town from the goodwill of their brand name, through the creation of a desirable product, and through substantial investments of marketing. People are continually attracted to this town because the crime rate is low and the city council's ordinances are suitable for the vast majority. Apple literally built all of the existing buildings, provided anyone who wanted to participate in the economy with a garage full of tools, provided free and near-free training to anyone who wants it, and supplied people (again, for free) many of the basic raw materials which people used to build products. Apple literally built the marketplace itself. They did an imperfect but not terrible job at minimising the number of outright hucksters. They made it so financial transactions were perceived as secure transactions[0], and that merchants' customers felt confident opening their wallets more often than in the adjacent town. [0] This is more important than you remember. Ten years ago the concept of trusting your credit card through an app on your phone was new. By making the system highly trustworthy from the get-go, people's trust was rapidly won and rarely shaken.
Lazare 5y ago
I don't see a problem here. Apple charges (and is able to charge) a lot for an iPhone in large part because the iPhone gives the purchaser access to the App Store. But they also bundle a payment service into the app store, force developers to use it whether they want to or not, then charge a very hefty premium for it as well. Obviously Apple likes being able to charge a hefty premium to both sides - why wouldn't they? But there's no obvious moral reason why we, as a society, should let them, nor any obvious empirical reason why we wouldn't collectively be better off if we stopped them. Nothing stops Apple from charging a competitive rate for payments, or for download bandwidth, or for app reviews, or for offering various plans or bundles of these services. Apple should be more than capable of making the best iOS app store! "$500 per submission and $1 per 10k app downloads, first 1m downloads free for new apps, download fees waived for apps from non-profits, charities, and students are registered educational institutions, ask us about our payment plans, starting at a 15% cut of all revenue, discounts for high volume apps available, all payment plans come with free submissions and downloads!" Sure, why not? But the more they create a single bundle or services, and the more they use non-market power to force people into accepting the bundle, and prevent anyone from offering a competing bundle of services, the worse it looks for them. > I don't agree with this but I think it would be a good argument by Apple. The argument is basically "if you stop us from forcing developers to give us more money, then we'll have less money". And IF Apple is abusing their market dominance to extract money from developers, then that would be a terrible argument for them to make, because the entire point of all this is to stop them forcing developers to give them "unearned" money. Rather than a defence, this would just be admitting the court had stumbled across the correct target. Now, personally, I'm not entirely sure I agree that Apple is abusing their market dominance and should be stopped. But if you do think that, then "this would cost them money" is an argument in favour of the policy. (Conversely if you don't think that, then it's all irrelevant, because Apple can do what they like.)
zamalek 5y ago
I have the option to not use Google Pay but I use it whenever possible. It is far more convenient than having to enter in (and trust!) CC details. Apple has subpoenaed the living daylights out of everyone in near orbit of operating a market. This argument wouldn't stand up to evidence acquired from Google Pay.
klmadfejno 5y ago
I mean Apple could. You can allow other payment options and still forbid apps that entirely don't function without them.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
eqtn 5y ago
The choice should be with the user. If an app has a redirect to their website for payment, there should be an option of Apple pay too(may be with 30% extra) just like how every app with "Login with Facebook/Google" has an option "Login with Apple"

sfifs 5y ago

Sure. That's also pretty much the definition of anti-trust. Using a dominant position in one market (distribution of apps on iOS) to gain an unfair advantage in others (payment processing) to make profits in a way that causes consumers to pay more - it's very easy to demonstrate in many apps you pay higher to buy exactly the same content in-app vs. on website. Apple's in very deep shit in this lawsuit and losing this will open a can of worms.

quackyodata 5y ago
>Apple's in very deep shit in this lawsuit and losing this will open a can of worms. For example, is it okay to bundle a default web browser with an OS and forbid any other browsers from being installed? All iOS browsers are required to use Safari's WebKit under the hood, despite the appearance of choice in the app store. This cripples the features and performance of 3rd-party browsers like Firefox. And unlike this spat with Epic, there might be some strong precedence on that question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
- simondotau 5y ago
  > For example, is it okay to bundle a default web browser with an OS and forbid any other browsers from being installed? There are hundreds (or depending on how you count them, thousands) of products where exactly this is the case. Try installing an alternative web rendering engine on your LG smart TV, or your Toyota, or your Playstation. > there might be some strong precedence on that question This precedent isn't analogous. Microsoft had an initial marketplace monopoly over desktop computer operating systems, which was not ideal, but legally fine. They then illegally buttressed and extended their monopoly by arm-twisting the largest OEMs to lock competitive operating systems out of the open market. Finally they used this illegal monopoly to force their way into an existing competitive market of commercial[0] web browsers. Had alternative operating systems such as OS/2 and Linux not been illegally suppressed, or had the question been asked in the iOS/Android era, Microsoft's actions around Internet Explorer wouldn't have justified the same level of scrutiny. For the analogy to hold, you'd have to show that Apple has used their market dominance to illegally suppress market access from its competitors. [0] It's often hard for us to remember in 2021, but web browsers weren't always entirely free. Netscape was commercial software; initially free for evaluation purposes only, then later free for non-commercial purposes only. Netscape was set to be a very successful company through commercial web browser sales.
  - anoncake 5y ago
    > There are hundreds (or depending on how you count them, thousands) of products where exactly this is the case. Try installing an alternative web rendering engine on your LG smart TV, or your Toyota, or your Playstation. Sure, and that's problematic, but let's focus on the bigger fish for now.
    - simondotau 5y ago
      It's not problematic. Just because Toyota happens to sell a product that contains a multi-purpose computer with a display, Toyota is not suddenly obligated to release free tools and libraries to allow third parties to port Firefox to their cars' head units. Having such a requirement would be insane, not to mention impossible given the existence of copyright laws[0]. Toyota's software is proprietary; if they don't want to release tools and libraries, that's their prerogative. [0] And before you start arguing in opposition to intellectual property rights, remember that copyright law is necessary to enforce the GPL. Without the protection of copyright, GPL software cannot exist—everything becomes de-facto public domain, with none of the benefits of copyleft rules.
      - anoncake 5y ago
        > Toyota is not suddenly obligated to release free tools and libraries to allow third parties to port Firefox to their cars' head units. Who argued for that? No one, it's a strawman. > And before you start arguing in opposition to intellectual property rights, remember that copyright law is necessary to enforce the GPL. Ordering companies not to lock down the customer's hardware does not require abolishing copyright.

cblconfederate 5y ago

If Apple is not offering a rate that is competitive to whatever the developers use on their own site, then it means their policy is anti-competitive and costing users money. There's no law that says Apple and only apple must make the maximum amount of profit. If apple continues by complaining that they need the extra money to operate their app store then well, they are free to allow alternative app stores.

xvector 5y ago
It’s impossible to offer a competitive rate while still taking any cut whatsoever. The App Store is a storefront. Obviously every developer would prefer to transact directly and bypass the cut, while relying on the App Store for advertising and visibility.
- stock_toaster 5y ago
  Agreed. Also no way for apple to enforce refunds for purchases are even _possible_ if they aren't involved in the payment pipeline.
  - Silhouette 5y ago
    Why should that be Apple's job in the first place? If I go to a big shopping centre, and I buy something from one of the shops there, and subsequently it turns out to be defective, that's between me and the shop who sold it to me. No-one would expect the shopping centre to have any control over that commercial relationship just because the shop happened to be under its roof.
    - dkarras 5y ago
      But then if the shop is a dick to you, or it scams you, otherwise does a dirty on you, it would affect the credibility of the shopping center (how are they allowing scammers to rent shops here), even the concept of doing business with shopping centers as a whole. Also "shopping center" analogy somewhat breaks down because you buy something from a shop and use it somewhere else. When you buy an app, you use it in the device only (inside the shopping center) using the device's affordances. So they are somewhat more intimately tied. In the end, this all boils down to ideological differences. One camp says "it is their store, take it or leave it, they already have competitors - if the value proposition wasn't there, it would fail - and if they screw up it will fail" and I'm in this camp. Apple as a company does not owe anything to anyone. Can they discontinue the app store tomorrow if they wanted? Sure they can, it is their store and platform. Can they decide to get 99% cut from all purchases? Yes, it is their business, their platform. Up to them. If the value proposition isn't there, it will fail on its own. If it is there, whining feels to me like entitlement. The other camp thinks private companies should be bound to rules such that even if they provide immense value, there should be a "limit" to how much return they can get from it, mandated by governments etc. I don't agree, but I can see where they are coming from.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

>If it was easy to advertise to the user other payment options, then what would stop developers from making free apps [0] that are unlocked in the developers website? Bypassing the Apple's cut. Allow users to install app stores then. "How dare you bypass the App Store!" "Alright, can we make our own app store?" "No!"

stirlo 5y ago

And what's wrong with this? If developers think Apples frictionless payment system is worth their cut then they'd still keep it. Otherwise consumers and developers now have choice. What marginal benefit does apple provide on the purchase of "v-bucks" to justify a 30% cut when processing costs are far lower?

Silhouette 5y ago
Exactly. The typical problem with these huge, two-sided online marketplaces is that they are the big guy in any "negotiation" of terms with both sides of the market, which means they can effectively dictate the terms. And yet, they are just an intermediary. The only value they contribute is connecting the other parties and facilitating the transaction. In other words, they are the least important player, yet often they are taking a huge cut that inevitably pushes prices up for buyers and profits down for sellers. I suspect the best way to bust those marketplaces and reduce them to making profits commensurate with the true value they offer is to prohibit them from handling any financial transactions between the two parties at all. Instead, let them simply get paid by the sellers on some agreed terms. If they offer enough value to justify the rate they ask, the sellers will pay it. If they are too greedy, the sellers will go somewhere else. And if they have a monopoly or monopsony position, they are subject to the same competition law as any other business buying or selling anything else in an exclusive or dominant position.
- simondotau 5y ago
  Whatever your stance is on Apple's control over apps on iOS, it's a little bit beyond the pale to claim that Apple does nothing other than connect parties and facilitate the transaction. Apple literally made the town in which their marketplace resides. They attracted residents to their town from the goodwill of their brand name, through the creation of a desirable product, and through substantial investments of marketing. People are continually attracted to this town because the crime rate is low and the city council's ordinances are suitable for the vast majority. Apple literally built all of the existing buildings, provided anyone who wanted to participate in the economy with a garage full of tools, provided free and near-free training to anyone who wants it, and supplied people (again, for free) many of the basic raw materials which people used to build products. Apple literally built the marketplace itself. They did an imperfect but not terrible job at minimising the number of outright hucksters. They made it so financial transactions were perceived as secure transactions[0], and that merchants' customers felt confident opening their wallets more often than in the adjacent town. [0] This is more important than you remember. Ten years ago the concept of trusting your credit card through an app on your phone was new. By making the system highly trustworthy from the get-go, people's trust was rapidly won and rarely shaken.

Lazare 5y ago

I don't see a problem here. Apple charges (and is able to charge) a lot for an iPhone in large part because the iPhone gives the purchaser access to the App Store. But they also bundle a payment service into the app store, force developers to use it whether they want to or not, then charge a very hefty premium for it as well. Obviously Apple likes being able to charge a hefty premium to both sides - why wouldn't they? But there's no obvious moral reason why we, as a society, should let them, nor any obvious empirical reason why we wouldn't collectively be better off if we stopped them. Nothing stops Apple from charging a competitive rate for payments, or for download bandwidth, or for app reviews, or for offering various plans or bundles of these services. Apple should be more than capable of making the best iOS app store! "$500 per submission and $1 per 10k app downloads, first 1m downloads free for new apps, download fees waived for apps from non-profits, charities, and students are registered educational institutions, ask us about our payment plans, starting at a 15% cut of all revenue, discounts for high volume apps available, all payment plans come with free submissions and downloads!" Sure, why not? But the more they create a single bundle or services, and the more they use non-market power to force people into accepting the bundle, and prevent anyone from offering a competing bundle of services, the worse it looks for them. > I don't agree with this but I think it would be a good argument by Apple. The argument is basically "if you stop us from forcing developers to give us more money, then we'll have less money". And IF Apple is abusing their market dominance to extract money from developers, then that would be a terrible argument for them to make, because the entire point of all this is to stop them forcing developers to give them "unearned" money. Rather than a defence, this would just be admitting the court had stumbled across the correct target. Now, personally, I'm not entirely sure I agree that Apple is abusing their market dominance and should be stopped. But if you do think that, then "this would cost them money" is an argument in favour of the policy. (Conversely if you don't think that, then it's all irrelevant, because Apple can do what they like.)

zamalek 5y ago

I have the option to not use Google Pay but I use it whenever possible. It is far more convenient than having to enter in (and trust!) CC details. Apple has subpoenaed the living daylights out of everyone in near orbit of operating a market. This argument wouldn't stand up to evidence acquired from Google Pay.

klmadfejno 5y ago

I mean Apple could. You can allow other payment options and still forbid apps that entirely don't function without them.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

eqtn 5y ago

The choice should be with the user. If an app has a redirect to their website for payment, there should be an option of Apple pay too(may be with 30% extra) just like how every app with "Login with Facebook/Google" has an option "Login with Apple"