8 ms·

Yep. It is not surprising at all that the term “insulting” appears three times because that’s how it feels for so many reasons. Remember: - They pretend with

Yep. It is not surprising at all that the term “insulting” appears three times because that’s how it feels for so many reasons. Remember: - They pretend with a straight face like it was somehow impossible to sell software or reach customers before their magical store made it happen. - They pretend like the current “search” feature of the App Store is not a sad reduction of what it used to be (or what it could be if a trillion dollar company put any effort into it at all). - They pretend to have all these problems hosting apps that are somehow solved by fees, while completely ignoring all the free apps that clearly tax that same infrastructure. - They conveniently ignore the absurd amount of money they must be making from scams that are constantly top-grossing to add insult to injury. I could go on but there are entire blogs written about this by now.

Angostura 5y ago
> - They pretend with a straight face like it was somehow impossible to sell software or reach customers before their magical store made it happen. I've never heard them claim that. The claim is that for an appliance like a phone - rather than a general purpose computer - device reliability trumps all, including the ability for the consumer to run arbitrary code on the device.
- yoz-y 5y ago
  They have claimed multiple times that before the App Store you had to get your programs from a brick and mortar store at a large commission, which justifies their 30%. Conveniently omitting that internet has already existed.
- jollins 5y ago
  They have. See their responses to the Senate anti-trust panel. Also in numerous interviews.
- kalleboo 5y ago
  https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/28/tech-ceo-antitrust-hearing-opening-statement-385233#Cook%20statement https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/28/tech-ceo-antitrust-... > Opening statement from Apple CEO Tim Cook > When the App Store was created, the prevailing distribution options available to software developers at the time did not work well. Brick-and-mortar stores charged high fees and had limited reach. Physical media like CDs had to be shipped and were hard to update. > From the beginning, the App Store was a revolutionary alternative. > App Store developers set prices for their apps and never pay for “shelf space.” [...] > [Apple’s commissions] are vastly lower than the 50 to 70 percent that software developers paid to distribute their work before we launched the App Store.
  - Grustaf 5y ago
    "Did not work well" is 100% true. It is not the same as "impossible".
unityByFreedom 5y ago
> They pretend with a straight face like it was somehow impossible to sell software or reach customers before their magical store made it happen. I never heard them claim it but speaking as a developer it's obvious that Apple was a driving force here. Sellable desktop software became obsolete due to piracy. Everything is server-based now. Mobile apps, particularly on iOS, is the only place where the general public consistently buys client software. Most people don't want cracked apps on their devices, and they want secure, privacy-focused phones. Apple has had that focus for years.
- jay_kyburz 5y ago
  Err, I think you'll find plenty of people still spending heaps of cash on games than run localy on PC, which is where all the money is in the App Store too.
- emsy 5y ago
  Phrased differently you'll find these kind of statements in the testimonies by Apple execs in the Epic case. On the other hand your claim that: >Sellable desktop software became obsolete due to piracy. Is unfounded. Games are sellable desktop software and they're doing just fine. What people want is fair prices and easy availability, which is the business model of every digital store since itunes.
  - coldtea 5y ago
    >Is unfounded. Games are sellable desktop software and they're doing just fine. On Stream, the App Store, console stores, and other similar plaforms.
  - unityByFreedom 5y ago
    > Games are sellable desktop software and they're doing just fine. Popular ones require an internet connection, and license authentication piggybacks on that. Blizzard and the original WoW's were among the first to do this successfully and the trend continues. Prior to that, people would either crack software and/or refuse remote connections for games that didn't require internet in order to avoid paying for and licensing them. > What people want is fair prices and easy availability And developers and investors want to be able to securely sell software. Apple's store provides ease of use along with a secure platform that users trust.
ballenf 5y ago
I owned almost every iteration of Blackberry and Nokia's before that. I never once paid for an app on any phone prior to an iPhone. I remember people selling them, but it required me to visit their website on a desktop computer, trust them with my credit card info and then awkwardly get their app on my device through mobile websites or specialized cables plus software on my computer. In the mobile world I think Apple did indeed lay the groundwork for a viable mobile marketplace. And except for a few apps like Netflix, I'd happily pay 30% on top of what goes to the dev to avoid having to go through that again. 100% of the sticker price on apps could go to the app maker and then have the fees tacked on top. It would put stronger pressure on Apple to bring down the fees and consumers would actually know where their money is going. (I think the same should be required for credit card fees, fwiw.)
- iseanstevens 5y ago
  I think clear pricing is a great potential solution to the App Store fee issue. Thanks
- clusterfish 5y ago
  When Nokias were a thing, 15 years ago, all computer interfaces were much inferior to what we have today, not just mobile app downloads. Phone hardware was super basic. SaaS wasn't a thing even. Facebook was a hip new thing, only 3 years old. It was a different world not just because of Apple.
Grustaf 5y ago
I think all your points are pretty strange, but this one I don't even understand: > - They pretend to have all these problems hosting apps that are somehow solved by fees, while completely ignoring all the free apps that clearly tax that same infrastructure. Clearly they are not saying that each individual app has to bear its costs, obviously free apps are subsidised by paid apps. And they've never said they are "having problems". They are saying that they are providing a valuable service and want to get paid for that. > - They conveniently ignore the absurd amount of money they must be making from scams that are constantly top-grossing to add insult to injury. Do you seriously think that Apple wouldn't prefer a world without scam apps, and without revenues from scam apps. It's very obvious that the presence of scam apps hurts their brand, not to mention their main argument for the walled garden, much more than however many hundreds of million they earn from scam apps, if that. Apple categorically does not want to make money from scams, even the most rabid Apple hater should acknowledge that.
- makecheck 5y ago
  > ... obviously free apps are subsidised by paid apps ... If they were so concerned about getting paid, they could easily have an arrangement where companies like Facebook actually have to pay proportional to their use/benefit, aligning incentives. Instead, companies making billions per year pay just $99/year, while developers with a lot less are literally paying a lot more. Obviously, that affects the ability to compete. Worse, the App Store’s economy is so warped that pricing cannot actually reflect true development costs. If Apple wanted to cover infrastructure costs so badly, why would they allow the market to twist to the point where developers cannot reasonably charge higher prices (of which Apple gets a cut)? > Do you seriously think that Apple wouldn't prefer a world without scam apps ... One of the trial discoveries was an E-mail from Schiller showing that, while he seemed concerned about such apps reaching the top in 2013, eight YEARS ago, it is still happening (see Washington Post article from just today[1]). A trillion dollar company that is still making money from scams eight YEARS later is showing that it does NOT care about scams. In this case, actions matter, not just words. Scams are stealing money from people, and Apple pockets 30%. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27413934 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27413934
- go_prodev 5y ago

Angostura 5y ago

> - They pretend with a straight face like it was somehow impossible to sell software or reach customers before their magical store made it happen. I've never heard them claim that. The claim is that for an appliance like a phone - rather than a general purpose computer - device reliability trumps all, including the ability for the consumer to run arbitrary code on the device.

yoz-y 5y ago
They have claimed multiple times that before the App Store you had to get your programs from a brick and mortar store at a large commission, which justifies their 30%. Conveniently omitting that internet has already existed.
jollins 5y ago
They have. See their responses to the Senate anti-trust panel. Also in numerous interviews.
kalleboo 5y ago
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/28/tech-ceo-antitrust-hearing-opening-statement-385233#Cook%20statement https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/28/tech-ceo-antitrust-... > Opening statement from Apple CEO Tim Cook > When the App Store was created, the prevailing distribution options available to software developers at the time did not work well. Brick-and-mortar stores charged high fees and had limited reach. Physical media like CDs had to be shipped and were hard to update. > From the beginning, the App Store was a revolutionary alternative. > App Store developers set prices for their apps and never pay for “shelf space.” [...] > [Apple’s commissions] are vastly lower than the 50 to 70 percent that software developers paid to distribute their work before we launched the App Store.
- Grustaf 5y ago
  "Did not work well" is 100% true. It is not the same as "impossible".

unityByFreedom 5y ago

> They pretend with a straight face like it was somehow impossible to sell software or reach customers before their magical store made it happen. I never heard them claim it but speaking as a developer it's obvious that Apple was a driving force here. Sellable desktop software became obsolete due to piracy. Everything is server-based now. Mobile apps, particularly on iOS, is the only place where the general public consistently buys client software. Most people don't want cracked apps on their devices, and they want secure, privacy-focused phones. Apple has had that focus for years.

jay_kyburz 5y ago
Err, I think you'll find plenty of people still spending heaps of cash on games than run localy on PC, which is where all the money is in the App Store too.
emsy 5y ago
Phrased differently you'll find these kind of statements in the testimonies by Apple execs in the Epic case. On the other hand your claim that: >Sellable desktop software became obsolete due to piracy. Is unfounded. Games are sellable desktop software and they're doing just fine. What people want is fair prices and easy availability, which is the business model of every digital store since itunes.
- coldtea 5y ago
  >Is unfounded. Games are sellable desktop software and they're doing just fine. On Stream, the App Store, console stores, and other similar plaforms.
- unityByFreedom 5y ago
  > Games are sellable desktop software and they're doing just fine. Popular ones require an internet connection, and license authentication piggybacks on that. Blizzard and the original WoW's were among the first to do this successfully and the trend continues. Prior to that, people would either crack software and/or refuse remote connections for games that didn't require internet in order to avoid paying for and licensing them. > What people want is fair prices and easy availability And developers and investors want to be able to securely sell software. Apple's store provides ease of use along with a secure platform that users trust.

ballenf 5y ago

I owned almost every iteration of Blackberry and Nokia's before that. I never once paid for an app on any phone prior to an iPhone. I remember people selling them, but it required me to visit their website on a desktop computer, trust them with my credit card info and then awkwardly get their app on my device through mobile websites or specialized cables plus software on my computer. In the mobile world I think Apple did indeed lay the groundwork for a viable mobile marketplace. And except for a few apps like Netflix, I'd happily pay 30% on top of what goes to the dev to avoid having to go through that again. 100% of the sticker price on apps could go to the app maker and then have the fees tacked on top. It would put stronger pressure on Apple to bring down the fees and consumers would actually know where their money is going. (I think the same should be required for credit card fees, fwiw.)

iseanstevens 5y ago
I think clear pricing is a great potential solution to the App Store fee issue. Thanks
clusterfish 5y ago
When Nokias were a thing, 15 years ago, all computer interfaces were much inferior to what we have today, not just mobile app downloads. Phone hardware was super basic. SaaS wasn't a thing even. Facebook was a hip new thing, only 3 years old. It was a different world not just because of Apple.

Grustaf 5y ago

I think all your points are pretty strange, but this one I don't even understand: > - They pretend to have all these problems hosting apps that are somehow solved by fees, while completely ignoring all the free apps that clearly tax that same infrastructure. Clearly they are not saying that each individual app has to bear its costs, obviously free apps are subsidised by paid apps. And they've never said they are "having problems". They are saying that they are providing a valuable service and want to get paid for that. > - They conveniently ignore the absurd amount of money they must be making from scams that are constantly top-grossing to add insult to injury. Do you seriously think that Apple wouldn't prefer a world without scam apps, and without revenues from scam apps. It's very obvious that the presence of scam apps hurts their brand, not to mention their main argument for the walled garden, much more than however many hundreds of million they earn from scam apps, if that. Apple categorically does not want to make money from scams, even the most rabid Apple hater should acknowledge that.

makecheck 5y ago
> ... obviously free apps are subsidised by paid apps ... If they were so concerned about getting paid, they could easily have an arrangement where companies like Facebook actually have to pay proportional to their use/benefit, aligning incentives. Instead, companies making billions per year pay just $99/year, while developers with a lot less are literally paying a lot more. Obviously, that affects the ability to compete. Worse, the App Store’s economy is so warped that pricing cannot actually reflect true development costs. If Apple wanted to cover infrastructure costs so badly, why would they allow the market to twist to the point where developers cannot reasonably charge higher prices (of which Apple gets a cut)? > Do you seriously think that Apple wouldn't prefer a world without scam apps ... One of the trial discoveries was an E-mail from Schiller showing that, while he seemed concerned about such apps reaching the top in 2013, eight YEARS ago, it is still happening (see Washington Post article from just today[1]). A trillion dollar company that is still making money from scams eight YEARS later is showing that it does NOT care about scams. In this case, actions matter, not just words. Scams are stealing money from people, and Apple pockets 30%. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27413934 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27413934
go_prodev 5y ago