15 ms·

The antitrust case against Apple is so overdue it's embarrassing. What I don't get is people who defend it. Imagine Microsoft taking 30% of every purchase you

The antitrust case against Apple is so overdue it's embarrassing. What I don't get is people who defend it. Imagine Microsoft taking 30% of every purchase you make online because you used their OS to get there. Then would the defenders admit it's an obvious abuse of a monopoly? What makes it different for Apple?

amelius 5y ago
Probably the argument is that they (1) host the software in the cloud which costs them money, and (2) they review software for e.g. security issues which costs them money. Anyway, the EU is coming for them: https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-markets-act-ensuring-fair-and-open-digital-markets_en https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/euro... > The Digital Markets Act (DMA) establishes a set of narrowly defined objective criteria for qualifying a large online platform as a so-called “gatekeeper”.
- pier25 5y ago
  Regarding your two points, in 2020 Apple claimed there were about 23M developers [1] and they charge $99 every year. Even if only 50% of those 23M devs are actually paying the $99 fee that is still over $1B a year. [1] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/03/apples-wwdc-2020-kicks-off-in-june-with-an-all-new-online-format/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/03/apples-wwdc-2020-kick...
- nipponese 5y ago
  The argument is that it's industry standard. Microsoft and Sony also take 30% https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2021/05/07/playstation-xbox-epic-games-apple/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2021/05/07/playst...
  - manigandham 5y ago
    There are alternate ways to get software on those platforms. There isn’t on Apple mobile devices.
    - dwaite 5y ago
      Citation needed? (For Playstation, XBox)
      - michaelmrose 5y ago
        That too isn't ok
      - manigandham 5y ago
        Physical disks.
        j_koreth 5y ago
        Aren't physical disks also liable to give Sony and Microsoft a cut?
        wernercd 5y ago
        Do physical disks come with "you cant sell me at less" restrictions like Apple enforces? With "you can't use any payment store other than apple"? The number of restrictions on top of Apples cut is what makes the difference. The mafia wishes they could enforce the same restrictions. Apple makes them look reasonable.
        immackay 5y ago
        The only point I seem to see from you throughout this post is that you can use physical disks on playstation/xbox, but even that is dependent on having a playstation/xbox with a disk drive. Additionally, Sony/Microsoft still receive a cut from those sales.
        manigandham 5y ago
        The point is there is still an alternative. It's not quite the same as they act as publishers and distribution partners in gaming vs mobile devices. There should absolutely be more access to stores there too though, with Steam and Epic on Xbox or Playstation. Why is this so controversial for you?
  - amelius 5y ago
    What happens in a niche market doesn't necessarily apply to a broader market. Also, that's a "but they do it too" fallacy.
  - fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
    The standard argument that a 30% is ok for video games but not ok for the App Store is that games are special and different. I don’t find it convincing. I think a better argument is that a 30% cut is wrong full stop, but going after phone app stores is a higher enforcement priority because the stakes are higher. An increasing portion of commerce is digital, and increasing portion is happening on phones. Apple will try to expand the coverage of the 30% cut until someone makes them stop. The only way they can keep growing as a 2 trillion dollar company is to take an increasing cut of the world’s economic activity.
    - bsaul 5y ago
      The argument with videogame consoles was that console makers were actually loosing money on each console sold, and would make up for it by taking a larger cut on each game sold. This is of course very different from apple business model.
      - DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
        As well as the cost of running first-party QA processes, namely that “Nintendo Seal of Quality” that was instigated to prevent a repeat of the 1980s video game crash, precipitated by a slew of awful shovelware games for the Atari 2600 in particular). Apple does have their app-review thing - but they said it’s paid-for by the $99 fee, so the 30% cut with all the other Kafkaesque restrictions is not a tenable position. Anyway - my company stopped publishing to the iOS App Store over a year ago and switched to PWAs and no-regrets here at all.
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      It's not ok period if the owner of the device can't choose to install software themselves.
  - wvenable 5y ago
    Microsoft and Sony take 30% of game revenue. A piece of software is sold and they take a cut. They also take a cut of in app purchases of game expansions and game items. Apple, on the other hand, wants to take a cut of every non-physical item purchase on their platform regardless of what it is. They also don't want any non-physical item purchases to occur off their platform. Unlike Microsoft and Sony, Apple's platform is a gateway to all kinds of businesses selling all kinds of goods, both physical and digital, with a range of business models. Apple could even take a cut of physical item purchases if they wanted; they just decided they don't want to (for obvious reasons). I agree it's similar but it's also not exactly the same.
    - ajmurmann 5y ago
      I don't think I see the difference in what you are describing Sony does vs Apple does. What's the non-physical items sold on PlayStation that Sony doesn't take a cut for?
      - wvenable 5y ago
        That's not what I mean. Take this example: Fanhouse is an app that sells a digital products created by end users and pays those creators for the content that end users subscribe to. In terms of business relationship and product something like this can't exist on gaming platforms. Game platforms are strictly for publishers to sell their own gaming content. iOS is a gateway to businesses selling both physical and digital wares of all types. By their good graces, they don't force physical items through their payment processor but they do for digital goods regardless of what that good is (with a few notable exceptions).
        Jcowell 5y ago
        While I understand what you’re saying The Xbox can download non-gaming apps. Consoles are not locked down to only games.
    - atty 5y ago
      Microsoft and Sony also take a percentage of in game transactions on their platforms. I don’t see how this is any different.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    Price-fixing as a defense is so odd.
  - LocalH 5y ago
    "Industry standard", by itself, is meaningless. What if "industry standard" was 75%?
    - valparaiso 5y ago
      Tell this to the judge which stated this to Epic lawyers lmao. Don’t forget that Tencent who’s behind Epic takes 50% fee in its Android store in China and Tim Sweeney bans everyone in Twitter who reminds about this fact.
      - jagger27 5y ago
        I'd love to hear his response to this in a court setting.
- manigandham 5y ago
  Many apps are free so that argument doesn’t hold up. Also 30% of subscription revenue from services they don’t run just because it was purchased through an app is further proof that the fee is just rent seeking.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mkishi 5y ago
  It does cost them money, but I can't wrap my mind on why that's not subsidized by the rest of the Apple machine. Didn't customers pay a premium for Apple hardware because of the unified ecosystem and superior security to begin with? And developers also pay a premium to be on the App Store ($99+30%) because it costs them money to create the infrastructure and ensure safety? I'm pretty ignorant on the whole situation, but it does sound nice to be Apple. Raking in hundreds of billions while charging premiums on both sides, convincing them it's for their own good. Meanwhile, customers and developers descend into a feedback loop of even heavier dependence on Apple: the more customers there are, the more devs have a financial necessity to publish apps on the platform, the more value the platform has, the more customers they get. People are quick to point out Apple is the one providing for developers, who should be honored to be able to get on the App Store for a 30% cut. But, really, how many users would Apple have without those apps? They do deserve their cut, but at some point it went from a symbiotic relationship to "oil the Apple machine." The economies of scale simply work in their favor here.
  - _jal 5y ago
    > Didn't customers pay a premium for Apple hardware because of the unified ecosystem and superior security to begin with Not defending Apple, but offering forever-services for one-time fees is a great way to go out of business. I would not expect the App Store to be subsidized by hardware sales. Also, assuming you accept the premise in the first place, it makes sense to charge the developer, who is the one generating work for reviewers.
    - relaxing 5y ago
      All of those are recurring fees.
      - h0l0cube 5y ago
        Not sure why this is getting downvoted. The developer program has a yearly fee. Phones, even in the rare case that they are used for their full lifespan, still need to be replaced as they slowly die/become obselete - in practice every 2-5 years.
- marsdepinski 5y ago
  Missing the point they the only way to install apps on an IPhone is the app store. If you had choice to freely download apps from the internet, this would not be a monopoly abuse issue. Then sure charge on the app store whatever you want, allow competing so stores that also offer reviewed software.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    Correct if they did this virtually every really big player would opt out and offer a package on their website. See the MS and apple desktop store.
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      No they wouldn't. See the Google Play Store.
    - valparaiso 5y ago
      Do you know that Epic failed with their Android Epic Store because no one was sideloading it from their website and quickly went to the Goole Play Store and started paying 30% fee because users use unified solutions not geek ones.
    - EpicDavi 5y ago
      I don't think so. I'd say the mobile market is quite different. Look at Android and the Google Play Store which also has similar pricing stipulations. There are players offering separate app sources/stores (Amazon or Epic appstores for example), but I certainly wouldn't consider virtually every big player or even a large portion opting out.
      - michaelmrose 5y ago
        Google is less restrictive than apple leaving less reason to opt out.
    - sneak 5y ago
      If they did this, millions of iPhones would suddenly be filled with sandbox-breaking malware installed from websites, too. I believe Apple is ready to die on this anti-malware hill.
- sfifs 5y ago
  I anticipate that in the Epic lawsuit, the judge will definitely rule against the anti-steering policies of Apple though she'll probably not touch the app store, margins and payment processing pieces. There are many many Apps where buying content in iOS apps is pricier than buying on the web on the same publisher. This definitely raises consumer prices and causes consumer harm which is the key criteria of American anti-trust practice. This would be very very unlikely to be overturned on Appeal especially if the judge is careful to limit her ruling to just this and will result in numerous class action lawsuits. The one I personally experience is sheet music where I'm very careful to never buy in-app which are always priced 20-25% higher.
- mchusma 5y ago
  It's basically a myth that apples reviewers are reviewing for security issues. I've worked in the iOS ecosystem since the beginning, undergone hundreds of reviews, and the reviewers are there primarily, almost exclusively, to endure apple gets it's 30% fee. There are automated security tools, to be sure, but apple the costs of hosting and automated tests are basically 0%. If they charged $5-20 per release, that I would be fine with, and not only cover costs but would generate profit.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
insert_coin 5y ago
Apple doesn't have a monopoly on any market.
- echelon 5y ago
  They control computing for 50% of Americans. Not games, not movies. All computing. And all of the commerce around that computing. You have to pay their tax to interact with Apple customers in any way. Who are Apple customers? 50% of Americans. It's a protection racket and it's anticompetitive af. Furthermore, you can't use your own software stack / runtimes, have to dance to arbitrary rules, and can't deploy or update when you want or need to. Apple got this by building an awesome product, but they also played an incredibly evil game that puts Microsoft to shame. "We're protecting customers" really means "we're tying all of your hands and forcing you to walk the plank". I totally get how you love your shiny pocket device and you own Apple shares (and may even work there), but this company is destroying our industry and making it unfathomably hard for startups to get off the ground and succeed. Imagine if Apple hadn't made these draconian choices. We'd still have the technology we have today, but startups would be able to deploy when and how they want. And they wouldn't have to pay their margins away.
  - insert_coin 5y ago
    Yeah, computing is not a market. I get you are trying to win an easy sentimental argument, but making your own market definitions will not make them a monopoly. Apple sells products, not "computing". In no market where they sell products they have a monopoly.
    - throwaway3699 5y ago
      How is computing not a market?? Computing covers many of the things people do in a modern society, including: - Communication - Banking - Investing & trading - Finding information - Applying to jobs In what world is that not a critical market?
    - devit 5y ago
      They have a monopoly on devices running iOS apps, and a monopoly on channels to deliver mobile software to anyone who uses an iPhone (i.e. either their App Store or Safari).
adventured 5y ago
> Imagine Microsoft taking 30% of every purchase you make online because you used their OS to get there. Then would the defenders admit it's an obvious abuse of a monopoly? What makes it different for Apple? Yeah I'll defend against that setup. Your comparison makes no sense. Apple isn't taking 30% of every purchase you make online because you use an iPhone to shop on Amazon or Walmart. Why would I need to imagine a scenario where Microsoft did such a thing? The comparison would be: imagine if Microsoft had a dominant software store tightly bound to Windows, and for any software applications sold through that store - for use on your Windows machine - Microsoft took a 30% cut of that sale.
- bpye 5y ago
  Not just dominant. If Microsoft had the only software store and mandated app distribution through the store. It is an important different.
- ApolloFortyNine 5y ago
  >The comparison would be: imagine if Microsoft had a dominant software store tightly bound to Windows, and for any software applications sold through that store - for use on your Windows machine - Microsoft took a 30% cut of that sale. Well for that comparison to work, we'd also have to assume Microsoft disabled installing unsigned software as well. Which is what Apple does today. >Apple isn't taking 30% of every purchase you make online because you use an iPhone to shop on Amazon or Walmart They try on digital goods, this is why Amazon has disabled buying ebooks in the iOS app, and asks you to open your web browser instead [1]. [1] https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=GDZF9S2BRW5NWJCW https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=...
  - filoleg 5y ago
    >Well for that comparison to work, we'd also have to assume Microsoft disabled installing unsigned software as well. Look no further than Xbox Store and how well you can run unsigned code on it. Sure, you can buy a physical game copy, but there are two issues with that: 1. Diskless versions of consoles are becoming more commonplace, thus removing that option. 2. If you buy retail, it is still a cut to Microsoft, just a smaller one. Because you pay the same price for physical as you do for digital, except instead of the entire cut going to MSFT, a part of it goes to the retail establishment selling it. And before someone says "well, this is a gaming console, not a phone/computing device", I will say that it has apps (youtube/streaming services/etc.), it has a web browser, and plenty other functionality not related to games. So I am struggling to draw a hard line here as to why it is ok on Xbox, but not ok on smartphones (as long as there are commonplace alternatives available that would prevent it from being a monopoly, and Android is one such commonplace alternative). EDIT: I stand corrected, apparently you can run unsigned code officially on new Xbox consoles, and I should have picked a better example. Thanks to people in the comments correcting me on this, as I genuinely had no idea you could run unsigned code on Xbox. Despite this, I believe my general argument still stands though, because the same situation with transaction cuts is happening with Sony's and Nintendo's consoles, except you cannot run unsigned code on those.
3grdlurker 5y ago
I just like Apple’s App Store the way that it is. I’ve been through so many technology stacks and it I find their platform a joy to work with. The SDKs are coherent, very well-architected, extremely easy to use, and I have access to a user base that has very high adoption rates of the latest software versions so that I don’t have to worry so much about fragmentation. It’s the happiest I’ve been as a coder, so I feel that the 30% cut is a fair price to pay. edit: So I answered the question and I’m getting downvoted to oblivion. Why do people even bother asking for other people’s perspectives.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
  When your app has revenues of $100M a month, let's see if you think Apple is providing you $30M worth of value. Sure, if you have 2 sales a month, I guess Apple is providing you $0.60 of revenue. That's not what this thread is about.
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    You’re saying this thread is about the big players and not the small ones? And that’s why this open question to HN developers isn’t really asking for their experiences, not unless they’re in the hundred million territory?
    - Supermancho 5y ago
      > You’re saying this thread is about the big players and not the small ones? It's not about relative revenue, but illustrating the extent of the exploitation.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - filoleg 5y ago
prepend 5y ago
It’s more like having a shop in a mall. Apple doesn’t take 30% of anything using their phones. They take 30% of anything installed and bought using their walled garden/app store/api/etc. Similar to Windows store, Xbox, ps, steam, etc etc. I used to be annoyed at Nintendo and Sega requiring their cut, but got used to it. What makes it different is that Apple isn’t a monopoly. You can use Android or PCs or whatever. If we want this to change, we probably need some version of right to repair that forces “right to sideload.”
- skyde 5y ago
  You are right but why not more people push for « right to sideload “ ? It would be easy to force apple to let you install android on the hardware you paid for (the physical phone). But forcing them to keep their OS backward compatible with some api used by some sideloaded app ... might be hard.
- rhodysurf 5y ago
  You’re missing the part where apple only allows users to install apps through that App Store
KaoruAoiShiho 5y ago
Cause Apple only has like 40% marketshare.
- bmitc 5y ago
  Is it really about market share or market power, and subsequent abuse of that power?
- eikenberry 5y ago
  Anti-trust laws are about competition, not strictly about monopolies. They could be (and should be IMO) applied much more broadly.
3pt14159 5y ago
Microsoft takes 30% of xbox purchases. That's the argument. Apple doesn't take 30% of every purchase you make online. You're free to use a browser and purchase there where Apple doesn't take a cut. I'm not saying I agree with this, and I think 30% is about triple what's reasonable, but if we're going to rail against Apple here, we should include Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft too.
- stock_toaster 5y ago
  and Valve/Steam too
- TechBro8615 5y ago
  > You're free to use a browser You may be free to do that, but it’s worth noting that if an app developer tells you that you can use a browser, their app will be rejected and they may have their developer account banned.
  - lolinder 5y ago
    This is a super important point. The "you're free to use a browser" argument would be very fair if I could tell my customers about that option, or charge 33% more for the iOS version, or simply not have a way to pay through the app.
bananabreakfast 5y ago
This a pretty unfair comparison. Apple doesn't take a cut of any online purchases made through Safari. They also don't take a cut of any in-app purchases for physical goods. They only take a cut of purchases for digital good purchases and used entirely within an iOS app. The proper comparison to Microsoft would be buying software or games for Windows through the Microsoft store. Which, by the way, Microsoft also takes their 30% cut too.
- gpm 5y ago
  The proper comparison would be Microsoft banning any browsers apart from internet explorer, intentionally gimping internet explorer to make it less of a competitor to native apps, going to great lengths to make it impossible for users to install any native apps not through the microsoft store... and then doing what they do with microsoft store. It's all the things at the start that are anti competitive, not the cut.
Barrin92 5y ago
brand and marketing power. Apple is the cool developer brand and devs with their sticker filled macbooks and consumers don't have a critical attitude when it comes to Apple. It's really funny. Imagine if every independent game developer who has ever built videogames for Windows had to pay a third of their revenue to Microsoft, and had to go through a store review to get their games approved. Would we ever had some of the more controversial games? People tore Microsoft a new one for bundling a browser. Yet you cannot even install anything other than webkit reskins on ios. Completely absurd.
- valparaiso 5y ago
  Why are you comparing open and closed platforms when they aren’t comparable? Try now with Microsoft Xbox and iOs and your logic fails.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Karunamon 5y ago
    Because the entire definition of "open" and "closed" platforms is an arbitrary one dictated by the platform creator. There is no reason that iOS (and every game console for that matter) can't run arbitrary programs provided by the person who bought and paid for the device other than obstinance in service of rent seeking. Why should "closed" platforms (i.e. ones where the user doesn't get to decide) even be allowed to exist?
    - martimarkov 5y ago
      Because the user decided to buy into a closed platform. He could have chosen an open Android platform. My parents chose iOS over Android for the security, ease of use, unification AND the App Store. I’d say stop forcing your agenda on the users. They have the right to choose what they want. They voted with their money and do it each year.
      - 5y ago

amelius 5y ago

Probably the argument is that they (1) host the software in the cloud which costs them money, and (2) they review software for e.g. security issues which costs them money. Anyway, the EU is coming for them: https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-markets-act-ensuring-fair-and-open-digital-markets_en https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/euro... > The Digital Markets Act (DMA) establishes a set of narrowly defined objective criteria for qualifying a large online platform as a so-called “gatekeeper”.

pier25 5y ago
Regarding your two points, in 2020 Apple claimed there were about 23M developers [1] and they charge $99 every year. Even if only 50% of those 23M devs are actually paying the $99 fee that is still over $1B a year. [1] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/03/apples-wwdc-2020-kicks-off-in-june-with-an-all-new-online-format/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/03/apples-wwdc-2020-kick...
nipponese 5y ago
The argument is that it's industry standard. Microsoft and Sony also take 30% https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2021/05/07/playstation-xbox-epic-games-apple/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2021/05/07/playst...
- manigandham 5y ago
  There are alternate ways to get software on those platforms. There isn’t on Apple mobile devices.
  - dwaite 5y ago
    Citation needed? (For Playstation, XBox)
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      That too isn't ok
    - manigandham 5y ago
      Physical disks.
      - j_koreth 5y ago
        Aren't physical disks also liable to give Sony and Microsoft a cut?
        wernercd 5y ago
        Do physical disks come with "you cant sell me at less" restrictions like Apple enforces? With "you can't use any payment store other than apple"? The number of restrictions on top of Apples cut is what makes the difference. The mafia wishes they could enforce the same restrictions. Apple makes them look reasonable.
      - immackay 5y ago
        The only point I seem to see from you throughout this post is that you can use physical disks on playstation/xbox, but even that is dependent on having a playstation/xbox with a disk drive. Additionally, Sony/Microsoft still receive a cut from those sales.
        manigandham 5y ago
        The point is there is still an alternative. It's not quite the same as they act as publishers and distribution partners in gaming vs mobile devices. There should absolutely be more access to stores there too though, with Steam and Epic on Xbox or Playstation. Why is this so controversial for you?
- amelius 5y ago
  What happens in a niche market doesn't necessarily apply to a broader market. Also, that's a "but they do it too" fallacy.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
  The standard argument that a 30% is ok for video games but not ok for the App Store is that games are special and different. I don’t find it convincing. I think a better argument is that a 30% cut is wrong full stop, but going after phone app stores is a higher enforcement priority because the stakes are higher. An increasing portion of commerce is digital, and increasing portion is happening on phones. Apple will try to expand the coverage of the 30% cut until someone makes them stop. The only way they can keep growing as a 2 trillion dollar company is to take an increasing cut of the world’s economic activity.
  - bsaul 5y ago
    The argument with videogame consoles was that console makers were actually loosing money on each console sold, and would make up for it by taking a larger cut on each game sold. This is of course very different from apple business model.
    - DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
      As well as the cost of running first-party QA processes, namely that “Nintendo Seal of Quality” that was instigated to prevent a repeat of the 1980s video game crash, precipitated by a slew of awful shovelware games for the Atari 2600 in particular). Apple does have their app-review thing - but they said it’s paid-for by the $99 fee, so the 30% cut with all the other Kafkaesque restrictions is not a tenable position. Anyway - my company stopped publishing to the iOS App Store over a year ago and switched to PWAs and no-regrets here at all.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    It's not ok period if the owner of the device can't choose to install software themselves.
- wvenable 5y ago
  Microsoft and Sony take 30% of game revenue. A piece of software is sold and they take a cut. They also take a cut of in app purchases of game expansions and game items. Apple, on the other hand, wants to take a cut of every non-physical item purchase on their platform regardless of what it is. They also don't want any non-physical item purchases to occur off their platform. Unlike Microsoft and Sony, Apple's platform is a gateway to all kinds of businesses selling all kinds of goods, both physical and digital, with a range of business models. Apple could even take a cut of physical item purchases if they wanted; they just decided they don't want to (for obvious reasons). I agree it's similar but it's also not exactly the same.
  - ajmurmann 5y ago
    I don't think I see the difference in what you are describing Sony does vs Apple does. What's the non-physical items sold on PlayStation that Sony doesn't take a cut for?
    - wvenable 5y ago
      That's not what I mean. Take this example: Fanhouse is an app that sells a digital products created by end users and pays those creators for the content that end users subscribe to. In terms of business relationship and product something like this can't exist on gaming platforms. Game platforms are strictly for publishers to sell their own gaming content. iOS is a gateway to businesses selling both physical and digital wares of all types. By their good graces, they don't force physical items through their payment processor but they do for digital goods regardless of what that good is (with a few notable exceptions).
      - Jcowell 5y ago
        While I understand what you’re saying The Xbox can download non-gaming apps. Consoles are not locked down to only games.
  - atty 5y ago
    Microsoft and Sony also take a percentage of in game transactions on their platforms. I don’t see how this is any different.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  Price-fixing as a defense is so odd.
- LocalH 5y ago
  "Industry standard", by itself, is meaningless. What if "industry standard" was 75%?
  - valparaiso 5y ago
    Tell this to the judge which stated this to Epic lawyers lmao. Don’t forget that Tencent who’s behind Epic takes 50% fee in its Android store in China and Tim Sweeney bans everyone in Twitter who reminds about this fact.
    - jagger27 5y ago
      I'd love to hear his response to this in a court setting.
manigandham 5y ago
Many apps are free so that argument doesn’t hold up. Also 30% of subscription revenue from services they don’t run just because it was purchased through an app is further proof that the fee is just rent seeking.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mkishi 5y ago
It does cost them money, but I can't wrap my mind on why that's not subsidized by the rest of the Apple machine. Didn't customers pay a premium for Apple hardware because of the unified ecosystem and superior security to begin with? And developers also pay a premium to be on the App Store ($99+30%) because it costs them money to create the infrastructure and ensure safety? I'm pretty ignorant on the whole situation, but it does sound nice to be Apple. Raking in hundreds of billions while charging premiums on both sides, convincing them it's for their own good. Meanwhile, customers and developers descend into a feedback loop of even heavier dependence on Apple: the more customers there are, the more devs have a financial necessity to publish apps on the platform, the more value the platform has, the more customers they get. People are quick to point out Apple is the one providing for developers, who should be honored to be able to get on the App Store for a 30% cut. But, really, how many users would Apple have without those apps? They do deserve their cut, but at some point it went from a symbiotic relationship to "oil the Apple machine." The economies of scale simply work in their favor here.
- _jal 5y ago
  > Didn't customers pay a premium for Apple hardware because of the unified ecosystem and superior security to begin with Not defending Apple, but offering forever-services for one-time fees is a great way to go out of business. I would not expect the App Store to be subsidized by hardware sales. Also, assuming you accept the premise in the first place, it makes sense to charge the developer, who is the one generating work for reviewers.
  - relaxing 5y ago
    All of those are recurring fees.
    - h0l0cube 5y ago
      Not sure why this is getting downvoted. The developer program has a yearly fee. Phones, even in the rare case that they are used for their full lifespan, still need to be replaced as they slowly die/become obselete - in practice every 2-5 years.
marsdepinski 5y ago
Missing the point they the only way to install apps on an IPhone is the app store. If you had choice to freely download apps from the internet, this would not be a monopoly abuse issue. Then sure charge on the app store whatever you want, allow competing so stores that also offer reviewed software.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  Correct if they did this virtually every really big player would opt out and offer a package on their website. See the MS and apple desktop store.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    No they wouldn't. See the Google Play Store.
  - valparaiso 5y ago
    Do you know that Epic failed with their Android Epic Store because no one was sideloading it from their website and quickly went to the Goole Play Store and started paying 30% fee because users use unified solutions not geek ones.
  - EpicDavi 5y ago
    I don't think so. I'd say the mobile market is quite different. Look at Android and the Google Play Store which also has similar pricing stipulations. There are players offering separate app sources/stores (Amazon or Epic appstores for example), but I certainly wouldn't consider virtually every big player or even a large portion opting out.
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      Google is less restrictive than apple leaving less reason to opt out.
  - sneak 5y ago
    If they did this, millions of iPhones would suddenly be filled with sandbox-breaking malware installed from websites, too. I believe Apple is ready to die on this anti-malware hill.
sfifs 5y ago
I anticipate that in the Epic lawsuit, the judge will definitely rule against the anti-steering policies of Apple though she'll probably not touch the app store, margins and payment processing pieces. There are many many Apps where buying content in iOS apps is pricier than buying on the web on the same publisher. This definitely raises consumer prices and causes consumer harm which is the key criteria of American anti-trust practice. This would be very very unlikely to be overturned on Appeal especially if the judge is careful to limit her ruling to just this and will result in numerous class action lawsuits. The one I personally experience is sheet music where I'm very careful to never buy in-app which are always priced 20-25% higher.
mchusma 5y ago
It's basically a myth that apples reviewers are reviewing for security issues. I've worked in the iOS ecosystem since the beginning, undergone hundreds of reviews, and the reviewers are there primarily, almost exclusively, to endure apple gets it's 30% fee. There are automated security tools, to be sure, but apple the costs of hosting and automated tests are basically 0%. If they charged $5-20 per release, that I would be fine with, and not only cover costs but would generate profit.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

insert_coin 5y ago

Apple doesn't have a monopoly on any market.

echelon 5y ago
They control computing for 50% of Americans. Not games, not movies. All computing. And all of the commerce around that computing. You have to pay their tax to interact with Apple customers in any way. Who are Apple customers? 50% of Americans. It's a protection racket and it's anticompetitive af. Furthermore, you can't use your own software stack / runtimes, have to dance to arbitrary rules, and can't deploy or update when you want or need to. Apple got this by building an awesome product, but they also played an incredibly evil game that puts Microsoft to shame. "We're protecting customers" really means "we're tying all of your hands and forcing you to walk the plank". I totally get how you love your shiny pocket device and you own Apple shares (and may even work there), but this company is destroying our industry and making it unfathomably hard for startups to get off the ground and succeed. Imagine if Apple hadn't made these draconian choices. We'd still have the technology we have today, but startups would be able to deploy when and how they want. And they wouldn't have to pay their margins away.
- insert_coin 5y ago
  Yeah, computing is not a market. I get you are trying to win an easy sentimental argument, but making your own market definitions will not make them a monopoly. Apple sells products, not "computing". In no market where they sell products they have a monopoly.
  - throwaway3699 5y ago
    How is computing not a market?? Computing covers many of the things people do in a modern society, including: - Communication - Banking - Investing & trading - Finding information - Applying to jobs In what world is that not a critical market?
  - devit 5y ago
    They have a monopoly on devices running iOS apps, and a monopoly on channels to deliver mobile software to anyone who uses an iPhone (i.e. either their App Store or Safari).

adventured 5y ago

> Imagine Microsoft taking 30% of every purchase you make online because you used their OS to get there. Then would the defenders admit it's an obvious abuse of a monopoly? What makes it different for Apple? Yeah I'll defend against that setup. Your comparison makes no sense. Apple isn't taking 30% of every purchase you make online because you use an iPhone to shop on Amazon or Walmart. Why would I need to imagine a scenario where Microsoft did such a thing? The comparison would be: imagine if Microsoft had a dominant software store tightly bound to Windows, and for any software applications sold through that store - for use on your Windows machine - Microsoft took a 30% cut of that sale.

bpye 5y ago
Not just dominant. If Microsoft had the only software store and mandated app distribution through the store. It is an important different.
ApolloFortyNine 5y ago
>The comparison would be: imagine if Microsoft had a dominant software store tightly bound to Windows, and for any software applications sold through that store - for use on your Windows machine - Microsoft took a 30% cut of that sale. Well for that comparison to work, we'd also have to assume Microsoft disabled installing unsigned software as well. Which is what Apple does today. >Apple isn't taking 30% of every purchase you make online because you use an iPhone to shop on Amazon or Walmart They try on digital goods, this is why Amazon has disabled buying ebooks in the iOS app, and asks you to open your web browser instead [1]. [1] https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=GDZF9S2BRW5NWJCW https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=...
- filoleg 5y ago
  >Well for that comparison to work, we'd also have to assume Microsoft disabled installing unsigned software as well. Look no further than Xbox Store and how well you can run unsigned code on it. Sure, you can buy a physical game copy, but there are two issues with that: 1. Diskless versions of consoles are becoming more commonplace, thus removing that option. 2. If you buy retail, it is still a cut to Microsoft, just a smaller one. Because you pay the same price for physical as you do for digital, except instead of the entire cut going to MSFT, a part of it goes to the retail establishment selling it. And before someone says "well, this is a gaming console, not a phone/computing device", I will say that it has apps (youtube/streaming services/etc.), it has a web browser, and plenty other functionality not related to games. So I am struggling to draw a hard line here as to why it is ok on Xbox, but not ok on smartphones (as long as there are commonplace alternatives available that would prevent it from being a monopoly, and Android is one such commonplace alternative). EDIT: I stand corrected, apparently you can run unsigned code officially on new Xbox consoles, and I should have picked a better example. Thanks to people in the comments correcting me on this, as I genuinely had no idea you could run unsigned code on Xbox. Despite this, I believe my general argument still stands though, because the same situation with transaction cuts is happening with Sony's and Nintendo's consoles, except you cannot run unsigned code on those.

3grdlurker 5y ago

I just like Apple’s App Store the way that it is. I’ve been through so many technology stacks and it I find their platform a joy to work with. The SDKs are coherent, very well-architected, extremely easy to use, and I have access to a user base that has very high adoption rates of the latest software versions so that I don’t have to worry so much about fragmentation. It’s the happiest I’ve been as a coder, so I feel that the 30% cut is a fair price to pay. edit: So I answered the question and I’m getting downvoted to oblivion. Why do people even bother asking for other people’s perspectives.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
When your app has revenues of $100M a month, let's see if you think Apple is providing you $30M worth of value. Sure, if you have 2 sales a month, I guess Apple is providing you $0.60 of revenue. That's not what this thread is about.
- threatofrain 5y ago
  You’re saying this thread is about the big players and not the small ones? And that’s why this open question to HN developers isn’t really asking for their experiences, not unless they’re in the hundred million territory?
  - Supermancho 5y ago
    > You’re saying this thread is about the big players and not the small ones? It's not about relative revenue, but illustrating the extent of the exploitation.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- filoleg 5y ago

prepend 5y ago

It’s more like having a shop in a mall. Apple doesn’t take 30% of anything using their phones. They take 30% of anything installed and bought using their walled garden/app store/api/etc. Similar to Windows store, Xbox, ps, steam, etc etc. I used to be annoyed at Nintendo and Sega requiring their cut, but got used to it. What makes it different is that Apple isn’t a monopoly. You can use Android or PCs or whatever. If we want this to change, we probably need some version of right to repair that forces “right to sideload.”

skyde 5y ago
You are right but why not more people push for « right to sideload “ ? It would be easy to force apple to let you install android on the hardware you paid for (the physical phone). But forcing them to keep their OS backward compatible with some api used by some sideloaded app ... might be hard.
rhodysurf 5y ago
You’re missing the part where apple only allows users to install apps through that App Store

KaoruAoiShiho 5y ago

Cause Apple only has like 40% marketshare.

bmitc 5y ago
Is it really about market share or market power, and subsequent abuse of that power?
eikenberry 5y ago
Anti-trust laws are about competition, not strictly about monopolies. They could be (and should be IMO) applied much more broadly.

3pt14159 5y ago

Microsoft takes 30% of xbox purchases. That's the argument. Apple doesn't take 30% of every purchase you make online. You're free to use a browser and purchase there where Apple doesn't take a cut. I'm not saying I agree with this, and I think 30% is about triple what's reasonable, but if we're going to rail against Apple here, we should include Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft too.

stock_toaster 5y ago
and Valve/Steam too
TechBro8615 5y ago
> You're free to use a browser You may be free to do that, but it’s worth noting that if an app developer tells you that you can use a browser, their app will be rejected and they may have their developer account banned.
- lolinder 5y ago
  This is a super important point. The "you're free to use a browser" argument would be very fair if I could tell my customers about that option, or charge 33% more for the iOS version, or simply not have a way to pay through the app.

bananabreakfast 5y ago

This a pretty unfair comparison. Apple doesn't take a cut of any online purchases made through Safari. They also don't take a cut of any in-app purchases for physical goods. They only take a cut of purchases for digital good purchases and used entirely within an iOS app. The proper comparison to Microsoft would be buying software or games for Windows through the Microsoft store. Which, by the way, Microsoft also takes their 30% cut too.

gpm 5y ago
The proper comparison would be Microsoft banning any browsers apart from internet explorer, intentionally gimping internet explorer to make it less of a competitor to native apps, going to great lengths to make it impossible for users to install any native apps not through the microsoft store... and then doing what they do with microsoft store. It's all the things at the start that are anti competitive, not the cut.

Barrin92 5y ago

brand and marketing power. Apple is the cool developer brand and devs with their sticker filled macbooks and consumers don't have a critical attitude when it comes to Apple. It's really funny. Imagine if every independent game developer who has ever built videogames for Windows had to pay a third of their revenue to Microsoft, and had to go through a store review to get their games approved. Would we ever had some of the more controversial games? People tore Microsoft a new one for bundling a browser. Yet you cannot even install anything other than webkit reskins on ios. Completely absurd.

valparaiso 5y ago
Why are you comparing open and closed platforms when they aren’t comparable? Try now with Microsoft Xbox and iOs and your logic fails.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Karunamon 5y ago
  Because the entire definition of "open" and "closed" platforms is an arbitrary one dictated by the platform creator. There is no reason that iOS (and every game console for that matter) can't run arbitrary programs provided by the person who bought and paid for the device other than obstinance in service of rent seeking. Why should "closed" platforms (i.e. ones where the user doesn't get to decide) even be allowed to exist?
  - martimarkov 5y ago
    Because the user decided to buy into a closed platform. He could have chosen an open Android platform. My parents chose iOS over Android for the security, ease of use, unification AND the App Store. I’d say stop forcing your agenda on the users. They have the right to choose what they want. They voted with their money and do it each year.
    - 5y ago