7 ms·

This doesn't seem crazy to me. The idea that Apple collects developer fees via the payment flow is merely a convenience vs. direct billing. If developers are us

This doesn't seem crazy to me. The idea that Apple collects developer fees via the payment flow is merely a convenience vs. direct billing. If developers are using a different payment flow, then Apple has a right to collect those platform fees in a different way. What is crazy to me is that people believe those 15/30% cuts that Apple takes are for usage of the IAP system. IAP is a mere small part of that.

wpietri 5y ago
What right exactly do you believe is in play here? I agree that under current law Apple can get away with demanding a 30% cut just because they made the hardware it runs on. But I don't see any moral right to the money. Imagine the opposite case: Microsoft or Dell decides to lock things down and start demanding 30% of every dollar that flows through their gear. I think few would say they have any sort of moral right to that.
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  Then, to be fully honest, we need a new law. The judicial system (at least in theory) isn’t supposed to make new laws as they please but rule on existing ones. Also, Apple isn’t Google or Microsoft in the eyes of the law because the iPhone started from nothing and no usage with these restrictions from the beginning. From the law’s perspective, being closed from the beginning and growing powerful is different than being open from the beginning, growing, and then closing.
  - wpietri 5y ago
    For sure. I don't know the law well enough to comment on the legal ruling. But I do think that if the ruling is correct, we need different laws. I think platforms have no moral right to siphon off a (large!) share of the money flowing through their platform. Whether we see Apple's App Store as a natural monopoly or an artificially maintained one, there's no arguing that the normal market correction mechanism, competition, is ineffective here.
    - simondotau 5y ago
      > I think platforms have no moral right to siphon off a (large!) share of the money flowing through their platform. Does this proposed law also cover video games sold on platforms run by Sony and Microsoft, or only video games sold on platforms run by by Apple and Google?
      - kelnos 5y ago
        I would hope it covers all platforms. I think locked-down general-purpose computers that only run code blessed by the manufacturer should just not be legal at all. These days Xboxes and Playstations are just as general-purpose as a phone or a laptop.
        simondotau 5y ago
        At least that has the benefit of being consistent. But I would contend that such a world would have a universally more expensive consumer experience because you'd basically replace all games consoles with Windows PCs.
        kelnos 5y ago
        I'm not sure I'd expect that. It might be more expensive, sure, because console makers would expect less revenue from their cut of game sales. So they'll compensate by making the console more expensive. But I expect that'll still be cheaper than buying a high-end gaming PC, and the experience of plugging in a console with made-for-purpose wireless controllers will always be better than essentially building your own, and I expect people will still be ok paying for that.
        simondotau 5y ago
        Without game exclusives, anyone can build a game console. Without access to software exclusives, there's no incentive for companies likes Sony and Nintendo to front development costs with the hope of strong revenues for the overall program. Because anyone can come along and make equivalent hardware that plays the same games. In short, consoles would just be PCs.
- GeekyBear 5y ago
  > Imagine the opposite case: Microsoft or Dell decides to lock things down and start demanding 30% of every dollar that flows through their gear. This is literally already the case for XBox. Microsoft tried to lock the Surface RT and Windows RT to their app store, but the product failed in the marketplace.
  - wpietri 5y ago
    I agree they got away with it with the XBox. My question is whether that's morally right. People who believe that should presumably argue that Windows should be the same way. That they don't suggests that a status quo bias is in play here. Apple's App Store and vendor-locked consoles are seen as ok because they exist. But I think few would say Microsoft has the moral right to lock down Windows and take a 30% cut of all the software and software-based revenues, even if their dominant marketplace position (and lobbyist-influenced laws) would let them get away with it.
    - Ekaros 5y ago
      Also I wonder where the line should be drawn if Microsoft did it? Could they take 30% of let's say revenue done on Amazon? Or if we expand to other platforms could they take 30% of stock trading? Loan repayments?
- kelnos 5y ago
  I don't think anyone is talking about moral rights here, just legal ones.
  - wpietri 5y ago
    I am talking about them. As are plenty of others. Our collective moral choices are what underlies the law. So when most people talk about whether this is the "right" outcome it's not a technical question about the law as written, it's about that plus whether we have the right laws in the first place.
- simondotau 5y ago
  > What right exactly do you believe is in play here? It's explicitly stated in the ruling. Use of Apple's intellectual property. Precisely the same right Epic exercises to receive a revenue share from games developed with Unreal Engine.
  - wpietri 5y ago
    Using one's intellectual property gives the moral right to demand payment? In that case, my quoting fee is $1000 per sentence. Please Paypal me immediately.
    - enos_feedler 5y ago
      The difference is that Apple has always been up front about the usage of their IP and the payments that follow. They have never increased the revenue share, only lowered it. What you are doing here is changing the terms to your advantage after the usage of the IP
- mewse 5y ago
  Note that “moral rights” (also called “author’s rights” in some jurisdictions) are an actual thing in IP law. I don’t think you’re talking about those, but I just wanted to mention it because some other replies seem to be misinterpreting your comment to be a statement of law rather than a statement of ethics.
- belltaco 5y ago
  >Imagine the opposite case: Microsoft or Dell decides to lock things down and start demanding 30% of every dollar that flows through their gear. I think few would say they have any sort of moral right to that. You're underestimating the bias. People would be rioting in the streets if Microsoft or Dell decide to do the same thing. Apple could make the cut 70% and you'd see people defending it saying "security & easy payments", while ignoring the same arguments when it comes to security beefed up a little bit in Windows 11 or with secure boot back in the day. For example, ransomware and cheating in games could be reduced by an order of magnitude overnight if Microsoft locks down Windows like iOS, but the pros are never discussed, only the antis. Similarly Google's privacy issues weren't discussed back in the day because they were fighting Microsoft. Stories about Google starting tracking which stores people visited wouldn't get upvotes. One small misstep by Microsoft and it'd be all over the front page for days. Palladium was railed on at during the early 2000s, along with DRM, then Apple implemented Palladium and DRM, there was barely a peep. Same with Chromebooks that were locked down much more than any PC. You had people recommend that others purchase Chromebook and iPads, because computing freedom suddenly didn't matter when it came to these companies. MS got a lot of shit for just pre-installing IE while allowing Netscape to be installed by the user, imagine if they had banned other browsers like Apple does. The difference in moral arguments from users are substantial.
  - bogwog 5y ago
    I kind of hope Microsoft finally goes all-in on Windows 11 and just locks that down like iOS/Android. Maybe then people will finally realize how absurd all those arguments defending Apple are.
    - belltaco 5y ago
      Not going to happen, their argument will be that changing an existing system is different from a new system that implements the same thing.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- Aeolun 5y ago
  > I agree that under current law Apple can get away with demanding a 30% cut just because they made the hardware it runs on. Fuck no. I as a consumer already paid $1000 for that hardware. They have zero claim to it. The problem is they still get to hold the OS hostage.
  - wpietri 5y ago
    Yes, morally I agree. I think we've ended up with an absurd outcome. That's a sign to me that there's a mistake somewhere upstream.
  - enos_feedler 5y ago
    So if you paid $5/mo for facebook but then facebook went and sold some ads to businesses would you say “fuck no” to that because as a consumer you are already paying $5/mo for facebook? This kind of diversification in revenue happens all the time.
MattRix 5y ago
Where do you draw the line then… if I use an app from my bank, should Apple get 30% from any interest I earn the bank? If I use a real estate app to find and buy a house, should they get 30% of the seller’s commission? Or even further, if I make a business deal using an email app on iOS, are they entitled to 30% of that? It’s absurd.
- dmak 5y ago
  The line is clear. It specifically is ruling on the companies agreeing to Apple's terms for creating their app in the Apple ecosytem. It's not ruling against the end-consumer which is what you are referring to. You're conflating the creator of the app with the users of the app.
  - MattRix 5y ago
    Yes, but that isn’t the context of this thread. This thread is about what Apple could claim they have a right to collect, if they wanted to.
    - dmak 5y ago
      Yes it is the context of this thread. It's talking about collecting the fees from the companies that use their platform, not the users. Context: > enos_feedler 2 days ago [–] > This doesn't seem crazy to me. The idea that Apple collects developer fees via the payment flow is merely a convenience vs. direct billing. In this case, the developer is the company and not the end-user.
sumedh 5y ago
> What is crazy to me is that people believe those 15/30% cuts that Apple takes Why do you think Apple reduced the fee to 15% for small developers?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
toast0 5y ago
Apple doesn't charge platform fees (well other than the annual developer fee) to zero monetary cost, ad supported apps, and they don't force you to use their ad system either. But if you charge users directly, pay up?

wpietri 5y ago

What right exactly do you believe is in play here? I agree that under current law Apple can get away with demanding a 30% cut just because they made the hardware it runs on. But I don't see any moral right to the money. Imagine the opposite case: Microsoft or Dell decides to lock things down and start demanding 30% of every dollar that flows through their gear. I think few would say they have any sort of moral right to that.

gjsman-1000 5y ago
Then, to be fully honest, we need a new law. The judicial system (at least in theory) isn’t supposed to make new laws as they please but rule on existing ones. Also, Apple isn’t Google or Microsoft in the eyes of the law because the iPhone started from nothing and no usage with these restrictions from the beginning. From the law’s perspective, being closed from the beginning and growing powerful is different than being open from the beginning, growing, and then closing.
- wpietri 5y ago
  For sure. I don't know the law well enough to comment on the legal ruling. But I do think that if the ruling is correct, we need different laws. I think platforms have no moral right to siphon off a (large!) share of the money flowing through their platform. Whether we see Apple's App Store as a natural monopoly or an artificially maintained one, there's no arguing that the normal market correction mechanism, competition, is ineffective here.
  - simondotau 5y ago
    > I think platforms have no moral right to siphon off a (large!) share of the money flowing through their platform. Does this proposed law also cover video games sold on platforms run by Sony and Microsoft, or only video games sold on platforms run by by Apple and Google?
    - kelnos 5y ago
      I would hope it covers all platforms. I think locked-down general-purpose computers that only run code blessed by the manufacturer should just not be legal at all. These days Xboxes and Playstations are just as general-purpose as a phone or a laptop.
      - simondotau 5y ago
        At least that has the benefit of being consistent. But I would contend that such a world would have a universally more expensive consumer experience because you'd basically replace all games consoles with Windows PCs.
        kelnos 5y ago
        I'm not sure I'd expect that. It might be more expensive, sure, because console makers would expect less revenue from their cut of game sales. So they'll compensate by making the console more expensive. But I expect that'll still be cheaper than buying a high-end gaming PC, and the experience of plugging in a console with made-for-purpose wireless controllers will always be better than essentially building your own, and I expect people will still be ok paying for that.
        simondotau 5y ago
        Without game exclusives, anyone can build a game console. Without access to software exclusives, there's no incentive for companies likes Sony and Nintendo to front development costs with the hope of strong revenues for the overall program. Because anyone can come along and make equivalent hardware that plays the same games. In short, consoles would just be PCs.
GeekyBear 5y ago
> Imagine the opposite case: Microsoft or Dell decides to lock things down and start demanding 30% of every dollar that flows through their gear. This is literally already the case for XBox. Microsoft tried to lock the Surface RT and Windows RT to their app store, but the product failed in the marketplace.
- wpietri 5y ago
  I agree they got away with it with the XBox. My question is whether that's morally right. People who believe that should presumably argue that Windows should be the same way. That they don't suggests that a status quo bias is in play here. Apple's App Store and vendor-locked consoles are seen as ok because they exist. But I think few would say Microsoft has the moral right to lock down Windows and take a 30% cut of all the software and software-based revenues, even if their dominant marketplace position (and lobbyist-influenced laws) would let them get away with it.
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    Also I wonder where the line should be drawn if Microsoft did it? Could they take 30% of let's say revenue done on Amazon? Or if we expand to other platforms could they take 30% of stock trading? Loan repayments?
kelnos 5y ago
I don't think anyone is talking about moral rights here, just legal ones.
- wpietri 5y ago
  I am talking about them. As are plenty of others. Our collective moral choices are what underlies the law. So when most people talk about whether this is the "right" outcome it's not a technical question about the law as written, it's about that plus whether we have the right laws in the first place.
simondotau 5y ago
> What right exactly do you believe is in play here? It's explicitly stated in the ruling. Use of Apple's intellectual property. Precisely the same right Epic exercises to receive a revenue share from games developed with Unreal Engine.
- wpietri 5y ago
  Using one's intellectual property gives the moral right to demand payment? In that case, my quoting fee is $1000 per sentence. Please Paypal me immediately.
  - enos_feedler 5y ago
    The difference is that Apple has always been up front about the usage of their IP and the payments that follow. They have never increased the revenue share, only lowered it. What you are doing here is changing the terms to your advantage after the usage of the IP
mewse 5y ago
Note that “moral rights” (also called “author’s rights” in some jurisdictions) are an actual thing in IP law. I don’t think you’re talking about those, but I just wanted to mention it because some other replies seem to be misinterpreting your comment to be a statement of law rather than a statement of ethics.
belltaco 5y ago
>Imagine the opposite case: Microsoft or Dell decides to lock things down and start demanding 30% of every dollar that flows through their gear. I think few would say they have any sort of moral right to that. You're underestimating the bias. People would be rioting in the streets if Microsoft or Dell decide to do the same thing. Apple could make the cut 70% and you'd see people defending it saying "security & easy payments", while ignoring the same arguments when it comes to security beefed up a little bit in Windows 11 or with secure boot back in the day. For example, ransomware and cheating in games could be reduced by an order of magnitude overnight if Microsoft locks down Windows like iOS, but the pros are never discussed, only the antis. Similarly Google's privacy issues weren't discussed back in the day because they were fighting Microsoft. Stories about Google starting tracking which stores people visited wouldn't get upvotes. One small misstep by Microsoft and it'd be all over the front page for days. Palladium was railed on at during the early 2000s, along with DRM, then Apple implemented Palladium and DRM, there was barely a peep. Same with Chromebooks that were locked down much more than any PC. You had people recommend that others purchase Chromebook and iPads, because computing freedom suddenly didn't matter when it came to these companies. MS got a lot of shit for just pre-installing IE while allowing Netscape to be installed by the user, imagine if they had banned other browsers like Apple does. The difference in moral arguments from users are substantial.
- bogwog 5y ago
  I kind of hope Microsoft finally goes all-in on Windows 11 and just locks that down like iOS/Android. Maybe then people will finally realize how absurd all those arguments defending Apple are.
  - belltaco 5y ago
    Not going to happen, their argument will be that changing an existing system is different from a new system that implements the same thing.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
Aeolun 5y ago
> I agree that under current law Apple can get away with demanding a 30% cut just because they made the hardware it runs on. Fuck no. I as a consumer already paid $1000 for that hardware. They have zero claim to it. The problem is they still get to hold the OS hostage.
- wpietri 5y ago
  Yes, morally I agree. I think we've ended up with an absurd outcome. That's a sign to me that there's a mistake somewhere upstream.
- enos_feedler 5y ago
  So if you paid $5/mo for facebook but then facebook went and sold some ads to businesses would you say “fuck no” to that because as a consumer you are already paying $5/mo for facebook? This kind of diversification in revenue happens all the time.

MattRix 5y ago

Where do you draw the line then… if I use an app from my bank, should Apple get 30% from any interest I earn the bank? If I use a real estate app to find and buy a house, should they get 30% of the seller’s commission? Or even further, if I make a business deal using an email app on iOS, are they entitled to 30% of that? It’s absurd.

dmak 5y ago
The line is clear. It specifically is ruling on the companies agreeing to Apple's terms for creating their app in the Apple ecosytem. It's not ruling against the end-consumer which is what you are referring to. You're conflating the creator of the app with the users of the app.
- MattRix 5y ago
  Yes, but that isn’t the context of this thread. This thread is about what Apple could claim they have a right to collect, if they wanted to.
  - dmak 5y ago
    Yes it is the context of this thread. It's talking about collecting the fees from the companies that use their platform, not the users. Context: > enos_feedler 2 days ago [–] > This doesn't seem crazy to me. The idea that Apple collects developer fees via the payment flow is merely a convenience vs. direct billing. In this case, the developer is the company and not the end-user.

sumedh 5y ago

> What is crazy to me is that people believe those 15/30% cuts that Apple takes Why do you think Apple reduced the fee to 15% for small developers?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

toast0 5y ago

Apple doesn't charge platform fees (well other than the annual developer fee) to zero monetary cost, ad supported apps, and they don't force you to use their ad system either. But if you charge users directly, pay up?