6 ms·

I really don't understand why it's such a big deal Apple wants to restrict people to use their payment system. It's their platform and they're a private company

I really don't understand why it's such a big deal Apple wants to restrict people to use their payment system. It's their platform and they're a private company. Can't they just do whatever they want?

dheera 5y ago
They charge a 30% cut of payments and they just want their money.
bilekas 5y ago
I believe they can.. but there's a fair use issue, I'm not sure if you can create a market and then just corner it. There was a recent supreme Court ruling I believe that suggested Apple have to allow other payment options. But they are free to kick off whoever they want..
exit 5y ago
in general then, do you think anti-monopoly & consumer protection regulatory efforts should be thrown out?
advisedwang 5y ago
Because it's bad for consumers. We will end up paying more for these services if we allow these kinds of practices to continue. We will lose the ability to keep content we have bought if we move between services or don't want to keep up paying subscriptions. Being a private company doesn't mean you just get to do whatever you want.
fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
Just out of curiosity, would you also say it’s within Apple’s rights to tax a portion of all transactions on the phone, including: 1. purchases of physical goods on the Amazon app 2. food deliveries on Doordash 3. money transfers initiated through the Chase banking app? If in future years all commerce moves to devices, Apple and Google have a duopoly, and they decide to tax the entire economy, is there any limiting principle? Or do they just get to take some % of GDP as profits? Is that a fair price for the contribution to society of getting to market first with smartphones and building a moat? If there is a limit, then we should figure out what it is.
- shoto_io 5y ago
  Why shouldn't they? It's their platform. People could just not code apps for the iPhone and consumers could use other devices. Couldn't they?
  - HideousKojima 5y ago
    > It's their platform. And it's the user's phone, which they should be free to use however they see fit. Even if that means installing software from places other than Apple's store.
  - cool_dude85 5y ago
    How far down this rabbit hole are you willing to go? Can the electric company ask for a 30% cut on anything you buy using their electrons? People would just build their own distribution lines to the electric company down the road if they didn't like it. How about your landlord charging a 30% cut if you want to take your amazon package inside his house? Don't like it, go build your own home.
    - zchrykng 5y ago
      Don't forget the company that made your car, the company that supplied gas for that car, the company that built the refrigerator that keeps your food cold, etc when you go get groceries. I think that comes to 90+% going to other companies.
    - czzr 5y ago
      For the landlord example - sure, if for some bizarre reason a tenant would agree to that. Presumably no one would, and so the landlord would lose out and stop.
      - yholio 5y ago
        It's all fun and games until a single mega real estate corporation owns 80% of all housing stock. In real estate that can't happen, in tech it can.
can16358p 5y ago
I totally agree with you personally, but unfortunately the antitrust law doesn't work that way. It's your company and you've put years and millions (if not billions) hours of human work and created a system, and others start having rights on something that you've created privately. But unfortunately this is the case and telling this simple fact gets you downvoted to otherside of Earth on HN.
- oaiey 5y ago
  The same arguments is true for apps. You put years in effort and then someone steals a significant part of your revenue. Apps follow the AppStore law. Apple follows US law. And the later includes some social aspects like Anti-Trust laws, consumer rights, etc. Companies exist in a nation. A nation serves its citizens. So when a company is treating the citizens bad, a nation has all the rights to enforce whatever is needed. Hence antitrust laws.
  - nanidin 5y ago
    > You put years in effort and then someone steals a significant part of your revenue This seems a bit disingenuous. A more accurate take might be that you sign up for the Apple developer program, and in doing so agree to the terms of service including the cut that Apple will take from each sale. Then you begin working on the app, then you release the app, then Apple keeps the cut that was contractually agreed upon. There is no stealing, and anyone that puts in years of effort into an app is surely aware of the cut Apple takes before making that effort.
    - noptd 5y ago
      So if you knowingly open a store in a neighborhood "protected" by the mafia, it would be unfair to characterize a protection payment as stealing? Sure, they're providing a service but that service is only necessary because of the mafia's market capture and threat of punishment in the first place.
  - can16358p 5y ago
    Apple didn't treat anyone bad. They had the rules set up day 1, and there is always the option to switch to Android (both from a user or dev perspective). It's a private company, their store, their rules, which has roughly been always the same. And I'm saying this as an iOS developer. When I develop something I'm fully aware of what can be copied, what is allowed, what payment methods can be used etc upfront, and I accept the rules and don't try to change a private company's own platform's rules.
Hamuko 5y ago
"It's their X and they're a private company. Can't they just do whatever they want?" sounds like a really shitty world to live in. Imagine if your ISP could tax your data at different rates depending on where it originated from because "it's their copper and they're a private company", or if Nokia could charge Apple $1000 per device sold because "it's their patents and they're a private company". The latter example of course would have made it completely impossible for the iPhone to ever exist since Nokia could've just priced them beyond all reason.
- czzr 5y ago
  Nokia can charge $1000, but then no one would license their patents - so they charge a price the market will bear, that maximises their profit. Obviously the market can bear 30% for Apple. And this is actually unsurprising because the number used to be more like 50% when software was sold in physical stores. You’re free to think that’s too much, of course, and refuse to pay it.
  - Hamuko 5y ago
    >Nokia can charge $1000, but then no one would license their patents You have fun making a phone without any Nokia patents. Just as a reminder, Nokia has patents in 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G, H.264, H.265, H.266 and WLAN. There's a reason why Nokia is not allowed to charge whatever they want. But hey, if you have an idea on how to make a phone without licensing any of Nokia's patents, go ahead.
    - czzr 5y ago
      Nokia entered into agreements promising not to charge excessive amounts, that’s why their patents were used in all those standards. If they hadn’t signed those agreements their patents would not have been used, and hence would actually have been worth much less.
oaiey 5y ago
They are not a "private company" in that sense. With their user segment, they form a market and the app store establishes a "legal" system. Basically their users are citizen of a Apple nation and whoever wants to make business with them, has to follow the "legal system". Consider the free market system (as the economic system of the western world), where you have choice between offerings, then the Apple ecosystem is the exact opposite.
tengbretson 5y ago
Yeah! If they don't like it then maybe they should make their own smartphone. Wait.
pulse7 5y ago
Apple operates within a country ("platform") and most follow the laws of the country ("platform rules"). Country laws are protecting consumers. So Apple can't do with their platform whatever they want... They could do so on a ship in the middle of the ocean - where no country laws apply - but then they wouldn't have so many customers there...
dariosalvi78 5y ago
The problem is that developers and companies are obliged to accept these practices because they control 50% of peoples' devices. It's not just a "private company" any longer, it has become a public infrastructure.

dheera 5y ago

They charge a 30% cut of payments and they just want their money.

bilekas 5y ago

I believe they can.. but there's a fair use issue, I'm not sure if you can create a market and then just corner it. There was a recent supreme Court ruling I believe that suggested Apple have to allow other payment options. But they are free to kick off whoever they want..

exit 5y ago

in general then, do you think anti-monopoly & consumer protection regulatory efforts should be thrown out?

advisedwang 5y ago

Because it's bad for consumers. We will end up paying more for these services if we allow these kinds of practices to continue. We will lose the ability to keep content we have bought if we move between services or don't want to keep up paying subscriptions. Being a private company doesn't mean you just get to do whatever you want.

fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago

Just out of curiosity, would you also say it’s within Apple’s rights to tax a portion of all transactions on the phone, including: 1. purchases of physical goods on the Amazon app 2. food deliveries on Doordash 3. money transfers initiated through the Chase banking app? If in future years all commerce moves to devices, Apple and Google have a duopoly, and they decide to tax the entire economy, is there any limiting principle? Or do they just get to take some % of GDP as profits? Is that a fair price for the contribution to society of getting to market first with smartphones and building a moat? If there is a limit, then we should figure out what it is.

shoto_io 5y ago
Why shouldn't they? It's their platform. People could just not code apps for the iPhone and consumers could use other devices. Couldn't they?
- HideousKojima 5y ago
  > It's their platform. And it's the user's phone, which they should be free to use however they see fit. Even if that means installing software from places other than Apple's store.
- cool_dude85 5y ago
  How far down this rabbit hole are you willing to go? Can the electric company ask for a 30% cut on anything you buy using their electrons? People would just build their own distribution lines to the electric company down the road if they didn't like it. How about your landlord charging a 30% cut if you want to take your amazon package inside his house? Don't like it, go build your own home.
  - zchrykng 5y ago
    Don't forget the company that made your car, the company that supplied gas for that car, the company that built the refrigerator that keeps your food cold, etc when you go get groceries. I think that comes to 90+% going to other companies.
  - czzr 5y ago
    For the landlord example - sure, if for some bizarre reason a tenant would agree to that. Presumably no one would, and so the landlord would lose out and stop.
    - yholio 5y ago
      It's all fun and games until a single mega real estate corporation owns 80% of all housing stock. In real estate that can't happen, in tech it can.

can16358p 5y ago

I totally agree with you personally, but unfortunately the antitrust law doesn't work that way. It's your company and you've put years and millions (if not billions) hours of human work and created a system, and others start having rights on something that you've created privately. But unfortunately this is the case and telling this simple fact gets you downvoted to otherside of Earth on HN.

oaiey 5y ago
The same arguments is true for apps. You put years in effort and then someone steals a significant part of your revenue. Apps follow the AppStore law. Apple follows US law. And the later includes some social aspects like Anti-Trust laws, consumer rights, etc. Companies exist in a nation. A nation serves its citizens. So when a company is treating the citizens bad, a nation has all the rights to enforce whatever is needed. Hence antitrust laws.
- nanidin 5y ago
  > You put years in effort and then someone steals a significant part of your revenue This seems a bit disingenuous. A more accurate take might be that you sign up for the Apple developer program, and in doing so agree to the terms of service including the cut that Apple will take from each sale. Then you begin working on the app, then you release the app, then Apple keeps the cut that was contractually agreed upon. There is no stealing, and anyone that puts in years of effort into an app is surely aware of the cut Apple takes before making that effort.
  - noptd 5y ago
    So if you knowingly open a store in a neighborhood "protected" by the mafia, it would be unfair to characterize a protection payment as stealing? Sure, they're providing a service but that service is only necessary because of the mafia's market capture and threat of punishment in the first place.
- can16358p 5y ago
  Apple didn't treat anyone bad. They had the rules set up day 1, and there is always the option to switch to Android (both from a user or dev perspective). It's a private company, their store, their rules, which has roughly been always the same. And I'm saying this as an iOS developer. When I develop something I'm fully aware of what can be copied, what is allowed, what payment methods can be used etc upfront, and I accept the rules and don't try to change a private company's own platform's rules.

Hamuko 5y ago

"It's their X and they're a private company. Can't they just do whatever they want?" sounds like a really shitty world to live in. Imagine if your ISP could tax your data at different rates depending on where it originated from because "it's their copper and they're a private company", or if Nokia could charge Apple $1000 per device sold because "it's their patents and they're a private company". The latter example of course would have made it completely impossible for the iPhone to ever exist since Nokia could've just priced them beyond all reason.

czzr 5y ago
Nokia can charge $1000, but then no one would license their patents - so they charge a price the market will bear, that maximises their profit. Obviously the market can bear 30% for Apple. And this is actually unsurprising because the number used to be more like 50% when software was sold in physical stores. You’re free to think that’s too much, of course, and refuse to pay it.
- Hamuko 5y ago
  >Nokia can charge $1000, but then no one would license their patents You have fun making a phone without any Nokia patents. Just as a reminder, Nokia has patents in 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G, H.264, H.265, H.266 and WLAN. There's a reason why Nokia is not allowed to charge whatever they want. But hey, if you have an idea on how to make a phone without licensing any of Nokia's patents, go ahead.
  - czzr 5y ago
    Nokia entered into agreements promising not to charge excessive amounts, that’s why their patents were used in all those standards. If they hadn’t signed those agreements their patents would not have been used, and hence would actually have been worth much less.

oaiey 5y ago

They are not a "private company" in that sense. With their user segment, they form a market and the app store establishes a "legal" system. Basically their users are citizen of a Apple nation and whoever wants to make business with them, has to follow the "legal system". Consider the free market system (as the economic system of the western world), where you have choice between offerings, then the Apple ecosystem is the exact opposite.

tengbretson 5y ago

Yeah! If they don't like it then maybe they should make their own smartphone. Wait.

pulse7 5y ago

Apple operates within a country ("platform") and most follow the laws of the country ("platform rules"). Country laws are protecting consumers. So Apple can't do with their platform whatever they want... They could do so on a ship in the middle of the ocean - where no country laws apply - but then they wouldn't have so many customers there...

dariosalvi78 5y ago

The problem is that developers and companies are obliged to accept these practices because they control 50% of peoples' devices. It's not just a "private company" any longer, it has become a public infrastructure.