5 ms·

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 goo

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.
  - wwtrv 5y ago
    Simple as long as there is more than one power company for you to choose from and they are not colluding to fix their prices, the power company is free to ask for whatever they want. This is not a problem that can occur in a competitive market, though. Would not buying an Apple device put you in a similar position as having no access to electricity? Can you not buy a different and phone that allows you to freely install any software you want too without having to pay 30% to any third party?
  - realityking 5y ago
    > 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. That actually happens in commercial real estate: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentage_rent https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentage_rent
- twobitshifter 5y ago
  Thinking that consumers and developers will collectively torpedo both android and Apple by supporting some unheard of 3rd mobile OS made by a benevolent company is a fantasy at this point. Just like saying, if consumers and towns don’t like Bell telephone they can just run their own phone lines all over the country couldn’t they?
  - shoto_io 5y ago
    Well it's not. Remember when Apple started? Nokia was big back then. There were a lot of other options. Yet here we are complaining.
- rurp 5y ago
  There are some pretty big differences between a free and diverse marketplace vs a duopoly with a massive moat. "Just buy from someone else" works great for buying furniture or socks, not so much for home electricity or smart phones.
majormunky 5y ago
Credit card companies do this right now, except the money transfer one (maybe there do there also?)
- oaiey 5y ago
  I have in real life a choice to pay cash. Also they carry an actual risk unlike Apple.
  - Hamuko 5y ago
    Credit cards are also not actually that expensive for merchants. I think the average transaction fees for MasterCard and Visa are in the 1.3% to 2.6% range, which is quite far from 30% in my mind. Obviously, one would cry out how cash has no baked-in transaction fee, but cash is definitely not free. While a credit card payment will transfer cleanly into a bank account with a clear trail, cash must be handled, stored, counted, kept safe, transferred and so on. All that time counting change at the counter isn't free either.
    - dkonofalski 5y ago
      It's far from the 30% because there's nothing else for them to do other than keep that clear trail and it applies to every usage. Companies like Apple that charge 30% charge that because they host the files, the updates, the payment systems, and review systems. Credit card companies don't do those things.
wwtrv 5y ago
Out of curiosity, do you think it’s fair that I have to pay a share of the the item price when selling items on Amazon? What right does Doordash have to tax my restaurant just because I want to accept order using their app? If, not at what point should we start regulating their prices? When they control 20%, 30%, 50% of their respective markets?
- fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
  This is an important question. Vaguely, I think the answer is that companies should be able to earn profit proportional to the value they provide, and not for their market power. If companies are investing to improve their products and operational efficiency, it makes sense to for that to be rewarded by profits. If they’ve found some way to establish a moat and own the market so that new competitors can’t get rewarded for their own improvements, there’s a problem. Capitalism is the best system around to drive people to build and invent and we shouldn’t let it get twisted into stagnant feudalism.
- VenTatsu 5y ago
  The opposite question is also important. Should the mobile network my phone is on get a share of all transactions made from my phone? Should my home ISP get a share from purchases made on my home computer? Or the hardware vendor? Or the OS vendor? The reason Apple gets to ask for a cut of all transactions made on my phone is because they are in a position to control those transactions, not because it's right for them to ask for that cut. They can remove any app that tries to bypass their cut, as was recently ruled in their case against Epic Games. Like wise Doordash has control, if you want them to pay a driver to carry your food from the restaurant to your home, then they get a cut. The difference between Doordash and Apple is that Apple forbade anyone with an app in the app store from even telling people that they could pay for a purchase outside the app. For a time the Kindle app would send you to a checkout page in Safari, but Apple forced them to remove that. The comparison would be that any restaurant that worked with Doordash being forced to remove mention that they do pickup orders, if you don't want dine in then you must order with Doordash, even if that technically isnt't true. To me there is no magic percent where these behaviors should or should not be allowed or regulated. To me it's more about the pattern of 'soft' extortion. "You get value from our platform so we deserve a cut of what you make", sounds a bit too much like "You sure do have a nice app there with some dedicated users, it sure would be bad if something happened to it..." I don't know that I would pay for and read a tenth as many books as I do if I didn't always have the Kindle app in my pocket. On the other hand if Apple ever removed the Kindle app I'd have a strong reason to switch to Android. Both gain value from the other. Apple insentience to always get the better of that trade seems counter productive.

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.
- wwtrv 5y ago
  Simple as long as there is more than one power company for you to choose from and they are not colluding to fix their prices, the power company is free to ask for whatever they want. This is not a problem that can occur in a competitive market, though. Would not buying an Apple device put you in a similar position as having no access to electricity? Can you not buy a different and phone that allows you to freely install any software you want too without having to pay 30% to any third party?
- realityking 5y ago
  > 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. That actually happens in commercial real estate: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentage_rent https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentage_rent
twobitshifter 5y ago
Thinking that consumers and developers will collectively torpedo both android and Apple by supporting some unheard of 3rd mobile OS made by a benevolent company is a fantasy at this point. Just like saying, if consumers and towns don’t like Bell telephone they can just run their own phone lines all over the country couldn’t they?
- shoto_io 5y ago
  Well it's not. Remember when Apple started? Nokia was big back then. There were a lot of other options. Yet here we are complaining.
rurp 5y ago
There are some pretty big differences between a free and diverse marketplace vs a duopoly with a massive moat. "Just buy from someone else" works great for buying furniture or socks, not so much for home electricity or smart phones.

majormunky 5y ago

Credit card companies do this right now, except the money transfer one (maybe there do there also?)

oaiey 5y ago
I have in real life a choice to pay cash. Also they carry an actual risk unlike Apple.
- Hamuko 5y ago
  Credit cards are also not actually that expensive for merchants. I think the average transaction fees for MasterCard and Visa are in the 1.3% to 2.6% range, which is quite far from 30% in my mind. Obviously, one would cry out how cash has no baked-in transaction fee, but cash is definitely not free. While a credit card payment will transfer cleanly into a bank account with a clear trail, cash must be handled, stored, counted, kept safe, transferred and so on. All that time counting change at the counter isn't free either.
  - dkonofalski 5y ago
    It's far from the 30% because there's nothing else for them to do other than keep that clear trail and it applies to every usage. Companies like Apple that charge 30% charge that because they host the files, the updates, the payment systems, and review systems. Credit card companies don't do those things.

wwtrv 5y ago

Out of curiosity, do you think it’s fair that I have to pay a share of the the item price when selling items on Amazon? What right does Doordash have to tax my restaurant just because I want to accept order using their app? If, not at what point should we start regulating their prices? When they control 20%, 30%, 50% of their respective markets?

fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
This is an important question. Vaguely, I think the answer is that companies should be able to earn profit proportional to the value they provide, and not for their market power. If companies are investing to improve their products and operational efficiency, it makes sense to for that to be rewarded by profits. If they’ve found some way to establish a moat and own the market so that new competitors can’t get rewarded for their own improvements, there’s a problem. Capitalism is the best system around to drive people to build and invent and we shouldn’t let it get twisted into stagnant feudalism.
VenTatsu 5y ago
The opposite question is also important. Should the mobile network my phone is on get a share of all transactions made from my phone? Should my home ISP get a share from purchases made on my home computer? Or the hardware vendor? Or the OS vendor? The reason Apple gets to ask for a cut of all transactions made on my phone is because they are in a position to control those transactions, not because it's right for them to ask for that cut. They can remove any app that tries to bypass their cut, as was recently ruled in their case against Epic Games. Like wise Doordash has control, if you want them to pay a driver to carry your food from the restaurant to your home, then they get a cut. The difference between Doordash and Apple is that Apple forbade anyone with an app in the app store from even telling people that they could pay for a purchase outside the app. For a time the Kindle app would send you to a checkout page in Safari, but Apple forced them to remove that. The comparison would be that any restaurant that worked with Doordash being forced to remove mention that they do pickup orders, if you don't want dine in then you must order with Doordash, even if that technically isnt't true. To me there is no magic percent where these behaviors should or should not be allowed or regulated. To me it's more about the pattern of 'soft' extortion. "You get value from our platform so we deserve a cut of what you make", sounds a bit too much like "You sure do have a nice app there with some dedicated users, it sure would be bad if something happened to it..." I don't know that I would pay for and read a tenth as many books as I do if I didn't always have the Kindle app in my pocket. On the other hand if Apple ever removed the Kindle app I'd have a strong reason to switch to Android. Both gain value from the other. Apple insentience to always get the better of that trade seems counter productive.