6 ms·

Part of the difference is that that nobody thinks you own Disneyland, but people think that they own their iPhone or iPad. This sort of ownership means that it

Part of the difference is that that nobody thinks you own Disneyland, but people think that they own their iPhone or iPad. This sort of ownership means that it should be possible to change your decisions about what to do with a device after the moment you bought it. I think most people would find it bad if a BMW branded car could only take gasoline/petrol purchased using a BMW credit card. Even if the terms of the BMW credit card were better than everything else when the vehicle was first purchased, the lock-in it creates would stop competition. And of course, if BMW could change the credit card terms - say, stop allowing purchases at your closest filling station, that would be worse. Just from a consumer's perspective, given the popularity of Fortnite, it's quite possible that there are some number of people who bought an iPhone just for the purpose of playing Fortnite, and had that use taken away from them. It feels wrong that Apple can take that away from them.

mjhagen 5y ago
I think your analogies aren't very fair: Disney: It's not the park or the device, it's about the experience, Apple wants to control that, just like Disney. BMW: You're allowed to put any brand of electricity in your iPhone's battery. I would've gone with the third party car stereo market.
- trothamel 5y ago
  Sure, if you want. I think the point is that I own my iPad, and I don't own Disneyland, and that's a big difference.
  - amelius 5y ago
    Yes, Apple wants to have it both ways.
threatofrain 5y ago
But if the sole act of forcing app makers to use Apple's generally more private and secure payment system is anticompetitive, then how does the consumer choose Apple as the mediator of their relationships? Where is the consumer choice for that? I ask because I don't want 3rd parties selling insights from my financial data. Of all choices that a consumer actually wants, it would be the ability to control the apps (i.e., sideloading) running on their device, as opposed to have more control yielded to app makers.
- commoner 5y ago
  Depends on the resolution. If a developer is able to use another payment processor alongside Apple's payment system, and set different price points to recover the respective fees, the buyer would be able to decide whether adding Apple as an intermediary is worth the price premium. Currently, the buyer does not have such a choice. They must involve Apple and pay the price premium if they want to make the purchase. Also, adding Apple as an intermediary increases the buyer's privacy exposure in some cases. If the buyer already has an account with the developer's service and makes a purchase that is linked to the account, interjecting Apple into the equation would reveal the purchase to both Apple and the developer, instead of just the developer.
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    First, the Dutch government position is that forcing apps to have Apple's payment system is anti-competitive... not that developers must include multiple payment systems. The customer isn't getting more choice here, the app maker is getting more choice. Companies like PopEyes, who really want you to enter your credit card, will be getting the choice. Second, IAP is separate from Apple Pay. If you do payments through another payment ecosystem... Apple still gets a cut. Nobody gets to dodge a price premium. If you want to talk about price premium, we should really be talking about the IAP. Third, you are getting more risk here. When you use Apple Pay, the vendor knows almost nothing about you. We're talking about the likes of Target and PopEyes (who really wants your credit card info) vs Apple, who retains very little financial information [1]. How many apps have you paid for? How many businesses do you transact with? That's a lot of Targets. And fourth, I am concerned about whether Apple will be able to compel developers to have easy recurring payment cancellation in one place. Whether it's a business or a government doing this, being able to easily monitor and cancel recurring payments is a big consumer win. Where is the consumer choice for this? Finally, the marketplace is about the negotiation of leverage. You talk about customers choosing vendors... my family members aren't going to win in negotiations with any company. The choice will be Walmart's way or the highway. Where is the consumer choice to have Apple negotiate with Walmart on your behalf? [1]: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203027 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203027
amelius 5y ago
> Part of the difference is that that nobody thinks you own Disneyland, but people think that they own their iPhone or iPad. This sort of ownership means that it should be possible to change your decisions about what to do with a device after the moment you bought it. I think the main trouble with products like Apple's is that you end up in a monopolist-controlled market just after you have bought the product. See also e.g. Nescafe coffee where, after buying the coffee machine, you are limited to buying coffee from 1 vendor (this is not true anymore but it was true for a long time). If monopolies are forbidden, then so should a monopoly-after-you've-bought-a-product.
musicale 5y ago
> I think most people would find it bad if a BMW branded car could only take gasoline/petrol purchased using a BMW credit card I'm not aware of any alternate payment processing on the Xbox store, PSN Store, Nintendo's eShop. In each case, the platform owner has a monopoly.
bradknowles 5y ago
Apple didn’t take that away. Fortnite did. Fortnite took it away because they wanted to create publicity for themselves and set up a situation where they appeared to be David to the Goliath of Apple. Fortnite took it away and sold their software on the Apple App Store, in the full knowledge that they were planning this move, and they knew what that result would be. So, Fortnite sold out their own customers willfully, and with maliciousness aforethought.

mjhagen 5y ago

I think your analogies aren't very fair: Disney: It's not the park or the device, it's about the experience, Apple wants to control that, just like Disney. BMW: You're allowed to put any brand of electricity in your iPhone's battery. I would've gone with the third party car stereo market.

trothamel 5y ago
Sure, if you want. I think the point is that I own my iPad, and I don't own Disneyland, and that's a big difference.
- amelius 5y ago
  Yes, Apple wants to have it both ways.

threatofrain 5y ago

But if the sole act of forcing app makers to use Apple's generally more private and secure payment system is anticompetitive, then how does the consumer choose Apple as the mediator of their relationships? Where is the consumer choice for that? I ask because I don't want 3rd parties selling insights from my financial data. Of all choices that a consumer actually wants, it would be the ability to control the apps (i.e., sideloading) running on their device, as opposed to have more control yielded to app makers.

commoner 5y ago
Depends on the resolution. If a developer is able to use another payment processor alongside Apple's payment system, and set different price points to recover the respective fees, the buyer would be able to decide whether adding Apple as an intermediary is worth the price premium. Currently, the buyer does not have such a choice. They must involve Apple and pay the price premium if they want to make the purchase. Also, adding Apple as an intermediary increases the buyer's privacy exposure in some cases. If the buyer already has an account with the developer's service and makes a purchase that is linked to the account, interjecting Apple into the equation would reveal the purchase to both Apple and the developer, instead of just the developer.
- threatofrain 5y ago
  First, the Dutch government position is that forcing apps to have Apple's payment system is anti-competitive... not that developers must include multiple payment systems. The customer isn't getting more choice here, the app maker is getting more choice. Companies like PopEyes, who really want you to enter your credit card, will be getting the choice. Second, IAP is separate from Apple Pay. If you do payments through another payment ecosystem... Apple still gets a cut. Nobody gets to dodge a price premium. If you want to talk about price premium, we should really be talking about the IAP. Third, you are getting more risk here. When you use Apple Pay, the vendor knows almost nothing about you. We're talking about the likes of Target and PopEyes (who really wants your credit card info) vs Apple, who retains very little financial information [1]. How many apps have you paid for? How many businesses do you transact with? That's a lot of Targets. And fourth, I am concerned about whether Apple will be able to compel developers to have easy recurring payment cancellation in one place. Whether it's a business or a government doing this, being able to easily monitor and cancel recurring payments is a big consumer win. Where is the consumer choice for this? Finally, the marketplace is about the negotiation of leverage. You talk about customers choosing vendors... my family members aren't going to win in negotiations with any company. The choice will be Walmart's way or the highway. Where is the consumer choice to have Apple negotiate with Walmart on your behalf? [1]: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203027 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203027

amelius 5y ago

> Part of the difference is that that nobody thinks you own Disneyland, but people think that they own their iPhone or iPad. This sort of ownership means that it should be possible to change your decisions about what to do with a device after the moment you bought it. I think the main trouble with products like Apple's is that you end up in a monopolist-controlled market just after you have bought the product. See also e.g. Nescafe coffee where, after buying the coffee machine, you are limited to buying coffee from 1 vendor (this is not true anymore but it was true for a long time). If monopolies are forbidden, then so should a monopoly-after-you've-bought-a-product.

musicale 5y ago

> I think most people would find it bad if a BMW branded car could only take gasoline/petrol purchased using a BMW credit card I'm not aware of any alternate payment processing on the Xbox store, PSN Store, Nintendo's eShop. In each case, the platform owner has a monopoly.

bradknowles 5y ago

Apple didn’t take that away. Fortnite did. Fortnite took it away because they wanted to create publicity for themselves and set up a situation where they appeared to be David to the Goliath of Apple. Fortnite took it away and sold their software on the Apple App Store, in the full knowledge that they were planning this move, and they knew what that result would be. So, Fortnite sold out their own customers willfully, and with maliciousness aforethought.