6 ms·

I think a lot of the takes on this are coming at it from the wrong angle - "Why does Apple deserve a third of app revenue?" What if we flip it to: "Why do app

I think a lot of the takes on this are coming at it from the wrong angle - "Why does Apple deserve a third of app revenue?" What if we flip it to: "Why do app developers deserve access to Apple's customers?" 30% is the price to access Apple's customers. If you're a developer and don't like this, then don't build an iOS app. Build Android-only, or build a web app. If you're a customer and don't like this, then don't buy an iPhone. Vote with your feet. Buy an Android. Or a Pinephone/Fairphone/Librem which are as close to a general purpose computer-as-a-phone outside of the Apple-Google duopoly that there is at the current time. I understand that the value of the Apple ecosystem is not just what Apple bring to the table. It's the ecosphere of apps available. So there's definitely a symbiosis here. But Apple is like China here. No matter how ethically questionable, there will always be those for whom the market that Apple represents is too tempting to ignore. Even with a 30% cost of doing business. Meaning there will always be app developers building apps for iOS.

brokencode 5y ago
This is way too charitable to the largest company in the world, one which enjoys a duopoly over the smartphone market in the United States. If you are Lyft and you don’t have an iOS app, then you probably go out of business.
- expensive_news 5y ago
  I realize that the only reason they don’t have an iOS app is because Apple didn’t let them, but OnlyFans is doing very well as a web based service. It’s certainly not iOS-or-nothing.
- phs318u 5y ago
  Lyft would only go out of business (without an iOS app) because there are Lyft competitors who won't cede the Apple customer segment. If all those players stayed Android-only, not only would they survive, but they'd be turning Android into a more compelling alternative. But this would require two things - for them to collude to stay off iOS, and for no new competitors to write an iOS app. If having access to the Apple customer segment is the difference between success or failure - even despite the 30% tariff - then why is it strange that access to that segment has a price? This is a market.
  - brokencode 5y ago
    That’d be a fair point if the Google Play store didn’t charge the same 30% fees. As things stand, you have no choice but to pay these fees if you want to distribute a native app to smartphone customers. That’s why the market isn’t fair. Because two companies control essentially all app distribution, and can charge whatever fees they want with no credible challenge from any market force. These companies have also shown they intend to squeeze the market for whatever they can without any sympathy for consumers or app developers. I think the only reasonable option is for the government to step in with antitrust measures.
    - phs318u 5y ago
      I agree with you but I think a far more effective way to "win" this for consumers, would be to press both Apple and Google to clarify disambiguate the 30% from the total cost to the consumer. i.e. just like on a grocery receipt where you clearly see the sales tax you pay as a separate item from the price charged by the vendor, this is what people should be fighting for - both in the app stores, and on the receipts that are emailed to people for their purchases. It would (a) make the tariff visible to all consumers not just the techies, and subsequently (b) create significant customer-led pressure to lower the tarrif (I suspect something on the order of 10% would probably be acceptable to most customers as that aligns with typical sales taxes give or take).
      - brokencode 5y ago
        I think price transparency would be a good start towards lowering fees. I doubt that Apple or Google would do even this without being forced to, though.
- mjhagen 5y ago
  > This is way too charitable to the largest company in the world They weren't when they started the App Store, should they change their policies reflecting their current market worth?
  - brokencode 5y ago
    No, but we should scrutinize their practices more now that they have such a dominant and durable position in the market.
AlexandrB 5y ago
> What if we flip it to: "Why do app developers deserve access to Apple's customers?" As I posted in another comment, part of the reason Apple has so many customers is that their platform has so many apps. If all developers left the App Store overnight, would anyone go out and buy an iPhone the next day? Apple benefits greatly from their app ecosystem, even ignoring the 30% App Store cut. They should be careful not to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
- phs318u 5y ago
  I absolutely agree, however the point I made is that the temptation of the market share means there will always be app developers willing to step in to replace any that withdraw from the market. If I'm an app developer, from a purely financial perspective, why would I forego a market of Apple's size, even with a 30% tariff? Sure, I may lobby for change, or even go to court to try to reduce that tariff. But while I'm doing that, I sure won't be leaving money on the table. And there's little chance I'll abandon that market in the interim, in order to maintain an ethical position.
weare138 5y ago
>What if we flip it to: "Why do app developers deserve access to Apple's customers?" >30% is the price to access Apple's customers. That goes both ways. Would Apple's products be as popular as they are without 3rd party apps? The apps are what is bringing in those users.
stale2002 5y ago
> If you're a customer and don't like this, then don't buy an iPhone. Vote with your feet Alright, so then if microsoft wanted to ban alternative web browsers, or engage in anti-competitive practices that are currently illegal, and they lost the court case for, your answer is "Yes, that should be allowed for microsoft to do"? Most of society would agree that laws that outlaw anti-competitive behavior are a good thing. And if you opinion is the naive "just vote with your feet, lol" position, then you need to bite the bullet and just straight up say that you think that anti-trust law is bad. Just say that you support the standard oil monopoly, or the microsoft monopoly and be honest about it.
- phs318u 5y ago
  Microsoft's share of the desktop market at the time was very close to unity. You couldn't vote with your feet because there was nowhere to go. Even now, MS have about 75% of the PC OS market. Apple's share of the smartphone market is around 15% globally, and 55% within the US. Under no definition can Apple be said to be in the same position that Microsoft was. You can indeed vote with your feet and many do (in both directions). Anti-trust law is designed to do two things. Prevent companies from becoming monopolies in a market, and break up companies that are monopolies. By the numbers, Apple is not a monopoly, and there are plenty of healthy alternatives to Apple. Anti-trust law is just fine and dandy and I support it. It just does not apply here.
  - stale2002 5y ago
    > By the numbers, Apple is not a monopoly We have court precedent that says otherwise. The Epic vs Apple case had at least 1 count that defined Apple's behavior as being illegally anti-competitive. > Under no definition Yes there is a definition. Under the definition that Judge Gonzalez Rogers used, they are large enough that some behavior is illegally anti-competitive. So yes. An actual judge, who is the authority on the matter, disagrees with you, that it is impossible for apple to engage in illegal anti-competitive behavior. > It just does not apply here. Actually, it already did apply. Judge Gonzalez Rogers applied it to Apple.
    - 5y ago
Yver 5y ago
Customers deserve access to all app providers.
- phs318u 5y ago
  I assume you are implying "access to all app providers on the phone of their choice". What about those app developers that have chosen not to target a market? For example there are plenty of app developers that are iOS-only, and some that are Android-only. Do you then force them to target both systems? (since the customers deserve it). Would you enforce this on PC developers too? I'd love to have native Microsoft Office apps on my linux laptop. But I'm not holding my breath.
greggman3 5y ago
I don't understand this argument. Would it apply anywhere else? Could some company sell houses where they demand 30% of the price of every appliance you buy? You're the housing company's customer so they're bringing you their customers apparently. Could some car company demand 30% of all gas, tires, oil, and electricity? You're the car company's customer. Could a refrigerator company demand 30% of all groceries you put in it? There have been laws that disallow you to limit customer choice. For one example, a company can't force you to buy 1st party parts for repairs https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2018/04/ftc-staff-sends-warranty-warnings https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2018/04/... You're position seems to be if they can prevent people from doing something with their device they don't like and people still buy it then that's ok. So if a sofa manufacture found a way to prevent people of color from sitting on it and people bought it that would be perfectly fine by your position I guess. I could certain make a fridge that complained if you put something in it that had no RFID tag and that those tags must correspond to items they've licensed. In any case, my position is, no company should have that kind of power, period. A house company shouldn't be able to decide who my guests are who what items I put in it. A fridge company shouldn't be able to decide what items I keep cold. A cabinet company shouldn't be able to to decide what I store in my cabinets. And a computer company should not be able to decide what I can run on my computer (smartphones are computers).
- mulletbum 5y ago
  I don't think your argument is the same thing. Apple has to pay to keep your app hosted in the store. They have to pay to check your app for safety. They have to pay developers to maintain the store. Your fridge doesn't have that. Your fridge manufacturer made something to host your food. It costs them zero dollars to perform the hosting. In fact, you have to pay another company (the electric company) that hosting cost. If a fridge manufacturer decided to become the electrical company, then it would make more sense. Apple has to pay costs to maintain the app store, the operating system for the app store, and the hosting costs in-between.
  - tebbers 5y ago
    > Apple has to pay costs to maintain the app store, the operating system for the app store, and the hosting costs in-between. All of which should be covered by the $99 annual App Store developer fee.
cryptonector 5y ago
> or build a web app. Huh, maybe there's an opportunity to make an app that appifies appfiable sites. Like a captive browser. That app could be free. But Apple would find a way to say it's not OK with their rules and boot it from the store. > 30% is the price to access Apple's customers. Perhaps, but you'll notice many people don't agree, and those people participate in politics, and some of them will say "company store!!" and demand statutory or judicial intervention, and who knows, they might get it. Lucky for Apple 99.9% of their customers aren't those people.
meribold 5y ago
> If you're a customer and don't like this, then don't buy an iPhone. Vote with your feet. Buy an Android. That's a good option. At the same time I can also work together with other citizens of my country to force Apple to allow alternative app stores. Our reason would be that we think society stands to benefit from this. Whether or not Apple "deserves" [1] a third of app revenue doesn't matter. Allowing alternative app stores would then be the price Apple has to pay to access our market. They might not like this, but they're free to ignore this market. Other companies will be happy to comply. [1]: I'm not sure that it's meaningful to say a trillion-dollar company does or does not deserve something.
- phs318u 5y ago
  I actually love this answer, but I will point out that any arguments relating to "deserving" - especially in relation to companies' profits - becomes a very different discussion. We live in a capitalist system and "deserves" = "can achieve within the law". I offer no assessment as to whether this is a good system or not, but its the one we have. It's absolutely reasonable for a government to impose its own market rules - but even there, the government follows its own logic for what to impose. Either to benefit consumers, protect local industries or industry segments (e.g. smaller companies), or increase tax revenue. What's the logic behind such a restriction? Unless applied to all app stores, this would be unfair to Apple. For both customers and app-developers, we make an assessment of value and decide which phone to buy or which phone to target with apps. For app developers this involves a contractual obligation they freely sign on to. Making an assessment of value that is based on not meeting the obligations you agreed to is an act of bad faith. You don't "deserve" to play on my turf if you're not following my rules. Go play in someone else's yard. I can see how it makes sense for a government to assess whether everyone's yards needs to be follow a basic set of rules. That currently exists in the sense that no contract or agreement can upend the laws of the land. Is new law required here? Perhaps, but then it won't be Apple specific. Depending on how its worded it may apply more broadly than to just app stores. In which case there's a whole raft of rent-seekers who may not want such laws. Fundamentally, it boils down to this (in my view): Are smartphone ecosystems private property upon which third parties are allowed to conduct commerce subject to the property owners rules? OR Are smartphone ecosystems a public commons upon which third parties are free to conduct commerce as they wish?
alkonaut 5y ago
> Why do app developers deserve access to Apple's customers?" Because it’s better for customers if they do, than if they don’t.
kevincox 5y ago
> web app Good luck! Safari is crippled. The examples are too numerous to list but even the UX around existing features that would bring Web apps closer to on-par with App Store apps is terrible. For example my friend was sad that Wordle wasn't an app because they wanted it on their home screen. No problem I said! I know you can add shortcuts on iOS. But they couldn't find the option. They even game me the phone and I couldn't find it in the 30s I looked! I'm sure it is there somewhere but it is clear that the UX is damanaged to keep the moat between native and web artificially high.

brokencode 5y ago

This is way too charitable to the largest company in the world, one which enjoys a duopoly over the smartphone market in the United States. If you are Lyft and you don’t have an iOS app, then you probably go out of business.

expensive_news 5y ago
I realize that the only reason they don’t have an iOS app is because Apple didn’t let them, but OnlyFans is doing very well as a web based service. It’s certainly not iOS-or-nothing.
phs318u 5y ago
Lyft would only go out of business (without an iOS app) because there are Lyft competitors who won't cede the Apple customer segment. If all those players stayed Android-only, not only would they survive, but they'd be turning Android into a more compelling alternative. But this would require two things - for them to collude to stay off iOS, and for no new competitors to write an iOS app. If having access to the Apple customer segment is the difference between success or failure - even despite the 30% tariff - then why is it strange that access to that segment has a price? This is a market.
- brokencode 5y ago
  That’d be a fair point if the Google Play store didn’t charge the same 30% fees. As things stand, you have no choice but to pay these fees if you want to distribute a native app to smartphone customers. That’s why the market isn’t fair. Because two companies control essentially all app distribution, and can charge whatever fees they want with no credible challenge from any market force. These companies have also shown they intend to squeeze the market for whatever they can without any sympathy for consumers or app developers. I think the only reasonable option is for the government to step in with antitrust measures.
  - phs318u 5y ago
    I agree with you but I think a far more effective way to "win" this for consumers, would be to press both Apple and Google to clarify disambiguate the 30% from the total cost to the consumer. i.e. just like on a grocery receipt where you clearly see the sales tax you pay as a separate item from the price charged by the vendor, this is what people should be fighting for - both in the app stores, and on the receipts that are emailed to people for their purchases. It would (a) make the tariff visible to all consumers not just the techies, and subsequently (b) create significant customer-led pressure to lower the tarrif (I suspect something on the order of 10% would probably be acceptable to most customers as that aligns with typical sales taxes give or take).
    - brokencode 5y ago
      I think price transparency would be a good start towards lowering fees. I doubt that Apple or Google would do even this without being forced to, though.
mjhagen 5y ago
> This is way too charitable to the largest company in the world They weren't when they started the App Store, should they change their policies reflecting their current market worth?
- brokencode 5y ago
  No, but we should scrutinize their practices more now that they have such a dominant and durable position in the market.

AlexandrB 5y ago

> What if we flip it to: "Why do app developers deserve access to Apple's customers?" As I posted in another comment, part of the reason Apple has so many customers is that their platform has so many apps. If all developers left the App Store overnight, would anyone go out and buy an iPhone the next day? Apple benefits greatly from their app ecosystem, even ignoring the 30% App Store cut. They should be careful not to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

phs318u 5y ago
I absolutely agree, however the point I made is that the temptation of the market share means there will always be app developers willing to step in to replace any that withdraw from the market. If I'm an app developer, from a purely financial perspective, why would I forego a market of Apple's size, even with a 30% tariff? Sure, I may lobby for change, or even go to court to try to reduce that tariff. But while I'm doing that, I sure won't be leaving money on the table. And there's little chance I'll abandon that market in the interim, in order to maintain an ethical position.

weare138 5y ago

>What if we flip it to: "Why do app developers deserve access to Apple's customers?" >30% is the price to access Apple's customers. That goes both ways. Would Apple's products be as popular as they are without 3rd party apps? The apps are what is bringing in those users.

stale2002 5y ago

> If you're a customer and don't like this, then don't buy an iPhone. Vote with your feet Alright, so then if microsoft wanted to ban alternative web browsers, or engage in anti-competitive practices that are currently illegal, and they lost the court case for, your answer is "Yes, that should be allowed for microsoft to do"? Most of society would agree that laws that outlaw anti-competitive behavior are a good thing. And if you opinion is the naive "just vote with your feet, lol" position, then you need to bite the bullet and just straight up say that you think that anti-trust law is bad. Just say that you support the standard oil monopoly, or the microsoft monopoly and be honest about it.

phs318u 5y ago
Microsoft's share of the desktop market at the time was very close to unity. You couldn't vote with your feet because there was nowhere to go. Even now, MS have about 75% of the PC OS market. Apple's share of the smartphone market is around 15% globally, and 55% within the US. Under no definition can Apple be said to be in the same position that Microsoft was. You can indeed vote with your feet and many do (in both directions). Anti-trust law is designed to do two things. Prevent companies from becoming monopolies in a market, and break up companies that are monopolies. By the numbers, Apple is not a monopoly, and there are plenty of healthy alternatives to Apple. Anti-trust law is just fine and dandy and I support it. It just does not apply here.
- stale2002 5y ago
  > By the numbers, Apple is not a monopoly We have court precedent that says otherwise. The Epic vs Apple case had at least 1 count that defined Apple's behavior as being illegally anti-competitive. > Under no definition Yes there is a definition. Under the definition that Judge Gonzalez Rogers used, they are large enough that some behavior is illegally anti-competitive. So yes. An actual judge, who is the authority on the matter, disagrees with you, that it is impossible for apple to engage in illegal anti-competitive behavior. > It just does not apply here. Actually, it already did apply. Judge Gonzalez Rogers applied it to Apple.
  - 5y ago

Yver 5y ago

Customers deserve access to all app providers.

phs318u 5y ago
I assume you are implying "access to all app providers on the phone of their choice". What about those app developers that have chosen not to target a market? For example there are plenty of app developers that are iOS-only, and some that are Android-only. Do you then force them to target both systems? (since the customers deserve it). Would you enforce this on PC developers too? I'd love to have native Microsoft Office apps on my linux laptop. But I'm not holding my breath.

greggman3 5y ago

I don't understand this argument. Would it apply anywhere else? Could some company sell houses where they demand 30% of the price of every appliance you buy? You're the housing company's customer so they're bringing you their customers apparently. Could some car company demand 30% of all gas, tires, oil, and electricity? You're the car company's customer. Could a refrigerator company demand 30% of all groceries you put in it? There have been laws that disallow you to limit customer choice. For one example, a company can't force you to buy 1st party parts for repairs https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2018/04/ftc-staff-sends-warranty-warnings https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2018/04/... You're position seems to be if they can prevent people from doing something with their device they don't like and people still buy it then that's ok. So if a sofa manufacture found a way to prevent people of color from sitting on it and people bought it that would be perfectly fine by your position I guess. I could certain make a fridge that complained if you put something in it that had no RFID tag and that those tags must correspond to items they've licensed. In any case, my position is, no company should have that kind of power, period. A house company shouldn't be able to decide who my guests are who what items I put in it. A fridge company shouldn't be able to decide what items I keep cold. A cabinet company shouldn't be able to to decide what I store in my cabinets. And a computer company should not be able to decide what I can run on my computer (smartphones are computers).

mulletbum 5y ago
I don't think your argument is the same thing. Apple has to pay to keep your app hosted in the store. They have to pay to check your app for safety. They have to pay developers to maintain the store. Your fridge doesn't have that. Your fridge manufacturer made something to host your food. It costs them zero dollars to perform the hosting. In fact, you have to pay another company (the electric company) that hosting cost. If a fridge manufacturer decided to become the electrical company, then it would make more sense. Apple has to pay costs to maintain the app store, the operating system for the app store, and the hosting costs in-between.
- tebbers 5y ago
  > Apple has to pay costs to maintain the app store, the operating system for the app store, and the hosting costs in-between. All of which should be covered by the $99 annual App Store developer fee.

cryptonector 5y ago

> or build a web app. Huh, maybe there's an opportunity to make an app that appifies appfiable sites. Like a captive browser. That app could be free. But Apple would find a way to say it's not OK with their rules and boot it from the store. > 30% is the price to access Apple's customers. Perhaps, but you'll notice many people don't agree, and those people participate in politics, and some of them will say "company store!!" and demand statutory or judicial intervention, and who knows, they might get it. Lucky for Apple 99.9% of their customers aren't those people.

meribold 5y ago

> If you're a customer and don't like this, then don't buy an iPhone. Vote with your feet. Buy an Android. That's a good option. At the same time I can also work together with other citizens of my country to force Apple to allow alternative app stores. Our reason would be that we think society stands to benefit from this. Whether or not Apple "deserves" [1] a third of app revenue doesn't matter. Allowing alternative app stores would then be the price Apple has to pay to access our market. They might not like this, but they're free to ignore this market. Other companies will be happy to comply. [1]: I'm not sure that it's meaningful to say a trillion-dollar company does or does not deserve something.

phs318u 5y ago
I actually love this answer, but I will point out that any arguments relating to "deserving" - especially in relation to companies' profits - becomes a very different discussion. We live in a capitalist system and "deserves" = "can achieve within the law". I offer no assessment as to whether this is a good system or not, but its the one we have. It's absolutely reasonable for a government to impose its own market rules - but even there, the government follows its own logic for what to impose. Either to benefit consumers, protect local industries or industry segments (e.g. smaller companies), or increase tax revenue. What's the logic behind such a restriction? Unless applied to all app stores, this would be unfair to Apple. For both customers and app-developers, we make an assessment of value and decide which phone to buy or which phone to target with apps. For app developers this involves a contractual obligation they freely sign on to. Making an assessment of value that is based on not meeting the obligations you agreed to is an act of bad faith. You don't "deserve" to play on my turf if you're not following my rules. Go play in someone else's yard. I can see how it makes sense for a government to assess whether everyone's yards needs to be follow a basic set of rules. That currently exists in the sense that no contract or agreement can upend the laws of the land. Is new law required here? Perhaps, but then it won't be Apple specific. Depending on how its worded it may apply more broadly than to just app stores. In which case there's a whole raft of rent-seekers who may not want such laws. Fundamentally, it boils down to this (in my view): Are smartphone ecosystems private property upon which third parties are allowed to conduct commerce subject to the property owners rules? OR Are smartphone ecosystems a public commons upon which third parties are free to conduct commerce as they wish?

alkonaut 5y ago

> Why do app developers deserve access to Apple's customers?" Because it’s better for customers if they do, than if they don’t.

kevincox 5y ago

> web app Good luck! Safari is crippled. The examples are too numerous to list but even the UX around existing features that would bring Web apps closer to on-par with App Store apps is terrible. For example my friend was sad that Wordle wasn't an app because they wanted it on their home screen. No problem I said! I know you can add shortcuts on iOS. But they couldn't find the option. They even game me the phone and I couldn't find it in the 30s I looked! I'm sure it is there somewhere but it is clear that the UX is damanaged to keep the moat between native and web artificially high.