4 ms·

I fail to see how it’s different. Uber is the one paying this cost not the end customer. Sure they may pass the cost on, but they also would pass the cost on if

I fail to see how it’s different. Uber is the one paying this cost not the end customer. Sure they may pass the cost on, but they also would pass the cost on if any other layer of their stack started charging more.

spartanatreyu 5y ago
The difference is Uber has a choice of different stacks for everything except for app publishing. Apple in that regard is holding them hostage.
- throwaway1777 5y ago
  Much different point than the other comment was making. As far as their choice in using Apple’s platform I don’t disagree that it’s not really a choice and it’s potentially a problem.
- zeckalpha 5y ago
  Web?
  - lwansbrough 5y ago
    Apple intentionally limits the capabilities of its web browser to keep it from being competitive with its native platform, and I’m sure there’s an email out there that says as much explicitly.
    - zeckalpha 5y ago
      This is what Amazon does with Kindle sales already.
beaconstudios 5y ago
Uber paying the cost and passing it on is the customer paying the cost.
- throwaway1777 5y ago
  So is passing on any other cost. I’m pushing back on the idea that the problem is passing on the cost. The problem is that they don’t get to choose whether or not to pay this cost.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    The cost always falls down to the end customers. "just don't buy it" doesn't work if everybody is doing it, which they all are in Silicon Valley.
lhorie 5y ago
s/Uber/Costco/ to see a better example: an iOS app is at best a minor convenience to an average costco member. Almost all costco customer acquisitions are through word of mouth / brand recognition and the vast majority of sales happen at brick and mortar stores. Why should costco fork over some 30% of revenue to apple? Imagine Google pulling the same stunt for inclusion into their app store and it quickly becomes apparent how the pricing structure is laughable at face value.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  > Imagine Google pulling the same stunt for inclusion into their app store and it quickly becomes apparent how the pricing structure is laughable at face value. As of September of 2021 in the US[1], both Apple and Google's mobile app payment policies have converged[2] as Google mandates that all app developers use their payment platform and only their payment platform, along with mandating a 15% to 30% cut of all app payments. I believe Google's policy matches Apple's when it comes to this example. [1] https://fossbytes.com/google-mandates-android-apps-to-pay-30-cut-on-play-store-from-2021/ https://fossbytes.com/google-mandates-android-apps-to-pay-30... [2] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-competitors/price-fixing https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
  - lhorie 5y ago
    The first sentence in your first link links to an announcement saying this: > Android has always allowed people to get apps from multiple app stores. In fact, most Android devices ship with at least two app stores preinstalled, and consumers are able to install additional app stores. Each store is able to decide its own business model and consumer features. This openness means that even if a developer and Google do not agree on business terms the developer can still distribute on the Android platform. This is why Fortnite, for example, is available directly from Epic's store or from other app stores including Samsung's Galaxy App store. The implication is that apps can choose to only publish in stores with more favorable IAP terms, not that each store is somehow eligible to a fixed percentage of the $120/yr fee for a costco membership that may or may not have originated within the app store's ecosystem. Otherwise, at a cut of 30% per store, an app would owe platforms 120% of subscription revenue to be on merely 4 stores, regardless of how the customer converted.

spartanatreyu 5y ago

The difference is Uber has a choice of different stacks for everything except for app publishing. Apple in that regard is holding them hostage.

throwaway1777 5y ago
Much different point than the other comment was making. As far as their choice in using Apple’s platform I don’t disagree that it’s not really a choice and it’s potentially a problem.
zeckalpha 5y ago
Web?
- lwansbrough 5y ago
  Apple intentionally limits the capabilities of its web browser to keep it from being competitive with its native platform, and I’m sure there’s an email out there that says as much explicitly.
  - zeckalpha 5y ago
    This is what Amazon does with Kindle sales already.

beaconstudios 5y ago

Uber paying the cost and passing it on is the customer paying the cost.

throwaway1777 5y ago
So is passing on any other cost. I’m pushing back on the idea that the problem is passing on the cost. The problem is that they don’t get to choose whether or not to pay this cost.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  The cost always falls down to the end customers. "just don't buy it" doesn't work if everybody is doing it, which they all are in Silicon Valley.

lhorie 5y ago

s/Uber/Costco/ to see a better example: an iOS app is at best a minor convenience to an average costco member. Almost all costco customer acquisitions are through word of mouth / brand recognition and the vast majority of sales happen at brick and mortar stores. Why should costco fork over some 30% of revenue to apple? Imagine Google pulling the same stunt for inclusion into their app store and it quickly becomes apparent how the pricing structure is laughable at face value.

heavyset_go 5y ago
> Imagine Google pulling the same stunt for inclusion into their app store and it quickly becomes apparent how the pricing structure is laughable at face value. As of September of 2021 in the US[1], both Apple and Google's mobile app payment policies have converged[2] as Google mandates that all app developers use their payment platform and only their payment platform, along with mandating a 15% to 30% cut of all app payments. I believe Google's policy matches Apple's when it comes to this example. [1] https://fossbytes.com/google-mandates-android-apps-to-pay-30-cut-on-play-store-from-2021/ https://fossbytes.com/google-mandates-android-apps-to-pay-30... [2] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-competitors/price-fixing https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
- lhorie 5y ago
  The first sentence in your first link links to an announcement saying this: > Android has always allowed people to get apps from multiple app stores. In fact, most Android devices ship with at least two app stores preinstalled, and consumers are able to install additional app stores. Each store is able to decide its own business model and consumer features. This openness means that even if a developer and Google do not agree on business terms the developer can still distribute on the Android platform. This is why Fortnite, for example, is available directly from Epic's store or from other app stores including Samsung's Galaxy App store. The implication is that apps can choose to only publish in stores with more favorable IAP terms, not that each store is somehow eligible to a fixed percentage of the $120/yr fee for a costco membership that may or may not have originated within the app store's ecosystem. Otherwise, at a cut of 30% per store, an app would owe platforms 120% of subscription revenue to be on merely 4 stores, regardless of how the customer converted.