3 ms·

Again, the AppStore restrictions are no different from any console in the last 40 years. You’re not paying for transactions, you’re paying a platform commissio

by olliej 5y ago

Again, the AppStore restrictions are no different from any console in the last 40 years. You’re not paying for transactions, you’re paying a platform commission. Calling it a transaction fee is simply an attempt to make it sound like they’re being overcharged.

warning26 5y ago
The key difference is that Apple iOS covers more than half of the general computing market in the US. Keep in mind that to many of the younger generation, smartphones are their singular computing device.
- olliej 5y ago
  They can switch to Android. The App Store protections are part of the platform value proposition. Please don't respond with "they don't have to install third party store" nonsense, because for many people if (say) google docs puts itself in its own store they will have no choice.
  - warning26 5y ago
    Microsoft really should have used this defense back in the 90s. What, you don't like Internet Explorer? Apple exists, buy a Mac! Or better yet, delete Windows and install Linux! See, there's no monopolistic behavior at all, provided that number of competitors is greater than zero!
    - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
      > Microsoft really should have used this defense back in the 90s. They did. They were pointing to MacOS and Sun Solaris and all of them as supposed competitors, even though they didn't run on the same hardware as Windows did and apps for Windows didn't run on them. The court didn't buy it.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ThatPlayer 5y ago
    And in the same way 'they can switch to Android', people could switch to any other Office suite on iOS. If you truly believe that people are choosing Apple for the "App Store protections", then why would they move off? Every third party app store would fail instantly. It's because other app stores are providing better value or better apps? Well that's why Apple preventing other app stores is anti-competitive. If someone picks Apple over Android is being of value and therefore should be allowed, how is someone picking Google Docs over every other Apple App Store office suite not also because of value?
  - genocidicbunny 5y ago
    Hold on, you can use your iOS apps that you paid for on Android now? And access iCloud? And use iMessage? Oh wait, you mean give up all that stuff to 'switch to android'. To most people that like suggesting that they learn how to write with their left hand by cutting off their right hand; Not even close to tenable.
  - kaba0 5y ago
    They could be free to put sideloading behind 10 warning/error flags, in which case google docs would be effectively forced to use the still de facto AppStore. Yet I still get the opportunity to install whatever program I want to on a device I payed a huge sum of money. And no, switching between 2 things is not consumer choice, so with all due respect, saying switching to android is disrespectful.
- broknbottle 5y ago
  That’s not because Apple used its market position to stifle competition. It’s because Google could never figure out a messaging solution. People want a reliable and consistent experience. Not forced to switch to some half baked attempt that is nothing more than padding for some dudes promo doc
  - root_axis 5y ago
    > That’s not because Apple used its market position to stifle competition Of course they did, all the big tech firms do but Apple is perhaps the most egregious. Whenever Apple acquires a company it shuts that company down and integrates all the IP and talent into the Apple walled garden (e.g. Dark Sky), by comparison many of the other big firms are often happy to let their acquisitions remain available to users of all platforms e.g. Instagram, WhatsApp, LinkedIn, Github etc.
    - kgc 5y ago
      If you buy a company shouldn't you be able to do what you want with it?
      - root_axis 5y ago
        Yes. That's beside the point however.
      - ThatPlayer 5y ago
        When you've got huge market power, not necessarily: > In general, any business — even a monopolist — may choose its business partners. However, under certain circumstances, there may be limits on this freedom for a firm with market power. https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/refusal-deal https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
      - kaba0 5y ago
        Within the boundaries of the law, which should (ideally) be modified based on arising new problems in the benefit of people. Also, this starts getting into the “temporarily embarrassed billionaire” mindset, which is a really bad lens to view politics through.
tomnipotent 5y ago
So should Microsoft be allowed to tax all business on Windows by 30%? If that makes you uncomfortable, so should the position Apple is in.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Operyl 5y ago
  I almost want to see them try, in some fantasy world, just to see what would happen. Would we get a mass exodus to macOS, or would it finally be the year of Linux? Of course it’s probably best left to our imagination…
- ksec 5y ago
  I think Microsoft could actually do that. And say 30% of all transaction on their platform would go to non-profits just to make a point.
  - tomnipotent 5y ago
    Microsoft has made an attempt with S mode, which locks down Windows 10/11 so that apps can only be installed from Windows App Store. I don't believe it's been going very well for them.
xunn0026 5y ago
Yeah, sure. The range of apps / tasks people do on macOS/iOS doesn't even compare. Console do... games? But, don't let a bad precedent define you. Given that consoles are also basically general purpose computers I don't see why users shouldn't be allowed to sideload games / apps on the consoles they own. If the manufacturer can digitally sign an app to make it run on the console, users should also get a signing key upon purchase.
AnthonyMouse 5y ago
> Again, the AppStore restrictions are no different from any console in the last 40 years. A sensible argument to shut that down too. > You’re not paying for transactions, you’re paying a platform commission. Calling it a transaction fee is simply an attempt to make it sound like they’re being overcharged. They are being overcharged. It's leveraging a monopoly over the users of the platform against the app developers who are customers of software distribution and payment services.
ksec 5y ago
>Again, the AppStore restrictions are no different from any console in the last 40 years. Consoles are Gaming. I have no problem with Apple charging 30% on Games or In Games transaction. As it is the norm in Gaming market. The console 30% or higher commission was determined in an open market. And shows 30% is not an arbitrary number. Why do they need to charge 30% of an Online Teaching Glass ( currently exempted ), or 30% of tips going to creators? Are those market the same as gaming? They are not, as any sane person should agree and as defined in court by Judge YGR. Edit: On that note I still dont understand why Apple doesn't break the Games into a separate store. Continue to charge 30% of it, which protect 80% of their current App Store revenue. And let the App Store to charge at a lower rate.
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  The PS5 and Nintendo Switch run on FreeBSD and the Xbox Series X runs on a modified version of Windows 10 with a full-blown NT kernel. Those sound like general usage computers. 30% in the rest of the market is also not an arbitrary number. The App Store charged 30% to compete with brick-and-mortar retailers charging 70% on all software - not just games. Apple has charged the same rate since the store's inception. If developers are complaining about the 30% after 15 years of agreeing to it in the first place, then Apple isn't the cause of their woes. Apple is not obligated to change it's rate simply because developers have retroactively deemed it unfair anymore than developers are obligated to change their prices because the consumers should deem those to be unfair.
  - ksec 5y ago
    >Those sound like general purpose computers. And everything running linux would be a general purpose computer? The console only run games. And that is their model. You dont sell productivity and content creation or other social / business apps on it, nor are those allowed on their "App Store". > The App Store charged 30% to compete with brick-and-mortar retailers charging 70% on all software - not just games. It absolutely make sense then. Because brick and mortar was at the time how majority of software distribution works. Again, suggesting 30% on software completely neglect the terms on services. You charge 30% on software, by none of that software charge 30% when I try to teach kids online during a pandemic. >15 years of agreeing to it in the first place, Because 15 years ago there wasn't a digital services industry on top. Why is domain name registration inside Apps exempt from 30% services fees and not other fees like email hosting? How did that exempt came from?

by olliej 5y ago

warning26 5y ago

The key difference is that Apple iOS covers more than half of the general computing market in the US. Keep in mind that to many of the younger generation, smartphones are their singular computing device.

olliej 5y ago
They can switch to Android. The App Store protections are part of the platform value proposition. Please don't respond with "they don't have to install third party store" nonsense, because for many people if (say) google docs puts itself in its own store they will have no choice.
- warning26 5y ago
  Microsoft really should have used this defense back in the 90s. What, you don't like Internet Explorer? Apple exists, buy a Mac! Or better yet, delete Windows and install Linux! See, there's no monopolistic behavior at all, provided that number of competitors is greater than zero!
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    > Microsoft really should have used this defense back in the 90s. They did. They were pointing to MacOS and Sun Solaris and all of them as supposed competitors, even though they didn't run on the same hardware as Windows did and apps for Windows didn't run on them. The court didn't buy it.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ThatPlayer 5y ago
  And in the same way 'they can switch to Android', people could switch to any other Office suite on iOS. If you truly believe that people are choosing Apple for the "App Store protections", then why would they move off? Every third party app store would fail instantly. It's because other app stores are providing better value or better apps? Well that's why Apple preventing other app stores is anti-competitive. If someone picks Apple over Android is being of value and therefore should be allowed, how is someone picking Google Docs over every other Apple App Store office suite not also because of value?
- genocidicbunny 5y ago
  Hold on, you can use your iOS apps that you paid for on Android now? And access iCloud? And use iMessage? Oh wait, you mean give up all that stuff to 'switch to android'. To most people that like suggesting that they learn how to write with their left hand by cutting off their right hand; Not even close to tenable.
- kaba0 5y ago
  They could be free to put sideloading behind 10 warning/error flags, in which case google docs would be effectively forced to use the still de facto AppStore. Yet I still get the opportunity to install whatever program I want to on a device I payed a huge sum of money. And no, switching between 2 things is not consumer choice, so with all due respect, saying switching to android is disrespectful.
broknbottle 5y ago
That’s not because Apple used its market position to stifle competition. It’s because Google could never figure out a messaging solution. People want a reliable and consistent experience. Not forced to switch to some half baked attempt that is nothing more than padding for some dudes promo doc
- root_axis 5y ago
  > That’s not because Apple used its market position to stifle competition Of course they did, all the big tech firms do but Apple is perhaps the most egregious. Whenever Apple acquires a company it shuts that company down and integrates all the IP and talent into the Apple walled garden (e.g. Dark Sky), by comparison many of the other big firms are often happy to let their acquisitions remain available to users of all platforms e.g. Instagram, WhatsApp, LinkedIn, Github etc.
  - kgc 5y ago
    If you buy a company shouldn't you be able to do what you want with it?
    - root_axis 5y ago
      Yes. That's beside the point however.
    - ThatPlayer 5y ago
      When you've got huge market power, not necessarily: > In general, any business — even a monopolist — may choose its business partners. However, under certain circumstances, there may be limits on this freedom for a firm with market power. https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/refusal-deal https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
    - kaba0 5y ago
      Within the boundaries of the law, which should (ideally) be modified based on arising new problems in the benefit of people. Also, this starts getting into the “temporarily embarrassed billionaire” mindset, which is a really bad lens to view politics through.

tomnipotent 5y ago

So should Microsoft be allowed to tax all business on Windows by 30%? If that makes you uncomfortable, so should the position Apple is in.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Operyl 5y ago
I almost want to see them try, in some fantasy world, just to see what would happen. Would we get a mass exodus to macOS, or would it finally be the year of Linux? Of course it’s probably best left to our imagination…
ksec 5y ago
I think Microsoft could actually do that. And say 30% of all transaction on their platform would go to non-profits just to make a point.
- tomnipotent 5y ago
  Microsoft has made an attempt with S mode, which locks down Windows 10/11 so that apps can only be installed from Windows App Store. I don't believe it's been going very well for them.

xunn0026 5y ago

Yeah, sure. The range of apps / tasks people do on macOS/iOS doesn't even compare. Console do... games? But, don't let a bad precedent define you. Given that consoles are also basically general purpose computers I don't see why users shouldn't be allowed to sideload games / apps on the consoles they own. If the manufacturer can digitally sign an app to make it run on the console, users should also get a signing key upon purchase.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

> Again, the AppStore restrictions are no different from any console in the last 40 years. A sensible argument to shut that down too. > You’re not paying for transactions, you’re paying a platform commission. Calling it a transaction fee is simply an attempt to make it sound like they’re being overcharged. They are being overcharged. It's leveraging a monopoly over the users of the platform against the app developers who are customers of software distribution and payment services.

ksec 5y ago

>Again, the AppStore restrictions are no different from any console in the last 40 years. Consoles are Gaming. I have no problem with Apple charging 30% on Games or In Games transaction. As it is the norm in Gaming market. The console 30% or higher commission was determined in an open market. And shows 30% is not an arbitrary number. Why do they need to charge 30% of an Online Teaching Glass ( currently exempted ), or 30% of tips going to creators? Are those market the same as gaming? They are not, as any sane person should agree and as defined in court by Judge YGR. Edit: On that note I still dont understand why Apple doesn't break the Games into a separate store. Continue to charge 30% of it, which protect 80% of their current App Store revenue. And let the App Store to charge at a lower rate.

Dracophoenix 5y ago
The PS5 and Nintendo Switch run on FreeBSD and the Xbox Series X runs on a modified version of Windows 10 with a full-blown NT kernel. Those sound like general usage computers. 30% in the rest of the market is also not an arbitrary number. The App Store charged 30% to compete with brick-and-mortar retailers charging 70% on all software - not just games. Apple has charged the same rate since the store's inception. If developers are complaining about the 30% after 15 years of agreeing to it in the first place, then Apple isn't the cause of their woes. Apple is not obligated to change it's rate simply because developers have retroactively deemed it unfair anymore than developers are obligated to change their prices because the consumers should deem those to be unfair.
- ksec 5y ago
  >Those sound like general purpose computers. And everything running linux would be a general purpose computer? The console only run games. And that is their model. You dont sell productivity and content creation or other social / business apps on it, nor are those allowed on their "App Store". > The App Store charged 30% to compete with brick-and-mortar retailers charging 70% on all software - not just games. It absolutely make sense then. Because brick and mortar was at the time how majority of software distribution works. Again, suggesting 30% on software completely neglect the terms on services. You charge 30% on software, by none of that software charge 30% when I try to teach kids online during a pandemic. >15 years of agreeing to it in the first place, Because 15 years ago there wasn't a digital services industry on top. Why is domain name registration inside Apps exempt from 30% services fees and not other fees like email hosting? How did that exempt came from?