22 ms·

I'm shocked those defending the Apple tax aren't considering the fact that businesses are just offloading that tax onto consumers making things artificially mor

by notsrg 5y ago

I'm shocked those defending the Apple tax aren't considering the fact that businesses are just offloading that tax onto consumers making things artificially more expensive for iOS users. Even worse, when you do this you can't communicate why this is the case or tell people you can use the web for cheaper so users feel like you're just scamming them.

orasis 5y ago
That’s not really true. Consumers have a fixed willingness to pay and professional app publishers are good at discovering that number, so there really isn’t much passing costs onto the consumer.
- notsrg 5y ago
  The company I work for literally charges 30% more for iOS users lol.
  - Spivak 5y ago
    And if your iOS users actually pay it then you're a fool to not charge 30% more to your non-iOS users as well.
    - clusterfish 5y ago
      Um, no, cost of doing business affects the equilibrium market price. There's no Apple tax outside of Apple's walled garden, so everyone competing outside of it has lower costs and can thus offer lower prices (outside of the walled garden). If you don't, your competitors will, and you'll lose customers.
      - Spivak 5y ago
        So yes, in the broadest possible abstract, sure. But we're talking about the sale of digital goods here. What market for game coins, app features, digital content w/e is so intensely price sensitive, apparently fungible enough that switching apps doesn't matter, but then also not at all actually price sensitive since the mostly arbitrary distinction to the consumer "what brand is your phone" means you can charge 30% more? Like I totally believe you, I'm actually just interested.
        lolinder 5y ago
        > then also not at all actually price sensitive since the mostly arbitrary distinction to the consumer "what brand is your phone" means you can charge 30% more This distinction isn't arbitrary at all. They're effectively different markets. iPhone owners make more money and spend more money than Android users. There have been a number of surveys that have shown this, here's one: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/iphone-users-spend-101-every-month-on-tech-purchases-nearly-double-of-android-users-according-to-a-survey-conducted-by-slickdeals-300739582.html?c=n https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/iphone-users-spend-... And an older one, but from a bigger source: https://www.businessinsider.com/the-median-income-for-iphone-users-is-40-higher-than-that-of-android-users-2014-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/the-median-income-for-iphone...
        clusterfish 5y ago
        If you live in a jurisdiction where you need to pay sales tax, you will pay that sales tax, it will be on top of anything that the seller would normally charge you. You can't escape this tax by going to a different seller in your same jurisdiction. You can choose to move to a different jurisdiction if you don't like paying that tax, but a seller who sells in both will charge you the same subtotal (+ different tax). Same with Apple's 30% fee - it's unavoidable on their platform so it acts as a private sales tax on their platform. Some developers might choose to essentially subsidize their apple users by charging them the same price on Apple and on tax-free platforms like the web. That may be out of fear for Apple or out of cultural inertia or whatever, but it doesn't make sense, they're the ones leaving money on the table, not the ones who charge people taking into account the cost of doing business with those people on their preferred platform. They could get more profit selling their app for cheaper when not subject to the 30% platform tax, if they think that their pricing with that tax is optimal.
    - notsrg 5y ago
      This implies the business is setting the price, which if so, sure I guess. But "creator economy" applications as one example also fall under "digital goods", which means a user is setting the price on a platform to provide a service for $X, the platform takes $Y cut, and then pays the user $X - $Y, but then Apple wants 30% of $X. It's absolutely insane because most platforms out there don't even charge a fee that high so in order to cover the Apple tax they either have to make $0 per transaction and also pay creators less, or just charge consumers $X + 30% up front.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  > Consumers have a fixed willingness to pay and professional app publishers are good at discovering that number, so there really isn’t much passing costs onto the consumer. Prices are set by supply and demand. If you take a 30% cut out of the supplier's revenue, you get fewer suppliers and the price each one can charge goes up because the customer can't switch to a competitor who was driven out of business by the high fees.
yokoprime 5y ago
This is the very reason why I always check if a subscription can be purchased outside of the app store before even considering buying it there. Its usually more expensive as an in app purchase.
- badwolf 5y ago
  I follow an almost exact opposite flow. If I'm on a site/service that has a subscription, I check if they take in-app subscriptions and use that. I have no desire to deal with endless dark patterns to get me to not cancel a subscription.
  - Osiris 5y ago
    That just shows that Apple doesn't have to have a monopoly to compete. They can offer better features, services, etc that people may be willing to pay more for. Not everyone pays for the extended warranty when they buy electronics/tools but some do because they find value in it.
    - ninkendo 5y ago
      I think a more apt analogy would be: I'd pay a premium to shop at a store where there aren't any pushy associates trying to get me to buy an extended warranty in the first place.
      - wingworks 5y ago
        ^ This! At least here in New Zealand almost all perks of "extended" warranties are useless, as pretty much all things you buy here are already covered under our consumers guarantee act.
        rootusrootus 5y ago
        Nothing is free. An extended warranty is an insurance policy, the purchase price for it is the premium. It's pretty much the same for the original warranty. It may be included in the purchase, but it's still just an insurance policy that the manufacturer has rolled into the price of the product. So when you have strong regulation like a consumer guarantee act, it just means everything you buy is priced higher to account for it.
viktorcode 5y ago
> making things artificially more expensive for iOS users Do you have examples of software that costs more on iOS than elsewhere?
- zamadatix 5y ago
  Apple has restricted the ability of an app to point this out so it's not as well known as it should be. Subscriptions are the easiest to compare because you can order the exact same thing two ways on iOS (in app or web) and there it's easy to see just look at Netflix or YouTube or Spotify for obvious examples of apps avoiding the cost or costing more if you pay the Apple tax. It's a bit silly this needs to be defended by example though, where else do people think the 30% cut on stuff subscription is coming from? Certainly not a 30% margin cut or 30% for payment processing, it's ~27% Apple tax apparently.
  - viktorcode 5y ago
    You are thinking from the point of recouping the costs, while in reality it works on a simpler premise: profitability. Suppose you have your Android app. You are thinking about porting that to iOS. So, for you the calculation will go like this: will selling that on App Store be worth it after paying Apple's fee and cost of porting? If the answer is yes, then you proceed to expand your app's market share. You may as well price your app differently, if you think that will sell more.
    - zamadatix 5y ago
      You've oversimplified on the assumption there is only a single transaction rate (30%). In the real world there is not (even on iOS, though Apple does make it difficult and force it to be hidden), hence why the real world examples given above did not follow your theory the 30% is built into the initial optimal price setting. It ended more like 3%, i.e. the average transaction rate, for anyone not using IAP and as close to +30% that could be reached using typical $0.99 or $0.49 price increments for anyone using IAP (or just cancelling IAP). This is what the above examples are actually doing, not a theory of what I think it makes sense for them to do. In the Apple utopia where everyone would always use their payment method your simplified answer would be more correct and the Apple tax would be somewhere between >0% and <infinity% (though usually marginally less 30%) as well as a unique value per app. It would never be <0 though it would be possible (and almost expected) for the app price difference between platforms to be greater than the Apple tax alone. This method of course is god awfully impossible to actually compare as it's theoretical values of multiple what-if's, hence why I went the "more complicated" route of just explaining the Apple tax has to eventually hit the consumer on some level from a recoup perspective.
sircastor 5y ago
I’m willing to bet that when developers are able to sell directly without the 30% add on, that it’ll be a short time before they start selling at the same price and taking the 30% for themselves.
- xuki 5y ago
  Exactly. I didn’t see any indie developers drop their price when Apple reduced the commission to 15% for the first million.
  - oarsinsync 5y ago
    Doesn’t Apple set the price points permitted for sale? e.g. I have to sell for $4.99. I can’t sell for 15% less because they don’t let me set arbitrary prices.
    - xuki 5y ago
      Note that 15% decrease in commission is 21% increase in revenue for the developer. For $4.99 you can drop to $3.99 and keep around the same proceed.
      - oarsinsync 5y ago
        > Note that 15% decrease in commission is 21% increase in revenue for the developer. For $4.99 you can drop to $3.99 and keep around the same proceed. No, you can keep less. $4.99 after 30% results in $3.49 to the developer. $3.99 after 15% results in $3.39 to the developer. Why are developers with less than $1MM in annual turnover being vilified when Apple is turning over $123,900MM quarterly revenues, and is the one squeezing them?
    - bradknowles 5y ago
      Apple has a large number of price tiers. You could always drop from the $4.99 price tier to the $3.99 price tier. Or maybe your month-by-month subscription price tier remains the same, but your yearly price tier could drop. Not that any of them did that, of course.
LiquidSky 5y ago
> making things artificially more expensive for iOS users. It's not artificially more expensive, I'm happy to pay for the service and reliability offered by the App Store. >users feel like you're just scamming them. Users feel that way because so many subscription services ARE trying to scam them. As a commenter said below, subscribing through the App Store provides a simple, reliable way to manage your subscriptions and guarantee a cancel if you want without having to deal with whatever dark pattern bullshit apps normally throw up at you. Choose to pay less and enjoy a world of endless unreliable, shitty apps and shady practices if you want, I'm happy to pay not to.
__MatrixMan__ 5y ago
iOS users are legitimately willing to pay more for things, Apple has worked very hard to make this be the case. Why should small businesses in the Netherlands be rewarded for Apple's hard work?
- spsful 5y ago
  ...they're not? The commission still goes to Apple.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
thegrimmest 5y ago
But isn't this fine? In fact isn't it exactly what we want? If consumers were sufficiently upset at the increased cost of apps on the Apple Store, wouldn't they change platforms? If they're not changing platforms, then the value they get from using Apple's products must be higher than the cost of dealing with higher app prices, mustn't it? Furthermore, if there was enough of a demand for a more open platform, wouldn't it be able to attract investors to build it?
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  Also hasn't this been happening for years? Apple overcharges for literally everything, why would people in the ecosystem even notice when it happens?
- rapnie 5y ago
  And as app developer make Apple's cut very clear, "Install our app for just $9.99 + $3.00 Apple Tax". Make the last part a nice red-colored blinking badge. Might also add a "Because you love Apple" emblem.
- jayd16 5y ago
  This argument boils down to "user hostility can't exist because being a user is a choice." I don't buy it. Apple is using its market advantage and lock-in as leverage against the user.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    But there isn't (end) user hostility here, there's developer hostility. It's using this as leverage against the developer, and developers aren't willing to call Apple's bluff...presumably because users are more excited by Apple than by the particular app.
    - jayd16 5y ago
      The money comes from end users. Developers don't pay into the system.
    - 5y ago
spoonjim 5y ago
I have zero problems with the mobile phone ecosystem that I want regulation to solve. I don't want the government to force USB-C charging onto iPhones, I prefer Lightning. I don't mind paying higher prices for Apple subscriptions, it's worth it to me because they're dead simple to cancel. Let Apple does what it does, if they end up pissing me off I'll switch to Android. I don't want some idiot fucking politicians deciding what charging port an iPhone has.
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  This is an important point. We might want USB-C on iPhones, we might want subscriptions to not have an "Apple Tax," but do we really want politicians to micromanage industry to such a level? Personally, I can't help but think of Standard Oil. Plenty of value was made there, drove oil and kerosene prices way down... and they still got broken up.
  - tick_tock_tick 5y ago
    USB-C I don't have much a of view on but I absolutely think it's the role of government to address the "Apple tax". After safety the main purposes of regulation should be the elimination of rent seeking behavior and I can think of few better examples then Apple.
- gigel82 5y ago
  I can agree with you, as long as Apple allows app developers to clearly spell out that the cost is higher because of the Apple tax and that they have the choice to sign up online if they choose.
  - spoonjim 5y ago
    Yes, app developers should be able to say that (and to say “pay on our website”). The gag order on app developers is wrong and should be illegal.
  - turtlebits 5y ago
    It’s not a tax. It’s just margins. I’m sure any retailer would balk at having to list that. It’s pretty well known that Costco margins are 10%. Do we call that a tax too?
AdrianB1 5y ago
My wife was a high level government official in the finance and tax area; she helped me do some calculations showing that the government taxes (direct and indirect on the entire chain) make all the product prices approximately double, some more than triple. Nobody is complaining about this, even if people have no alternatives when paying for utilities or food, while a smartphone is by far optional: you can always buy a cheap phone for communication and you can easily live without apps on the phone (like we did until 10 years ago). The point? I don't care about rip-off on optional products if I cannot avoid the rip-off on the most basic human needs. I vote with my wallet not to pay Apple anything, problem solved.
seanmcdirmid 5y ago
Is it really a tax if people can avoid paying it? Or, if we are to accuse Apple of anything, would it be fraud (keeping less informed users from realizing they can buy things with their web browser) instead of anti-competitive behavior (preventing them from doing so)?
adam_arthur 5y ago
Majority of the people defending Apple would abhor Microsoft doing the same thing for windows. Imagine you had to pay Microsoft 30% on the majority of all commerce on windows. They certainly could have made a lot more money back in the day!
- sph 5y ago
  They would abhor any other company doing the same, but for some reason Apple always gets a pass. I know it's controversial to say it's fanboyism, but if this isn't one proof of it, I don't know what is.
  - fartcannon 5y ago
    They're the wealthiest company in history. Surly it's not a stretch to suggest some of their ardent defenders aren't, at the very least, influenced by what is likely the worlds highest paid PR company.
  - ansy 5y ago
    Just a counter point. Apple can charge what it wants. So can Microsoft. So can Sony. So can Nintendo. So can Valve. So can Epic. They all take a cut for access. In many cases it’s exactly the same as Apple’s, 30%. They also have total control over what apps they allow. There’s no legal reason there should be a carve out for Apple saying they’re the only company that can’t do what everyone else is already doing. And no, Apple does not really have a monopoly any more than Sony does for PS5 or Microsoft for Xbox or Google for Android. Maybe you could argue they’re ALL wrong / illegal. But that’s a different argument.
    - adam_arthur 5y ago
      I think we should deregulate utilities because if you don't like your utility bill you can easily move to a different neighborhood. They should be able to charge whatever they want, because if cost is too high, you can simply move.
      - 5y ago
MomoXenosaga 5y ago
Apple made iPhone users into paypigs. Look at Android and there are alternative stores like F-droid and rampant piracy. I don't even see any ads because of a combination of Blokada and Vanced.

by notsrg 5y ago

orasis 5y ago

That’s not really true. Consumers have a fixed willingness to pay and professional app publishers are good at discovering that number, so there really isn’t much passing costs onto the consumer.

notsrg 5y ago
The company I work for literally charges 30% more for iOS users lol.
- Spivak 5y ago
  And if your iOS users actually pay it then you're a fool to not charge 30% more to your non-iOS users as well.
  - clusterfish 5y ago
    Um, no, cost of doing business affects the equilibrium market price. There's no Apple tax outside of Apple's walled garden, so everyone competing outside of it has lower costs and can thus offer lower prices (outside of the walled garden). If you don't, your competitors will, and you'll lose customers.
    - Spivak 5y ago
      So yes, in the broadest possible abstract, sure. But we're talking about the sale of digital goods here. What market for game coins, app features, digital content w/e is so intensely price sensitive, apparently fungible enough that switching apps doesn't matter, but then also not at all actually price sensitive since the mostly arbitrary distinction to the consumer "what brand is your phone" means you can charge 30% more? Like I totally believe you, I'm actually just interested.
      - lolinder 5y ago
        > then also not at all actually price sensitive since the mostly arbitrary distinction to the consumer "what brand is your phone" means you can charge 30% more This distinction isn't arbitrary at all. They're effectively different markets. iPhone owners make more money and spend more money than Android users. There have been a number of surveys that have shown this, here's one: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/iphone-users-spend-101-every-month-on-tech-purchases-nearly-double-of-android-users-according-to-a-survey-conducted-by-slickdeals-300739582.html?c=n https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/iphone-users-spend-... And an older one, but from a bigger source: https://www.businessinsider.com/the-median-income-for-iphone-users-is-40-higher-than-that-of-android-users-2014-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/the-median-income-for-iphone...
      - clusterfish 5y ago
        If you live in a jurisdiction where you need to pay sales tax, you will pay that sales tax, it will be on top of anything that the seller would normally charge you. You can't escape this tax by going to a different seller in your same jurisdiction. You can choose to move to a different jurisdiction if you don't like paying that tax, but a seller who sells in both will charge you the same subtotal (+ different tax). Same with Apple's 30% fee - it's unavoidable on their platform so it acts as a private sales tax on their platform. Some developers might choose to essentially subsidize their apple users by charging them the same price on Apple and on tax-free platforms like the web. That may be out of fear for Apple or out of cultural inertia or whatever, but it doesn't make sense, they're the ones leaving money on the table, not the ones who charge people taking into account the cost of doing business with those people on their preferred platform. They could get more profit selling their app for cheaper when not subject to the 30% platform tax, if they think that their pricing with that tax is optimal.
  - notsrg 5y ago
    This implies the business is setting the price, which if so, sure I guess. But "creator economy" applications as one example also fall under "digital goods", which means a user is setting the price on a platform to provide a service for $X, the platform takes $Y cut, and then pays the user $X - $Y, but then Apple wants 30% of $X. It's absolutely insane because most platforms out there don't even charge a fee that high so in order to cover the Apple tax they either have to make $0 per transaction and also pay creators less, or just charge consumers $X + 30% up front.
AnthonyMouse 5y ago
> Consumers have a fixed willingness to pay and professional app publishers are good at discovering that number, so there really isn’t much passing costs onto the consumer. Prices are set by supply and demand. If you take a 30% cut out of the supplier's revenue, you get fewer suppliers and the price each one can charge goes up because the customer can't switch to a competitor who was driven out of business by the high fees.

yokoprime 5y ago

This is the very reason why I always check if a subscription can be purchased outside of the app store before even considering buying it there. Its usually more expensive as an in app purchase.

badwolf 5y ago
I follow an almost exact opposite flow. If I'm on a site/service that has a subscription, I check if they take in-app subscriptions and use that. I have no desire to deal with endless dark patterns to get me to not cancel a subscription.
- Osiris 5y ago
  That just shows that Apple doesn't have to have a monopoly to compete. They can offer better features, services, etc that people may be willing to pay more for. Not everyone pays for the extended warranty when they buy electronics/tools but some do because they find value in it.
  - ninkendo 5y ago
    I think a more apt analogy would be: I'd pay a premium to shop at a store where there aren't any pushy associates trying to get me to buy an extended warranty in the first place.
    - wingworks 5y ago
      ^ This! At least here in New Zealand almost all perks of "extended" warranties are useless, as pretty much all things you buy here are already covered under our consumers guarantee act.
      - rootusrootus 5y ago
        Nothing is free. An extended warranty is an insurance policy, the purchase price for it is the premium. It's pretty much the same for the original warranty. It may be included in the purchase, but it's still just an insurance policy that the manufacturer has rolled into the price of the product. So when you have strong regulation like a consumer guarantee act, it just means everything you buy is priced higher to account for it.

viktorcode 5y ago

> making things artificially more expensive for iOS users Do you have examples of software that costs more on iOS than elsewhere?

zamadatix 5y ago
Apple has restricted the ability of an app to point this out so it's not as well known as it should be. Subscriptions are the easiest to compare because you can order the exact same thing two ways on iOS (in app or web) and there it's easy to see just look at Netflix or YouTube or Spotify for obvious examples of apps avoiding the cost or costing more if you pay the Apple tax. It's a bit silly this needs to be defended by example though, where else do people think the 30% cut on stuff subscription is coming from? Certainly not a 30% margin cut or 30% for payment processing, it's ~27% Apple tax apparently.
- viktorcode 5y ago
  You are thinking from the point of recouping the costs, while in reality it works on a simpler premise: profitability. Suppose you have your Android app. You are thinking about porting that to iOS. So, for you the calculation will go like this: will selling that on App Store be worth it after paying Apple's fee and cost of porting? If the answer is yes, then you proceed to expand your app's market share. You may as well price your app differently, if you think that will sell more.
  - zamadatix 5y ago
    You've oversimplified on the assumption there is only a single transaction rate (30%). In the real world there is not (even on iOS, though Apple does make it difficult and force it to be hidden), hence why the real world examples given above did not follow your theory the 30% is built into the initial optimal price setting. It ended more like 3%, i.e. the average transaction rate, for anyone not using IAP and as close to +30% that could be reached using typical $0.99 or $0.49 price increments for anyone using IAP (or just cancelling IAP). This is what the above examples are actually doing, not a theory of what I think it makes sense for them to do. In the Apple utopia where everyone would always use their payment method your simplified answer would be more correct and the Apple tax would be somewhere between >0% and <infinity% (though usually marginally less 30%) as well as a unique value per app. It would never be <0 though it would be possible (and almost expected) for the app price difference between platforms to be greater than the Apple tax alone. This method of course is god awfully impossible to actually compare as it's theoretical values of multiple what-if's, hence why I went the "more complicated" route of just explaining the Apple tax has to eventually hit the consumer on some level from a recoup perspective.

sircastor 5y ago

I’m willing to bet that when developers are able to sell directly without the 30% add on, that it’ll be a short time before they start selling at the same price and taking the 30% for themselves.

xuki 5y ago
Exactly. I didn’t see any indie developers drop their price when Apple reduced the commission to 15% for the first million.
- oarsinsync 5y ago
  Doesn’t Apple set the price points permitted for sale? e.g. I have to sell for $4.99. I can’t sell for 15% less because they don’t let me set arbitrary prices.
  - xuki 5y ago
    Note that 15% decrease in commission is 21% increase in revenue for the developer. For $4.99 you can drop to $3.99 and keep around the same proceed.
    - oarsinsync 5y ago
      > Note that 15% decrease in commission is 21% increase in revenue for the developer. For $4.99 you can drop to $3.99 and keep around the same proceed. No, you can keep less. $4.99 after 30% results in $3.49 to the developer. $3.99 after 15% results in $3.39 to the developer. Why are developers with less than $1MM in annual turnover being vilified when Apple is turning over $123,900MM quarterly revenues, and is the one squeezing them?
  - bradknowles 5y ago
    Apple has a large number of price tiers. You could always drop from the $4.99 price tier to the $3.99 price tier. Or maybe your month-by-month subscription price tier remains the same, but your yearly price tier could drop. Not that any of them did that, of course.

LiquidSky 5y ago

> making things artificially more expensive for iOS users. It's not artificially more expensive, I'm happy to pay for the service and reliability offered by the App Store. >users feel like you're just scamming them. Users feel that way because so many subscription services ARE trying to scam them. As a commenter said below, subscribing through the App Store provides a simple, reliable way to manage your subscriptions and guarantee a cancel if you want without having to deal with whatever dark pattern bullshit apps normally throw up at you. Choose to pay less and enjoy a world of endless unreliable, shitty apps and shady practices if you want, I'm happy to pay not to.

__MatrixMan__ 5y ago

iOS users are legitimately willing to pay more for things, Apple has worked very hard to make this be the case. Why should small businesses in the Netherlands be rewarded for Apple's hard work?

spsful 5y ago
...they're not? The commission still goes to Apple.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

thegrimmest 5y ago

But isn't this fine? In fact isn't it exactly what we want? If consumers were sufficiently upset at the increased cost of apps on the Apple Store, wouldn't they change platforms? If they're not changing platforms, then the value they get from using Apple's products must be higher than the cost of dealing with higher app prices, mustn't it? Furthermore, if there was enough of a demand for a more open platform, wouldn't it be able to attract investors to build it?

netizen-936824 5y ago
Also hasn't this been happening for years? Apple overcharges for literally everything, why would people in the ecosystem even notice when it happens?
rapnie 5y ago
And as app developer make Apple's cut very clear, "Install our app for just $9.99 + $3.00 Apple Tax". Make the last part a nice red-colored blinking badge. Might also add a "Because you love Apple" emblem.
jayd16 5y ago
This argument boils down to "user hostility can't exist because being a user is a choice." I don't buy it. Apple is using its market advantage and lock-in as leverage against the user.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  But there isn't (end) user hostility here, there's developer hostility. It's using this as leverage against the developer, and developers aren't willing to call Apple's bluff...presumably because users are more excited by Apple than by the particular app.
  - jayd16 5y ago
    The money comes from end users. Developers don't pay into the system.
  - 5y ago

spoonjim 5y ago

I have zero problems with the mobile phone ecosystem that I want regulation to solve. I don't want the government to force USB-C charging onto iPhones, I prefer Lightning. I don't mind paying higher prices for Apple subscriptions, it's worth it to me because they're dead simple to cancel. Let Apple does what it does, if they end up pissing me off I'll switch to Android. I don't want some idiot fucking politicians deciding what charging port an iPhone has.

gjsman-1000 5y ago
This is an important point. We might want USB-C on iPhones, we might want subscriptions to not have an "Apple Tax," but do we really want politicians to micromanage industry to such a level? Personally, I can't help but think of Standard Oil. Plenty of value was made there, drove oil and kerosene prices way down... and they still got broken up.
- tick_tock_tick 5y ago
  USB-C I don't have much a of view on but I absolutely think it's the role of government to address the "Apple tax". After safety the main purposes of regulation should be the elimination of rent seeking behavior and I can think of few better examples then Apple.
gigel82 5y ago
I can agree with you, as long as Apple allows app developers to clearly spell out that the cost is higher because of the Apple tax and that they have the choice to sign up online if they choose.
- spoonjim 5y ago
  Yes, app developers should be able to say that (and to say “pay on our website”). The gag order on app developers is wrong and should be illegal.
- turtlebits 5y ago
  It’s not a tax. It’s just margins. I’m sure any retailer would balk at having to list that. It’s pretty well known that Costco margins are 10%. Do we call that a tax too?

AdrianB1 5y ago

My wife was a high level government official in the finance and tax area; she helped me do some calculations showing that the government taxes (direct and indirect on the entire chain) make all the product prices approximately double, some more than triple. Nobody is complaining about this, even if people have no alternatives when paying for utilities or food, while a smartphone is by far optional: you can always buy a cheap phone for communication and you can easily live without apps on the phone (like we did until 10 years ago). The point? I don't care about rip-off on optional products if I cannot avoid the rip-off on the most basic human needs. I vote with my wallet not to pay Apple anything, problem solved.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago

Is it really a tax if people can avoid paying it? Or, if we are to accuse Apple of anything, would it be fraud (keeping less informed users from realizing they can buy things with their web browser) instead of anti-competitive behavior (preventing them from doing so)?

adam_arthur 5y ago

Majority of the people defending Apple would abhor Microsoft doing the same thing for windows. Imagine you had to pay Microsoft 30% on the majority of all commerce on windows. They certainly could have made a lot more money back in the day!

sph 5y ago
They would abhor any other company doing the same, but for some reason Apple always gets a pass. I know it's controversial to say it's fanboyism, but if this isn't one proof of it, I don't know what is.
- fartcannon 5y ago
  They're the wealthiest company in history. Surly it's not a stretch to suggest some of their ardent defenders aren't, at the very least, influenced by what is likely the worlds highest paid PR company.
- ansy 5y ago
  Just a counter point. Apple can charge what it wants. So can Microsoft. So can Sony. So can Nintendo. So can Valve. So can Epic. They all take a cut for access. In many cases it’s exactly the same as Apple’s, 30%. They also have total control over what apps they allow. There’s no legal reason there should be a carve out for Apple saying they’re the only company that can’t do what everyone else is already doing. And no, Apple does not really have a monopoly any more than Sony does for PS5 or Microsoft for Xbox or Google for Android. Maybe you could argue they’re ALL wrong / illegal. But that’s a different argument.
  - adam_arthur 5y ago
    I think we should deregulate utilities because if you don't like your utility bill you can easily move to a different neighborhood. They should be able to charge whatever they want, because if cost is too high, you can simply move.
    - 5y ago

MomoXenosaga 5y ago

Apple made iPhone users into paypigs. Look at Android and there are alternative stores like F-droid and rampant piracy. I don't even see any ads because of a combination of Blokada and Vanced.