18 ms·

Ok, that's fine. If I can _choose_ to use Apple's services, in exchange for their cut, then that's a trade that I can evaluate as a business. Instead if I want

Ok, that's fine. If I can _choose_ to use Apple's services, in exchange for their cut, then that's a trade that I can evaluate as a business. Instead if I want to develop for iOS I am _forced_ to use these services, and pay the cost. That's the Problem.

thegrimmest 5y ago
well, the thing is iOS itself isn't exactly a separate "thing" from these services. Also it wholly belongs to apple. You don't (and shouldn't) have a "right" to develop for it on anything but Apple's terms.
- realusername 5y ago
  Hence the market abuse regulations, we can't really have only two companies controlling all the market. iOS became too big for Apple.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    why not exactly? As long as consumers are getting good devices and good competition (which they are), then what's the problem? It's not like the door is closed to innovation here, if any company can disrupt the smartphone market then the takings are all theirs. This is literally what Apple did with the original iPhone. Have you heard of Blackberry recently? I don't see that the incumbents are preventing this in any meaningful way, in the same way that RIM wasn't. Furthermore there are way more than two players in the smartphone game.
    - realusername 5y ago
      There's no competition, which competition exactly? The only tariff change Apple ever done in 10 years was due ... to a threat of an anti-trust lawsuit, you can't make this up. Even Apple basically admits indirectly the lack of competition. You only have two companies, with very similar rules and behaviour, there's no market anymore. Don't get my comment wrong, I'd say the exact same thing about Google. It's a duopoly without any competition whatsoever. > if any company can disrupt the smartphone market then the takings are all theirs I don't think that's possible, even Microsoft failed at it with their massive funding.
      - thegrimmest 5y ago
        https://www.gsmarena.com/makers.php3 https://www.gsmarena.com/makers.php3 loads of mobile phone companies, lots of healthy competition. Non-technical consumers don't perceive the device and the OS as separate things.
        realusername 5y ago
        I'm talking about the mobile app market here, not the quality of the camera.
        thegrimmest 5y ago
        Right, but Apple is a mobile phone company, not a mobile app company. iOS app companies exist entirely at the pleasure of Apple, just like companies who depend on the Twitter API.
        pixl97 5y ago
        Apple is 100% a mobile app company. They guard all the doors, they hold all the keys to the hardware device. Thereby they dictate what you can run on your hardware that you paid for after the sale.
        warkdarrior 5y ago
        > they dictate what you can run on your hardware that you paid for after the sale. You bought the hardware from Apple knowing exactly what restrictions they place on the hardware. You were knowledgeable about it and still decided to purchase the hardware.
        realusername 5y ago
        That reasoning just cannot work in society to keep a functioning and healthy market
        5y ago
- anaisbetts 5y ago
  > You don't (and shouldn't) have a "right" to develop for it on anything but Apple's terms. That's one perspective. However I would argue that Apple is big enough, and the number of alternative platforms is small enough, that it is in the Public Interest that Apple be required by the government (aka, Us, collectively), to play by a different set of rules, rules that are decided by you know, Democracy, rather than by fiat.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    Who is being hurt here? Users are clearly flocking to this platform because it does what they want. Who cares that app developers are unhappy? There are lots and lots of smartphone manufacturers. It's a thriving market. Most non-technical folks don't perceive the device and the OS as separate things. If any company wants to disrupt the market, much like Apple itself did with the iPhone, there is literally nothing stopping them. Edit: > rules that are decided by you know, Democracy At what point does democracy overreach? Is there one? Isn't it "democracy in defense of liberty"?
    - yulaow 5y ago
      If we are sure people like so much apple services and integration, should be no problem at all to have alternatives not even directly managed by apple (so that it won't cost anything to apple to support it, except for opening some "store api"), still most users would keep using only the integrated apple services... or not? Maybe users would like them even more!
      - thegrimmest 5y ago
        The point here is that Apple itself should be able to choose when and how and to whom it open the Apple Store. It should not be compelled to do so by anyone but its own directors and shareholders. If someone wants to sell phones that don't have this limitation, they are free to seek investment and build them.
        pixl97 5y ago
- alickz 5y ago
  Is macOS a separate "thing"? Does macOS wholly belong to Apple? Do I have the "right" to develop a Mac app without Apples say-so? I don't say this to be combative, I just don't see the difference between iOS and macOS in this regard.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    You can develop apps all you want, but Apple can break them anytime with updates. iOS and macOS are marketed and positioned by Apple differently. One is an open platform, one isn't. This is and should continue to be at Apple's sole discretion. If they choose to update macOS to be a closed platform, they certainly have the right to do so, don't they?
    - gjsman-1000 5y ago
      Actually, starting out closed and going more open is legal, whereas starting open and going completely closed would get slapped for anticompetitive. (No, requiring "notarization" does not cross the line for becoming closed and anticompetitive.)
  - GeekyBear 5y ago
    Microsoft and Apple created Windows and MacOS as open platforms. Microsoft and Apple created XBox and iOS as closed platforms. The difference seems to be the intent of the platform creator.
- ellen364 5y ago
  > You don't (and shouldn't) have a "right" to develop for it on anything but Apple's terms. Sometimes I wonder what today’s computers would be like if Microsoft had exerted that level of control over DOS and Windows. Forget downloading some random exe you found online, only approved programs can be installed. Would there have been a booming software industry? Would there be so much malware? Would Microsoft have allowed things like the first web browsers? No comment on the merits of operating systems as walled gardens. I just find it fascinating (and difficult) to imagine how things might have been.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    I just think we should allow both options to compete and flourish. As you point out, each has their merits. If users end up preferring walled gardens and appliance-style devices, then shouldn't that be what they get?
    - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
      The choice needs to be independent of the rest of the stack. If Apple wants to make an option where you can lock your iPhone to only installing apps from Apple's store and taking it out of that mode requires a factory reset, that's fine, because the customer has a choice. Tying that choice to the choice of hardware and operating system is anti-competitive.
      - thegrimmest 5y ago
        Why is tying software to hardware anti-competitive? It's commonplace in literally everywhere, from washing machines to televisions to game consoles to CNC machines to cars to tractors. An overwhelming majority of hardware is sold with software included, and is designed to work with that software alone. Why are we trying to force iPhones into a special, narrow category they are actively avoiding? Why do we need to make the distinction at all?
        int_19h 5y ago
kmlx 5y ago
i don’t get why you are forced to do this. the app for my phone network just opens a webview where i pay for stuff. then i close the webview and the funds just show up in the app. do they also pay 30% to apple?
- daveidol 5y ago
  This is only allowed for "non-digital" goods - otherwise if you distribute in the App Store. Hell, you can't even link to or mention that it would be possible to pay anywhere else.
- anaisbetts 5y ago
  Because if you do this, and you do not have an explicit exception (carriers being one of them), your app will be removed from the store
  - kmlx 5y ago
    ah, so the carriers are exempted, interesting, thanks. so i guess the other route is what most companies do: webapp…
- yurishimo 5y ago
  If they are following apple's rules, yes, that is what they want. If they catch you trying to skirt it, your app gets pulled from the store until you "fix" it.
- Spivak 5y ago
  No, the 30% commission is for digital goods (i.e. goods to be consumed on the phone -- game "coins", ebooks, music, movies, comics, app features). The things that Apple takes a cut for is actually pretty small in the grand scheme of commerce.
- whiddershins 5y ago
  Even Kindle (Amazon) does not do this.

thegrimmest 5y ago

well, the thing is iOS itself isn't exactly a separate "thing" from these services. Also it wholly belongs to apple. You don't (and shouldn't) have a "right" to develop for it on anything but Apple's terms.

realusername 5y ago
Hence the market abuse regulations, we can't really have only two companies controlling all the market. iOS became too big for Apple.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  why not exactly? As long as consumers are getting good devices and good competition (which they are), then what's the problem? It's not like the door is closed to innovation here, if any company can disrupt the smartphone market then the takings are all theirs. This is literally what Apple did with the original iPhone. Have you heard of Blackberry recently? I don't see that the incumbents are preventing this in any meaningful way, in the same way that RIM wasn't. Furthermore there are way more than two players in the smartphone game.
  - realusername 5y ago
    There's no competition, which competition exactly? The only tariff change Apple ever done in 10 years was due ... to a threat of an anti-trust lawsuit, you can't make this up. Even Apple basically admits indirectly the lack of competition. You only have two companies, with very similar rules and behaviour, there's no market anymore. Don't get my comment wrong, I'd say the exact same thing about Google. It's a duopoly without any competition whatsoever. > if any company can disrupt the smartphone market then the takings are all theirs I don't think that's possible, even Microsoft failed at it with their massive funding.
    - thegrimmest 5y ago
      https://www.gsmarena.com/makers.php3 https://www.gsmarena.com/makers.php3 loads of mobile phone companies, lots of healthy competition. Non-technical consumers don't perceive the device and the OS as separate things.
      - realusername 5y ago
        I'm talking about the mobile app market here, not the quality of the camera.
        thegrimmest 5y ago
        Right, but Apple is a mobile phone company, not a mobile app company. iOS app companies exist entirely at the pleasure of Apple, just like companies who depend on the Twitter API.
        pixl97 5y ago
        Apple is 100% a mobile app company. They guard all the doors, they hold all the keys to the hardware device. Thereby they dictate what you can run on your hardware that you paid for after the sale.
        warkdarrior 5y ago
        > they dictate what you can run on your hardware that you paid for after the sale. You bought the hardware from Apple knowing exactly what restrictions they place on the hardware. You were knowledgeable about it and still decided to purchase the hardware.
        realusername 5y ago
        That reasoning just cannot work in society to keep a functioning and healthy market
        5y ago
anaisbetts 5y ago
> You don't (and shouldn't) have a "right" to develop for it on anything but Apple's terms. That's one perspective. However I would argue that Apple is big enough, and the number of alternative platforms is small enough, that it is in the Public Interest that Apple be required by the government (aka, Us, collectively), to play by a different set of rules, rules that are decided by you know, Democracy, rather than by fiat.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  Who is being hurt here? Users are clearly flocking to this platform because it does what they want. Who cares that app developers are unhappy? There are lots and lots of smartphone manufacturers. It's a thriving market. Most non-technical folks don't perceive the device and the OS as separate things. If any company wants to disrupt the market, much like Apple itself did with the iPhone, there is literally nothing stopping them. Edit: > rules that are decided by you know, Democracy At what point does democracy overreach? Is there one? Isn't it "democracy in defense of liberty"?
  - yulaow 5y ago
    If we are sure people like so much apple services and integration, should be no problem at all to have alternatives not even directly managed by apple (so that it won't cost anything to apple to support it, except for opening some "store api"), still most users would keep using only the integrated apple services... or not? Maybe users would like them even more!
    - thegrimmest 5y ago
      The point here is that Apple itself should be able to choose when and how and to whom it open the Apple Store. It should not be compelled to do so by anyone but its own directors and shareholders. If someone wants to sell phones that don't have this limitation, they are free to seek investment and build them.
      - pixl97 5y ago
alickz 5y ago
Is macOS a separate "thing"? Does macOS wholly belong to Apple? Do I have the "right" to develop a Mac app without Apples say-so? I don't say this to be combative, I just don't see the difference between iOS and macOS in this regard.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  You can develop apps all you want, but Apple can break them anytime with updates. iOS and macOS are marketed and positioned by Apple differently. One is an open platform, one isn't. This is and should continue to be at Apple's sole discretion. If they choose to update macOS to be a closed platform, they certainly have the right to do so, don't they?
  - gjsman-1000 5y ago
    Actually, starting out closed and going more open is legal, whereas starting open and going completely closed would get slapped for anticompetitive. (No, requiring "notarization" does not cross the line for becoming closed and anticompetitive.)
- GeekyBear 5y ago
  Microsoft and Apple created Windows and MacOS as open platforms. Microsoft and Apple created XBox and iOS as closed platforms. The difference seems to be the intent of the platform creator.
ellen364 5y ago
> You don't (and shouldn't) have a "right" to develop for it on anything but Apple's terms. Sometimes I wonder what today’s computers would be like if Microsoft had exerted that level of control over DOS and Windows. Forget downloading some random exe you found online, only approved programs can be installed. Would there have been a booming software industry? Would there be so much malware? Would Microsoft have allowed things like the first web browsers? No comment on the merits of operating systems as walled gardens. I just find it fascinating (and difficult) to imagine how things might have been.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  I just think we should allow both options to compete and flourish. As you point out, each has their merits. If users end up preferring walled gardens and appliance-style devices, then shouldn't that be what they get?
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    The choice needs to be independent of the rest of the stack. If Apple wants to make an option where you can lock your iPhone to only installing apps from Apple's store and taking it out of that mode requires a factory reset, that's fine, because the customer has a choice. Tying that choice to the choice of hardware and operating system is anti-competitive.
    - thegrimmest 5y ago
      Why is tying software to hardware anti-competitive? It's commonplace in literally everywhere, from washing machines to televisions to game consoles to CNC machines to cars to tractors. An overwhelming majority of hardware is sold with software included, and is designed to work with that software alone. Why are we trying to force iPhones into a special, narrow category they are actively avoiding? Why do we need to make the distinction at all?
      - int_19h 5y ago

kmlx 5y ago

i don’t get why you are forced to do this. the app for my phone network just opens a webview where i pay for stuff. then i close the webview and the funds just show up in the app. do they also pay 30% to apple?

daveidol 5y ago
This is only allowed for "non-digital" goods - otherwise if you distribute in the App Store. Hell, you can't even link to or mention that it would be possible to pay anywhere else.
anaisbetts 5y ago
Because if you do this, and you do not have an explicit exception (carriers being one of them), your app will be removed from the store
- kmlx 5y ago
  ah, so the carriers are exempted, interesting, thanks. so i guess the other route is what most companies do: webapp…
yurishimo 5y ago
If they are following apple's rules, yes, that is what they want. If they catch you trying to skirt it, your app gets pulled from the store until you "fix" it.
Spivak 5y ago
No, the 30% commission is for digital goods (i.e. goods to be consumed on the phone -- game "coins", ebooks, music, movies, comics, app features). The things that Apple takes a cut for is actually pretty small in the grand scheme of commerce.
whiddershins 5y ago
Even Kindle (Amazon) does not do this.