9 ms·

I am puzzled that he really appears to find it funny. I am a long-time Mac user and I find myself fervently hoping that Apple has made the completely unnecessa

I am puzzled that he really appears to find it funny. I am a long-time Mac user and I find myself fervently hoping that Apple has made the completely unnecessary self-own that will finally help people forget the whole keyboard fiasco. This is the most staggering example of deliberate, bad-faith arrogance that they could have come up with. If Apple is now the kind of business that joyfully thumbs its nose at regulators like Facebook did, we are in the bad timeline. [edit to add: I don't expect them to like dealing with regulators, and I do expect them to loudly complain in press releases and in the FT and WSJ and on every business TV programme in the world. I then expect them to comply in a way that is productive, whereas this is just aggression, and it'll only leave a bad taste with developers and customers. If they want the same instinctive response as RyanAir, this is the way to go about it]

_zooted 5y ago
IMO the goal is to add friction to the external payment methods so that people just give up and use the built-in Apple payment method that they make insane margins on.
- falcolas 5y ago
  Well, their "commission" on out-of-app purchases is 27%, so adding friction doesn't make a ton of sense. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30204604 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30204604 Apple's just being a dick here. - Written from my MacBook Pro -
Grustaf 5y ago
Because it can't just be that they actually want to be very clear to the user that Apple is not responsible for the experience?
- unfocussed_mike 5y ago
  When I buy an iPhone, I buy an iPhone using a third party payment provider. Apple do not smirk and infer that those payments are made through a provider they don't control. They take my money. They aren't just being "very clear", they are thumbing their nose at the regulator, and joyfully pissing in customer and developer chips as they do so. They are trolling the process. That is very clear.
  - Grustaf 5y ago
    Perhaps the 27% is a troll, but the warning screen is 100% in line with how they always do things. Just like when you run an executable on your mac that you downloaded from the internet, they warn you and ask you if you really want to open it. That's not about money, it's about making it clear to users what they are about to do, so they don't have a bad experience and are put off Apple products.
    - coder543 5y ago
      > That's not about money [citation needed] It can be about more than one thing at the same time, but it certainly seems likely to be about the money. Apple wants people to use the App Store on their Mac more. Those apps can be malicious too[0], but you don't see Apple warning you before you download or open them. [0]: one of the first links on google, but this is not an isolated incident: https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/09/07/more-malicious-apps-found-in-mac-app-store-that-are-stealing-user-data https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/09/07/more-malicious-ap...
      - Grustaf 5y ago
        I mean of course it's indirectly about money, they want people to have a good experience with their Mac so they stay in the ecosystem. But when you sideload an app like that there is no question about losing app store revenue (developers can just notarize their app for free), it's only about the user experience. No doubt on iOS it's about both, but my point is that it's reductive to think it's ONLY about losing app store revenue. Especially in the Dutch case, where they won't actually lose any revenue, since they're charging 27% anyway.
        coder543 5y ago
        > Especially in the Dutch case, where they won't actually lose any revenue, since they're charging 27% anyway. I believe Apple is being forward-looking here. They know such a ridiculous 27% policy is unlikely to be tolerated by the regulators, since it defeats the entire purpose, so they're planning for a future where they're forced to lower that. They want the option to be presented to consumers as being scarier than it actually is and to include as much friction as legally possible, so that developers will be more likely to continue to use IAPs even when they could use something else. I've heard that Apple isn't allowing consumers any choice in the matter either -- developers can't simultaneously offer both their own payment method and IAPs[0] (at upwards of a ~50% higher price, to cover the ~30% that would have to go to Apple for the IAP option, if the percentage for out-of-band payments ever drops from 27%). Certainly, it would "make Apple look bad" to see the IAP at a much higher price just because of Apple's commission. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=huhtenberg https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=huhtenberg
- rzwitserloot 5y ago
  The warning that apple forces you to add here insinuates that the thing you're going to is probably not safe and secure, which is ridiculous to _force_ app developers to do, and more importantly perhaps, that warning is all about apple. It should be about the thing you're going to. Something like 'WARNING: You are being directed to payment provider 'X', please trust them before continuing with your payment' would (I think) be seen as far less hostile. That doesn't insinuate that what you're doing is unsafe, does make clear that apple has washed their hands of it, and isn't about apple: It's about X.
samwillis 5y ago
> I am puzzled that he really appears to find it funny. It's possible to find something funny and be highly critical of it at the same time. Laughing at something outrageously bad is a pretty standard reaction.
- unfocussed_mike 5y ago
  This is like sharing popcorn when the playground bully picks on a kid you don't like.
  - samwillis 5y ago
    No this is like sharing popcorn when the playground bully chases a kid you like but trips over his own feat and falls flat on his face. The point is its embarrassing the lengths Apple are going to to try to maintain the status quo.
    - unfocussed_mike 5y ago
      That has not happened yet.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - mccorrinall 5y ago
    I believe you’re misinterpreting it. Pretty sure it’s meant sarcastic since even satire magazines like the onion couldn’t make this up. The germans actually have a word for this: “realsatire”. It means when reality writes better satirical tragedies than anyone of us ever could.
    - unfocussed_mike 5y ago
      I don't think I'm misinterpreting that he appears to be gleeful at the trolling. He thinks it is funny.
sersi 5y ago
I think he finds it funny in the same way Netflix Death to 2021 is funny or SNL jokes about Trump were funny. It's a way to laugh at a terrible situation. Black sarcastic humour when honestly things really suck.
- scandox 5y ago
  As a non-American may I point out that SNL is no laughing matter under any circumstances.
- unfocussed_mike 5y ago
  I am very fond of sarcastic humour but in this case I don't read it as sarcastic. Fatalistic, maybe, on reflection. But in this case it's a pretty toxic addition to the discourse.
tinus_hn 5y ago
Obviously Apple is positioning itself here for a negotiation with regulators, in a way that leaves as much options open for them as possible. They aren’t going to grovel and then ask if they’ve been groveling enough, they take strong positions they do have arguments for and then they negotiate. Most people wouldn’t expect Sony to be forced to allow free access to the PlayStation platform. There really isn’t that big a case for Apple to be forced to allow free access to iOS.
- LinAGKar 5y ago
  Sony isn't positioning the PlayStation as a general purpose computer though.
runjake 5y ago
He doesn’t find it funny. If you know Marco from his old blog or his “tiny” podcast[1], you’ll know he is being cynical. 1. https://atp.fm https://atp.fm
raydev 5y ago
What Apple is doing is terrible and it is hilarious. It's hilarious because they could act in good faith, but they don't. It's funny to watch them do this, because it is so wildly out of touch with the image they continue to project. It's funny because they repeatedly do these sorts of things, so much that it is now predictable.
- unfocussed_mike 5y ago
  It's not hilarious at all. It is a crucial sign that the consumer tech industry is allowing itself to behave in a way that is malignant, because the company inarguably at the top of it -- which has, for clarity, always been arrogant, indignant, entitled, and pushy -- is now engaging in a kind of tech troll conduct, the absence of which people used to sincerely use to differentiate it from e.g. Uber and Google. This is a sign of insecurity in what is arguably a bear market and it bodes poorly for a lot of us, I think.

_zooted 5y ago

IMO the goal is to add friction to the external payment methods so that people just give up and use the built-in Apple payment method that they make insane margins on.

falcolas 5y ago
Well, their "commission" on out-of-app purchases is 27%, so adding friction doesn't make a ton of sense. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30204604 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30204604 Apple's just being a dick here. - Written from my MacBook Pro -

Grustaf 5y ago

Because it can't just be that they actually want to be very clear to the user that Apple is not responsible for the experience?

unfocussed_mike 5y ago
When I buy an iPhone, I buy an iPhone using a third party payment provider. Apple do not smirk and infer that those payments are made through a provider they don't control. They take my money. They aren't just being "very clear", they are thumbing their nose at the regulator, and joyfully pissing in customer and developer chips as they do so. They are trolling the process. That is very clear.
- Grustaf 5y ago
  Perhaps the 27% is a troll, but the warning screen is 100% in line with how they always do things. Just like when you run an executable on your mac that you downloaded from the internet, they warn you and ask you if you really want to open it. That's not about money, it's about making it clear to users what they are about to do, so they don't have a bad experience and are put off Apple products.
  - coder543 5y ago
    > That's not about money [citation needed] It can be about more than one thing at the same time, but it certainly seems likely to be about the money. Apple wants people to use the App Store on their Mac more. Those apps can be malicious too[0], but you don't see Apple warning you before you download or open them. [0]: one of the first links on google, but this is not an isolated incident: https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/09/07/more-malicious-apps-found-in-mac-app-store-that-are-stealing-user-data https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/09/07/more-malicious-ap...
    - Grustaf 5y ago
      I mean of course it's indirectly about money, they want people to have a good experience with their Mac so they stay in the ecosystem. But when you sideload an app like that there is no question about losing app store revenue (developers can just notarize their app for free), it's only about the user experience. No doubt on iOS it's about both, but my point is that it's reductive to think it's ONLY about losing app store revenue. Especially in the Dutch case, where they won't actually lose any revenue, since they're charging 27% anyway.
      - coder543 5y ago
        > Especially in the Dutch case, where they won't actually lose any revenue, since they're charging 27% anyway. I believe Apple is being forward-looking here. They know such a ridiculous 27% policy is unlikely to be tolerated by the regulators, since it defeats the entire purpose, so they're planning for a future where they're forced to lower that. They want the option to be presented to consumers as being scarier than it actually is and to include as much friction as legally possible, so that developers will be more likely to continue to use IAPs even when they could use something else. I've heard that Apple isn't allowing consumers any choice in the matter either -- developers can't simultaneously offer both their own payment method and IAPs[0] (at upwards of a ~50% higher price, to cover the ~30% that would have to go to Apple for the IAP option, if the percentage for out-of-band payments ever drops from 27%). Certainly, it would "make Apple look bad" to see the IAP at a much higher price just because of Apple's commission. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=huhtenberg https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=huhtenberg
rzwitserloot 5y ago
The warning that apple forces you to add here insinuates that the thing you're going to is probably not safe and secure, which is ridiculous to _force_ app developers to do, and more importantly perhaps, that warning is all about apple. It should be about the thing you're going to. Something like 'WARNING: You are being directed to payment provider 'X', please trust them before continuing with your payment' would (I think) be seen as far less hostile. That doesn't insinuate that what you're doing is unsafe, does make clear that apple has washed their hands of it, and isn't about apple: It's about X.

samwillis 5y ago

> I am puzzled that he really appears to find it funny. It's possible to find something funny and be highly critical of it at the same time. Laughing at something outrageously bad is a pretty standard reaction.

unfocussed_mike 5y ago
This is like sharing popcorn when the playground bully picks on a kid you don't like.
- samwillis 5y ago
  No this is like sharing popcorn when the playground bully chases a kid you like but trips over his own feat and falls flat on his face. The point is its embarrassing the lengths Apple are going to to try to maintain the status quo.
  - unfocussed_mike 5y ago
    That has not happened yet.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mccorrinall 5y ago
  I believe you’re misinterpreting it. Pretty sure it’s meant sarcastic since even satire magazines like the onion couldn’t make this up. The germans actually have a word for this: “realsatire”. It means when reality writes better satirical tragedies than anyone of us ever could.
  - unfocussed_mike 5y ago
    I don't think I'm misinterpreting that he appears to be gleeful at the trolling. He thinks it is funny.

sersi 5y ago

I think he finds it funny in the same way Netflix Death to 2021 is funny or SNL jokes about Trump were funny. It's a way to laugh at a terrible situation. Black sarcastic humour when honestly things really suck.

scandox 5y ago
As a non-American may I point out that SNL is no laughing matter under any circumstances.
unfocussed_mike 5y ago
I am very fond of sarcastic humour but in this case I don't read it as sarcastic. Fatalistic, maybe, on reflection. But in this case it's a pretty toxic addition to the discourse.

tinus_hn 5y ago

Obviously Apple is positioning itself here for a negotiation with regulators, in a way that leaves as much options open for them as possible. They aren’t going to grovel and then ask if they’ve been groveling enough, they take strong positions they do have arguments for and then they negotiate. Most people wouldn’t expect Sony to be forced to allow free access to the PlayStation platform. There really isn’t that big a case for Apple to be forced to allow free access to iOS.

LinAGKar 5y ago
Sony isn't positioning the PlayStation as a general purpose computer though.

runjake 5y ago

He doesn’t find it funny. If you know Marco from his old blog or his “tiny” podcast[1], you’ll know he is being cynical. 1. https://atp.fm https://atp.fm

raydev 5y ago

What Apple is doing is terrible and it is hilarious. It's hilarious because they could act in good faith, but they don't. It's funny to watch them do this, because it is so wildly out of touch with the image they continue to project. It's funny because they repeatedly do these sorts of things, so much that it is now predictable.

unfocussed_mike 5y ago
It's not hilarious at all. It is a crucial sign that the consumer tech industry is allowing itself to behave in a way that is malignant, because the company inarguably at the top of it -- which has, for clarity, always been arrogant, indignant, entitled, and pushy -- is now engaging in a kind of tech troll conduct, the absence of which people used to sincerely use to differentiate it from e.g. Uber and Google. This is a sign of insecurity in what is arguably a bear market and it bodes poorly for a lot of us, I think.