6 ms·

> 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 wa

> 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
  - Spivak 5y ago
    > They know such a ridiculous 27% policy is unlikely to be tolerated by the regulators. I actually think I'm 100% with Apple on this one. The Dutch regulators made the same mistake Epic and so many devs across the internet and hitched their "I don't want to pay 30% wagon" to "Apple is disallowing 3rd party providers" which have nothing at all to do with one another. The people pushing these regulations know that they would go nowhere if they tried to attack sales commissions directly and now the stupidity is bearing fruit. I'm absolutely in favor of regulations that make it so platforms can't skim percentage revenue off the top but any regulation that does that will attract the ire of literally every business that sells things. And hitching the wagon to "sideloading" or "alternative app stores" is equally as stupid because you're just trying to find a workaround to things that aren't the core issue. Even with sideloading and other app stores Apple can still demand a sales commission.
    - coder543 5y ago
      > The people pushing these regulations know that they would go nowhere if they tried to attack sales commissions directly and now the stupidity is bearing fruit. That’s a very strong statement to lack any citation. The intent of the regulators was clear. If a Apple is going to be petulant, the regulators can just come back and tell Apple to lower their commission across the board, which will inevitably hurt Apple more than if Apple had been reasonable about this. I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion at all that the regulators are just going to give up and go home, crying about how Apple so cleverly outsmarted them. > I'm absolutely in favor of regulations that make it so platforms can't skim percentage revenue off the top but any regulation that does that will attract the ire of literally every business that sells things. When it comes to other businesses, consumers have choice. If one company charges too much of a premium, consumers can go elsewhere. If I go elsewhere from Apple, I lose access to all of my purchased items. If Apple would refund me every dollar I paid, then maybe that would be viable, but Apple wants to have their cake and eat it too. Imagine if switching from Walmart to Safeway required you to give up every item you had ever purchased from Walmart. This is why Apple is not the same as most businesses charging a commission.
      - 5y ago
unfocussed_mike 5y ago
> It can be about more than one thing at the same time Indeed. Remember we live in a world where Tim Cook can say in court that he has "a feeling" the App Store is profitable, and that is apparently where it is left.
- Grustaf 5y ago
  What's the connection?
  - unfocussed_mike 5y ago
    The connection is that Apple don't break out their P&L for the App Store business, which clearly makes them a lot of money. They prefer to leave it buried in the iOS business. It suits them for the profitability of the App Store to be hard to observe as distinct from the sales of the devices themselves, and it supports the interpretation that they fudge around things that make them **loads of money by emphasising other things instead as important (customer experience, "security" etc.)
    - Grustaf 5y ago
      Obviously they make lots of money from the appstore. What's wrong with that?
      - coder543 5y ago
        Obviously Ma Bell makes lots of money from their telephone system. What's wrong with that? There are limits to everything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System unfocussed_mike's point is that Apple has obfuscated App Store P&L for years to try to keep regulators from feeling obligated to step in. There's no other obvious explanation for why they would keep it secret from both investors and the courts, and "the purpose of a system is what it does."
        unfocussed_mike 5y ago

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
- Spivak 5y ago
  > They know such a ridiculous 27% policy is unlikely to be tolerated by the regulators. I actually think I'm 100% with Apple on this one. The Dutch regulators made the same mistake Epic and so many devs across the internet and hitched their "I don't want to pay 30% wagon" to "Apple is disallowing 3rd party providers" which have nothing at all to do with one another. The people pushing these regulations know that they would go nowhere if they tried to attack sales commissions directly and now the stupidity is bearing fruit. I'm absolutely in favor of regulations that make it so platforms can't skim percentage revenue off the top but any regulation that does that will attract the ire of literally every business that sells things. And hitching the wagon to "sideloading" or "alternative app stores" is equally as stupid because you're just trying to find a workaround to things that aren't the core issue. Even with sideloading and other app stores Apple can still demand a sales commission.
  - coder543 5y ago
    > The people pushing these regulations know that they would go nowhere if they tried to attack sales commissions directly and now the stupidity is bearing fruit. That’s a very strong statement to lack any citation. The intent of the regulators was clear. If a Apple is going to be petulant, the regulators can just come back and tell Apple to lower their commission across the board, which will inevitably hurt Apple more than if Apple had been reasonable about this. I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion at all that the regulators are just going to give up and go home, crying about how Apple so cleverly outsmarted them. > I'm absolutely in favor of regulations that make it so platforms can't skim percentage revenue off the top but any regulation that does that will attract the ire of literally every business that sells things. When it comes to other businesses, consumers have choice. If one company charges too much of a premium, consumers can go elsewhere. If I go elsewhere from Apple, I lose access to all of my purchased items. If Apple would refund me every dollar I paid, then maybe that would be viable, but Apple wants to have their cake and eat it too. Imagine if switching from Walmart to Safeway required you to give up every item you had ever purchased from Walmart. This is why Apple is not the same as most businesses charging a commission.
    - 5y ago

unfocussed_mike 5y ago

> It can be about more than one thing at the same time Indeed. Remember we live in a world where Tim Cook can say in court that he has "a feeling" the App Store is profitable, and that is apparently where it is left.

Grustaf 5y ago
What's the connection?
- unfocussed_mike 5y ago
  The connection is that Apple don't break out their P&L for the App Store business, which clearly makes them a lot of money. They prefer to leave it buried in the iOS business. It suits them for the profitability of the App Store to be hard to observe as distinct from the sales of the devices themselves, and it supports the interpretation that they fudge around things that make them **loads of money by emphasising other things instead as important (customer experience, "security" etc.)
  - Grustaf 5y ago
    Obviously they make lots of money from the appstore. What's wrong with that?
    - coder543 5y ago
      Obviously Ma Bell makes lots of money from their telephone system. What's wrong with that? There are limits to everything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System unfocussed_mike's point is that Apple has obfuscated App Store P&L for years to try to keep regulators from feeling obligated to step in. There's no other obvious explanation for why they would keep it secret from both investors and the courts, and "the purpose of a system is what it does."
      - unfocussed_mike 5y ago