6 ms·

> 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. T

> 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.
  - Spivak 5y ago
    > the regulators can just come back and tell Apple to lower their commission across the board Unless you somehow craft a "fuck you Apple in particular" law which in basically all courts wouldn't fly, the regulation would be an immediate massive change to how all platforms do business. You would in one stroke wipe out the business models of basically all ecommerce platforms. Re: your edit > If one company charges too much of a premium, consumers can go elsewhere. Except they can't though, that's the entire point. You're paying the commission to reach specifically the people on that particular platform. It's inherently non-fungible. You can sell art on lots of online stores, but if you want to reach Etsy customers you gotta pay up. If you want to sell software there's plenty of ways to do it from sharecropping on existing platforms of selling you own appliance but if you want to reach iOS users you gotta pay up.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - coder543 5y ago
      I’m talking about consumer choice. As a consumer, I can stop buying artwork from Etsy if their fees make the artwork more expensive than I’m willing to pay, and I can buy that same artwork from the same artist through other stores, if the artist agrees. But I can keep all the artwork I bought before. I don’t have to give it up to switch platforms. With Apple and the App Store, I do have to give up everything to switch to Android, which is completely a different proposition to switching away from Etsy. I’m locked into Apple’s platform, and Apple is abusing this to make prices exorbitantly high for me, the consumer. If we want to talk about the developer perspective, then you’re making an even stronger argument that Apple has abused monopoly privilege and needs to be regulated as such. These iOS consumers aren’t reachable through other markets, only Apple’s. This is not the case for Etsy. In both cases, the ability to choose is greatly reduced compared to other markets. The switching cost is high and requires a big sacrifice from the consumer, but then both Apple and Google have either directly or indirectly conspired to keep App Store prices at 30%, so switching between the platforms doesn’t even provide a real choice there at all.
  - Grustaf 5y ago
coder543 5y ago
Ah, whoops, [0] was meant to link to this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30245059 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30245059
unfocussed_mike 5y ago
So you think they are trying to move the Overton Window (haggling policy)? It is a reasonable interpretation that I tried to get into and failed to. It's brave if they are, because attempts to move the Overton Window are surely usually deliberately designed to fail before they are enacted, to avoid the cost of action!

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.
- Spivak 5y ago
  > the regulators can just come back and tell Apple to lower their commission across the board Unless you somehow craft a "fuck you Apple in particular" law which in basically all courts wouldn't fly, the regulation would be an immediate massive change to how all platforms do business. You would in one stroke wipe out the business models of basically all ecommerce platforms. Re: your edit > If one company charges too much of a premium, consumers can go elsewhere. Except they can't though, that's the entire point. You're paying the commission to reach specifically the people on that particular platform. It's inherently non-fungible. You can sell art on lots of online stores, but if you want to reach Etsy customers you gotta pay up. If you want to sell software there's plenty of ways to do it from sharecropping on existing platforms of selling you own appliance but if you want to reach iOS users you gotta pay up.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - coder543 5y ago
    I’m talking about consumer choice. As a consumer, I can stop buying artwork from Etsy if their fees make the artwork more expensive than I’m willing to pay, and I can buy that same artwork from the same artist through other stores, if the artist agrees. But I can keep all the artwork I bought before. I don’t have to give it up to switch platforms. With Apple and the App Store, I do have to give up everything to switch to Android, which is completely a different proposition to switching away from Etsy. I’m locked into Apple’s platform, and Apple is abusing this to make prices exorbitantly high for me, the consumer. If we want to talk about the developer perspective, then you’re making an even stronger argument that Apple has abused monopoly privilege and needs to be regulated as such. These iOS consumers aren’t reachable through other markets, only Apple’s. This is not the case for Etsy. In both cases, the ability to choose is greatly reduced compared to other markets. The switching cost is high and requires a big sacrifice from the consumer, but then both Apple and Google have either directly or indirectly conspired to keep App Store prices at 30%, so switching between the platforms doesn’t even provide a real choice there at all.
- Grustaf 5y ago

coder543 5y ago

Ah, whoops, [0] was meant to link to this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30245059 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30245059

unfocussed_mike 5y ago

So you think they are trying to move the Overton Window (haggling policy)? It is a reasonable interpretation that I tried to get into and failed to. It's brave if they are, because attempts to move the Overton Window are surely usually deliberately designed to fail before they are enacted, to avoid the cost of action!