5 ms·

It's interesting that when they say "the people" they really mean "other big corps". That is what is happening here. The FTC and DOJ are going to bat for some

It's interesting that when they say "the people" they really mean "other big corps". That is what is happening here. The FTC and DOJ are going to bat for some of the worst scammers out there. Match.com / Zynga / Fornite etc with their scam subscriptions, lootboxes and more. Apple gatekeeps these scammers (who have free reign on the internet at large) and they flip out. And then, of all the scams online, DOJ to the rescue.

th33ngineer 5y ago
I haven’t yet met a user who’s upset about having to use Apple Pay to check out on their apps or the App Store.
- verve_rat 5y ago
  Hello
- scq 5y ago
  If you told them they were paying 30% more for everything they might be.
  - deathanatos 5y ago
    Just under 43% more, no? It's a 30% cut for Apple; for a price of x, the underlying cost, excluding the cut, is 0.7 * x. But you're paying x, which is 100% - x / (0.7 * x) more, or 42.8%.
    - scq 5y ago
      That's a good point and also kind of horrifying.
  - bena 5y ago
    But are they? If that 30% take goes away, you think prices will come down by 30%? Or do you think companies will get 30% more profit? Software and other similar goods occupy an interesting space. They obviously take time, effort, and other resources to produce. People should be compensated for that. And people who want to enjoy what's been created should be the ones to compensate for that enjoyment, i.e. if I watch a movie, I should pay to watch that movie in some manner. If I use software, I should pay to use that software. Subscription models, purchase of physical media, etc. are all valid options and each has their place. However, and here's the point, there comes a point where you've collected enough compensation to cover the cost of producing that item. Everything after that is pure profit. And if you're selling at pure profit, the only reason you're looking to avoid that 30% is to claim it yourself. Because you could just give away the product at this point. And if you want to bring in overhead into this, Apple has overhead as well. And they do deserve to be compensated for what they bring to the table. "You're overpaying by 30%" feels like an argument the competing large corporations want to convince people of as to have the populace on their side. When the reality is that, if that 30% goes away, their profit just increases by 30%.
    - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
      This depends on the product. Some of them will have strong competition and therefore a direct relationship between costs and prices, so if you lower costs (fees), you lower prices. Others won't lower prices because their customers aren't as price sensitive. But then they get more revenue, which causes more competitors to enter the market, which, if it doesn't push down prices, increases quality and choice. Whereas if the money goes to Apple, they add it to their undifferentiated enterprise-wide cash mountain and the customer sees no discernible benefit of any kind. > And if you want to bring in overhead into this, Apple has overhead as well. We know what the overhead of processing payments and hosting apps is. It's not 30%. That's a monopoly rent.
      - tempnow987 5y ago
        Instead of monetizing users by selling their data (facebook / google etc) they simple charge high actual fees. For some reason this is seen as terrible. The idea that apple is a monopoly is laughable if you like at any historic definition of a monopoly.
        AnthonyMouse 5y ago
        > Instead of monetizing users by selling their data (facebook / google etc) they simple charge high actual fees. The amount of money companies get from selling data is equivalent to low fees. Like low enough that the main reason it's advertising is that collecting amounts of money that low end up dominated by processing fees and cognitive friction. > The idea that apple is a monopoly is laughable if you like at any historic definition of a monopoly. Have you actually looked at any historic definition of a market power? "Market with only two players" meets pretty much all of them, to say nothing of the fact that the market for iOS and Android apps are different because they have almost entirely non-overlapping sets of customers.
        leereeves 5y ago
        > The idea that apple is a monopoly is laughable The existence of geographic monopolies is not controversial, but customers can cross the border to buy from a competitor - the barrier that prevents competition is the cost of travel. So why is it hard to understand that cost of leaving the Apple ecosystem creates a barrier that effectively makes the Apple App Store a monopoly for the distribution of iOS apps? The existence of alternatives on another platform doesn't help customers who can't afford the costs of switching or (worse) owning multiple platforms.
- criddell 5y ago
  I'd like more of the price to go to developers, but overall I think software on the app store is too cheap. I don't see how it's sustainable.
smoldesu 5y ago
I'd argue that anyone who's trying to dictate what you are and aren't allowed to install on a device you bought with your own money is the scammer in that situation. If Apple thinks those aforementioned parties are running predatory pricing schemes, then they're welcome to take any number of actions to discourage people from using those apps; the App Store could show a big orange "lootbox" banner at the top of each offending app, show a modal when you subscribe to an app that warns you about recurring payments, or create an individual review section for the value-add of any IAPs. But that's not why they removed any of those apps. They kicked them to the curb because their developers thought paying a 30% tax for a payment processor they didn't need was silly, and Apple refused to serve their content unless they kowtowed to their rent collection. You're either misremembering things or creating justifications that don't align with the reality of the situation. Apple is trying to play the side of the public distributor of software and the private denier of apps at the same time. These attempts to keep the Cathedral and the Bazaar under one roof rarely work out though, and I don't really know what they're expecting if they think that our government is just going to turn a blind eye to a distribution monopoly like that, especially if Apple continues to charge developers for it.
- tempnow987 5y ago
  Apple throws a LOT of weight around that users would NEVER be able to force. They've forced no tracking. No individual user could EVER hope to achieve that. Facebook et al track everywhere else. This made the big player mad. Here comes DOJ to crack down on this "abuse". They force easy subscription cancellations, and remind users on app delete to cancel subs. They control app refunds on scam apps (I've had this once, refund was quick). They are forcing apps to allow for truly private signups (apple ID based). Apple's business model is to create a walled garden that appeals to users tired of the DOJ's and FTC failed efforts on the internet at large. Yes, they charge rent ON THE BUSINESSES that want to play in this garden. Because of the high user trust user spend in this garden is HUGE compared to other platforms. DOJ / FTC could take action on anything online where rampant scams (tech support) and frauds go totally unchecked. No action by DOJ/FTC. Seriously, your grandma will get bogus tech support help, they will loot her account, and you will not even get a call back. Tellingly, DOJ/FTC focus on Apple, a company with FAR higher customer approval than almost any of there folks DOJ is carrying water for (scam shopping comparison sites, scam recurring memberships / subscriptions etc). The idea that apple are "scammers" goes to show how warped the values are of the folks on the internet at large, including developers who consistently enable the many dark patterns. My elderly parents WILL NOT buy anything non apple. When they have a problem with their device, they get legit support (not always free) from apple. Meanwhile, the list of crap behavior by every OTHER player online is crazy, from the "free" email providers (who spam and scam their way with toolbars and add-ins) to all the rest. Seriously, if they were to actually trust DOJ/FTC to keep the net clean, and signed up for another free online service (with the required toolbars etc) they'd be in for another round of crazy pop-ups and pain.
paulryanrogers 5y ago
This is an oversimplification. Even if the other big corps are also driving this that doesn't mean they're entirely wrong.
- abirch 5y ago
  Who are the people who should be in charge of the internet?
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    No one, that's why we need antitrust to break up monopolies and decentralize power.
    - nickff 5y ago
      "No one" sounds a lot like 'the government'.
      - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
        A government rule that says anyone with market power can't have censorship power isn't so much picking winners and losers as preventing someone else from doing it. And it isn't preventing useful filtering, because someone without market power can do it. There are maybe better ways to fix this. Like get rid of DMCA 1201 and the other laws that cause tech markets to consolidate like this to begin with. But given the choice between this or nothing, this.
        djbebs 5y ago
        Yeah that's the excuse government always gives. It was never true before, and it's not true now.
        AnthonyMouse 5y ago
        It's not true if you can actually do the better thing. But I don't see a "repeal DMCA 1201" bill going up for a vote this year. So I'll take this and try to get that next year.
Joe_FFTF 5y ago
Apple's app store monopoly has serious effects on small businesses through their 30% cut of all profits. End users also suffer higher prices because of this "Apple tax". Also, if you own an iPhone, you should be able to install whatever software you want to on the device, full stop. The idea that there is an unavoidable, artificially imposed chokepoint that software MUST funnel through is ridiculous. Apple does not gatekeep the entities you are referencing out of a sense of social responsibility, they do it because of greed.
- tempnow987 5y ago
  The claim that apple is a monopoly is a bad joke based on any standard measure of a monopoly. My trash service is a monopoly, apple is not. Apple charges high fees instead of monetizing in other ways. Don't like it, go elsewhere. That artificial choke point (and the corresponding consumer effects) are what has DRAWN folks to Apple. Apps could slurp up your contacts on Android forever. Going through the Apple "chokepoint" that was a no go - the OS throws a prompt up you would have to approve, and the need for that sharing gets looked at. Don't like it? No one is forcing anyone to buy apple, they have a relatively small market share. For those who value all this, they can (and it turns out folks with money DO value this because they don't want the hassles they get with others"). And yes, Apple has blocked carriers from pre-installing their bloatware and crapware. Again, if you want that, go get it somewhere else.

th33ngineer 5y ago

I haven’t yet met a user who’s upset about having to use Apple Pay to check out on their apps or the App Store.

verve_rat 5y ago
Hello
scq 5y ago
If you told them they were paying 30% more for everything they might be.
- deathanatos 5y ago
  Just under 43% more, no? It's a 30% cut for Apple; for a price of x, the underlying cost, excluding the cut, is 0.7 * x. But you're paying x, which is 100% - x / (0.7 * x) more, or 42.8%.
  - scq 5y ago
    That's a good point and also kind of horrifying.
- bena 5y ago
  But are they? If that 30% take goes away, you think prices will come down by 30%? Or do you think companies will get 30% more profit? Software and other similar goods occupy an interesting space. They obviously take time, effort, and other resources to produce. People should be compensated for that. And people who want to enjoy what's been created should be the ones to compensate for that enjoyment, i.e. if I watch a movie, I should pay to watch that movie in some manner. If I use software, I should pay to use that software. Subscription models, purchase of physical media, etc. are all valid options and each has their place. However, and here's the point, there comes a point where you've collected enough compensation to cover the cost of producing that item. Everything after that is pure profit. And if you're selling at pure profit, the only reason you're looking to avoid that 30% is to claim it yourself. Because you could just give away the product at this point. And if you want to bring in overhead into this, Apple has overhead as well. And they do deserve to be compensated for what they bring to the table. "You're overpaying by 30%" feels like an argument the competing large corporations want to convince people of as to have the populace on their side. When the reality is that, if that 30% goes away, their profit just increases by 30%.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    This depends on the product. Some of them will have strong competition and therefore a direct relationship between costs and prices, so if you lower costs (fees), you lower prices. Others won't lower prices because their customers aren't as price sensitive. But then they get more revenue, which causes more competitors to enter the market, which, if it doesn't push down prices, increases quality and choice. Whereas if the money goes to Apple, they add it to their undifferentiated enterprise-wide cash mountain and the customer sees no discernible benefit of any kind. > And if you want to bring in overhead into this, Apple has overhead as well. We know what the overhead of processing payments and hosting apps is. It's not 30%. That's a monopoly rent.
    - tempnow987 5y ago
      Instead of monetizing users by selling their data (facebook / google etc) they simple charge high actual fees. For some reason this is seen as terrible. The idea that apple is a monopoly is laughable if you like at any historic definition of a monopoly.
      - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
        > Instead of monetizing users by selling their data (facebook / google etc) they simple charge high actual fees. The amount of money companies get from selling data is equivalent to low fees. Like low enough that the main reason it's advertising is that collecting amounts of money that low end up dominated by processing fees and cognitive friction. > The idea that apple is a monopoly is laughable if you like at any historic definition of a monopoly. Have you actually looked at any historic definition of a market power? "Market with only two players" meets pretty much all of them, to say nothing of the fact that the market for iOS and Android apps are different because they have almost entirely non-overlapping sets of customers.
      - leereeves 5y ago
        > The idea that apple is a monopoly is laughable The existence of geographic monopolies is not controversial, but customers can cross the border to buy from a competitor - the barrier that prevents competition is the cost of travel. So why is it hard to understand that cost of leaving the Apple ecosystem creates a barrier that effectively makes the Apple App Store a monopoly for the distribution of iOS apps? The existence of alternatives on another platform doesn't help customers who can't afford the costs of switching or (worse) owning multiple platforms.
criddell 5y ago
I'd like more of the price to go to developers, but overall I think software on the app store is too cheap. I don't see how it's sustainable.

smoldesu 5y ago

I'd argue that anyone who's trying to dictate what you are and aren't allowed to install on a device you bought with your own money is the scammer in that situation. If Apple thinks those aforementioned parties are running predatory pricing schemes, then they're welcome to take any number of actions to discourage people from using those apps; the App Store could show a big orange "lootbox" banner at the top of each offending app, show a modal when you subscribe to an app that warns you about recurring payments, or create an individual review section for the value-add of any IAPs. But that's not why they removed any of those apps. They kicked them to the curb because their developers thought paying a 30% tax for a payment processor they didn't need was silly, and Apple refused to serve their content unless they kowtowed to their rent collection. You're either misremembering things or creating justifications that don't align with the reality of the situation. Apple is trying to play the side of the public distributor of software and the private denier of apps at the same time. These attempts to keep the Cathedral and the Bazaar under one roof rarely work out though, and I don't really know what they're expecting if they think that our government is just going to turn a blind eye to a distribution monopoly like that, especially if Apple continues to charge developers for it.

tempnow987 5y ago
Apple throws a LOT of weight around that users would NEVER be able to force. They've forced no tracking. No individual user could EVER hope to achieve that. Facebook et al track everywhere else. This made the big player mad. Here comes DOJ to crack down on this "abuse". They force easy subscription cancellations, and remind users on app delete to cancel subs. They control app refunds on scam apps (I've had this once, refund was quick). They are forcing apps to allow for truly private signups (apple ID based). Apple's business model is to create a walled garden that appeals to users tired of the DOJ's and FTC failed efforts on the internet at large. Yes, they charge rent ON THE BUSINESSES that want to play in this garden. Because of the high user trust user spend in this garden is HUGE compared to other platforms. DOJ / FTC could take action on anything online where rampant scams (tech support) and frauds go totally unchecked. No action by DOJ/FTC. Seriously, your grandma will get bogus tech support help, they will loot her account, and you will not even get a call back. Tellingly, DOJ/FTC focus on Apple, a company with FAR higher customer approval than almost any of there folks DOJ is carrying water for (scam shopping comparison sites, scam recurring memberships / subscriptions etc). The idea that apple are "scammers" goes to show how warped the values are of the folks on the internet at large, including developers who consistently enable the many dark patterns. My elderly parents WILL NOT buy anything non apple. When they have a problem with their device, they get legit support (not always free) from apple. Meanwhile, the list of crap behavior by every OTHER player online is crazy, from the "free" email providers (who spam and scam their way with toolbars and add-ins) to all the rest. Seriously, if they were to actually trust DOJ/FTC to keep the net clean, and signed up for another free online service (with the required toolbars etc) they'd be in for another round of crazy pop-ups and pain.

paulryanrogers 5y ago

This is an oversimplification. Even if the other big corps are also driving this that doesn't mean they're entirely wrong.

abirch 5y ago
Who are the people who should be in charge of the internet?
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  No one, that's why we need antitrust to break up monopolies and decentralize power.
  - nickff 5y ago
    "No one" sounds a lot like 'the government'.
    - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
      A government rule that says anyone with market power can't have censorship power isn't so much picking winners and losers as preventing someone else from doing it. And it isn't preventing useful filtering, because someone without market power can do it. There are maybe better ways to fix this. Like get rid of DMCA 1201 and the other laws that cause tech markets to consolidate like this to begin with. But given the choice between this or nothing, this.
      - djbebs 5y ago
        Yeah that's the excuse government always gives. It was never true before, and it's not true now.
        AnthonyMouse 5y ago
        It's not true if you can actually do the better thing. But I don't see a "repeal DMCA 1201" bill going up for a vote this year. So I'll take this and try to get that next year.

Joe_FFTF 5y ago

Apple's app store monopoly has serious effects on small businesses through their 30% cut of all profits. End users also suffer higher prices because of this "Apple tax". Also, if you own an iPhone, you should be able to install whatever software you want to on the device, full stop. The idea that there is an unavoidable, artificially imposed chokepoint that software MUST funnel through is ridiculous. Apple does not gatekeep the entities you are referencing out of a sense of social responsibility, they do it because of greed.

tempnow987 5y ago
The claim that apple is a monopoly is a bad joke based on any standard measure of a monopoly. My trash service is a monopoly, apple is not. Apple charges high fees instead of monetizing in other ways. Don't like it, go elsewhere. That artificial choke point (and the corresponding consumer effects) are what has DRAWN folks to Apple. Apps could slurp up your contacts on Android forever. Going through the Apple "chokepoint" that was a no go - the OS throws a prompt up you would have to approve, and the need for that sharing gets looked at. Don't like it? No one is forcing anyone to buy apple, they have a relatively small market share. For those who value all this, they can (and it turns out folks with money DO value this because they don't want the hassles they get with others"). And yes, Apple has blocked carriers from pre-installing their bloatware and crapware. Again, if you want that, go get it somewhere else.