18 ms·

Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

458 points by commoner 4y ago

ohashi 4y ago
These guys have ties to the same group trying to uncap .org and push VeriSign's agenda maintaining a monopoly. They don't have regular users' best interest at heart. They represent the big companies.
outside1234 4y ago
Think Different and Define Small :)
saurik 4y ago
I work on DMCA exemption issues every few years due to my involvement with iOS jailbreaking and pushing back on companies like Apple, and the App Association would always be there seemingly trying to throw their all into preventing any DMCA exemptions or painting jailbreaking in a negative light... only, to me, the really interesting is always that their arguments are so low quality. In one case they argued people primarily jailbreak over-the-top set top video streaming boxes so they can watch pirated content... but the website and software being linked to explicitly said that you didn't have to jailbreak your device to either install or use their app, as you could just sideload it on a normally set up device (as clearly any normal app can play video ;P). It is as if they are just hoping no one bothers to check their references. (Another time--and I honestly am not 100% sure this one was the App Association, as I am just remembering this one as opposed to having it in my notes on this, but I am pretty sure I remember it being the same guy--showed up to the hearing with a giant stack of evidence against me/Cydia trying to show I was actively involved in piracy, and it essentially lost them their credibility as I was able to quickly show every single reference in the stack was to scammers using my trademarks for fake software and that I had even had a lawyer going around trying to shut them down. They either couldn't tell what was real and what wasn't, or hoped they could pull a fast one on the panel as maybe I wouldn't be there to set it all straight.) In another case they (definitely the App Association) tried to argue that jailbreaking devices for purposes of repair (where the device is left back in a locked state for the user but the jailbreak let you replace some part or update some software or something) should not be allowed because repair manuals are copywritten, but that argument was essentially a non-sequitur as I don't think Kyle was using original manuals (much less stealing them ;P); and, even if he had somehow gotten a copy, the protection mechanism certainly wasn't protecting the manual. Honestly, I am pretty sure I could make a better argument against me for them, and it felt like whomever all was funding them must be wasting their money without realizing it; for a while I had thought about doing a big "exposé" of them with the goal of convincing people who were funding them "y'all's money is going to waste on this" in the hope that maybe the companies who were members didn't even realize what the App Association was spending their time on... but I hadn't ever realized it was (according to Bloomberg here) mostly Apple anyway (lol). FWIW, as far as I could ever tell, the App Association was essentially (in terms of who actually puts together and argued these opinions) just the one person: Morgan Reed (who is the President and is quoted in that article). I highly recommend looking around at the myriad areas of random politics and regulation that he is trying to manipulate, as they make sure to get involved--no matter how low effort--whenever there is an opportunity for public comment.
- EMIRELADERO 4y ago
  Thank you for your hard work. On the DMCA realm, I cannot wait for the Green v. DOJ case to bear fruit. If it succeeds, the DMCA anti-circumvention and anti-trafficking provisions will be ruled unconstitutional altogether. Last we heard about the case was the oral argument for the appeal on 9/12, but it left a sour taste in my mouth. The judges were most focused on whether Green had standing to bring the case (because the government said he would not be prosecuted for doing what he wanted to do) and on whether the appeal itself was adequate at the motion to dismiss stage. They barely even discussed the issues of fair use and constitutional balance that the 1st amendment requires for copyright law to exist (established by SCOTUS in Eldred and Golan) I don't know what to think with this new development, honestly.
  - echelon 4y ago
    I know it's a lot to ask, but would you mind providing some additional background as to the different sides and the potential outcomes / ramifications of this case? You seem to have a lot of context in this area. Could this lead to a VCR/DVR future where we're once again able to record or download steaming content? Platforms and DRM have taken us a step back from the freedoms we once enjoyed. I would be overjoyed to be able to legally back up Netflix, HBO, and Disney+ for my private library. It seems only fair now that everything is morphing into the absurd "license for eternity" model.
    - saurik 4y ago
      Frankly--as someone at the front line of all of this stuff--none of these DMCA related arguments have much "practical" importance in the medium-to-long term :/. (This is not at all to say it is a waste of time or anything: the right to examine products and discuss what you learn is really really important and is the basis of security research, so these lawsuits are extremely important and this DMCA law--which likely will only ever die due to first amendment issues because it is locked in via international treaty--is extremely harmful.) The reality is that tech companies are winning this war, technologically, because asymmetric cryptography works--so there isn't some secret key embedded in the devices that you can merely extract and use--and the industry is getting better about not causing regressions. The big battle over unlocking cellphones from 5-10 years ago? That was nothing more than a gambit (which worked, btw) to change the process rules, because no one is actually using technological techniques to supply unlock codes anyway (it is now all via, shall we say... "light corporate espionage" ;P). In a world where I am allowed to make a jailbreak that doesn't mean I can make a jailbreak, as we can see in the war with Apple: the reason there aren't jailbreaks for modern iPhones right now isn't because of DMCA fears. We live in an awkward time where bugs can be features :(. The real "practical" changes are thereby going to have to come from proactive regulation that prohibits certain forms of protection or corporate behavior, not attempts to defend the rights of users to publish what they can find and build. I would more watch Right to Repair, or the various antitrust lawsuits (including my related Apple one). (Note: I know I didn't directly tackle whether anything anyone is doing might help you backup your streaming licensed content, but I also appreciate you didn't directly ask me anyway ;P. I have not heard of such, but I don't pay as much attention to that kind of content. The issue in Green and Huang's cases, though, is about being able to publish information and tools that might help you rip such content, and the reality is you can likely already do that and to the extent to which people start only letting locked down devices with encrypted cables access content, I think you will see companies win that in the next 5-10 years and the legality of publishing a workaround won't matter as there won't be any workarounds to publish. And whether it is legal to do that backup for content no one even pretended you can "buy" seems orthogonal to the efforts I have seen or been involved with.)
alsetmusic 4y ago
I’m a longtime user and former employee and I can’t begin to summon any words to excuse this shitty look. Apple under Stelv Jobs may sometimes warrant a side-eyed glance. Apple under Tim Cook keeps coming up slimey af. I used to admire the man. I now think he’s slowly killing a company that I used to love.
- thr0wawayf00 4y ago
  You think Steve Jobs would be morally above doing something like this? His personal history is full of stuff like this.
  - NegativeLatency 4y ago
    This claim is well supported by the numerous emails from court cases that have become public recently.
    - thr0wawayf00 4y ago
      He denied paternity of his child for decades. We've known what kind of person he is for a long time, people just choose to ignore what they don't like.
- duxup 4y ago
  Is there something about Steve that would indicate he wouldn't do this? I don't know of anything in his history that would lead me to believe that, but I'm hardly his biographer or anything.
  - Bilal_io 4y ago
    Jobs wanted to create a system where you could use apps without needing an app store, similar to the idea of everything being a PWA, but that was before the success of Apple's App Store. I doubt he cared about it afterwards.
    - 4y ago
Melatonic 4y ago
Sounds like they should change their name from the App Association to the App(le) Association
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  Apple Industry Association of America
  - encryptluks2 4y ago
    Training users to be obedient little cogs in the machine
stefan_ 4y ago
Like Facebook is the "voice" of small business: https://www.facebook.com/business/news/ios-14-apple-privacy-update-impacts-small-business-ads https://www.facebook.com/business/news/ios-14-apple-privacy-...
- mrhands556 4y ago
  Does Facebook have a monopoly on small businesses? They arguably had the most efficient ads at one point which no doubt enabled some small businesses to grow and compete.
pessimizer 4y ago
Next you'll tell me that the top funder of disease advocacy groups is big pharma, and that the top funders of YIMBY groups are huge property owners.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > Next you'll tell me that the top funder of disease advocacy groups is big pharma, and that the top funders of YIMBY groups are huge property owners This is called coalition building. It's powerful if done openly. There is a natural alliance between small app developers and the App Store. That Apple was underhanded in its support is unsavory. But a legitimate, rational small-developer lobby wouldn't rule out working with Apple.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    Why would small developers work to prop up a giant who already has so much power imbalance wrt them that they pretty much cannot do anything if it decides to, say, yank their app from the store for uncertain reasons?
    - djbusby 4y ago
      "that would never happen to me" combined with "I can make a few bucks on this platform"
    - majormajor 4y ago
      Because trying to sell software online without a giant centralized app store seems much harder? The smaller the dev, the more I think the risk-reward tilts in favor of wanting a big store, vs seeing it as either too big a risk or too large a cut.
      - kybernetyk 4y ago
        It’s not. Before the app stores selling software was much easier. I’ve been doing it and I miss the old times.
musicale 4y ago
> One bill opposed by the App Association is the Open App Markets Act, which aimed to help app developers use alternative in-app payment systems and avoid Apple's standard cuts of 15 to 30 percent. The cut is a platform fee, and collecting it via the in-app payment system is mechanism, not policy. The core issue is Apple's rate: although it is usually comparable to rates on other game platforms (eShop, Google Play, Steam...), (some) game and app developers want it reduced so that they receive a higher percentage of an app's retail price. The largely unfounded expectation that some developers seem to have is that changing IAP payment methods will cause Apple's platform fee to drop to zero, rather than causing Apple to simply collect it by other means. Edit: for some reason people are responding to me with complaints about Apple's policies and downvoting me because they don't like Apple's platform fees. I'm trying to shed some light on what is actually going on: a dispute over platform fee rates. This is something that much of the media coverage doesn't seem to be getting right.
- ronsor 4y ago
  Game console systems are insanely closed and locked down platforms. I consider anything console manufacturers do to be an antipattern, so the fact that their fees are comparable to Apple's only shows that Apple needs to loosen the purse strings a little.
  - Hellion 4y ago
    It’s easier to run your own binaries on an Xbox than it is an iPhone.
  - musicale 4y ago
    > I consider anything console manufacturers do to be an antipattern Perhaps. On the other hand, Nintendo is a beloved company and the Switch is an incredibly successful system with fantastic games. So the walled garden seems to have worked out reasonably well. I'm not sure why you're responding to my parent comment though, as it was descriptive and not prescriptive.
    - userbinator 4y ago
HeavenBanned 4y ago
If the core issue is the cut, why don’t they target Google/Android instead since there are so many more people with Android phones? Why pick on Apple?
- smoldesu 4y ago
  Apple pushes back harder. I fully support industry-wide regulation of software distribution and app storefronts, none of FAANG should be passed-over here. Google also deserves to be hit equally as hard as Apple, but it probably won't hurt as much since the Play Store does not monopolize software distribution on Android.
- echelon 4y ago
  - Apple is 50% of the US smartphone market, and what this means in factual terms is that they're the gateway to computing, communication, banking, and more for these folks. - Apple doesn't allow side loading of apps. You have to go through their store with their rules. - You have to pay Apple 15% of all commerce originated on your idea or platform. - You have to integrate with Apple login and Apple payments, which reduces your relationship with your customer to a smidge. - Apple cripples its web browser, encouraging app distribution of your software. - Apple allows competitors to place ads on its App Store in your app's name or brand, making it an uphill battle to keep growing. - Apple doesn't allow you to deploy at your own cadence. If you need an emergency bug fix, you're out of luck. - Apple forces you to follow their app development guidelines. These are capracious moving targets and you're forced to follow on Apple's schedule, despite whatever costs and labor needs your business has. - Apple can remove your app at any time for any reason with completely asymmetric power. - Apple forces you to build on their hardware despite software being limitless. - Apple frequently brings out competing apps. Once a person is in the Apple ecosystem, it's very difficult to reach them without paying Apple somehow.
  - HeavenBanned 4y ago
    - On the flip side, Android has _88%_ of the global market share. Arguably (and quite clearly) the bigger gateway. By a country mile. - What average user side loads apps? That would be like asking to sideload apps on your microwave -- it's just impractical and not the commonplace behavior. I understand this is HN, but still. Sideloading apps is a minor complaint for a minority: Google report recently showed 0.06 of users sideload apps, globally. Paltry. - Both Apple AND Google have to pay 15% for all commerce originated on the idea or platform at the end of the day. - If your idea of maximizing "relationship" involves maximizing the companies profits first, then I disagree with the premise. Having a partnership with Apple is a good thing. You'll be associated with quality build and security. If you want to go your own way, then do what, say, Patreon does or OnlyFans does and do your own thing. No need to have Apple or Google for that matter hold you back. - If you don't like the Apple browser (Safari) you're more than welcome to use Firefox and Chrome if you'd like and make adjustments to make it the default browser. - Apple is doing what Amazon did/does best...is this so bad for every business as a whole? If we can all do better, why not? This will lift up profits for _everyone_. - "Deploying at your own cadence" could lead to security bedlam if improperly executed. Not to mention the deployment monitoring on Google/Android is quite outdated. - I'm sorry, but you're developing for their phone. It's not public. It's not a non-profit. It's like developing for Nintendo Switch -- of course you have to follow their development guidelines, procedures and recommendations to reach the level of quality they need. It's a two-way street. You're entering into their territory. You're brash for assuming you can just walk in and do whatever you want. - Of course they should be able to have that right especially if malevelont actors are in play, which they are en masse and global at times. They need this right to protect users. - Again, I bring up Nintendo here, but they forced developers to develop on the Wii and Switch using their odd hardware and software. Was that a sin? I think no. Odd hardware is only odd and cumbersome if you can't handle the technological "challenge." Which some like Capcom were able to handle with ease. - They should be allowed to expand on their own OS. Claiming they can't because it "competes" with other apps is just not true, frankly. I think of the recent medications app. Does what most other junk medication apps do in the app store but 100X. Now I don't have to pay $19.99 for a "good" app (which frankly, sucks) I can just use the app Apple has. - Let them go into the 88% Android ecosystem. Apple is for those of us users who want it to work, cleanly without headache. If it requires a "Tax" and pain for up-and-comer-developers so be it. If you want a perfect product, expect the imperfect to get weeded out. I only want the cream of the crop in the app store, and I'm an average user. I don't want spyware/malware/bloatware and I want that weeded out for me beforehand. I don't want to step into a jungle. I want order and I want quality. That's just how I see it.
radley 4y ago
Ironically, a real authenticity test is whether or not any of these developers read HN.
FpUser 4y ago
Corporation acting dirty? No way, color me surprised.
jackmott 4y ago
nimbius 4y ago
fascinating read. from what I've gathered its a story about a three-hundred fifty billion dollar international company that employs child labor and once had to install suicide nets on their factory buildings. the story indicates they've also decided the counterintelligence level data they collect from their walled garden of proprietary-only apps is entirely insufficient to thwart oncemore being pressed to acquiesce to a living wage. ultimately theyve chosen a subversion campaign where they themselves pretend to be small developers and in doing so, bankroll what I imagine to be an otherwise successful campaign of suppression and profiteering. EDIT: oof, capitalism strikes again. i assume the 'I work for apple' and 'well the devs just didn't form their own lobby' crowd has an opinion about their faceless godking. if devs are hackers and hn is devs, I don't understand why there's any defense of this company at all. Lisa needs braces. you deserve to be compensated for your hard work.
- dkonofalski 4y ago
  >story about a three-hundred fifty billion dollar international company that employs child labor and once had to install suicide nets on their factory buildings. Neither of those statements are true. Please refrain from making emotional arguments based on misinformation.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    You're right. They're currently valued at over a trillion dollars, and the ones responsible for the suicide nets/child labor/political prisoner labor is their suppliers, not Apple. Crisis averted, right? Sources: - https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/apple-sends-tim-cook-to-china-encourages-suicide-nets-at-foxconn-report/1909166/ https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/apple-sends-tim-cook-t... - https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-knowingly-used-child-labor-supplier-3-years-cut-costs-2020-12?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-knowingly-used-child-l... - https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/10/22428899/apple-suppliers-china-uyghur-forced-labor-report https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/10/22428899/apple-suppliers-...
    - atonse 4y ago
finneganscat 4y ago
quickthrower2 4y ago
Keep your enemies close?
olliej 4y ago
Wells apples are a smallish fruit right? That’s what they mean right?
gigel82 4y ago
No, no, no, Apple can do no evil, this is a hit-piece. </s>
jongjong 4y ago
Oddly enough, I don't particularly care that apple charges 30% on their app store. I don't use Apple products. Apple is one of the few corporations whose customers I feel nothing but contempt for. I don't find their approach coercive; it's just plain brainwashing. Businesses could just build browser-based apps; it's possible to make them user-friendly but businesses who build software are just as brainwashed as Apple customers. I don't feel the same way about Google or Facebook on the business/advertiser side; I think their monopolization of user's attention is genuinely coercive and there are no alternatives for businesses. For a company to monopolize their own platform is not at all the same as them monopolizing a public platform like the web. The web is the last frontier of the global free market.

458 points by commoner 4y ago

These guys have ties to the same group trying to uncap .org and push VeriSign's agenda maintaining a monopoly. They don't have regular users' best interest at heart. They represent the big companies.

outside1234 4y ago

Think Different and Define Small :)

saurik 4y ago

I work on DMCA exemption issues every few years due to my involvement with iOS jailbreaking and pushing back on companies like Apple, and the App Association would always be there seemingly trying to throw their all into preventing any DMCA exemptions or painting jailbreaking in a negative light... only, to me, the really interesting is always that their arguments are so low quality. In one case they argued people primarily jailbreak over-the-top set top video streaming boxes so they can watch pirated content... but the website and software being linked to explicitly said that you didn't have to jailbreak your device to either install or use their app, as you could just sideload it on a normally set up device (as clearly any normal app can play video ;P). It is as if they are just hoping no one bothers to check their references. (Another time--and I honestly am not 100% sure this one was the App Association, as I am just remembering this one as opposed to having it in my notes on this, but I am pretty sure I remember it being the same guy--showed up to the hearing with a giant stack of evidence against me/Cydia trying to show I was actively involved in piracy, and it essentially lost them their credibility as I was able to quickly show every single reference in the stack was to scammers using my trademarks for fake software and that I had even had a lawyer going around trying to shut them down. They either couldn't tell what was real and what wasn't, or hoped they could pull a fast one on the panel as maybe I wouldn't be there to set it all straight.) In another case they (definitely the App Association) tried to argue that jailbreaking devices for purposes of repair (where the device is left back in a locked state for the user but the jailbreak let you replace some part or update some software or something) should not be allowed because repair manuals are copywritten, but that argument was essentially a non-sequitur as I don't think Kyle was using original manuals (much less stealing them ;P); and, even if he had somehow gotten a copy, the protection mechanism certainly wasn't protecting the manual. Honestly, I am pretty sure I could make a better argument against me for them, and it felt like whomever all was funding them must be wasting their money without realizing it; for a while I had thought about doing a big "exposé" of them with the goal of convincing people who were funding them "y'all's money is going to waste on this" in the hope that maybe the companies who were members didn't even realize what the App Association was spending their time on... but I hadn't ever realized it was (according to Bloomberg here) mostly Apple anyway (lol). FWIW, as far as I could ever tell, the App Association was essentially (in terms of who actually puts together and argued these opinions) just the one person: Morgan Reed (who is the President and is quoted in that article). I highly recommend looking around at the myriad areas of random politics and regulation that he is trying to manipulate, as they make sure to get involved--no matter how low effort--whenever there is an opportunity for public comment.

EMIRELADERO 4y ago
Thank you for your hard work. On the DMCA realm, I cannot wait for the Green v. DOJ case to bear fruit. If it succeeds, the DMCA anti-circumvention and anti-trafficking provisions will be ruled unconstitutional altogether. Last we heard about the case was the oral argument for the appeal on 9/12, but it left a sour taste in my mouth. The judges were most focused on whether Green had standing to bring the case (because the government said he would not be prosecuted for doing what he wanted to do) and on whether the appeal itself was adequate at the motion to dismiss stage. They barely even discussed the issues of fair use and constitutional balance that the 1st amendment requires for copyright law to exist (established by SCOTUS in Eldred and Golan) I don't know what to think with this new development, honestly.
- echelon 4y ago
  I know it's a lot to ask, but would you mind providing some additional background as to the different sides and the potential outcomes / ramifications of this case? You seem to have a lot of context in this area. Could this lead to a VCR/DVR future where we're once again able to record or download steaming content? Platforms and DRM have taken us a step back from the freedoms we once enjoyed. I would be overjoyed to be able to legally back up Netflix, HBO, and Disney+ for my private library. It seems only fair now that everything is morphing into the absurd "license for eternity" model.
  - saurik 4y ago
    Frankly--as someone at the front line of all of this stuff--none of these DMCA related arguments have much "practical" importance in the medium-to-long term :/. (This is not at all to say it is a waste of time or anything: the right to examine products and discuss what you learn is really really important and is the basis of security research, so these lawsuits are extremely important and this DMCA law--which likely will only ever die due to first amendment issues because it is locked in via international treaty--is extremely harmful.) The reality is that tech companies are winning this war, technologically, because asymmetric cryptography works--so there isn't some secret key embedded in the devices that you can merely extract and use--and the industry is getting better about not causing regressions. The big battle over unlocking cellphones from 5-10 years ago? That was nothing more than a gambit (which worked, btw) to change the process rules, because no one is actually using technological techniques to supply unlock codes anyway (it is now all via, shall we say... "light corporate espionage" ;P). In a world where I am allowed to make a jailbreak that doesn't mean I can make a jailbreak, as we can see in the war with Apple: the reason there aren't jailbreaks for modern iPhones right now isn't because of DMCA fears. We live in an awkward time where bugs can be features :(. The real "practical" changes are thereby going to have to come from proactive regulation that prohibits certain forms of protection or corporate behavior, not attempts to defend the rights of users to publish what they can find and build. I would more watch Right to Repair, or the various antitrust lawsuits (including my related Apple one). (Note: I know I didn't directly tackle whether anything anyone is doing might help you backup your streaming licensed content, but I also appreciate you didn't directly ask me anyway ;P. I have not heard of such, but I don't pay as much attention to that kind of content. The issue in Green and Huang's cases, though, is about being able to publish information and tools that might help you rip such content, and the reality is you can likely already do that and to the extent to which people start only letting locked down devices with encrypted cables access content, I think you will see companies win that in the next 5-10 years and the legality of publishing a workaround won't matter as there won't be any workarounds to publish. And whether it is legal to do that backup for content no one even pretended you can "buy" seems orthogonal to the efforts I have seen or been involved with.)

alsetmusic 4y ago

I’m a longtime user and former employee and I can’t begin to summon any words to excuse this shitty look. Apple under Stelv Jobs may sometimes warrant a side-eyed glance. Apple under Tim Cook keeps coming up slimey af. I used to admire the man. I now think he’s slowly killing a company that I used to love.

thr0wawayf00 4y ago
You think Steve Jobs would be morally above doing something like this? His personal history is full of stuff like this.
- NegativeLatency 4y ago
  This claim is well supported by the numerous emails from court cases that have become public recently.
  - thr0wawayf00 4y ago
    He denied paternity of his child for decades. We've known what kind of person he is for a long time, people just choose to ignore what they don't like.
duxup 4y ago
Is there something about Steve that would indicate he wouldn't do this? I don't know of anything in his history that would lead me to believe that, but I'm hardly his biographer or anything.
- Bilal_io 4y ago
  Jobs wanted to create a system where you could use apps without needing an app store, similar to the idea of everything being a PWA, but that was before the success of Apple's App Store. I doubt he cared about it afterwards.
  - 4y ago

Melatonic 4y ago

Sounds like they should change their name from the App Association to the App(le) Association

Apocryphon 4y ago
Apple Industry Association of America
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  Training users to be obedient little cogs in the machine

stefan_ 4y ago

Like Facebook is the "voice" of small business: https://www.facebook.com/business/news/ios-14-apple-privacy-update-impacts-small-business-ads https://www.facebook.com/business/news/ios-14-apple-privacy-...

mrhands556 4y ago
Does Facebook have a monopoly on small businesses? They arguably had the most efficient ads at one point which no doubt enabled some small businesses to grow and compete.

pessimizer 4y ago

Next you'll tell me that the top funder of disease advocacy groups is big pharma, and that the top funders of YIMBY groups are huge property owners.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> Next you'll tell me that the top funder of disease advocacy groups is big pharma, and that the top funders of YIMBY groups are huge property owners This is called coalition building. It's powerful if done openly. There is a natural alliance between small app developers and the App Store. That Apple was underhanded in its support is unsavory. But a legitimate, rational small-developer lobby wouldn't rule out working with Apple.
- int_19h 4y ago
  Why would small developers work to prop up a giant who already has so much power imbalance wrt them that they pretty much cannot do anything if it decides to, say, yank their app from the store for uncertain reasons?
  - djbusby 4y ago
    "that would never happen to me" combined with "I can make a few bucks on this platform"
  - majormajor 4y ago
    Because trying to sell software online without a giant centralized app store seems much harder? The smaller the dev, the more I think the risk-reward tilts in favor of wanting a big store, vs seeing it as either too big a risk or too large a cut.
    - kybernetyk 4y ago
      It’s not. Before the app stores selling software was much easier. I’ve been doing it and I miss the old times.

musicale 4y ago

> One bill opposed by the App Association is the Open App Markets Act, which aimed to help app developers use alternative in-app payment systems and avoid Apple's standard cuts of 15 to 30 percent. The cut is a platform fee, and collecting it via the in-app payment system is mechanism, not policy. The core issue is Apple's rate: although it is usually comparable to rates on other game platforms (eShop, Google Play, Steam...), (some) game and app developers want it reduced so that they receive a higher percentage of an app's retail price. The largely unfounded expectation that some developers seem to have is that changing IAP payment methods will cause Apple's platform fee to drop to zero, rather than causing Apple to simply collect it by other means. Edit: for some reason people are responding to me with complaints about Apple's policies and downvoting me because they don't like Apple's platform fees. I'm trying to shed some light on what is actually going on: a dispute over platform fee rates. This is something that much of the media coverage doesn't seem to be getting right.

ronsor 4y ago
Game console systems are insanely closed and locked down platforms. I consider anything console manufacturers do to be an antipattern, so the fact that their fees are comparable to Apple's only shows that Apple needs to loosen the purse strings a little.
- Hellion 4y ago
  It’s easier to run your own binaries on an Xbox than it is an iPhone.
- musicale 4y ago
  > I consider anything console manufacturers do to be an antipattern Perhaps. On the other hand, Nintendo is a beloved company and the Switch is an incredibly successful system with fantastic games. So the walled garden seems to have worked out reasonably well. I'm not sure why you're responding to my parent comment though, as it was descriptive and not prescriptive.
  - userbinator 4y ago

HeavenBanned 4y ago

If the core issue is the cut, why don’t they target Google/Android instead since there are so many more people with Android phones? Why pick on Apple?

smoldesu 4y ago
Apple pushes back harder. I fully support industry-wide regulation of software distribution and app storefronts, none of FAANG should be passed-over here. Google also deserves to be hit equally as hard as Apple, but it probably won't hurt as much since the Play Store does not monopolize software distribution on Android.
echelon 4y ago
- Apple is 50% of the US smartphone market, and what this means in factual terms is that they're the gateway to computing, communication, banking, and more for these folks. - Apple doesn't allow side loading of apps. You have to go through their store with their rules. - You have to pay Apple 15% of all commerce originated on your idea or platform. - You have to integrate with Apple login and Apple payments, which reduces your relationship with your customer to a smidge. - Apple cripples its web browser, encouraging app distribution of your software. - Apple allows competitors to place ads on its App Store in your app's name or brand, making it an uphill battle to keep growing. - Apple doesn't allow you to deploy at your own cadence. If you need an emergency bug fix, you're out of luck. - Apple forces you to follow their app development guidelines. These are capracious moving targets and you're forced to follow on Apple's schedule, despite whatever costs and labor needs your business has. - Apple can remove your app at any time for any reason with completely asymmetric power. - Apple forces you to build on their hardware despite software being limitless. - Apple frequently brings out competing apps. Once a person is in the Apple ecosystem, it's very difficult to reach them without paying Apple somehow.
- HeavenBanned 4y ago
  - On the flip side, Android has _88%_ of the global market share. Arguably (and quite clearly) the bigger gateway. By a country mile. - What average user side loads apps? That would be like asking to sideload apps on your microwave -- it's just impractical and not the commonplace behavior. I understand this is HN, but still. Sideloading apps is a minor complaint for a minority: Google report recently showed 0.06 of users sideload apps, globally. Paltry. - Both Apple AND Google have to pay 15% for all commerce originated on the idea or platform at the end of the day. - If your idea of maximizing "relationship" involves maximizing the companies profits first, then I disagree with the premise. Having a partnership with Apple is a good thing. You'll be associated with quality build and security. If you want to go your own way, then do what, say, Patreon does or OnlyFans does and do your own thing. No need to have Apple or Google for that matter hold you back. - If you don't like the Apple browser (Safari) you're more than welcome to use Firefox and Chrome if you'd like and make adjustments to make it the default browser. - Apple is doing what Amazon did/does best...is this so bad for every business as a whole? If we can all do better, why not? This will lift up profits for _everyone_. - "Deploying at your own cadence" could lead to security bedlam if improperly executed. Not to mention the deployment monitoring on Google/Android is quite outdated. - I'm sorry, but you're developing for their phone. It's not public. It's not a non-profit. It's like developing for Nintendo Switch -- of course you have to follow their development guidelines, procedures and recommendations to reach the level of quality they need. It's a two-way street. You're entering into their territory. You're brash for assuming you can just walk in and do whatever you want. - Of course they should be able to have that right especially if malevelont actors are in play, which they are en masse and global at times. They need this right to protect users. - Again, I bring up Nintendo here, but they forced developers to develop on the Wii and Switch using their odd hardware and software. Was that a sin? I think no. Odd hardware is only odd and cumbersome if you can't handle the technological "challenge." Which some like Capcom were able to handle with ease. - They should be allowed to expand on their own OS. Claiming they can't because it "competes" with other apps is just not true, frankly. I think of the recent medications app. Does what most other junk medication apps do in the app store but 100X. Now I don't have to pay $19.99 for a "good" app (which frankly, sucks) I can just use the app Apple has. - Let them go into the 88% Android ecosystem. Apple is for those of us users who want it to work, cleanly without headache. If it requires a "Tax" and pain for up-and-comer-developers so be it. If you want a perfect product, expect the imperfect to get weeded out. I only want the cream of the crop in the app store, and I'm an average user. I don't want spyware/malware/bloatware and I want that weeded out for me beforehand. I don't want to step into a jungle. I want order and I want quality. That's just how I see it.

radley 4y ago

Ironically, a real authenticity test is whether or not any of these developers read HN.

FpUser 4y ago

Corporation acting dirty? No way, color me surprised.

jackmott 4y ago

nimbius 4y ago

fascinating read. from what I've gathered its a story about a three-hundred fifty billion dollar international company that employs child labor and once had to install suicide nets on their factory buildings. the story indicates they've also decided the counterintelligence level data they collect from their walled garden of proprietary-only apps is entirely insufficient to thwart oncemore being pressed to acquiesce to a living wage. ultimately theyve chosen a subversion campaign where they themselves pretend to be small developers and in doing so, bankroll what I imagine to be an otherwise successful campaign of suppression and profiteering. EDIT: oof, capitalism strikes again. i assume the 'I work for apple' and 'well the devs just didn't form their own lobby' crowd has an opinion about their faceless godking. if devs are hackers and hn is devs, I don't understand why there's any defense of this company at all. Lisa needs braces. you deserve to be compensated for your hard work.

dkonofalski 4y ago
>story about a three-hundred fifty billion dollar international company that employs child labor and once had to install suicide nets on their factory buildings. Neither of those statements are true. Please refrain from making emotional arguments based on misinformation.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  You're right. They're currently valued at over a trillion dollars, and the ones responsible for the suicide nets/child labor/political prisoner labor is their suppliers, not Apple. Crisis averted, right? Sources: - https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/apple-sends-tim-cook-to-china-encourages-suicide-nets-at-foxconn-report/1909166/ https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/apple-sends-tim-cook-t... - https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-knowingly-used-child-labor-supplier-3-years-cut-costs-2020-12?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-knowingly-used-child-l... - https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/10/22428899/apple-suppliers-china-uyghur-forced-labor-report https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/10/22428899/apple-suppliers-...
  - atonse 4y ago

finneganscat 4y ago

quickthrower2 4y ago

Keep your enemies close?

olliej 4y ago

Wells apples are a smallish fruit right? That’s what they mean right?

gigel82 4y ago

No, no, no, Apple can do no evil, this is a hit-piece. </s>

jongjong 4y ago

Oddly enough, I don't particularly care that apple charges 30% on their app store. I don't use Apple products. Apple is one of the few corporations whose customers I feel nothing but contempt for. I don't find their approach coercive; it's just plain brainwashing. Businesses could just build browser-based apps; it's possible to make them user-friendly but businesses who build software are just as brainwashed as Apple customers. I don't feel the same way about Google or Facebook on the business/advertiser side; I think their monopolization of user's attention is genuinely coercive and there are no alternatives for businesses. For a company to monopolize their own platform is not at all the same as them monopolizing a public platform like the web. The web is the last frontier of the global free market.