43 ms·
Apple blocks Coinbase Wallet
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- nightski 4y agoI feel like I am the only one who has never made a single transaction on a mobile device. I refuse to contribute.
- josephcsible 4y agoThe next logical step is for Apple to demand a 30% cut of the revenue when you order physical goods on Amazon from your iPhone, or 30% of money you send to people with Venmo. If you don't think those behaviors would be okay, how can you think this is okay?
- jabbany 4y agoPretty sure there's a carve ot specifically for those. Ref: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#in-app-purchase https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#in-...
- shagie 4y agoThere's also a carveout there specifically for NFTs > Apps may use in-app purchase to sell and sell services related to non-fungible tokens (NFTs), such as minting, listing, and transferring. Apps may allow users to view their own NFTs, provided that NFT ownership does not unlock features or functionality within the app. Apps may allow users to browse NFT collections owned by others, provided that the apps may not include buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than in-app purchase. (emphasis mine)
- josephcsible 4y agoThere is for now. I'm saying I can see their next step being to remove that.
- madrox 4y agoApple wants a 30% on fees, not the good itself. This is consistent with the rest of their policies. Arguably that still isn't ok, but this is not an encroachment.
- rdtwo 4y agoSo 30% of the eBay fees and 30% off the Amazon marketplace fees should be fair game
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y agoThat doesn't seem to hold up. If I buy something on eBay it's not any different from, e.g., buying stock on Robin Hood. There is an agreement between two parties, neither of whom are the people distributing the app, to make an exchange of money to [the eBay item] or stocks. Apple does not claim a cut of the exchange of stocks, but they do claim a cut of the transaction fees for the exchange of stocks. If eBay or Amazon charged a transaction fee to facilitate their transactions, that would be an in-app purchase of which Apple would claim 30%.
- rdtwo 4y agoBut they do, all eBay transactions have a 5-15% fee and Amazon 3rd part is the same
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y agoI see. In that case, I'd agree these fees should be fair game by the same logic. That does make me curious what's different here, if anything.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- awinder 4y ago“Apple does not claim a cut of the exchange of stocks, but they do claim a cut of the transaction fees for the exchange of stocks.” Are you sure / how? I’m not going to sign up for robinhood to confirm but my brokerage transacts with my bank, not in-app purchasing, pretty sure robinhood is the same. I’m pretty sure the differentiation is that stocks aren’t considered digital goods. And neither is coinbase’s mainline business which is allowed to facilitate buying & selling crypto without paying fees, even on their transaction fees, which users pay.
- arcticbull 4y agoApp Store rules have never required a cut of physical transactions, only digital.
- tyingq 4y agoSo, kindle books then?
- shagie 4y agoExactly kindle books. And audible books. And Netflix shows. Which is why none of those companies offer the ability to purchase them directly through an app that is on the App Store.
- tyingq 4y agoAh. It does sort of highlight why a simple policy like this gets silly, and isn't great for consumers.
- matthewowen 4y agoYes, which is why you can’t buy ebooks in either the Amazon app or the Kindle app. It’s not great.
- foogazi 4y agoThat’s Amazon’s choice because THEY also take a cut of the transaction on that book sale
- fragmede 4y agohttps://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ and scroll to 3.1.3(a) It's not their choice, Amazon isn't allowed to by Apple's rules. A very careful reading of the rules for reader apps reveals you're not allowed to sell content on your reader app at all.
- tacker2000 4y agoExactly, where does it stop? Will apple also take a cut when i buy public transport tickets or flight tickets? What about hotels or airbnb? This shit has to be stop now! Free up the app stores and see if the customers and app devs will be still willing to fork over these extortionate fees. And this security argument is just complete BS, a typical “Totschlagargument” that gets thrown around as needed.
- Y_Y 4y ago> Totschlagargument For others just learning this gorgeous word (literally "killing-blow argument") Wikipedia says: > A thought-terminating cliché (also known as a semantic stop-sign, a thought-stopper, bumper sticker logic, or cliché thinking) is a form of loaded language, often passing as folk wisdom, intended to end an argument and quell cognitive dissonance.
- actionablefiber 4y agoI prefer "thought-stopper" better. I would say Totschlagargument sounds like it could just be a really compelling argument that leaves the other side speechless and "kills" the discussion with a victory; but the point is not that the argument is compelling but rather it tries to block substantive thought and discussion.
- tshaddox 4y agoI think it’s bizarre to say that’s “the next logical step” when in fact that things have all been explicitly addressed and exempted for the entire history of the App Store. It’s not as if Apple is slowly discovering new things they can take a cut from and they just haven’t discovered Amazon purchases yet.
- smoldesu 4y agoIt's bizarre to call any of it logical when 15 years ago this wasn't a problem. The App Store is at the center of this, and if Apple refuses to cede power it will be a long winter for them.
- matwood 4y agoWhat do you mean? 15 years ago other phone app stores charged insane fees if you could even get on the store. At the time, 30% was seen as a huge win for developers.
- chrisco255 4y agoImagine if a desktop environment had the same restrictions. Would you accept them?
- tshaddox 4y agoI'd buy from a different company if the restrictions bothered me.
- chrisco255 4y agoSwitching phones or OS or computer is not cheap or free for consumers. It's anticompetitive and should be flagged by the FTC. But they're toothless in the current era.
- tshaddox 4y ago
- brookst 4y agoThat is the next “logical” step for people to claim without regard for whether it’s true or not. People will believe anything that confirms their biases.
- make3 4y ago30% of your bank with an app on interests on loans xD
- influx 4y agoYou actually can't order Kindle books on any Amazon iOS App.
- halostatue 4y agoBecause Amazon doesn’t want to give up the 30% IAP fee. Fair enough.
- postalrat 4y agoIsn't that circumventing apples payment system and against their rules?
- halostatue 4y agoNo. They also cannot direct people to the Amazon website to buy the books, which would be against the rules. That’s likely to change with the recent changes and upcoming legislative requirements.
- jacobr1 4y agoIt isn't a circumvention - you can't buy the products in the app. If you try to go to the product page of a digital product it redirects you to a browser - but importantly you can't actually even see the product in the app so it isn't redirecting a _purchase_.
- exabrial 4y agoApple at this point has no fear of regulatory action. I think both Red and Blue can agree they need to be reigned in and split up.
- jimbob45 4y agoMy understanding was that the new EU rules would force Apple to open up their platform to competing app stores, no? In that view, this would seem to be a last gasp by Apple to capture profit that they soon won't be able to seek.
- unity1001 4y ago> My understanding was that the new EU rules would force Apple to open up their platform to competing app stores, no? It gave companies 6 months to comply. They are still within that period. Then the fine hammer will start coming down.
- threeseed 4y agoApple may be forced to have competing app stores but: a) They would be allowed to then ban apps that exist on alternate stores. b) They can still collect their 30% cut which no-one has ever said was not permitted. They already have telemetry about what apps are being installed on their phones and can simply bill the third party App Store. Non-payment would result in the store being banned. Similar situation happened when Apple was forced to support alternate payment processors in Netherlands. Nobody used it because it ended up being less profitable than simply using Apple.
- RajT88 4y agoWhen it comes to politicians, both red and blue rely on big tech money. It could be as simple as investment portfolios, or the more likely lobbyist money which fills their war chest
- thatguy0900 4y agoThe politicians can just take short positions, their investments will be fine as always
- gjsman-1000 4y agoApple... what the heck is wrong with you? This is not the time to be strengthening the rules. You've got the Digital Markets Act already entering force in Europe which is going to most likely break App Store dominance over there in just a year or two. The US has senators eyeing the Open App Markets Act again after Elon's threat (and if it doesn't pass now, when senators see an open Europe and a closed US, what about then?). You've got antitrust investigations opened in the UK. This is time to be giving concessions hoping to keep power - not doubling down! Edit: If Apple's claims about it being "privacy and security" are true, here's how to keep power. Drop the 30% cut, make a $25-$50 fee every time a new version comes out for a quality app review from a 3rd party independent board, drop some of the more onerous restrictions, and maybe then regulators would be willing to allow the App Store to remain. Instead...
- cocacola1 4y agoI wonder if they think the hammer is going to fall either way? If so, it makes sense they’ll take while the takings good.
- thatguy0900 4y agoBut they can't even take here. Obviously coin base can't give them 30% revenue even if they were willing to. That would be like asking for a 30% cut for deposits from the bank apps. This just seems like spite for the new rules.
- nick238 4y agoI don't think in banking apps you're purchasing anything while using the app (in-app purchases). If you buy an NFT in an app, you are purchasing it in the app, no?
- thatguy0900 4y agoNo, you're purchasing it but it's not in the app. And you can absolutely pay bills in a lot of banking apps, or even use zelle to buy things in a store. The whole point of the nft is that you can trade it outside of the app. If I buy a physical limited edition poster on etsy does Apple get 30% of that sale?
- mkrishnan 4y ago
- kevinventullo 4y agoApple didn’t do this to protect consumers, they did it because they weren’t getting their cut.
- nick238 4y agoSo the Ethereum network is entitled to their cut, but not Apple?
- aliqot 4y agoWhat exactly is the Ethereum network's cut?
- tylersmith 4y agoThis issue is about fees paid to the Eth network. The exact amount depends on the gas market and what users are doing specifically.
- Veen 4y agoThe gas fee is Ethereum’s cut. It’s paid to validators.
- p0pcult 4y agoSo, is it "Ethereum's" or the validator's cute? Who is this monolithic "Ethereum"?
- Veen 4y agoIt depends what you mean by "Ethereum". The usual meaning is the network that runs the blockchain. Validators are part of the network. I mean, it's a decentralized network—that's the point—there is no monolithic "who".
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mkrishnan 4y ago
- marcfr 4y agoI remember when in school in history class we all were upset when we learnt that the land lord demanded a "tenth" from the agricultural gains. Those were the times...
- devoutsalsa 4y agoApple encourages serfing the Internet.
- mkrishnan 4y ago
- pjkundert 4y agoIt would help your case if you provided reasoning. Cost limits uptake of limited resources - storage and processing on Ethereum blockchain must have a limiting function - gas provides it.
- andrewstuart 4y agoThe best thing about Apple's outrageous 30% cut is it's some of the biggest companies in the world and Apple smashing each other to bits. In this society, big companies usually get all the breaks and the little guys get nothing, so it's nice to see the big guys forced to brawl. Governments, for example, folded many years ago and stopped taxing big companies 30% and instead give them money. Apple isn't as easily bribed as politicians.
- bee_rider 4y agoIt is like Godzilla smashing up other monsters; yeah technically I know I shouldn’t be rooting for any of the monsters but it is kinda cool and also funny. Apple unleashing a giant anti-ad beam at Facebook is just great. Coinbase, I dunno, they are some tiny nobodies right? Seems like punching down too much.
- saurik 4y agoBut at the end of the day the 30% overhead goes to Apple. If there is some sub-market of apps where there is actual competition--where the companies making these apps are competing with each other and are driving their price lower--Apple's existence tacks on a 30% overhead to all of the competitors equally, meaning it is the user who loses out, not the companies. When a government taxes you 30%, the money is supposed to go for services or capital improvement products that eventually indirectly help people. That isn't how Apple hoarding this cash works.
- jpttsn 4y agoDevil's advocte: Apple pays for a lot of things that benefit the apps, like developing the chips the app runs on. This is similar to how a government can build roads that the businesses begin taxed can drive their trucks on et.c.
- gl-prod 4y agoCustomers still are the one paying those 30% cut. So it's not nice.
- 4y ago
- Apocryphon 4y agoThis doesn't even make business sense. What money is there to be made in NFT transitions in December 2022?
- tylersmith 4y agoThe average Eth tx fee is around 50 cents, so the money to be made is about 15 cents per tx sent from the Coinbase app.
- Manuel_D 4y agoAt this point it'd probably be better to invest in building good browser web UIs over dedicated apps. No appstore verification, no fees, it basically seems like a no-brainer at this point. I guess it sacrifices viral growth through appstore installs, but maybe just don't support transactions on the app and kick them to the browser.
- ncr100 4y agoYes. This route avoids Apple having ANY obligation to protect its consumers .. when they choose to use a random website to transact. This Coinbase issue is about Coinbase using an Apple App Store App to perform a service around digital purchases which ALL Apple consumers can EXPECT a certain set of values upheld BY APPLE INC on their behalf .. sort of protection by Apple when buying anything digital via an App.
- saurik 4y agoHow do you expect them to do that? Store the private key in the browser's local storage and pray it doesn't get evicted?
- tylersmith 4y agoThe title is currently wrong. This is not about exchange fees paid to Coinbase, but transaction fees paid to the Ethereum network when using smart contracts through the Coinbase app.
- madrox 4y agoAt this point in the "30% is unfair" game, I'm fascinated by the general reaction by the crowd. In every high profile case, it comes down to which company you have more affinity for. I watched a lot of the gaming community side with Apple against Epic, because from their perspective it was Epic being greedy and not the other way around. This time, I'm sure anyone still excited about web3 will side against Apple. It's going to take a coalition of companies with enough goodwill amongst enough people to break the general conception that Apple is, overall, working more in the interests of the consumer than other businesses.
- freedomben 4y agoAgreed, but I'm not sure we're anywhere near the tipping point. Apple users really love Apple and will (nearly) always interpret Apple's actions with the absolute best of intentions/benefit of the doubt. The company is not stupid. Like most of silicon valley they will always come up with some justification for doing what they want to do, and odds are good that they'll actually convince themselves that those are the real reasons.
- elashri 4y agocare to mention some of these companies that have enough goodwill?. Hopefully it is not Twitter and facebook because they lead the attack on app store policy ( beside epic of course)
- nluken 4y agoHonestly, I hate web3 but this move is absolutely bullshit on Apple's part. I think it goes a step further than just "30% of IAP money" since there's no download or product that the user is really buying. It would be like Apple demanding fees for Cash App or some other related service.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y agoI'm convinced at this point that Coinbase intended for people to be confused about this: Apple is claiming a 30% cut of the transaction fees that Coinbase charges their customers. If Cash App charged a fee to transfer money, Apple would claim their cut of that fee.
- zenexer 4y agoHN title is incorrect. Apple is demanding 30% of gas fees, not exchange fees. Personal opinion: That’s even more ridiculous. Coinbase has no access to or control over gas fees.
- bryan_w 4y agoThis would be like apple blocking your stockbroker app because they charge $2 per trade but the broker allows you to use the cash sitting in your account.
- latchkey 4y agoThe fee on gas is more like nasdaq charging $2 and the broker can't do anything about it.
- JOnAgain 4y agoWhat about the wire transfer fee I pay to my bank on my app when I send a wire?
- skullone 4y agowhat about buying and selling stocks? Paying yiur credit card through banking app (with fees/interest). is apple going to want a cut of all that?
- g42gregory 4y agoWhy wouldn’t companies like Coinbase just release an iOS App on their web site? Why would they even need to go through the App Store? What are the benefits of the App Store for established companies with large existing customer base? If Coinbase or Amazon, for that matter, publish an iOS app on their website, I would not hesitate to just install and use it, without an App Store.
- _5uxp 4y agoHow else are they going to advertise for shitcoin (shib) in their App name in Apple store? App in their website can't do that.
- aaronharnly 4y agoYou can’t install a native iOS app from a website.
- snarf21 4y agoRelease it how? They can't load it on an iPhone without Apple's cert. The only path would be to require jail breaking and most consumers trust that even less.
- skinnymuch 4y agoMost people want to update their iOS versions past iOS 14 (jailbreakable depending on device) or iOS 15-15.1.1 where one can install TrollStore. Which is still a whole thing people won’t want to do. Otherwise the user would have to take the ipa, get an app like altstore on a compatible computer. Sync it. Then be stuck with the limitations of sideloading like needing to refresh the authorization every 7 days. Either way. Most people won’t do this. We saw what happened when Fortnite was off the Play Store. It wasn’t that effective.
- g42gregory 4y agoWow, I don’t deal with iOS and did not realize this. How is this even legal? I thought the whole purpose of MSFT antitrust lawsuit was to avoid situations like this with future operating systems. How about just HTML5 mobile website?
- Ekaros 4y agoJust imagine if Microsoft or Linux distributions could do this on desktop. They would make so much money.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y agoYou mean like the Microsoft gaming store does already?
- smoldesu 4y agoIt's been a while since I've used Windows, but I don't think using the Microsoft Gaming Store stops you from installing software from the internet. I could be wrong.
- sylens 4y agoThe Microsoft Store now allows you to use your own payment processing to avoid giving them a cut at all (https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2021/06/24/building-a-new-open-microsoft-store-on-windows-11/ https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2021/06/24/build...). They also allow the installation of other app stores. Microsoft has been overly keen to open up their own store on Windows to use as a cudgel against Apple in future courtroom cases such as the Epic one.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago>The Microsoft Store now allows you to use your own payment processing to avoid giving them a cut at all Not for games. https://www.engadget.com/microsoft-zero-percent-cut-doesnt-extend-to-games-090514788.html https://www.engadget.com/microsoft-zero-percent-cut-doesnt-e...
- jobs_throwaway 4y agoyou mean like how I'm free to install any games I wish to download on my PC without Microsoft taking a cut?
- nickthegreek 4y ago
- trasz2 4y agoFWIW, Coinbase Wallet hasn’t been very useful simply because it’s owned by Coinbase, and thus cannot be trusted.
- Dig1t 4y agoI think higher ups at Apple know things we don't know WRT how politicians and agencies will act. It seems they are pretty confident they won't be regulated any time soon, at least in the US.
- bogwog 4y agoGuess it's time to write to our politicians and threaten to vote them out. Maybe collect signatures from a bunch of people and attach it to the letter to give it more weight.
- zopa 4y agoIf you've got a way to distinguish between accurate foreknowledge and hubris, please share. Everybody thinks the party will never stop until it does.
- threeseed 4y agoIt's because Apple is legally allowed to charge a fee for what happens on their platform. They can do it as a channel cost which is a standard concept in business or they can do it as a fee for using their platform services again another standard concept. If any government were to prevent this it would unravel the entire economy because supermarkets, retailers and services businesses would no longer be legal. Hence why after nearly a decade the App Store is still fundamentally the same as day one.
- joyfylbanana 4y agoApple should be given a medal for making it harder to trade NFT's. Those are bad for you.
- lofaszvanitt 4y agoNFTs will come back later on just offered by banks under different abbreviations...
- newbie578 4y agoCan't wait for Apple and Tim Cook to be brought back into reality by the EU. I'm popping champagne on that day.
- p0pcult 4y ago"If you were a product person at IBM or Xerox, so you make a better copier or computer. So what? When you have monopoly market share, the company's not any more successful. So the people that can make the company more successful are sales and marketing people, and they end up running the companies. And the product people get driven out of the decision making forums, and the companies forget what it means to make great products. The product sensibility and the product genius that brought them to that monopolistic position gets rotted out by people running these companies that have no conception of a good product versus a bad product." -Steve Jobs
- shepherdjerred 4y agoApple still makes great products. Nothing can beat a MacBook (especially the new ones), AirPods work pretty well. Many (most?) people that use iPhones or Apple Watches love them.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- gjsman-1000 4y agoThey are getting worse particularly in the software department. Two that really grind my gears (there are others): MacOS on Apple Silicon for an extremely long time (maybe it's solved now? 2 years later?) which caused incredibly glitchy, almost unusable cursor movement if you let your battery drain to 0%, then plugged it back in and woke it from hibernate. Screen Time in macOS is unbelievably, ludicrously, fully broken. Nothing about it works almost at all. Metrics for children don't show up. Web filtering falls open after a few hours at random (presumably because the background services crash). The "site not allowed" page predates HTML5 and randomly doesn't work. You can't block built-in apps like Apple News, the best you can do is set a 1-minute time limit. Tons of IP Addresses and Apple phone-home addresses get blocked on the "allowed sites only" mode resulting in constant popups. I had to pay for Qustodio because it's just useless. Also, it has elementary bugs that are horrifying. For example, the pane where you add allowed websites doesn't remember websites you just added when you dismiss it - so if you open the pane again without a reboot, and add another site, it forgets the one you added last time you opened the pane. However janky other things might be on macOS, Screen Time with "Allowed Sites Only" is by far the most broken thing on macOS, bar none. Try using it with your younger children and rage in frustration as it crashes-open silently and allows Private Browsing with no filtering after a few hours.
- throwaway290 4y ago
- seydor 4y agoAt what point does Apple get classified as a Bank? What is the point of a Coinbase wallet at this point in any case? Free tracking by coinbase, apple, the NSA etc etc? If you consider the reason why Bitcoin, ETH etc were invented in the first place, this is beyond ridiculous, absurd and a travesty
- paulmd 4y agoApple already has lending licenses for the apple pay later feature. they're not a bank though, in the same sense that paypal is not a bank.
- skc 4y agoI'm in the "too bad" camp. This is what happens when customers and companies gleefully buy into the idea of a walled garden. Because I can bet anything that there are iPhones and Macs on every desk at Coinbase.
- efields 4y agoThe exchange is NFT for eth. In order to do that, it requires gas. That is a fee imposed on the user, meaning they have to pay something in order to pursue a digital transaction for digital goods. Payments in iOS for digital goods and services must go through the App Store. It's right there in the developer terms, and has largely not changed since the App Store was introduced. Doesn't matter that it's gas. It's a purchase the user is trying to make. The rules apply. Coinbase may think it's unfair, but that's what they agreed to when they put the app in the App Store. Apple can continue to enforce this rule as long as they're legally allowed to, which doesn't seem to be changing anytime soon. No sympathy for Coinbase here. They chose to whine in public when they could just sue Apple like a grown up.
- seydor 4y agoAgreed. They should pull their wallets and become web-only. No sympathy for Coinbase or any other app participating in the system.
- colordrops 4y agoPublic visibility helps their case by both pressuring apple and getting customers on their side. It's not whining, it's PR.
- alwillis 4y agoIf Apple told the FBI to go pound sand in the San Bernardino shooter case, where the government wanted a back door to the iPhone, what makes you think they’re going to pressures by some crypto geeks?
- sneak 4y agoThat was coordinated marketing between the FBI and Apple. Apple does not have the power or authority to tell the USG to pound sand: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive/exclusive-apple-dropped-plan-for-encrypting-backups-after-fbi-complained-sources-idUSKBN1ZK1CT https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv... There is already a backdoor in the iPhone, and Apple already preserves it for the FBI.
- noasaservice 4y ago
- shaburn 4y agoDorsey's call for an open mobile web os could not be more important for this subject. Mobile payments, device to device with crypto is so dangerous for the existing payment/financial system, don't expect anything but resistance from establishment players.
- salawat 4y agoYour choice of establishment needs a capital E. You may not realize it, but a significant part of the political sphere is absolutely, cripplingly dependent on a tightly controlled financial medium of exchange with tight, inescapable integration with tax authorities/law enforcement. If everyone were to suddenly remove all their money from banks and the financial system, and only started transacting point to point, and (lets handwave the how and just say that everyone immaculately keeps their own set of books/accounts with everyone else, not on a public ledger), the entire political/regulatory power structure of the United States falls apart that day. Money transmission regulation cannot be coordinated/scaled to effectively service period at a population of the U.S. scale. A) Private books means if you really want your tax authority to see them, congratulations, send a warrant. Oh wait, due process (not enough hours in the day). B) If we assume the magical bookkeeping extends only to facilitating a transaction, but not records retention/OFAC, that goes out the window. LE integration too. AML, gone, KYC, gone. On the upside, everyone can send anyone money. On the downside, there's a hell of a lot that no one talks about that goes into that than anyone probably has the patience, comfort, or intellectual fortitude to sit through. Also Wall Street dead. I mean, for me it's a hard choice. Possible national collapse, dead Wall Street, and chance to reaffirm and rebuild a nation... Dead Wall Street... Let it be known: I very much dislike what out financial system has done to the U.S.
- bredren 4y agoThis reminds me of the last time Coinbase had its app removed from the app store in 2013. Our secure messaging app, Gliph, had the ability to send bitcoin and was still live in the App Store. Our companies shared an investor, and our app was the first to implement Coinbase's API. Between that and SF Bitcoin meetups, I interacted with Brian regularly enough and the App Store was a common topic because in that first year of funding for crypto, the goal was generally find a way to breaking Bitcoin mainstream. (It seemed like it might happen soon, but was in fact still quite early.) After some press, Apple took our app down. I blogged about it [0], (I believe the first survey of App Store policy toward bitcoin) and that got picked up by Tech Crunch. [1] I remember speaking with Brian about it on the phone. Apple's objection was on legality of sending Bitcoin in the regions our app was available, so I suggested we could file a legal brief as part of our appeal. Brian's response was they had already tried that and that Apple was unswayed by their brief. There wasn't much we could really do other than commiserate on being under the thumb of the App Store. Those were some heady, yet comparatively innocent days in crypto compared to now. [0] https://blog.gli.ph/2013/12/09/the-state-of-bitcoin-mobile-applications-in-the-app-store-and-google-play/#more-1066 https://blog.gli.ph/2013/12/09/the-state-of-bitcoin-mobile-a... [1] https://techcrunch.com/2013/12/09/how-does-apple-really-feel-about-bitcoin https://techcrunch.com/2013/12/09/how-does-apple-really-feel...
- unityByFreedom 4y ago> Apple's objection was on legality of sending Bitcoin in the regions our app was available, so I suggested we could file a legal brief as part of our appeal. > Brian's response was they had already tried that and that Apple was unswayed by their brief. A legal brief would go to a judge. This sounds like an appeal written by a lawyer, submitted on behalf of one company to another. Not the same thing. Or maybe there was a legal case and they filed a brief. Then it would be a judge who decides whether the brief is convincing, not Apple.
- bredren 4y agoThanks for clarifying this. It has been a long time since this happened.
- 4y ago
- rich_sasha 4y agoIf I were a Coinbase and iphone user, I would be irate. I'm neither but that's besides the point. Will Apple demand 30% of bank transfers made with a bank app? 30% of a firstborn if the hookup happened on Tinder?
- bink 4y agoWouldn't a better comparison be 30% of the add-on fees that a bank charged you for a bank transfer? And that does seem like something they would expect if it were paid via the app.
- blint_carton 4y agoOr possibly any extra fees eBay charges on a purchase.
- LeafItAlone 4y agoFWIW, I am both and I am not irate. Mostly because I think it’s reasonable to give Apple some time to respond here.
- ncr100 4y agoNo. Those are not digital goods being purchased. That's where Apple would step in.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Maursault 4y agoNFTs are brilliant and essential. Shame on Apple for blocking Coinbase wallet from transferring NFTs
- Maursault 4y ago
- mcast 4y ago“At first they came for our NFTs…”
- Maursault 4y ago
- zarzavat 4y agoIf it were groceries would you say the same? You shouldn’t have to pay a tax to the phone company to buy something on your phone. Whether you think the thing people are buying is stupid or not is beside the point.
- Maursault 4y ago> If it were groceries would you say the same? Weak analogy. Unlike groceries, NFTs can't do what they claim to do. NFTs are fraud.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- asdff 4y agoWhy don't companies just get ahead of apple here, decamp from the app store, and heavily advertise a web app instead? Most of these apps need online connectivity anyway, so having a native app isn't all that useful.
- saurik 4y agoThe primary purpose of the Coinbase Wallet app is to securely store and mediate access to a private key that allows the user to spend/transfer money (by making transactions on Ethereum or other similar decentralized networks, which involve a payment of gas fees to the network). It isn't clear that there is a reasonable way to build that product as a web app.
- asdff 4y agoWhy not? Coinbase lets you do this stuff from their website too.
- saurik 4y agoCoinbase the exchange--the thing which involves a website--is a centralized pseudo-banking product where they actually own your money and you pray they still have it when you want access to it later. You use a username and a password to log in to this service which transacts on your behalf, and you talk to their customer support if you are locked out somehow. Coinbase's wallet app is entirely different and largely unrelated: it is a program that manages a private key on your phone so you can directly access your funds and make transactions on the underlying decentralized infrastructure. If Coinbase goes out of business their wallet app would still function and no one has access to your money except you, using this key.
- FractalHQ 4y agoProgressive Web Apps can run offline thanks to Service Workers. I’m not sure how reliable or feature-complete the iOS/Safari service worker API is (likely half-baked and bug-ridden like the rest of their browser APIs), but in theory it can be installed once and run offline just fine.
- dmitrygr 4y agoAnd nothing of value was lost
- crazygringo 4y agoYou know what baffles me? That Apple doesn't have a separate, "VIP" review process for apps that are from established, known companies. When I see a independent developer complaining about Apple (or Google) being arbitrary in their app review process, I can at least understand how it's some low-paid employee trying to fulfill a daily quota. It still sucks, but I see the economic rationale of low-paid, low-skilled app reviewers there. But it really surprises me that when it comes to apps from well-known tech companies like Coinbase, that Apple isn't doing a higher-quality review by people who actually know what they're doing and understand the industry. That there isn't a knowledgeable team inside of Apple making sure that corporate partners are treated like partners rather than niche indie developers. I'm not saying a two-tier system would be more fair, because obviously it wouldn't be. I'm just saying it surprises me that a company like Apple shoots itself in the foot like this with bad decisions that then lead to bad press. It's such an own-goal. (Because in this case, the 30% cut doesn't even make sense conceptually, it's like trying to tax Amazon 30% on physical goods sold through its app.)
- naravara 4y agoThe problem is being an established, known company doesn't mean you can be trusted to not behave badly on the platform with regard to security vulnerabilities or user privacy. See Facebook as a prime example. The bad press doesn't really matter as long as they have such a dominant profit share on all mobile software sales.
- shagie 4y agoAn old example of well known companies behaving badly... https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/23/15399438/apple-uber-app-store-fingerprint-program-tim-cook-travis-kalanick https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/23/15399438/apple-uber-app-s... > The practice, called fingerprinting, is prohibited by Apple. To prevent the company from discovering the practice, Uber geofenced Apple headquarters in Cupertino, changing its code so that it would be hidden from Apple Employees. Despite their efforts, Apple discovered the activity, which led to the meeting between the two CEOs, in which Cook told Kalanick to end the practice. If Uber didn’t comply, Cook told him, Uber’s app would be removed from the App Store, a move that would be a huge blow to the ride-sharing company. According to the article, “Mr. Kalanick was shaken by Mr. Cook’s scolding, according to a person who saw him after the meeting,” and ended the practice.
- mensetmanusman 4y agoAhahaha, they will soon be asking Charles Schwab for a 30% cut for anyone that sells equities in the iPhone.
- christkv 4y agoNext they will want 30% off every stock purchase you do using the E*trade app
- ShamelessC 4y ago> The biggest impact from this policy change is on iPhone users that own NFTs - if you hold an NFT in a wallet on an iPhone, Apple just made it a lot harder to transfer that NFT to other wallets, or gift it to friends or family. Wow, so decentralized. /s
- tensor 4y agoSo if I use my bank's app to pay a bill will Apple want 30% of that too? This is really too much.
- jurschreuder 4y agoThey have found a way to tax websites.
- nickthegreek 4y agoapple doesnt want 30% of the NFT price, they want 30% of the _fee_ on the sell of the digital good (the nft).
- josteink 4y agoAs an iPhone-user, Apple is really doing everything they can to make sure I don’t like them or their products anymore. The China riot iOS censor-update, this, the Twitter app threats. And all in a about a weeks worth of time. Wtf guys. Seriously.
- iLoveOncall 4y agoReally? Every blow they deal to crypto I start liking them again.
- josteink 4y agoI don't give a rats about crypto stuff generally or coinbase specifically. At this point I equal blockchain to snake oil and scamming. For me this is all about their flagrant abuse of platform and gate-keeper power.
- ncr100 4y agoConversely, do you want Coinbase to have less responsibility to actually fulfill the $$ transaction? Free services to Coinbase + THEIR customers, fulfilled by Apple? Because that's what paying Apple 30% should get you, as an Apple customer .. some protection in case Coinbase doesn't actually fulfill the gas computation service, with what this supposed issue is talking about.
- hn_throwaway_99 4y agoAck, a real conundrum here. On one hand, Apple's ridiculous behavior. On the other hand, hard for me to imagine a more useless and counterproductive invention than NFTs...
- bogwog 4y agoIt really is like trying to choose between Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich.
- andrewflnr 4y agoWe have to ask the question: is Apple actually this stupid? I don't particularly like or trust Coinbase, so I'm not going to take their word as gospel. I have to wonder if (a) it's an oversight, a possibility they raised in the thread (trying to give Apple an out?) or (b) there's something weirder going on that we can't figure out from outside.
- ncr100 4y agoNo. They have already thought of this scenario, years ago. Paying for GAS is paying for the computation .. which is a digital service .. which is https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#business https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#bus... what Coinbase agreed to share a portion of the money taken from customers with Apple when they published an app on the App Store. In my view, Apple is providing customers another layer of trustworthiness, since a purchase of a digital good or service is intangible .. "did anything just happen?" .. the customer has recourse via Apple for an app that theoretically abuses that "seller of digital items" relationship.
- andrewflnr 4y agoCoinbase does not decide, charge, receive, or in any way control gas fees. There's no "sharing". As I understand gas fees, they're charged directly by the decentralized network, to itself (I do know they're not "GAS"). There's literally no entity who receives gas fees and can pay Apple a cut.
- rvz 4y agoI did say that the roles have been switched, and Apple in 2022 is like Microsoft in 1998 and is getting away with by doing even more worse things. [0] It is going to take more than just Epic, to get rid of the 30% cut in fees. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23564759 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23564759
- thelock85 4y agoCan anyone here provide some ideas of sensible regulation on this issue (or point to someone else talking about it)? IANAL or even novice on antitrust issues but seems Apple would just find another way to make up the slack if App Store (iOS/Android/other) fees were regulated. As a good friend of mine likes to say about DNC vs GOP, it's "steak or fish" with Android and iOS (you can choose which is which). They take up too much space for anyone else to fundamentally reimagine and reintroduce an app ecosystem (no disrespect to PWAs and the like). I feel regulation would ultimately hurt developers and consumers more, at least in the medium to long-term, but I'm open to forming a new opinion.
- chrisco255 4y agoMicrosoft was taken to court for less than this in the 90s over the browser wars. 1) Apple should be forced to allow side-loaded apps. 2) they should be forced to allow competing marketplaces. 3) they should be forced to allow PWAs to be installed alongside regular apps. 4) they should be forced to allow alternative web engines (inc. Chrome, Edge, Brave, Firefox, Opera, etc)
- wilsonnb3 4y agoThere is a substantial difference between the market share Windows had in the late 90s and what iOS has now
- chrisco255 4y agoAntitrust is not just about market share. It's about anticompetitive practices.
- bogwog 4y agoGovernment setting prices like that is a terrible idea. The solution to this problem is competition. The only regulation needed are laws that stop Apple from preventing competition. If there were alternative app stores, free market forces will naturally prevent Apple from doing stuff like this. They'll be free to charge whatever they want, but customers and developers will also be free to go with a competitor instead of them. Sure, Apple and their fanboys are going to say stuff like "it will be bad for privacy" and "Apple needs to control everything to protect us from malware", etc. Pretty much the exact same type of arguments AT&T was making before they got broken up in the ~80s. If that didn't happen, we probably wouldn't have gotten the internet as quickly as we did (or at all). That's a pretty clear example of how monopolies stifle competition, and how breaking them up can be lead to incredible innovation. Hell, I don't think we even need new laws. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure what Apple is doing is already illegal, since it's so obviously anti-competitive and detrimental to society/the economy. Even investors will probably be better off in the long run if all these tech giants have their monopolies broken up, since the new opportunities in the market will undoubtedly result in new innovations and better investment opportunities. Also, I need to say this otherwise the conversation will get predictably derailed: * Apple is bad * Google is bad too * Microsoft is bad too * Amazon is bad too * Meta is bad too * <insert tech company here> is bad too
- dboreham 4y agoThe new vampire squid.
- camdenlock 4y agoWhy is it seen as acceptable for a government to tax people for the privilege of transacting in their (the government’s) markets, but it’s seen as bad form for a corporation to do the same?
- bismuthcrystal 4y agoWhy is it seen as acceptable for a government to jail people, but it’s seen as bad form for a corporation to do the same?
- stevenkkim 4y ago"The American crayfish was introduced in the '20s. A guest, if you like. And like most guests having a good time, they didn't wanna leave. Next 50 years, they consumed all the local crayfish, wiped them out. And then, they started eating each other. That's the thing about greed, Arch. It's blind. And it doesn't know when to stop." - Lenny Cole, from Rocknrolla
- dontblink 4y agoI don't understand why the disgruntled companies don't simply band together and remove their apps from Apple until Apple complies? Apple is as reliant on their third party apps for their ecosystems as much as the inverse.
- mberning 4y agoApple us so flush with cash I doubt they care.
- hoherd 4y agoDoing this would piss off the entire Apple user base of those companies, with no certain gain. Those companies would lose lots of customers as collateral damage in a war that they could potentially lose. Sounds like a bad strategy to me.
- mensetmanusman 4y agoMeh, Apple would be the one pulling the plug.
- gryf 4y agoInvestors would fire the board for doing that.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago> Apple is as reliant on their third party apps for their ecosystems as much as the inverse. I would take the other side of this bet. Barrier to entry for software to make a new chat app, social network, streaming app, crypto app, etc is much lower than barrier to entry to make hardware. Another company willing to play by Apple’s rules will swoop in in relatively little time, while an alternative to iPhone/Apple Watch/AirPods/iPads/M processor computers will not.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoSomeone will just make a Roblox or Fortnite competitor and everyone will switch to it overnight? I doubt it
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoAdd it to the antitrust pile. Is their strategy to attack unpopular things in the current zeitgeist so nobody complains about antitrust? Facebook, Twitter, now crypto?
- ProAm 4y agoDouble taxation refers to the imposition of taxes on the same income, assets or financial transaction at two different points of time.
- anm89 4y agoI'm so confused as to why anybody still supports apple. They have utter contempt for their customers.
- imchillyb 4y agoThe entire world should be required to read: The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair.
- arvindrajnaidu 4y agoApple collects 30% if the product is purely digital and has no monetary value outside of the app. Could one not prove that NFTs have value outside of Coinbase? Oh wait I see the problem.
- arvindrajnaidu 4y agoAh they are paying for in-app Gas. I see. A customer is to pay one network for gas, but that network won’t pay another network for their value add.
- barumrho 4y agoMaybe I’m off here, but this doesn’t really seem like it’s about the 30% commission. Maybe Apple is taking a position against allowing crypto trades on their platform?
- everfree 4y agoThen maybe they should state that. Apple didn't block fungible tokens (crypto), they only blocked non-fungible tokens (NFTs). Right now is the time for them to clarify their position.
- ncr100 4y agoNo. AFAIK paying for 'gas' is paying for a digital service of computation. This is covered by Apple's App Store Guidelines https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#business https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#bus... for years and years. Being a consumer who buys digital services through an app hosted by App Store should have some recourse. And that's, again AFAIK, what Apple does with its Guidelines...help empower the consumer should, theoretically, Coinbase not uphold their part of the digital purchase fulfillment relationship when $$ was exchanged on an iPhone app.
- WanderPanda 4y agoHave a nice walk with Tim around Apple Park, Mr Armstrong!
- ncr100 4y agoSarcastic, but LOL .. like Elon Musk did, and now is talking like he had some epiphany of unity after enjoying the Apple campus tour.
- andy_ppp 4y agoI thought protection rackets were illegal? 30% is insane.
- bloppe 4y agoGas fees are peer-to-peer transactions. This is like Apple deciding that all Venmo transactions should be subject to their 30% fee. Not only would it be impossible to implement given the existing infrastructure; it would be dumb.
- latortuga 4y agoIt emphatically does not matter to Apple if the transactions are peer to peer or subject to fees or paid for with doge coin. Coinbase offers an app that allows users to purchase digital goods ("NFTs"). In order to purchase those digital goods, iOS apps must use app store payments. Solutions: 1. don't offer users the ability to buy those digital goods 2. add a layer of payment indirection where users pay coinbase and coinbase pays for the digital goods - using app store payments! 3??? execute a PR campaign that "apple doesn't understand crypto" amidst a historic crypto crash
- tomwojcik 4y agoDisagree. I barely know what Venmo is and I don't own any crypto, but iirc IRS treats all cryptocurrencies as capital assets so you shouldn't compare that to a fiat transfer.
- Traubenfuchs 4y agoWhy can‘t companies like that just make a good web app? It‘s time to kill native apps unless you really need them.
- patchtopic 4y agoso apple also expect 30% from everything transacted on every banking app?
- pavlov 4y agoImagine a bunch of game developers join forces to create something called the Game Asset Service. When you unlock a feature in a game by one of these developers, it gets delivered through the GAS. The GAS is legally a separate entity from the game companies (although controlled by them), and it sets a varying fee for its delivery network. Maybe the fee is quite high, and unlocking a $6 game feature actually consists of $5.50 fees paid to the GAS and $0.50 paid to the game developer. Would Apple say: “Sure, this delivery fee you’re paying to GAS is something completely separate from the in-app purchase. We’ll just take our cut only from the $0.50 and let you pass all of the $5.50 through to this GAS corporation that you partially own.” Of course not, because that structure would be such a transparent attempt by the game developers to evade Apple’s fee. The situation in crypto isn’t all that different. These gas fees are ultimately paid to Ethereum stakeholders, and Coinbase happens to be a big one.
- mgraczyk 4y agoThis is true and matters, but there is a key difference that affects our sense of justice and morality. Coinbase didn't create Ethereum, and the vast majority of Ethereum stakeholders are not apps on the app store. The fact that ETH gas is mostly unrelated to Coinbase and the app store should also matter in determining how we feel about this.
- jaycroft 4y agoEven if Coinbase created ethereum and gas went directly to their wallet, would that be any different than Chase collecting a fee when I send a wire using their mobile app? Does Apple collect 30% of bank fees that are the results of actions taken within the various bank's apps? Does Apple charge Venmo a portion of the bank fees that are a part of the stransaction when users transmit money between each other?
- pavlov 4y agoSending dollars is not the same thing as trading NFTs. The latter is essentially similar to pseudo-gambling in-app purchases like loot boxes, of which Apple certainly takes their cut.
- lizardactivist 4y agoI'm literally waiting for the day Apple attempts to take a cut on people's income via their banking app.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mrhands556 4y agoDoes apple require Apple Pay for all in app purchases? Why isn’t Apple Pay an option on Amazon?
- ncr100 4y agoNo. Apple Pay vs Store Kit - first is for things like T-Shirts, second is for digital purchases like virtual currency in videogames.
- FounderBurr 4y agoSurely these apps should be treated more like banking applications than buy/sell applications? This is akin to apple demanding 30% of the funds of every wire transfer initiated within its App Store app for your bank.
- EGreg 4y agoWhy not use the open web? What are these app stores giving us? Or are they going to start blocking web sites next, and have a permissioned web
- ncr100 4y agoAgreed - Coinbase should just launch a browser to start and finish the whole transaction. Apple covers a lot of scenarios https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#business https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#bus... so launching a browser MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be covered by their policies. But worth exploring.
- m3kw9 4y agoEssentially they are using crypto to bypass fees. It’s inherent that selling NFT(digital good) on a blockchain will by pass them, but that’s what is viewed as from Apples angle
- raymondgh 4y agoNext Apple will demand 30% of every Venmo transaction on iOS
- ncr100 4y agoNo. They are not purchases of digital goods. Read more at the Apple App Store guidelines page https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#business https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#bus...
- brundolf 4y agoI just feel like they're digging the antitrust hole deeper and deeper. How do they see this ending?
- SoftTalker 4y ago> If you were a product person at IBM or Xerox, so you make a better copier or computer. So what? When you have monopoly market share, the company's not any more successful. Yet when Xerox and IBM were monopolies they were at their most innovative. Xerox had PARC. AT&T had Bell Labs. IBM had --- well I'm not sure but their mainframe architecture and OS was very innovative in its day. Now that those companies are just one of dozens that do what they do, you can't name anything groundbreaking that they are producing.
- quesera 4y ago> IBM had --- well I'm not sure IBM Research, Thomas J. Watson Research Center. Lots of legitimately innovative fundamental and applied sciences research.
- moistly 4y agoEvery Apple thread rehashes the same complaints over and over and over. One should just have GPT do the discussion, save everyone the effort.
- veidr 4y agoWhew, I was worried by the headline! But it means they blocked an update to the app (for blah blah App Store compliance), not blocked the app outright. (I only care because I pay my kids' allowance in crypto, and they manage it with Coinbase Wallet on their iPads. This is what I have been doing with all that promotional XLM I got for free from Keybase before they got resorbed into Zoom.)
- SamBam 4y agoAre they able to buy comics (or beyblades/roblox/candy/whatever) with their crypto?
- veidr 4y agoWell, I mean in theory they could just use whatever crypto exchange would let a 7-year-old transact business (which is probably not none?), but to avoid encouraging them to seek out such things, I consent to act as their bank. So they can send me XLM,and then buy things in USD or JPY at whatever the prevailing rate is (I use Exodus, so whatever that app shows is the rate). So far, everything they have purchased relates to video games (games, DLC, and I was particularly impressed my 8-year-old bought himself a used Wii U older than he is, and an optical disc version of Paper Mario: Color Splash). This also lets me charge a 500% "Moron Tax" for most in-game purchases — cosmetics, pay-to-win mechanics, etc. (But they are sometimes willing to pay it, for their own inscrutable reasons...)
- Andrew_nenakhov 4y agoApple's evil AppStore monopoly should be dismantled by the lawmakers. Users should own the device, not rent it from Apple. Until the users are in complete control which apps they can run, it is rent, not ownership. For people happy with the current state of affairs: nobody will be forcing you to install third party stores or sideload apps.
- dole 4y agoThe problem is that the lawmakers all have iPhones.
- Axien 4y agoThat should give them more incentive.
- catothedev 4y agoThe problem is republican lawmakers don't like writing laws interfering with businesses + democrat lawmakers benefit from Apple's politics.
- LatteLazy 4y agoAnd apple has their search histories...
- faangiq 4y agoProtecting their customers. Crypto well established as total scam at this point.
- dcchambers 4y agoIt's hard not to see that Apple is playing with fire here, but they've gotten away with so much and they have so much to lose. The "right" way to fix this is: 1. Apple allows users to download/install software that is not on the app store. If a user owns the device they should be able to do what they want with it, even if it's "risky" or whatever. But this means those users that feel the most comfortable continuing to only use apple-approved apps in the app store can continue to do so. 2. Software downloaded from the app store, using apple servers and services, must give Apple the cut (30%) they ask for. If the app doesn't use apple's infrastructure or payment system, apple shouldn't have any right to a cut of the payment. Apple has billions of dollars of revenue at stake here, so of course they're going to fight it as long as they can.
- judge2020 4y ago> If a user owns the device This is the hard question. What in the world could possibly be enough to where enabling sideloading is ONLY possible by the owner of the device, and not just someone who looked over your shoulder for an hour and saw you type in your passcode+Apple ID, and has now swiped your phone to install spyware that utilizes a 0-day to hide itself from you?
- dcchambers 4y agoThat's kind of insane reasoning. Do you worry about that with your MacBook or Windows laptop? Is it an attack vector? Sure...I guess. Is it a reasonable reason to disallow sideloading apps? Absolutely not.
- code_witch_sam 4y agoi don't really worry about it myself much. i just err on the side of not installing things i'm unsure about but my boomer mother? whewwwwwwwwww if someone told her she had to install a 3rd party app store to see pictures of her friend's birthday cake or some terrible grape salad recipe, she'd do it. and she'd give them all of her personal info too. sadly this is the norm, not the exception
- 4y ago
- jhoelzel 4y agoOh Nice. Now people need to buy a physical wallet. ... with batteries... and most likely a samsung logo. ;)
- stefandesu 4y agoImagine Apple starts taking 30% of all transactions done via PayPal or your banking app. This is getting ridiculous.
- yashg 4y agoIt is absolutely ridiculous that Apple and Google demand 30% cut of all transactions happening in the apps that run on their OS. Imagine if Windows had done that or if Netscape/Firefox/Opera had demanded 30% cut of transactions happening on their browsers. Back in the days when App Stores hadn't launched Android and iOS did not exist, apps for platforms like Palm, Pocket PC, Symbian, Blackberry etc worked like how Windows software still works today - you bought them directly from the developer's website. Stores like Handdango and Pocketgear were multi platform app stores who were taking 30% cut. I remember even back then there were voices being raised against those fees. But back then, those were not the only ways one could distribute their apps. None of the smartphone platforms back then mandated developers to distribute their apps only through their store. Even when Android launched, it was open and these stores carried Android apps as well. Apple launched the app store and changed everything in the name of security and user experience. It was just a shameless money grab by a giant corporation. Microsoft got all the flack just for bundling a browser for free with OS while Google and Apple have been arm twisting developers into paying 30% of their revenue for years.
- birdyrooster 4y agoMicrosoft got the flack for using their near total market dominance in PC operating systems to destroy Netscape. Short memories I guess...
- rjmunro 4y agoThis is true, but what Google do with the play store (install it by default, take 30% of everything, make it hard to install without it) is so much worse. And Apple's app store where you can't even get around it if you want to is an order of magnitude worse again.
- nly 4y agoMicrosoft never prevented you from installing anything you like on their OS.
- simiones 4y agoYes, by giving IE away for free while bundling it with Windows, at a time when Netscape was trying to sell their browser - basically the polar opposite of what Google and Apple are doing with their app stores. Since then, it has become completely expected that any consumer OS includes a bundled web browser for free. Not that MS is not doing many other shady things to try to control what you do and push their products in today's Windows, mind you. The only point is that, as bad as consumer computing was in the 90s, it's much much worse today in terms of user and developer freedom/choice.
- irusensei 4y agoWhile I like Apple products and despise coinbase and the NFT fad it is about time users should be able to choose alternative stores on iOS, preferably with options to self host your own catalog.
- ftyhbhyjnjk 4y agoApple at this point is a Mafia org
- okokwhatever 4y agoWhy is Apple not requesting 30% of the commission to transfer money from one bank account to another in a banking App?
- segmondy 4y agoOne day a bunch of companies are going to get together and have an Apple Blackout. Turn off their backend to all iOS devices. Imagine Coinbase, Twitter, Spotify, Facebook, WhatsApp, Epic, etc. Turn it off for a day, few days or a week. That will drive the point home. Apple thinks it has leverage, but united other companies can force their hand.