3 ms·

I 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 th

I 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 ago
It'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 ago
  What 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 ago
    Imagine if a desktop environment had the same restrictions. Would you accept them?
    - tshaddox 4y ago
      I'd buy from a different company if the restrictions bothered me.
      - chrisco255 4y ago
        Switching 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
        These policies aren't particularly new, so I'm not sure why there would be a sudden need to switch platforms. On the contrary, these policies are part of one of the biggest differentiators between Apple smartphones and their major competitors. And even if someone did suddenly find Apple's policies unacceptable, there are several prominent alternatives to switch to, and switching is really not difficult for the vast majority of people. To be clear, there are some cases where Apple (and competitors) do make switching more difficult, and I do think it's reasonable for regulators to look into that stuff.
        chrisco255 4y ago
        Of course they're new policies. In this case, Apple is asking for 30% match on Ethereum gas fees paid for transferring an NFT. It's an impossible request to follow for a number of reasons. The gas fee is variable with network demand, and the fee may change depending on when it gets executed, the gas fee is paid in ETH (which Apple doesn't support), etc. Nevermind that Apple has somehow arbitrarily determined that after 5 years of Ethereum wallet apps existing on its platform that it now wants a 30% cut of blockchain network fees. Apple does absolutely nothing to maintain the network security or facilitate the transaction. This might merely be for moving an NFT from one address to another. They are completely making this policy up. Like if I use my banking app to pay my electric bill or wire money to my family member, it would be totally unacceptable for Apple to demand 30% of either the bill or the transaction fees associated with such a transfer! Apple is half of an entrenched duopoly in the mobile market. It is reasonable to restrict trillion dollar monopolies (or oligopolies!) from imposing a 30% tax on all web transactions. Not merely to restrict them from making it difficult to switch. It's unacceptable. It's exploitative. It's antitrust behavior. It's got to stop.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    Those were feature phones, basically the handheld equivalent of a games console. In the age of smartphones, there is not a single reason that software distribution should be centralized.
    - tshaddox 4y ago
      What's different about game consoles and smartphones?
      - brandonr49 4y ago
        My bank and local government aren't making game consoles one of my primary methods of accessing their services. Smartphones are heavily integrated into the daily lives of most people now. They need to be regulated that way and the makers of these devices need to have less control over their users. We wouldn't allow a car maker to charge a fee to parking garages because the driver is "their customer". I need a car, I need a phone; being a hub of value shouldn't allow for such a high degree of rent seeking.
        tshaddox 4y ago
        Do banks and local governments require using smartphones from Apple (or any one manufacturer) to the exclusion of other prominent smartphone options? That would be surprising to me, and definitely bad. But as far as I know, core services like that are going to be accessible on at least iPhones and Android smartphones, which is going to cover the vast majority of smartphone market share, so I'm not really sure why the ubiquity of smartphones is particularly relevant to what Apple's rules for third-party developers should be.

smoldesu 4y ago

It'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 ago
What 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 ago
  Imagine if a desktop environment had the same restrictions. Would you accept them?
  - tshaddox 4y ago
    I'd buy from a different company if the restrictions bothered me.
    - chrisco255 4y ago
      Switching 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
        These policies aren't particularly new, so I'm not sure why there would be a sudden need to switch platforms. On the contrary, these policies are part of one of the biggest differentiators between Apple smartphones and their major competitors. And even if someone did suddenly find Apple's policies unacceptable, there are several prominent alternatives to switch to, and switching is really not difficult for the vast majority of people. To be clear, there are some cases where Apple (and competitors) do make switching more difficult, and I do think it's reasonable for regulators to look into that stuff.
        chrisco255 4y ago
        Of course they're new policies. In this case, Apple is asking for 30% match on Ethereum gas fees paid for transferring an NFT. It's an impossible request to follow for a number of reasons. The gas fee is variable with network demand, and the fee may change depending on when it gets executed, the gas fee is paid in ETH (which Apple doesn't support), etc. Nevermind that Apple has somehow arbitrarily determined that after 5 years of Ethereum wallet apps existing on its platform that it now wants a 30% cut of blockchain network fees. Apple does absolutely nothing to maintain the network security or facilitate the transaction. This might merely be for moving an NFT from one address to another. They are completely making this policy up. Like if I use my banking app to pay my electric bill or wire money to my family member, it would be totally unacceptable for Apple to demand 30% of either the bill or the transaction fees associated with such a transfer! Apple is half of an entrenched duopoly in the mobile market. It is reasonable to restrict trillion dollar monopolies (or oligopolies!) from imposing a 30% tax on all web transactions. Not merely to restrict them from making it difficult to switch. It's unacceptable. It's exploitative. It's antitrust behavior. It's got to stop.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  Those were feature phones, basically the handheld equivalent of a games console. In the age of smartphones, there is not a single reason that software distribution should be centralized.
  - tshaddox 4y ago
    What's different about game consoles and smartphones?
    - brandonr49 4y ago
      My bank and local government aren't making game consoles one of my primary methods of accessing their services. Smartphones are heavily integrated into the daily lives of most people now. They need to be regulated that way and the makers of these devices need to have less control over their users. We wouldn't allow a car maker to charge a fee to parking garages because the driver is "their customer". I need a car, I need a phone; being a hub of value shouldn't allow for such a high degree of rent seeking.
      - tshaddox 4y ago
        Do banks and local governments require using smartphones from Apple (or any one manufacturer) to the exclusion of other prominent smartphone options? That would be surprising to me, and definitely bad. But as far as I know, core services like that are going to be accessible on at least iPhones and Android smartphones, which is going to cover the vast majority of smartphone market share, so I'm not really sure why the ubiquity of smartphones is particularly relevant to what Apple's rules for third-party developers should be.