7 ms·

It's funny how the 30% tax and App Store nonsense automatically makes me want Apple to lose every single court case in perpetuity. Having such a monopoly on a

It's funny how the 30% tax and App Store nonsense automatically makes me want Apple to lose every single court case in perpetuity. Having such a monopoly on a device you purchase really means the legal system needs to take you down a notch.

stavros 3y ago
I was hoping they'd lose against Epic, but alas.
- brookst 3y ago
  I can see wanting Apple to lose, but I can't imagine wanting Epic to win. That was such an ugly parasitic business model: let others take the risks to build platforms, let others operate the platforms, get the courts to mandate equal treatment for Epic to swoop in after the risks pay off. I'd have to sympathy for the phone platforms, but it would have destroyed the console market overnight. No way consoles work if every penny of customer lifetime value has to be in the up-front sale price.
  - stavros 3y ago
    What if consoles make money from games without turning games into rent-to-play with no resale value? Platforms are hostile to the consumer and can't die quickly enough for me, that's why I wanted Epic to win.
    - pb7 3y ago
      You are complaining about companies mistreating consumers and you wanted Epic to win? They're as shitty as they come. https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2022/12/245-million-ftc-settlement-alleges-fortnite-owner-epic-games-used-digital-dark-patterns-charge https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2022/12/245-milli... Apple has provided the world 1000x more value than Epic ever will. Justice prevailed.
      - waboremo 3y ago
        Apple has made billions (upwards of $300m in pure profit) from Fortnite. If you care about Epic's shitty qualities in that aspect (the case you're linking), surely you also care about Apple profiting off that exploitation as well?
        pb7 3y ago
        Have you read the details of the judgment? Most of the dark patterns Epic used aren't possible on iOS. In fact, the reason they hate Apple's walled garden so much is because they add too much friction to the dark patterns they want to use, notably authentication for subsequent in-app purchases, so I don't know what exploitation profiting you're referring to. Apple protects consumers from shitty companies like Epic abusing consumers (in this case, children) and for that I thank them.
        smoldesu 3y ago
        You can offer safe payment authorization APIs that protect families without also forcing developers to pay you 27% on every microtransaction. One might even call that good OS design, rather than a subtly hostile pattern of funneling users through a contractually-obligated money siphon they have no control over.
        pb7 3y ago
        Doesn't hurt consumers, doesn't matter to government. Simple as. Apple is allowed to make money off the platform they built. Developers knew the terms before they started developing for it - the terms haven't changed since their inception and match other similar platforms - but each one knows they get more value out of Apple than vice versa. I have no sympathy for them anymore after I have been deleting more and more apps because of dark patterns. Nearly all of my phone use is on either stock apps or apps that are completely unaffected by App Store commissions like Uber, DoorDash, etc so I know who provides me the greater value and it's not companies like Epic.
        3y ago
  - jdiff 3y ago
    It's been working out fine for the Steam Deck. Sure, you can install Windows and/or any other storefront, but you won't have the console-like experience that Valve's own software provides. It's trivially easy to install pirated games on the Deck, without any cracking or modification of the system. You never have to make a single Steam purchase after buying the Deck, but Valve's betting that you will. And they're right, that's enough. Most people don't go redoing or even tweaking the software stack on their hardware, they just stick with what comes out of the box.
    - _kbh_ 3y ago
      The steam deck is a way different value proposition compared to consoles though, console manufacturers take a loss for initial consoles sold until they can bring costs. Whereas the steam deck has likely been sold as a profit from day one.
      - 8note 3y ago
        This is why the steam deck is a good example? The console doesn't have to be sold at a loss in order to sell games. It would be better overall for competition for the games to be decoupled from the console. Same as with phone apps
        brookst 3y ago
        You’ve made a fair point and that’s a reasonable opinion, but do you think it should be outright illegal for console makers to use a business model of consoles at cost, profits made on a share of game sales? Because that was Epic’s end game.
        smoldesu 3y ago
        They can make them at-cost and then charge whatever they want on their store. They just also have to allow me to choose different stores, or install another OS on my console if the OEM goes against my wishes. If you don't think I deserve that right as the lawful proprietor of said hardware, then we may be at an impasse. It seems like perfectly fair game to me.
- pb7 3y ago
  I'm glad you didn't get your wish. https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2022/12/245-million-ftc-settlement-alleges-fortnite-owner-epic-games-used-digital-dark-patterns-charge https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2022/12/245-milli...
  - hackernewds 3y ago
    False dichotomy, if I've ever seen one
hackernewds 3y ago
The saddest event this generation is Epic vs Apple going in favor of Apple. It's tough to imagine Apple weren't a monolopy enforcing monopolistic policies.
- cwp 3y ago
  I wanted Epic to win too, but c'mon, 57% market share is not a monopoly.
  - thfuran 3y ago
    In the UK, that's over twice the minimum threshold for monopoly power.
    - pb7 3y ago
      "Monopoly power" is not a monopoly and in the UK, public schools are actually private schools, so maybe we shouldn't compare terminology across countries.
      - laxd 3y ago
        "...maybe we shouldn't compare terminology across countries." That sounds like cromulent use of HN.
      - zarzavat 3y ago
        That’s because competition/antitrust law, be it UK, EU or US, doesn’t care about whether an entity is a “monopoly” or not. It cares about whether a company is engaging in anticompetitive practices or not. The market share is a red herring.
      - stale2002 3y ago
        > "Monopoly power" is not a monopoly Fortunately, "monopoly" isn't the thing that the law cares about. Everything to do with anti-trust law, and competition laws, is not about monopolies, and is instead about monopoly power. > so maybe we shouldn't compare terminology across countries Feel free to look at the the FTC says about this topic then. It to applies to companies with monopoly power, and not literal monopolies. https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui... "Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power"
musicale 3y ago
> 30% tax and App Store nonsense automatically makes me want Apple to lose every single court case in perpetuity We can only hope that alternative app stores on iOS will force Apple to match Google Play's 30% platform fees: https://techcrunch.com/2021/03/16/google-play-drops-commissions-to-15-from-30-following-apples-move-last-year/ https://techcrunch.com/2021/03/16/google-play-drops-commissi...
- smoldesu 3y ago
  If I might dream, maybe they also adopt Google's policy of not insisting upon billing developers[0] for the mere privilege of using their platform. [0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/02/apple-shocks-ios-developers-with-27-commission-on-third-party-payments/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/02/apple-shocks-ios...
- fennecfoxy 3y ago
  The difference being of course, on Apple's stranglehold on its customers. 30% either way, app developers know that Apple users are always willing to pay more and Apple knows this, too. That's why many apps only target iOS. Besides the income from services within Apple's apps: they could take 30% of an app's purchase price (which is still not justified tbh, the app store can't be _that_ expensive to run), but how do they justify trying to take a percentage of a subscription (like Spotify, Netflix etc) when they have nothing to do with it? That would be like Apple being able to take a portion of banking fees from me because I have my bank's app installed on my phone (and the bank takes fees), which Apple doesn't do of course because as big as they are, you do not fuck with banks.
JimDabell 3y ago
> the 30% tax 15%. Almost everybody pays 15%, not 30%. The only organisations who pay 30% earn over a million dollars a year from things other than long-term subscriptions. That’s a tiny minority.
- _piif 3y ago
  Interesting, I seem to have missed this change from 2021. That's far more reasonable.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  27%, if their demands in the Netherlands are still being taken seriously: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/02/apple-shocks-ios-developers-with-27-commission-on-third-party-payments/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/02/apple-shocks-ios...
  - JimDabell 3y ago
    Nope, 12% in that case. The 27% figure assumes a reduction from the 30% rate virtually nobody pays. If you read Apple’s documentation, you’ll see that they say they will reduce their commission by 3%: > Apple will reduce its commission by 3% on the price paid by the user, net of value-added taxes. This is a reduced rate that excludes value related to payment processing and related activities. — https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitlement/ https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitl...
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      > virtually nobody pays. 100% of the top 100 paid apps on the App Store pay the full tax. It's a progressive model, and the figure itself is arbitrary anyways. People want a more Mac-like distribution model, and Apple is reluctant to provide it because services are the only thing with wider margin than slave labor cellphones.
      - JimDabell 3y ago
anticensor 3y ago
That 30% is iVAT :)

stavros 3y ago

I was hoping they'd lose against Epic, but alas.

brookst 3y ago
I can see wanting Apple to lose, but I can't imagine wanting Epic to win. That was such an ugly parasitic business model: let others take the risks to build platforms, let others operate the platforms, get the courts to mandate equal treatment for Epic to swoop in after the risks pay off. I'd have to sympathy for the phone platforms, but it would have destroyed the console market overnight. No way consoles work if every penny of customer lifetime value has to be in the up-front sale price.
- stavros 3y ago
  What if consoles make money from games without turning games into rent-to-play with no resale value? Platforms are hostile to the consumer and can't die quickly enough for me, that's why I wanted Epic to win.
  - pb7 3y ago
    You are complaining about companies mistreating consumers and you wanted Epic to win? They're as shitty as they come. https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2022/12/245-million-ftc-settlement-alleges-fortnite-owner-epic-games-used-digital-dark-patterns-charge https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2022/12/245-milli... Apple has provided the world 1000x more value than Epic ever will. Justice prevailed.
    - waboremo 3y ago
      Apple has made billions (upwards of $300m in pure profit) from Fortnite. If you care about Epic's shitty qualities in that aspect (the case you're linking), surely you also care about Apple profiting off that exploitation as well?
      - pb7 3y ago
        Have you read the details of the judgment? Most of the dark patterns Epic used aren't possible on iOS. In fact, the reason they hate Apple's walled garden so much is because they add too much friction to the dark patterns they want to use, notably authentication for subsequent in-app purchases, so I don't know what exploitation profiting you're referring to. Apple protects consumers from shitty companies like Epic abusing consumers (in this case, children) and for that I thank them.
        smoldesu 3y ago
        You can offer safe payment authorization APIs that protect families without also forcing developers to pay you 27% on every microtransaction. One might even call that good OS design, rather than a subtly hostile pattern of funneling users through a contractually-obligated money siphon they have no control over.
        pb7 3y ago
        Doesn't hurt consumers, doesn't matter to government. Simple as. Apple is allowed to make money off the platform they built. Developers knew the terms before they started developing for it - the terms haven't changed since their inception and match other similar platforms - but each one knows they get more value out of Apple than vice versa. I have no sympathy for them anymore after I have been deleting more and more apps because of dark patterns. Nearly all of my phone use is on either stock apps or apps that are completely unaffected by App Store commissions like Uber, DoorDash, etc so I know who provides me the greater value and it's not companies like Epic.
        3y ago
- jdiff 3y ago
  It's been working out fine for the Steam Deck. Sure, you can install Windows and/or any other storefront, but you won't have the console-like experience that Valve's own software provides. It's trivially easy to install pirated games on the Deck, without any cracking or modification of the system. You never have to make a single Steam purchase after buying the Deck, but Valve's betting that you will. And they're right, that's enough. Most people don't go redoing or even tweaking the software stack on their hardware, they just stick with what comes out of the box.
  - _kbh_ 3y ago
    The steam deck is a way different value proposition compared to consoles though, console manufacturers take a loss for initial consoles sold until they can bring costs. Whereas the steam deck has likely been sold as a profit from day one.
    - 8note 3y ago
      This is why the steam deck is a good example? The console doesn't have to be sold at a loss in order to sell games. It would be better overall for competition for the games to be decoupled from the console. Same as with phone apps
      - brookst 3y ago
        You’ve made a fair point and that’s a reasonable opinion, but do you think it should be outright illegal for console makers to use a business model of consoles at cost, profits made on a share of game sales? Because that was Epic’s end game.
        smoldesu 3y ago
        They can make them at-cost and then charge whatever they want on their store. They just also have to allow me to choose different stores, or install another OS on my console if the OEM goes against my wishes. If you don't think I deserve that right as the lawful proprietor of said hardware, then we may be at an impasse. It seems like perfectly fair game to me.
pb7 3y ago
I'm glad you didn't get your wish. https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2022/12/245-million-ftc-settlement-alleges-fortnite-owner-epic-games-used-digital-dark-patterns-charge https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2022/12/245-milli...
- hackernewds 3y ago
  False dichotomy, if I've ever seen one

hackernewds 3y ago

The saddest event this generation is Epic vs Apple going in favor of Apple. It's tough to imagine Apple weren't a monolopy enforcing monopolistic policies.

cwp 3y ago
I wanted Epic to win too, but c'mon, 57% market share is not a monopoly.
- thfuran 3y ago
  In the UK, that's over twice the minimum threshold for monopoly power.
  - pb7 3y ago
    "Monopoly power" is not a monopoly and in the UK, public schools are actually private schools, so maybe we shouldn't compare terminology across countries.
    - laxd 3y ago
      "...maybe we shouldn't compare terminology across countries." That sounds like cromulent use of HN.
    - zarzavat 3y ago
      That’s because competition/antitrust law, be it UK, EU or US, doesn’t care about whether an entity is a “monopoly” or not. It cares about whether a company is engaging in anticompetitive practices or not. The market share is a red herring.
    - stale2002 3y ago
      > "Monopoly power" is not a monopoly Fortunately, "monopoly" isn't the thing that the law cares about. Everything to do with anti-trust law, and competition laws, is not about monopolies, and is instead about monopoly power. > so maybe we shouldn't compare terminology across countries Feel free to look at the the FTC says about this topic then. It to applies to companies with monopoly power, and not literal monopolies. https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui... "Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power"

musicale 3y ago

> 30% tax and App Store nonsense automatically makes me want Apple to lose every single court case in perpetuity We can only hope that alternative app stores on iOS will force Apple to match Google Play's 30% platform fees: https://techcrunch.com/2021/03/16/google-play-drops-commissions-to-15-from-30-following-apples-move-last-year/ https://techcrunch.com/2021/03/16/google-play-drops-commissi...

smoldesu 3y ago
If I might dream, maybe they also adopt Google's policy of not insisting upon billing developers[0] for the mere privilege of using their platform. [0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/02/apple-shocks-ios-developers-with-27-commission-on-third-party-payments/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/02/apple-shocks-ios...
fennecfoxy 3y ago
The difference being of course, on Apple's stranglehold on its customers. 30% either way, app developers know that Apple users are always willing to pay more and Apple knows this, too. That's why many apps only target iOS. Besides the income from services within Apple's apps: they could take 30% of an app's purchase price (which is still not justified tbh, the app store can't be _that_ expensive to run), but how do they justify trying to take a percentage of a subscription (like Spotify, Netflix etc) when they have nothing to do with it? That would be like Apple being able to take a portion of banking fees from me because I have my bank's app installed on my phone (and the bank takes fees), which Apple doesn't do of course because as big as they are, you do not fuck with banks.

JimDabell 3y ago

> the 30% tax 15%. Almost everybody pays 15%, not 30%. The only organisations who pay 30% earn over a million dollars a year from things other than long-term subscriptions. That’s a tiny minority.

_piif 3y ago
Interesting, I seem to have missed this change from 2021. That's far more reasonable.
smoldesu 3y ago
27%, if their demands in the Netherlands are still being taken seriously: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/02/apple-shocks-ios-developers-with-27-commission-on-third-party-payments/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/02/apple-shocks-ios...
- JimDabell 3y ago
  Nope, 12% in that case. The 27% figure assumes a reduction from the 30% rate virtually nobody pays. If you read Apple’s documentation, you’ll see that they say they will reduce their commission by 3%: > Apple will reduce its commission by 3% on the price paid by the user, net of value-added taxes. This is a reduced rate that excludes value related to payment processing and related activities. — https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitlement/ https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitl...
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    > virtually nobody pays. 100% of the top 100 paid apps on the App Store pay the full tax. It's a progressive model, and the figure itself is arbitrary anyways. People want a more Mac-like distribution model, and Apple is reluctant to provide it because services are the only thing with wider margin than slave labor cellphones.
    - JimDabell 3y ago

anticensor 3y ago

That 30% is iVAT :)