7 ms·

HN does generally feel the same about Apple. 30% cut is egregious especially when they give favors to certain app owners. “Court System” is very contextual: th

HN does generally feel the same about Apple. 30% cut is egregious especially when they give favors to certain app owners. “Court System” is very contextual: the Texas Supreme Court just blocked a woman getting an abortion for a non-viable pregnancy.

User23 3y ago
Maybe pick an analogy that isn’t picture perfect for starting a flame war? I don’t think it edifies anyone to bring that debate into a discussion about intellectual property rights.
hinkley 3y ago
Apple charges 30% on your second $million. For many of us, their fee is 15%. And for a lot of people it’s more like 25%.
- daveguy 3y ago
  I don't think this is the glowing review that you think it is.
  - hinkley 3y ago
    I don’t think any of you remember that AT&T and friends wanted 70%. Seventy.
    - saghm 3y ago
      The old protection racket taking your entire arm if you didn't pay isn't an argument that the new one only taking a couple fingers is reasonable
      - voisin 3y ago
        So what’s the right number? 0%? Any number would elicit moaning from the peanut gallery. Look at retail store gross margins on the products they sell (I.e. their cut of the retail price), and the terms they set for their wholesalers.
        daveguy 3y ago
        Did you just compare the markup of a retailer after negotiation with their supplier to the fee of a monopolist of the means of distribution on someone else's offered price? Because it seems to me those are very different things.
        bloppe 3y ago
        The right number is decided by competition. Different payment processors vie for customers by offering better deals until profit margins stabilize at a reasonable level. That's impossible with a monopoly.
        kelnos 3y ago
        Thank you for this. People seem to get bogged down in what percentage is right or wrong (something that reasonable people can very reasonably disagree about), but ultimately the problem is that there's no competitive marketplace.
        wiseowise 3y ago
        Absolutely this. I don’t understand why is it such a hard concept to grasp.
        hinkley 3y ago
        Apple Store isn't a Point of Sale system you outsource to IBM. It's inventory, delivery, and to an extent stewardship. The same with Steam. I don't expect junk and I expect refunds when I find it. Once you split that to a vendor the perverse incentives kick in and you end up right back in the Bad Place. I personally think somewhere in the neighborhood of 18% is probably closer to sustainable, given all that we expect. And I also think Apple fucked up. If they had voluntarily reduced their fees and created the intro level at the same time, and a year or so earlier, they could have picked a higher number than they are likely now to end up with when all is said and done.
        bloppe 3y ago
        None of that changes the fact that you need competition.
- hipadev23 3y ago
  Yeah, I'm aware, but for the entities who have the revenue that justifies taking Apple or Google to court, it's 30%. Which is fairly egregious for a glorified package manager.
  - WirelessGigabit 3y ago
    And in Apple's case an extremely restrictive package manger. Want to send encrypted notifications? Got to request the entitlements.
    - Pulcinella 3y ago
      Sorry but I don't want random apps spaming me with junk. If they want to send me notifications, then yes they should request my (the user's) permission.
      - WirelessGigabit 3y ago
        Oh I fully agree. I meant the Hidden Notification Entitlement. By default iOS requires you to display a notification when you receive one. But that conflicts with the idea of encrypting notifications. See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38545984 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38545984
    - fh9302 3y ago
      You can send encrypted notifications without any entitlement. I assume you are talking about sending notifications without displaying the notification to the user.
  - hinkley 3y ago
    Steam also takes 30%, and I’m not convinced they’re doing as much work for it as Apple. That said, if I could not pay both Steam and Apple for Civ VI DLC, that would make me so happy
- jzl 3y ago
  > Apple charges 30% on your second $million Not exactly. That would be a purely progressive tax like US income taxes. With the Small Business Program, what you say is only true the first time you cross 1 mil. Assuming your revenue never goes down (you can appeal if it does), in all future years you pay the full price. So if your app makes a consistent $1.5 mil / year, you’re paying the full tax on all of that revenue, not just $.5 of it.
  - hipadev23 3y ago
    Oh damn. That’s even worse, thank you for the clarification.
CobrastanJorji 3y ago
This is a bit of a tangent, but I want to discuss how deviously literal the Supreme Court decided to be in order to avoid letting anyone establish any precedent about what was or wasn't a legal abortion. The original filing said "It is also Dr. Karsan’s good faith belief and medical recommendation that that the Emergent Medical Condition Exception to Texas’s abortion bans and laws permits an abortion in Ms. Cox’s circumstances, as Ms. Cox has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from her current pregnancy that places her at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of her reproductive functions if a D&E abortion is not performed. Dr. Karsan is unsure how close to death her patients need to be before abortion is permitted under Texas law. As has been the case with prior patients over the last two years, Dr. Karsan is unsure if Ms. Cox’s current medical condition counts as close enough to death under Texas law for the Emergent Medical Condition Exception to apply." (clauses 139,140) The Texas Supreme Court said "The pleadings state that Ms. Cox's doctor believes Ms. Cox qualifies for an abortion based on the medical-necessity exception. But when she sued seeking a court's pre-authorization, Dr. Karsan did not assert that Ms. Cox has a 'life-threatening physical condition' or that, in Dr. Karsan's reasonable medical judgement, an abortion is necessary because Ms. Cox has the type of condition the exception requires." In short, the court decided that Dr. Karsan described the statute, and that Dr. Karsan stated that the statute applied, but Dr. Karsan did not actually say "the patient had a life-threatening physical condition," but only that the patient WOULD have a life-threatening condition if an abortion were not performed. Or at least that's probably the argument; it's not explained very well. Therefore, the Court cannot not rule on whether the abortion is legal or not. After all, only a doctor could make that determination, not a court (you can read the smirk). Truly an amazing decision, and if there's an award in Hell for achievements in pedantry, that court would have a real shot. Sadly, the Court would probably be disqualified for such an award as they technically lied (Dr. Karsan did in fact say "Ms. Cox has a life-threatening physical condition"), and one presumes Hell's Pedantry Awards interpret such rules quite strictly.
- galaxyLogic 3y ago
  What I never understood is how Republicans can be for one type of abortion say before 6 weeks but not for 15 weeks? What is their rationale? If Bible says that abortion is murder, and life begins at conception, then how can they allow abortion at 6 weeks and vote for that?

User23 3y ago

Maybe pick an analogy that isn’t picture perfect for starting a flame war? I don’t think it edifies anyone to bring that debate into a discussion about intellectual property rights.

hinkley 3y ago

Apple charges 30% on your second $million. For many of us, their fee is 15%. And for a lot of people it’s more like 25%.

daveguy 3y ago
I don't think this is the glowing review that you think it is.
- hinkley 3y ago
  I don’t think any of you remember that AT&T and friends wanted 70%. Seventy.
  - saghm 3y ago
    The old protection racket taking your entire arm if you didn't pay isn't an argument that the new one only taking a couple fingers is reasonable
    - voisin 3y ago
      So what’s the right number? 0%? Any number would elicit moaning from the peanut gallery. Look at retail store gross margins on the products they sell (I.e. their cut of the retail price), and the terms they set for their wholesalers.
      - daveguy 3y ago
        Did you just compare the markup of a retailer after negotiation with their supplier to the fee of a monopolist of the means of distribution on someone else's offered price? Because it seems to me those are very different things.
      - bloppe 3y ago
        The right number is decided by competition. Different payment processors vie for customers by offering better deals until profit margins stabilize at a reasonable level. That's impossible with a monopoly.
        kelnos 3y ago
        Thank you for this. People seem to get bogged down in what percentage is right or wrong (something that reasonable people can very reasonably disagree about), but ultimately the problem is that there's no competitive marketplace.
        wiseowise 3y ago
        Absolutely this. I don’t understand why is it such a hard concept to grasp.
        hinkley 3y ago
        Apple Store isn't a Point of Sale system you outsource to IBM. It's inventory, delivery, and to an extent stewardship. The same with Steam. I don't expect junk and I expect refunds when I find it. Once you split that to a vendor the perverse incentives kick in and you end up right back in the Bad Place. I personally think somewhere in the neighborhood of 18% is probably closer to sustainable, given all that we expect. And I also think Apple fucked up. If they had voluntarily reduced their fees and created the intro level at the same time, and a year or so earlier, they could have picked a higher number than they are likely now to end up with when all is said and done.
        bloppe 3y ago
        None of that changes the fact that you need competition.
hipadev23 3y ago
Yeah, I'm aware, but for the entities who have the revenue that justifies taking Apple or Google to court, it's 30%. Which is fairly egregious for a glorified package manager.
- WirelessGigabit 3y ago
  And in Apple's case an extremely restrictive package manger. Want to send encrypted notifications? Got to request the entitlements.
  - Pulcinella 3y ago
    Sorry but I don't want random apps spaming me with junk. If they want to send me notifications, then yes they should request my (the user's) permission.
    - WirelessGigabit 3y ago
      Oh I fully agree. I meant the Hidden Notification Entitlement. By default iOS requires you to display a notification when you receive one. But that conflicts with the idea of encrypting notifications. See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38545984 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38545984
  - fh9302 3y ago
    You can send encrypted notifications without any entitlement. I assume you are talking about sending notifications without displaying the notification to the user.
- hinkley 3y ago
  Steam also takes 30%, and I’m not convinced they’re doing as much work for it as Apple. That said, if I could not pay both Steam and Apple for Civ VI DLC, that would make me so happy
jzl 3y ago
> Apple charges 30% on your second $million Not exactly. That would be a purely progressive tax like US income taxes. With the Small Business Program, what you say is only true the first time you cross 1 mil. Assuming your revenue never goes down (you can appeal if it does), in all future years you pay the full price. So if your app makes a consistent $1.5 mil / year, you’re paying the full tax on all of that revenue, not just $.5 of it.
- hipadev23 3y ago
  Oh damn. That’s even worse, thank you for the clarification.

CobrastanJorji 3y ago

This is a bit of a tangent, but I want to discuss how deviously literal the Supreme Court decided to be in order to avoid letting anyone establish any precedent about what was or wasn't a legal abortion. The original filing said "It is also Dr. Karsan’s good faith belief and medical recommendation that that the Emergent Medical Condition Exception to Texas’s abortion bans and laws permits an abortion in Ms. Cox’s circumstances, as Ms. Cox has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from her current pregnancy that places her at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of her reproductive functions if a D&E abortion is not performed. Dr. Karsan is unsure how close to death her patients need to be before abortion is permitted under Texas law. As has been the case with prior patients over the last two years, Dr. Karsan is unsure if Ms. Cox’s current medical condition counts as close enough to death under Texas law for the Emergent Medical Condition Exception to apply." (clauses 139,140) The Texas Supreme Court said "The pleadings state that Ms. Cox's doctor believes Ms. Cox qualifies for an abortion based on the medical-necessity exception. But when she sued seeking a court's pre-authorization, Dr. Karsan did not assert that Ms. Cox has a 'life-threatening physical condition' or that, in Dr. Karsan's reasonable medical judgement, an abortion is necessary because Ms. Cox has the type of condition the exception requires." In short, the court decided that Dr. Karsan described the statute, and that Dr. Karsan stated that the statute applied, but Dr. Karsan did not actually say "the patient had a life-threatening physical condition," but only that the patient WOULD have a life-threatening condition if an abortion were not performed. Or at least that's probably the argument; it's not explained very well. Therefore, the Court cannot not rule on whether the abortion is legal or not. After all, only a doctor could make that determination, not a court (you can read the smirk). Truly an amazing decision, and if there's an award in Hell for achievements in pedantry, that court would have a real shot. Sadly, the Court would probably be disqualified for such an award as they technically lied (Dr. Karsan did in fact say "Ms. Cox has a life-threatening physical condition"), and one presumes Hell's Pedantry Awards interpret such rules quite strictly.

galaxyLogic 3y ago
What I never understood is how Republicans can be for one type of abortion say before 6 weeks but not for 15 weeks? What is their rationale? If Bible says that abortion is murder, and life begins at conception, then how can they allow abortion at 6 weeks and vote for that?