6 ms·

I think a company going around saying "we are a open system you can do what you want with our product" and then making secret deals to limit that openess is wor

by msh 3y ago

I think a company going around saying "we are a open system you can do what you want with our product" and then making secret deals to limit that openess is worse than a company from day one saying we are selling a 100% locked down solution, take it or leave it.

andy_ppp 3y ago
It really doesn't matter who is worse morally here, just both situations are bad for consumer choice. I find it amazing that Apple things it is okay to attempt to take 15% of Audible revenue if they allowed you to buy books in the app, for example.
- pentae 3y ago
  It's 30%. It's only 15% after 12 months of a customer rebilling which is statistically insignificant number, and it was only done as a carefully orchestrated PR move to make people think 15% when it's really 30 - as you have demonstrated
  - ralfd 3y ago
    Is it statistically insignificant? My guess would be that sooner or later most subscribers are long term customers.
    - michaelt 3y ago
      Depends on what type of subscription business it is. I've heard meal kit companies like Hello Fresh lose 90% of their customers in less than 12 months, as the generous new customer discount vouchers tail off. (Not that meal kit companies would be paying Apple 30%)
      - beacham 3y ago
        [flagged]
        cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
        [flagged]
      - dcow 3y ago
        Meal kit companies don’t pay the 30% because the payment is for a service that is delivered outside the app. Uber doesn't pay it either. It’s a stupid loophole apple built in that all but proves the 30% cut is ridiculous and would never work in the real world.
        riversflow 3y ago
        Curious what B2C business sectors take less than a 30% cut?
        jzl 3y ago
        Exactly. The whole argument about security and people needing a central payment system for things to be safe user friendly is patently ridiculous given that said approach is working just fine for all the “physical items” apps.
    - dangus 3y ago
      It’s statistically insignificant because churn rates on subscription services are higher than you’d think. A typical customer lifetime might be somewhere between a year and two years, unless you happen to be a giant like Netflix. Let’s say you expect your customer to churn after 14 months, so that means you only enjoy 2 months of Apple’s reduced royalty rate. Your total average rate is 27%. This concept is why many sunscription services are able to offer lifetime subscriptions. They have already figured out what one customer is worth based on churn rate, so the lifetime subscription is set up to be a price that matches or exceeds that number.
    - andy_ppp 3y ago
      If it wasn't significant in terms of Apple's profits why would they not just charge 15%...
    - pentae 3y ago
      Average subscription length for most apps varies but the average is 3 months. Most people cancel within the first month no matter what the product is
- overstay8930 3y ago
  I agree but not enough to get the government involved
  - wildrhythms 3y ago
    What's your solution?
  - j_maffe 3y ago
    Who else can regulate markets?
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  Both are bad for consumers, but one is worse. A locked garden is a locked garden. But a locked garden that you go into knowing it's a locked garden is better than a locked garden that advertises itself as open and then locks you in. Both are locked gardens; one is also false advertising.
  - rpdillon 3y ago
    I don't think it's false advertising to say that Android has alternative app stores. I primarily use apps from an alternative store and it works well.
  - gspencley 3y ago
    > But a locked garden that you go into knowing it's a locked garden is better Out of curiosity, say that I'm not a techie that knows all about Apple vs alternatives ... and say I'm interested in buying Apple because I like the aesthetics of the device or something. Is there anything actually explicit in Apple's marketing that makes it clear to the consumer that they are buying into a "locked garden" ? Part of this discussion has to do with definitions and what we're talking about, specifically. It's common in other industries to find yourself with some degree of vendor lock-in for "compatibility." I bought some high end Canon camera lenses, for example, so I have zero expectations that I can use those lenses with a Sony or a Nikon. I tend to buy Dewalt tools because I own Dewalt batteries etc. Here we're talking about the "App Store." I don't know that it would register on the average non-techie's mind to assume they would have options ... but us techies know that the "locked garden" tends to mean "you're buying into the Apple ecosystem of products and will likely be stuck only buying Apple products for compatibility sake." Non techies might assume that because they assume that everything works that way. But is Apple making this extremely clear in their marketing so that people who don't assume would know up front? I'm genuinely curious since I don't buy Apple products.
    - freedomben 3y ago
      Agreed, and also worth pointing out that Apple has rules for apps in the app store that they aren't allowed to tell you about Apple's cut and point you to a different place to buy. That is the absolute opposite of informing the user. Apple is preventing anybody from informing the user.
- throwaway18636 3y ago
  As a dev, I absolutely prefer Apple’s model of locked-down walled garden. HN has no idea about all the grandmas and people who are busy with their jobs and kids, aka majority of the population. I can’t imagine the magnitude of digital fraud and scams that would happen if Apple devices weren’t a walled garden. My only dissatisfaction is that I can’t develop for iOS without buying a Mac and a developer account, but I also understand I’m not entitled to it just because I want.
  - InsomniacL 3y ago
    Apple could still be a gate-keeper of 3rd party stores. They could dictate the security and protections that need to be in-place to be listed. The PKI industry is a good example of this. The Certificate authorities have to abide by standards and any misbehaving Certificate Authorities can be removed. I'd argue the integrity of the PKI industry is just as important, if not more so, than App Stores and they have managed to maintain a device agnostic market with healthy competition.
  - beacham 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Ben Franklin
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    > I can’t imagine the magnitude of digital fraud and scams that would happen if Apple devices weren’t a walled garden. I can, and I don't mind. Let it happen. Computer freedom is more important than preventing scams and fraud. Just have the corporations and banks eat the losses instead. God knows these trillion dollar corporations can afford it.
    - grok25 3y ago
      [dead]
- pipes 3y ago
  They aren't "taking revenue" they are providing a service. If audible don't want to use that service they don't have to.
  - jojobas 3y ago
    Except they want their cut whether or not you use their service.
  - InsomniacL 3y ago
    They are providing a service and simultaneously preventing anyone else from providing the same service.
smsm42 3y ago
The lesson of this would be terrible - never leave any openings in your walled garden or allow any compromise in excluding third parties, always keep it 100% closed.

by msh 3y ago

andy_ppp 3y ago

It really doesn't matter who is worse morally here, just both situations are bad for consumer choice. I find it amazing that Apple things it is okay to attempt to take 15% of Audible revenue if they allowed you to buy books in the app, for example.

pentae 3y ago
It's 30%. It's only 15% after 12 months of a customer rebilling which is statistically insignificant number, and it was only done as a carefully orchestrated PR move to make people think 15% when it's really 30 - as you have demonstrated
- ralfd 3y ago
  Is it statistically insignificant? My guess would be that sooner or later most subscribers are long term customers.
  - michaelt 3y ago
    Depends on what type of subscription business it is. I've heard meal kit companies like Hello Fresh lose 90% of their customers in less than 12 months, as the generous new customer discount vouchers tail off. (Not that meal kit companies would be paying Apple 30%)
    - beacham 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
        [flagged]
    - dcow 3y ago
      Meal kit companies don’t pay the 30% because the payment is for a service that is delivered outside the app. Uber doesn't pay it either. It’s a stupid loophole apple built in that all but proves the 30% cut is ridiculous and would never work in the real world.
      - riversflow 3y ago
        Curious what B2C business sectors take less than a 30% cut?
      - jzl 3y ago
        Exactly. The whole argument about security and people needing a central payment system for things to be safe user friendly is patently ridiculous given that said approach is working just fine for all the “physical items” apps.
  - dangus 3y ago
    It’s statistically insignificant because churn rates on subscription services are higher than you’d think. A typical customer lifetime might be somewhere between a year and two years, unless you happen to be a giant like Netflix. Let’s say you expect your customer to churn after 14 months, so that means you only enjoy 2 months of Apple’s reduced royalty rate. Your total average rate is 27%. This concept is why many sunscription services are able to offer lifetime subscriptions. They have already figured out what one customer is worth based on churn rate, so the lifetime subscription is set up to be a price that matches or exceeds that number.
  - andy_ppp 3y ago
    If it wasn't significant in terms of Apple's profits why would they not just charge 15%...
  - pentae 3y ago
    Average subscription length for most apps varies but the average is 3 months. Most people cancel within the first month no matter what the product is
overstay8930 3y ago
I agree but not enough to get the government involved
- wildrhythms 3y ago
  What's your solution?
- j_maffe 3y ago
  Who else can regulate markets?
AnimalMuppet 3y ago
Both are bad for consumers, but one is worse. A locked garden is a locked garden. But a locked garden that you go into knowing it's a locked garden is better than a locked garden that advertises itself as open and then locks you in. Both are locked gardens; one is also false advertising.
- rpdillon 3y ago
  I don't think it's false advertising to say that Android has alternative app stores. I primarily use apps from an alternative store and it works well.
- gspencley 3y ago
  > But a locked garden that you go into knowing it's a locked garden is better Out of curiosity, say that I'm not a techie that knows all about Apple vs alternatives ... and say I'm interested in buying Apple because I like the aesthetics of the device or something. Is there anything actually explicit in Apple's marketing that makes it clear to the consumer that they are buying into a "locked garden" ? Part of this discussion has to do with definitions and what we're talking about, specifically. It's common in other industries to find yourself with some degree of vendor lock-in for "compatibility." I bought some high end Canon camera lenses, for example, so I have zero expectations that I can use those lenses with a Sony or a Nikon. I tend to buy Dewalt tools because I own Dewalt batteries etc. Here we're talking about the "App Store." I don't know that it would register on the average non-techie's mind to assume they would have options ... but us techies know that the "locked garden" tends to mean "you're buying into the Apple ecosystem of products and will likely be stuck only buying Apple products for compatibility sake." Non techies might assume that because they assume that everything works that way. But is Apple making this extremely clear in their marketing so that people who don't assume would know up front? I'm genuinely curious since I don't buy Apple products.
  - freedomben 3y ago
    Agreed, and also worth pointing out that Apple has rules for apps in the app store that they aren't allowed to tell you about Apple's cut and point you to a different place to buy. That is the absolute opposite of informing the user. Apple is preventing anybody from informing the user.
throwaway18636 3y ago
As a dev, I absolutely prefer Apple’s model of locked-down walled garden. HN has no idea about all the grandmas and people who are busy with their jobs and kids, aka majority of the population. I can’t imagine the magnitude of digital fraud and scams that would happen if Apple devices weren’t a walled garden. My only dissatisfaction is that I can’t develop for iOS without buying a Mac and a developer account, but I also understand I’m not entitled to it just because I want.
- InsomniacL 3y ago
  Apple could still be a gate-keeper of 3rd party stores. They could dictate the security and protections that need to be in-place to be listed. The PKI industry is a good example of this. The Certificate authorities have to abide by standards and any misbehaving Certificate Authorities can be removed. I'd argue the integrity of the PKI industry is just as important, if not more so, than App Stores and they have managed to maintain a device agnostic market with healthy competition.
- beacham 3y ago
  [flagged]
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Ben Franklin
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  > I can’t imagine the magnitude of digital fraud and scams that would happen if Apple devices weren’t a walled garden. I can, and I don't mind. Let it happen. Computer freedom is more important than preventing scams and fraud. Just have the corporations and banks eat the losses instead. God knows these trillion dollar corporations can afford it.
  - grok25 3y ago
    [dead]
pipes 3y ago
They aren't "taking revenue" they are providing a service. If audible don't want to use that service they don't have to.
- jojobas 3y ago
  Except they want their cut whether or not you use their service.
- InsomniacL 3y ago
  They are providing a service and simultaneously preventing anyone else from providing the same service.

smsm42 3y ago

The lesson of this would be terrible - never leave any openings in your walled garden or allow any compromise in excluding third parties, always keep it 100% closed.