35 ms·

They want a 27% commission on sales made from those links and the right to audit companies' accounts for compliance. https://twitter.com/dhh/status/17474064300

They want a 27% commission on sales made from those links and the right to audit companies' accounts for compliance. https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1747406430054097099 https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1747406430054097099 It's beyond a joke. Between that and the payment processing fees, you're no better off. In fact, you get all of the same costs but none of the benefits of Apple's app store native payment infrastructure.

danenania 3y ago
It seems a lot more egregious that anything Microsoft did in the 90s. While MS tried to push their own products and lock out competitors, they never tried to take a massive cut of all the software on their OS. The level of sheer FU everyone chutzpah is pretty impressive. They're indeed making quite a joke out of antitrust at this point.
- karlshea 3y ago
  I'm not sure that's a direct comparison. Back then sure you could get shareware but mostly the market was paid boxed software. I can't find a direct source but I remember hearing brick-and-mortar retailers would take even more than 30% of sales. And Visual Studio sure wasn't free. Everything was different though, you'd be paying for your OS upgrades too which doesn't happen on iOS. I agree 30% is crazy, but the market on iOS they're enabling has to get paid for somehow. That source of revenue was different for Microsoft in the 80s/90s but it still existed.
  - danenania 3y ago
    "I remember hearing brick-and-mortar retailers would take even more than 30% of sales" I'd say the key difference there is that Microsoft didn't own all those retail stores.
    - chihuahua 3y ago
      Right, and anyone could open a retail store and sell software with a lower mark-up.
  - MBCook 3y ago
    Throughout the multiple trials that has been a big argument Apple makes. That especially for smaller companies their cut is drastically lower than it would have been for retail software on shelves. Which conveniently ignores the fact that you can buy software for digital download on the Internet for significantly lower overhead. But they keep arguing it.
    - threeseed 3y ago
      > buy software for digital download on the Internet for significantly lower overhead But you are looking at that through the lens of an end user. As a developer, Apple's total acquisition cost i.e. 15/30% is far less than what it costs me to acquire customers through other channels e.g. Paid Ads, Referral etc.
      - zamadatix 3y ago
        And if another developer disagrees for their app it doesn't matter because it made sense for you?
      - MBCook 3y ago
        I’m not attempting to look at it in any direction. I was simply stating that Apple had indeed made that exact argument.
  - toast0 3y ago
    > And Visual Studio sure wasn't free. Visual Studio wasn't free, but it also wasn't required. There are a wide variety of ways to develop software for Microsoft OSes.
  - jimbobimbo 3y ago
    I used to sell shareware back in early 2000s and have never sold a box, only online. There used to be payment processors tailored just to this, who were charging way less than 30% for the privilege.
  - biztos 3y ago
    > but the market on iOS they're enabling has to get paid for somehow How about paying for it with the massive profit they make selling the devices? As far as I can tell, the only reason Apple’s doing the whole rent-seeking App Store business is “because they can.” Upside is all that money, downside is the developers kinda hate you.
- MBCook 3y ago
  Microsoft had like 95% of the market. Apple has 50%. Courts have already ruled they’re not a monopoly. Epic asked the Supreme Court to look at that again and they specifically decided not to and to leave the decision in place. That’s why Apple can do what they’re (now, post order) doing legally and Microsoft couldn’t.
  - danenania 3y ago
    iOS and Android taken together are clearly a monopoly though. So call it a cartel or duopoly with price fixing if you like rather than a monopoly. It's exactly the kind of situation that antitrust laws were created to prevent.
    - MBCook 3y ago
      Unless you can find proof of collusion I’m not sure it matters. Making matters worse the Google Play Store is completely optional you’ve been able to side load for years. To the degree Google prevented that they just got kicked in the teeth for it. So you’re going to have to argue that the combination of the Apple App Store, plus Google, plus Samsung, plus everything else all work together to screw over users. Good luck.
    - mr_toad 3y ago
      > iOS and Android taken together are clearly a monopoly though. That’s impossible by definition, a literal contradiction in terms.
      - danenania 3y ago
        Thus the following sentence in my comment: "So call it a cartel or duopoly with price fixing if you like rather than a monopoly."
        threeseed 3y ago
        Except that it isn't a cartel and there is no evidence of price fixing. And there is nothing preventing other companies e.g. Samsung making their own store.
greg_V 3y ago
Apple is acting like a state within their domain. Collecting a VAT and requiring compliance that's reserved usually for the national tax office with inspective powers. Having locked in the richest consumers of the world, they get to say what goes and what doesn't, worldly courts and laws be damned. It's both hilarious and gruesome at the same time, because we're supposed to be equal under consumer laws or whatever, but there you go!
- MBCook 3y ago
  [flagged]
- klabb3 3y ago
  The infuriating part is that this isn’t about computing or distribution. They already charge for that separately. It’s a triple dip just because nobody stops them. Most of the modern digital consumer economy is based on products and services which are device-agnostic. If I’m using Spotify or Netflix or something they are service providers and the iPhone/ipad is just a client device. Apple should have no marginal returns (a cut) on money that should go to artists, actors, developers. They’ve already charged massively for both their physical products and their services. Antitrust law is a joke. This has always been glaringly obvious since Jobs first came up with this shit. The fact that it still ain’t fixed is a travesty, not just for tech nerds, but it impedes the digital economy at large. The greediest thing of it all is that they’re actually providing a service people would pay premium for - in-app purchases and their “all subscriptions in one place” without dark pattern harassment is very nice for consumers. They have a legit product worth a ton yet they still refuse to compete fairly. Anti-market capitalism..
- throwitaway1123 3y ago
  > Apple is acting like a state within their domain. Someone unironically complained yesterday that developers who don't like paying the 30% fee probably don't like paying their taxes, and I made the exact same argument that Apple was acting like a sovereign state [0]. And now Apple is doubling down by announcing that they'll be performing financial audits just like the Internal Revenue Service if you include a link to purchase content/services outside of the app store. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39007657 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39007657
btown 3y ago
This is still huge for mobile gaming, though. Per https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitlement-us/ https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitl... : > Apple’s commission will be 27% on proceeds you earn from sales (“transactions“) to the user for digital goods or services on your website after a link out (i.e., they tap “Continue” on the system disclosure sheet), provided that the sale was initiated within seven days and the digital goods or services can be used in an app. As any F2P gamer knows, “whales” don’t just spend up front - they make microtransactions on a regular basis for months or years as new rewards become available. This is incredibly meaningful for game publishers who depend on long-term customer engagement.
542458 3y ago
> right to audit companies' accounts for compliance I’m not sure why the audit requirement is getting called out. That seems pretty standard for this type of revenue sharing agreement to me.

danenania 3y ago

It seems a lot more egregious that anything Microsoft did in the 90s. While MS tried to push their own products and lock out competitors, they never tried to take a massive cut of all the software on their OS. The level of sheer FU everyone chutzpah is pretty impressive. They're indeed making quite a joke out of antitrust at this point.

karlshea 3y ago
I'm not sure that's a direct comparison. Back then sure you could get shareware but mostly the market was paid boxed software. I can't find a direct source but I remember hearing brick-and-mortar retailers would take even more than 30% of sales. And Visual Studio sure wasn't free. Everything was different though, you'd be paying for your OS upgrades too which doesn't happen on iOS. I agree 30% is crazy, but the market on iOS they're enabling has to get paid for somehow. That source of revenue was different for Microsoft in the 80s/90s but it still existed.
- danenania 3y ago
  "I remember hearing brick-and-mortar retailers would take even more than 30% of sales" I'd say the key difference there is that Microsoft didn't own all those retail stores.
  - chihuahua 3y ago
    Right, and anyone could open a retail store and sell software with a lower mark-up.
- MBCook 3y ago
  Throughout the multiple trials that has been a big argument Apple makes. That especially for smaller companies their cut is drastically lower than it would have been for retail software on shelves. Which conveniently ignores the fact that you can buy software for digital download on the Internet for significantly lower overhead. But they keep arguing it.
  - threeseed 3y ago
    > buy software for digital download on the Internet for significantly lower overhead But you are looking at that through the lens of an end user. As a developer, Apple's total acquisition cost i.e. 15/30% is far less than what it costs me to acquire customers through other channels e.g. Paid Ads, Referral etc.
    - zamadatix 3y ago
      And if another developer disagrees for their app it doesn't matter because it made sense for you?
    - MBCook 3y ago
      I’m not attempting to look at it in any direction. I was simply stating that Apple had indeed made that exact argument.
- toast0 3y ago
  > And Visual Studio sure wasn't free. Visual Studio wasn't free, but it also wasn't required. There are a wide variety of ways to develop software for Microsoft OSes.
- jimbobimbo 3y ago
  I used to sell shareware back in early 2000s and have never sold a box, only online. There used to be payment processors tailored just to this, who were charging way less than 30% for the privilege.
- biztos 3y ago
  > but the market on iOS they're enabling has to get paid for somehow How about paying for it with the massive profit they make selling the devices? As far as I can tell, the only reason Apple’s doing the whole rent-seeking App Store business is “because they can.” Upside is all that money, downside is the developers kinda hate you.
MBCook 3y ago
Microsoft had like 95% of the market. Apple has 50%. Courts have already ruled they’re not a monopoly. Epic asked the Supreme Court to look at that again and they specifically decided not to and to leave the decision in place. That’s why Apple can do what they’re (now, post order) doing legally and Microsoft couldn’t.
- danenania 3y ago
  iOS and Android taken together are clearly a monopoly though. So call it a cartel or duopoly with price fixing if you like rather than a monopoly. It's exactly the kind of situation that antitrust laws were created to prevent.
  - MBCook 3y ago
    Unless you can find proof of collusion I’m not sure it matters. Making matters worse the Google Play Store is completely optional you’ve been able to side load for years. To the degree Google prevented that they just got kicked in the teeth for it. So you’re going to have to argue that the combination of the Apple App Store, plus Google, plus Samsung, plus everything else all work together to screw over users. Good luck.
  - mr_toad 3y ago
    > iOS and Android taken together are clearly a monopoly though. That’s impossible by definition, a literal contradiction in terms.
    - danenania 3y ago
      Thus the following sentence in my comment: "So call it a cartel or duopoly with price fixing if you like rather than a monopoly."
      - threeseed 3y ago
        Except that it isn't a cartel and there is no evidence of price fixing. And there is nothing preventing other companies e.g. Samsung making their own store.

greg_V 3y ago

Apple is acting like a state within their domain. Collecting a VAT and requiring compliance that's reserved usually for the national tax office with inspective powers. Having locked in the richest consumers of the world, they get to say what goes and what doesn't, worldly courts and laws be damned. It's both hilarious and gruesome at the same time, because we're supposed to be equal under consumer laws or whatever, but there you go!

MBCook 3y ago
[flagged]
klabb3 3y ago
The infuriating part is that this isn’t about computing or distribution. They already charge for that separately. It’s a triple dip just because nobody stops them. Most of the modern digital consumer economy is based on products and services which are device-agnostic. If I’m using Spotify or Netflix or something they are service providers and the iPhone/ipad is just a client device. Apple should have no marginal returns (a cut) on money that should go to artists, actors, developers. They’ve already charged massively for both their physical products and their services. Antitrust law is a joke. This has always been glaringly obvious since Jobs first came up with this shit. The fact that it still ain’t fixed is a travesty, not just for tech nerds, but it impedes the digital economy at large. The greediest thing of it all is that they’re actually providing a service people would pay premium for - in-app purchases and their “all subscriptions in one place” without dark pattern harassment is very nice for consumers. They have a legit product worth a ton yet they still refuse to compete fairly. Anti-market capitalism..
throwitaway1123 3y ago
> Apple is acting like a state within their domain. Someone unironically complained yesterday that developers who don't like paying the 30% fee probably don't like paying their taxes, and I made the exact same argument that Apple was acting like a sovereign state [0]. And now Apple is doubling down by announcing that they'll be performing financial audits just like the Internal Revenue Service if you include a link to purchase content/services outside of the app store. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39007657 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39007657

btown 3y ago

This is still huge for mobile gaming, though. Per https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitlement-us/ https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitl... : > Apple’s commission will be 27% on proceeds you earn from sales (“transactions“) to the user for digital goods or services on your website after a link out (i.e., they tap “Continue” on the system disclosure sheet), provided that the sale was initiated within seven days and the digital goods or services can be used in an app. As any F2P gamer knows, “whales” don’t just spend up front - they make microtransactions on a regular basis for months or years as new rewards become available. This is incredibly meaningful for game publishers who depend on long-term customer engagement.

542458 3y ago

> right to audit companies' accounts for compliance I’m not sure why the audit requirement is getting called out. That seems pretty standard for this type of revenue sharing agreement to me.