3 ms·

This feels like a straw that breaks the camel's back kind of moment. Apple has gotten away with a tremendous amount (being an astonishingly greedy company. All

This feels like a straw that breaks the camel's back kind of moment. Apple has gotten away with a tremendous amount (being an astonishingly greedy company. All companies are de facto greedy, but Apple is just next level in its egregious entitlement), but there is simply zero way this stands. And FWIW, I'm an Apple fan and find Tim S a completely unsympathetic character. But seeing the hilariously absurd lengths that people will go to justify Apple's outrageous greed grows old.

stevage 3y ago
Zero way? This will totally stand for a few years at least.
lolinder 3y ago
The details of the process of getting approval for links may be out of line, but the idea that simply using a different payment processor would remove the entirety of the 30% commission was always a pipe dream. Apple has always been adamant that the fee is for the service of using the App Store, not the payment processor, and that you owe them for sales made regardless of whether they're able to take the money directly out of your revenue stream. That part of this outcome was inevitable, and I don't think any court will rule against it. It was even anticipated in the original ruling: > First, and most significant, as discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple’s intellectual property. Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission.
- aCoreyJ 3y ago
  That's precisely what gets them in trouble though. Every bank, credit card, giant corporation has an app and has to pay Apple nothing but indie game developers subsidize them
  - Spivak 3y ago
    Because the fee is only charged for digital goods yada yada Apple legalese. It's not 30% of every time money moves when an iPhone is involved. Indie devs are still processing credit card payments so I don't think this argument follows.
- jussaying2 3y ago
  > Apple has always been adamant that the fee is for the service of using the App Store, not the payment processor So charge developers for the service of using the App Store, perhaps with a per-download cost. To "give away" the service of the App Store only to recuperate your costs (and then some) via payment processing is just daylight robbery.
  - aikinai 3y ago
    In the US, highways are almost all free but ”payment” is roughed charged through gasoline taxes. You also pay for sewage service based on how much water you use, not how much sewage you produce, based on the assumption that most of your water goes into the sewer. Charging customers by some other correlated proxy is not robbery; it’s just practical. Which is exactly why the court had no issues with the arrangement.
    - lxgr 3y ago
      The issue isn’t how Apple bills for their services, but rather whether they should be allowed to force every app developer to even consume them, at least to the extent they currently do. Given that this is the US legal/political system, that question is being fought out in various proxy fights, but by looking at the largely equivalent situation in the EU and the DMA, you can see what’s really at stake here.
- makeitdouble 3y ago
  ＞ the idea that simply using a different payment processor would remove the entirety of the 30% commission was always a pipe dream The idea wasn't to use third party processors as an argument to evade the fee, it was the other way round. Front and center Epic wanted to get rid of or strongly lower the fee, and as a consequence developers would probably have had to use other processors. The judge shut this down by legitimizing Apple's 30%, which as a consequent allows Apple to collect that money however the dev processes their customers, third party PSP or not.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    Right, it wasn't Epic's pipe dream, but somehow that's the idea that got popularized on HN and elsewhere. For example, just a few hours ago the comments on the thread about the Supreme Court's declining to hear the case [0] were mostly operating on the assumption that developers would now be able to offer a substantial discount for people selling off the App Store. That only works if developers actually could save significant money by selling through alternate storefronts, which was never going to be possible because Apple was always going to pick something approximately market rate as their valuation for the payment processor portion of the fee. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39014642 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39014642 For example: > It seems easy to kind of shrug at this, but this does seem quite significant because of many mobile apps are 'free to play.' Apple pocketing 30% of all of these transactions, and forcing users/devs to go through Apple, is a major part of its revenue. And all of those apps now have the option to direct users to alternative payment methods, where they can both charge users substantially less and make more profit doing so.
hyperbovine 3y ago
> But seeing the hilariously absurd lengths that people will go to justify Apple's outrageous greed grows old. Define greed. Seriously, I'm asking for an objective definition, not just ipse dixit. They're charging what the market will bear for a _vastly_ better product (iOS vs. Android).
- lxgr 3y ago
  Assuming iOS is really vastly better than Android: Isn’t it curious that Google is charging exactly the same rate then? It’s just not an apples to oranges comparison: One vendor is forcing use of their distribution services; the other just strongly nudges their customers to stay within their walled garden and not enable sideloading.
- makeitdouble 3y ago
  You're in the "greed" range when you're sued internationaly over how you deal with money and lose in at least one court, at least once. Apple is in good company in this category.
- makeitdouble 3y ago
  > They're charging what the market will bear for a _vastly_ better product (iOS vs. Android). I wonder how you see Qualcomm, being the crushing leader of mobile modem chips.
dmitrygr 3y ago
Does a gas station “get away” with charging for gas? They are selling a service and can charge anything they want for it. You are free not to use it, as is anyone else.
- kalleboo 3y ago
  > You are free not to use it I'm not really though. I need to use either an Apple or a Google phone to participate in society.
- lxgr 3y ago
  That would be true in a completely unregulated market only. In many countries, antitrust regulators set some limits to how far companies can take their “take it or leave it” approach and in many cases require companies to provide a certain service, sometimes even at a certain rate. Forcing companies to unbundle products or services is another common measure.
3jjj3jjj3 3y ago
"being an astonishingly greedy company" and then writing "I'm an Apple fan" ... sound like a Stockholm syndrome or a cognitive dissonance
- lxgr 3y ago
  Why? I can a company’s stock, use their products, and still strongly disagree with some of their business practices.
- ralmidani 3y ago
  It’s called “nuance”. Also, Stockholm Syndrome is the opposite of what you’re objecting to; someone is taken hostage and sympathizes with the hostage takers.
newsclues 3y ago
Was the situation for phone software developers better before the iPhone?
ralmidani 3y ago
> And FWIW, I'm an Apple fan and find Tim S a completely unsympathetic character. But seeing the hilariously absurd lengths that people will go to justify Apple's outrageous greed grows old. Heh, there are still folks who actually grasp nuance… I have an iPhone, despise Apple in general, but consider their business disputes on a case-by-case basis. So for example, Apple is right to ignore Facebook’s plea to be allowed to track users, and simultaneously wrong in its App Store monopolistic money-grabbing.
- satvikpendem 3y ago
  Generally for Apple, I like their hardware, not their software. It's why I have a MacBook but also an Android phone, because I like their battery life but also because I can install whatever software I want, on either.
  - ralmidani 3y ago
    Same… Apple software has, for a while, been going steadily from “just garbage” to “dumpster fire floating through a river of sewage”.
gepardi 3y ago
Is it enough to make you stop using Apple products? I’m considering it.
- babypuncher 3y ago
  It's not like Google or Samsung are even remotely better. Given the scary things Samsung gets away with in South Korea, I almost want to say they're worse than Apple.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

stevage 3y ago

Zero way? This will totally stand for a few years at least.

lolinder 3y ago

The details of the process of getting approval for links may be out of line, but the idea that simply using a different payment processor would remove the entirety of the 30% commission was always a pipe dream. Apple has always been adamant that the fee is for the service of using the App Store, not the payment processor, and that you owe them for sales made regardless of whether they're able to take the money directly out of your revenue stream. That part of this outcome was inevitable, and I don't think any court will rule against it. It was even anticipated in the original ruling: > First, and most significant, as discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple’s intellectual property. Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission.

aCoreyJ 3y ago
That's precisely what gets them in trouble though. Every bank, credit card, giant corporation has an app and has to pay Apple nothing but indie game developers subsidize them
- Spivak 3y ago
  Because the fee is only charged for digital goods yada yada Apple legalese. It's not 30% of every time money moves when an iPhone is involved. Indie devs are still processing credit card payments so I don't think this argument follows.
jussaying2 3y ago
> Apple has always been adamant that the fee is for the service of using the App Store, not the payment processor So charge developers for the service of using the App Store, perhaps with a per-download cost. To "give away" the service of the App Store only to recuperate your costs (and then some) via payment processing is just daylight robbery.
- aikinai 3y ago
  In the US, highways are almost all free but ”payment” is roughed charged through gasoline taxes. You also pay for sewage service based on how much water you use, not how much sewage you produce, based on the assumption that most of your water goes into the sewer. Charging customers by some other correlated proxy is not robbery; it’s just practical. Which is exactly why the court had no issues with the arrangement.
  - lxgr 3y ago
    The issue isn’t how Apple bills for their services, but rather whether they should be allowed to force every app developer to even consume them, at least to the extent they currently do. Given that this is the US legal/political system, that question is being fought out in various proxy fights, but by looking at the largely equivalent situation in the EU and the DMA, you can see what’s really at stake here.
makeitdouble 3y ago
＞ the idea that simply using a different payment processor would remove the entirety of the 30% commission was always a pipe dream The idea wasn't to use third party processors as an argument to evade the fee, it was the other way round. Front and center Epic wanted to get rid of or strongly lower the fee, and as a consequence developers would probably have had to use other processors. The judge shut this down by legitimizing Apple's 30%, which as a consequent allows Apple to collect that money however the dev processes their customers, third party PSP or not.
- lolinder 3y ago
  Right, it wasn't Epic's pipe dream, but somehow that's the idea that got popularized on HN and elsewhere. For example, just a few hours ago the comments on the thread about the Supreme Court's declining to hear the case [0] were mostly operating on the assumption that developers would now be able to offer a substantial discount for people selling off the App Store. That only works if developers actually could save significant money by selling through alternate storefronts, which was never going to be possible because Apple was always going to pick something approximately market rate as their valuation for the payment processor portion of the fee. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39014642 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39014642 For example: > It seems easy to kind of shrug at this, but this does seem quite significant because of many mobile apps are 'free to play.' Apple pocketing 30% of all of these transactions, and forcing users/devs to go through Apple, is a major part of its revenue. And all of those apps now have the option to direct users to alternative payment methods, where they can both charge users substantially less and make more profit doing so.

hyperbovine 3y ago

> But seeing the hilariously absurd lengths that people will go to justify Apple's outrageous greed grows old. Define greed. Seriously, I'm asking for an objective definition, not just ipse dixit. They're charging what the market will bear for a _vastly_ better product (iOS vs. Android).

lxgr 3y ago
Assuming iOS is really vastly better than Android: Isn’t it curious that Google is charging exactly the same rate then? It’s just not an apples to oranges comparison: One vendor is forcing use of their distribution services; the other just strongly nudges their customers to stay within their walled garden and not enable sideloading.
makeitdouble 3y ago
You're in the "greed" range when you're sued internationaly over how you deal with money and lose in at least one court, at least once. Apple is in good company in this category.
makeitdouble 3y ago
> They're charging what the market will bear for a _vastly_ better product (iOS vs. Android). I wonder how you see Qualcomm, being the crushing leader of mobile modem chips.

dmitrygr 3y ago

Does a gas station “get away” with charging for gas? They are selling a service and can charge anything they want for it. You are free not to use it, as is anyone else.

kalleboo 3y ago
> You are free not to use it I'm not really though. I need to use either an Apple or a Google phone to participate in society.
lxgr 3y ago
That would be true in a completely unregulated market only. In many countries, antitrust regulators set some limits to how far companies can take their “take it or leave it” approach and in many cases require companies to provide a certain service, sometimes even at a certain rate. Forcing companies to unbundle products or services is another common measure.

3jjj3jjj3 3y ago

"being an astonishingly greedy company" and then writing "I'm an Apple fan" ... sound like a Stockholm syndrome or a cognitive dissonance

lxgr 3y ago
Why? I can a company’s stock, use their products, and still strongly disagree with some of their business practices.
ralmidani 3y ago
It’s called “nuance”. Also, Stockholm Syndrome is the opposite of what you’re objecting to; someone is taken hostage and sympathizes with the hostage takers.

newsclues 3y ago

Was the situation for phone software developers better before the iPhone?

ralmidani 3y ago

> And FWIW, I'm an Apple fan and find Tim S a completely unsympathetic character. But seeing the hilariously absurd lengths that people will go to justify Apple's outrageous greed grows old. Heh, there are still folks who actually grasp nuance… I have an iPhone, despise Apple in general, but consider their business disputes on a case-by-case basis. So for example, Apple is right to ignore Facebook’s plea to be allowed to track users, and simultaneously wrong in its App Store monopolistic money-grabbing.

satvikpendem 3y ago
Generally for Apple, I like their hardware, not their software. It's why I have a MacBook but also an Android phone, because I like their battery life but also because I can install whatever software I want, on either.
- ralmidani 3y ago
  Same… Apple software has, for a while, been going steadily from “just garbage” to “dumpster fire floating through a river of sewage”.

gepardi 3y ago

Is it enough to make you stop using Apple products? I’m considering it.

babypuncher 3y ago
It's not like Google or Samsung are even remotely better. Given the scary things Samsung gets away with in South Korea, I almost want to say they're worse than Apple.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]