7 ms·

To see why Apple’s mandatory commissions are absurd, compare phones to desktop computers. There is no fundamental difference between the two. So, why is it okay

To see why Apple’s mandatory commissions are absurd, compare phones to desktop computers. There is no fundamental difference between the two. So, why is it okay to install whatever you want and pay for it directly on desktops, but on phones it is not? The “better security” argument just doesn’t make sense in this context.

charcircuit 3y ago
>So, why is it okay to install whatever you want and pay for it directly on desktops, but on phones it is not? On desktop you have similar stores like Steam. The store takes a 30% cut from all sales on the platform and they require apps on the platform to use their payment processing so that they can take that cut. The difference between Windows and iOS here is that third party stores can be installed without being limited to PWAs or requiring hacky workarounds like AltStore. Why does Apple have the sole app store on the device? Well it's because it ensures they have a closed platform that they fully control. They made this app platform so it's up to them to decide how open it should be from a range of first party only to fully open to any app from the internet. It's up to Apple to decide what kind of openness will allow them to provide the most value to users. Apple designs their app platform from the hardware all the way up to the operating system and libraries for developers to use. Apple has created a great app platform that brings value to a lot of users.
- sundvor 3y ago
  PC platform: Steam doesn't care if (case in point) Eagle Dynamics allows direct downloads from their website of DCS World - in fact they embrace it, by offering account linking APIs. So on PCs, unlike on iOS, users can buy their content as they choose. And it's not as if Microsoft forces everyone to use their (exceptionally crappy) store either.
  - xyzzy_plugh 3y ago
    Indeed there are many free-to-play games on Steam with micro-transactions that are not required to give Valve a cut.
    - sundvor 3y ago
      Just to be clear, in the DCS World example you do have to make a choice between using Steam for the game download and purchases, or to use the Eagle Dynamics website/downloader directly. External modules purchases do not import to the Steam account, IIRC. My point was probably that Steam doesn't force users to only use their platform. To further illustrate the non lock in culture, you can do a transfer of content from Steam into your Eagle Dynamics account if you want to change the account type. I'm guessing that seasoned DCS players like the direct account method (more frequent sales, for one), whereas beginners are more likely to discover it through Steam. (iRacing also has a similar relationship with Steam, although in that case Steam only managed the subscription - not the car/track purchases.)
    - charcircuit 3y ago
      They are required to for in game purchases, but they are likely too small for Valve to care else have a custom agreement with Valve.
      - fenomas 3y ago
        I believe the rule you're talking about only applies to literal in-game transactions - i.e. the binary you put on steam cannot itself implement a non-steam wallet. But there's no business rule against selling in-game content elsewhere, like apple is doing.
        charcircuit 3y ago
        I claimed Steam was similar. I did not claim that they share all of the same policies.
        fenomas 3y ago
        TFA is about Apple's policy on purchases that happen outside the app. It used to ban even linking to them; now it allows that but it wants a cut. Steam doesn't do anything similar - it has no rules about purchases outside the app.
- maximus-decimus 3y ago
  Steam has a literal button on your library's page to add any game you have already installed and the definitely don't charge you 27% to do that.
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    That button does not give that game a store page, a discussion form, etc. That is not what I am talking about.
    - maximus-decimus 3y ago
      Maybe I'm misunderstanding this whole post, but isn't it about having to pay 27% even when you don't use the store?
- fenomas 3y ago
  > Steam. ... they require apps on the platform to use their payment processing That's not true at all. Steam literally lets you sell steam keys for your game from other stores, and takes no cut from those sales. https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/keys https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/keys
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    It is true. Other stores are not your app.
    - fenomas 3y ago
      You might have meant something else, but what you wrote is: > they require apps on the platform to use their payment processing so that they can take that cut. Which is not true. Both steam apps and in-game content for steam apps can be sold in other stores with steam's blessing, and steam expressly supports developers to bypass their payment processing (by offering steam keys and account integration).
      - charcircuit 3y ago
        My statement was specifically referring to the app itself. The app is what has to use steam wallet and not something else. Selling a steam key on a website is not selling it in the app. The requirement applies to the app and not the website for the app.
        fenomas 3y ago
        Set app selling aside - I only mentioned that because it's a counterexample to your original post as stated. What TFA is about is selling in-app content from external stores. Apple used to ban that entirely, and now wants a revenue share for it. Steam has never done either - they explicitly support it (via account integration). The two are not similar.
zerohp 3y ago
Compare phones to game consoles.
stouset 3y ago
Apple is hosting, distributing, and directly marketing apps in the app store. They are reviewing submitted apps for compliance with their policies and security requirements. If you want to compare it to desktop computers, great! Compare it to the macOS App Store which… takes a 30% commission. Whether or not you personally agree that 30% is a reasonable fee, you can't simply deny that operating the app store costs money and resources. Further, it isn't unreasonable for them to try to recoup those costs or even to make some profit off of providing the service.
- eblanshey 3y ago
  But they don't allow alternate app stores.
- justinclift 3y ago
  > Apple is hosting, distributing, and directly marketing apps in the app store. Isn't that a forced situation though, unlike with macOS? With macOS anyone can throw an application on a website (GitHub, etc) and the users can download the application and run it. To get rid of the scary warnings, there's even a $99 dev membership that can be used to sign the macOS binaries. iOS developers don't have any choices to host their binaries elsewhere though. The EU "allow side loading" thing might allow for some improvement there (hopefully), but I'm not sure.
  - xyzzy_plugh 3y ago
    It's been a while but I'm pretty sure signing and notarizing is required on macOS now, without disabiling SIP. At least for things downloaded from a browser. My interpretation is that $99/year is required if you want to avoid your users needing to use the terminal.
    - lxgr 3y ago
      If they’d simply allow the same on iOS, I’m willing to bet that essentially all of their lawsuits and regulatory scrutiny would disappear overnight.
    - 3y ago
CubsFan1060 3y ago
If there is no fundamental difference, then did you just define the market as all phones, tablets, and pcs? If so the the iPhone is a small minority and can’t possibly be forced to change anything, right? You can just replace your iPhone with a pc if you want to install things?
- poundofshrimp 3y ago
  Both phone and desktop consumers can install third-party apps on their devices. From this point of view, there is no fundamental difference. Yet, on desktops, people are free to install freely, but on the iPhone, Apple controls all third-party installations.
etchalon 3y ago
It's OK because that's just how it worked out. One platforms norms developed before the internet and one developed after.
sircastor 3y ago
> There is no fundamental difference between the two. Are the input devices the same? The screens sizes? The situations you use them? The means of network connectivity? The social conventions around them? There are tremendous differences between phones and desktop computers. Really the only way that they’re not different is that they’re both Von Neumann machines. But that describes so many things around us these days that it’s a distinction without a difference. By the same virtue a modern television is no different.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

charcircuit 3y ago

>So, why is it okay to install whatever you want and pay for it directly on desktops, but on phones it is not? On desktop you have similar stores like Steam. The store takes a 30% cut from all sales on the platform and they require apps on the platform to use their payment processing so that they can take that cut. The difference between Windows and iOS here is that third party stores can be installed without being limited to PWAs or requiring hacky workarounds like AltStore. Why does Apple have the sole app store on the device? Well it's because it ensures they have a closed platform that they fully control. They made this app platform so it's up to them to decide how open it should be from a range of first party only to fully open to any app from the internet. It's up to Apple to decide what kind of openness will allow them to provide the most value to users. Apple designs their app platform from the hardware all the way up to the operating system and libraries for developers to use. Apple has created a great app platform that brings value to a lot of users.

sundvor 3y ago
PC platform: Steam doesn't care if (case in point) Eagle Dynamics allows direct downloads from their website of DCS World - in fact they embrace it, by offering account linking APIs. So on PCs, unlike on iOS, users can buy their content as they choose. And it's not as if Microsoft forces everyone to use their (exceptionally crappy) store either.
- xyzzy_plugh 3y ago
  Indeed there are many free-to-play games on Steam with micro-transactions that are not required to give Valve a cut.
  - sundvor 3y ago
    Just to be clear, in the DCS World example you do have to make a choice between using Steam for the game download and purchases, or to use the Eagle Dynamics website/downloader directly. External modules purchases do not import to the Steam account, IIRC. My point was probably that Steam doesn't force users to only use their platform. To further illustrate the non lock in culture, you can do a transfer of content from Steam into your Eagle Dynamics account if you want to change the account type. I'm guessing that seasoned DCS players like the direct account method (more frequent sales, for one), whereas beginners are more likely to discover it through Steam. (iRacing also has a similar relationship with Steam, although in that case Steam only managed the subscription - not the car/track purchases.)
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    They are required to for in game purchases, but they are likely too small for Valve to care else have a custom agreement with Valve.
    - fenomas 3y ago
      I believe the rule you're talking about only applies to literal in-game transactions - i.e. the binary you put on steam cannot itself implement a non-steam wallet. But there's no business rule against selling in-game content elsewhere, like apple is doing.
      - charcircuit 3y ago
        I claimed Steam was similar. I did not claim that they share all of the same policies.
        fenomas 3y ago
        TFA is about Apple's policy on purchases that happen outside the app. It used to ban even linking to them; now it allows that but it wants a cut. Steam doesn't do anything similar - it has no rules about purchases outside the app.
maximus-decimus 3y ago
Steam has a literal button on your library's page to add any game you have already installed and the definitely don't charge you 27% to do that.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  That button does not give that game a store page, a discussion form, etc. That is not what I am talking about.
  - maximus-decimus 3y ago
    Maybe I'm misunderstanding this whole post, but isn't it about having to pay 27% even when you don't use the store?
fenomas 3y ago
> Steam. ... they require apps on the platform to use their payment processing That's not true at all. Steam literally lets you sell steam keys for your game from other stores, and takes no cut from those sales. https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/keys https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/keys
- charcircuit 3y ago
  It is true. Other stores are not your app.
  - fenomas 3y ago
    You might have meant something else, but what you wrote is: > they require apps on the platform to use their payment processing so that they can take that cut. Which is not true. Both steam apps and in-game content for steam apps can be sold in other stores with steam's blessing, and steam expressly supports developers to bypass their payment processing (by offering steam keys and account integration).
    - charcircuit 3y ago
      My statement was specifically referring to the app itself. The app is what has to use steam wallet and not something else. Selling a steam key on a website is not selling it in the app. The requirement applies to the app and not the website for the app.
      - fenomas 3y ago
        Set app selling aside - I only mentioned that because it's a counterexample to your original post as stated. What TFA is about is selling in-app content from external stores. Apple used to ban that entirely, and now wants a revenue share for it. Steam has never done either - they explicitly support it (via account integration). The two are not similar.

zerohp 3y ago

Compare phones to game consoles.

stouset 3y ago

Apple is hosting, distributing, and directly marketing apps in the app store. They are reviewing submitted apps for compliance with their policies and security requirements. If you want to compare it to desktop computers, great! Compare it to the macOS App Store which… takes a 30% commission. Whether or not you personally agree that 30% is a reasonable fee, you can't simply deny that operating the app store costs money and resources. Further, it isn't unreasonable for them to try to recoup those costs or even to make some profit off of providing the service.

eblanshey 3y ago
But they don't allow alternate app stores.
justinclift 3y ago
> Apple is hosting, distributing, and directly marketing apps in the app store. Isn't that a forced situation though, unlike with macOS? With macOS anyone can throw an application on a website (GitHub, etc) and the users can download the application and run it. To get rid of the scary warnings, there's even a $99 dev membership that can be used to sign the macOS binaries. iOS developers don't have any choices to host their binaries elsewhere though. The EU "allow side loading" thing might allow for some improvement there (hopefully), but I'm not sure.
- xyzzy_plugh 3y ago
  It's been a while but I'm pretty sure signing and notarizing is required on macOS now, without disabiling SIP. At least for things downloaded from a browser. My interpretation is that $99/year is required if you want to avoid your users needing to use the terminal.
  - lxgr 3y ago
    If they’d simply allow the same on iOS, I’m willing to bet that essentially all of their lawsuits and regulatory scrutiny would disappear overnight.
  - 3y ago

CubsFan1060 3y ago

If there is no fundamental difference, then did you just define the market as all phones, tablets, and pcs? If so the the iPhone is a small minority and can’t possibly be forced to change anything, right? You can just replace your iPhone with a pc if you want to install things?

poundofshrimp 3y ago
Both phone and desktop consumers can install third-party apps on their devices. From this point of view, there is no fundamental difference. Yet, on desktops, people are free to install freely, but on the iPhone, Apple controls all third-party installations.

etchalon 3y ago

It's OK because that's just how it worked out. One platforms norms developed before the internet and one developed after.

sircastor 3y ago

> There is no fundamental difference between the two. Are the input devices the same? The screens sizes? The situations you use them? The means of network connectivity? The social conventions around them? There are tremendous differences between phones and desktop computers. Really the only way that they’re not different is that they’re both Von Neumann machines. But that describes so many things around us these days that it’s a distinction without a difference. By the same virtue a modern television is no different.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]