3 ms·

I'm not convinced that this would result in lower prices for me as a customer. The current prices that work for a company to stay in business and make a nice pr

I'm not convinced that this would result in lower prices for me as a customer. The current prices that work for a company to stay in business and make a nice profit (think anyone from Netflix, to whoever makes Clash of Clans) show that there is a willingness to pay those prices. If a developer union of sorts succeeds in negotiating down Apple's charge, there is absolutely 0 chance that this cost savings will make its way on the whole to consumers precisely because developers have already proven that customers are willing to take a higher price. As an end customer I think it's a good thing if an indie developers get more money in the abstract. I don't think I care if it means that Netflix gets to keep more of their money instead of Apple. I'm much more sympathetic toward lower fees for smaller companies. Once you are the size of Meta, Google, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Spotify, etc. it's just jostling between multi-billion (trillion) companies and I'm not really concerned one way or the other, especially if these actions result in more annoying behavior that I have to deal with, like multiple app stores, increase in spam and ads and spying, and the dissolution of the power of features like Sign in with Apple that allow me to generate fake email addresses.

k8svet 3y ago
Ah yes, this again. "We can only have nice things because of the golden handcuffs Apple has blessed us with!". Except that there's plenty of counter examples. And you might not care, but thousands of independent app developers getting bent over the barrel by Apple certainly care. In my view, it's not even really about the end consumer price.
jacquesm 3y ago
> I'm not convinced that this would result in lower prices for me as a customer. That's perfectly ok because that's not the intended effect, the intended effect is to stop Apple/Google from exacting a 30% toll on their platforms, not to improve consumer prices. > I'm much more sympathetic toward lower fees for smaller companies. This already exists.
- ericmay 3y ago
  It’s ok - so it’s neutral… but then I have to deal with annoying things like multiple app stores and so now it’s just a net negative…
  - nirvdrum 3y ago
    I don’t think you’d be required to use alternative app stores. You could keep using the Apple one if you wanted. Market forces should allow the best store to win. Having another “store” doesn’t necessarily mean having to get apps elsewhere. E.g., the one platform app store has severely degraded my ability to enjoy audiobooks. I used to be able to buy books directly in Audible (on Android anyway). It was convenient and Audible offered daily deals. I’d get books on a whim and discover new authors that way. Once Audible had to start paying a 30% tax, that feature went away. Now I have to browse & purchase in a web browser, which is far less convenient. Incidentally, both Apple and Google sell audiobooks. Presumably they aren’t paying a 30% tax themselves and can use that as a builtin price advantage. But, then I’m tied to that platform. In this case, you'd be making an "in-app purchase" with your Amazon account. There's no new annoyance in payment management and there's no new store to browse. You just get a more convenient way to buy content.
    - ericmay 3y ago
      > I don’t think you’re required to use alternative App Store. You’re also not required to use an iPhone. Grab an Android phone with the features you want (multiple app stores) and you’re good to go! Anyway. The best store isn’t necessarily the best store for me, and apps (think TikTok, etc.) have more pull than an App Store does so what will happen is they will launch their product only on non-Apple app stores that have less strict requirements and review processes and people will go download from there. Customers will have to download multiple app stores, manage subscriptions in multiple places, have to manage user profiles and credit card information across multiple app stores, etc. It’s kind of like today with the competing streaming services. Not great. While this presents a few problems, my chief concern is that it unwinds some of the great features that Apple essentially lobbied for on behalf of customers. Features such as Sign in with Apple, and other privacy oriented features. With multiple app stores customers have no bargaining power or anyone bargaining on their behalf. It’s a marriage of corporate interests united against customers. I’m struggling to see the benefit to customers. It seems like we’re trying to screw normal people so a few big companies like Meta can make an extra buck and grab up more of your data.
jbverschoor 3y ago
Sandler companies already pay 15%. That includes payment processing. So effectively 12%. For this you get nice things like you don’t need to deal with taxes in all the different countries.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Sandler -> smaller.
  - jbverschoor 3y ago
    Yeah sorry. Typing on a phone got worse with every update

k8svet 3y ago

Ah yes, this again. "We can only have nice things because of the golden handcuffs Apple has blessed us with!". Except that there's plenty of counter examples. And you might not care, but thousands of independent app developers getting bent over the barrel by Apple certainly care. In my view, it's not even really about the end consumer price.

jacquesm 3y ago

> I'm not convinced that this would result in lower prices for me as a customer. That's perfectly ok because that's not the intended effect, the intended effect is to stop Apple/Google from exacting a 30% toll on their platforms, not to improve consumer prices. > I'm much more sympathetic toward lower fees for smaller companies. This already exists.

ericmay 3y ago
It’s ok - so it’s neutral… but then I have to deal with annoying things like multiple app stores and so now it’s just a net negative…
- nirvdrum 3y ago
  I don’t think you’d be required to use alternative app stores. You could keep using the Apple one if you wanted. Market forces should allow the best store to win. Having another “store” doesn’t necessarily mean having to get apps elsewhere. E.g., the one platform app store has severely degraded my ability to enjoy audiobooks. I used to be able to buy books directly in Audible (on Android anyway). It was convenient and Audible offered daily deals. I’d get books on a whim and discover new authors that way. Once Audible had to start paying a 30% tax, that feature went away. Now I have to browse & purchase in a web browser, which is far less convenient. Incidentally, both Apple and Google sell audiobooks. Presumably they aren’t paying a 30% tax themselves and can use that as a builtin price advantage. But, then I’m tied to that platform. In this case, you'd be making an "in-app purchase" with your Amazon account. There's no new annoyance in payment management and there's no new store to browse. You just get a more convenient way to buy content.
  - ericmay 3y ago
    > I don’t think you’re required to use alternative App Store. You’re also not required to use an iPhone. Grab an Android phone with the features you want (multiple app stores) and you’re good to go! Anyway. The best store isn’t necessarily the best store for me, and apps (think TikTok, etc.) have more pull than an App Store does so what will happen is they will launch their product only on non-Apple app stores that have less strict requirements and review processes and people will go download from there. Customers will have to download multiple app stores, manage subscriptions in multiple places, have to manage user profiles and credit card information across multiple app stores, etc. It’s kind of like today with the competing streaming services. Not great. While this presents a few problems, my chief concern is that it unwinds some of the great features that Apple essentially lobbied for on behalf of customers. Features such as Sign in with Apple, and other privacy oriented features. With multiple app stores customers have no bargaining power or anyone bargaining on their behalf. It’s a marriage of corporate interests united against customers. I’m struggling to see the benefit to customers. It seems like we’re trying to screw normal people so a few big companies like Meta can make an extra buck and grab up more of your data.

jbverschoor 3y ago

Sandler companies already pay 15%. That includes payment processing. So effectively 12%. For this you get nice things like you don’t need to deal with taxes in all the different countries.

jacquesm 3y ago
Sandler -> smaller.
- jbverschoor 3y ago
  Yeah sorry. Typing on a phone got worse with every update