3 ms·
> This is two big corporations arguing over which one makes more profit from you. This slightly oversimplifies the situation, as Apple's policy is pretty clear
by dvt 3y ago
> This is two big corporations arguing over which one makes more profit from you.
This slightly oversimplifies the situation, as Apple's policy is pretty clearly anti-competitive and, more importantly, anti-developer. As a developer, you have to bump your prices because of the Apple tax.
(And even as a consumer, prices are pushed up. Let's say you want to sell X for $10; too bad: you now have to sell it for $12 if you sell it in your Apple app to make up the difference. The consumer obviously eats that premium.)
- annoyingnoob 3y agoAs a developer, if Apple's fees went away, would you drop your price or just make more profit? Prices may have been pushed up but there is little incentive for them to ever come down.
- djfdat 3y agoThere would be more room to drop your prices, not saying that people necessarily will. And if they don't, the extra profit goes to developers of the app you are purchasing, rather than the (second?) largest company in the world.
- atdrummond 3y agoThat leaves an opening for someone to exploit with a market clearing price.
- rootusrootus 3y agoAs I recall, there are examples of things you can purchase both on and off the App Store, and the prices are indeed different. Though that may have more to do with the off-store purchase going directly to the seller and not another app store equivalent.
- satvikpendem 3y agoI do this already for my apps, as stated in my other comment upthread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39035814 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39035814
- ribosometronome 3y agoWhen you view it so narrowly, all developer costs are anti-developer. My desire to charge less for my app isn't reason I should have to pay less at the grocery store, though.
- montagg 3y agoIt's legally settled, so, from a US law perspective, it's clearly not ant-competitive, and the US will need new legislation if that's not good enough. I figure you probably see this very clearly, but the problem is that a lot of people don't see it that way, and the law doesn't. Clarifying what is anti-competitive in your view, and crucially what other economic and competition trade-offs you're willing to make to realize that rule, is what will really move the conversation forward.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y agoThe court decided that the anti-steering was anti-competitive and the SCOTUS said LGTM.
- kibwen 3y agoWe don't need to wring our hands over semantics here. If anyone could distribute software for iOS as easily as Apple can, then Apple would have more competition. Apple's actions arbitrarily prevent competition: it is anti-competitive. There is less competition because of Apple's policies. If they reversed policies, it would be more competitive. Whatever the law says, the reality is clear here.
- a_wild_dandan 3y agoFor clarification, you might start by noting that recent anti-competitive rulings apply contextually to the US mobile app market.