5 ms·

I wonder - assuming an alternate App Store or payment mechanisms what is the appropriate billing from Apple? Things like: - Developer onboarding and review (L

I wonder - assuming an alternate App Store or payment mechanisms what is the appropriate billing from Apple? Things like: - Developer onboarding and review (Legal and KYC) - App submission and review (standard, priority, exposure, etc) - App distribution (origin storage and download) - Push notifications I believe that Apple should be forced to change, I just don’t know what we all should expect

amluto 3y ago
> - Developer onboarding and review (Legal and KYC) Don’t do it at all? On Android, you can just run an app with no involvement whatsoever from Google. There is no customer to “know”. - App submission and review (standard, priority, exposure, etc) F-droid apps are neither submitted to nor reviewed by Google. - App distribution (origin storage and download) That would be the alternative app store’s job, no? - Push notifications This is genuinely tricky due to battery life and data usage considerations.
- galbar 3y ago
  >Push notifications It is far fetched that it will get any industry wide traction, but unifiedpush.org/ provides a solution
- rekoil 3y ago
  > This is genuinely tricky due to battery life and data usage considerations. Which isn't really any of Apples business if I want to make that sacrifice, but rather something they can promote as a win by using their solution if it turns out that alternative push notification services implement it poorly.
  - TylerE 3y ago
    Having sane, common sense defaults is pretty much exactly Apples business. The path you propose inevitably leads to the exact enshittification we’re trying to avoid.
    - rekoil 3y ago
      But it's optional enshittification. I should have the option of messing up my device. Apple are free to scare me away from doing so, but the choice needs to be mine as the owner.
      - TylerE 3y ago
        Then buy an android if android is what you want. Stop trying to turn the system WE want into what WE don't. WE don't want android or else we would already be using it. As soon as you fracture the ecosystem the positive network effects start to fade.
        HDThoreaun 3y ago
        How do I get iMessage on android? If you want the locked down system just dont install 3rd party app stores.
  - johannes1234321 3y ago
    If I take Apple's goodwill (which in this specific case to me is plausible, but whatever ...) the issue with alternate notification channels is that it's quite tough to attribute for users if there are 10 push daemons doing it their way. But the bad press about bad battery life time hits Apple. Especially if Apple allows others to move it from application layer to system layer (by providing a Kernel interface?) which is required for being really energy efficient.
    - rekoil 3y ago
      They already have annoying modals that pop up when apps are using my location in the background, they could easily make these hypothetical "NotificationServiceKit apps" spawn similar modals when they take up a lot of CPU time, memory, or other energy intensive metrics.
COGlory 3y ago
We should expect to be able to install whatever software we want on hardware we own.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > We should expect to be able to install whatever software we want on hardware we own Were I Apple's lobbyist, I would be thrilled for this to be the counterargument. Because while noble, it's practically unworkable, generally unpopular and a flytrap for technologists who might otherwise be swayed to a moderate position.
  - arrrg 3y ago
    It‘s not at all practically unworkable. I don’t really get why you think it is? It would be perfectly sensible to force large platform vendors to let you install arbitrary software. No problem at all. Doesn’t mean that also has to apply to, I don’t know, refrigerators with WiFi. Or cars.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - wvenable 3y ago
      Why not WiFi refrigerators or cars? I would love to tweak the software in my car -- it's hopelessly out of date.
      - rekoil 3y ago
        Conflicting regulations when it comes to cars, and for WiFi refrigerators (meaning any gadget that runs some sort of OS) I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think it makes sense to make different regulation for general-purpose computing devices and purpose-specific devices. Though if you ask me, software should be covered by right-to-repair. I should have everything I need to technically be able to support my own device when the manufacturer throws in the towel. Unlockable bootloader, source code for device bring-up, drivers, but not necessarily an OS, just the device specific stuff.
simion314 3y ago
Apple can allow users to download apps from a website their trust, no Apple bandwidth or low paid workers will be used. But what about security? Apple developers should handle that, they are well paid to implemnt sandboxing and other safety stuff.
mvdtnz 3y ago
That's like asking what monthly fee I should pay Subaru when I fit a bike rack to my car. They have nothing to do with my bike rack.
- redwall_hp 3y ago
  What kind of chaotic world would we live in if you could put third party paper in your Smith Corona typewriter? Think of the security risk and how much it would confuse people! And it's their platform...they deserve a cut of any commerce performed using it. /s
  - notac23 3y ago
    We've largely accepted this with ink.
    - jncfhnb 3y ago
      And it’s bad. We should stop it
  - chihuahua 3y ago
    This is why I find the idea of Apple making an electric car so intriguing. It opens up a whole world of possibilities for things that Apple can take a 30% cut of: anything you buy at the supermarket, any clothes you buy, etc. If any store doesn't allow Apple to audit their sales and pay the tax, your Apple car simply won't go allow you to go that store anymore.
andersa 3y ago
The appropriate billing from Apple is none whatsoever. How do people keep coming up with this nonsense?
015a 3y ago
I've thought a tremendous amount about this. Its important to note, we're speaking from an ethical/moral angle, not a legal one. Apple isn't doing anything that courts have been found to be illegal. First, on what Apple calls their "Core Technology Fee" in Europe. Ethically, I believe its really obvious that this fee is something that is paid by users. When I buy an iPhone, I am buying the operating system, which includes the core technology that iPhone ships with. Apple absolutely charges users for this; they also double-charge developers for it, as its part of their 30% fee structure. Apple has also made the argument that the 30% fee structure also includes App Store marketing services. This is a more-reasonable argument from Apple, specifically in the situation where the sale is DIRECTLY attributable to an action within the App Store application (e.g. searching for an app to buy, home page marketing, etc). This differentiation is not a new idea: the Windows app store formalizes this model by taking a larger cut of sales that came from the store channel versus external channels [1]. However, Apple's cut is universal, regardless of channel. In their infinite ability to double-dip, they also charge for advertising services within the App Store; so, developers may pay for a click-through within the App Store home page or search results, then also pay the 30% cut when that ad converts into a sale. A few years ago, Apple reduced their cut on subscription revenue to, effectively, 15%. This is still extremely high for the level of service Apple is providing to justify that 15%; but it makes sense from the perspective that what Apple definitely and obviously isn't doing is any kind of customer support or marketing to maintain that customer. Apple has never been willing to admit that the same thing holds true for any piecemeal purchase where the primary marketing channel is the app itself, and not the App Store. If I buy an audiobook on Spotify, Apple did nothing to push that sale forward, similar to how they did nothing to convince me to renew my Spotify subscription. Yet, they would in theory get an additional 15% of the sale. All of this is also, please do not forget, in addition to the $99/year fee Apple charges all developers. Its not a lot, especially for companies like Spotify. But, that supposedly includes things like the core technology license; so in some sense Apple is actually triple-dipping on these sales. Oh, and also: A some of these numbers are different and worse for games. Why? Because I guess games are, just, different? For some reason. Unclear. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that Apple is the world's largest gaming company by revenue. Here's what I strongly feel is ethical: - Apple can charge whatever percentage they want for IAP. Its their product, do what you will. - Apple can require applications distributed through the App Store to only leverage Apple IAP. Its their App Store, do what you will. - Apple must allow the installation of applications via a web browser outside of the App Store channel. Apple may elect to scan these applications with some kind of on-device threat classification, and present the results of that scan to the user. Apple may also elect to change the wording of this installation prompt to account for whether the app is signed by Apple, and the developer is within the Apple Developer program. All of these protection systems must be user-overrideable, point in time, without any additional navigation or payment from the user. Here's the thing: I think, under a system like this, Spotify still doesn't change. I think most major apps don't change. [1] https://appetiser.com.au/blog/microsoft-store-revenue-now-gives-developers-a-95-cut-on-one-condition https://appetiser.com.au/blog/microsoft-store-revenue-now-gi...

amluto 3y ago

> - Developer onboarding and review (Legal and KYC) Don’t do it at all? On Android, you can just run an app with no involvement whatsoever from Google. There is no customer to “know”. - App submission and review (standard, priority, exposure, etc) F-droid apps are neither submitted to nor reviewed by Google. - App distribution (origin storage and download) That would be the alternative app store’s job, no? - Push notifications This is genuinely tricky due to battery life and data usage considerations.

galbar 3y ago
>Push notifications It is far fetched that it will get any industry wide traction, but unifiedpush.org/ provides a solution
rekoil 3y ago
> This is genuinely tricky due to battery life and data usage considerations. Which isn't really any of Apples business if I want to make that sacrifice, but rather something they can promote as a win by using their solution if it turns out that alternative push notification services implement it poorly.
- TylerE 3y ago
  Having sane, common sense defaults is pretty much exactly Apples business. The path you propose inevitably leads to the exact enshittification we’re trying to avoid.
  - rekoil 3y ago
    But it's optional enshittification. I should have the option of messing up my device. Apple are free to scare me away from doing so, but the choice needs to be mine as the owner.
    - TylerE 3y ago
      Then buy an android if android is what you want. Stop trying to turn the system WE want into what WE don't. WE don't want android or else we would already be using it. As soon as you fracture the ecosystem the positive network effects start to fade.
      - HDThoreaun 3y ago
        How do I get iMessage on android? If you want the locked down system just dont install 3rd party app stores.
- johannes1234321 3y ago
  If I take Apple's goodwill (which in this specific case to me is plausible, but whatever ...) the issue with alternate notification channels is that it's quite tough to attribute for users if there are 10 push daemons doing it their way. But the bad press about bad battery life time hits Apple. Especially if Apple allows others to move it from application layer to system layer (by providing a Kernel interface?) which is required for being really energy efficient.
  - rekoil 3y ago
    They already have annoying modals that pop up when apps are using my location in the background, they could easily make these hypothetical "NotificationServiceKit apps" spawn similar modals when they take up a lot of CPU time, memory, or other energy intensive metrics.

COGlory 3y ago

We should expect to be able to install whatever software we want on hardware we own.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> We should expect to be able to install whatever software we want on hardware we own Were I Apple's lobbyist, I would be thrilled for this to be the counterargument. Because while noble, it's practically unworkable, generally unpopular and a flytrap for technologists who might otherwise be swayed to a moderate position.
- arrrg 3y ago
  It‘s not at all practically unworkable. I don’t really get why you think it is? It would be perfectly sensible to force large platform vendors to let you install arbitrary software. No problem at all. Doesn’t mean that also has to apply to, I don’t know, refrigerators with WiFi. Or cars.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - wvenable 3y ago
    Why not WiFi refrigerators or cars? I would love to tweak the software in my car -- it's hopelessly out of date.
    - rekoil 3y ago
      Conflicting regulations when it comes to cars, and for WiFi refrigerators (meaning any gadget that runs some sort of OS) I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think it makes sense to make different regulation for general-purpose computing devices and purpose-specific devices. Though if you ask me, software should be covered by right-to-repair. I should have everything I need to technically be able to support my own device when the manufacturer throws in the towel. Unlockable bootloader, source code for device bring-up, drivers, but not necessarily an OS, just the device specific stuff.

simion314 3y ago

Apple can allow users to download apps from a website their trust, no Apple bandwidth or low paid workers will be used. But what about security? Apple developers should handle that, they are well paid to implemnt sandboxing and other safety stuff.

mvdtnz 3y ago

That's like asking what monthly fee I should pay Subaru when I fit a bike rack to my car. They have nothing to do with my bike rack.

redwall_hp 3y ago
What kind of chaotic world would we live in if you could put third party paper in your Smith Corona typewriter? Think of the security risk and how much it would confuse people! And it's their platform...they deserve a cut of any commerce performed using it. /s
- notac23 3y ago
  We've largely accepted this with ink.
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    And it’s bad. We should stop it
- chihuahua 3y ago
  This is why I find the idea of Apple making an electric car so intriguing. It opens up a whole world of possibilities for things that Apple can take a 30% cut of: anything you buy at the supermarket, any clothes you buy, etc. If any store doesn't allow Apple to audit their sales and pay the tax, your Apple car simply won't go allow you to go that store anymore.

andersa 3y ago

The appropriate billing from Apple is none whatsoever. How do people keep coming up with this nonsense?

015a 3y ago

I've thought a tremendous amount about this. Its important to note, we're speaking from an ethical/moral angle, not a legal one. Apple isn't doing anything that courts have been found to be illegal. First, on what Apple calls their "Core Technology Fee" in Europe. Ethically, I believe its really obvious that this fee is something that is paid by users. When I buy an iPhone, I am buying the operating system, which includes the core technology that iPhone ships with. Apple absolutely charges users for this; they also double-charge developers for it, as its part of their 30% fee structure. Apple has also made the argument that the 30% fee structure also includes App Store marketing services. This is a more-reasonable argument from Apple, specifically in the situation where the sale is DIRECTLY attributable to an action within the App Store application (e.g. searching for an app to buy, home page marketing, etc). This differentiation is not a new idea: the Windows app store formalizes this model by taking a larger cut of sales that came from the store channel versus external channels [1]. However, Apple's cut is universal, regardless of channel. In their infinite ability to double-dip, they also charge for advertising services within the App Store; so, developers may pay for a click-through within the App Store home page or search results, then also pay the 30% cut when that ad converts into a sale. A few years ago, Apple reduced their cut on subscription revenue to, effectively, 15%. This is still extremely high for the level of service Apple is providing to justify that 15%; but it makes sense from the perspective that what Apple definitely and obviously isn't doing is any kind of customer support or marketing to maintain that customer. Apple has never been willing to admit that the same thing holds true for any piecemeal purchase where the primary marketing channel is the app itself, and not the App Store. If I buy an audiobook on Spotify, Apple did nothing to push that sale forward, similar to how they did nothing to convince me to renew my Spotify subscription. Yet, they would in theory get an additional 15% of the sale. All of this is also, please do not forget, in addition to the $99/year fee Apple charges all developers. Its not a lot, especially for companies like Spotify. But, that supposedly includes things like the core technology license; so in some sense Apple is actually triple-dipping on these sales. Oh, and also: A some of these numbers are different and worse for games. Why? Because I guess games are, just, different? For some reason. Unclear. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that Apple is the world's largest gaming company by revenue. Here's what I strongly feel is ethical: - Apple can charge whatever percentage they want for IAP. Its their product, do what you will. - Apple can require applications distributed through the App Store to only leverage Apple IAP. Its their App Store, do what you will. - Apple must allow the installation of applications via a web browser outside of the App Store channel. Apple may elect to scan these applications with some kind of on-device threat classification, and present the results of that scan to the user. Apple may also elect to change the wording of this installation prompt to account for whether the app is signed by Apple, and the developer is within the Apple Developer program. All of these protection systems must be user-overrideable, point in time, without any additional navigation or payment from the user. Here's the thing: I think, under a system like this, Spotify still doesn't change. I think most major apps don't change. [1] https://appetiser.com.au/blog/microsoft-store-revenue-now-gives-developers-a-95-cut-on-one-condition https://appetiser.com.au/blog/microsoft-store-revenue-now-gi...