6 ms·

> That said, I really don't understand the issue with their cut, or insisting on handling payments. In the vast majority of cases, these are not your customers.

> That said, I really don't understand the issue with their cut, or insisting on handling payments. In the vast majority of cases, these are not your customers. These are apple's customers they have given you access to. This is not true at all. Netflix customers are Netflix customers, not Apple; the same goes for Amazon Kindle, Spotify, etc. Netflix literally cannot include a link to netflix.com in their app, otherwise Apple would pull the app from the store. The smaller the app, the more those users are Apple's customers. But obviously we don't want a world where we penalise small developers more than large ones, so that's not a solution either.

graeme 3y ago
If you’re a Netflix customer you just log into the app. There’s no issue. The debate is around people who are Apple customers but not Netflix customers, and who download the Netflix app through the App Store.
- callalex 3y ago
  I don’t understand why I become the exclusive property of a specific corporation through the simple act of using a phone (which is something I am required to do in the modern day).
  - CharlieDigital 3y ago
    > through the simple act of using a phone Not just using it, but having paid for it.
    - homarp 3y ago
      and decided of paying Apple (for whatever reasons) and not any of the Android phones.
  - threeseed 3y ago
    Because you aren't their property. You just invented that straw man. And the simple act of using a phone is you making a conscious decision to agree to accept the terms and conditions that come with buying any product. You are in no way forced to and by supporting alternatives you help to change the market for everyone.
    - withinboredom 3y ago
      Where can I read the terms and conditions for my shoes? My pants? What about my vase I bought? Objects don’t come with terms and conditions.
      - haswell 3y ago
        Your shoes and pants don't depend on Apple infrastructure and engineering resources to function. Your vase doesn't run software. These phones are not inanimate objects; they are computers that run software that is distributed under terms and conditions, and depend on central services the access to which is governed by terms and conditions. I understand the position that this is a Bad Thing. I'm typing this from a Linux machine for that reason. But the analogy here is problematic. Edit: to be clear, this comment is not endorsing Apple’s position. I understand it, even if I don’t like it. The point is that the acceptable use of a shoe is not instructive here.
        withinboredom 3y ago
        An iPhone doesn’t depend on Apple to function. It is only that way because Apple programmed it from the factory like that. There are zero laws that prevent me from taking it apart, running it over, tossing it off a bridge (well, maybe that last one because littering is usually illegal). There’s not even any laws preventing me from flashing the device with whatever code I want. If you want to complain that a phone needs Apple infrastructure to function, you should check out the phones from the 80’s and 90’s. They were a lot bulkier but a phone doesn’t inherently need software and internet to function. These are computers, with modems, that happen to fit in the palm of your hand. They aren’t specialized, by any stretch of an imagination. The iPad even has the exact same CPUs that are literally used in computers. So, saying these things are somehow special is a little bit silly. The only thing special is the locked down code that came preinstalled that I sometimes regret agreeing to using. If I could go back in time, I’d disagree and then sue Apple for selling me a device I couldn’t use and make them allow me to install Linux. Sadly, I need a phone more than I have money to waste.
  - hebrox 3y ago
    I think an analogy could be made that you’re walking into a market hall because they promoted it. The stall owners will be paying to be part of that. It’s not that you’re property of the market hall, but you’re on their property and they will want to be paid.
  - nozzlegear 3y ago
    But you’re not required to go on the App Store and discover apps like Netflix. Presumably you do that because the corporation built a nice App Store ecosystem where you want to do such a thing.
  - turtlebits 3y ago
    You buy a device knowing it's ecosystem is controlled by the manufacturer. When I buy a PS5, I understand that Sony 100% controls what games are offered on it.
    - withinboredom 3y ago
      My phone. Is uh, my phone. I’m not my phone’s property. What crack are you smoking? For a PS5, it’s quite a bit different. We all can agree that piracy got out of control back in the 90’s/00’s. This is the price we pay to have games. Our phones never had this problem.
      - lxgr 3y ago
        I don’t think it’s that different really. Preventing piracy can be done using DRM, which can live side by side with unsigned code on the same device (as evidenced by eg Android running Widevine L1). Somebody noted well in another thread that the main difference is that game consoles are often sold at or below cost, so a "software monopoly" on a given console platform can be seen as a way of "paying back the advance" on the console to the manufacturer/platform. I don't think anybody would seriously argue that iPhones are a loss leader.
    - MilaM 3y ago
      A Playstation is used for gaming. No one needs it to function in society. Smartphones are personal computers, sometimes the only such device people own. I have to use them to commmunicate with relatives and friends, manage my finances, use public transport, access health and government services.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  Am I an Apple Customer because I own a Magic Trackpad? Are there fees or conditions that I should be rationally subject to because I made that purchasing decision? This mentality of corporate fiefdom is new to me. Reminds me of another vertical monopoly over telecommunication products and services that fared poorly under US jurisdiction.
haswell 3y ago
> This is not true at all I think the trouble is that all of the above are true, but not universally true. The issue can be framed from multiple perspectives depending on which aspect of market dynamics are most impactful to a given app/service/situation. Some developers build for the Apple ecosystem because the ecosystem is large and enticing and provides better opportunities than the alternatives. Some developers are big enough that they don’t need the App Store to gain customers. If a new app gains popularity primarily because of Apple, and eventually gets big enough that its origins are now immaterial to the ongoing success of the company, whose customers are they? There isn’t a clear answer to this question. Arguably both Apple’s and the app maker’s, and there’s an intrinsic codependency that can’t be easily separated. I agree with your point about small devs. The question is: at what point does it become penalizing? Once the app reaches some threshold? The hard thing about this conversation is that I can see the merits of Apple’s position while also agreeing that at times, the outcome feels “wrong”, i.e. an existing product with an existing customer base seems like it shouldn’t be so limited. But is it possible to provide a platform that enables this kind of developer ecosystem and app diversity combined with a consistent user experience without the at-face-value “wrong” outcomes? I don’t know. This gets even murkier when apps rely heavily on Apple services for data storage, syncing, security, etc. It seems very fair to charge for “we’ve solved a lot of hard problems for you”. It’s an interesting situation that is often painted in terms that are far too simplistic.
- Ajedi32 3y ago
  > If a new app gains popularity primarily because of Apple, and eventually gets big enough that its origins are now immaterial to the ongoing success of the company, whose customers are they? There isn’t a clear answer to this question. Arguably both Apple’s and the app maker’s, and there’s an intrinsic codependency that can’t be easily separated. There is a clear answer, as you yourself just said: they're customers of both Apple (by virtue of having bought their hardware) and the app developer (by virtue of having bought their software). Those are distinct, separate relationships the customer has with two different companies. Apple doesn't own those customers now and for all time just because they originally found the service through Apple's app store! That's ridiculous.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
sleepybrett 3y ago
It is absolutely true. Apple doesn't take a cut from any of your examples EXCEPT if they make that payment through the app on their phone. If they redirect you to a website to subscribe, apple sees nothing. If your customers use the rails that apple has greased up FOR YOU then they take a cut.
- e63f67dd-065b 3y ago
  I would agree with you if the app could redirect you to a website to subscribe, but that's explicitly against the rules and not currently possible. This wouldn't be an issue at all if a redirect is allowed, or even a sentence saying "please subscribe on our website". Both are currently banned and this banned is strictly enforced.
- lxgr 3y ago
  > If they redirect you to a website to subscribe, apple sees nothing. In fact, they see 27% [1], and that's very new – it used to be impossible before. [1] https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitlement-us/ https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitl...

graeme 3y ago

If you’re a Netflix customer you just log into the app. There’s no issue. The debate is around people who are Apple customers but not Netflix customers, and who download the Netflix app through the App Store.

callalex 3y ago
I don’t understand why I become the exclusive property of a specific corporation through the simple act of using a phone (which is something I am required to do in the modern day).
- CharlieDigital 3y ago
  > through the simple act of using a phone Not just using it, but having paid for it.
  - homarp 3y ago
    and decided of paying Apple (for whatever reasons) and not any of the Android phones.
- threeseed 3y ago
  Because you aren't their property. You just invented that straw man. And the simple act of using a phone is you making a conscious decision to agree to accept the terms and conditions that come with buying any product. You are in no way forced to and by supporting alternatives you help to change the market for everyone.
  - withinboredom 3y ago
    Where can I read the terms and conditions for my shoes? My pants? What about my vase I bought? Objects don’t come with terms and conditions.
    - haswell 3y ago
      Your shoes and pants don't depend on Apple infrastructure and engineering resources to function. Your vase doesn't run software. These phones are not inanimate objects; they are computers that run software that is distributed under terms and conditions, and depend on central services the access to which is governed by terms and conditions. I understand the position that this is a Bad Thing. I'm typing this from a Linux machine for that reason. But the analogy here is problematic. Edit: to be clear, this comment is not endorsing Apple’s position. I understand it, even if I don’t like it. The point is that the acceptable use of a shoe is not instructive here.
      - withinboredom 3y ago
        An iPhone doesn’t depend on Apple to function. It is only that way because Apple programmed it from the factory like that. There are zero laws that prevent me from taking it apart, running it over, tossing it off a bridge (well, maybe that last one because littering is usually illegal). There’s not even any laws preventing me from flashing the device with whatever code I want. If you want to complain that a phone needs Apple infrastructure to function, you should check out the phones from the 80’s and 90’s. They were a lot bulkier but a phone doesn’t inherently need software and internet to function. These are computers, with modems, that happen to fit in the palm of your hand. They aren’t specialized, by any stretch of an imagination. The iPad even has the exact same CPUs that are literally used in computers. So, saying these things are somehow special is a little bit silly. The only thing special is the locked down code that came preinstalled that I sometimes regret agreeing to using. If I could go back in time, I’d disagree and then sue Apple for selling me a device I couldn’t use and make them allow me to install Linux. Sadly, I need a phone more than I have money to waste.
- hebrox 3y ago
  I think an analogy could be made that you’re walking into a market hall because they promoted it. The stall owners will be paying to be part of that. It’s not that you’re property of the market hall, but you’re on their property and they will want to be paid.
- nozzlegear 3y ago
  But you’re not required to go on the App Store and discover apps like Netflix. Presumably you do that because the corporation built a nice App Store ecosystem where you want to do such a thing.
- turtlebits 3y ago
  You buy a device knowing it's ecosystem is controlled by the manufacturer. When I buy a PS5, I understand that Sony 100% controls what games are offered on it.
  - withinboredom 3y ago
    My phone. Is uh, my phone. I’m not my phone’s property. What crack are you smoking? For a PS5, it’s quite a bit different. We all can agree that piracy got out of control back in the 90’s/00’s. This is the price we pay to have games. Our phones never had this problem.
    - lxgr 3y ago
      I don’t think it’s that different really. Preventing piracy can be done using DRM, which can live side by side with unsigned code on the same device (as evidenced by eg Android running Widevine L1). Somebody noted well in another thread that the main difference is that game consoles are often sold at or below cost, so a "software monopoly" on a given console platform can be seen as a way of "paying back the advance" on the console to the manufacturer/platform. I don't think anybody would seriously argue that iPhones are a loss leader.
  - MilaM 3y ago
    A Playstation is used for gaming. No one needs it to function in society. Smartphones are personal computers, sometimes the only such device people own. I have to use them to commmunicate with relatives and friends, manage my finances, use public transport, access health and government services.
smoldesu 3y ago
Am I an Apple Customer because I own a Magic Trackpad? Are there fees or conditions that I should be rationally subject to because I made that purchasing decision? This mentality of corporate fiefdom is new to me. Reminds me of another vertical monopoly over telecommunication products and services that fared poorly under US jurisdiction.

haswell 3y ago

> This is not true at all I think the trouble is that all of the above are true, but not universally true. The issue can be framed from multiple perspectives depending on which aspect of market dynamics are most impactful to a given app/service/situation. Some developers build for the Apple ecosystem because the ecosystem is large and enticing and provides better opportunities than the alternatives. Some developers are big enough that they don’t need the App Store to gain customers. If a new app gains popularity primarily because of Apple, and eventually gets big enough that its origins are now immaterial to the ongoing success of the company, whose customers are they? There isn’t a clear answer to this question. Arguably both Apple’s and the app maker’s, and there’s an intrinsic codependency that can’t be easily separated. I agree with your point about small devs. The question is: at what point does it become penalizing? Once the app reaches some threshold? The hard thing about this conversation is that I can see the merits of Apple’s position while also agreeing that at times, the outcome feels “wrong”, i.e. an existing product with an existing customer base seems like it shouldn’t be so limited. But is it possible to provide a platform that enables this kind of developer ecosystem and app diversity combined with a consistent user experience without the at-face-value “wrong” outcomes? I don’t know. This gets even murkier when apps rely heavily on Apple services for data storage, syncing, security, etc. It seems very fair to charge for “we’ve solved a lot of hard problems for you”. It’s an interesting situation that is often painted in terms that are far too simplistic.

Ajedi32 3y ago
> If a new app gains popularity primarily because of Apple, and eventually gets big enough that its origins are now immaterial to the ongoing success of the company, whose customers are they? There isn’t a clear answer to this question. Arguably both Apple’s and the app maker’s, and there’s an intrinsic codependency that can’t be easily separated. There is a clear answer, as you yourself just said: they're customers of both Apple (by virtue of having bought their hardware) and the app developer (by virtue of having bought their software). Those are distinct, separate relationships the customer has with two different companies. Apple doesn't own those customers now and for all time just because they originally found the service through Apple's app store! That's ridiculous.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

sleepybrett 3y ago

It is absolutely true. Apple doesn't take a cut from any of your examples EXCEPT if they make that payment through the app on their phone. If they redirect you to a website to subscribe, apple sees nothing. If your customers use the rails that apple has greased up FOR YOU then they take a cut.

e63f67dd-065b 3y ago
I would agree with you if the app could redirect you to a website to subscribe, but that's explicitly against the rules and not currently possible. This wouldn't be an issue at all if a redirect is allowed, or even a sentence saying "please subscribe on our website". Both are currently banned and this banned is strictly enforced.
lxgr 3y ago
> If they redirect you to a website to subscribe, apple sees nothing. In fact, they see 27% [1], and that's very new – it used to be impossible before. [1] https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitlement-us/ https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitl...