4 ms·

> 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 d

> 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.
- haswell 3y ago
  I phrased that poorly. My point was that it isn’t clear if there’s a point at which the balance of the relationship shifts such that what was once reasonable (paying fees to Apple for access to their customers, among other things) is no longer reasonable. In the Netflix scenario, it’s clear that Apple wasn’t the primary source of customer acquisition. The scenario where an unknown app grows and gets big based on Apple’s network effect highlights the complexity of the situation. > Apple doesn't own those customers now and for all time just because they originally found the service through Apple's app store! I’m not saying that Apple owns those customers. The pertinent question is what is or is not reasonable for them to charge and/or what restrictions are reasonable. The benefits of publishing in the App Store extend beyond just customer reach, and also involve Apple making good on the promises they've made to their customers (With few exceptions, I personally won't spend money on apps that use their own subscription mechanism, because I have no interest in cancellation hell). In addition to this, the vig covers access to platform capabilities and services that are arguably just as important as access to customers.
  - Ajedi32 3y ago
    I don't think we need to decide precisely what dollar amount is reasonable for Apple to charge for the use of their app store; that's something Apple and the app developers can negotiate between themselves. The problem is that Apple is currently allowed to use their software in a way that effectively does give them ownership of your customers, and they're able to use that ownership as leverage in any negotiations. Apple can say "pay up, otherwise our customers won't be allowed to access your service anymore, even if they want to, and regardless of what app store they use to purchase your services". If Apple couldn't do that then the negotiations would be more fair.
    - haswell 3y ago
      To be clear, I'm not a fan of Apple's vice grip here. But I also don't think I agree with this: > in a way that effectively does give them ownership of your customers Netflix and its users may find it annoying that anything related to subscriptions has to be danced around (I certainly do), but I don't think it's quite right to classify Apple's rules around directing users to subscription management features on the Netflix side as "ownership" of those customers. The restriction feels onerous, yes, but is something other than ownership. They are wielding the value of their marketplace as leverage, and it's this power that is (rightfully) under scrutiny.

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.

haswell 3y ago
I phrased that poorly. My point was that it isn’t clear if there’s a point at which the balance of the relationship shifts such that what was once reasonable (paying fees to Apple for access to their customers, among other things) is no longer reasonable. In the Netflix scenario, it’s clear that Apple wasn’t the primary source of customer acquisition. The scenario where an unknown app grows and gets big based on Apple’s network effect highlights the complexity of the situation. > Apple doesn't own those customers now and for all time just because they originally found the service through Apple's app store! I’m not saying that Apple owns those customers. The pertinent question is what is or is not reasonable for them to charge and/or what restrictions are reasonable. The benefits of publishing in the App Store extend beyond just customer reach, and also involve Apple making good on the promises they've made to their customers (With few exceptions, I personally won't spend money on apps that use their own subscription mechanism, because I have no interest in cancellation hell). In addition to this, the vig covers access to platform capabilities and services that are arguably just as important as access to customers.
- Ajedi32 3y ago
  I don't think we need to decide precisely what dollar amount is reasonable for Apple to charge for the use of their app store; that's something Apple and the app developers can negotiate between themselves. The problem is that Apple is currently allowed to use their software in a way that effectively does give them ownership of your customers, and they're able to use that ownership as leverage in any negotiations. Apple can say "pay up, otherwise our customers won't be allowed to access your service anymore, even if they want to, and regardless of what app store they use to purchase your services". If Apple couldn't do that then the negotiations would be more fair.
  - haswell 3y ago
    To be clear, I'm not a fan of Apple's vice grip here. But I also don't think I agree with this: > in a way that effectively does give them ownership of your customers Netflix and its users may find it annoying that anything related to subscriptions has to be danced around (I certainly do), but I don't think it's quite right to classify Apple's rules around directing users to subscription management features on the Netflix side as "ownership" of those customers. The restriction feels onerous, yes, but is something other than ownership. They are wielding the value of their marketplace as leverage, and it's this power that is (rightfully) under scrutiny.