7 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. Windows users aren’t viewed as Microsoft’s customers from the point of view of third party software. Same with MacOS. Apple has pushed this paradigm in iOS because it’s ludicrously profitable. Controlling the evolution of a ubiquitous computing platform gives a company a huge amount of power. Add to that the power to control any commercial transaction performed on that platform is simply too much concentration of power.

sib 3y ago
"Windows" didn't sell them a computer. Microsoft sold an OS to - for example - Dell, who then sold a computer to the user. So they are Dell's customers. And Dell, for sure, earned a lot of money selling placement on the Home Screen (or pre-installation) to 3P app developers. (Of course, there are also computers such as the Microsoft Surface, but these represent a tiny fraction of the universe of Windows computers ever sold...) Whereas Apple sold the user a phone, so the users are clearly Apple's customers. There is an argument that they are also the 3P app developer's customers, but there should be no debate about the fact that they are Apple's customers, using a platform developed by Apple. If 3P app developers want to access Apple's customers on a platform developed by Apple, then they should expect to play by Apple's rules... (And no, I never worked for Apple. In fact, I have worked both for Google and for multiple 3P app developers who were subject to the so-called Apple Tax.)
- awesomeMilou 3y ago
  > If 3P app developers want to access Apple's customers on a platform developed by Apple, then they should expect to play by Apple's rules... That whole argument is based on the implicit assumption that Apple's products would still be as attractive to consumers as they are right now, even if they didn't allow 3rd party developers access to their platform. Which is a completely insane take, like literally pathologically insane, you-should-get-professional-help take for me to swallow.
  - 015a 3y ago
    Absolutely true. I know of one younger guy who used to have an iPhone, but switched to Android after the Fortnite debacle. This happens. Having fewer experiences on your mobile platform will never gain you more customers. Fortnite isn't big enough to move significant numbers alone, but if you include other third party developers Apple loves egotistically slighting, Spotify, Netflix, Microsoft, etc: Apple would not exist if they collectively decided to abandon Apple's platforms. They have given FAR, FAR MORE to Apple than Apple has given to them; its so lopsided anyone who thinks otherwise isn't thinking straight. These devs aren't doing this, by and large, today, because its not in their business interest to do so. But: capitalism is an efficiency maximizer. Software has lower margins today than it ever has, and they're only getting lower. The market simply cannot support 30% taxes forever; it'll happen one-by-one, its already happening one-by-one. Apple's choice is: Get ahead of it, find a better more efficient path for developers to distribute on their platforms; or watch their platforms become boring places where no one can possibly leverage their extremely bad and proprietary technology to make money, and "apps" only make sense for gigacorporations to distribute as a value-add for their web apps.
  - yungporko 3y ago
    i'm aware that i'm a very small minority here, but i would actually love that. it'd be the closest thing i can get to a "dumbphone" that still allows me to track health/fitness stuff with my apple watch. i'd actually pay extra for it.
- 015a 3y ago
  1. Microsoft does sell users a computer. Sometimes. Surface devices represent about 10% of all desktop computers. 2. Apple also sells Macs, where developers can access "Apple's customers" unencumbered, without needing to play by Apple's rules (developers may also opt-in to a lower-form of "playing by Apple's rules" by submitting their apps to Apple for notarization, or naturally, they may also opt-in to the Full Rules by distributing through the App Store. This is a fantastic, multi-tiered system that works, obviously, well enough for everyone.)
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    >Surface devices represent about 10% of all desktop computers. Really, Surface has THAT MUCH?! I honestly doubt it. I think I've only seen 4-6 surface devices in the wild in my life(in Europe). Maybe in the US they have 10% market share.
    - pjmlp 3y ago
      It does, quite common in Germany, also Surface main target are business users.
      - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
        But some business users in rich countries buying Surface devices can't possibly make 10% global PC market share.
        pjmlp 3y ago
        Why not? It does wonders for fruity devices.
        FirmwareBurner 3y ago
        A lot more regular people worldwide buy iPhones, not just business users in a few countries.
- buildfocus 3y ago
  > Dell, for sure, earned a lot of money selling placement on the Home Screen (or pre-installation) to 3P app developers. Selling default placement & promotion is a very different beast from "Dell only allows Dell-approved software on Dell computers". We can all agree the latter would have been terrible in many ways. > If 3P app developers want to access Apple's customers on a platform developed by Apple, then they should expect to play by Apple's rules... Strongly disagree. Customers and developers should be free to transact using their own devices as they please, without Apple involved. Apple is very welcome to offer services for money - access to the app store, support services, and promotion etc all make perfect sense. The end result of everybody on the path from the user to the developer adding rules & taking a cut is a world that blocks digital innovation entirely and completely hamstrings the software industry.
Terretta 3y ago
Better comparison is Steam, on an ostensibly open Windows, and costing the same for a developer to access as Apple (in fact arguably costs more). This would suggest the "Apple tax" on devs is less than the Steam tax on devs, despite Gog or whatever existing.
- MilaM 3y ago
  Not quite, in my opinion. It would only be a good comparision if Microsoft actively hindered competitors to launch a similar product like Steam on Windows, and if the only way to install and play games was through Steam.
- pjmlp 3y ago
  Because developers selling through Steam want the services Steam provides, they could just as well put a binary with an installer on their Website to download, use the Microsoft Store, Game Pass or whatever else, they fell like, e.g. shipping floppies.

sib 3y ago

"Windows" didn't sell them a computer. Microsoft sold an OS to - for example - Dell, who then sold a computer to the user. So they are Dell's customers. And Dell, for sure, earned a lot of money selling placement on the Home Screen (or pre-installation) to 3P app developers. (Of course, there are also computers such as the Microsoft Surface, but these represent a tiny fraction of the universe of Windows computers ever sold...) Whereas Apple sold the user a phone, so the users are clearly Apple's customers. There is an argument that they are also the 3P app developer's customers, but there should be no debate about the fact that they are Apple's customers, using a platform developed by Apple. If 3P app developers want to access Apple's customers on a platform developed by Apple, then they should expect to play by Apple's rules... (And no, I never worked for Apple. In fact, I have worked both for Google and for multiple 3P app developers who were subject to the so-called Apple Tax.)

awesomeMilou 3y ago
> If 3P app developers want to access Apple's customers on a platform developed by Apple, then they should expect to play by Apple's rules... That whole argument is based on the implicit assumption that Apple's products would still be as attractive to consumers as they are right now, even if they didn't allow 3rd party developers access to their platform. Which is a completely insane take, like literally pathologically insane, you-should-get-professional-help take for me to swallow.
- 015a 3y ago
  Absolutely true. I know of one younger guy who used to have an iPhone, but switched to Android after the Fortnite debacle. This happens. Having fewer experiences on your mobile platform will never gain you more customers. Fortnite isn't big enough to move significant numbers alone, but if you include other third party developers Apple loves egotistically slighting, Spotify, Netflix, Microsoft, etc: Apple would not exist if they collectively decided to abandon Apple's platforms. They have given FAR, FAR MORE to Apple than Apple has given to them; its so lopsided anyone who thinks otherwise isn't thinking straight. These devs aren't doing this, by and large, today, because its not in their business interest to do so. But: capitalism is an efficiency maximizer. Software has lower margins today than it ever has, and they're only getting lower. The market simply cannot support 30% taxes forever; it'll happen one-by-one, its already happening one-by-one. Apple's choice is: Get ahead of it, find a better more efficient path for developers to distribute on their platforms; or watch their platforms become boring places where no one can possibly leverage their extremely bad and proprietary technology to make money, and "apps" only make sense for gigacorporations to distribute as a value-add for their web apps.
- yungporko 3y ago
  i'm aware that i'm a very small minority here, but i would actually love that. it'd be the closest thing i can get to a "dumbphone" that still allows me to track health/fitness stuff with my apple watch. i'd actually pay extra for it.
015a 3y ago
1. Microsoft does sell users a computer. Sometimes. Surface devices represent about 10% of all desktop computers. 2. Apple also sells Macs, where developers can access "Apple's customers" unencumbered, without needing to play by Apple's rules (developers may also opt-in to a lower-form of "playing by Apple's rules" by submitting their apps to Apple for notarization, or naturally, they may also opt-in to the Full Rules by distributing through the App Store. This is a fantastic, multi-tiered system that works, obviously, well enough for everyone.)
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  >Surface devices represent about 10% of all desktop computers. Really, Surface has THAT MUCH?! I honestly doubt it. I think I've only seen 4-6 surface devices in the wild in my life(in Europe). Maybe in the US they have 10% market share.
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    It does, quite common in Germany, also Surface main target are business users.
    - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
      But some business users in rich countries buying Surface devices can't possibly make 10% global PC market share.
      - pjmlp 3y ago
        Why not? It does wonders for fruity devices.
        FirmwareBurner 3y ago
        A lot more regular people worldwide buy iPhones, not just business users in a few countries.
buildfocus 3y ago
> Dell, for sure, earned a lot of money selling placement on the Home Screen (or pre-installation) to 3P app developers. Selling default placement & promotion is a very different beast from "Dell only allows Dell-approved software on Dell computers". We can all agree the latter would have been terrible in many ways. > If 3P app developers want to access Apple's customers on a platform developed by Apple, then they should expect to play by Apple's rules... Strongly disagree. Customers and developers should be free to transact using their own devices as they please, without Apple involved. Apple is very welcome to offer services for money - access to the app store, support services, and promotion etc all make perfect sense. The end result of everybody on the path from the user to the developer adding rules & taking a cut is a world that blocks digital innovation entirely and completely hamstrings the software industry.

Terretta 3y ago

Better comparison is Steam, on an ostensibly open Windows, and costing the same for a developer to access as Apple (in fact arguably costs more). This would suggest the "Apple tax" on devs is less than the Steam tax on devs, despite Gog or whatever existing.

MilaM 3y ago
Not quite, in my opinion. It would only be a good comparision if Microsoft actively hindered competitors to launch a similar product like Steam on Windows, and if the only way to install and play games was through Steam.
pjmlp 3y ago
Because developers selling through Steam want the services Steam provides, they could just as well put a binary with an installer on their Website to download, use the Microsoft Store, Game Pass or whatever else, they fell like, e.g. shipping floppies.