4 ms·

This is a super tricky topic, which is why it sparks so much dialog. Like … - video game platforms, what about them? They all have similar platform fees & req

This is a super tricky topic, which is why it sparks so much dialog. Like … - video game platforms, what about them? They all have similar platform fees & requirements that Apple has but yet they are getting a pass on this topic. - other platforms. Why is it ok that YouTube takes 40% cut of ad revenue from content creators? - analogy to in-store retail. Imagine Apple is like your neighborhood Walmart. If Walmart is going to put a product on its shelf, they are only going to do so long as they can mark it up and sell it for a profit. Why is Apple not allowed to do the same for their “virtual shelf” (aka App Store)? - if people think 30% is too high, what is the right rate? Is it 25? 20? Something less? Who decides what’s fair? - Security. There’s no question that Apple being the single facilitation mechanism for payments drives out fraud and provides a better consumer experience & trust (for both the consumer and Apple). To much fraud on their platform, through rogue sideloading payments, could deter the consumer experience of Apple and effect the adoption of their products. Why should Apple be forced to allow a new fraud vector and put consumers at risk? This will deteriorate their brand. And much more. Note: I’m not saying I agree with Apple or its tactics, but it’s also not black or white either. This is a very tricky topic that is way more nuanced than most people acknowledge. And obviously there isn’t much precedent for this either.

jjav 3y ago
> If Walmart is going to put a product on its shelf[...] Because if walmart marks it up too high I can get the same thing from target or the local shop or from amazon or from tons of other places. So they are under competitive pressure to keep their markup low enough they don't chase customers away. > Why is Apple not allowed to do the same for their “virtual shelf” (aka App Store)? It is enraging because there is no competitive pressure on them. If the fees are too high, unlike with walmart, what are you going to do? There's nothing you can do. If walmart starts charging $100 for a bar of soap I can get for $1 at target, I'm going to target. If apple raises their cut to 200%, there's nothing you can do. > Who decides what’s fair? Ideally, a competitive free market. But apple does not allow that.
- lolinder 3y ago
  Are you writing this from the perspective of the consumer or the app developer? From the consumer perspective, you have a clear recourse: don't buy Apple phones if you don't want to (or can't afford to) pay for the markup that devs have to place due to the Apple tax. It's that simple. I have an Android phone and install most of my apps through F-Droid for free. No one forced you to buy an iPhone, and no one will force you to buy one again the next time you need a new phone. From the developer perspective you have a bit of a stronger moral point in that there are a substantial number of US customers that you cannot reach without passing through the App Store, but the current legal situation in the US is pretty clear [0]: US consumers knowingly choose to buy iPhones even though they know that they're choosing a locked-in platform, so there isn't a single-brand aftermarket and there is no monopoly. [0] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/21-16506/21-16506-2023-04-24.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/21...
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    > US consumers knowingly choose to buy iPhones even though they know that they're choosing a locked-in platform, so there isn't a single-brand aftermarket and there is no monopoly. As far as I know, that has not been used as a successful defense of any large antitrust case. Ma Bell and Microsoft could have tried arguing the same point, but I'm not sure if it would override the anticompetitive damages of either company.
    - lolinder 3y ago
      I linked to Epic v. Apple, where that exact argument was made and the court sided with Apple. It wasn't a DOJ antitrust suit, so maybe the rules are different there, but in that case Epic tried to make the argument that the relevant market was iOS app distribution and Apple therefore had a monopoly. The court ruled that in order to make that case, Epic had to demonstrate (among three other tests) that "the challenged aftermarket restrictions are “not generally known” when consumers make their foremarket purchase". The court found that consumers do know about the restrictions in advance of making their initial purchase decision and therefore found that the relevant market had to include more than just iPhones.
rib3ye 3y ago
You should have stopped at "other platforms"

jjav 3y ago

> If Walmart is going to put a product on its shelf[...] Because if walmart marks it up too high I can get the same thing from target or the local shop or from amazon or from tons of other places. So they are under competitive pressure to keep their markup low enough they don't chase customers away. > Why is Apple not allowed to do the same for their “virtual shelf” (aka App Store)? It is enraging because there is no competitive pressure on them. If the fees are too high, unlike with walmart, what are you going to do? There's nothing you can do. If walmart starts charging $100 for a bar of soap I can get for $1 at target, I'm going to target. If apple raises their cut to 200%, there's nothing you can do. > Who decides what’s fair? Ideally, a competitive free market. But apple does not allow that.

lolinder 3y ago
Are you writing this from the perspective of the consumer or the app developer? From the consumer perspective, you have a clear recourse: don't buy Apple phones if you don't want to (or can't afford to) pay for the markup that devs have to place due to the Apple tax. It's that simple. I have an Android phone and install most of my apps through F-Droid for free. No one forced you to buy an iPhone, and no one will force you to buy one again the next time you need a new phone. From the developer perspective you have a bit of a stronger moral point in that there are a substantial number of US customers that you cannot reach without passing through the App Store, but the current legal situation in the US is pretty clear [0]: US consumers knowingly choose to buy iPhones even though they know that they're choosing a locked-in platform, so there isn't a single-brand aftermarket and there is no monopoly. [0] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/21-16506/21-16506-2023-04-24.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/21...
- smoldesu 3y ago
  > US consumers knowingly choose to buy iPhones even though they know that they're choosing a locked-in platform, so there isn't a single-brand aftermarket and there is no monopoly. As far as I know, that has not been used as a successful defense of any large antitrust case. Ma Bell and Microsoft could have tried arguing the same point, but I'm not sure if it would override the anticompetitive damages of either company.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    I linked to Epic v. Apple, where that exact argument was made and the court sided with Apple. It wasn't a DOJ antitrust suit, so maybe the rules are different there, but in that case Epic tried to make the argument that the relevant market was iOS app distribution and Apple therefore had a monopoly. The court ruled that in order to make that case, Epic had to demonstrate (among three other tests) that "the challenged aftermarket restrictions are “not generally known” when consumers make their foremarket purchase". The court found that consumers do know about the restrictions in advance of making their initial purchase decision and therefore found that the relevant market had to include more than just iPhones.

rib3ye 3y ago

You should have stopped at "other platforms"