4 ms·

> Because Candy Crush relies upon being an impulse purchase. If people had to go through five steps to buy it a ton of people would abandon it. But this does a

> Because Candy Crush relies upon being an impulse purchase. If people had to go through five steps to buy it a ton of people would abandon it. But this does apply to apps that make up 90% of the revenue on the App Store. These aren’t numbers I’m making up - it came out in the Epic trial. But even if that’s not the case for the other 10%, the same would apply for the App Store that applies for Amazon in the real world. Smaller merchants still choose Amazon for the conversion and that’s where the customers are when literally anyone can sell from a Squarespace website. > Again: my argument here is choice. Let developers decide. Your counter is “but one of them is better”. You’re entitled to your opinion but that isn’t a counter argument to letting developers choose what type of payment system And that’s the issue - everyone wants to use Apple’s App Store and have their own payment system not avoid the exposure they get from the App Store. Once again, on Android where you can in fact tell users to go outside of the Google ay Store - hardly anyone does. Every Indy developer thinks their little app will be special and they would be okay outside of the App Store. If they can’t even gain traction within the App Store what chances do they have of gaining traction outside of it? It’s not the 15% cut that’s keeping them from succeeding - small developers aren’t paying 30%

danShumway 3y ago
As a reminder, both Android and Amazon are being investigated for antitrust, and part of that complaint for Amazon is that they utilized an algorithm called Project Nessie to raise prices across the web for consumer goods even on 3rd-party storefronts: https://fortune.com/2023/11/02/amazon-algorithm-raise-prices-ftc-antitrust-lawsuit/ https://fortune.com/2023/11/02/amazon-algorithm-raise-prices... These are maybe not the shining corporate examples you want to compare Apple to.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  Google is being sued because they sold the idea of “freeduhm” and then changed the terms. There is plenty of precedence for this. This is why they loss thr Epic case and Apple won a similar lawsuit. But how is what Amazon doing any different than what the corner store does when it raises and lowers gas prices based on competition? And before you accuse me of being an Amazon apologist, I’ve mentioned plenty of times that I got Amazoned last year. I have no love loss for the company.
  - danShumway 3y ago
    > But how is what Amazon doing any different than what the corner store does when it raises and lowers gas prices based on competition? The FTC put out a blog post going into more detail about their complaints, which go beyond price adjustment to match competitors: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/ftc-sues-amazon-illegally-maintaining-monopoly-power https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/.... Their full complaint is at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/1910134amazonecommercecomplaintrevisedredactions.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/1910134amazonec... In particular, the FTC is interested in Amazon's pricing requirements which prohibit sellers from offering products at lower prices through other storefronts, its bundling of services like Prime which require sellers to buy unwanted fulfillment services in order to obtain unrelated placements in the Amazon store (and force Prime users to essentially pay twice for shipping if they order products outside of Amazon), and its privileging of discoverability for Amazon's own products and for paid advertisements over products that the FTC alleges Amazon knew were higher quality and better rated than the results it surfaced to customers. The FTC's complaint describes this as a self-reinforcing feedback loop: > Because Amazon suppresses meaningful competition on price and product selection, shoppers lack viable alternatives, further forcing sellers to submit to Amazon’s exclusionary tactics to reach those customers, and further allowing Amazon to accelerate and expand its dominance. Together, Amazon’s conduct blocks off competition, shopper traffic, and seller business in the interrelated relevant markets. In other words, the more that sellers become dependent on Amazon, the more that shoppers become dependent on Amazon since goods and services are not available on other storefronts. This in turn makes sellers more reliant on Amazon since buyers become even harder to find off-site. Which in turn makes sellers more reliant on Amazon, and on and on. This has the effect of killing off 3rd-party storefronts since they are faced with a chicken-and-egg problem of trying to attract both sellers and buyers at the same time, and neither group can move off of Amazon individually without suffering financial penalties or losing product placement.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      That kind of argues against everything you are saying. Sellers do have a choice today of selling on their own websites. But they get benefits of selling on Amazon. Just like low graphics games like Candy Crush could make web apps today yet they find enough value to be in the App Store despite the 30% cut. A quick Google search shows that Amazon only has 40% of e-commerce.
afavour 3y ago
> And that’s the issue - everyone wants to use Apple’s App Store and have their own payment system not avoid the exposure they get from the App Store. But why would it be an issue to be in the App Store and provide your own payment option? Why not just let developers do that and let the market decide? I’ve asked that about four times now and you still haven’t actually explained why.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  So you want to use Apple’s marketplace and still not pay Apple? Can you put your goods in any other marketplace and not pay the market place owner in the real world or digital? If you want the “market to decide” force Apple to allow other app stores and you can let other app stores compete on price like the DMA demands. Can you distribute on Steam and not pay Steam? Can you do that in any physical store?
  - afavour 3y ago
    Your argument is now a completely different one than it was when the thread started. If the argument is “you should have to pay to be in the App Store”, sure, I don’t have any problem with that. But “fee to exist on the App Store” being 15-30% of every transaction is absolutely egregious and completely out of line with any real world cost. And in any case Apple already charges a $100/year fee to be able to put apps in the App Store. But, yet again, Apple charging that amount would be more acceptable if they fully supported the web as an alternative platform for those who do not care for the App Store exposure. But they do not, because it is in their interest to funnel everyone through the App Store and take a cut.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      And looking at Android - those people who are willing to forego the mobile providers App Store are just as unwilling to do it as merchants are unwilling to do it. That $100 is absolutely nothing. Can you get on any console, Steam, or any physical marketplace just by paying $100 a year? Can I put my music on Spotify by just paying a one time $100 fee? Can you name one other platform that charges less than 15/30%? Once again if it is egregious, why do the same app developers voluntarily put their apps on the Google Play store when they do have a choice? Why do artists allow their music to be on Spotify where Spotify gets 30% of the revenue?

danShumway 3y ago

As a reminder, both Android and Amazon are being investigated for antitrust, and part of that complaint for Amazon is that they utilized an algorithm called Project Nessie to raise prices across the web for consumer goods even on 3rd-party storefronts: https://fortune.com/2023/11/02/amazon-algorithm-raise-prices-ftc-antitrust-lawsuit/ https://fortune.com/2023/11/02/amazon-algorithm-raise-prices... These are maybe not the shining corporate examples you want to compare Apple to.

scarface_74 3y ago
Google is being sued because they sold the idea of “freeduhm” and then changed the terms. There is plenty of precedence for this. This is why they loss thr Epic case and Apple won a similar lawsuit. But how is what Amazon doing any different than what the corner store does when it raises and lowers gas prices based on competition? And before you accuse me of being an Amazon apologist, I’ve mentioned plenty of times that I got Amazoned last year. I have no love loss for the company.
- danShumway 3y ago
  > But how is what Amazon doing any different than what the corner store does when it raises and lowers gas prices based on competition? The FTC put out a blog post going into more detail about their complaints, which go beyond price adjustment to match competitors: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/ftc-sues-amazon-illegally-maintaining-monopoly-power https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/.... Their full complaint is at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/1910134amazonecommercecomplaintrevisedredactions.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/1910134amazonec... In particular, the FTC is interested in Amazon's pricing requirements which prohibit sellers from offering products at lower prices through other storefronts, its bundling of services like Prime which require sellers to buy unwanted fulfillment services in order to obtain unrelated placements in the Amazon store (and force Prime users to essentially pay twice for shipping if they order products outside of Amazon), and its privileging of discoverability for Amazon's own products and for paid advertisements over products that the FTC alleges Amazon knew were higher quality and better rated than the results it surfaced to customers. The FTC's complaint describes this as a self-reinforcing feedback loop: > Because Amazon suppresses meaningful competition on price and product selection, shoppers lack viable alternatives, further forcing sellers to submit to Amazon’s exclusionary tactics to reach those customers, and further allowing Amazon to accelerate and expand its dominance. Together, Amazon’s conduct blocks off competition, shopper traffic, and seller business in the interrelated relevant markets. In other words, the more that sellers become dependent on Amazon, the more that shoppers become dependent on Amazon since goods and services are not available on other storefronts. This in turn makes sellers more reliant on Amazon since buyers become even harder to find off-site. Which in turn makes sellers more reliant on Amazon, and on and on. This has the effect of killing off 3rd-party storefronts since they are faced with a chicken-and-egg problem of trying to attract both sellers and buyers at the same time, and neither group can move off of Amazon individually without suffering financial penalties or losing product placement.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    That kind of argues against everything you are saying. Sellers do have a choice today of selling on their own websites. But they get benefits of selling on Amazon. Just like low graphics games like Candy Crush could make web apps today yet they find enough value to be in the App Store despite the 30% cut. A quick Google search shows that Amazon only has 40% of e-commerce.

afavour 3y ago

> And that’s the issue - everyone wants to use Apple’s App Store and have their own payment system not avoid the exposure they get from the App Store. But why would it be an issue to be in the App Store and provide your own payment option? Why not just let developers do that and let the market decide? I’ve asked that about four times now and you still haven’t actually explained why.

scarface_74 3y ago
So you want to use Apple’s marketplace and still not pay Apple? Can you put your goods in any other marketplace and not pay the market place owner in the real world or digital? If you want the “market to decide” force Apple to allow other app stores and you can let other app stores compete on price like the DMA demands. Can you distribute on Steam and not pay Steam? Can you do that in any physical store?
- afavour 3y ago
  Your argument is now a completely different one than it was when the thread started. If the argument is “you should have to pay to be in the App Store”, sure, I don’t have any problem with that. But “fee to exist on the App Store” being 15-30% of every transaction is absolutely egregious and completely out of line with any real world cost. And in any case Apple already charges a $100/year fee to be able to put apps in the App Store. But, yet again, Apple charging that amount would be more acceptable if they fully supported the web as an alternative platform for those who do not care for the App Store exposure. But they do not, because it is in their interest to funnel everyone through the App Store and take a cut.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    And looking at Android - those people who are willing to forego the mobile providers App Store are just as unwilling to do it as merchants are unwilling to do it. That $100 is absolutely nothing. Can you get on any console, Steam, or any physical marketplace just by paying $100 a year? Can I put my music on Spotify by just paying a one time $100 fee? Can you name one other platform that charges less than 15/30%? Once again if it is egregious, why do the same app developers voluntarily put their apps on the Google Play store when they do have a choice? Why do artists allow their music to be on Spotify where Spotify gets 30% of the revenue?