5 ms·

What Apple does is bad but they don't tax 30% of every transaction. Apple isn't taking a 30% of your Uber or DoorDash, they charge 30% for sales made on their p

by Spivak 2y ago

What Apple does is bad but they don't tax 30% of every transaction. Apple isn't taking a 30% of your Uber or DoorDash, they charge 30% for sales made on their platform for digital goods and services redeemed on that platform. I think it's harder to argue that Sony shouldn't be allowed to take a cut of game sales on the PS5 outside of "well we all decided collectively to make that illegal because we don't like it." And honestly that's plenty enough for legislation but it's not going to be without consequences because Apple will extract their pound of flesh somewhere, can't have profits go down. > The commission says a fee for such matchmaking is justifiable but what Apple charges goes “beyond what is strictly necessary”. The EU commission is a hair away from just telling Apple what they're allowed to charge which I don't love. Either how Apple extracts fees is legal and how much is up to the market, or it isn't. Saying "it's legal as long as the percent is small enough" is silly.

fireflash38 2y ago
> Either how Apple extracts fees is legal and how much is up to the market, or it isn't. Whose market? The one that Apple controls? Arguably PS5/Nintendo stuff is just as obnoxious... just in smaller scale. Do you really own that device you bought?
pocketarc 2y ago
> Saying "it's legal as long as the percent is small enough" is silly. Credit card companies have had caps on their fee percentages in the EU for a long time, it's not unusual for the EU to set these limits.
LunaSea 2y ago
Should Google Chrome ask for 30% of web purchases?
- Spivak 2y ago
  I think it's funny people argue this when Google already does extract a massive pound of flesh from web purchases and uses Chrome to push "the web" where they control the market. I have to pay the Apple tax to reach my customers where they are, iOS. I have to pay the Google tax to reach my customers where they are, the web dominated by Doubleclick and Google search. Do you care that a tech company is extracting huge sums from digital markets or do you just care how? Does it make a lick of difference that with ad spend it feels like you're buying something or when you put ads on your site you never see the money they took off the top?
  - tines 2y ago
    > massive pound of flesh Technically, all pounds of flesh are the same mass :)
    - Spivak 2y ago
      Love that, I fully expect "pound of flesh" to soon have an entry in the dictionary for "an unspecified amount of flesh" to annoy language prescriptivists.
    - noworriesnate 2y ago
      Not in an interplanetary society. If you're on Europa, your entire body weighs approximately one pound.
      - tines 2y ago
        In modern times, the pound is defined in terms of kilograms, so it's a unit of mass.
  - nl 2y ago
    > Do you care that a tech company is extracting huge sums from digital markets or do you just care how? Everyone should care how! The how is the important part. If there are alternative ways to access something then people are free to compete of product. That's a huge difference because competition is generally consumer friendly.
  - marcus_holmes 2y ago
    And the EU should look into Google's unfair practices from its domination of web search and ads. I suspect it will. If Google starting charging site owners 30% of their revenues to index their website on Google Search, and there was no possible alternative, the EU would probably be looking at them pretty harshly too.
  - WA 2y ago
    I can send you a link to my website, no Google required. I can send you my Android app, no Google required. I can’t send you my iOS app without relying on Apple.
- throwaway-blaze 2y ago
  They already do, you can't survive in ecommerce without google ads.
  - theturtletalks 2y ago
    That was the case 5-10 years ago, but many e-commerce businesses are surviving solely on TikTok and Instagram ads. Look at most of the Google Shopping results for small items, all Amazon and Temu who have bigger pockets.
mvdtnz 2y ago
> What Apple does is bad but they don't tax 30% of every transaction. Apple isn't taking a 30% of your Uber or DoorDash, they charge 30% for sales made on their platform for digital goods and services redeemed on that platform. You're mischaracterising the situation. Apple taxes 30% of all transactions made on apps other than exempt transactions. The food and tangible services you mentioned are exempt categories. Apple takes a 30% cut of all sales of digital goods and services transacted on apps on their platform, regardless of whether the goods are "redeemed on that platform" (whatever that means). Of course Apple has built a byzantine maze of carve-outs, exemptions and counter-exemptions that muddy the waters and give them great power if you're a small developer without the resources to fight them for your rights.
- dev_tty01 2y ago
  Subscriptions are 15% after the first year. Apps from small developers also pay 15%. Given the prevalence of subscriptions and the large number of indies on the app store, I really doubt 30% is close to the average. At any rate, 15% is still sizable, but it doesn't help the conversation if we are substantially overstating the fee percentage.
jncfhnb 2y ago
> it's not going to be without consequences because Apple will extract their pound of flesh somewhere, can't have profits go down. You write this as if Apple is the authority figure here. Profits can very easily go down.
rickdeckard 2y ago
> I think it's harder to argue that Sony shouldn't be allowed to take a cut of game sales on the PS5 I agree, it's hard to argue that. Sony created a narrow-purpose platform (gaming + media) and is taking a cut for offering 3rd party games there. It's not a general purpose computer designed to be your main communication device and your key to connect you to any type of service or appliance in your world. Sony didn't sell best-in-class TVs, then used their dominating position to demand revenue-share from broadcasters, then integrated a gaming console for the same price to crush console competitors, then created a custom plug and partnered with building companies that their plug shall be in all living rooms, then launched a watch which would only work if you also have their TVs, then started a bank and mandated that all products promoted on any TV channel must only be payable via their payment service,... ...and then when a commission started setting boundaries on its grip over the market, started complaining how the commission is preventing competition, how only Sony can ensure a secure living room and safe TV-experience, and started weaponizing its customers (with the custom sockets, watches and wallets all on Sony) against their own elected regulatory body...
- tpmoney 2y ago
  Apple didn't develop a "general purpose computer" either, they developed a cell phone. They entered into an established product market, with a product that was even more locked down than the current competition (remember, Palm Treos and Blackberrys?). Even "dumb" phones had apps and games (though if you think Apple's fees are ridiculous, you should look up the cost of developing a bejeweled clone for your old sony ericson, "Qalcom BREW" would be a contemporary starting point). Within this market, 3 different competitors (Palm, Microsoft and Google) also threw their hat into the ring, with far more open platforms. Palm and Microsoft eventually gave up, and Google is the majority player with the fully open platform. Yet Apple is somehow so dominant that we're crafting entirely new rules around them doing the same thing they and many other highly integrated hardware/software manufacturer has done for ages. Why?
  - mthoms 2y ago
    Because like it or not, it has become a general purpose computer. For millions it’s their primary (for some: only) gateway to banking, payments, education, government services, personal relations, keeping in touch with family, navigation, healthcare and emergency services. Up next: digital ID and (possibly) online voting. Those things are all pretty important for a society, right? In a sense, they are society. Accordingly, a couple powerful entities controlling all those things ought to expect oversight from said society. It’s not hard to understand. So no, Apple is not doing “the same thing” as other device manufacturers have “done for ages”. Not even close. They are a victim of their own success in a way, but their shareholders have been rewarded handsomely. They’re hardly a victim like you’re proposing.
worik 2y ago
> The EU commission is a hair away from just telling Apple what they're allowed to charge which I don't love I see your point. But there are trade-offs. Apple is doing its best to be a monopoly, and so tell them what to charge or break them up. Or simply allow the monopolist practices to do what they do and eventually one firm will own everything.
- stouset 2y ago
  > Apple is doing its best to be a monopoly Apple is quite literally a minority player in the EU.
  - greycol 2y ago
    Rather than going in to details why that doesn't matter, with relation to monopolistic power, I'll just let you extrapolate your reasoning to the following: The EU population is quite literally a minority of the world population.
    - stouset 2y ago
      Apple has less than 30% market share globally. Meanwhile the EU—a minority of the world population—levies fines based on global revenue.
      - greycol 2y ago
        Of course the fines are punitive, that's because the fines aren't supposed to be a revenues source for the EU they're supposed to deter behaviour (To the point the first round of them are often dimunitive or waived entirely before ramping up steeply if the behaviour doesn't change). Another reason the fines are based on global revenue are to get around all the income shenanigans tech companies play, or do you really believe google's most profitable country is Ireland? >Apple has less than 30% market share globally. The EU is less than 30% of the population globally, and only 10% of iphone sales. By your logic clearly what it does doesn't have an outsized effect on apple that needs to be corrected.

by Spivak 2y ago

fireflash38 2y ago

> Either how Apple extracts fees is legal and how much is up to the market, or it isn't. Whose market? The one that Apple controls? Arguably PS5/Nintendo stuff is just as obnoxious... just in smaller scale. Do you really own that device you bought?

pocketarc 2y ago

> Saying "it's legal as long as the percent is small enough" is silly. Credit card companies have had caps on their fee percentages in the EU for a long time, it's not unusual for the EU to set these limits.

LunaSea 2y ago

Should Google Chrome ask for 30% of web purchases?

Spivak 2y ago
I think it's funny people argue this when Google already does extract a massive pound of flesh from web purchases and uses Chrome to push "the web" where they control the market. I have to pay the Apple tax to reach my customers where they are, iOS. I have to pay the Google tax to reach my customers where they are, the web dominated by Doubleclick and Google search. Do you care that a tech company is extracting huge sums from digital markets or do you just care how? Does it make a lick of difference that with ad spend it feels like you're buying something or when you put ads on your site you never see the money they took off the top?
- tines 2y ago
  > massive pound of flesh Technically, all pounds of flesh are the same mass :)
  - Spivak 2y ago
    Love that, I fully expect "pound of flesh" to soon have an entry in the dictionary for "an unspecified amount of flesh" to annoy language prescriptivists.
  - noworriesnate 2y ago
    Not in an interplanetary society. If you're on Europa, your entire body weighs approximately one pound.
    - tines 2y ago
      In modern times, the pound is defined in terms of kilograms, so it's a unit of mass.
- nl 2y ago
  > Do you care that a tech company is extracting huge sums from digital markets or do you just care how? Everyone should care how! The how is the important part. If there are alternative ways to access something then people are free to compete of product. That's a huge difference because competition is generally consumer friendly.
- marcus_holmes 2y ago
  And the EU should look into Google's unfair practices from its domination of web search and ads. I suspect it will. If Google starting charging site owners 30% of their revenues to index their website on Google Search, and there was no possible alternative, the EU would probably be looking at them pretty harshly too.
- WA 2y ago
  I can send you a link to my website, no Google required. I can send you my Android app, no Google required. I can’t send you my iOS app without relying on Apple.
throwaway-blaze 2y ago
They already do, you can't survive in ecommerce without google ads.
- theturtletalks 2y ago
  That was the case 5-10 years ago, but many e-commerce businesses are surviving solely on TikTok and Instagram ads. Look at most of the Google Shopping results for small items, all Amazon and Temu who have bigger pockets.

mvdtnz 2y ago

> What Apple does is bad but they don't tax 30% of every transaction. Apple isn't taking a 30% of your Uber or DoorDash, they charge 30% for sales made on their platform for digital goods and services redeemed on that platform. You're mischaracterising the situation. Apple taxes 30% of all transactions made on apps other than exempt transactions. The food and tangible services you mentioned are exempt categories. Apple takes a 30% cut of all sales of digital goods and services transacted on apps on their platform, regardless of whether the goods are "redeemed on that platform" (whatever that means). Of course Apple has built a byzantine maze of carve-outs, exemptions and counter-exemptions that muddy the waters and give them great power if you're a small developer without the resources to fight them for your rights.

dev_tty01 2y ago
Subscriptions are 15% after the first year. Apps from small developers also pay 15%. Given the prevalence of subscriptions and the large number of indies on the app store, I really doubt 30% is close to the average. At any rate, 15% is still sizable, but it doesn't help the conversation if we are substantially overstating the fee percentage.

jncfhnb 2y ago

> it's not going to be without consequences because Apple will extract their pound of flesh somewhere, can't have profits go down. You write this as if Apple is the authority figure here. Profits can very easily go down.

rickdeckard 2y ago

> I think it's harder to argue that Sony shouldn't be allowed to take a cut of game sales on the PS5 I agree, it's hard to argue that. Sony created a narrow-purpose platform (gaming + media) and is taking a cut for offering 3rd party games there. It's not a general purpose computer designed to be your main communication device and your key to connect you to any type of service or appliance in your world. Sony didn't sell best-in-class TVs, then used their dominating position to demand revenue-share from broadcasters, then integrated a gaming console for the same price to crush console competitors, then created a custom plug and partnered with building companies that their plug shall be in all living rooms, then launched a watch which would only work if you also have their TVs, then started a bank and mandated that all products promoted on any TV channel must only be payable via their payment service,... ...and then when a commission started setting boundaries on its grip over the market, started complaining how the commission is preventing competition, how only Sony can ensure a secure living room and safe TV-experience, and started weaponizing its customers (with the custom sockets, watches and wallets all on Sony) against their own elected regulatory body...

tpmoney 2y ago
Apple didn't develop a "general purpose computer" either, they developed a cell phone. They entered into an established product market, with a product that was even more locked down than the current competition (remember, Palm Treos and Blackberrys?). Even "dumb" phones had apps and games (though if you think Apple's fees are ridiculous, you should look up the cost of developing a bejeweled clone for your old sony ericson, "Qalcom BREW" would be a contemporary starting point). Within this market, 3 different competitors (Palm, Microsoft and Google) also threw their hat into the ring, with far more open platforms. Palm and Microsoft eventually gave up, and Google is the majority player with the fully open platform. Yet Apple is somehow so dominant that we're crafting entirely new rules around them doing the same thing they and many other highly integrated hardware/software manufacturer has done for ages. Why?
- mthoms 2y ago
  Because like it or not, it has become a general purpose computer. For millions it’s their primary (for some: only) gateway to banking, payments, education, government services, personal relations, keeping in touch with family, navigation, healthcare and emergency services. Up next: digital ID and (possibly) online voting. Those things are all pretty important for a society, right? In a sense, they are society. Accordingly, a couple powerful entities controlling all those things ought to expect oversight from said society. It’s not hard to understand. So no, Apple is not doing “the same thing” as other device manufacturers have “done for ages”. Not even close. They are a victim of their own success in a way, but their shareholders have been rewarded handsomely. They’re hardly a victim like you’re proposing.

worik 2y ago

> The EU commission is a hair away from just telling Apple what they're allowed to charge which I don't love I see your point. But there are trade-offs. Apple is doing its best to be a monopoly, and so tell them what to charge or break them up. Or simply allow the monopolist practices to do what they do and eventually one firm will own everything.

stouset 2y ago
> Apple is doing its best to be a monopoly Apple is quite literally a minority player in the EU.
- greycol 2y ago
  Rather than going in to details why that doesn't matter, with relation to monopolistic power, I'll just let you extrapolate your reasoning to the following: The EU population is quite literally a minority of the world population.
  - stouset 2y ago
    Apple has less than 30% market share globally. Meanwhile the EU—a minority of the world population—levies fines based on global revenue.
    - greycol 2y ago
      Of course the fines are punitive, that's because the fines aren't supposed to be a revenues source for the EU they're supposed to deter behaviour (To the point the first round of them are often dimunitive or waived entirely before ramping up steeply if the behaviour doesn't change). Another reason the fines are based on global revenue are to get around all the income shenanigans tech companies play, or do you really believe google's most profitable country is Ireland? >Apple has less than 30% market share globally. The EU is less than 30% of the population globally, and only 10% of iphone sales. By your logic clearly what it does doesn't have an outsized effect on apple that needs to be corrected.