2 ms·

I don’t think that’s what’s attracting it though. They’ve been going around demanding 30% of everyone’s revenue, no matter how tenuous the connection. And it’s

by MBCook 2y ago

I don’t think that’s what’s attracting it though. They’ve been going around demanding 30% of everyone’s revenue, no matter how tenuous the connection. And it’s getting them in trouble. Sure 30% of smurfberries is fine. That’s their rule, who cares. And they have a rule it doesn’t apply to physical goods, which is why you can order stuff in the Amazon app. But then they decided that people giving yoga lessons over the time during the lockdowns owed them 30%. And other apps that had been in the store for 15 years suddenly seemed to require 30% when they didn’t before. Want to sell e-books? You have to give Apple 30%. Now there isn’t 30% anywhere to give. But you have to. So saith Apple. Instead of keeping their cut the same or even lowering it, they’ve been effectively increasing it by deciding their rules apply to more and more apps and services. Which looks exactly like monopoly jacking up prices. “Just don’t have an iPhone app” isn’t really viable at this point for a lot of businesses. It’s not 2008. They didn’t actually need to do any of this. It’s not like they were going to collapse if they didn’t keep deciding to expand what was “theirs”. And every single time they’ve gotten in a fight with a government they keep doubling down and getting in trouble. Instead of giving an inch they dig in until they’re ordered to give up 12 miles. I like apple products. I’ve been using them forever. I do not like where the management has been going.

jcranmer 2y ago
The 30% starts off as a publisher/retailer's slice of the fee, for which 30% isn't a bad fee. But Apple has extended its 30% take from "this is what we take for people who buy stuff on our store" to "this is what we take for any transactions within applications buy from our store." This is (very weakly!) justifiable if you're looking at microtransactions as buying-on-an-installment-plan, but Apple is going much further and demanding 30% on what's effectively regular credit card transactions. And if people consider American credit cards' 3% fees to be borderline usurious, think how much outrage a credit card with 30% merchant fees would create. And that's basically what Apple is trying to push now, a credit card with 30% merchant fees. No wonder they're desperate to prohibit apps from telling people "you can buy it cheaper anywhere but Apple."
- jjtheblunt 2y ago
  That’s a big cut, but it’s not exactly the same, because (for an example) credit card companies don’t have an automated and actual human team evaluating safety of and legitimacy for products sold.
  - jsjohnst 2y ago
    merchant providers don’t generally also handle customer service for the payments either, but that doesn’t entirely excuse apple’s behavior none the less
  - jcranmer 2y ago
    So Apple is clearly vetting everybody on Patreon to make sure they're kosher, which is why they get a larger take of the money than Patreon does? The 30% fee is cromulent when it's stuff that's clearly related to the app store activity. I'm not even that upset about charging a 30% fee on video game microtransactions. But the 30% fee is being charged on purchases made within app for content consumed outside of the app, which really starts to look a lot more like a 30% credit card transaction fee.
  - happymellon 2y ago
    > credit card companies don’t have an automated and actual human team evaluating safety of and legitimacy for products sold. Neither does Apple. They have a "review" process, but that's a far cry from actually providing real indemnity, and if they dont do that then its not worth the cost.
jsjohnst 2y ago
> They’ve been going around demanding 30% of everyone’s revenue Sorta Apples vs Oranges, but you should see how high the cut is for selling goods via places like Walmart/Amazon/Best Buy/etc.
- microtherion 2y ago
  Or how high the cuts were for app vendors on pre-Apple cell phone stores.
bigiain 2y ago
> “Just don’t have an iPhone app” isn’t really viable at this point for a lot of businesses. It’s not 2008. Interestingly, the 2008 Steve Jobs advice "Just make web apps and have people point their iP{hone's browser at your thing" is actually workable advice for an awful lot of iOS apps these days. (I'm super pissed at Patreon caving to Apple and giving Apple 30% of every payment I send to support artists/creators just because Patreon think they need an iPhone app. )
- philistine 2y ago
  The problem comes when you want to have an accessory that connects with Bluetooth, or notifications that 100% work, or you want to maintain a sound connection even with the screen off. You know, what a phone is for.
  - cma 2y ago
    Maybe doesn't apply to Firefox on iPhone, but firefox android at least can keep sound playing with the screen off. Does the mandatory webkit integration end up interfering with that? Not that Firefox has enough marketshare there to really help...
    - happymellon 2y ago
      With Firefox I can have YouTube running in the background. None of these things are technical limitations. They are purely political to extract more rent.

by MBCook 2y ago

jcranmer 2y ago

The 30% starts off as a publisher/retailer's slice of the fee, for which 30% isn't a bad fee. But Apple has extended its 30% take from "this is what we take for people who buy stuff on our store" to "this is what we take for any transactions within applications buy from our store." This is (very weakly!) justifiable if you're looking at microtransactions as buying-on-an-installment-plan, but Apple is going much further and demanding 30% on what's effectively regular credit card transactions. And if people consider American credit cards' 3% fees to be borderline usurious, think how much outrage a credit card with 30% merchant fees would create. And that's basically what Apple is trying to push now, a credit card with 30% merchant fees. No wonder they're desperate to prohibit apps from telling people "you can buy it cheaper anywhere but Apple."

jjtheblunt 2y ago
That’s a big cut, but it’s not exactly the same, because (for an example) credit card companies don’t have an automated and actual human team evaluating safety of and legitimacy for products sold.
- jsjohnst 2y ago
  merchant providers don’t generally also handle customer service for the payments either, but that doesn’t entirely excuse apple’s behavior none the less
- jcranmer 2y ago
  So Apple is clearly vetting everybody on Patreon to make sure they're kosher, which is why they get a larger take of the money than Patreon does? The 30% fee is cromulent when it's stuff that's clearly related to the app store activity. I'm not even that upset about charging a 30% fee on video game microtransactions. But the 30% fee is being charged on purchases made within app for content consumed outside of the app, which really starts to look a lot more like a 30% credit card transaction fee.
- happymellon 2y ago
  > credit card companies don’t have an automated and actual human team evaluating safety of and legitimacy for products sold. Neither does Apple. They have a "review" process, but that's a far cry from actually providing real indemnity, and if they dont do that then its not worth the cost.

jsjohnst 2y ago

> They’ve been going around demanding 30% of everyone’s revenue Sorta Apples vs Oranges, but you should see how high the cut is for selling goods via places like Walmart/Amazon/Best Buy/etc.

microtherion 2y ago
Or how high the cuts were for app vendors on pre-Apple cell phone stores.

bigiain 2y ago

> “Just don’t have an iPhone app” isn’t really viable at this point for a lot of businesses. It’s not 2008. Interestingly, the 2008 Steve Jobs advice "Just make web apps and have people point their iP{hone's browser at your thing" is actually workable advice for an awful lot of iOS apps these days. (I'm super pissed at Patreon caving to Apple and giving Apple 30% of every payment I send to support artists/creators just because Patreon think they need an iPhone app. )

philistine 2y ago
The problem comes when you want to have an accessory that connects with Bluetooth, or notifications that 100% work, or you want to maintain a sound connection even with the screen off. You know, what a phone is for.
- cma 2y ago
  Maybe doesn't apply to Firefox on iPhone, but firefox android at least can keep sound playing with the screen off. Does the mandatory webkit integration end up interfering with that? Not that Firefox has enough marketshare there to really help...
  - happymellon 2y ago
    With Firefox I can have YouTube running in the background. None of these things are technical limitations. They are purely political to extract more rent.