4 ms·

That's a gross characterization of what's going on. When I download Uber on App Store, the business relationship is between me and Uber (and Apple doesnt and sh

That's a gross characterization of what's going on. When I download Uber on App Store, the business relationship is between me and Uber (and Apple doesnt and shouldnt come into the picture). Do you think Ford needs to get a cut if a user buys Michelin tyres of their Ford Car? Will you argue that Michelin needs to "pay into Ford for access to their market"?

lesuorac 1y ago
If you walk into a Krogers and buy a pint of Bryer's ice cream I can definitely understand Kroger getting a cut.
- einszwei 1y ago
  But we also understand that Krogers can’t expect a cut of every transaction on Xbox just because the Xbox was purchased from Krogers.
  - oneplane 1y ago
    Unless Krogers maintains the Xbox software and Xbox servers and Xbox business processes so it can keep functioning.
    - echaozh 1y ago
      Um, does a mall normally gets a cut in all the sales which happen in the stores on its ground? The mall surely keeps the stores running by providing services like security, parking, advertising to attract people, etc.
      - oneplane 1y ago
        Effectively, yes.
- bigyabai 1y ago
  In this case, the "ice cream" is a zero-margin utility. It can be reproduced infinitely without incurring extra costs beyond what Kroger deems sufficient. The act of installing an app on iOS can't even be compared to Kroger charging money for you to drink out of their hose in the back of the store. Software is simply not a physical commodity, apps like Safari are proof that data still flows freely. In a fair universe people would stop going to this store and visit other places with lower margins. But Apple conveniently took steps to prevent you from leaving their shop, so they can charge whatever they consider a fair price. You cannot rationally defend this, jurisdictions worldwide are suing Apple for this, because it's a blatant racket. It is indefensible.
  - lesuorac 1y ago
    > But Apple conveniently took steps to prevent you from leaving their shop, so they can charge whatever they consider a fair price. This is the part that is monopolistic. Kroger collecting money when Bryer sells ice cream in their store is fine. Kroger prohibiting Bryer from selling ice cream else where is not. This should honestly blanketly apply; as-in Bryer should not be allowed to enter a contract with Kroger where they'll only sell ice cream at Kroger. Bryer can choose not to sell at other grocery stores but it should never be a contractual requirement. > You cannot rationally defend this, jurisdictions worldwide are suing Apple for this, because it's a blatant racket. It is indefensible. Even if Bryer's ice cream was zero-margin, if you go into Kroger's store to buy it then Kroger is entitled to some compensation. The practice of collecting a commission from products you are an intermediary for is highly defensible. The practice of prohibiting others from selling their own goods to people not under your control is not (i.e Schools can ban an ice cream vendor from visiting a school).
AISnakeOil 1y ago
It's Apple's phone, they can do what they want.
- catsma21 1y ago
  that's the issue! it should not be apple's phone! i paid for the hardware and current version of the software - anything more should be provided to me out of their goodwill, not because it is their device.
- ta1243 1y ago
  I distinctly remember buying it. Not renting it, buying it. The apple webpage says > Why buy iPhone anywhere else? > When it comes to purchasing a new iPhone, there’s no better place to buy than Apple. For all your questions about payment options and getting your new iPhone set up, we have the answers you need.
  - AISnakeOil 1y ago
    You bought the hunk of metal and glass, but you didn't buy the app store servers, the software has a legal agreement and you sign that. If you don't agree, don't sign it.
    - bitpush 1y ago
      What apple store servers comes into the picture when I use my apps (uber, lyft, amazon, candycrush ..) on a daily basis? I understand a one time fee ($99 or something) for hosting the app and allowing downloads, but why does Apple get an ongoing 30% cut?
      - fingerlocks 1y ago
        Routing push notifications, telemetry, marketing and promotions, sales analytics, they handle all the internationalization of sales such as currency exchange and local sales laws. They also provide cloud storage for core dumps and other crash logs, persistent iCloud storage for user data, and remote build pipelines. That’s just off the top of my head. And of course the absolutely massive SDK that makes it easy to build all these apps natively without rolling your own computer vision framework or audio processing engine.
SoftTalker 1y ago
If you buy the tires from the Ford dealer, Ford absolutely gets a cut. Or they add a surcharge.
- catsma21 1y ago
  i'd skip the dealership and go straight to the warehouse, if it was possible. (sideloading)
  - alistairSH 1y ago
    That argument has some merit (ie, users should't be limited to a single app store). But, not what the parent argued.
- looofooo0 1y ago
  Sure and if you buy it from somewhere else your Ford refuses to drive with them.
Nab443 1y ago
If they sell tires in Ford shops, yes. Same for uber going through the App Store.
MangoToupe 1y ago
[flagged]
alistairSH 1y ago
Apple incurs the ongoing cost of hosting the App Store, so yes, they're absolutely entitled to charge either or both vendors and consumers for access. Giant and Safeway mark-up food they sell. The shop that stocked and installed those Michelin tires charged a premium. Etc. If you're arguing the App Store shouldn't exists, or Apple shouldn't limit their users to a single App Store, that's an argument with some merit. But, it's not what you said.
- luckylion 1y ago
  > Giant and Safeway mark-up food they sell. Does Apple sell the app? Or are they only facilitating the transaction, but you're buying from the app author? Because grocery stores are selling you something, they are not middlemen who only connect you with the manufacturer. They've bought the products from the manufacturer and are now selling them to you.
  - alistairSH 1y ago
    Ok, you got me, the brick & mortar example doesn't translate perfectly. My main point still stands... there is a real cost to hosting an App Store, and the entity doing that hosting should be compensated for doing so. The "problem" is Apple (and now Google?) want to be the only App Store for their platforms. So, you can't pick between Safeway and Giant. But, that's not what the parent suggested - they only suggested the host of the App Store shouldn't be paid.
    - luckylion 1y ago
      I don't think that necessarily follows from what they said. Apple might charge, much like grocery stores, for exposure (i.e. ads, which they also do), or they might charge the consumer a fee. They shouldn't be a permanent middle man between consumer and manufacturer is what I took away from that comment. The app stores are only money printers because they are (largely) exclusive on their platforms. Would users and developers choose Apple's app store and its hefty fees if there was fair competition? Possibly, but likely not at the same conditions Apple can dictate today.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

lesuorac 1y ago

If you walk into a Krogers and buy a pint of Bryer's ice cream I can definitely understand Kroger getting a cut.

einszwei 1y ago
But we also understand that Krogers can’t expect a cut of every transaction on Xbox just because the Xbox was purchased from Krogers.
- oneplane 1y ago
  Unless Krogers maintains the Xbox software and Xbox servers and Xbox business processes so it can keep functioning.
  - echaozh 1y ago
    Um, does a mall normally gets a cut in all the sales which happen in the stores on its ground? The mall surely keeps the stores running by providing services like security, parking, advertising to attract people, etc.
    - oneplane 1y ago
      Effectively, yes.
bigyabai 1y ago
In this case, the "ice cream" is a zero-margin utility. It can be reproduced infinitely without incurring extra costs beyond what Kroger deems sufficient. The act of installing an app on iOS can't even be compared to Kroger charging money for you to drink out of their hose in the back of the store. Software is simply not a physical commodity, apps like Safari are proof that data still flows freely. In a fair universe people would stop going to this store and visit other places with lower margins. But Apple conveniently took steps to prevent you from leaving their shop, so they can charge whatever they consider a fair price. You cannot rationally defend this, jurisdictions worldwide are suing Apple for this, because it's a blatant racket. It is indefensible.
- lesuorac 1y ago
  > But Apple conveniently took steps to prevent you from leaving their shop, so they can charge whatever they consider a fair price. This is the part that is monopolistic. Kroger collecting money when Bryer sells ice cream in their store is fine. Kroger prohibiting Bryer from selling ice cream else where is not. This should honestly blanketly apply; as-in Bryer should not be allowed to enter a contract with Kroger where they'll only sell ice cream at Kroger. Bryer can choose not to sell at other grocery stores but it should never be a contractual requirement. > You cannot rationally defend this, jurisdictions worldwide are suing Apple for this, because it's a blatant racket. It is indefensible. Even if Bryer's ice cream was zero-margin, if you go into Kroger's store to buy it then Kroger is entitled to some compensation. The practice of collecting a commission from products you are an intermediary for is highly defensible. The practice of prohibiting others from selling their own goods to people not under your control is not (i.e Schools can ban an ice cream vendor from visiting a school).

AISnakeOil 1y ago

It's Apple's phone, they can do what they want.

catsma21 1y ago
that's the issue! it should not be apple's phone! i paid for the hardware and current version of the software - anything more should be provided to me out of their goodwill, not because it is their device.
ta1243 1y ago
I distinctly remember buying it. Not renting it, buying it. The apple webpage says > Why buy iPhone anywhere else? > When it comes to purchasing a new iPhone, there’s no better place to buy than Apple. For all your questions about payment options and getting your new iPhone set up, we have the answers you need.
- AISnakeOil 1y ago
  You bought the hunk of metal and glass, but you didn't buy the app store servers, the software has a legal agreement and you sign that. If you don't agree, don't sign it.
  - bitpush 1y ago
    What apple store servers comes into the picture when I use my apps (uber, lyft, amazon, candycrush ..) on a daily basis? I understand a one time fee ($99 or something) for hosting the app and allowing downloads, but why does Apple get an ongoing 30% cut?
    - fingerlocks 1y ago
      Routing push notifications, telemetry, marketing and promotions, sales analytics, they handle all the internationalization of sales such as currency exchange and local sales laws. They also provide cloud storage for core dumps and other crash logs, persistent iCloud storage for user data, and remote build pipelines. That’s just off the top of my head. And of course the absolutely massive SDK that makes it easy to build all these apps natively without rolling your own computer vision framework or audio processing engine.

SoftTalker 1y ago

If you buy the tires from the Ford dealer, Ford absolutely gets a cut. Or they add a surcharge.

catsma21 1y ago
i'd skip the dealership and go straight to the warehouse, if it was possible. (sideloading)
- alistairSH 1y ago
  That argument has some merit (ie, users should't be limited to a single app store). But, not what the parent argued.
looofooo0 1y ago
Sure and if you buy it from somewhere else your Ford refuses to drive with them.

Nab443 1y ago

If they sell tires in Ford shops, yes. Same for uber going through the App Store.

MangoToupe 1y ago

[flagged]

alistairSH 1y ago

Apple incurs the ongoing cost of hosting the App Store, so yes, they're absolutely entitled to charge either or both vendors and consumers for access. Giant and Safeway mark-up food they sell. The shop that stocked and installed those Michelin tires charged a premium. Etc. If you're arguing the App Store shouldn't exists, or Apple shouldn't limit their users to a single App Store, that's an argument with some merit. But, it's not what you said.

luckylion 1y ago
> Giant and Safeway mark-up food they sell. Does Apple sell the app? Or are they only facilitating the transaction, but you're buying from the app author? Because grocery stores are selling you something, they are not middlemen who only connect you with the manufacturer. They've bought the products from the manufacturer and are now selling them to you.
- alistairSH 1y ago
  Ok, you got me, the brick & mortar example doesn't translate perfectly. My main point still stands... there is a real cost to hosting an App Store, and the entity doing that hosting should be compensated for doing so. The "problem" is Apple (and now Google?) want to be the only App Store for their platforms. So, you can't pick between Safeway and Giant. But, that's not what the parent suggested - they only suggested the host of the App Store shouldn't be paid.
  - luckylion 1y ago
    I don't think that necessarily follows from what they said. Apple might charge, much like grocery stores, for exposure (i.e. ads, which they also do), or they might charge the consumer a fee. They shouldn't be a permanent middle man between consumer and manufacturer is what I took away from that comment. The app stores are only money printers because they are (largely) exclusive on their platforms. Would users and developers choose Apple's app store and its hefty fees if there was fair competition? Possibly, but likely not at the same conditions Apple can dictate today.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]