3 ms·

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 an

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.
- shwouchk 1y ago
  actually, many grocery chains in many parts of the world charge vendors for shelf space, and the vendors choose what to place on those shelves.
- demosthanos 1y ago
  It's more complicated than that. Nominally there's an ownership transfer, but the big players also charge the suppliers stocking fees [0], which seems to translate quite well to what Apple is doing. And if you're charging a fee to stock the product, it's clearly not being treated as a straightforward ownership transfer to the retailer like you say it is. Plus, since when is a middleman connecting you to a party with the product or service you want not a party you have a business relationship with (as GP claims)? Brokers have been a thing since forever. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/r-wal-mart-to-impose-charges-on-suppliers-as-its-costs-mount-2015-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/r-wal-mart-to-impose-charges...
  - luckylion 1y ago
    I think stocking fees are comparable to the ads you can buy in the app store. But Apple does not buy the apps and then resells them, which Walmart does. Brokers are a thing, but would you consider Apple's "app store" a broker? A broker's value-add is making the connection, but Apple's app store's is "being the only app store available on Apple devices". If you forced them to let users choose like Microsoft had to with browsers, that would be different, and I predict their perceived "value as a broker" would drop of a cliff because others could provide the same at a fraction of the cost.
    - Ferret7446 1y ago
      > But Apple does not buy the apps and then resells them In a sense they do. You can think of it as Apple buying a license and then selling the license to the end user. I don't disagree that morally Apple is problematic in holding a monopoly on apps on their devices, but charging fees for their shop is not inherently problematic as a standalone issue.
troupo 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. You mean $99 per year that developers pay? Or $1000+ dollars per phone that customers pay? Or multiple devices that developers pay for?
- alistairSH 1y ago
  Yes.
  - troupo 1y ago
    So they do all that (and iPhone sales alone cover basically everything Apple does), and they are "entitled" to charging for a business transaction that happens between users and non-Apple businesses?
    - xoa 1y ago
      >So they do all that (and iPhone sales alone cover basically everything Apple does), and they are "entitled" to charging for a business transaction that happens between users and non-Apple businesses? Yes, absolutely they are entitled to that. What they shouldn't be entitled to do (and we should pass laws to enforce) is not offer owners a choice as to whether to have Apple be the exclusive software/hardware source or not. By law, at purchase time anyone should be able to choose to have access to their device's software certificate root of trust, hardware rot, or both. Apple should have to compete on the merits of the App Store, on their service, curation, etc. And fwiw I think that for a large number (maybe even the majority) of regular people they'd perfectly well be able to do so. There's significant value there, particularly if the threat of straightforward alternatives kept Apple's incentives better aligned. But within their own store, in a world with the choice to opt out, sure I don't see why there would be any problem with them charging for their role anymore then for any other store of any kind ever. The core issue is the required technical lock in.
      - troupo 1y ago

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.
shwouchk 1y ago
actually, many grocery chains in many parts of the world charge vendors for shelf space, and the vendors choose what to place on those shelves.
demosthanos 1y ago
It's more complicated than that. Nominally there's an ownership transfer, but the big players also charge the suppliers stocking fees [0], which seems to translate quite well to what Apple is doing. And if you're charging a fee to stock the product, it's clearly not being treated as a straightforward ownership transfer to the retailer like you say it is. Plus, since when is a middleman connecting you to a party with the product or service you want not a party you have a business relationship with (as GP claims)? Brokers have been a thing since forever. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/r-wal-mart-to-impose-charges-on-suppliers-as-its-costs-mount-2015-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/r-wal-mart-to-impose-charges...
- luckylion 1y ago
  I think stocking fees are comparable to the ads you can buy in the app store. But Apple does not buy the apps and then resells them, which Walmart does. Brokers are a thing, but would you consider Apple's "app store" a broker? A broker's value-add is making the connection, but Apple's app store's is "being the only app store available on Apple devices". If you forced them to let users choose like Microsoft had to with browsers, that would be different, and I predict their perceived "value as a broker" would drop of a cliff because others could provide the same at a fraction of the cost.
  - Ferret7446 1y ago
    > But Apple does not buy the apps and then resells them In a sense they do. You can think of it as Apple buying a license and then selling the license to the end user. I don't disagree that morally Apple is problematic in holding a monopoly on apps on their devices, but charging fees for their shop is not inherently problematic as a standalone issue.

troupo 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. You mean $99 per year that developers pay? Or $1000+ dollars per phone that customers pay? Or multiple devices that developers pay for?

alistairSH 1y ago
Yes.
- troupo 1y ago
  So they do all that (and iPhone sales alone cover basically everything Apple does), and they are "entitled" to charging for a business transaction that happens between users and non-Apple businesses?
  - xoa 1y ago
    >So they do all that (and iPhone sales alone cover basically everything Apple does), and they are "entitled" to charging for a business transaction that happens between users and non-Apple businesses? Yes, absolutely they are entitled to that. What they shouldn't be entitled to do (and we should pass laws to enforce) is not offer owners a choice as to whether to have Apple be the exclusive software/hardware source or not. By law, at purchase time anyone should be able to choose to have access to their device's software certificate root of trust, hardware rot, or both. Apple should have to compete on the merits of the App Store, on their service, curation, etc. And fwiw I think that for a large number (maybe even the majority) of regular people they'd perfectly well be able to do so. There's significant value there, particularly if the threat of straightforward alternatives kept Apple's incentives better aligned. But within their own store, in a world with the choice to opt out, sure I don't see why there would be any problem with them charging for their role anymore then for any other store of any kind ever. The core issue is the required technical lock in.
    - troupo 1y ago