6 ms·

I think it's specifically anticompetitive for Apple to force app developers to go through Apple Payments (with a 30% fee to Apple) for all purchases, otherwise

I think it's specifically anticompetitive for Apple to force app developers to go through Apple Payments (with a 30% fee to Apple) for all purchases, otherwise their app is disallowed from being sold on the App store. There's no technological reason for app developers to be restricted from using other payment processors - it's purely a strategy for increased revenue for Apple. In antitrust terms, it is a form of Vendor Lock-In[0], and could be seen as a form of Tying[1]: > Tying is often used when the supplier makes one product that is critical to many customers. By threatening to withhold that key product unless others are also purchased, the supplier can increase sales of less necessary products. As an example, Apple was sued successfully in the early 200s for selling music in a format that could only be played on iPods. iTunes is a platform Apple controls and invented, yet still it was deemed illegal for them to unfairly lock in customers and prevent them from using competing portable music players. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)

BugsJustFindMe 1y ago
> There's no technological reason for app developers to be restricted from using other payment processors But there is a customer experience reason. As an iOS user, I very much appreciate that I can ask Apple to cancel some bullshit subscription that used to otherwise try to lock me in behind a labyrinth of added friction and timewasting. Not every problem is technological.
- josephcsible 1y ago
  It would be one thing to say "you must offer our payment method as an option to users". It's another to say "our payment method must be the only option you offer to users". Just the former would be enough to cover your use case.
- scottjg 1y ago
  i think there are a lot of folks who would be willing to have a 27% discount (allow for ~3% card processing fee) and forego those features. if apple was saying you had to support their payment processor alongside others (so you could opt into paying +27% and getting easy cancellations), that would be one thing, but they don't allow you to have any other options available in the app, which i think is where the anticompetitive complaints start to feel more valid.
  - jrflowers 1y ago
    > i think there are a lot of folks who would be willing to have a 27% discount (allow for ~3% card processing fee) and forego those features. This makes sense because companies are used to making 70%, so obviously when given the choice to make 30% more overnight they will simply lower prices to avoid having to deal with all that extra revenue
    - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
      Unlike phone platforms, phone apps are a fairly competitive market, and competitive markets have low margins. Which means that if you remove 30% of revenue as a cost, one of two things happens. Either the price comes down because the suppliers who lower their price get more business, or the customers aren't very price sensitive in which case developers who use the additional money to improve their apps get more of the market and then users get better apps. Either of those is better for the customer than having the money go into a megacorp's money bin and have them use it for competition-reducing M&A or unrelated empire-building projects or just have them add it to their cash mountain and have the customer paying that money in exchange for nothing.
    - goku12 1y ago
      It's the other way around. The app devs select the nominal price and offer it on platforms that don't take the massive cut - on their website, for example. And when Apple forces them to give up 30% of their revenue, they instead raise the price and pass the extra cost to the consumers. That is bad enough. But here comes the infuriating part. Many app devs don't want their customers to pay extra. But Apple forbids them from providing an alternative payment interface or even informing the customers that such an option exists. And the icing on the cake is that Apple used to forbid the app developers from even providing an alternative, until the courts forced their hand. Is this an anticompetitive practice or just plain extortion? But if you ask Apple or their fanbase, they would say that it takes resources to review and host the apps. But that rings hollow when you consider all the other ways in which Apple wrings both app developers and customers dry. Then perhaps allow the users to sideload the apps? Oh no! That will break Apple's perfect safety record. How about just making it slightly hard instead? No! The user must be protected at all costs, including by holding them hostage! At this point, I'm convinced that either Apple is astroturfing, or the fans suffer from an extreme form of Stockholm syndrome, or both.
- wredcoll 1y ago
  I'm not a fancy lawyer or some kind of top flight ceo but I feel like "being able to cancel subscriptions" doesn't require a 30% cut off the top for apple. Also, as a customer, presumably you could choose to use apple's store.
  - boredatoms 1y ago
    Some vital apps will stop using apple’s store entirely if they could, it’ll proliferate
    - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
      If we unpack this argument we can precisely pinpoint the issue. In order for this argument to be true, Apple would need to have market power. Having market power is the thing that makes tying etc. an antitrust violation. Because it can be used for more than allowing people to cancel subscriptions. Like charging a 30% margin in a market where it's normally 3%, or excluding apps that compete with Apple software or services, or requiring customers to use a specific combination of hardware, operating system, app store and services, even if the customer only wants one of those things and binding them together then eliminates competition from any company that can't supply all of them. Which are exactly the sort of things that antitrust rules are meant to prevent.
      - al_borland 1y ago
        Steam and Android charge a similar 30% fee in their stores. When I hear about a 3% fee, I think of the interchange fees for a credit card. That doesn’t have the same overhead as hosting the software, handling the updates, managing the front end, reviews, etc. I can only assume that 2-3% of the 30% are going to Visa, as I’m sure Apple is paying interchange fees to process the payments. 30% probably still creates a very healthy margin, which could be trimmed (and has been for companies making less than $1m). But it is right in line with the rest of the industry, at least for the other big players.
        thedevilslawyer 1y ago
- SteveNuts 1y ago
  I feel like that could still be accomplished by allowing multiple payment backends, and charging them a reasonable fee to integrate (to cover the cost of development/maintenance of the APIs and whatever overhead to account for dealing with abuse/fraud).
- dgoldstein0 1y ago
  Perhaps then there should be a subscription API, so Apple could make the nice "see all your subscriptions in one place" UI? Or maybe banks could better offer this as part of online banking for credit cards. Not sure the right place to put this. Anyhow I do see your point that narrowing user options can lead to better UX - if you actually like all the tradeoffs they make. The problem is if you don't, your SoL. And in this case the trade-off is Apple taking a giant extra cut so... I think it's reasonable that folks don't like that trade-off.
  - Mattified 1y ago
    Indian banks already allow this for some payment methods.
- wavemode 1y ago
  There is always a customer experience reason. Every anticompetitive company that has ever existed has benefited from the customer experience of everything being in one place and coming from one company. Unfortunately, "my product benefits from being anticompetitive" is not a valid justification for anticompetitive practices.
  - al_borland 1y ago
    I struggle to paint a company with a minority marketshare, after having first mover advantage, as anticompetitive. That said, their argument that the payment policies disproportionately impact apps trying to create sustainable business models that don’t monetize user data is a compelling one that I very much sympathize with. I’m a Proton subscriber, but I went through their website, just because I tend to do that for any service that isn’t exclusive to Apple or the App Store. The same is true for Kagi, another privacy focused service I subscribe to. I never thought about it, but maybe that’s my way of avoiding lock-in. If I ever leave iOS at some point, I don’t want to have to cancel and resubscribe to something that could cause a service interruption. I also want to make sure that the subscription is everywhere, not just on my Apple devices, and it’s tied to the email I choose.
    - wavemode 1y ago
      Anticompetitive practices don't mean that you have a monopoly. In fact people often get this wrong - having a monopoly is not illegal in and of itself. What's illegal is using one's market position to prevent other companies from being able to compete in a market. Whether that market position is 100% or 10%, what matters is that it's significant enough for you to pressure other companies out of the market.
- thisislife2 1y ago
  I partly agree with you - but then you as a consumer should also be willing to expect variable pricing in such cases. If I as a developer offer a subscription for $10, and Apple demands $3 from it, while other payment providers only want $1 or $2 commissions, I should be able to tell you (the consumer) this information transparently and should be able to give you the options to choose between these different payment service providers. (Note that while you, as a paying customer, are an important part of the ecosystem, we developers too add value to the platform by developing apps that people like you want to use. That Apple seeks to exploit both you and me, should piss you off too. After all, one of us has to absorb the higher cost of Apple's services, and that often ends up being you, the consumer.)
- lenkite 1y ago
  You are free to pay ~30% extra for your preferred customer experience. The rest of us can leverage discounted pricing. Customer Choice for the win! Also, thinking that all businesses will lock one in using friction and timewasting is not a rational argument. There are a lot of honest businesses there forced to pay the Apple Mafia's tax.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - bitpush 1y ago
    Exactly. This is the part that I dont get about Apple apologists. If one really likes paying 30% extra to Apple for privacy/security (debatable, but whatever) nobody is stopping you. But for every one of those, there are many who might want to transact with the business directly. FWIW, I trust Spotify equally as Apple - so if I get a Spotify subscription, I'm more than happy to get a 30% discount and deal with Spotify directly. Heck, I can do that on my MacOS (another fine product the Cupertino company makes) but when it comes to iOS - OMG, virus, malware, user privacy!!
    - ubermonkey 1y ago
      I prefer everything go through Apple b/c I trust Apple more than I trust the average other vendor. This way, I know if I'm dealing with something on my phone, I have a trusted channel for commerce. I am sophisticated enough that I can probably ascertain what alternative payment schemes are reasonable and which are scams, but Apple's imposed payment monoculture means unsophisticated users are protected as well. A more permissive payment setup would necessarily mean more scammy apps, or maybe just vendors with gross, dark patterns designed to obfuscate cancellation without quite being fraud. No thanks.
    - cowl 1y ago
      the next response would be "but then i would find myself taking the option that I don't like because the option that I like would put me in a disadvantage so since i can't control my options in order for me to have the best, the other bests should not exist and especially other people can not have better things than what i say is the best because then i would again find myself in choice conflict" Not just apple apologists btw, it's a full category of people who can't enjoy their "choices" without having everyone else have only that "choice"
- simonklitj 1y ago
  It should be possible to open up the “Cancel Subscription” feature/button to apps using other payment providers. Maybe even keep that in as a requirement for all payment providers?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - trollbridge 1y ago
    Should be possible. In reality, everyone other than Apple has created as much friction as possible in the cancellation process. With Apple, I simply subscribe and then immediately go and unsubscribe.
- myaccountonhn 1y ago
  I think that is better solved with regulations, but I'm not from the US.
  - BugsJustFindMe 1y ago
    Indeed, but the US is violently opposed to enacting the ones required, so now what?
- rekoil 1y ago
  I 100% agree with this. Apple should be allowed to put whatever restrictions they want on apps in the App Store. The problem is they don't allow apps to come from anywhere else, this is the core of the issue and what everything eventually comes down to. Make it possible for users to control their own app installation sources on the hardware they own, show them what is happening when they do so, that they are replacing Apple as the source of trust with the developers of the app marketplace or app they are installing, but only do it once, it can't become a nag. If they do that, then whenever anyone complains about App Store rules Apple can just tell them to do everything themselves instead, no APNS, no convenient installation from a pre-installed App Store, no seal of approval from a partner the user trusts, no free hosting, no infrastructure for app updates, etc.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
    One reason that I support alternative (non-Apple) app stores, is that it allows differentiation between mediocre and higher-Quality apps. You can get your clothes from Target or Saks Fifth Avenue. For most folks, Target is fine, but there are people that insist on paying $30 for every pair of skivvies. I think that they should have that choice. If they can afford it, then let them eat cake (for the record, I tend to be a Costco type of guy, but have not regretted occasionally getting something from Saks). Selfishly, I would like them to allow sideloads, because the App Store approval process has slowed to a crawl, lately, as well as APNS calls. I’m certain that’s because of thousands of AI-generated submissions. I think many of those submitters would much rather avoid the hoops they need to jump through, for the store. But I doubt that Apple sees things that way. The secondary app stores are likely to make a lot of money, which they would miss. The more damaging thing, however, is that Apple’s brand image could get corroded, and there’s a very good chance that they could be strongarmed into supporting side-loaded crapplets. I’m a bit cynical on this, myself. I feel that Apple has been doing a great job of damaging their own brand, in the past few years. I feel as if the quality of their internal engineering has declined precipitously.
    - rekoil 1y ago
      > I’m a bit cynical on this, myself. I feel that Apple has been doing a great job of damaging their own brand, in the past few years. I feel as if the quality of their internal engineering has declined precipitously. Agreed. The quality of Apples own software has declined, as has the outcome of app reviews, there's never been as much crap on the App Store as there is today. And obviously Apple wants to "have their cake and eat it too", who doesn't? I'm just saying that this is the reason why they're being dragged to court now, because they aren't "playing fair" when they're acting as both store operator and store participant in multiple segments, and are acting as gatekeepers of software for literally hundreds of millions if not billions of devices now (congrats to them).

BugsJustFindMe 1y ago

> There's no technological reason for app developers to be restricted from using other payment processors But there is a customer experience reason. As an iOS user, I very much appreciate that I can ask Apple to cancel some bullshit subscription that used to otherwise try to lock me in behind a labyrinth of added friction and timewasting. Not every problem is technological.

josephcsible 1y ago
It would be one thing to say "you must offer our payment method as an option to users". It's another to say "our payment method must be the only option you offer to users". Just the former would be enough to cover your use case.
scottjg 1y ago
i think there are a lot of folks who would be willing to have a 27% discount (allow for ~3% card processing fee) and forego those features. if apple was saying you had to support their payment processor alongside others (so you could opt into paying +27% and getting easy cancellations), that would be one thing, but they don't allow you to have any other options available in the app, which i think is where the anticompetitive complaints start to feel more valid.
- jrflowers 1y ago
  > i think there are a lot of folks who would be willing to have a 27% discount (allow for ~3% card processing fee) and forego those features. This makes sense because companies are used to making 70%, so obviously when given the choice to make 30% more overnight they will simply lower prices to avoid having to deal with all that extra revenue
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    Unlike phone platforms, phone apps are a fairly competitive market, and competitive markets have low margins. Which means that if you remove 30% of revenue as a cost, one of two things happens. Either the price comes down because the suppliers who lower their price get more business, or the customers aren't very price sensitive in which case developers who use the additional money to improve their apps get more of the market and then users get better apps. Either of those is better for the customer than having the money go into a megacorp's money bin and have them use it for competition-reducing M&A or unrelated empire-building projects or just have them add it to their cash mountain and have the customer paying that money in exchange for nothing.
  - goku12 1y ago
    It's the other way around. The app devs select the nominal price and offer it on platforms that don't take the massive cut - on their website, for example. And when Apple forces them to give up 30% of their revenue, they instead raise the price and pass the extra cost to the consumers. That is bad enough. But here comes the infuriating part. Many app devs don't want their customers to pay extra. But Apple forbids them from providing an alternative payment interface or even informing the customers that such an option exists. And the icing on the cake is that Apple used to forbid the app developers from even providing an alternative, until the courts forced their hand. Is this an anticompetitive practice or just plain extortion? But if you ask Apple or their fanbase, they would say that it takes resources to review and host the apps. But that rings hollow when you consider all the other ways in which Apple wrings both app developers and customers dry. Then perhaps allow the users to sideload the apps? Oh no! That will break Apple's perfect safety record. How about just making it slightly hard instead? No! The user must be protected at all costs, including by holding them hostage! At this point, I'm convinced that either Apple is astroturfing, or the fans suffer from an extreme form of Stockholm syndrome, or both.
wredcoll 1y ago
I'm not a fancy lawyer or some kind of top flight ceo but I feel like "being able to cancel subscriptions" doesn't require a 30% cut off the top for apple. Also, as a customer, presumably you could choose to use apple's store.
- boredatoms 1y ago
  Some vital apps will stop using apple’s store entirely if they could, it’ll proliferate
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    If we unpack this argument we can precisely pinpoint the issue. In order for this argument to be true, Apple would need to have market power. Having market power is the thing that makes tying etc. an antitrust violation. Because it can be used for more than allowing people to cancel subscriptions. Like charging a 30% margin in a market where it's normally 3%, or excluding apps that compete with Apple software or services, or requiring customers to use a specific combination of hardware, operating system, app store and services, even if the customer only wants one of those things and binding them together then eliminates competition from any company that can't supply all of them. Which are exactly the sort of things that antitrust rules are meant to prevent.
    - al_borland 1y ago
      Steam and Android charge a similar 30% fee in their stores. When I hear about a 3% fee, I think of the interchange fees for a credit card. That doesn’t have the same overhead as hosting the software, handling the updates, managing the front end, reviews, etc. I can only assume that 2-3% of the 30% are going to Visa, as I’m sure Apple is paying interchange fees to process the payments. 30% probably still creates a very healthy margin, which could be trimmed (and has been for companies making less than $1m). But it is right in line with the rest of the industry, at least for the other big players.
      - thedevilslawyer 1y ago
SteveNuts 1y ago
I feel like that could still be accomplished by allowing multiple payment backends, and charging them a reasonable fee to integrate (to cover the cost of development/maintenance of the APIs and whatever overhead to account for dealing with abuse/fraud).
dgoldstein0 1y ago
Perhaps then there should be a subscription API, so Apple could make the nice "see all your subscriptions in one place" UI? Or maybe banks could better offer this as part of online banking for credit cards. Not sure the right place to put this. Anyhow I do see your point that narrowing user options can lead to better UX - if you actually like all the tradeoffs they make. The problem is if you don't, your SoL. And in this case the trade-off is Apple taking a giant extra cut so... I think it's reasonable that folks don't like that trade-off.
- Mattified 1y ago
  Indian banks already allow this for some payment methods.
wavemode 1y ago
There is always a customer experience reason. Every anticompetitive company that has ever existed has benefited from the customer experience of everything being in one place and coming from one company. Unfortunately, "my product benefits from being anticompetitive" is not a valid justification for anticompetitive practices.
- al_borland 1y ago
  I struggle to paint a company with a minority marketshare, after having first mover advantage, as anticompetitive. That said, their argument that the payment policies disproportionately impact apps trying to create sustainable business models that don’t monetize user data is a compelling one that I very much sympathize with. I’m a Proton subscriber, but I went through their website, just because I tend to do that for any service that isn’t exclusive to Apple or the App Store. The same is true for Kagi, another privacy focused service I subscribe to. I never thought about it, but maybe that’s my way of avoiding lock-in. If I ever leave iOS at some point, I don’t want to have to cancel and resubscribe to something that could cause a service interruption. I also want to make sure that the subscription is everywhere, not just on my Apple devices, and it’s tied to the email I choose.
  - wavemode 1y ago
    Anticompetitive practices don't mean that you have a monopoly. In fact people often get this wrong - having a monopoly is not illegal in and of itself. What's illegal is using one's market position to prevent other companies from being able to compete in a market. Whether that market position is 100% or 10%, what matters is that it's significant enough for you to pressure other companies out of the market.
thisislife2 1y ago
I partly agree with you - but then you as a consumer should also be willing to expect variable pricing in such cases. If I as a developer offer a subscription for $10, and Apple demands $3 from it, while other payment providers only want $1 or $2 commissions, I should be able to tell you (the consumer) this information transparently and should be able to give you the options to choose between these different payment service providers. (Note that while you, as a paying customer, are an important part of the ecosystem, we developers too add value to the platform by developing apps that people like you want to use. That Apple seeks to exploit both you and me, should piss you off too. After all, one of us has to absorb the higher cost of Apple's services, and that often ends up being you, the consumer.)
lenkite 1y ago
You are free to pay ~30% extra for your preferred customer experience. The rest of us can leverage discounted pricing. Customer Choice for the win! Also, thinking that all businesses will lock one in using friction and timewasting is not a rational argument. There are a lot of honest businesses there forced to pay the Apple Mafia's tax.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- bitpush 1y ago
  Exactly. This is the part that I dont get about Apple apologists. If one really likes paying 30% extra to Apple for privacy/security (debatable, but whatever) nobody is stopping you. But for every one of those, there are many who might want to transact with the business directly. FWIW, I trust Spotify equally as Apple - so if I get a Spotify subscription, I'm more than happy to get a 30% discount and deal with Spotify directly. Heck, I can do that on my MacOS (another fine product the Cupertino company makes) but when it comes to iOS - OMG, virus, malware, user privacy!!
  - ubermonkey 1y ago
    I prefer everything go through Apple b/c I trust Apple more than I trust the average other vendor. This way, I know if I'm dealing with something on my phone, I have a trusted channel for commerce. I am sophisticated enough that I can probably ascertain what alternative payment schemes are reasonable and which are scams, but Apple's imposed payment monoculture means unsophisticated users are protected as well. A more permissive payment setup would necessarily mean more scammy apps, or maybe just vendors with gross, dark patterns designed to obfuscate cancellation without quite being fraud. No thanks.
  - cowl 1y ago
    the next response would be "but then i would find myself taking the option that I don't like because the option that I like would put me in a disadvantage so since i can't control my options in order for me to have the best, the other bests should not exist and especially other people can not have better things than what i say is the best because then i would again find myself in choice conflict" Not just apple apologists btw, it's a full category of people who can't enjoy their "choices" without having everyone else have only that "choice"
simonklitj 1y ago
It should be possible to open up the “Cancel Subscription” feature/button to apps using other payment providers. Maybe even keep that in as a requirement for all payment providers?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- trollbridge 1y ago
  Should be possible. In reality, everyone other than Apple has created as much friction as possible in the cancellation process. With Apple, I simply subscribe and then immediately go and unsubscribe.
myaccountonhn 1y ago
I think that is better solved with regulations, but I'm not from the US.
- BugsJustFindMe 1y ago
  Indeed, but the US is violently opposed to enacting the ones required, so now what?
rekoil 1y ago
I 100% agree with this. Apple should be allowed to put whatever restrictions they want on apps in the App Store. The problem is they don't allow apps to come from anywhere else, this is the core of the issue and what everything eventually comes down to. Make it possible for users to control their own app installation sources on the hardware they own, show them what is happening when they do so, that they are replacing Apple as the source of trust with the developers of the app marketplace or app they are installing, but only do it once, it can't become a nag. If they do that, then whenever anyone complains about App Store rules Apple can just tell them to do everything themselves instead, no APNS, no convenient installation from a pre-installed App Store, no seal of approval from a partner the user trusts, no free hosting, no infrastructure for app updates, etc.
- ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
  One reason that I support alternative (non-Apple) app stores, is that it allows differentiation between mediocre and higher-Quality apps. You can get your clothes from Target or Saks Fifth Avenue. For most folks, Target is fine, but there are people that insist on paying $30 for every pair of skivvies. I think that they should have that choice. If they can afford it, then let them eat cake (for the record, I tend to be a Costco type of guy, but have not regretted occasionally getting something from Saks). Selfishly, I would like them to allow sideloads, because the App Store approval process has slowed to a crawl, lately, as well as APNS calls. I’m certain that’s because of thousands of AI-generated submissions. I think many of those submitters would much rather avoid the hoops they need to jump through, for the store. But I doubt that Apple sees things that way. The secondary app stores are likely to make a lot of money, which they would miss. The more damaging thing, however, is that Apple’s brand image could get corroded, and there’s a very good chance that they could be strongarmed into supporting side-loaded crapplets. I’m a bit cynical on this, myself. I feel that Apple has been doing a great job of damaging their own brand, in the past few years. I feel as if the quality of their internal engineering has declined precipitously.
  - rekoil 1y ago
    > I’m a bit cynical on this, myself. I feel that Apple has been doing a great job of damaging their own brand, in the past few years. I feel as if the quality of their internal engineering has declined precipitously. Agreed. The quality of Apples own software has declined, as has the outcome of app reviews, there's never been as much crap on the App Store as there is today. And obviously Apple wants to "have their cake and eat it too", who doesn't? I'm just saying that this is the reason why they're being dragged to court now, because they aren't "playing fair" when they're acting as both store operator and store participant in multiple segments, and are acting as gatekeepers of software for literally hundreds of millions if not billions of devices now (congrats to them).