4 ms·

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
    Not sure about steam, but it does not fly for android, since sideloading, and alternative stores has always been an option. Having the ability to move out acts as a great check against unreasonable rent-seeking.
  - troupo 1y ago
    > Steam and Android charge a similar 30% fee in their stores. You are free to install any game you want through any other different service on the same OS where Steam runs. Steam doesn't say "oh, for every transaction you make in those other stores on the same OS we'll take the 30% commission anyway"
  - rpdillon 1y ago
    The difference is on my Android phone, I use F-Droid, and I sideload using Obtainium, and on my Steam Deck, I install Heroic Launcher and install games from GOG.
    - al_borland 1y ago
      Proton also offers subscriptions through the Play Store. If the issue is the 30% cut hurting non-ad-funded businesses, shouldn’t this be against all these companies charging 30%, not just Apple? Or not have subscriptions in the Play Store, if Google doesn’t have the same requirements against linking out to other payment options? The outrage against Apple in this regard has never felt consistently applied based.
      - rpdillon 1y ago
        You didn't address anything I wrote. The issue is not the 30%, it's the lack of choice. Apple locks businesses into having to support Apple Pay to access the user base of Apple users. Google doesn't do this: apps can be distributed via F-Droid or just downloaded from the net. Steam doesn't do this: you can just run apps you bought years ago, or bought from GOG, even on devices built by Valve. I'll say the same thing, another way: Apple is the only smartphone manufacturer that forces you to install apps through their services only.
  - Cyph0n 1y ago
    I really despise the analogy with Steam. And this is not the first time I hear it. People somehow fail to understand that the core problem with the App Store is that it is operated by the platform owner. To bring the analogy in line with the App Store, imagine if: (1) Steam was operated by Microsoft, (2) Microsoft only allowed installation of games on Windows through Steam, and (3) Microsoft disallowed installation of alternate OSes on Microsoft PCs.
    - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
      > To bring the analogy in line with the App Store, imagine if: (1) Steam was operated by Microsoft, (2) Microsoft only allowed installation of games on Windows through Steam, and (3) Microsoft disallowed installation of alternate OSes on Microsoft PCs. Not only that, because there are other ways to install an app than Steam, the 30% paid to Steam is paying for promotion within their system. Which is valuable because not all apps are available there, so paying for it makes you more likely to be noticed over someone who distributes for the same platform using an external means. If an app store is the only way to install apps on a platform then everybody is paying the fee and therefore nobody is getting promoted over anybody else in exchange for it.
    - al_borland 1y ago
      So the issue has never been about the 30%, it’s about the closed platform? What if the App Store was free, would people still have an issue, because Apple is controlling the platform and software distribution? If so, why keep going after the 30% fee? It just seems like a convenient headline to use for the attacks. Valve also makes the Steam Deck. In that case they do own the platform, but if the user wants they can install whatever OS they want… but as designed, and used by most consumers, it’s Valve hardware, running SteamOS from Valve, where people can run games they buy from Steam, Vavle’s game marketplace… where Valve takes 30% of the sales. The only difference between the Steam Deck and an iPad is that the user can wipe SteamOS off it and use it as a generic system, likely killing most of the reason why they bought the hardware in the first place. So if the issue is how open the platform is, that seems like an issue for the free market. A lot of people buy Apple stuff because it’s a closed platform that spends a lot of time dialing in the user experience, which is something that often seems lacking on more open platforms, because there are an infinite number of edge cases to cover. If customers want the closed platform, forcing it open end up reducing customer choice, as the closed, tightly knit, ecosystem option no longer exists. Apple’s business model has also historically been about selling hardware to run their software. “People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware.” Forcing them into a Microsoft-style business model is a fundamental change to their core business. There should be room in the market for different ideas. Microsoft, Apple, and Google all have very different business models which serve different types of customers. This is a good thing. I wish there was room for more business models to let the little guy move up, but forcing Apple to be Microsoft, Google, or whomever else doesn’t seem like a win, and it has little to do with the 30% App Store fee.
bitpush 1y ago
So you're saying Apple's artificial stronghold is the only reason why apps are using it. Isnt that super-duper bad look on them? It is one thing to say "listen, people are using our product even though there's another choice" but it is another to say "if we give them a choice, nobody will use us"

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
  Not sure about steam, but it does not fly for android, since sideloading, and alternative stores has always been an option. Having the ability to move out acts as a great check against unreasonable rent-seeking.
- troupo 1y ago
  > Steam and Android charge a similar 30% fee in their stores. You are free to install any game you want through any other different service on the same OS where Steam runs. Steam doesn't say "oh, for every transaction you make in those other stores on the same OS we'll take the 30% commission anyway"
- rpdillon 1y ago
  The difference is on my Android phone, I use F-Droid, and I sideload using Obtainium, and on my Steam Deck, I install Heroic Launcher and install games from GOG.
  - al_borland 1y ago
    Proton also offers subscriptions through the Play Store. If the issue is the 30% cut hurting non-ad-funded businesses, shouldn’t this be against all these companies charging 30%, not just Apple? Or not have subscriptions in the Play Store, if Google doesn’t have the same requirements against linking out to other payment options? The outrage against Apple in this regard has never felt consistently applied based.
    - rpdillon 1y ago
      You didn't address anything I wrote. The issue is not the 30%, it's the lack of choice. Apple locks businesses into having to support Apple Pay to access the user base of Apple users. Google doesn't do this: apps can be distributed via F-Droid or just downloaded from the net. Steam doesn't do this: you can just run apps you bought years ago, or bought from GOG, even on devices built by Valve. I'll say the same thing, another way: Apple is the only smartphone manufacturer that forces you to install apps through their services only.
- Cyph0n 1y ago
  I really despise the analogy with Steam. And this is not the first time I hear it. People somehow fail to understand that the core problem with the App Store is that it is operated by the platform owner. To bring the analogy in line with the App Store, imagine if: (1) Steam was operated by Microsoft, (2) Microsoft only allowed installation of games on Windows through Steam, and (3) Microsoft disallowed installation of alternate OSes on Microsoft PCs.
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    > To bring the analogy in line with the App Store, imagine if: (1) Steam was operated by Microsoft, (2) Microsoft only allowed installation of games on Windows through Steam, and (3) Microsoft disallowed installation of alternate OSes on Microsoft PCs. Not only that, because there are other ways to install an app than Steam, the 30% paid to Steam is paying for promotion within their system. Which is valuable because not all apps are available there, so paying for it makes you more likely to be noticed over someone who distributes for the same platform using an external means. If an app store is the only way to install apps on a platform then everybody is paying the fee and therefore nobody is getting promoted over anybody else in exchange for it.
  - al_borland 1y ago
    So the issue has never been about the 30%, it’s about the closed platform? What if the App Store was free, would people still have an issue, because Apple is controlling the platform and software distribution? If so, why keep going after the 30% fee? It just seems like a convenient headline to use for the attacks. Valve also makes the Steam Deck. In that case they do own the platform, but if the user wants they can install whatever OS they want… but as designed, and used by most consumers, it’s Valve hardware, running SteamOS from Valve, where people can run games they buy from Steam, Vavle’s game marketplace… where Valve takes 30% of the sales. The only difference between the Steam Deck and an iPad is that the user can wipe SteamOS off it and use it as a generic system, likely killing most of the reason why they bought the hardware in the first place. So if the issue is how open the platform is, that seems like an issue for the free market. A lot of people buy Apple stuff because it’s a closed platform that spends a lot of time dialing in the user experience, which is something that often seems lacking on more open platforms, because there are an infinite number of edge cases to cover. If customers want the closed platform, forcing it open end up reducing customer choice, as the closed, tightly knit, ecosystem option no longer exists. Apple’s business model has also historically been about selling hardware to run their software. “People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware.” Forcing them into a Microsoft-style business model is a fundamental change to their core business. There should be room in the market for different ideas. Microsoft, Apple, and Google all have very different business models which serve different types of customers. This is a good thing. I wish there was room for more business models to let the little guy move up, but forcing Apple to be Microsoft, Google, or whomever else doesn’t seem like a win, and it has little to do with the 30% App Store fee.

bitpush 1y ago

So you're saying Apple's artificial stronghold is the only reason why apps are using it. Isnt that super-duper bad look on them? It is one thing to say "listen, people are using our product even though there's another choice" but it is another to say "if we give them a choice, nobody will use us"