6 ms·

In English law, is there a clearly defined, well understood, written standard of “fair”?

by abtinf 1y ago

ocdtrekkie 1y ago
I don't know, but when every single business on the planet has to pay you 30% for access to mobile device users, it definitely isn't.
- jjtheblunt 1y ago
  How do web pages accessed from (for example) Safari cost the publisher 30% of a subscription fee, when a subscription might be established off mobile first?
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    How are web pages analogous to installing mobile software, in this particular example?
    - raincole 1y ago
      In every single aspect of "business on the planet enabling access to mobile device users".
      - bigyabai 1y ago
        No? Websites are a subset of the software market, not the other way around. Apple can absolutely monopolize software distribution while providing a web browser.
    - jjtheblunt 1y ago
      > has to pay you 30% for access to mobile device users is what the parent comment said, which overlooked web and assumed native app installs
- JimDabell 1y ago
  > when every single business on the planet has to pay you 30% for access to mobile device users That doesn’t describe Apple’s situation though. Most businesses don’t distribute software at all; those that do mostly don’t need to distribute native iOS apps; those that do mostly don’t need to pay App Store fees; those that do mostly have to pay 15%. It’s only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction that need to pay 30%.
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    All those percentages are arbitrary, none of them are set through natural competition. Good on the UK for not backing down. 15% or 150%, Apple should not be exempted from participating in a true market economy.
    - JimDabell 1y ago
      What are you referring to when you say “all those percentages”? I only mention two; 15% and 30%. 30% wasn’t arbitrary; it was in line with what other platform providers like Nintendo and Sony were charging at the time. If you’re referring to the multiple fractions of fractions, then obviously a business that has nothing to do with software isn’t being coerced by Apple.
  - giobox 1y ago
    > those that do mostly have to pay 15% This case only concerns Apple's App Store fees before 2020; it was a blanket 30% charge for paid apps until they introduced those changes following the whole Epic Games legal saga etc. Apple are not paying a penalty for anything after 2020 when the new rules allowing those with lower turnover to pay 15% came into effect etc. > It’s only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction that need to pay 30% During the first 12 years of the App Store, everyone paid 30%.
    - JimDabell 1y ago
      > During the first 12 years of the App Store, everyone paid 30%. This is still not correct. The original claim was “every single business on the planet”. That’s ridiculously overstated. Even if you massively narrow the scope to only businesses that have iOS apps that make money directly through the app, it’s still not true. The 30% specifically applies to buying digital goods and services through iOS apps. Take Uber, for instance. They make vast amounts of money through their iOS app. They do not have to pay Apple 30%, or 15%, or anything beyond the basic $99/yr developer account fee. They absolutely do not have to pay 30% for access to the platform.
- shuckles 1y ago
  Where does this meme come from? Spotify pays Apple nothing more than a $99 developer fee, and the streaming music business would not exist in its current form without iPhone.
- criddell 1y ago
  Why do so many people quote the 30% number? Only apps with more than $1,000,000 annual revenue are paying 30%. Most apps are smaller than that and are hit with a 15% fee.
  - tucnak 1y ago
    I think you should aggregate by app installs, not distinct apps. The apps to make most impact, are most-installed apps. What if my app blows up to a tune of 1.2 mil? I'll be paying 400k Apple tax just because that's why?
    - nandomrumber 1y ago
      Good point. The percentage rate should go down the more you sell. That’s usually how scale works.
  - benoau 1y ago
    Because the 30% is "opt-in" not automatic, the $1m threshold applies to all your apps and associated accounts apps combined, and $1m is just not a big target anymore considering 8400 people on $10/month subscriptions will get you over that line. And of course, when they announced this big discount it was reported to apply to about 5% of actual IAP spending, which would make the average commission fee being paid around 29%. tldr; it's a weaselly discount.
    - criddell 1y ago
      > $1m is just not a big target anymore Yes it is. The percentage of developers in the App Store who make more than $1 million per year is tiny. According to this analysis[1], it's a single digit percentage. Hardly anybody pays 30%. [1]:https://sensortower.com/blog/app-store-revenue-share-analysis https://sensortower.com/blog/app-store-revenue-share-analysi...
      - benoau 1y ago
        That's a 2020 report,by 2023 Apple was saying the $1m+ developers had grown to 10% of developers and many small developers were now earning $1m+. Correlating of course with the subscription-ification of everything. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2023/05/small-developers-on-the-app-store-grew-revenue-by-71-percent-from-2020-2022/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2023/05/small-developers-on-t...
cjs_ac 1y ago
No, that's why courts and tribunals exist: to decide what's just in each specific case.
- amelius 1y ago
  Yes. People always think about the law as if it is code. But code means it can be hacked (loopholes can be found, etc.) Therefore, better leave the law open to interpretation and let a judge sort it out.
nemo44x 1y ago
The UK doesn’t even have a single sourced constitution. Just random things from random times in random documents. Parliament is essentially king and can just make any law it wants at anytime with a basic majority. Nothing is codified. There are no real standards. The UK is one of the most arbitrarily defined places in terms of law. It’s why they can have and enforce a 2-tier system. “Stirring things up” is literally a charge a judge can arbitrarily rule on. Place is hilarious.

In English law, is there a clearly defined, well understood, written standard of “fair”?

by abtinf 1y ago

In English law, is there a clearly defined, well understood, written standard of “fair”?

I don't know, but when every single business on the planet has to pay you 30% for access to mobile device users, it definitely isn't.

jjtheblunt 1y ago
How do web pages accessed from (for example) Safari cost the publisher 30% of a subscription fee, when a subscription might be established off mobile first?
- bigyabai 1y ago
  How are web pages analogous to installing mobile software, in this particular example?
  - raincole 1y ago
    In every single aspect of "business on the planet enabling access to mobile device users".
    - bigyabai 1y ago
      No? Websites are a subset of the software market, not the other way around. Apple can absolutely monopolize software distribution while providing a web browser.
  - jjtheblunt 1y ago
    > has to pay you 30% for access to mobile device users is what the parent comment said, which overlooked web and assumed native app installs
JimDabell 1y ago
> when every single business on the planet has to pay you 30% for access to mobile device users That doesn’t describe Apple’s situation though. Most businesses don’t distribute software at all; those that do mostly don’t need to distribute native iOS apps; those that do mostly don’t need to pay App Store fees; those that do mostly have to pay 15%. It’s only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction that need to pay 30%.
- bigyabai 1y ago
  All those percentages are arbitrary, none of them are set through natural competition. Good on the UK for not backing down. 15% or 150%, Apple should not be exempted from participating in a true market economy.
  - JimDabell 1y ago
    What are you referring to when you say “all those percentages”? I only mention two; 15% and 30%. 30% wasn’t arbitrary; it was in line with what other platform providers like Nintendo and Sony were charging at the time. If you’re referring to the multiple fractions of fractions, then obviously a business that has nothing to do with software isn’t being coerced by Apple.
- giobox 1y ago
  > those that do mostly have to pay 15% This case only concerns Apple's App Store fees before 2020; it was a blanket 30% charge for paid apps until they introduced those changes following the whole Epic Games legal saga etc. Apple are not paying a penalty for anything after 2020 when the new rules allowing those with lower turnover to pay 15% came into effect etc. > It’s only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction that need to pay 30% During the first 12 years of the App Store, everyone paid 30%.
  - JimDabell 1y ago
    > During the first 12 years of the App Store, everyone paid 30%. This is still not correct. The original claim was “every single business on the planet”. That’s ridiculously overstated. Even if you massively narrow the scope to only businesses that have iOS apps that make money directly through the app, it’s still not true. The 30% specifically applies to buying digital goods and services through iOS apps. Take Uber, for instance. They make vast amounts of money through their iOS app. They do not have to pay Apple 30%, or 15%, or anything beyond the basic $99/yr developer account fee. They absolutely do not have to pay 30% for access to the platform.
shuckles 1y ago
Where does this meme come from? Spotify pays Apple nothing more than a $99 developer fee, and the streaming music business would not exist in its current form without iPhone.
criddell 1y ago
Why do so many people quote the 30% number? Only apps with more than $1,000,000 annual revenue are paying 30%. Most apps are smaller than that and are hit with a 15% fee.
- tucnak 1y ago
  I think you should aggregate by app installs, not distinct apps. The apps to make most impact, are most-installed apps. What if my app blows up to a tune of 1.2 mil? I'll be paying 400k Apple tax just because that's why?
  - nandomrumber 1y ago
    Good point. The percentage rate should go down the more you sell. That’s usually how scale works.
- benoau 1y ago
  Because the 30% is "opt-in" not automatic, the $1m threshold applies to all your apps and associated accounts apps combined, and $1m is just not a big target anymore considering 8400 people on $10/month subscriptions will get you over that line. And of course, when they announced this big discount it was reported to apply to about 5% of actual IAP spending, which would make the average commission fee being paid around 29%. tldr; it's a weaselly discount.
  - criddell 1y ago
    > $1m is just not a big target anymore Yes it is. The percentage of developers in the App Store who make more than $1 million per year is tiny. According to this analysis[1], it's a single digit percentage. Hardly anybody pays 30%. [1]:https://sensortower.com/blog/app-store-revenue-share-analysis https://sensortower.com/blog/app-store-revenue-share-analysi...
    - benoau 1y ago
      That's a 2020 report,by 2023 Apple was saying the $1m+ developers had grown to 10% of developers and many small developers were now earning $1m+. Correlating of course with the subscription-ification of everything. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2023/05/small-developers-on-the-app-store-grew-revenue-by-71-percent-from-2020-2022/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2023/05/small-developers-on-t...

cjs_ac 1y ago

No, that's why courts and tribunals exist: to decide what's just in each specific case.

amelius 1y ago
Yes. People always think about the law as if it is code. But code means it can be hacked (loopholes can be found, etc.) Therefore, better leave the law open to interpretation and let a judge sort it out.

nemo44x 1y ago

The UK doesn’t even have a single sourced constitution. Just random things from random times in random documents. Parliament is essentially king and can just make any law it wants at anytime with a basic majority. Nothing is codified. There are no real standards. The UK is one of the most arbitrarily defined places in terms of law. It’s why they can have and enforce a 2-tier system. “Stirring things up” is literally a charge a judge can arbitrarily rule on. Place is hilarious.