5 ms·

What I've always found strange about this saga is that Apple's argument has been "we need to be reimbursed for our investments in R&D and maintenance of the App

by dbbk 2mo ago

What I've always found strange about this saga is that Apple's argument has been "we need to be reimbursed for our investments in R&D and maintenance of the App Store". I don't disagree, that seems fair. But they already DO charge explicitly for this... it's the developer program fee. Is this not the exact mechanism they should be using? As far as I can tell the court case didn't broach this.

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
bubblegumcrisis 2mo ago
Imagine if Apple and Google and etc, didn't vendor lock-in. Imagine we could run what we wanted. Imagine that we could use whatever payment system we wanted. Imagine if apple wanted you to use Apple app X, it would need to compete and make it amazing, not just lock you in. Same with payment systems. Imagine if you could replace the battery of your old phone, and use it for as long as you wished. Without Apple forcing upgrades through their usual tactics. Apple tells me that it won't even accept applications that target pre-13 soon. And then pre-15 next year. I hate them. The fact that this is our current state of tech, tells me that all of the politicians are bought, and that the tech sector has rotten.
Y-bar 2mo ago
> The developer program fee. And the cost of the device sold to end users. And possibly other service fees such as iCloud subscriptions. These are avenues for Apple to earn money to invest in R&D.
- xp84 2mo ago
  And they act like there's no motivation for R&D unless they're making this rent. I'd say if the R&D makes their devices better then they'll sell more of them and gain marketshare. They don't need the rents to justify that.
Despegar 2mo ago
Would you rather pay an exorbitant developer program fee upfront before you know your apps will make any money? The nominal developer program fee is not designed to be Apple's profit generator. It's to keep spammers out.
- dbbk 2mo ago
  My point is rather, why couldn't they just simplify and make the developer program fee tiered. So indie devs pay $99, and huge businesses pay more.
- xp84 2mo ago
  > It's to keep spammers out. Doesn't seem to be working. Have you seen the App Store? You can buy 'antivirus' apps with $79.99 weekly subscriptions. On a sandboxed platform where you can't "scan" anything but yourself. Also -- it's not that hard to make $143 in scam sales, which will pay for that $99 account. I actually would rather the developer program fee was $2,000 if it meant it actually was harder for scammers to get in. Of course, it should be free to make apps for my own phone, and to distribute it to those in my family group.
  - insane_dreamer 2mo ago
    there would be 100x that many spam apps if it wasn't gated by a fee, esp nowadays
  - y1n0 2mo ago
    Yeah the app store really has turned into a wasteland of shit. I don't think a $2000 fee would change that. People scamming with the $79 weekly subscription for junk make a lot more than that in the blink of an eye.
- ChrisRR 2mo ago
  Of course it's to make profit
robhlt 2mo ago
I do disagree. They've funded macOS R&D for decades without charging developers anything. Why should iOS be any different?
- Despegar 2mo ago
  It's not against the law to create a better and more profitable business.
  - EMIRELADERO 2mo ago
    Better business for a specific company doesn't mean better markets for consumers and other participants, and we make laws to ensure the latter even if it's at the expense of the former.
  - barnabee 2mo ago
    It should be against the law to create they kind of business they have, though
    - Invictus0 2mo ago
      go ahead and make the law then. until then it isn't
      - fsflover 1mo ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49358814 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49358814
    - y1n0 2mo ago
      Why? Android has 72% of the market in 2025. As an individual company Apple has 20% of the market. Samsung has 19%. Just don't buy an iphone and move on with your life.
      - Gud 2mo ago
        I still wish to sell to users of iOS. Apple has conveniently, for them, set themselves up as an unwanted middleman. This is only possible for them to do because they make billions per quarter and I’m a struggling solo developer. I can’t believe people are defending apple.
dawnerd 2mo ago
And you could, should, argue they make it up by charging such a high commission.
user43928 2mo ago
No customer would buy Apple's products, which they sell with large profit margins, if Apple would not invest in its operating system and maintain a way for developers to distribute apps. Therefore I would challenge the idea that it is fair for developers to pay Apple a 15/26% commission for the privilege of distributing apps. If developers were one single business that Apple has to deal with to get third party apps made for their phone, they would be paying us a commission instead of the other way around.
pornel 2mo ago
They use technical means to create lock-in that prevents me from NOT using these services. Apple actively prevents users from installing any other OS on an iPhone. Apple actively prevents uses from finding and installing apps through other means. I'd be okay paying App Store fees when I had a choice, and decided that it's the best source of apps, worth the cost. But because I'm forced to pay for a service I didn't ask for, fuck Apple. (and the mobile duopoly, ecosystem lock-ins, and barriers to entry mean I can't really refuse this shit, I can only choose one of two flavors of this shit).

by dbbk 2mo ago

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

bubblegumcrisis 2mo ago

Imagine if Apple and Google and etc, didn't vendor lock-in. Imagine we could run what we wanted. Imagine that we could use whatever payment system we wanted. Imagine if apple wanted you to use Apple app X, it would need to compete and make it amazing, not just lock you in. Same with payment systems. Imagine if you could replace the battery of your old phone, and use it for as long as you wished. Without Apple forcing upgrades through their usual tactics. Apple tells me that it won't even accept applications that target pre-13 soon. And then pre-15 next year. I hate them. The fact that this is our current state of tech, tells me that all of the politicians are bought, and that the tech sector has rotten.

Y-bar 2mo ago

> The developer program fee. And the cost of the device sold to end users. And possibly other service fees such as iCloud subscriptions. These are avenues for Apple to earn money to invest in R&D.

xp84 2mo ago
And they act like there's no motivation for R&D unless they're making this rent. I'd say if the R&D makes their devices better then they'll sell more of them and gain marketshare. They don't need the rents to justify that.

Despegar 2mo ago

Would you rather pay an exorbitant developer program fee upfront before you know your apps will make any money? The nominal developer program fee is not designed to be Apple's profit generator. It's to keep spammers out.

dbbk 2mo ago
My point is rather, why couldn't they just simplify and make the developer program fee tiered. So indie devs pay $99, and huge businesses pay more.
xp84 2mo ago
> It's to keep spammers out. Doesn't seem to be working. Have you seen the App Store? You can buy 'antivirus' apps with $79.99 weekly subscriptions. On a sandboxed platform where you can't "scan" anything but yourself. Also -- it's not that hard to make $143 in scam sales, which will pay for that $99 account. I actually would rather the developer program fee was $2,000 if it meant it actually was harder for scammers to get in. Of course, it should be free to make apps for my own phone, and to distribute it to those in my family group.
- insane_dreamer 2mo ago
  there would be 100x that many spam apps if it wasn't gated by a fee, esp nowadays
- y1n0 2mo ago
  Yeah the app store really has turned into a wasteland of shit. I don't think a $2000 fee would change that. People scamming with the $79 weekly subscription for junk make a lot more than that in the blink of an eye.
ChrisRR 2mo ago
Of course it's to make profit

robhlt 2mo ago

I do disagree. They've funded macOS R&D for decades without charging developers anything. Why should iOS be any different?

Despegar 2mo ago
It's not against the law to create a better and more profitable business.
- EMIRELADERO 2mo ago
  Better business for a specific company doesn't mean better markets for consumers and other participants, and we make laws to ensure the latter even if it's at the expense of the former.
- barnabee 2mo ago
  It should be against the law to create they kind of business they have, though
  - Invictus0 2mo ago
    go ahead and make the law then. until then it isn't
    - fsflover 1mo ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49358814 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49358814
  - y1n0 2mo ago
    Why? Android has 72% of the market in 2025. As an individual company Apple has 20% of the market. Samsung has 19%. Just don't buy an iphone and move on with your life.
    - Gud 2mo ago
      I still wish to sell to users of iOS. Apple has conveniently, for them, set themselves up as an unwanted middleman. This is only possible for them to do because they make billions per quarter and I’m a struggling solo developer. I can’t believe people are defending apple.

dawnerd 2mo ago

And you could, should, argue they make it up by charging such a high commission.

user43928 2mo ago

No customer would buy Apple's products, which they sell with large profit margins, if Apple would not invest in its operating system and maintain a way for developers to distribute apps. Therefore I would challenge the idea that it is fair for developers to pay Apple a 15/26% commission for the privilege of distributing apps. If developers were one single business that Apple has to deal with to get third party apps made for their phone, they would be paying us a commission instead of the other way around.

pornel 2mo ago

They use technical means to create lock-in that prevents me from NOT using these services. Apple actively prevents users from installing any other OS on an iPhone. Apple actively prevents uses from finding and installing apps through other means. I'd be okay paying App Store fees when I had a choice, and decided that it's the best source of apps, worth the cost. But because I'm forced to pay for a service I didn't ask for, fuck Apple. (and the mobile duopoly, ecosystem lock-ins, and barriers to entry mean I can't really refuse this shit, I can only choose one of two flavors of this shit).