Hacker News Reader

Comment by JoeAltmaier | Hacker News Reader

The problem is, Apple taking a cut from service where they

   don't own the device (you bought it from them; you own it)
   don't provide the network (you contract for that yourself)
   don't provide the content

Its just some kind of strong-arm tactic - they do it because they can. Like some bouncer outside a club who demands money, but is not employed by the club nor the act. Just standing in the door and demanding money, and you have to pay because you want to get in.

All this splitting hairs over exactly who they strong-arm and who they don't is beside the point.

View on HN

And the console makers? Google Play? The movie theaters? Amazon? Spotify?

Google Play is a bad example here because you can absolutely use app stores like F-Droid or Amazon to get content onto your device.

Arguably, they have problems as well, but it's not an apples to apples (no pun intended) comparison.

One has a completely locked down ecosystem that people are worried to speak against lest they lose access to it.

The other has alternatives, albeit ones without huge traction. It does allow you to make decisions about whether Google Play gives value (discovery, etc).

So how has that worked out for developers who chose to use alternate stores?

You are confusing market access and distribution. If I wanted alot of eyes on my app and I saw a benefit from the appstore then I would pay the 30%.

All I want is being able to give to MY customers, who I paid MY money to acquire, a native app. Apple is refusing to allow this, unless I pay protection money. Textbook rent seeking

Belated.

I can think of many exampled that have worked out. In some cases, apps like Gambling apps are not allowed to use the Play store at all, and yet manage to just fine and get installed directly as APKs.

It definitely varies business to business, and I'm not saying that I wouldn't put my app on Google/Apple, but that is because I do need the discovery.

In the case of Basecamp, they bring their own customers and network. This is true of a lot of big companies and Enterprise apps (some of which have exceptions already).

Those are all very different propositions where the company brings some value - the theatre itself, the player software, the content/catalog. A good illustration of how bankrupt the Apple Walled Garden is - just a fence to extract money with zero added value.

How well did the mobile developers do before the App Store when they tried to peddle their J2ME apps on feature phones? What are the chances that game developers would entice the whales to buy loot boxes and tokens for pay to win games if not for an easy payment method?

Does Amazon provide value with the Kindle? Does Valve with Steam? Amazon market place? eBay? The console makers?

The theaters don’t bring too much value as evidenced by them holding on by tooth and nail trying to convince the studios not to go straight to digital.

Good examples of stores that don't charge for content delivery outside their premises. They are clearly different in this critical way.

Actually, all of the console makers charge game developers a per game fee no matter where you buy it from.

Roku is infamous for not allowing content distributors (except for Netflix) to be on it unless they get a cut.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/roku-plans-to-block-fox-apps-da...

Hey is free to offer subscriptions at a 43% premium through the App Store and still get its full amount.

…and you know what? If Apple's payment system makes your app better, you can use it! That's how it works on Android, and it sometimes bugs me when things use their own payment systems, but that's also the point. Google's payment system brings value. Sometimes it even brings '30% per purchase' worth of value. Why does Apple have this weird inferiority complex about theirs?

And you can also have additional payment methods outside of the App Store and charge less if you desire.

Kindle: you can load books from other sources, you can also read Kindle books on other devices

Steam: you can redeem keys purchased from other stores, install apps from other stores, and they don’t mandate using their system for in app purchases

eBay: do they have any policies like this? I haven’t heard much about them or made an eBat purchase in a decade.

Amazon Marketplace: There actually is a strong argument here that they capture so much of the market that opting out is not an option. This is very similar and already under much scrutiny.

Game Console: Also very similar to this. I expect they will lobby hard on Apples side for that reason.

Kindle: you can load books from other sources, you can also read Kindle books on other devices

Apple participates in Movies Anywhere Sling with Amazon, Google, Vudu, and a few other vendors. If you buy a movie from any of the participating studios, you get credit for purchasing for all of the stores.

You can also purchase physical movies from other places and redeem codes to get credit as if you purchased them from iTunes.

Apple doesn’t require that you must only use their subscriptions. You can subscribe outside of the store. You can every charge more subscriptions to make up for their 30%.

Of course you can opt out of Marketplace. You can set up your own website with places like Shopify.

I know I’m late here but you buying that steam key from another source means that valve gets its cut anyways. To issue that key they had to give them cut.

That's a pretty obvious straw man. They take a cut for the marketplace. Which is the service apps rely on.

What does the marketplace do for a subscription app after it's installed? Even if you think Apple deserves some money for referrals / customer acquisition, 15% of lifetime revenue can't be a number you think is fair for that.

How do you estimate the (non-)fairness of a distribution channel?

Again, they don't provide the channel, once the app is installed. Not the device; not the network; not the content. They just extract money with rules.

Again, they do provide the channel before the app is installed. If you know the economics of acquisition vs. retention you should understand that the former is usually more expensive/valuable than the latter.

I'm perfectly willing to entertain arguments about the right amount Apple should charge for that, but it seems to be an all or nothing discussion, which doesn't seem really sensible to me.

Its the coercive element that is objectionable. They go to extreme lengths to keep their market closed, which is obviously not for your benefit but so they can do this thing. Not because a free market leads folks to adopt the Apple marketplace, because there is no choice.

The lengths folks go to apologize for Apples essential extortion is amazing.

Where's the extortion is the case that needs to be built here. "I can't sell my app at no cost to the most wealthy segment of mobile users" is not a credible complaint.

They also require apps to go through their walled garden. If they had an F-Droid equivalent (Cydia doesn't count here) then maybe people would be more amicable to this rebuttal.

Except these apps aren't really using the marketplace. Pretty much the entire service is being delivered outside of the marketplace and they purposefully don't charge for the app download so as to not use the payment processing of Apple.

Apple is trying to force apps to go through the marketplace and their payment processing, however, also forcing them to take the 30% markup. The policy as followed here is "Everything you provide you have to provide via Apple's services so we charge you extra".

Apple is charging developers for the rights to distribute on their platform. You will see this model everywhere around you: theme parks, grocery stores, e-commerce websites. The fact that the world's most profitable company has to play by different rules is quite frankly ludicrous.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com