Hacker News Reader

Comment by Yujf | Hacker News Reader

Apple can ask 30% all they want IMO, as long as they allow side loading.

Don't use their app distribution platform? Don't pay their fee. That is how it should work, which is how it does work on android (and yes most companies still use the play store, because it is hard to convince consumers to use another store, but at least the option is there. Also you can not auto update apps installed from outside the play store which also sucks).

My device so I and I alone should determine which software I want to run

View on HN

Apple’s non-hardware expenses aren’t limited to the distribution platform… They make the OS, the libraries, the APIs, the development tools and continue to maintain those even after the hardware is sold… Why should third parties get to free ride on that? I don’t see why we should compel software authors to add hooks and features and provide tools for non-paying third parties.

> They make the OS, the libraries, the APIs, the development tools… Why should third parties get to free ride on that?

I hear this argument all the time. But what do you think was done before iOS?

When will they have finally gotten paid for all that and don't need to take any more money from you?

Before iOS (and for the early years of iOS) people paid out of pocket for software updates. Now it’s an ongoing cost instead, imposed as a tax on software transactions. This is not an unusual arrangement - people rent things in perpetuity all the time, like EC2 instances and water heaters.

The fact that it's a tax on software transactions and not simply something rented/charged monthly is kind of the point.

And, no, not all software updates were uncommon or charged for before iOS. Windows Update predates iOS by many years. People did pay for development tools but then so do iOS developers for $100 a year. I've personally only paid for dev tools a few times in my life. Developers add value to an ecosystem.

Patches for Windows predate iOS. Free upgrades to major versions do not.

I’m not entirely sure it’s worth it but it sure seems like most people accept this bargain since it’s become standard on the most used devices.

They don't have a choice. And most people don't realize that 1/3 of every purchase they make goes directly to Apple.

Because I paid for all that — paid in full - upfront - paid a lot! Maybe 2x or hell 3-5x of what it should actually cost.

So it’s my device. I want Spotify to be able to side load on my device.

And you can contact an actual human when discussing about App Store things.

With Google it's just some fucked up AI trying to pretend to be a human. And you can't complain about its decisions.

Because I already gave them $1000 for the device...

1. Don't buy Apple.

2. What does that have to do with Spotify not wanting to pay IAP fees?

3. Should Spotify also allow you to "sideload" the mp3s you bought from bandcamp into their player?

You can 'sideload' DRM-free MP3s into Spotify on iOS, Android, and desktop: https://support.spotify.com/us/article/local-files/

"Don't buy Apple" is not actionable advice in a duopoly.

Sure it is. You're asking for sideloading apps. Guess what, that exists. The choice is there for what you're complaining about.

Except that it isn't a duopoly.

There are hundreds of phones available and most have different variations of Android with their own features and restrictions.

100 copies of the same two choices is not competition.

So since all computers are Unix* or Windows, there's no competition? Ridiculous.

Imagine all Windows computers required you to use the Microsoft Store to download any piece of software, and you had to pay 30% for that privilege. Oh, and if every browser on the store was just another version of Internet Explorer (which Microsoft already got in trouble for around 20 years ago for just this one issue, much less all the others).

And on the Unix side it's slightly better where you can download apps outside of the Unix Store but they don't autoupdate while easily having the ability to, and that any OEM that doesn't install Unix Store Services gets their Android license removed or severely limited.

That's basically how it's like.

Which apps require you giving 30% to apple or Google?

Why are we talking about government apps?

Apologies. Wrong comment.

If state governments and agencies offer essential software for only two platforms and the most "open" one is restricted of most useful stuff because Google doesn't like it, no, there isn't enough competition.

It's a really basic point and I have no idea what's so hard to understand.

It's literally the same thing with Unix and PCs. AOSP is completely open source just like Unix, likewise MacOS and Google Android are restricted.

There is no single human being that can use AOSP as a daily driver given that even government apps use Play Services.

An academic exercise of open source isn't an excuse for an actually functional and useful daily driver. We've come as a society to the point where the absence of a cell phone makes you a second-class citizen.

If every single windows computer required you to pay them 30% for every transaction from those computers, yeah that would be an anti trust violation as well.

Microsoft got in trouble for the much less bad act of merely bundling a browser with the OS.

Imagine how much worse it would be if they took 30% of every transaction on every computer in the world.

And if you don't want to partake in the walled garden distribution then your side-loaded apps will be walled off from latest iOS API and capabilities, and they will be unable to impact the core UX. Sounds fine to me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com