Its not based on how much money they have. Its how they've managed to accumulate the money - by gouging devs.
BUT, I will also mention that part of its market capture comes from all the charges on devs even before the rev share. You need apple equipment to develop, and they (apparently) don't sell server racks anymore for businesses to scale off of, nor any legitimate form of emulation. You have a small cost per year to have a developer account, and a cost to submit your app for review. Then if you care about visibilty they have their own ad discovery program you can pay into.
So I did disagree with a brief judge statement about how "It's possible to skirt around Apple's innnovation for free...". Apple controls and charges for the entire pipeline, even before you launch the app.
They charge you to submit an app? Is this new? When I worked as an iOS developer this was not a thing but that was many years ago.
Im sure both App stores have lot of automated tests. But I've submitted a lot of apps and the feedback from Apple is much more specific and from humans.
I agree it's very annoying, often complaining about things that are explained in submission notes.
But if I submit and do around 5-10 updates per year that seems highly unlikely it covers their salary cost.
Their priority is to ensure every dollar gets taxed and to block features they want to monopolise. The idea that it is a service to developers that they should pay for is insulting.
In this case, who exactly are they protecting, the townsfolk or car enthusiasts that you have an independent relationship with?
Would this scenario seem like a good idea to agree to? If no, why is the app store/walled garden model an appropriate use case at all/how is it substantially different?
And it doesn't have to conver the cost really. It's not a service to developers like developer support would be. It's more an impediment due to its randomness.
So, how long does Apple get to reap the rewards of their old accomplishments from 18 years ago? how long should such works be benefited from before we shift the dynamics back to being "a public commons"?
There is no "right" of any student for their debt to be forgiven, but we want to do it anyway. Apple has taken advantage (as have others) of a ridiculously broken tax code, availed of the strong US legal system, property rights, etc. How about we shift the balance back?
Do you account for the fact that it might not be the same people making both arguments? Most websites’ readerships are not monoliths and even on HN there are plenty of people with different perspectives, and who are not necessarily vocal in the same threads.
> So, how long does Apple get to reap the rewards of their old accomplishments from 18 years ago? how long should such works be benefited from before we shift the dynamics back to being "a public commons"?
That’s an interesting argument, but it’s usually not discussed with any nuance. Basically there are several layers:
- are we entitled to Apple opening their platforms? (AFAICT the opposite would be a first though the EU seems to be going that way)
- is Apple entitled to profit from the App Store in principle? (Some people are arguing that they are not, but they are a fringe; Epic lost their argument about that)
- is 30% too much? (But then, where is the line? It’s more or less the standard for closed platforms
Where would you put your “public commons”? Did this ever happen?
I don't. It's possible to (dis)prove this with comments but that would be a bit invasive (ironically enough) without doing a lot of work to anonymize the dataset I gather and prove sufficient random sampling. It's possible for admins to (dis)prove this through voting habits, but not for me to bring about such evidence.
All I can say from here is that so far, there's a local sample of one reply to me that seems to indeed think this way.
>Where would you put your “public commons”? Did this ever happen?
The "commons" in this case would be the OS. I don't think we've ever historically had another OS as locked down as hard IOS. Game consoles come the closest to this, but are ultimately ephemeral; no gaming OS store has lasted (i.e. been officially supported. I cannot submit a PS3 game today even if I wanted to) as long as IOS, and I don't see IOS closing anytime soon.
On top of that, there is the argument on IOS being a general OS compared to games being specialized; no one de facto seems to desire doing much more than consuming media on consoles (consoles don't even have proper web browsers these days). So that's another factor to consider when determining what is a "major OS" and if/when it should be opened up if closed down.
These seem to be questions that are slowly being asked in formal channels. So I suppose these are all TBD. But if you want my sample of 1 answers:
- At some point I do think a "major OS" should become a commons for those who seek to publish through it. Microsoft was dinged 30 years ago for much less and Apple has way more control and restrictions now than MS ever did.
- Apple is entitled to profit from the App Store, but isn't entitled to be the only store able to distribute apps on its platform. Again, MS was considering this with Windows 8 and 10 and it was an absolute disaster. Another aspect of an "existing commons" trying to close up in a way that MS in theory feels entitled to but in a way that would hurt consumers and developers.
- the 30% is definitely a question to ask and not one I have a particularly strong answer on. I feel this is where the invisible hand should take charge, so it comes down more to "would the audience take a lower cut if they were able to find an alternative (which may or may not include themselves)?". So my concern here is with providing alternative options and seeing if the market shifts rather than throttling existing rates.
50,60,80% cut would still be legal, but there is no way Apple can get away with that. What Apple is entitled to is going to be based on peoples feelings and opinions, and the amount of pushback generated. Its good to generate push-back on things you don't agree with.
There are multiple people on here, who say different things.
Assuming a slightly generous definition of "the fuel you put in your car," you've just described a lease.
Or the purchase of a German car.
I don't care about the fee for using their services, I care about the fact that I'm forced to use their services
* we submit the Kindle app ...including an in-app bookstore... to Apple for initial app review
(Note: multiple ebook readers with in-app bookstores are already on the app store at this point)
* several weeks pass with no response
* Apple announces in-app purchasing (to be released several months later)
* Apple rejects our app: we have to give them a 30% cut of all sales through the app, or remove the store and all references / external links to it. We chose option 2.
* Apple forces the other ereader apps to remove their stores or go with IAP. Several (most?) just gave up and pulled their apps entirely
* Apple negotiates agreements with most of the major book publishers that if they want to sell books on iBooks, ebooks must be listed at the same price on ALL stores, and have a 30% margin
* Apple launches in-app purchasing and the iBooks store (with the iPad announcement, IIRC)
...aka even if we (or any other ereader app) wanted to sell books via our app, the terms Apple set forth effectively meant that ALL profit from those sales must go to them (and we would have to eat the bandwidth / service costs on top of that)
But if you must use them, keep each storyboard small enough it's only going to be used by one dev at a time to avoid conflicts, and then combine trusting the GUI won't make stupid XML plus some automated UI tests to make sure functionality isn't damaged by e.g. a button being deleted.
You can build UIs without storyboards/Interface Builder in UIKit just fine. And writing your UI in code indeed easily solves the whole versioning conflicts issue that storyboards have.
So no, not a big argument for SwiftUI, but instead for writing UIs in code.
SwiftUI vs. UIKit and IB vs. code are two entirely separate discussions.
But yes, I totally agree, if you must use storyboards, keep them as small as possible.
Unless I've missed something, by doing the latter it automatically also does the former?
> You can build UIs without storyboards/Interface Builder in UIKit just fine.
Eh, perhaps the examples I've worked with of that were especially egregious (it's certainly possible given some of the other things very very wrong with that code), but my experience of such a codebase was very much not fine.
UIKit works okay in code. But unless you have experienced people actively laying groundwork, it's IMO more likely to be a mess than SwiftUI. Even the explicitly declarative part, Autolayout, will only be understood by like 10% of the team and the rest are kinda winging it. Using Autolayout outside of Storyboards makes it less declarative, so it is then more conducive to programmer error (like non-idempotent updates).
We should be rooting for better outcomes for consumers. Not picking between which megacorp is less bad.
I will argue that pointing out the hypocrisy of a megacorp complaining about the anti-competitive behaviour of another magacorp, when it engages in the same type of behaviour but at a much bigger scale, is a pro-consumer move.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/technology/...
There was little to cheer about whatever happened.
Not exactly doable for the ‘everything store’.
Also hi :) long time!
So $MEGACORP abuses their absolute monopolistic position in the market to underhandedly negotiate with book publishers and force their hand into working the way $MEGACORP wants: in order to gain access to $MEGACORPs completely dominated (but technically not a monopoly*) audience who wishes to buy books in a convenient way online, book publishers must bow down to $MEGACORP and pay the tax. Meanwhile, everyone else who sells books through alternative avenues is decimated because the audience only wants to buy books through $MEGACORP.
And you can replace $MEGACORP with both 'Apple' and 'Amazon', and it is 100% factually accurate. Beautiful. It's fucking turtles eating turtles all the way down.
‘Funniest thing in a fortnight’ sounds less impressive.
You’re comment is actually funny, the OPs just makes one sad and frustrated.
It's a less direct form of market manipulation and one that doesn't usually meet the US's legal standards for antitrust, but it's a strategy Amazon loves to use.
That small margin above wholesale in the article's example is probably still effectively selling at a loss when you account for overhead of running the store, shipping, etc. It certainly would be for a smaller competitor.
Either of those represents a price that a competitor whose only business is selling books cannot compete with. Amazon can offer these prices as a loss leader because of their position in other markets, not because it has found a more optimal way to run the business of selling books.
Amazon was selling eBooks at $9.99, for Apple it was an issue because they couldn't ask a 30% share from publishers AND compete at $9.99 because Amazon achieved that price due to wholesale volume-deals, and likely not with a 30%+ margin.
Publishers wanted Amazon to increase sales-prices from $9.99, but due to their wholesale model they couldn't dictate that. Even when they increased wholesale prices, Amazon kept their sales-price of many NYT bestsellers at $9.99 making a loss (probably to drive eReader growth).
Quote: "Amazon continued to sell books at $9.99, losing money, even when publishers increased the wholesale price of books they were giving the online giant."
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/how-steve-jobs-and-apple-fix...
Neither does Apple. Amazon prevents all of their sellers from selling their goods at any sort of discount anywhere else (including through direct-to-consumer channels).
>The platform they do own, AWS, unlike the iphone, is perfectly open to competitors to Amazon's retail business.
It's not apples-to-apples comparison. Here's a better one ... Amazon will gather competitive metrics from sellers on their marketplace (i.e. their 'partners' and 'costumers') and then launch a competing product, undercut them on price, rig their search (to prioritize their product) and ultimately drive them out of business.
Apple is bad, but their terribleness is limited to the Mac-iOS ecosystem ... Amazon is way worse.
Brick and mortar retailers do the exact same thing and make generics that are exactly the same as best selling brand names, put them in favorable shelf position, and even put "compare to <brand>!" on their labels. This practice has probably saved me multiple thousands of dollars over my lifetime, so it is definitely to the benefit of the consumer and I am 100% in favor of it continuing. If you, as a company, add nothing that can't be replicated to your product other than a brand label, then you deserve to be replicated and undercut. That is a perfect example of the market working towards the public good.
Apple actively engaged as facilitator to help publishers raise prices on the whole market, for a 30% cut.
The result was that books previously available for $9.99 were suddenly sold for $12.99
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/how-steve-jobs-and-apple-fix...
I loved ebooks and my reading went way up. They were cheaper than paperbacks and cheap enough that I was making curiosity and impulse purchases. The problem with digital sales is that unlike a bookshop, I could not browse and take a book from the shelf and start reading and get hooked.
Once ebooks suddenly jumped in price and absurdly became more expensive than paperbacks, I was done, and didn't buy a book for years. You might try and argue this was irrational, but when I feel I am being scammed, my wallet stays in my pocket. I will indeed cut off my nose to spite an asshole.
(A short story about how cheating the user with exorbitant prices results in the exit of your audience.)
There’s some level of irony in the fact that the most successful product from the guy who wanted to build a “bicycle of the mind”[1] ended up being something more like the floating chairs in Wall E.
There are weirdly other audiobook versions that cost only 29€ so I wonder what's the story here.
My bad puns aside, thank god for libraries. Otherwise these stories would be truly lost to the rich.
It's a professional reading/acting out a full book in a professional studio, with at least an editor, a production team, a corrector. And the market for audiobooks is still very minuscule.
Not saying this is fair, but musicians often do economically sub-optimal things for the love of creation and because it is a passion. Hopefully, the musician also gets added revenue from concerts.
The voice performance doesnt get the fame nor after-performance revenue -- so naturally they are charging market rates for their time reading. Further, most of the credit/glory goes to the author, not the voice performer. I doubt most people know who the voice performer is on audiobooks.
> A song of Ice and Fire is $39 in Audible
Is this really surprising? Production costs for a single audiobook are _significantly_ less than something like a movie, but the audiobook is more than double the cost of seeing a movie?!? I straight up refuse to buy audiobooks based on the price alone. Ebook prices are bad enough, but audiobook prices are ludicrous.
Then the audiobook of "A song of fire and ice" is apparently 33 hours and 46 minutes, which is more than 3 times the average length [1], so just the narration production-cost is 3 times higher than the average audiobook.
So overall there's not so much left to make a profit, leave alone break-even.
> Younger people are more likely to consume audio format, as 57% of Americans younger than 50 listened to audiobooks in 2021.
I know I only have anecdata (I'm in that cohort), but that seems off based on my personal experiences and the people I know. Perhaps 2021 was an outlier?
> Over 23% of Americans listened to at least one audiobook in 2021, 15% more than in 2020.
This also seems off. Almost 1 in 4 Americans listened to an audiobook in 2021? That seems... high.
I couldn't find a link to the source data used to generate those statistics.
Based on your link, you'd be looking at something in the range of $24,000 for ASOIAF. Even if you double that you're looking at $48,000. If we factor in 50% (WTF?) rev share with Audible, that's ~2400 units to break even. And then they are clearing ~$20/unit after that. Yeah, I know I hand-waved a bunch of minutia, but my point is that the volume of sales needed to start making a profit, even considering a large rev share, isn't _that_ high.
I can't stack that against sales numbers, but I'll say this, even if it's a legit price based on costs and volume that it doesn't _feel_ legit to _me_. As a result, I won't buy audiobooks. I don't think I'm totally alone. I can't say much past that.
Yes. A book. That's one single book. As with anything, the majority will listen to a few popular titles like self-help books and Harry Potter.
No idea how you arrived at $24000 for ASOIAF and then decided to randomly double it
From the article in the post I was replying to[1]:
Audiobook production is a multi-step process that requires equipment, software, a studio, and a narrator. Depending on the cost and availability of each of these aspects, the price of producing an audiobook can vary.
* Generally, around 9,300 words of text equate to one hour of audiobook length.
* The average audiobook is around 10 hours long, containing close to 100,000 words.
* The average narrator charges around $200 per finished hour, meaning that the expenses on the narrator will amount to $2,000 for recording an audiobook.
* On top of that, it is necessary to either rent a studio where the recording will take place or invest in the equipment and sound production yourself.
* In either case, producing an audiobook will take between $4,000 and $8,000.
* Some companies offer a complete production service for a fixed price, usually at the $6,000 range.
Edison Research’s Share of Ear is a quarterly survey of Americans who are asked to keep a detailed one-day diary of their audio usage. Share of Ear utilizes a nationally representative sample of those age 13+. The sample for this study was 4,118
https://www.edisonresearch.com/the-spoken-word-audio-report-... or https://www.edisonresearch.com/solutions/the-infinite-dial/
https://publishingperspectives.com/2023/06/apa-report-audio-...
https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/a...
That's ONLY production-cost, it doesn't take into account the royalty/license for the actual content-author and the cut the book-publisher takes for "publishing" it. I doubt that the author takes a smaller share just because the book was recorded instead of printed.
If you assume that production cost should make up max. 10% of that revenue (like the actual cost to design a cover and print a book), then the break-even shifts ALOT farther away...
> Yeah, I know I hand-waved a bunch of minutia, but my point is that the volume of sales needed to start making a profit, even considering a large rev share, isn't _that_ high.
Yeah, the scale is indeed hard to estimate, and I can't find ANY statistics on the actual volume-size of the market (actual amount a bestseller Audiobook has sold)
But the stat from the same source stating that "Audiobook revenue accounted for around 3.8% of the book publishing" is an indication that despite glorious growth-figures of the Audiobook industry, the actual market-size is still VERY small even in comparison to the book-publishing market.
AND at the same time, Audible controls ~50% of that market, and drives consumption with Spotify-like flatrate offers.
Making big upfront investments for Audiobook production seems to be a risky call for a publisher then. Unless you have a title like ASOIAF and set the price at 36 USD I guess ;)
So, let's assume Netflix. It has 247 million subscribers. You do the math.
An audiobook (and audiobooks in general) don't have that.
Then a few days before the feature was scheduled to leave beta and be formally supported, Apple changed the app store terms to disallow it, by requiring that apps be "originally written" in certain languages like objective-C or C++. Nothing to do with what the app did or how it worked, and no definition for what "originally written" specifically meant. And there were lots of other technologies for building apps by then, so of course they all freaked (though AFAIK Apple never actually enforced the new terms for anything besides flash).
Anyway shortly afterward Adobe reverted the app-publishing feature, and then a few months later Apple quietly reverted the terms to what they were before.
- writing it in a different language that only really runs on one operating system
- pay $99/yr for the privilege
- at any point and for any reason you can be cut off from reaching your audience
- you have to pay them 30% of your revenue (not profit) for any money your application makes
- you can’t make updates in a timely manner
- you have close to zero avenues of recourse if you disagree with any of this
- the deal can change at any time and you don’t get a say in it.
Why the fuck would anyone choose that option in 2024 if they didn’t have to? It’s no wonder Apple went out of their way to try and cripple the web for over a decade now, it was only legal action from the EU that forced them to staff Safari properly about two years ago.
And even now, they still take any opportunity they can to make it look unattractive such as hiding the ability to install a PWA deep in a series of unrelated menus.
That’s a hostage taking business. Get out of that ecosystem if you can
That isn’t true. It takes two taps. You tap the share button, then you tap Add to Home Screen. That’s it. That’s not “hidden deep in a series of unrelated menus”. It’s a top-level option.
And don’t complain about the “share” button – that’s just a bad name for what iOS users understand as the “Send/Put/Open this somewhere else” button. It makes total sense if you are an iOS user, don’t be misled by what people call it. People tap it when they want to “do something” with what they are looking at. It’s exactly the button you’d tap if you wanted to add a PWA to your home screen.
It is absolutely set up in such a way that normal people not only can not do it but don’t even know it’s possible.
I should be able to trigger an install prompt as a developer at a minimum.
Go and ask a random person to install a website on any OS, and watch what happens
I should be able to prompt the user to install and it would just work.
I’m sure when it arrives like other APIs that require certain permissions you will be able to disable it and live in peace.
Indeed. The (collective) you are designing the web around maximum profit to stakeholders. People's interests and preferences don't come in to it.
How did we get from “I think app install prompts should be a thing so the web is on a level playing field with operating systems” to me somehow being responsible for the ills of capitalism?
I literally said you should have an option to opt out and your response was an impassioned speech about “the will of the people”.
I cannot disable these things when Apple has a profit incentive. I haven't been able to make the dumb Game Center thing permanently quit appearing. I guess they don't have a profit incentive, here, huh? So the result is that people who understand how to turn it off, will turn it off. Most everyone else will be trained to hit no instantly. A few people will have hundreds of webapps on their home screens like the browser bars of yore.
For the record; I completely agree that side loading should be possible with minimal barrier and it would be nice if web apps were more discoverable and integrated. But preventing websites from nagging people with a system-level iOS prompt is a feature.
No, I don't
> I should be able to prompt the user to install and it would just work.
No, you shouldn't. Not until you prove that you can actually make proper prompts and not turn the web into what it is today: a collection of in your face modals, calls to action, popups etc.
I’m not sure where to go here if I’m supposed to be responsible for your sense of reading comprehension.
Would you say that Apple are deliberately hiding how to bookmark a website and that people are unable to do that? Because you do that the same way too.
How about printing? Does Apple have a secret motive to stop people from printing? Because you do that the same way too.
The share button is the “Send/Put/Open this somewhere else” button. That’s just how iOS works. It’s not a devious plan. It’s a standard platform convention.
> I should be able to trigger an install prompt as a developer at a minimum.
This is not currently part of any web standard. It was implemented unilaterally by Chromium and hasn’t been accepted by any other rendering engine yet. It’s explicitly not on a web standards track:
> Status of This Document
> This specification was published by the Web Platform Incubator Community Group. It is not a W3C Standard nor is it on the W3C Standards Track.
They have a multi billion dollar incentive here along with a long history of actions all clearly focused on protecting that revenue stream at the expense of the web platform.
I’m making an argument that like any other application delivery platform I should have a clear and standard way for my users to install my software.
The reason we don’t currently have that is largely tied up in Apple yet again with the exact same incentive structure as every other time they pulled shit like this.
Do you want to try that reply again in a less insulting way? Perhaps consider the possibility that people can have a legitimate difference of opinion with you without it being a stupid act?
You tried to do a weird gotcha by claiming that the ability to install a web app is no different to print a webpage and implied that I was seeing conspiracies where there were none to be found.
I’m saying that the thing I’m talking about has a very clear difference when it comes to incentive structures and I know you’re aware of it because we are in the middle of a discussion about it.
So I don’t know what other conclusion to draw here other than you’re pretending to not understand the difference.
You are claiming that it’s literally impossible to honestly disagree with you; that the only possibility is that I’m deliberately acting the fool? Do you really believe that?
If you took offence at the original comment where I said you appeared to be playing games by ignoring something I’m sorry.
I am however asking that you present some kind of rebuttal rather than trying to make this a thing about polite discourse on the internet.
I made specific points, you came in talking about unrelated points, I pointed out that your reasoning had a major hole in it and now we are in a conversation nobody wants to be a part of.
Let’s just say we both understand why an install prompt and printing a web page aren’t the same thing because I think we covered that ground already.
To get it back on track, I’m saying that they don’t belong together and that when you listed all that other random set of actions people could do that appear in the same screen that this illustrates the point I’ve been trying to make from the start.
If the argument is “oh that’s just iOS, it’s totally innocent and how could you ever seen anything nefarious there” then make that argument but as discussed, it has major holes.
I’m not getting worked up, I’m refusing to accept direct insults. It’s possible to do that without getting worked up. This place is supposed to be better than this and you’re falling short. If people don’t push back on behaviour like yours this place will be dragged down into the muck. Insults should not be tolerated here.
And telling people they are getting worked up when they complain about you insulting them, in itself, additionally insulting and inflammatory. Don’t do that.
> If you took offence at the original comment where I said you appeared to be playing games by ignoring something I’m sorry.
You didn’t accuse me of playing games, you accused me of “acting purposely obtuse”. You’re saying that I’m pretending to be a moron because my argument is far too stupid for anybody to really believe. You don’t get to put me in the catch-22 of either taking your insults without complaint or getting accused of being worked up. It’s entirely reasonable to reject your replies calmly until you stop being insulting.
> I am however asking that you present some kind of rebuttal
I already did that. You called it a “weird gotcha” and ignored it. I suspect you missed the point because you were so sure I was pretending to be an idiot. You are free to go back and read it again. If you still don’t understand it a second time, ask for clarification instead of throwing insults around.
That’s my good faith understanding of the point you’re making at the moment so I will try one final time…
Do you care to address the incredibly specific point I’ve made repeatedly that that line of reasoning has a huge hole in it which you seem to be ignoring no matter how often I ask you to acknowledge it.
I wasn’t ignoring it. I was refusing to respond to replies with insults. I have been very clear about that.
> Just to be clear… your argument is or isn’t “That’s just iOS and there’s clearly nothing nefarious about it”?
No.
Your argument is:
> they still take any opportunity they can to make it look unattractive such as hiding the ability to install a PWA deep in a series of unrelated menus.
Let’s deconstruct that to three assertions:
- It’s deep in a series of menus
- It’s in an unrelated menu
- It’s being purposefully hidden by Apple.
I have pointed out several things:
- It’s a top-level item in a very commonly used menu.
- It belongs in that menu.
- Other items in that menu are also there for the same purpose.
- Apple has no incentive to hide those other items.
So right away, we can get rid of the first assertion. It’s not deep in a series of menus. That’s just plainly false, as anybody who has an iPhone near them can verify. It’s a top-level item in a primary menu. It’s a single tap away.
Next we move on to whether it belongs there or not. As I repeatedly point out, the “share” button actually exposes a whole lot more than just sharing. I’m not even certain “share button” is its official name, I think it might be called “action button” or something. You can consider it the “put this somewhere else button” because that’s what it actually means, even if the name doesn’t roll off the tongue. That’s the platform convention. That’s how iOS users perceive it.
Want to send it to somebody? Tap the button. Want to open it in a different app? Tap the button. Want to save it somewhere? Tap the button. That’s what the button is for. You are looking at something and you want to put it somewhere.
What else is in that menu? You can save a document to files. You can print it. You can bookmark it. You get a list of other apps you can open it with. You can add it to a note. You can copy it to the pasteboard. These all fit the same theme. You are looking at something and you want to put it somewhere.
Does “I want to put this PWA on my Home Screen” fit there? It absolutely does. That’s exactly where I’d locate the feature. You are looking at a PWA, and you want to put it somewhere. So tap the put it somewhere button.
So no, it’s not in an unrelated menu. So the second assertion goes.
Finally, is Apple purposefully hiding it there? Well, showing that it belongs there should be enough to disprove that, but there’s also more. What else is in that menu? Let’s skip over sharing to eliminate quibbling over “but those belong there”.
Saving a file isn’t sharing. Printing isn’t sharing. Bookmarking isn’t sharing. Opening in another app isn’t sharing. Adding it to a note isn’t sharing. Copying it to the pasteboard isn’t sharing.
Are all of those purposefully being hidden by Apple where users won’t look for them? How does hiding “Add to bookmarks” have a “multi billion dollar incentive” behind it? How does hiding “Copy to pasteboard” “protect Apple’s revenue stream”? Why would Apple even implement these features in the first place only to hide them?
They aren’t being purposefully hidden. They are all there because they all do the same sort of thing – the same thing that Add to Home Screen does. They take what the user is looking at and put it somewhere.
And users use this menu all the time. It’s not some obscure part of Safari you’ve got to dig to find. The average user has probably scrolled past Add to Home Screen thousands and thousands of times.
If Apple were trying to hide this functionality, this is the very last place they’d put it. They’ve put it somewhere that a) is accessible with a single tap, b) makes sense conceptually, and c) will be seen by users all the time. So the final assertion is no good either.
And like cpuguy83 pointed out elsewhere in the thread - this has been how you add a site to your home screen since day one, when Steve Jobs was telling everybody that web apps were the only way to build apps for the iPhone. At that point PWAs didn’t even exist. And that’s the spot they chose for it back then – before native apps were even allowed by Apple, when Apple wanted everybody to build web apps and add them to their home screens. It completely contradicts the idea that this is a hiding place where they don’t want people to see it. That’s where they chose to put it when it’s incontrovertible fact that they wanted people to use it.
Just to give a bit of context on my own background because it’s relevant here but I spent most of the last ten years running A/B tests for companies and then analysing the results.
One of the core truths in my particular line of work is that default options matter a lot more than people tend to realise.
So when you take an idea such as “I would like to install this app” and you then:
1. Don’t provide a way to ask users if they would like to do that.
2. Put it in a menu that’s cluttered with many other unrelated things.
3. Call it something entirely different “add to home”.
It’s not a mystery what is going to happen here. We are talking the overwhelming MAJORITY of people will have no idea and it won’t get used.
I’m just a random person on the internet so I’m not asking you to take my word for it.
It’s specifically why I mentioned the test before of go and talk to any person with an iPhone and ask them how they can install an app without the App Store. You can prove this to yourself tomorrow by asking ten people.
You can even incentivise them with money. They absolutely can not do it and will look at you like you have two heads.
They have no idea it’s even possible.
So the next logical question that comes to mind is why do you suppose that is?
There’s a few potential options:
1. They somehow have no idea that this is a problem their users struggle with.
2. They are bad a UI design
3. It’s an intentional choice to try and keep people in the dark while still avoiding any legal action for anti competitive behaviour.
I can only find evidence for one of those options but I have a LOT of it. It’s not a coincidence that it happens to align perfectly consistently with all of their other actions towards treating the web as a competitive application platform.
That’s just who they are and how they do business.
The Web Standards Committee has decided the correct way for the web to work is that there is an expectation that a user understands how to bookmark something and can elect to do so if they choose. They don't make a part of any web standard a developer being able to ask a user to add a bookmark. So not just Apple, but on the standard web, developers don't have the install rights you are saying they should have. It's hard to argue it's a conspiracy by Apple when a standards body outside Apple has defined how it works.
Maybe enough users don't know how to bookmark on iOS. Could Apple do more to make sure they know how? Yes. But I don't think we should change the web to allow websites to ask to create bookmarks because Google Chrome thinks its a good idea.
That committee you are talking about isn’t actually independent of Apple. They are a part of it.
Historically Apple have repeatedly used those exact committee bodies as a way to shut down a whole range of things that would bring the web platform closer to iOS in terms of capabilities.
The point about the bookmarking is also a bit hard to follow. I don’t know if this is getting a bit abstract or something so I’ll just restate my main argument.
Apple have repeatedly tried to make sure the web wasn’t able to compete with iOS and actively worked to get as much lock in on their platforms as possible. They have a terrible track record in terms of interoperability and as I stated numerous times in this thread they have an obvious reason for doing so.
The only point I saw them concede any ground towards a more consumer friendly and away from an overtly anti-competitive approach was specifically when serious talk of antitrust litigation emerged from the EU.
At that point they had a miraculously coincidental change of heart and began a hiring spree for Safari so they could try and close some of the more nefarious gaps with interoperability so they could point to it as evidence that they shouldn’t be fined billons of dollars and have new restrictions placed on them.
I am claiming that that looks like the text book definition of a conspiracy and you need to understand the arguments about installability in that wider context and the point you’re making about bookmarks is in no way relevant to what I’m talking about.
> Historically Apple have repeatedly used those exact committee bodies as a way to shut down a whole range of things that would bring the web platform closer to iOS in terms of capabilities.
That’s not what’s happening, neither for this specific case nor in general.
There are three major rendering engines: Blink by Google, WebKit by Apple, and Gecko by Mozilla.
It’s an ongoing theme that Google will write a spec. and implement it in Blink, then Apple and Mozilla will either reject it outright or not express interest, and then people come along and accuse Apple of “holding back the web”. This has happened with Web Bluetooth, with Web USB, and more.
In this particular case, the ability to trigger installation prompts from a PWA was originally part of the manifest spec. But it got removed because nobody was keen on implementing it as-is except for Google. That’s how it ended up in the non-standard manifest-incubations instead.
Now there’s a chance that further work will be done on it in manifest-incubations to the point where Mozilla and Apple think it’s worth implementing. If consensus is reached it could become a web standard in future. But just because Google implemented something by themselves does not mean that “Apple are holding back the web”. Google are not the sole arbiter of what constitutes the web platform and Apple and Mozilla aren’t obligated to implement whatever Google wants. This is a case of Google promoting something by themselves, not Apple holding something back. Mozilla and Apple are in agreement; Google are the ones acting unilaterally.
> Apple have repeatedly tried to make sure the web wasn’t able to compete with iOS and actively worked to get as much lock in on their platforms as possible.
There is no single organisation that has done more to push the mobile web forward than Apple.
You’re literally talking to an audience of largely web developers and trying to claim with a straight face something that they all know full well not to be true because they spent the last decade having to deal with Safari’s bullshit and lack of interoperability.
You’ve really got to figure out how to disagree with somebody without being insulting.
As for how to save a webpage to your Home Screen, that literally hasn't changed except maybe to have it together with other on-device interactions. It has been there since before there was even an App Store. It's not hidden in any way and never has been. It was demoed on stage by Steve Jobs.
The App Store is a scam, for sure. But Apple has not been crippling the web... at least not in the way you claim here (only one browser on the platform is sucky, but that's a different discussion).
I don’t know what to do with that argument other than to use that exact same set of facts to support my own point.
Also, that’s a nice historical fact that Steve Jobs once did a demo on stage years ago but my point was that nobody knows how to do it in real life or that it’s possible.
I’m explicitly making the argument that this isn’t a coincidence but is very much on purpose.
Well, they definitely drag their feet on keeping Safari up to date, not unlike what Microsoft did with Internet Explorer 20 years ago.
IIRC, there are also some limitations in what web apps launched from the home screen can actually do, which are not in regular Safari - but I've not looked at this in a long time so I could be wrong.
What I do remember very clearly is that the common consensus, as reflected in data from app developers, is that people just don't know (or don't want to use) the "pin to home screen" feature. One could argue that Apple should, maybe, sprinkle on that feature a bit of the effort they lavishly pour on emojis, so that more people could be enticed to use PWAs. That would go some way towards reassuring developers that they are not slaves to the AppStore.
It’s entirely different. After Microsoft killed the competition and gained >90% market share, they disbanded the Internet Explorer developer team for five entire years.
Apple releases a new major version of Safari every year like clockwork and pushes people hard to update.
> What I do remember very clearly is that the common consensus, as reflected in data from app developers, is that people just don't know (or don't want to use) the "pin to home screen" feature.
What data? The internal data I’ve seen across ~500 community apps is that when given a choice, two thirds of people use the iOS app, a quarter of people use the Android app, and about 10% use the PWA. And that’s across all users, including desktop.
“Don’t know” and “don’t want to use” are two entirely different things.
If people preferred PWAs and it was just down to Apple holding them back, there wouldn’t be any such thing as an Android app; people would just use PWAs on that platform instead. People don’t install PWAs because they don’t want to.
That's largely a byproduct of their attempt to keep support costs low by forcing yearly upgrades of the entire OS. Other browser makers release 10 times more often (literally!). When you're 10 times slower than everyone else (while being 10 times wealthier...), I think it's legitimate to say you're dragging your feet. The fact that they're not as atrociously bad as Microsoft was at its worst, doesn't mean they are not bad.
> “Don’t know” and “don’t want to use” are two entirely different things.
Come on now - discoverability and education are things. If Apple wanted to, they would make that feature so easy and promote it so heavily, that everyone would do it or at least know how to do it.
> If people preferred PWAs and it was just down to Apple holding them back
Don't strawman me, I never said that. I said that Apple is not making any effort to change a status quo where consumers are not keen on the feature, which tallies with your experience. There is nothing stopping them from aiming their reality distortion field at the feature, as a service to developers.
They aren’t ten times slower than everybody else. You can’t measure progress by counting releases.
> I think it's legitimate to say you're dragging your feet.
They aren’t though. Take a look at the Interop 2023 dashboard:
https://wpt.fyi/interop-2023?stable
Or just read through the WebKit blog:
They are getting loads done.
> The fact that they're not as atrociously bad as Microsoft was at its worst, doesn't mean they are not bad.
Your exact words were: “they definitely drag their feet on keeping Safari up to date, not unlike what Microsoft did with Internet Explorer 20 years ago” and my point is that it’s very unlike that.
> They aren’t ten times slower than everybody else.
Just to mention one, WebRTC took 7 years to go from the first Firefox implementation to Safari. Chrome had it less than 2 years after FF, so I guess not 10x but 3x-4x - still a very significant lag, which is definitely not explainable by lack of resources.
Sorry, no, not an absolute standstill. Windows XP Service Pack 2 tweaked how an HTTP header was handled. That was the most significant movement in the front-end development world in a five year period. Because of Internet Explorer.
Compare Safari 12 to Safari 17. Now imagine we were still stuck with Safari 12. That’s what it would be like if Safari “dragged their feet” like Microsoft did with Internet Explorer. They aren’t the same thing, not even remotely close. Anybody saying that “Safari is the new IE” clearly does not remember what Internet Explorer did to the industry, especially if they are saying it because of things like Safari won’t let websites vibrate your phone.
Of course nobody, today, would act exactly like MS did - that would make it trivial for people to see their game. Instead, Apple gives you something to show they're trying, "honest, guv" - but in ebbs and flows, only when pushed, and slower than everyone else despite being the most profitable company on the block.
To be honest, nobody would really care how many releases they push or how many features they push, if only they let other browsers compete on iOS. But they don't; so they carry a responsibility to be at the forefront of standards and look absolutely beyond reproach - which, at the moment, is not the case.
Look, the difference is glaringly obvious: Microsoft brought front-end development to a standstill for five long years. Apple has not. Apple has continued to add features, standards support, and interoperability bug fixes year after year like clockwork.
This isn’t a matter of nuance. This isn’t Apple being “smarter”. Apple fundamentally has not done what Microsoft did in any way, shape, or form. The two situations are extremely dissimilar.
We tried this at work at the time. They absolutely did not work fine. The best I can say about them is that they ran, mostly.
That's also what Amazon does, except with everything.
It's terrible what Apple is doing, but is peanuts compared to what Amazon does.
The ideal would probably be what Steve envisioned before the AppStore was a thing and that's basically PWAs. But I think it's been alleged that Apple is arbitrarily nerfing Safari to prevent PWAs on iOS running as well as native applications -- though I've no source.
How to effectively "disrupt" the appstore model is a billion dollar question I'm not sure of. What I do know is that the Tim Sweeny's et al of the world are hypocrites in that they just want to create their own rent-seeking AppStores and charge their own commissions and skirt around paying the platform anything for being on the platform. This is akin to wanting to be in a supermarket and put your kiosk inside and sell your product to the supermarket's customers without some sort of financial agreement between you and the supermarket.
The courts don't take stuff like "social compliance" into account when evaluating something like the iPhone, so it all looks rosy. In reality, it's incredibly difficult to be a social young person in the US without an iPhone. Which naturally spreads to families becoming "iPhone families".
All of it just comes down to messaging though.
Ostensibly this 30% cut is supposed to prevent things like this from happening, as Apple argues it uses that money to keep the App Store clean from fraudulent or misrepresenting apps, among other things. There is a much touted “review” process that is supposed to be partially funded by the 30% cut.
So if that isn’t really happening, what, pray tell, is that 30% going towards? It isn’t making the App Store a better experience
We're talking about the wealthiest company in the world who can obviously afford to run out the clock on the court system and bury an opponent with legal fees. There's a monster difference of offensive capabilities, even if we realize that Epic is a sizeable company; in this case, Epic is really standing in for every other tiny company or one-man shop in the App Store, and we should thank them for doing that.
>make a few people who already have everything even richer.
I do wonder what percentage of Apple stock is owned by pension funds and the like, i.e. The Regular Person, once you unwind the levels of indirection (mutual funds, index funds, ETFs, etc). It is surely a double digit percentage, but high, low? No idea.
Pretty high. The S&P 500 has ~7% apple stock which means many peoples retirement accounts have several percentage points of apple stock.
If you had $1,000 invested in Apple around ten years ago (a reasonable amount in a retirement fund), you'd have made around another $8,500 by now.
While if you'd spent $1,000 on apps and subscriptions over 10 years, Apple would have taken $300.
So Apple would take $300 of your money from one hand and give you back $8500 with the other.
That's a difference almost 3x larger than the difference you suggested... but in the opposite direction!
Their anti-developer/consumer moves are worthy of backlash, especially since Apple isn't likely going to change their positions without enough of it.
It's funny but since the rise of the iPhone I feel like society has gone straight downhill, not that they have been the only player in the smartphone game, but they sure have profited well, are the biggest drain in the industry to the home developers that contribute to their ecosystem. They pay 0 tax and aren't contributing to the better of society through computing while convincing half the population they are protecting them, etc. It's a scam.
Like many large corporations, they aren't ANY better and will plead that it is due to 'competition' while being ahead of the food chain and able to lead in any way they choose.
You're welcome to project general failings of society onto the emergence of the iPhone (but not Android because Google maybe isn't nearly as evil I mean it's in their motto). And there's tons of hype and fanboyism associated with their products. But they are good products. After ditching Windows back in 2008, I've haven't yet had a compelling reason to switch OSes again in my career as a software engineer. Their higher-end devices are absurdly priced but my employer buys them for me, maybe that's why.
What's incredible is how people waste their tiny amount of personal energy defending their exploitation by a corporation that has vastly more resources than them and objectively does not need their help.
Apple is probably the poster child for effectively using marketing to brainwash their customers into identifying with them in a cult-like manner. That cult was close to the only thing sustaining them through the 90s.
I think Apple is wrong, but I don't think they're wrong because they're successful - in fact I think saying Apple is wrong because they're successful is against the concept of objective reality and not appropriate for HN.
The idea that Apple are wrong because they're successful is the same awful thinking that advocates for violence or systemic discrimination against people based on their skin color (because they're considered 'successful') and is abhorrent.
Nobody here is trying to help Apple by posting on HN. They're just discussing their viewpoints on how Apple operates and its policies around taking commission on purchases. That's what this entire message board is about - talking about tech and the like.
If they're wasting their time by posting in defense of Apple, you're doing the exact same thing with your response - neither is going to have any actual impact on the world, so either posting is a waste of energy or it's not. There's no valid argument that posting in defense of Apple is a waste of energy but posting attacks on Apple is a useful and productive thing to do.
An alternative view values human freedom and autonomy. From this perspective the size of an organization is relevant - a large enough organization can impose its will on individuals who don't wish to associate with it.
Neither viewpoint is wrong, but acting as if the one you prefer is somehow more correct or objective is.
Claiming that Apple is "stealing" their cut of commission is definitely wrong.
That is some choice rhetoric with a particular bias, but not a distinct point of view from people arguing for freedom and autonomy for Apple’s business practices.
The corporation is a legal fiction, but it’s still human owned, operated, and staffed, and reflects the millions (billions?) of choices that get made by individuals working together to accomplish whatever it is the corporation does. In Apple’s case, that gestalt includes running the App Store at a price to developers that they see fit who choose to do business with them.
I think rhetorically "..who choose to do business with them" is doing a lot more work than anything I wrote. Once an organization reaches a certain size individuals start losing meaningful choice in how they interact with it. You can say that the "gestalt" will of the organization is more important, but you can't make other people concede that their point of view is merely a rhetorical stance.
> I think rhetorically "..who choose to do business with them" is doing a lot more work than anything I wrote.
Dude, we’re talking about iPhone apps at the end of the day. When you’re at the level where you write iPhone apps for a living, you and your employer made your choices. If you’re only writing iPhone software in a way that generates income for you because somebody has a gun to your head, then first, I’m sorry, that’s really messed up and hang in there, but at that point in your life, your first concern probably isn’t Apple’s cut.
> Once an organization reaches a certain size individuals start losing meaningful choice in how they interact with it.
If you were talking about a sovereign nation with a standing army or maybe even a corporation with a standing army, or just a City’s police department, you might have a point here. In this discussion, we’re talking about Apple, and not all of Apple mind you, but specifically about Apple’s developer program and App Store policies.
> but you can't make other people concede that their point of view is merely a rhetorical stance.
Pointing out rhetoric isn’t for the benefit of the practitioner, it’s for the benefit of anyone else who comes across it.
The people who think Apple is evil because of their size are simply not systems thinkers. They have an illogical view of the world in which the little guy is always right simply because they are the little guy, and thus the big guy must be wrong. It's very similar to the Amerika thing you said. If you don't think about the system Apple or America operates in, it's really easy to hate them.
Which is not to say one can't be a systems thinker and still think this was a bad decision or that Apple is given too much power or does things that are unethical or bad for consumers or whatever else. I totally concur that the government should require Apple and Google to allow sideloading, payments they're not involved in, etc BECAUSE I am thinking about the system and how having two corporations own the device our world runs on is a bad one. And how there's essentially no way for governments to mandate a third viable mobile OS into existence.
But the people who say "I can't believe you'd side with Apple" phrase it that way because they are not thinking of the system. They're thinking small. They think making ad-hoc decisions about individuals within the system is appropriate because they can't think any bigger. If they could, they'd lay out the argument as I just did (and, as many, many people in here did too) or something that was less about the individual.
There's been a lot of this on display (not so much here) in what people say about the whole Israel/Hamas situation too. It's not so much what they say (systems thinkers don't agree anymore than anyone else) but how they say it that tips it off.
True.
> All they do is steal 30% from society that could be used for more productive purposes than make a few people who already have everything even richer.
I'm old enough to have developed software before the App Store existed, and remember that everyone was very excited both buy it finally being introduced to iOS, and by the relatively low fees of only 30%.
You're free to argue that 30% is too high, or even that the 15% for small developers is too high, that this is rent-seeking by Apple and only made sense when they were also a small company… but I think this is also true for the businesses trying to convince everyone that it matters, and I think they would like to charge the same sticker price while collecting the difference for themselves.
30% is low compared to what? Mafia extortion rates?
The payment processor (cheapest PayPal (U.S. Accounts), most expensive American Express/Optima International[0]) and marketplace (Kagi[0]) fees were on top of that hosting fee, and cost anywhere from (1.9 to 5.0)% + $0.30 (payment provider) plus 2.5% + $1 (market place for ≤$25), which makes those two items combined also more than 30% for any item sold for less than $5.08-5.77.
Hosting fees are of course cheaper today, more so when bulk bought (I think more than enough to compensate for games today getting into the 100GB range when my shareware was 10s of MB).
I'd hope that payment providers are also.
But at the time, it looked amazing.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20090903044400/http://www.kagi.c...
Apple hosts the apps, doesn't charge devs or customers anything for bandwidth used when downloading them. At the time the store launched, this was a big part of my overall costs, which Apple covered in full from their take.
> The app store seemed to be more or less a ripoff of Facebook's (now long defunct) app store, back when Facebook was a web-based app-of-apps, and AFAIK Facebook apps were free plugins.
I forgot that ever existed, so I searched for it. Looks like FB's was announced about 4 years after Apple's App Store?
But it doesn’t allow developers to host the apps themselves, so they are being forced to pay for a service they don’t need.
I could also go the other way and say that being tax-like is good for the same reason actual taxes are good: that it gets spent on building up an economic environment from which others can profit (at this point one would then want to retort something about democratic values).
But as I'm not hugely interested in defending a trillion dollar company (just giving a historical perspective that 30% was, when it was first announced, an improvement over the status quo), I say that if anyone feels the world has changed enough this is no longer good, it is good to call for change — companies may not be democracies, but the nations they operate in generally are.
GitHub Pages sites are subject to the following usage limits:
* GitHub Pages source repositories have a recommended limit of 1 GB. For more information, see "About large files on GitHub"
* Published GitHub Pages sites may be no larger than 1 GB.
* GitHub Pages deployments will timeout if they take longer than 10 minutes.
* GitHub Pages sites have a soft bandwidth limit of 100 GB per month.
* GitHub Pages sites have a soft limit of 10 builds per hour. This limit does not apply if you build and publish your site with a custom GitHub Actions workflow
In order to provide consistent quality of service for all GitHub Pages sites, rate limits may apply. These rate limits are not intended to interfere with legitimate uses of GitHub Pages. If your request triggers rate limiting, you will receive an appropriate response with an HTTP status code of 429, along with an informative HTML body.
If your site exceeds these usage quotas, we may not be able to serve your site, or you may receive a polite email from GitHub Support suggesting strategies for reducing your site's impact on our servers, including putting a third-party content distribution network (CDN) in front of your site, making use of other GitHub features such as releases, or moving to a different hosting service that might better fit your needs."""
- https://docs.github.com/en/pages/getting-started-with-github...
I managed to use 25 GB in a month for games that were less than 5 MB(!) each (shareware model, so more downloads than sales), and that was for something generating mere hobby-level income, not full time job replacement income.
(But this is rather beside the point, I've been trying to repeatedly make it clear that I was defending the initial value proposition when the App Store was new and shiny and Apple were mere upstarts, not the ongoing one where the corporation's market cap is approximately the same as the net value of the entire country I was born in).
Go back and watch the keynote. Developers cheered because 30% was so much lower than any other stores available at the time.
You could try to argue that Apple give more value by supporting longer, but then again you would be completely wrong (some hardware manufacturer are not super good at supporting their stuff for the very long term, but windows in itself has a support timeline way beyond anything Apple ever did...)
If you have an app tomorrow that sells for $10 to 10k people you owe Apple $30k, now you manage to up your price to $30, same work same size same everything, but suddenly you now owe Apple $90k ? That's called a tax, not a fee.
Doing so wouldn't stop apple from having a separate, "pay 30% all inclusive" fee, and it wouldn't stop them from "if your app is free you have no fee" (beside the xcode sub fee).
Apple didn’t invent a marketplace.
Please have a look how other online and offline marketplaces work and how they monetize access.
You can look at anything from Salesforce, Shopify, to Microsoft, Epic Store, PlayStation and your local Target store.
Hint - it’s not a flat fee structure.
But as a user I'm able to buy my pc games, my groceries or my music from another store. Apple prohibits me from doing that.
"Excessive" or "monopolistic", if you like, but not really a tax.
And the thing is, 30% cut is pointless for Steam. They have more money than they could ever spend. There is no budget at Valve. They just spend whatever they want and do what they want.
They rob hardworking small developers of real money that they need to support themselves all so billionaire Gabe N can enjoy the extreme excess of his valve palace
The rest of your comment is baffling to me.
I assume you're neither a shareholder or employee of Steam.
But you count their money, you decide for them that their own money is pointless to them, you somehow know how much money they earn, and based on that make assumption it's more than they could ever spend (even though you admit yourself there is no budget at Valve).
And how long is "ever" in "than they could ever spend"? 1 year? 5 years? 20 years? 100 years?
I very much dislike people who count other people's money, I don't know if it's their own jealousy or greediness. But you on top of that also somehow came to the conclusion that their own money is pointless to them, and then accuse them of robbing people.
And this is about marketplace for PC games, a wild west of side-loading and land of free for all.
But somehow Steam is robbing developers.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You should double check your sources because you fell for low-effort low-intelligence fake journalism. What Sweeney said was that 12% was not viable in developing countries due to high finance costs. https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/109102593910919987...
You dislike people who count private profit margins?
I dislike low-information consumers who simp for corporations based on literal fake news.
Be better, shame on you.
Epic Game Store is unprofitable and losing money. There were financial documents released in Epic vs Apple about Epic Game Store becoming possibly profitable in a few years and accumulating 1 billion loss before the end of this decade.
> You dislike people who count private profit margins?
I like how you honestly believe that saying "% cut is pointless for Steam", "they have more money than they could ever spend", "they just spend whatever they want and do what they want", "they rob ... so billionaire Gabe N can enjoy the extreme excess of his valve palace" is counting profit margins.
To bring you back to reality, you're not counting profit margins, because you have no access to their financials. You're making stuff up and talking emotional nonsense like you have a personal grudge and accuse other people and companies of robbing people.
edit: can't reply to your comment below. wishing you all the best with your future trap laying for incompetent repliers
Steam's 30% is still a huge improvement on the overhead involved in brick and mortar physical sales. But if a developer doesn't want to pay the 30% they can always sell their game from their own website - and some do[1]. Most developers seem to think that the 30% is worth it though.
[1] https://fractalsoftworks.com/preorder/
Edit: Something I neglected to make explicit is that the PC is an open platform. If you don't want to sell through Steam you have tons of other options, including self-publishing. If you want to get your game on a PS5 or an iPhone, you have to go through Sony or Apple and they take a similar cut of your revenue.
It's up to the people who created these marketplaces to charge what they feel is fair and/or financially sustainable for the value they provide.
If it wasn't worth it for the sellers, these marketplaces wouldn't exist today.
But they do, and they thrive.
If you have a secret sauce how to build a sustainable billion people marketplace after spending billions on it without charging sellers access to your customers, please do it and show the world how it should be done.
> Apple prohibits me from doing that
Yes, because that's their product, their philosophy and the experience they want their customers to have.
And they do that for 15 years already.
You knew that and still bought the iPhone. As have hundreds of millions of others.
And it still is one of the most popular, highest rated consumer devices in the world for over a decade.
So it's not a deal breaker for consumers, is it?
Is a flat fee structure?
Basic: $39/mo
Shopify: $105/mo
Advanced: $399/mo
We can take them all down. We should. Doesn't matter if it's Valve or Steam or Google or whoever. It's only better for consumers and clearly we've let it slide to the point where even us usually cynical HN peeps are apparently willing to defend this predatory and anti-consumer behaviour.
Personally I don't like these practices -- it's all cuz of the walled garden, locked down aspect of it all. But luckily I'm also free to continue avoiding the heck out of Apple devices. They make nice hardware so that sucks that I miss out on that, but I'll take the trade off that I get to install whatever apps I want on this here Android phone of mine.
I hate Apple like the next enlightened guy, but then banks and credit card companies should also charge a flat fee for their services. This isn't the case and probably never will be, however. But their fee is much more reasonable than Apple's fee.
If I'm selling content, why couldn't I give customer the choice between:
- Paying the 30% Apple cut and benefiting from everything you like about this
- Buying directly, cheaper, without Apple cut (or maybe with a tiny cut if that make any sense, removing only 3pt is a joke)
They spent billions on hardware, software, R&D, marketing and operations.
Why would they give another business a free access to a billion of their customers?
You want to earn money of Apple's customers? Then pay Apple a revenue share of the money you get from their customers.
That's how pretty much any marketplace works in the world.
From your local Target to Salesforce/Shopify/PlayStation/Epic Store/Steam/etc.
You always have the option to not buy a ford, or not buy an iPhone.
The question with the App Store is, are customers allowed to choose?
Even taking your second part as given without addressing the actual complexity here: then how about you accomplish that FIRST? Because I've heard a lot of "we'll break this hack that makes things work suboptimally but better than nothing and then fix it properly in law later" over the decades and 99% of the time it breaks the hack and then surprise surprise never ever gets the "fixed in law" part, leaving us worse off without the gain. I'm all in favor of passing some laws in this area that'd accomplish stuff more efficient with fewer perverse incentives on all sides. I'd like to see users have the option by law to control their root key stores, to require standard secure APIs for subscriptions so that multiple 3rd parties can offer central management and users can cancel without any interaction with what they're subscribing to, for long basic price linked warranties required by law, local use and ad free data control options by law, but also for manufacturers/devs to be protected by default from liability etc. It'd be great to fix a whole lot of stuff.
But until that happy day happens I'm less inclined to just mindlessly bash down what we have and a lot of people are pretty happy with and seems to have struck an ok if far from ideal compromise. I mean, killing upgrades alone makes me hate the app store, but still fix first.
People are upset that developers are forced to use that product, and now with this news: pay an extortion fee on a 3p transaction that doesn’t concern Apple.
> All they do is steal 30% from society that could be used for more productive purposes than make a few people who already have everything even richer.
Kind of an odd take. They take a cut because they provide a service. They are not stealing. I guess lump me in with the defending apple crowd if you want to but to think they would or should charge nothing for their service feels... silly.
can you imagine if selling a replacement bulb for a ford headlight required you to pay 30% to ford.
only in tech can this be considered fair.
Yes it’s not software and yes the tiny company is not single-person company. But that really doesn’t change the situation (well except for you being seemingly personally affected). You can call this situation unfair and say that it _should_ not exist. But reality just disagrees with your assessment that it _does_ not exist. At least as far as I can see. Feel free to explain the difference that I’m missing.
And just for completeness sake: this isn’t even unique in software. Distribution commissions were usually in that order of magnitude. Even for less service and reach
Steam deck recommends you purchase the official steam dock but they don't prevent you, nor do they take a cut of, 3rd party docks that interface with the steam deck.
only in tech would someone argue they should be entitled to a cut of that transaction because they _sold_ the original hardware to the user.
You can even install apps like altstore on iphones.
We should own our own computers
A great example that highlights this absurdity is vehicle ownership - imagine if Tesla announced tomorrow that they are actually a "transportation platform" and started charging Uber drivers a percentage of their revenue, or Mazda found out about the weekend race you did in a Miata and is demanding a cut of the winnings.
Businesses would love perfect price discrimination in every context (because profits!), but is not clear to me how that is a desirable state for humanity.
They could do this. It would just result in people being upset and likely no longer using their products.
I don't think it makes a ton of sense to compare a store or marketplace to hardware though? Every marketplace I know of takes a cut of items purchased through their store. Or they buy their items upfront and then take all the revenue of the sale.
The issue really shouldnt be that a cut is taken, it should be the amount or letting developers create alternative ways to download apps. Having an issue with someone taking a cut of revenue generated for products purchased on their platform just doesnt make a lot of sense.
I don't know exactly how every store works but doesnt every digital store, and non digital store, take a cut of what they sell?
I agree with the fact that we should own our own computers but you do own your iphone. You can jailbreak it and do whatever you want with it. You can even sideload apps, like altstore, through an incredible tedious process.
It sucks that Apple doesnt make this easier to do but that is another topic... Right?
Alternatively charge 30% but be forced to allow side-installing Apps. That way developers can decide if they want the convenience and reach of the AppStore or not.
Yes this exactly
I don't care whether they charge 10%, 30%, or 100%
I do care that there's no alternative to NOT using their services & paying their fee
None of what you said matters. It does not matter how much money a company makes or if you personally think they're charging too much for a service. They're allowed to. The open question is if they're in a position where there's no reasonable alternative for developers and/or consumers which you can make a strong case for. That line of argument would not be affected at all by how much money Apple makes, their cut or if they're spending their money in a socially productive way.
The fact that this is the second highest upvoted comment is a rather sad datapoint on issues related to internet based conversation where opinions consistently trump fact or reason.
Ah yes, loan sharks are perfectly legitimate businessmen too, then.
> The fact that this is the second highest upvoted comment is a rather sad datapoint
I personally find sadder that there are people who just rationalize away the utter lack of morality in modern capitalism. "Why screw others? Because we can! Woot!" is even worse than "greed is good".
We used to be taught that one of the Bad Elements of feudal life was that the local lord could impose arbitrary taxes to use a road or a bridge, with no recourse for people and tradesmen. Now we are at the same point in the digital world.
Apples argument, which has legally worked so far, is the competition is at the ecosystem level. The iPhone and App Store are all parts of the whole. If someone doesn't like they can go to a competing ecosystem. Think game console, not computer.
Imagine buying a house, and having to ask to the original builder for permission to buy wardrobes, or a fridge, a table and chairs. The builder can tell you what he does or does not allow, and takes a cut of every purchase you make. It's a ludicrous proposition, but that's very much how our digital life currently is.
In Apple's case there are no reasonable alternatives and no practical way to say "no" to the service if you want any business at all. That and that alone should be the issue at hand. What Apple is doing should not be legal on that ground. Either they allow third party stores, or they adjust their cut to a level that can reasonably argued is aligned with the value they're adding to the publisher of that app or service. Now they're in "we can charge whatever because we're the only route to getting your product on Apple products" land, and that's just not where we want to be.
But that's not the topic at hand, and strawmanning one problem by pulling in another is just lazy. Ruling on this will not just affect Apple but any company with a similar modus operandi in the future, including smaller more ethical companies. Why people have trouble keeping legislative challenges (what you can do) and moral challenges (what you should do) apart is beyond me. You can have more than one opinion in your head at the same time.
For someone lamenting the state of discourse on the internet, you seem to have a problem with avoiding ad-hominems. You also seem to rabidly post multiple items at speed. Please calm down and refrain.
> Ruling on this will not just affect Apple but any company with a similar modus operandi in the future,
Absolutely - and absolutely, anyone creating a digital platform should be forced to follow better rules than what we have at the moment. The market alone will produce exploitative monopolies, and this is what we're seeing with Apple. If the letter of current antitrust laws doesn't touch them, the spirit definitely does.
> Why people have trouble keeping legislative challenges (what you can do) and moral challenges (what you should do) apart
Because it's in the cracks between those concepts that Bad Things for society tend to happen; which is why we have laws to reconcile them where the market fails to do so on its own. In this case, we have large companies effectively establishing exploitative and feudal relationships with smaller businesses and consumers, extracting parasitical rents. This is a Bad Thing and should be fixed.
Including your other comment:
> And yes, loan sharks are legitimate businessmen in the US.
No, they are not. You need licenses to lend money in the US, and to get those you have to follow extensive rules and regulations put in place precisely to make it illegal to be a loan shark. Some businesses get close to the limits of such rules (payday loans etc), and that is a political item - precisely because they get very close to be something that is Bad for society.
> if you want to change it vote for people that can turn that into law
Absolutely, and people do. EU representatives are running with this, and Apple is slowly being subject to more and more scrutiny (together with Google, Amazon, and anyone else with a digital marketplace). People understand that what these businesses are doing is Bad for society in the long run, so if they can't reign themselves in on their own, they will have to be reigned in by the law.
If the EU DMA does eventually force them to open the platform to competing stores it’s going to be very hard to defend the different policies in different markets, especially as I assume Epic will push aggressively to have Fortnite and the Epic Games store on iOS in those markets as early as possible to force the conversation.
However...
> All they do is steal 30% from society that could be used for more productive purposes than make a few people who already have everything even richer.
If you're gonna argue that, you have to inspect the edges of this position. Are you willing to let go of your own shares? Or the interest on your pension (or equivalent), which comes via the roughly the same route you're arguing against. If you own your own company, do you share most/all profits with your staff (rather than pay a wage), or your shareholders? This is all wrapped up together.
IMO, To make such a claim, you need really to argue against the system these "rich people" operate in as much, if not more than, the individual cases.
This is not the same, there a degrees of unethical behavior. We should collectively try to give more meaning to these degrees instead of jumping to first principles.
Taking your example, there is a difference between taking a cut or underpaying your staff or severely underpaying them or perhaps not paying them at all or perhaps forced labor or perhaps outright slavery.
It is no surprise that people will come to the defense of this giant when you stop to consider this. Apple doesn't have to care about them, it already has.
I am of the opinion that there should be some sort of disclosure of financial interest.
Even if you are not invested in public equity markets, you can be exposed to them via local and state government’s pension fund investments, because if those do not perform as projected, then your taxes have to make up for it.
The investments people have in Apple are often insignificant compared to the rest of their income or wealth.
Also, buying shares in the public market is like a bet. Instead of changing your opinion to agree with the bet you could simply bet the other way. Or you could bet that your own political activism will fail. Betting on an outcome doesn't mean you prefer that outcome. It can also be hedging.
The people who really do have something riding on Apple's success are employees getting stock options. And yes, I would also like to know whether someone is an Apple employee when they are commenting on these subjects.
Developers are affected by Apple's policies and success in very complex ways and can legitimately take either side on these questions.
Disclosure: I have an app in the App Store that made me ~£100 in the previous fiscal year. I also have £3000 in a NASDAQ 100 ETF. Apple's share of that is ~£270.
Please note that I was not paid by Apple to write the comment above.
I beg to differ. As a blind user relying on accessibility, Apple was actually the first company that decided that accessibility should be an inherent part of the OS, not just an expensive add-on. Since the iPhone, blind users can just buy the product and turn speech output on, without having to install expensive extra software as was the case with Windows, for instance.
So keep your generic accusations for yourself, they are far from correct.
If cutting it was a way to generate high profit, finance and shareholders would probably ask for this to be removed quickly. For instance, in the last vote they refused assessments on social and environmental issues.
I'm not hating Apple for this, they play the game the way it's supposed to be. Let's not be delusional about their intents, that could hurt you.
I did not because I don't know.
Known then as Access Utility for Windows 2.0, the program improved the accessibility of Windows for people who are deaf, hard of hearing, or who have limited dexterity"
It's incredible to me that people arguing against apple here don't realise that they're arguing to allow another billion dollar company to do what they want, and that their own opinion is the only one that could possibly be valid
If you want an open ecosystem with alternative app stores, head on over to Android. The value of iOS to me is the app store and related ecosystem.
I'll just tell all my potential customers to buy a new phone before buying my app. That'll work.
The line of thinking you're expressing here is what leads to questioning free speech and privacy absolutism.
Steal? What you want the App store to be free and become the Android Play Store which is utter garbage and hostile against small and mid developers?
In conclusion "Information wants to be free."
(I agree that the 30% is probably bad for society though)
Apple restricts third parties almost entirely through technical measures.
Jailbreaking to bypass the technical measures is legal.
Looks like the lawsuit was settled not decided, and Apple is free to sue it's next victim.
Of course they care about you. They hope you are healthy and in a good shape so you can work more to earn more money and give them their share.
I think it’s also kinda weird to label Apple as a monopoly unless you mean a monopoly on revenues. They seem to actively swerve away from getting over 50% share of anything.
If BMW sell 10 cars with $1 margin, Jaguar sell 5 cars with $2 margin, and Ferrari sell 2 cars with $40 margin, the latter took home 80% of profits with 11% marketshare. Then Ferrari just work their hardest to make sure that their customers cannot change car without a lot of effort, effectively coopting (or rather enslaving) them forever.
That keeps antitrust law at bay in practice, while egregiously breaking it in spirit.
Of course everything improved massively after the plague. So it depends on which part of the middle ages we're talking about.
They should build it and you should just get it for free.
Is 30% reasonable? Should there be some taper once your app is in maintenance mode? No, and yes.
I don’t see any reason from either side of this argument frankly. They’ve built a wonderful think that provides immense value, and we all benefit.
They should be more flexible in their pricing model, and you should understand that actual people spent hundreds of thousands of hours of their lives to deliver it to you, and charging for that isn’t stealing.
We should put out an open letter to Apple that we will collectively ignore that product until it contains more favourable terms.
"a few people" being everyone with a retirement plan, 401k or any equivalent around the world, i.e. the vast majority of people in developed countries
if anything, taking from smaller companies to give to megacorps is a net benefit for "the common man", since the former will generally belong to founders/VCs/private equity in which they have no stake, and the latter are owned by everyone with exposure to the MSCI World :)
This thread is dedicated to Apple's own wrongdoings. If Google does nasty things, that doesn't mean Apple should get a pass.
Most people here care about consumers, not about companies, especially about monopolistic companies.
Consumers don’t care about the fees developers pay.
But sure, for Android topics they get off lighter because devs do technically have F-Droid as an option, or simply hosting an APK on version control for user s to find. There are ways to get around Google's barriers even if they have a steep financial penalty. Apple gives no official way without voiding your warranty (I don't even think rooting your Android these days void you).
They are important apps, but they are relatively few that go that far.
I've never come across a company that instills that sort of blind faith in its users.
My personal stance is I don't trust any of these companies and will come to threads to be informed about whatever privacy/security/monopoly practices these companies are trying to bypass/do this week for their own profit. I have no allegiance, they're all as bad as each other. In my experience apple is able to do more and gets criticised less.
A recent example was Google implementing something in chrome apple had implemented ages ago in safari. You actually had people saying is was ok for Apple to do it but not Google.
They defend their choices. But do that in an almost religious way.
And is not something that is particular to Apple. Try to criticize Under Armour or New Balance in front of someone wearing it.
The main difference is that most people use one of the google products directly or indirectly, regardless of their attitude towards the company.
In comparison it is easier to not use Apple products if you don't like the company.
And thus people like you who own an Apple device feel targeted for their choice of using Apple and thus see it as more aggressive and powerful. It is as simple as that. You can find this pattern in every kind of domain, I see people replying with anger and/or passion to any criticism on their car, motorbike or bicycle brands. They naturally feel compelled to defend their brand of choice because they actually feel targeted as owner of it, because it feels like their own discernment is targeted indirectly.
True. But regardless if the commenter is right or wrong, anger is not the proper answer. If the commenter is right, you have some thinking to do. If he's not, you shouldn't care.
I'm being glib, here, but I think that's a fairly normal effect. If people's opinions about something are generally pretty boring, average, and uncontroversial, few people will feel the need to stir the pot and adopt extreme views.
But seeing others unquestioningly, unapologetically drooling over something, without allowing any sort of criticism, just eats at some people so much that they need to adopt the completely opposite position and find any reason to brutally criticize.
Human nature is weird.
Google's 30% isn't the only option on Android. Apple's 30% is the only option on iOS.
Regardless, Google gets plenty of flak here for a variety of things, including how they run the Play Store.
I doubt existence of F-Droid is even a drop in the bucket of fee savings for those developers on Android. Otherwise, Google would do something about it to get their cut.
Unfortunately, many corporations only leave the choice of Windows or Macos. Open source operating systems are treated like 3rd class passengers..
https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
I don’t like what apple is doing here, and am not inclined to defend it.
However, I am inclined to complain about this type of rhetoric. If invalid criticism are being made, it is appropriate to correct those criticisms, even if the criticisms being made are criticisms of some vile person or organization.
Apple stock is the most widely held stock by American 401k's and forms the basis of retirement investments for middle class Americans more than any other stock
This is how all businesses work. If there was no way to make profit then businesses would not exist. Apple spent billions of dollars creating an app platform with a clear monetization model that did not get in the way of them accumulating a lot of valuable apps and users. Developers are not forced to make apps for the platform nor are users forced to use the app platform. Other app platforms can impose lower fees and developers are free to release exclusively on those platforms if they wish. Apple hopes that the developers willing to tolerate the 15/30% fee for what the developer gets in return will be good enough to make their app platform competitive to users compared to others.
It's not just defending a trillion dollar company, it is defending the right to set your own prices.
My bank generates revenue by offering me a service in return for my money, not by monopolizing access to my money and then charging people who want to sell to me for the honour of allowing me to buy their goods and services.
Very few companies that I deal with as a consumer have similar business practices, and the ones that do, like Visa and Mastercard, is also something I think should be cracked down upon.
There are many things the EU messes up in my opinion, but cracking down on this clearly immoral business practices is not one of those as it aligns 100% with my morals even though I'm incredibly pro "free" market (i.e. pro minimally regulated market, as every person who has ever been pro "free market" is).
Well, maybe Apple should open a bank. You just gave them ideas. :)
I don't want their platform forced down my throat. On my PC I can download and install software from wherever I see fit. Had I not being a MacBook Pro user for the time being, I would have a chance to upgrade RAM and SSD without paying twice on the damn device.
If anything, I consider Apple being an anti consumer company. What is good for them, is not good for the end user.
That being said, their devices do have some advantages.
Battery life.
> I would have a chance to upgrade RAM and SSD without paying twice on the damn device.
>> what made you decide to buy a Mac
> Battery life.
When you made the choice to buy your MacBook because of the better battery life were you at any point lied to about the disadvantages?
Additionally, if you're not aware the RAM on SOC is a fundamental tradeoff because of physics. Hardwiring it into the SOC is a BIG part of the battery life improvements that you have stated you prefer.
As a consumer the whole point of buying a computer is to get access to its app platform. It's not forced down your throat it just inherently is a part of the device's identity.
Without an app platform there would exist no software.
>I have a macbook and barely use the apple store.
The app platform is more than just the store. If you can install an app without the apple store, that app has to be able to run and actually do stuff somehow. The way it is able to run is the app platform.
>If they prevent me from running any software apart from through their platform
If you do not want to run software using Apple's hardware and Apple's software then Apple is effectively out of the picture. Apple won't prevent you from running apps on a different app platform like Android.
In capitalism 101, Apple created a market and a shop, so they can set the rules. If they demanded too much, developers would move away, their venture would collapse, iPhones would become less popular, etc.
I think you’ll find that selling ice cream at Disney theme parks similarly is expensive for ice cream vendors. They’ll either demand a cut on revenues or charge a lot for the right to sell stuff, and be picky about who can sell what at their venues.
Large retail companies such as Walmart won’t technically take a cut if you want them to sell your product, but they’ll negotiate lower prices from you, require you to take back any unsold inventory, etc.
In summary: ‘we’ currently allow all kinds of huge companies to play by different rules than small companies and individuals.
For me, the main issue is whether iOS needs special handling because of its success, and if so, what special handling.
The first, for me, is “yes”; smartphones are different enough from theme parks, Xbox and Walmart to handle them differently. The second I’m less sure about.
For example, yes, I’d like to have the option to side-load stuff, but also think Apple should have control over what their iPhone product stands for.
They currently ban apps selling drugs, for example. Requiring them to support third party stores that may have such apps might harm the image of their iPhone product. Because of that, I think we should allow them (but not necessarily be happy with) to put up a firm warning whenever you try to install a third party app store, even though that would put them on unequal footing with Apple’s store.
Maybe, the best solution would be to make Apple’s App Store a non-profit with a monopoly on selling iOS apps, with Apple keeping the right to specify what can and cannot be sold there (keeping that a true non-profit would be hard, though. Some non-profits manage to hoard lots of money over time, their CEO’s ‘deserve’ large salaries, etc)
It amazes me that people would rather force apple to open up through dubious court cases than simply buy a different device.
Put GrapheneOS on your phone(s) and Qubes OS on PC(s), and you have the world's two most secure and owner-respecting operating systems in existence today!!!! :^)
I'd like to quote a passage from Reamde by Neal Stephenson: "So what are you going to do?" Yuxia asked. "Maybe tag along. Like escorting a drunk president home after a long night in the bar." "Didn't you say you had to make a phone call?" "I have been trained by the United States government," Seamus said, "to do more than one thing at a time."
Every single platform out there is a dumpster fire of fraudulent and abusive software and products aggressively pushed by deception with every trick or vulnerability they can find exploited.
The App Store works just fine for me as a user as is. I don’t care at all what software you want to install on my phone or what access you feel entitled to.
Not everything you pay money for is comparable to taxes.
In the EU this is happening on both fronts:
- The GDPR has Android phone manufacturers to ask consent for different ways of using your data and being able to remove data. This is starting to work, on a Samsung phone Samsung/Google will ask you separate consent for using your data for diagnostics, ad targeting, etc. It's not perfect yet, but regulatory pressure is giving people privacy back.
- The DMA will force Apple to allow side-loading and alternative payment methods without taking a cut.
Once this has all played out, we'll still have a duopoly, but at least users and third-party developers are better protected.
Sorry but that’s not a society I want to continue living in.
There needs to be strict regulations and maybe apple needs to be broken up. Owning the hardware and App Store has already shown have abusive they can be. They need to divest or spin off one of them into a new company or we can pressure politicians to do this for us.
That is the equivalent of telling someone who doesn't like the current dictator to "go live in the desert".
Remember: I did not bring up the bad analogy. Someone abusing their quasi-monopolistic position to charge high fees is not the same as a tax. This was the point of my post. And sure we can pretend it is the same and bend reality till it fits, but that seems to me more like an idological expedition, than an insightful exploration.
Just because you don’t like the options doesn’t mean it’s not voting.
Here the voting audience will be split in different paths which will all continue to exist, and a person changing his mind will have to leave behind things HE/SHE accumulated and contributed on this path.
If that would be like democratic voting, it would mean that if you decide to change your vote from one election to the other, you have to return your entire income and acquisitions you made during the ruling of this party, to start building your life again on the other path (--> "if you don't like it, go live in the desert")
Actually it is. How do I stop paying taxes, if not by living in the desert?
And this is the point that should be made more often IMO — App Stores (and Apple bing one of the first ones) have democratized software development by making the barrier of entry extremely low. Anyone with some talent or idea can go and write an app, without any additional financial risk. App Store is based around sharing your success. The relatively few successful devs carry the costs to keep that barrier of entry low to everyone. And I really don't want that to change.
On a serious notes, what are the alternatives? What exactly is your argument? That Apple should be charging nothing? Ok, then they also shouldn't be providing any services. You want to do distribution or payment processing? Take care of it yourself. Epic would love this of course, Joe the indie developer instead is dead in the water. Or are you arguing that Apple is charging too much? Well, there are solutions to that as well. They could charge for services individually for example, but that again hurts the small developer, because trying out things starts costing them money.
Frankly, my idea would be to split the App Store into a separate commercial entity and make it nonprofit. I am sympathetic to the argument that the Store itself is not a product but is used to support and create value for Apple's ecosystem. I do think that the devs should pay for running the store, and I like the current success-based model and it's low barrier of entry for new devs, so basing the fees on actual operating costs seems like a good compromise. Of course, similar considerations should apply to other stores as well.
The value proposition of iOS is that the app store is the place to go, and that my experience will be seamless. I want a centralised place to manage my subscriptions. Here's an example:
I subscribed to NYT Cooking in the web a few years back. I went to cancel only to find out that I have to phone them. If I subscribed on an app store it would have been one click and done. I'm actually still subscribed to it.
Why is your choice more important than my choice?
This won't be a choice for users, this will be a choice for large developers.
The larger point is this: in a free market, if you have a bad experience with a product (like NYT Cooking in your example), you can bring your business elsewhere. That's how it works, and that's what Apple is interfering with.
They explicitly carved out their own market by making it a tightly integrated walled garden that's closed to outside integration, it seems hypocritical to now claim that users are free to leave at any time. They're not and that's by design.
I don't want the Meta store where Meta decide what level of API access their apps get). I explicitly choose the iOS ecosystem _because_ of this. If you want the alternative, you have a choice right now with Android. If this changes, then I _dont_ get a choice. Your choice removes my only option of a curated app marketplace in favour of a marketplace that will allow for billion dollar companies to set their own rules on how I interact with their apps, rather than me delegating that to one trusted gatekeeper.
Are you asking why we have antitrust laws?
> I don't want the Meta store where Meta decide what level of API access their apps get
And they shouldn't! Users should have full control over what data their apps can access, how often, with optional spoofing where it makes sense to stop apps from gating functionality behind invasive data collection. This should be an OS-level feature, not (poorly) enforced by the app store.
Apple's superficial review process isn't going to spot malicious abuses of your data unless it's plainly obvious.
> Your choice removes my only option of a curated app marketplace in favour of a marketplace that will allow for billion dollar companies to set their own rules on how I interact with their apps, rather than me delegating that to one trusted gatekeeper.
How so? You can continue using whichever marketplace you trust. Meanwhile your privacy and security should be technological, OS-level guarantees. You don't need Apple's app store to stop apps from stealing your banking information. You need a secure operating system (which iOS advertises itself to be) which employs sandboxing and that offers fine-grained permissions which users can freely grant, deny, or spoof.
you're putting words in my mouth here.
> How so? You can continue using whichever marketplace you trust.
No. I get to use whichever marketplace the publisher decides to use. Epic aren't going to publish on the App Store (see Fortnite on PC), Meta are going to publish on their own store. 37signals are going to use their own store. I currently can use a marketplace I trust. If iOS opens to allow other stores, then those stores either need to be curated by Apple or the store apps are sideloaded and have wider permissions. I don't want Meta's store with those permissions, I'm fine with using WhatsApp and not giving them my location.
Users do not care how much it costs a developer. They want it to be easy to see and cancel subscriptions all in one place. The web’s myriad of payment systems is the opposite of a good user experience, meant to only fatten the pockets of developers by making it difficult to cancel.
This is a ludicrous statement. The users are the ones paying for it.
If Melinda wants to use the Facebook app, but the Facebook app is only available on the Meta store, then Melina is forced to use the Meta store. This is not giving users choice. This is replacing one corp-backed store by multiple corp-backed stores. The user loses.
The only way how this would be a choice is if the same app, with the same basic functionality was available on all stores. Then the user would really have the choice which store to use. Or if there were alternative apps on different stores. Good luck with that given the current monopoly markets.
An "App Store", when it is not used as a rent-seeking choke-point, is a nothing-burger, it's a simple website to buy and download an app, yet you are trying to claim some great horror if this website was run by Meta not Apple. Please. It's nonsensical.
By the way, I couldn't care less if Meta has their own shop or not, and I don't see any horror in that, they decide how to best run their business, not me. But I take an issue with claims that Meta running their own exclusive show somehow creates more user choice (which is the direction the commenter I was replying to was heading towards)
It's such a bizarre belief that a product sold by Apple remains "their platform" once in the hands of a consumer. The only thing they still "own" is copyright IP. They sold a product. They don't get to legislate user actions. Their power over the device post sale, that they use to extract rent, is entirely artificial.
I mean, it's not that I would oppose this ideology in particular, it just sounds a bit radical. We'd have to change quit a lot of things for it to be feasible.
I could make the assertion that I'd be able to provide everything that Apple does, but with a much lower cut, but this can't be put to the test because there's no way for me to start another app store that iPhone users can access. I suspect a lot of the arguments for the 15% cut will change once we have alternate app stores offering the same things Apple does, but with a much lower cut. You'll then see app developers with skin in the game, and we'll know if everyone actually really thinks Apple does this better or if they'd rather have the extra money from other app stores.
In practice you still see a decent amount of activity on the official app store, along with some other major app stores, and a relatively small amount of independent distribution. There's still a good amount of small independent developers shipping apps (both on the stores and independently), and there's not a ton of evidence of price increases - in fact there's a very large amount of free software being distributed.
The alternative is “competition”.
In any case, I don’t see how any of this affects you since you’re happy paying Apple the fees. You can keep doing so as others pursue other options once they’re available.
Yes! That's exactly what everyone wants.
> Joe the indie developer instead is dead in the water.
No, Joe the indie developer will happily use one of the most popular alternative app stores that fits their needs and doesn't rip them off with fees.
What would these be? Last time I checked, the "champion of the people" Epyc charges 12% and pushes the charges for some payment methods onto the buyer. And it seems like they still haven't turned profitable, even with their bare-bones store model.
Stripe (one of the most popular payment processors) will take 9% from a 5$ purchase just for payment processing. This doesn't include tax processing or any other stuff, all that you have to pay extra. A customer wants a refund? You are eating the cost.
I just don't understand how any of this stuff people are talking about is realistic. I am not aware of a single commercial payment processing solution that will end up under 12-15% for small charges, while offering much less value to both the developer and the user compared to App Store. And I don't understand why people expect that this solution will suddenly magically pop up if Apple allows alternative stores.
One developer might be operating on effectively infinite margins and opt to stay in the Apple app store for visibility and most familiar experience.
Another might participate in an alternative app store that charges a review fee, a distribution fee but doesn't charge anything for in-app purchases except baseline payment processing fees.
Yet another might be operating on razor-thin margins and/or doesn't need to participate in an app store for visibility, they might sell their app directly through their website and roll their own payments and distribution.
> Stripe (one of the most popular payment processors) will take 9% from a 5$ purchase just for payment processing.
We might as well treat this as 0 when discussing alternative options since it's an inescapable fact of selling things anywhere (cash and crypto aside)
You know what? I actually agree with this! If alternative stores would really offer competition, then it's indeed something worth investigating. The problem is that I doubt that we will see alternative stores much. We will have a Meta store that sells FB-relevant services, an Epic store that sells Fortnite, an MS store that sells MS Office experience, an Adobe store that sells Adobe subscriptions, etc. Basically big corps making their own bubbles to improve margins.
If all these stores are regulated instead (transparent rules for all, no corp-only stores, strict privacy regulations), sure, I'm all for it! But that's not where the suggestions are going, so far most of the comments are along the lines "Apple should not be allowed to do this, everyone else should be allowed to do everything". Unfortunately, many "fairness initiatives" end up with some other big corp creating a soft monopoly (just look at google who de facto control the web standards just because their engine has 90% of the market share)
Right now, in the EU, the standard fee (before negotiation and volume consideration) is 0.25ct + 1.5% which will work out to about 26.5% cut for a 1-euro payment that is the worst-case scenario currently possible in the App Store as far as I am concerned.
They sell added services but there is no obligation for them and I figure most developers wouldn't care for them. The most expensive it can get is for international payment with currency conversion: 0.25ct + 3.25% + 2%. I don't know exactly how they do the fee calculation, but for a payment of 1, you would get a cut of about 30% max. Apple definitely does NOT provide the same service, since they do not allow international payment in their different localized app stores and they don't do currency conversion (they will let the bank charge you for that, which will get MUCH more expensive).
And the stripe number becomes much better with bigger price because of the fixed transaction fee. If you sell an app for 5$, the minimum you would have to give Apple would be 75 cents (the 15% they will allow under certain conditions) when the maximum you would pay to stripe would be 51 cents, or about 10.25%. Realistically most developers that do not have the scale to operate a fully custom system will address one or 2 big regional markets (with mostly shared language, culture and currency) and they would be just fine with the standard offering of stripe that would bring the cost to around 6.5%. While setting up everything would be a bigger hassle, for most developers that make enough money to live off it, that's a no brainer. Even if we argue that Apple provides more value than the base stripe and push to 10% cost everything included, for a dev making 100K in sales, it's already "free" 5K coming their way.
Many seem to mistakenly think that Apple allows dev to sell their app worldwide with very little hassle. Not only this is not true since many apps are actually region locked for whatever reason and cannot be purchased in a different market (it happens to me all the time, especially with apps from the US or from Germany) but Apple does not realy simplify the process of localisation, marketing, and proper tax declaration in each relevant market. Apples gives you pretty sales statement with everything you need, but any decent system will do that, you still need to do the actual work of compliance if you are big enough or care enough to follow the laws.
There are some argument to be made about the benefits of Apple integrated solution but it is only relevant for cheap software that are impulse buys precisely because they were cheap enough. The higher the price of the software the less relevant Apple solution is. Especially considering the inflexibility and dumb "categories" they push everything into. And if you have to push subscription or in-app purchase nonsense like they currently do, the economics are even better for external solution.
That's Stripe's US fee. CC processing fees are much higher in the US so that card issuers can run all of those "cashback" programs.
Your base case is a bit worse and it will work out over 30% for a payment of 1 (0.329) but if you sell a 5$ app, it would be 0.445 or about 8.9% like you said. You are still 6% lower than the minimum Apple would charge you.
It's not clear cut depending on what you need, but at the same time if you are small enough to qualify for the 15%, you probably don't need much or have time to figure it out.
For small international developers, under 500K per year spread out over several states & countries, often they don't have to pay VAT in most international places, so they lose an extra 20-22%. For instance most US states won't require you to pay VAT under 100K revenue if you are from another country.
Same for refunds & subscription management, often clients will ask you, but you have zero control with Apple. Let alone 60 days before being paid, where stripe does it in a few days.
The thing is, I fully agree that the model has to change and adapt. There has to be more transparency, more accountability, and these stores have to improve in a way that best fits the interests of the developers and the users. I just don't think that third-party stores or unrestricted side loading will do anything like that — in fact, I fear that they will make things considerably worse.
The wealthy people own the hardware, the devs own the app. Why does apple get the legal right to demand money in that transaction when it would be better for everyone if they weren't involved
I grew up in the age of torrents and Kazzaa and am tired of spam, malware, bloat, anti virus, etc. I want my phone to be an unbreakable toy, not a computing device.
Actually, I'll try out using then through the browser and see what happens.
If I afford something doesn't mean I should buy. I grew up being poor and I earn my living working hard. Throwing money is not a good option for me.
Also, in what world affording a damn phone does make you rich?
I don’t need them to be my friend or to care about me but as a share holder I want them to succeed. So far their R&D has proven valuable to me as both a consumer and share holder.
I don’t care if a few people who already have everything get richer. Since I believe the company is doing great things and I think it still has a bright future ahead I get to share in that upside too. And so can you if you want to.