Hacker News Reader

Before anyone goes applauding Apple’s monopoly here, they should consider the developer experience as well.

There is absolutely no innovation from Apple’s side. The API’s are horrible and can barely do rudamentary things like server side cancelling of subscriptions. Sometimes they change logic in their webhooks without warning, and there is absolutely no support to speak of. We can’t even trigger refunds on the users behalf! We have to make due with really bad revenue reports, and App Store connect is incredibly slow to work with.

Market forces should push Apple to improve, but thanks to their power over their own market they don’t. In the end it will hurt users too.

> why anyone should use the AppStore as a distribution channel to a huge market and completely circumvent Apple's cut

There's no other option. It's not possible to sideload apps. Developers are obliged to use appstore.

Regarding payments, the developers are not only obliged to have a way to pay with Apple (would be okay), they are obliged to not have another way.

Your argument is "I like pepsi, therefore I'm fine with the fact that no one can buy coca-cola".

Make a web app?

That's what I do to avoid giving Apple money.

Apple deliberately hinders Progressive Web Applications on iOS Safari, effectively stifling innovation. Look at how many requests are there on WebKit to implement many of the features/API's required.

They don't even allow competing browser engines. Chrome, Firefox etc on iOS are just wrappers around Safari.

This is where I think they might be legally vulnerable, if anywhere. Especially since Jobs initially answers the shocked reaction of 30% by "it's no big deal everybody is going to make web apps anyway."

And yours is like “I don’t like Pepsi but this restaurant I like only serves Pepsi, so I want the government to force them to serve Coca-Cola, instead of just going to another restaurant.”

No its more like, “I don’t like Pepsi but all the restaurants in town only serves Pepsi, so I want the government to force them to serve Coca-Cola, because I can't just go to another restaurant.”

What is the “town” supposed to be here? People? People with smartphones? Nah, can’t be those, because you’re ignoring Android and the open web as alternatives to Apple. So I assume you mean “people with iPhones”.

I always find it amusing when the boundaries for monopoly are drawn around the set of the customers of a company. By that logic, every company is a monopoly! United Airlines has a monopoly on every customers that flies in one of their airplanes. How dare they only offer a certain brand of snack! They’re extorting their customers who have no choice!

Teens in the US are a market unto themselves.

The iPhone has somewhere between 80-90% market share with them.

Even outside of teens, they're at close to 50% and you don't need a strict majority in order to have control over the market. That's why, legally, you don't need a strict majority to be considered a monopoly.

Next.

None of that is how anti-trust works.

Yes, it is.

You can read about it here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_power#Measurement

U.S. courts almost never consider a firm to possess market power if it has a market share of less than 50 percent.

And as much as you might wish it to be so, anti-trust courts are not going to take seriously an argument that Apple is a monopoly because you find a demographic (teens) that they have a larger market share in. Again, you can easily slice and dice markets by customer demographics to make any company a monopoly.

Next.

Incorrect. They’ve already lost a preliminary antitrust suit.

They can absolutely be sued for this. Look it up.

Here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/us/politics/supreme-court...

Apple Inc. v. Pepper did not cover what you think it did. The Supreme Court ruled that consumers had standing to sue for antitrust violations with regard to how Apple regulates the App Store because they pay fees for apps in that store.

It has nothing to do with your bizarre argument that because Apple has greater than 50% market share in the demographic of "teens", they're a monopoly and the government must step in. Does that also apply for a company who has a monopoly on "27-year-old web designers in Brooklyn who own a dog"?

I'm done with this conversation. You clearly have an axe to grind against Apple, and it's leading you to avoid arguing in good faith.

> The Supreme Court ruled that consumers had standing to sue for antitrust violations...

Thank you for acknowledging the exact point that I just made?

> It has nothing to do with your bizarre argument ...

I didn't say that it was because of my argument. My demographic argument was simply a point of interest. And actually, you can disregard it and still know that Apple is the largest single manufacturer of smartphones in the US and they’ll soon surpass the 50% mark based on their trajectory and the new $399 iPhone. Samsung is a distant second.

How bizarre is that??

> I'm done with this conversation. You clearly have an axe to grind against Apple...

Pffft. Okay. Why shouldn't I have an axe to grind? And while we're at it - you're clearly apologizing for Apple where they deserve none. Defending a company that is basically the fucking China of tech with their Great Wall of bullshit isn't a real good look. You're going to be on the wrong side of history when this bears out.

But please, do stop arguing because nothing you say will make what Apple is doing right. Even if the law were on their side, which it's not, we'd have reason enough here to make new laws that target these essential devices with new regulations. So, change your attitude, get on the correct side and stop defending your favorite corporation.

In a big city you have 1000s of restaurants and surely you can find coke in some of them, without any regulation.

OTOH how many viable mobile platforms do you have? Whopping two (on the world scale). And one of them is not playing fairly. (Edit: And the other is not playing fairly either in some other aspects.)

Your analogy is wrong.

This is a corrected version.

I like pepsi (Visa Credit card), others like other drinks, such as coca-cola (Amex Credit card), or Sprite (Mastercard Debit card), or Fanta (Prepaid card), etc.

I want to walk into a shop which allows me to drink any of the above legitimate drinks, but nothing dodgy, such as that toxic brew which someone has prepared in their dirty garage which makes people throw up (e.g. Bitcoin). So instead of having to verify each drink myself I want to go to a shop where this has been done for me by a gatekeeper. If that gatekeeper forces all payment options through their own gate (Apple Pay) in order to make sure that there is no funny business going on, then I am 100% supportive of it. You can still have you coca cola if you want and I my pepsi. Just don't ask me to drink something which looks like pepsi but could be some other dog shit (allow other payment gateways which are not apple pay and all sorts of dodge shit can happen then).

As a consumer I mostly agree BUT no one forces me to pay for anything, so I avoid dodgy sites.

As a developer of an app that is in IAP hell right now I disagree. I don't care for the app store, nor does it provide me with any benefit. All I want is for my existing customers, for who I spent MY marketing money to acquire, to be able to install my app on a device THEY paid money for.

As a consumer in China you can't use an app that doesn't conform to the rules set by CCP.

Sideloading is a must. And push notifications must work for sideloaded apps, too. If apple doesn't provide that, devices should have ways to install alternative push providers. All that keeps that from happening is the extreme closeness of iOS

13 years of the iPhone being the most popular consumer product in the history of the universe would seem to suggest that sideloading is not "a must"; indeed, some might say it suggests the opposite: that sideloading is in fact a huge plus and part of why the ecosystem is succeeding so well and users' security and stability of their devices is so superior to competing products.

Fine. Installing custom software is not an economic "must", but is a moral "must". If I have bought a device, then it is mine to run whatever software I want on it, and the manufacturer of the device has no moral claim over it.

To me it's just a monopoly abusing its position.

But Apple is not a monopoly.

Yeah right. Just today's search in DDG news for 'apple monopoly':

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=apple+monopoly&atb=v194-1&iar=news...

If you agree to not side-load software via some EULA, does that change the moral calculus for you?

> I don't care for the app store, nor does it provide me with any benefit.

I'm guessing it does provide you with some benefit or else you wouldn't be in it.

Well, I mean, you could consider having a presence on iOS a "benefit"? You either go through the app store or you don't have an iOS app — there isn't a third option.

I am in the app store because my customers demanded an app. If I had a way to deliver one similar to android I would stay tf away.

I’d be fine with a solution like:

* Apps have to support Apple IAP, but can also offer other payment methods directly in the app (similar to their policy on Sign In with Apple and other login systems)

* You're allowed to charge different amounts for the different payment systems, and present them directly in the app.

So in your VPN example, if Apples one click payment flow (and their cancellation/return policies) is worth a 25% higher price for you, you're free to pay it.

Do you think your desire for convenience should outweigh the benefits to users/devs who want freedom of choice?

If a developer does not want their product sold to customers of Walmart because Walmart takes % percentage and has a certain set of rules, then the developer can go away and not sell to Walmarts customers. Same analogy works with Xbox/PlayStation customer base.

Walmart is one of thousands of stores where you can purchase goods. XBox/Playstations are a niche recreational device for gaming, not an essential device used by everyone to procure goods and services and conduct business.

An iPhone is now an essential device used by everyone?

It's a wonder I am still surviving.

Smartphones are now pretty essential. You can't even enter stores in my country without scanning a QR code for COVID tracking

>Smartphones are now pretty essential.

If you didn't notice, you switched the conversation from "Apple iPhone" to "smartphone".

In any case, I didn't get an iPhone until 2012 and for the entire 7+ years of ownership, I have never installed a single app on it. I just use the plain vanilla functionality. An Apple product like the iPhone and the Apple curated App Store is not essential to life.

About 90% of my friends & family use Android (the more popular smartphones) because they cost less than Apple.

EDIT to downvoters:

- gp comment (rahkiin) of Walmart-restrictions analogy is about Apple (not "smartphones" in general)

- followup comment (jfk13) is also about Apple iPhone and not smartphones

- pentae's comment that switches the subject from "iPhone" to "smartphones" ... to try an win an argument just confuses the thread

You are just being pedantic now. It was pretty clear what he/she meant. Smartphones are a necessity now.

>You are just being pedantic now. It was pretty clear what he/she meant. Smartphones are a necessity now.

It's not pedantic in this case because the raison d'etre of this thread is Apple's restrictions (including sideloading).

With that specific context, an "Apple iPhone" is not equivalent to "smartphone" and pentae's comment that mixes up the 2 is muddying up the discussion. The ability for 3rd party devs to sideload apps on my Apple iPhone is not essential to life.

It is essential to liberty, which is why the Library of Congress has made exemptions to DMCA for jailbreaking. It’s not a question of life, but of the quality thereof. People fully control devices they own.

Automobiles have plenty of restrictions on how they can be built, marketed and sold even though no single brand is essential to every single person.

If enough people want changes around how smartphones and smartphone platforms operate, we'll get new legislation for it, if it doesn't already exist.

So could you tell us how an iPhone is not a smartphone?

Yes, the iPhone _is_ a "smartphone" but that's not the point for this particular thread. Yes, sometimes we do treat "Apple_iPhone"==synonym=="smartphone" for simplified discussion but sometimes we do not. This thread is one of those cases where we do not.

To recap the context ...

- thread article title: "Dear _Apple_: Here’s How to Stop the Antitrust..."

The title is "Dear Apple", not "Dear all _smartphone_ manufacturers". The reason for this thread's existence is making a distinction between Apple vs smartphones. From the very beginning, our comments and replies have to continue that distinction for this particular thread.

- gp comment (rahkiin) continued that distinction of iPhone-vs-smartphones with the Walmart-restrictions analogy. I.e. "Walmart"="Apple" and presumably "Target/Amazon/GooglePixel/etc"="other non-Apple smartphones"

- followup comment (jfk13) continued that distinction of iPhone-vs-smartphones

- your reply (pentae) comment that switches the subject from "iPhone" to "smartphones" ... is a non-sequitur. It looks like you're trying to win an argument instead of replying to their specific point about Apple restrictions and developers having the ability to choose a different marketplace (e.g. the Android marketplace). The thread+rahkiin+jfk13 were talking about Apple iPhone and not all smartphones in general. You don't have to agree with rahkiin+jfk13 but your comment's switch to generalized "smartphone" isn't engaging with what they actually wrote.

Parent didn't say "smartphone," they said "iPhone." You can use an Android phone and sideload and use whatever payment method you want.

The problem is that Google and Apple are a duopoly and as such both have outsized market power. And with that outsized power, Apple has regularly abused app businesses trying to make money in the App Store.

From blocking apps that replicate core functionality to the whole IAP shakedown Apple has used their market power in capricious and self-serving ways that have gotten other companies in anti-trust hot water in the past.

Having a curated market is fine, but when you use that market curation to undercut sellers in that market to your own benefit you start getting into trouble. Then, when that market controls the lion's share of revenue in that type of market, regulators will eventually start firing up lawsuits.

Not OP, but I share the desire for convenience.

This convenience is only available to me because there is a large customer base which companies can't access any other way.

They have varying reasons for wanting an iphone, each of which alone would not (I think) form a big enough pool to persuade companies to listen. Or the privacy conscious are tempted to make an exception when (like OP) they badly need something to work right now... or just don't have time to vet every company... and divided we fall.

And I'm happy to pay for this. I probably spent double what I would have paid for an android phone. I have not spent close to that much again on apps. But the difference between $5 and $10 inside the app store is (for me) much smaller than the hurdle of having to go to some other dodgy payment gateway & give them my card.

And if side loading was possible, what makes you think that your App Store experience would suffer?

It wouldn't, but eventually somehow is going to find a way to sneakily install apps on my grandma's phone that are no good. I like the current experience because it keeps the really bad stuff out.

I guess my claim is that, if side-loading were common, then lots of apps which now play by the rules would (eventually) be replaced by ones that don't.

There are lots of iphone apps from companies I would never trust to install a real app on my computer. I'm glad they exist, and are so firmly kept under control. (And I'm sure their makers grumble about this.)

I also buy lots of things from companies I would never trust with my credit card details.

No one would take away your right not to trust such companies your card details. Unfortunately, you are OK with the fact that some people can't exercise their will to trust said companies and use their software, even if they badly need it.

Different rules lead to different ecosystems. My claim here is that, under anything-goes rules, some options I like having would probably go away.

And while I understand the temptation to complain about a 30% cut, it's not so obvious to me that sellers would make more money under anything-goes rules, in a lower-trust ecosystem.

My problem with Apple and iOS is not a 30% cut at all. It's the push notifications policy and monopoly on app distribution. I want apps that run in the background. I want apps that have reliable and fast push notifications without those recently imposed restrictions on the only type of notifications that worked well in iOS 13 [1] (VoIP ones), etc.

It's my device! If i want to run some app in the background, I'm OK if it uses battery faster. If Apple wants to show how they care for the battery life of my device, they should show me the warning and stats, which app costs me what, not cut off my ability to run the app in the background at all.

[1] https://www.macrumors.com/2019/08/06/ios-13-voip-background-...

I guess I'm happy they established a strong norm early on that apps don't get to run in the background. This was a big change from PC apps. But I agree they could now offer a bit more flexibility. (And demand that, if I refuse permission, all other functionality must still work. As they do for many features.)

Oh boy. Back in the 90s multitasking in Windows and OS/2 was such a HUGE life-improving step forward from a single-task DOS that I'm SHOCKED that anyone would be so happy to put their old shackles on again. First iPhones couldn't even play music in the background, can you imagine?

But there was also the need to re-install the OS because everything you added somehow got its fingers into everything else until it was impossibly slow. Even if you were unusually cautious about how many toolbars to install.

Phone apps were a new art form, quite unlike 90s programs. Both had serious resource constraints, but trying out a badly written iphone app couldn't result in being unable to make a phone call that afternoon.

Yes, if their convenience comes at a cost to my convenience. I pay a premium for my iPhone and various other Apple devices.

The fact that there is only one AppStore, controlled by a single party is a feature for me that I am happy to pay for.

If there's is more than one party which can install apps on my device, I have to worry about which party to trust etc. The same applies to payments.

If you trust the AppStore, just use that.

If other people want to use other sources, that shouldn't affect you.

It certainly affects you if:

(1) Apple, seeing drastically reduced app revenue, stops investing as much in the app store, dev tools, etc. Or increases their hardware prices;

(2) third party stores pay for exclusive apps;

(3) malware is installed by people with your contact info and communications;

(4) even if no intent to use, the malware risk is there and you're a few drunk clicks from losing your bank account.

#1 Apple makes enough money. If they don't want to support their app store, than that is choice they're making.

#2 Frankly this is much like the situation we're in now. Only that we there are no other options. This eventuality is surely less bad than the current actuality.

#3 Malware is already installed by people you are in contact with. And nothing prevents a 3rd party store from having equally rigorous testing as Apple.

#4 You're a few drunk swipes away from emptying your credit card today.

Sure, I can understand those arguments in favour of having a 3rd party store, but that's not what the parent is arguing, nor what you said in your original post. All of these do affect the user. You think it would be a better ecosystem, but some users would not agree it's a strictly better approach. I for one don't.

I'm not saying I agree with Apple's approach, but it does affect you.

Just by having alternative sources, developers might choose to only be available on those sources, whether it's for a better revenue cut or because of their principles.

See for example what's going on with exclusives for Epic store and Steam. Whether that's a good or bad thing is a different question.

The issue at hand here is even for a company that has an app in the App Store that exposes no way to buy a subscription in the app at all, Apple will force you to put in the Apple IAP option, of which they will take a 30% cut.

And yet, they make exceptions for big and powerful companies like Netflix or Google.

Source? I’ve been an iOS dev since 2010 and I haven’t seen this happen. I’m not saying it hasn’t, especially in isolated incidents, but I’d like to see some examples.

That is literally the issue that Hey is having right now. They have provided no means of subscribing inside the app, but now Apple is telling them that they'll remove the app from the App Store if they don't add Apple IAP. Meanwhile, Basecamp has operated the same way for years. The rationale Apple gave was that Basecamp is primarily a business app, but if that is the case, how does Gmail get away with the same thing?

Meanwhile Netflix, Gmail, Uber, and a couple of other big apps don't use the Apple IAP system.

This sounds exactly like the isolated example i was talking about. Apple is clearly in the wrong here, and this will get resolved. There are tens of thousands of apps out there that don’t offer IAP that you need a subscription purchased elsewhere to use.

Again, Apple is in the wrong here, but this is not a good example of a widespread pattern imo. Not something worth an antitrust case over.

>From a developer perspective I don't see why anyone should use the AppStore as a distribution channel to a huge market and completely circumvent Apple's cut when clearly they are offering a lot of value by making this possible in the first place?

Would it be fair if Google would take a cut for any payments you do from Chrome? Also by this logic I assume you think is fair that next OSX version will lockdown and you will have to pay Apple for the privilege of running the applications you want and that Apple also approved that are safe for you and are also contain Apple approved content.

Apple could make you pay to host free applications on their store, so you pay the costs for hosting the content. For paid apps Apple can take a small cut on top of the hosting if they promote the applications. Apple should not get involved if I buy a XBOX game using an XBOX app and get a giant cut from that and they should not block legal content

>I don't see why anyone should use the AppStore as a distribution channel to a huge market and completely circumvent Apple's cut

Alright then allow easy installation of other App-stores and distribution channels

If the Apple Store brings that much value, outside of their mandated use, then the other app stores will fail anyway so...

>my VPN I can either buy a license by going to their website and go through a 5 minute checkout process or I can do a 5 second checkout via the iOS app. The first one goes 100% to the VPN developers, the second also means that a cut goes to Apple. Sounds fair to me,

Alright then allow developers to add a Convenience Fee / Apple Tax line item to the billing, specifically calling out the fee for purchasing in-app. If the value is there you should have no problems paying a 30% higher price for the items to save that 4 min 95 secs correct?

That sounds fair to me

>Without Apple Pay I would have not bought that license and they would have not lost 30% of the sale, but effectively 100%.

No, that is not he proper way to look at it. I dont know about a VPN service but for many business a 30% chop at the revenue likely means they are losing money. So losing the sale completely would be better than selling an item at cost

However what is likely happening is they are increasing the price for all consumers so they can still make a profit on Apple Customers. This likely loses them customers in other market segments.

> Alright then allow easy installation of other App-stores and distibution channels

> If the Apple Store brings that much value, outside of their mandated use, then the other app stores will fail anyway so...

No, this only benefits dodgy bullshit developers doing bullshit things. The fact that there is only one, very well guarded and fenced AppStore IS a great feature for consumers. As a father I'd buy my kids an iPhone and not an Android, because I know that only way they will be able to get an app on their phone is through a store which has consumers, consumer ethics and protection at the forefront of their mind, not the desire to please developers trying to constantly push the border and slowly do more dodgy shit and trick a minor into some bullshit which they can't tell the difference from the good stuff.

EDIT:

There is a huge market of consumers who value their own protection and the protection of their families A LOT more than IAP margins for developers. If you want to sell your stuff to that consumer group then you have to play by their rules, can't demand them to lower their standards so you can get it your way.

>>very well guarded and fenced AppStore IS a great feature for consumers.

it is always amusing when people attempt to paint anti-consumer features as pro consumer...

>>As a father I'd

Really, you are going for "think of the children" defense of anti-consumer policy. Classic

For decades electronics have had all manner of Child protection features, it is trivial to prevent the installation of apps, or even other apps stores from unapproved users, and a child should not have the authority to install any apps, form the Apple store or not

In enterprise system administration we have been doing this on computers for decades preventing unauthorized applications or users from installing things

That is a solved problem and in no way is a locked down controlled by apple ecosystem required to archive parental controls on the device

Edit:

>There is a huge market of consumers who value their own protection and the protection of their families A LOT more than IAP margins for developers

I am sure they do, I am sure they do not care about the devs at all, that is clear from your position.

If the consumer cares about this soo much then it should not be a problem for them to bear the cost of this not the devs, if the value of the Apple store is the Security and Privacy of the store then the consumer not the dev should pay for that. A 30% fee added to the price of the app charged to the CUSTOMER then should be the fair payment method, not extorting 30% of revenue from the dev

I have a feeling that both you and apple know that most consumers would not put the value of that service at 30% though this is why they extort the devs not the customer

Apple has a bad track record with parental control and other "be safe online" apps, crippling them in the name of privacy. I'd never recommend an iPhone for a child.

Yes shame on Apple for being concerned about parental apps that were capturing children's browser and usage data and sending it to remote servers.

Because companies can always be trusted to never monetize data.

There's a lot of "bad" that can occur on smartphones beyond companies selling user data. While that should be a concern, I'd guess other things are more important to most parents.

What exactly is bad about Apple’s track record “in the name of privacy”? If anything, we need Android to take privacy more seriously and not leave it be the privilege of some power users who can keep tweaking things.

> why anyone should use the AppStore as a distribution channel to a huge market and completely circumvent Apple's cut

If noone would develop great apps for the iPhone, Apple could not sell the iPhone. It's a symbiotic relationship.

Even if you disregard that: It's a duopoly situation, and Apple is exploiting that.

> From a developer perspective I don't see why anyone should use the AppStore as a distribution channel to a huge market and completely circumvent Apple's cut when clearly they are offering a lot of value by making this possible in the first place?

It's entirely reasonable for apple to get some cut for validating and distributing the app. But a flat 30% (eventually dropping to 15% per customer) doesn't seem right for something charging a significant amount of money.

If the 30% fee applied to the first 10-20 dollars, and they only charged for payment processing after that, they'd still make plenty of money both up front and recurring. (I'm imagining something like "5% flat" or "cost they pay plus 1.5%" for the payment processing fee.)

so for a subscription based app, I have to partner with Apple (30% of income is partnering) for the privilege of allowing me to offer my customers a native app? I do the marketing, content creation, app development and customer support and every year I pay the ̶𝚖̶𝚘̶𝚋̶ their cut so they won't burn down my store?

That is the opposite of what I said!

If it was unclear, I didn't mean the first 10-20 dollars per payment, I meant the first 10-20 dollars ever.

makes more sense now :)

Once you’re in Apples ecosystem, some of the marketing, app development, and customer support is now handled by Apple. I also don’t see why you have earned access to Apple customers, anymore than you should have access to Alibaba or Walmart customers.

The argument should be why Apple customers should vote with their wallets to tell Apple to move one way or another.

no marketing unless you mean spending more on app store seo or whatever it is called

no app development unless you mean the non existent support and the willy-nilly api changes

no customer support unless you mean refunding subscription when the dev is not at fault.

I don't want access to apple's customers! I want my customers to be able to load my app on their devices.

IF Microsoft pulled such a move people would lose their minds