Hacker News Reader

Comment by actuator | Hacker News Reader

I really don't understand why people are defending Apple on this. It seems shameful of a $1.5 trillion company to do this to developers. Even more so when they themselves don't abide by their philosophy. They are extracting out a competitive advantage from this on other services like Spotify or Netflix( even without this they have a big one at app discovery and pre installs on iOS). Kudos to Google for allowing the developer to choose the app store/payment method.

Are you guys really fine with living in a world where one/two companies own everything you consume? This sounds like an antithesis to the hacker culture I would associate at least HN crowd with.

View on HN

Imagine for a second distributing an app in 175 countries around the globe including all the tax details. I think it's fair to participate on such a global platform and a price for it.

The whole issue is about choice. If what Apple is offering you is worth the 30% cut they ask for, you will pay it. If it is not, you should be free to use your own method and take care of the details like tax yourself. Cross platform things anyway have to solve this problem on their own.

Yes, that worked out very well in 00’s with windows mobile. /s

People don’t understand the power of consumer friendly digital experience

Works out just fine on macOS.

I mean it works but “fine” is a pretty low bar for the point of using computers. I say this as an owner of about $50k of macs in my apartment.

Works fine on Android

> Cross platform things anyway have to solve this problem on their own.

We have and continue to distribute apps around the globe without Apple acting as a necessary middle man. It should not be a required service.

Apple apparently believes that whether that's a fair price should be up to the publisher to decide when publishing apps for Android, but it doesn't believe that the publisher should get to decide that when publishing on the App Store.

Agreed!

Google worked hard to set all of this up. Apple should pay Google for using the Google global platform.

30% cut for distribution seems ridiculously high—why not 3% or 0.3% or, best of all, a flat fee? Costs aren't even proportionate to the transaction amount. They don't even allow proper microtransactions which might make the fee make sense compared to processing with a credit card. What differentiates this from extortion?

There is a difference between distributing an app and forcing people the developer to pay for the underlying service it offers.

Especially if you opt to not use any of said platform services.

App distribution != online services. They are two distinct markets.

I agree on the ethos you are taking about. I personally prefer that choice, not everyone does.

You also have to understand when you buy into apple's philosophy the experience you sign up for is seamless where you don't need to worry about who controls what, that requires you to sacrifice choice ,

- I cannot choose to change my RAM or hard disk or other h/w to vendor of my choice on a MacBook,

- I cannot choose my own Desktop Environment or Kernel I boot in MacOS.

- I cannot choose how sign-in or payment is handled in Apple.

Payment handling allows them to provide the same experience to all apps for refunds or other problems etc. Is it worth the sacrifice ? depends on what you value the most.

Many people do not want or need these choices, Apple is designing products for those people, If you value your choices as I do, you should not be using Apple in the first place. I don't blame Apple for setting stringent rules to give that experience to people who are willing to pay for it.

Well, I have a lot of Apple hardware, think they generally do a decent job on the OS, and mostly appreciate the fact that the app store has rules that keeps it from turning into a dumpster fire.

But I don't see how that applies here. There's too many random carve outs for me to take this as being in good faith. If you can trust 37Signals to handle their own logins and payments for one app but not another, you're making stuff up.

Not defending apple, I value having the choice personally.

From Apple's perceptive allowing one vendor and not another is going to difficult, next vendor may not be as trustworthy as 37Signals, it is considerably easier to say no other system than theirs. They have never traditionally encouraged ecosystems unless they have been forced to.

I am not saying it is right, but it is consistent with their product philosophy.

Same reason they absorb features from apps into the OS itself, it sucks for the developer, but it benefits the user. For example having the flash light as OS feature than an app is considerably safer, better experience.

I’m okay with Apple forcing apps to support in app purchases or Apple Pay or whatever — the fee is the really gross part. If it were nominal it would be more reasonable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com