Hacker News Reader

Comment by copp | Hacker News Reader

The usual discussion on this topic goes like this:

Apple defenders - It is their right to do it, since Android store allows them.

Others - Apple is being a hypocrite. While they maintain that app store must be compensated for all the services they do to developers, When given a chance they do not agree with their above statement.

I feel w.r.t app stores, Google is User-centric, but Apple is Apple-Centric at the expense of their customers. They use users as pawns, to bully the best for Apple, rather than their customers (you and I).

edit: To explain "user centric" better

Because of Apple's rules, you cannot just sign-up from Netflix app in iOS. You have to sign up in their Browser and then sign in. And Netflix is not allowed to even specify that in the app. Absolutely confusing, for normal users. Very bad user experience.

That is what I say when they are holding you as pawns. Apple is okay for you and I to go through that confusing experience, instead of allowing Netflix to tell them that users have to sign up in the browser.

View on HN

> but Apple is Apple-Centric at the expense of their customers

Apple has done a lot to curtail scummy developer practices and protect users.

You could go over each of their App Store policies and see how few of them are "at the expense of their customers."

Not the least are their privacy and anti-tracking protections. iOS 14 already caught many apps (including Discord and Instagram) stealing our clipboard data and secretly accessing camera, mic and location.

Claiming Google is "user-centric" and Apple isn't, usually means taking the side of the corporations that are hurt by limited access to user data.

Anti-clipboard-abuse doesn’t feel like a good example. It’s a generic (albeit new) OS function that scales immediately to all apps, once implemented.

The argument for ongoing App Store funding is that it has to scale with the number of apps available, each requiring hours of human work to review and police.

Under Apple's clarified guidelines, if a University put out a remote learning app to help students deal with the pandemic better than a browser solution, Apple would be entitled to 30% of each user's tuition.

Once they have a few slow quarters and pull the lever on taking a cut of app mediated real-world services, we may see 10-30% of each Taxi ride going to Apple.

> Under Apple's clarified guidelines, if a University put out a remote learning app to help students deal with the pandemic better than a browser solution, Apple would be entitled to 30% of each user's tuition.

I think they have mechanisms for distributing apps within an organization.

Would you care to clarify?

Do you mean that universities can distribute iOS apps to iOS devices without using the App Store?

Yeah that’s how companies like grocery stores that use iOS based devices for inventory management load their apps.

There is the Apple Developer Enterprise Program[0] but it suggests it's only for employees.

>Use the program only to create proprietary, in-house apps for internal use, and to distribute these apps privately and securely to employees within the organization.

Not sure if there is another programme that would work for universities

[0]https://developer.apple.com/programs/enterprise/

That's within an organisation though via enterprise distribution, or managed devices

University students normally bring their own devices so don't fit into that model

Employee only:

https://developer.apple.com/business/custom-apps/

Apple only extracts that revenue from apps if you want to directly take payment through the app. Both Netflix and Spotify work on iOS. They just are not collecting payments or doing new signups there. So in your analogy the student is presumably registered already with the school and Apple doesn’t take a cut at all, even today.

> Apple only extracts that revenue from apps if you want to directly take payment through the app.

Even if you take payment through your app that you built with your own payment processor.

Why is Apple standing between me and my school again? They made a profit off of the hardware that I purchased from them and now they’re just standing there stopping me from paying for what I want on the device that I bought.

That specific carve out is limited to consume-only media apps and wouldn't apply to an interactive remote learning app with more than just a library of prerecorded lectures.

HEY acquired customers outside of the app but still wasn't allowed.

I would argue Apple is very protectful of their platform, at the expense of the users. Of course in some cases, such as with privacy, what is good for the user is also good for Apple, because they get an additional selling point compared to the competition.

In my opinion, an example of Apple practices which are bad for customers is their line on progressive web apps. Apple limits support as they cannot keep control of their platform and revenue stream. I would argue however, that installable web apps are great for user experience, especially since it helps less resourceful businesses provide a good product for mobile devices. I'll admit there are privacy concerns regarding access to phone features from a web app, so Apple's arguments in blocking some (but not all) of these have some merit.

If you look beyond just the App Store policies, this general practice appears to me to limit innovation on the web platform, as Apple is invested in keeping apps the only first class citizen on their platform.

> iOS 14 already caught many apps (including Discord and Instagram) stealing our clipboard data and secretly accessing camera, mic and location.

Not really, this has just been a PR exercise that I'm watching with fascination - the real news is that they've shifted focus away from their own shortcomings. The real news here is that iOs14 allows unrestricted clipboard access. Think about that for a moment. Instead of actually fixing the issue, they choose to highlight it and call out apps for using the platform in a way they have allowed.

Even if you gatekeep and hand-wave every positive thing they do as "PR" and "shifting focus away from their own shortcomings", it has benefited users.

> The real news here is that iOs14 allows unrestricted clipboard access.

Every OS does, no? Which steps has Android or Windows taken? (genuinely curious)

> Apple has done a lot to curtail scummy developer practices and protect users.

This is so true, and the magnitude of this is not immediately apparent unless you’ve worked in an agency / freelanced building iOS applications. You have no idea how many user-hostile and abusive things I’ve seen blown completely out of the water with the golden phrase "Apple won’t allow that". It wins arguments in favour of the user instantly and permanently.

I’ve run up against Apple’s capricious review process more times than I can count, so I’ve got more reason than most to complain about it. But it’s impossible for me to argue that these rules don’t help the user when I’ve personally seen it happen so many times. It’s a double-edged sword to be sure, and I believe the best way of balancing things in favour of the end-user is to be more open than Apple is, but there are undeniable benefits to the user with the current system.

I would distinguish user vs developer. Android had always been partial to developers (more APIs at the cost of inconsistent and poor experience, sweeping location privacy on install that they refused to change until 10 version later, etc.) to entice developers to build on Android at some cost to the end user. Arguably, this 30% thing is not a freedom fight, just a payment negotiation for the publisher, and the end user could not care less (except for trusting their credit card number is not spread around and when they cancel subscription they won't have to mail a letter with certified mail).

I suppose if you care about the users, you should argue for freedom of running the software you like on the device you buy (ability to control secure boot keys/root access in some sort of developer mode), akin to values that Free Software Foundation has, not some petty marketplace rules. Neither those platforms, nor Epic, seem to give rat's ass about that freedom though.

> user could not care less

Some publishers are giving the dollars back to the users. Like Fortnite.

Also, because of Apple's rules, you cannot just sign-up from Netflix app in iOS. You have to sign up in their Browser and then sign in. And Netflix is not allowed to even specify that in the app. Absolutely confusing, for normal users. Very horrible experience.

That is what I say when they are holding you as pawns. They are okay for you and I to go through that confusing experience, instead of allowing Netflix to tell them that they have to sign up in the browser.

> I suppose if you care about the users, you should argue for freedom of running the software you like on the device you buy

Android does allow it. They allow you to install any software. Even software that allows you to bypass Youtube Ads. In fact that is one reason why many stick to android

> Android does allow it. They allow you to install any software. Even software that allows you to bypass Youtube Ads. In fact that is one reason why many stick to android

You can install software on your own iOS with a free developer certificate as well. You cannot scale distribution though, which is by design, and ensures security of the other billions of users.

I did not mean just the software running in a container though, which is at the mercy of Android system. I want to control the software running on the computer I pay for, which most Android phones don't.

> You can install software on your own iOS with a free developer certificate as well.

And it expires after 7 days. You can't even scale using your own software without having to swap it out once a week.

> Some publishers are giving the dollars back to the users. Like Fortnite.

If my assumption Fortnite is making a profit is right they are not giving anything back. You can buy more 'fake money' for your real money which seems like a good deal to players, but the only thing they get from it are a few extra skins and items which cost Epic about nothing to produce.

> Neither those platforms, nor the developers, seem to give a rat's ass about that freedom though.

All Pixel and Android One phones allow you to unlock the bootloader. Developers do care about that.

Yes, and that's great. Ideally you would want to be able to enroll your own security keys like Secure Boot, but I take all I can get. Android is not equivalent to Pixel though. Not even all Pixels do it by the way (notable exception was the ones sold by Verizon). So do macOS T2, and chromeOS developer mode (potentially with physical hardware screws to deter unintended misleading of a layperson).

However, all of that is pretty much orthogonal to what Epic wants, which is my point. Epic does not care about user freedom in that sense, just haggling to get a cut from 30/15% to ~5-10% and they'll be on their way. It's just spun as a user freedom thing (which is actually a valid request, but accomplished with very different means).

> Android is not equivalent to Pixel though.

Linux is not equivalent to a specific device either. That distinction is meaningless to developers, who will just get the device that lets them do what they need to do.

On Android you can install apps from third party sources.

It's a hassle to instruct users on how to allow third party sources, which is why Epic eventually caved to Google Play's demands, after distributing Fortnite outside of Play for a year or smth.

Still, it's not the same thing. In a situation in which Fortnite gets banned from Play, their marketshare on Android doesn't go to zero, and given kids are driven to have their game installed, one can argue that Fortnite would be able to survive just fine on Android outside of Play.

And your main point, that the platforms don't give a rat's ass on freedom, is childish. Yes, they don't, we already knew that. Still doesn't change the fact that one is unlike the other for developers, users and their freedom to do what they want with their devices.

I would argue the reverse.

I have a HomePod and not an alexa or Google device because Apple has shown it cares about privacy. That's user-centric. Sure, we could be incredibly cynical in saying that "well because you buy it then it is actually Apple-centric", but they clearly care about privacy.

Google to me is entirely Google-centric, which means harvesting as much data about me as possible to sell to advertisers.

I'm fine with Apple's walled garden. It works really, really well. People love iPhones for more than just marketing and status. They're excellent phones. And a not-insignificant piece of that experience is an ecosystem fits together nicely, with central control. Infinite choice isn't better for most people.

Isn't Apple just like Google and Amazon also using people to listen to some recordings they get via Siri to improve it? If so, that's not really privacy.

It continues to surprise me that tech-literate people fall for Apple's privacy marketing when it doesn't hold up to the most basic scrutiny. You can't even install an app on your device without telling Apple. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23796808

> I'm fine with Apple's walled garden.

Are you fine with paying Apple 30% of the cost of any application that you buy? It's not the developers that are paying this cost -- this is what you are paying to Apple for each app. That $25 app is costing you $7.50 that goes straight to Apple. All that money adds up fast.

Even if you are good with that, I think you imagine that a lot of users -- even those who might be happy with other aspects of the Apple ecosystem -- might not be happy with a 30% tax on all purchases made on their thousand dollar device. Apple even mandates that you're not allowed to know inside of an app about cheaper ways to pay.

> It's not the developers that are paying this cost -- this is what you are paying to Apple for each app.

Is that right though? Is the economics as simplistic as that? Could it be that Apple can now bring down iPhone device prices while hitting the revenue targets they have in mind offset from services, effective benefiting iPhone SE 2020 consumers? Could it be that the cost of running the store, marketing and distribution and properly reviewing all the free apps that I actually use is subsidized by the minority of apps that are paid or have in app purchases? To say that the user is burdened by the entire 30% directly is quite an overreach. How do we know the developers won’t pocket the additional margin and keep prices at the current rate? (my bet is this, actually).

For me personally who almost never used a paid app, I can assure you that the 30% is not paid by me. I may have even benefited through iPhones cheaper than hypothetical price that Apple has to sell them without AppStore revenue potential. I certainly benefited by AppStore vetting shitty apps.

This is a business model choice and banning it is like saying Google Drive is not supposed to charge paid users more to subsidize free quotas.

They can then leave the walled garden and buy cheaper apps on android and if they are satisfied with that, good for them. I absolutely relish Apple’s walled garden, not just for me, but for my aged parents and aunts whom I help with their devices. Barely any UI differences, security for inept or careless users. And I know that the UI will move at a glacial pace, which is a feature for that demographics.

Don't forget that Apple is a multinational megacorp, and is user centric only when it suits them. Consider Tim Cook speaking at the conference used by the Chinese government to promote internet regulation, saying that the vision of the conference is one that Apple shares, and also the handing over of user data to Chinese servers (encrypted, but still out of their control).

> I feel w.r.t app stores, Google is User-centric, but Apple is Apple-Centric at the expense of their customers.

There are enough shady apps, especially games, on both stores already without them asking you to enter your credit card details. At least with the current system you can set up parental controls.

I think allowing apps to process their own payments is a recipe for disaster and will open up the floodgates for apps, especially games, trying to trick kids into purchasing expensive in-app crap.

Wouldn't that make it harder for kids to buy crap instead of easier? Parental controls or not if they have access to the card then they know exactly what they're doing and can go about it in any number of ways. The main issue here is single button purchases, not full CC entry.

It's not just about payment processing, it's about the size of the fees.

While we're at it, let's not let websites process payments either. Or retailers. Or restaurants. Or anyone. Apple knows best, right?

> Google is User-centric

You give far too much credit to the world's largest advertising company and probably the world's biggest corporate/private holder of personal and tracking data on the human population.

Any suggestion of an altruistic motive behind any Google policy/practice/implementation is disingenuous at best.

> Google is User-centric

This is correct but the definition of the "user" here is different from the definition of "user" for Apple.

In the case of Google, the advertisers and the developers are the "users", and the people who are using the software are the products.

On the Apple side of things, the people who buy the phone or the laptop are the "users" and this is the folks that Apple cares about deeply(And ironically, they also suffer in the last saga by not being able to access their favourite game). That is why its always the developers complaining about Apple.

Yes, as a developer I think %30 is high and I wish it was lower but it is on par with Google. As a user, I despise the idea of giving credit card info on every app and service I would like to use. Looking at the behaviour of the companies who think they can force users what they want, I am sure that they are not going to be as nice as Apple on the payments. They will implement dark patterns.

As a user, I don't want to see another payment method, I want this to go away. As a developer I want this to go away by Apple lowering it's fees.

What is the difference between an app asking for your cc number and a web page? Do you wish Mozilla was a payment processor and you couldn't pay for netflix without giving Mozilla a cut? What about google?

What if in order to sell you an iphone as a non mac user your browser vendor required Apple to give them 30% of the purchase price? What if they refused to render pages that tried to work around this?

What id your ISP required transactions being conducted via their networks to cut them in on the deal? Hell why not your computers OEM?

Okay, here it is: I want to have single place to manage my payments. As a user, I wouldn't care about the implementation. I wouldn't care about Apple's, Mozilla's or Google's cut. Not good business for you? Tough luck(unless I really want your product, then maybe adjust the price accordingly). What is the difference between App and Website asking for CC? No difference, I hate them both.

As a developer I agree that we shouldn't be forced and restricted to payment methods. My developer opinion is that these payment systems should be considered public utility and should be unified and should work the same for everyone - including Apple. Apple should not be able to have competing products by where they don't pay someone the cut that we pay.

I also think that payments methods shouldn't be able to restrict who we pay. Be it Wikilieaks or whoever we please. That's actually why I am not amused by framing this pity fight over the commission rates as "fight for freedom". It's not fight for freedom, it is cocky businessmen looking to increase their margins.

You know how 99% of the startups fail? Well, maybe they fail because they forget about the user.

But how does allowing third party in-app payments remove your ability to use Apple Pay? Apple could even force developers to include Apple Pay but at a 30% markup.

It creates multiple places to look for payments. Also, if the price is 0.99 vs 1.29 I would feel bad if I opt out for 1.29 with Apple despite the fact that 0.3p isn't changing anything for me but I would feel obligated to enter CC details to get the discount(Yes I know it's not logical but Humans, Aye? If people were logical half of the economy wouldn't be around). It's a friction I don't want to have in my life.

The ideal solution for me is, Apple Pay being an open protocol and I can add payment methods to Apple Pay, can track all payments from a single UI. Then I would be O.K. with being offered %30 discount if I pay with "Epic Card" payment method(form the same payment UI).

You would feel bad because you would know that Apple isn't providing a service worth 30% of the app's cost, leaving you feeling cheated.

Not at all, I wouldn't care who gets the money. Often company structure and relationships are complex and many times people who boycott a brand end up buying from the brand owned by the same company.

More importantly, It's a well know that people in the game industry are overworked and underpaid and it's not because of the Apple's cut. I don't know about the situation in Epic, but if it happens that Apple lowers the rates most certainly the difference will go to C level executives(that are not underpaid already).

If Apple gets the money, they at least will pay a decent salary to their people. The game makers can consider cutting bonuses if the money is tight.

Isn't it actually about market power? Apple controls a dominant share of the market for paid apps on phones, so it can use that power to extract more money from sellers of such apps. Google's market share is very small, so it can't impose this fee on sellers.

When you say, Apple treats their users as pawns, well, Google's ad business which generates most of their money, also treats their users as pawns. Both companies are amazingly effective at extracting extremely high profit margins from the business that they control.

In other words, primary goal of both companies is to extract as much money as possible from consumers and they're both extremely good at that, in their own way. Neither treats users as pawns, because, that would undermine their market position. Both are user-centric in the sense that they offer products that consumers (whether end-users or ad buyers) believe to be useful enough that they pay very high prices for them. And both companies are zealous in maintaining that relationship.

Apple seems to be slightly better at this, sitting on about $200 billion, but that's only after using hundreds of billions of dollars to buy back their own stock over the years. This treasury stock is hard to value, because it's unlikely Apple would actually sell it, except to buy some other big company. But it looks to me like Apple has enough treasury stock that it could be converted into something like a trillion dollars if they wanted to do that and were legally permitted to. (As an accounting matter, however, treasury stock isn't even counted as an asset, even though the company paid very real cash for at least part of it.) Google's also sitting on well over $100 billion and a bunch of treasury stock.

It raises some interesting social issues, but there's nothing very different about the way these two companies relate to their users, or indeed to society generally.

At the very least Google lets you do whatever you want and install apps from elsewhere - a third party store or even a random apk from a shady website if you're brave.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com