Hacker News Reader

Yeah, Apple's practices are far from ideal, your insults aside, but I'm not sure how much of that is relevant here. On this thread at least, nobody seems to have mentioned percentages but you.

This is false, at the moment I wrote this comment the "Apple tax" was mentioned a lot. IMO the fact that is 3%, 30% or 99% is irrelevant . What is important is that Apple uses it's dominance to remove choice from users.

I am sorry if fanboy will hurt someone feeling, but if for example: Google (or Apple) would have a new rule that if you want your website to be opened in Chrome(or Safari) and not marked as malware you have to include Google Pay(or Apple Pay) and remove the Visa/PayPal and all the other payment options and some person would say "this is exactly what we wanted, no more choices - force everyone to a Google(or Apple ) tax , this choices are overwhelming my poor brain then tell me the correct adjective to describe this person that thinks removing choice and forcing the big coorporation way is the best thing.

This is the reason free software is important. Imagine json beeing licensed to pay per file. I do also expect Mirosft to take the word ```open source``` down, because it will strengthen them- but cuts outliners. Gates was great.

I don't see how any of that is not relevant here.

Cut >50% and it's now a extortion with no further analysis. And extortion is illegal in any civilised state, including USA.

>Cut >50% and it's now a extortion

Extortion (or blackmail) has a legal definition and this isn't it. In California (where Apple is incorporated and headquartered), the statute states:

Extortion is the obtaining of property or other consideration from another, with his or her consent, or the obtaining of an official act of a public officer, induced by a wrongful use of force or fear, or under color of official right.

Wrongful use of fear exists in this context as there is a threat to expel the developer out of Apple ecosystem if he does not accept the cut.

> The problem is bigger then that. Apple takes a 30% cut

You have described a different objection, which is not "bigger". It's a different problem people have.

> they are forcing you not to inform the customer about alternatives

That is part of what's going on but you're missing the main issues. They are forcing an app owner to add a purchase that gives Apple revenue if Apple can find ANY other way that the owner is offering to be paid for app features. There was no advertisement or inform within the app at all. Also, you cannot inform the use about WHY the alternative exists (apple gets part of it).

That's how it's worse than even you think.

If Apple thinks people are paying for something, they force you to add something that is preferred that pays them. It's extortion (via a protection racket, "i heard you got an inheritance, be a real same if something happened to your app") or racketeering, depending on how broadly you want to define things.

In addition to the annual $100 (if it hasn't changed) developer fee, should they start charging a per install/download fee. What do you say to that?

I also don't like Apple's insistence of "only IAP or nothing at all (not even a mention)" but how do you suggest they make profit from the developer side? Or they should not do that at all?

It should be 10%? 20? 5%? What will be an acceptable %? Who decides that? What's the framework for deciding that?

I see one solution, and it's far fetched, developers/companies should fund and push for an alternative open platform, along with phone/device makers. Something that's not tightly controlled like iOS and Android. But then they will be losing on iOS. I think they will have a choice to make, consumers as well. Also, it's not an easy and short term solution.

We gleefully buy Macs, but imagine you buy a Lenovo/etc laptop and you are told you can't install Linux on this, only Windows. I won't be comfortable with that, but I am comfortable with the Mac buy where I Windows can be installed only via Mac (and Linux isn't even supported) - of course there could be work around with lots of circus and you cna live with a broken system.

Problem is not the cost. Problem is mono/duopoly of walled gardens.

I can bet $100 even if someone could raise a $100 billion they will still have no chance of breaking the current Mono/Duopoly of iOS and Android.

As much as I wish there is third option ( I cant believe Microsoft is something I considered, giving what I went though in the 90s ) the Smartphone moat make it pretty much indestructible.

I still remember thinking, we could make something better than Microsoft with tens of billions dollars, decent management and strategy in the 90s. Despite my disagreement with Apple's App Store, I am not sure I can make something better than Apple. It is so well run, with so many loyal customers, that when they were doing good ( Under Steve Jobs ) I was very happy. Now under Tim Cook, it is damn right scary.

I'd take that bet if it was the right person raising the $100B. It'd have to be an Elon Musk type with $70MM+ to develop the foundational ecosystem first to solve for many of the core problems to counter the various layers of walled garden ecosystems to capture a willingly attentive audience and fan base; I can see the path - I just don't have the starting funds and I can't really even begin to execute on it in a slower fashion due to pain I have that causes severe executive dysfunction - there is a path there and hopefully there is a platform and systems thinker out there with their own funds to put into the same system I've dreamed up over the years.

The app store ecosystem clearly has value, and I think Apple are entitled to make a profit off of it. (See, for example, comments below about how difficult it is to cancel subscriptions to other kinds of services.) The problem is that the 30% Apple charges has no relationship whatsoever to the amount of value that the app store provides - it's simply how much Apple can get away with charging. If alternate app stores were allowed, or alternate payment mechanisms were allowed, Apple would only be able to afford to charge a premium commensurate with how much "better" their experience is.

> It should be 10%? 20? 5%? What will be an acceptable %? Who decides that? What's the framework for deciding that?

The framework is called competition. If Apple's IAP billing or the whole app store in general faced any competition on iOS they wouldn't be able to charge anywhere close to 30%.

But Apple designed their platform specifically to prevent that, to retain a tight grip over app distribution and billing.

> I see one solution, and it's far fetched, developers/companies should fund and push for an alternative open platform, along with phone/device makers.

Good solution, but we won't get to it. The moat of Apple-Google mobile duopoly is way too massive to overcome naturally at this point. We need some regulation to reign this in. Mobile computing is just as essential as telephony and internet access. We can't have two companies dictating the rules of the game for the whole economy.

As other said, competition, Look at web hosting, how many choices you have with different prices, features and support.

My main point about he number x% tax is that the number itself is irrelevant, a judge should not decide that if the number is 30 then Apple is fine but if is 31 or 29 then is not fine, so people looking at the number are looking at the wrong thing.