Hacker News Reader

Comment by pja | Hacker News Reader

Appoogle are a duopoly. You can’t get significant sales on mobile phones without going through their respective App Stores, which both charge 30%. What a coincidence!

Your comparisons with book publishers are specious: if I write a book today I can go to any of a number of publishers, none of whom have any kind of control over access to readers. Or I can even self-publish and sell direct.

Jailbreaking is a complete irrelevance in market terms: It’s effectively impossible to sell on Apple devices without paying Apple’s tax & very difficult to sell on Android devices (which Google controls via carefully written contracts with mobile phone manufacturers) without paying Google 30%. We have anti-monopoly + market collusion laws for good reasons. It’s about time they were enforced.

View on HN

I don't think that's a fair assessment at all. Both Google and, especially, Apple have spent millions of dollars, hours, and effort to create their respective App Stores and the people and tools needed to run them. There's a reason why there's a difference, in the real world, between a Walmart and a Target or Sprouts. Likewise, there's a difference between Apple, Google, or anyone else's App Stores. The main difference being that Apple makes it easy and far less risky for customers to pay for what they're getting. Developers aren't buying into just the App Store, they're buying in to the whole group of customers that said App Store brings with them.

> Both Google and, especially, Apple have spent millions of dollars, hours, and effort to create their respective App Stores and the people and tools needed to run them

Both Google and especially Apple have also spent millions of resources and money, making sure they are the only app store in use (by default).

They could have spent some of those millions creating a set of rules for independent app marketplaces to be able to distribute content on their platform instead of locking everyone in to theirs'.

I love how we suddenly have better ideas for how the most successful public company should allocate their resources to serve their customers (developers are second tier, sorry). We sometimes forget they are sitting on mountains of money because they execute good company decision making, not because they are doing weird things to protect a monopoly. Like there is some meeting near the top between execs happening where someone goes "lets do X!" and another exec replies "no but doing X would harm our monopoly, we cant' do that". Do people think decisions are really being actively made to protect a monopoly?

With this rationale no monopoly should ever be investigated, broken up, etc.

The whole problem with monopolies is that they actually harm the consumer by protecting their monopoly from encroachment by someone else. So yes people really think decisions are being made by a monopoly to protect their monopoly (and their profits). A chunk of those billions they have is actually money generated by these monopolistic practices.

It's juvenile to imagine them sitting at board meeting and discussing "How can we protect our monopoly?", that's like saying the NSA is discussing by board meetings "how can we further invade everyones privacy?". But they most definitely are discussing how they can protect their market share and how to edge out competition.

I am sure they do discuss those things. This is why Google has onboarding training around not framing any communication around competition. The optimist in me says this is actually to help infuse a culture of good decision making and trying to combat this kind of monopolistic thinking. I guess there is another side to this that is not so good natured. I guess this is an argument around intent. Are they actually trying to be good, or hide evidence of being bad, by the highest level of these companies?

You're missing the point. Apple doesn't want independent App Stores because that's not what their customers want. Their customers want a simple way to install apps that they can trust and to pay for things in a way that they can trust. Independent app marketplaces are anathema to that.

> creating a set of rules for independent app marketplaces

How is this any different?

This implies - of course - that they will allow other app marketplaces to begin with.

> Both Google and, especially, Apple have spent millions of dollars, hours, and effort to create their respective App Stores and the people and tools needed to run them.

Google and Apple spent Millions 'claiming' Patents/IP, monopolizing new discoveries, and 'earning' Billions.

"Place Silicon Valley in its proper historical context and you see that, despite its mythology, it’s far from unique. Rather, it fits into a pattern of rapid technological change which has shaped recent centuries. In this case, advances in information technology have unleashed a wave of new capabilities. Just as the internal combustion engine and the growth of the railroads created Rockefeller, and the telecommunications boom created AT&T, this breakthrough enabled a few well-placed corporations to reap the rewards. By capitalising on network effects, early mover advantage, and near-zero marginal costs of production, they have positioned themselves as gateways to information, giving them the power to extract rent from every transaction.

Undergirding this state of affairs is a set of intellectual property rights explicitly designed to favour corporations. This system — the flip side of globalisation — is propagated by various trade agreements and global institutions at the behest of the nation states who benefit from it the most. It’s no accident that Silicon Valley is a uniquely American phenomenon; not only does it owe its success to the United States’ exceptionally high defence spending — the source of its research funding and foundational technological breakthroughs — that very military might is itself what implicitly secures the intellectual property regime." [1]

[1] https://tribunemag.co.uk/2019/01/abolish-silicon-valley

> they're buying in to the whole group of customers that said App Store brings with them.

Isn't that what a duopoly is, by definition?

No, because there are other alternatives. The App Stores in these cases aren't considered their own market segments because they rely on the purchase of device to access them. Those devices are available from a large number of providers. Don't like Apple? Get an Android phone from any number of providers. Don't like the service? Switch to another carrier. Until the law changes to a point where companies have to allow other people to dictate their platforms (which will never happen), a company can do whatever it wants so long as it doesn't prevent a competitor from spinning up their own version.

> Appoogle

I did a search on Google and nothing really came up. Did you just invent the term? I love the name. It might end up in Main Stream Media soon.

I came up with it on the fly, but it was inspired by FAANG & similar terms. Surprised it’s that unique tbh!

How about Gopple?

I tried both ways, but decided that one didn’t quite trip off the tongue as well :)

Amazon will pay a pittance for ebook sales unless you’re exclusive with them, and they’ll generally use their market leading position to limit your choices at every step.

Google literally has multiple alternative app stores currently active.

I'm publishing the same (paid) app on Google Play and on Amazon's store, which is AFAICT the most widely used alternative (outside of markets where Google is not active).

My Amazon income is less than 2% of the Google income.

Should this make a difference? Just because users don't actually use alternative app stores doesn't mean the alternatives don't exist. It's not like Bed Bath & Beyond gets to complain that they don't get as many customers as Target. It has to be okay for a company to find themselves with naturally large marketshare simply because they do good business. If Google is doing something unkosher to get/keep their marketshare (and they are) then that's what you have to go after.

Absolutely. Anti-competitive laws aren't intended to prevent current market share, but rather level competition for future market share.

If Google has 99% current market share for mobile OS, props to them. They deserve it for working like heck, delivering something amazing, and finding a model that allows them to distribute for free.

If Google has 99% market share, and ensures it keeps 99% market share in the future by setting up licensing deals to tie Google Apps + App Store together... that deserves a lot more scrutiny.

Which just goes to show how Google’s and Apple’s investment of tens of billions of dollars building out their respective ecosystem presents a tremendous opportunity to developers.

Amazon made a half-hearted effort to compete in the space and the result is “less than 2%” in your case.

> tens of billions of dollars building out their respective ecosystem presents a tremendous opportunity to developers

That's... one way to look at it.

Another way is that they'd be spending even more if there were more healthy competition in the alternative app store market.

Amazon is incentived to run an Android app store now, in the same way Microsoft was incentivized to maintain an ARM build of Windows: it's not a corporate priority, because it doesn't make business sense for it to be until the playing field changes.

Amazon made a bunch of poorly performing and uncompetitive Android phones, and then bailed before doing the hard work of actually differentiating their product. The results are totally expected and if anything demonstrate the market is competitive, not anti-competitive.

Users don’t want an “alternative App Store market”. They want a place where they know the apps they download won’t steal their data or crash their device, where the billing policies are clear and predictable, where you can set parental controls and get refunds on accidental purchases.

Apple doesn’t have customers because they are the only one who you can buy water, electricity, or internet from at your home address. Apple has customers because people willingly and happily shovel their hard-earned money at them because their products are freaking amazing.

In no universe can anyone say that the progression / advancement of smartphones and smartphone applications indicates a stagnant market or one in need of forced government intervention.

From what I can see iPhone 1 with its 400MHz Samsung CPU and 320x480 display and its half dozen apps -> iPhone 12 with its 8 core 3GHz A14, 2532x1170 display, and millions of apps demonstrates conclusively that consumers are winning out tremendously over the last 13 years due to a highly competitive market driving truly massive R&D investment in this space.

I think the problem that people actually have with Apple is that they are so far ahead of the pack, and people don’t see where the inevitable disruption is going to come from just yet.

What would be the hypothetical characteristics of an anti-competitive app store market, to you?

I.e. what would you look at and say "That's anti-competitive"?

There's almost a infinite number of things they could do that would be illegal that you might also call 'anti-competitive'.

IMO, as long as there are viable competitors to Apple, and as long as Apple is not colluding with its competitors, Apple should be able to implement any lawful policy on its own device that it chooses.

Apple can't violate its existing contracts with its customers or developers (e.g. threatening to kick off all Unreal Engine apps, e.g. lock customer data unless a ransom is paid). Apple can't use App Store policy to commit crimes, like extortion (e.g. offering to buy an app developer, and saying they will ban them from the store or increase their commissions to 50% if they don't accept the buyout).

As long as their policies have a justifiable and legal business purpose (whether you personally agree with the policy is irrelevant) that's applied consistently (within human limits of consistency) they should be free to make their own product however they want, and charge what they want for it.

You haven't answered the question and I was interested in the answer too.

What would one or both of these stores need to do, to qualify as 'anti-competitive' to you?

Decouple payments/subscriptions from distribution (AppStore). Allow us to pay using Stripe, PayPal, Amazon Payments, Google Pay, Apple Pay, or any of a host of other payment processors: the developer can choose his own payment platform, just like in the rest of the world outside of the iPhone.

That's a good first step towards competition that would allow Apple to keep the AppStore exclusivity -- for now.

At the very least, they would need to decouple the payment processor in a way that still provides the user all of the following;

  1) No need to re-enter billing information across apps
  2) A centralized UI for the user to manage all their
     subscriptions, enforce consistent billing policies,
     request refunds, etc. 
  3) Enforce parental controls and family approval 
     policies which may be configured on the account
  4) Prevent any surprise billings or unauthorized charges
  5) Ability for Apple to force a refund even if the app dev won't

And probably many more technical measures. Otherwise, you are directly damaging a key value proposition provided by Apple and demanded by their users.

In the end, the payment processor is a red herring. Apple isn't charging 30% for the payment processing -- they probably pay less to run the charge than Stripe does. For example, for $0.99 charges, the app developer pays Apple less for their entire fee than Stripe would charge them just to run charge.

The 30% fee is Apple's share for creating the entire ecosystem. Everything from the programming language, the platform, the API's, the security framework / secure enclave, the app review, the distribution model, the billing system, the cloud services for software delivery/push notifications/updates/shared storage, all the way up to Apple's customer support lines. Actually running the payment gateway is perhaps the very least of it.

> In the end, the payment processor is a red herring.

Not in the context of introducing competition.

If there was competition in the App Store market, I’d have to deal with the overhead of dealing with publishing companies.

My apps would have to be designed to comply with all of the rules of all of the stores.

No thanks.

> Another way is that they'd be spending even more if there were more healthy competition in the alternative app store market.

This simply isn't true. Android is much more open yet app spend is way lower compared to the smaller marketshare iPhone.

An open app market means a flood of free apps which means less money spent. Good Devs will absolutely lose in this scenario. Outsourced sweatshop devs will do everything cheaper.

Was referring to they = Google, spend = Google's funding of Play Store development and infrastructure (in context to parent's comment)

We've barely been able to get people to stop referring to all Android devices as "Droids". The average person doesn't even know about alternate app stores, yet alone have the will to seek them out, install them, search for an app, and then pay for it (likely having to enter payment info this time). You might as well tell developers to release their apps on the dark web.

I'm sure you can release niche apps on these stores, but the general market isn't moving away from the Play Store any time soon, and that's where the money is.

Well, there is Amazon Appstore for Android, where you can buy digital goods (apps and games as well) on an Android device. Idk if the Amazon Appstore is available for IOS with the same terms. Can you buy IOS apps via Amazon Appstore on an IOS device?

Apple does not allow third party app stores on iOS. There's at least one third party store that you can side-load using developer tools but it's definitely not something the average user is aware of.

Like which ones? Even the Amazon Appstore, the largest alternative store is so negligible we might as well pretend it does not exist.

And how many of those are installed on the average US Android phone exactly?

What happens to a phone manufacturer who ships a phone with an alternate App store?

> What happens to a phone manufacturer who ships a phone with an alternate App store?

You get to be the best selling Android phone every year. Are we all forgetting that Samsung ships their own app store? Nobody uses it because it's garbage but that's not Google Play's fault.

You can't implement background installation of apps, automatic upgrading, or batch installation or upgrades of apps on Android outside of the Play Store. The competition is intentionally hobbled.

If we look at market share for mobile app distribution, the vast, vast majority of it goes to the App Store and the Play Store. The competition isn't even a blip on the radar.

How many of them have > 1% market share?

> which both charge 30%

Well, not anymore they don't.

Kind of undermines your cartel argument, if you think about it. Clever on Apple's part...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com