Hacker News Reader

Comment by smnrchrds | Hacker News Reader

I agree with you. When the issue of Apple's anti-competitive behaviour comes up on HN, it is always rebuffed by saying Apple does not have a monopoly—its US share of smartphone market is merely 40%. This is demonstration that you don't need a 100% market share to act anti-competitively. Facebook and Google each have less than 30% market share in ad spend in the US.

View on HN

The fact that 30% app store tax exists and both stores (App Store by Apple and Google Play Store) have somewhat similar strategies highly indicate collusion going on. Apple only changed it for people making under $1m a year after people got mad and they got sued by Epic Games or they knew Epic Games was coming for their asses. But they know that majority of their revenue comes from pubs making over $1m a year which they still tax at 30%.

Then the fact that they hold Safari backwards to cripple the adoption of PWA's (Modern Web Apps). They don't allow real competitors to Safari either. The competitors that exist like Chrome or Firefox are just Safari under the hood on iOS.

iOS and Apple have single handedly crippled the innovation on mobile web. Safari is the modern Internet Explorer but Apple forcing people to use it directly or indirectly and not allowing real competition on iOS.

This is straight up anti trust material and they should face scrutiny for it. Sleepy lawmakers should wake up.

Not only does it harm American businesses, but also businesses across the world.

Even if Apple shouldn't be subject to an anti-trust suit, I think the whole industry should be regulated to counter how Apple goes about it's business - if Google could get away with acting like Apple does to it's customers they probably would, Microsoft would also love to but they've been bitten before.

Basic legislation guaranteeing certain freedoms for the consumers costs Apple and Google et al. nothing but massively empowers consumers in a sector where information about the products is largely controlled by the creators of said products.

This also prevents products becoming e-waste when the company is done supporting them.

Perhaps you would also consider book publishers as colluding since they too have a "tax" to publish books.

Even with ePubs book publishers are likely to take 50—75%. Print books the publishers still take 85% and higher.

Now that is a tax. But I would not call it collusion.

There was distribution that costed precisely $0 in middle man fees. Software downloaded from the web (if you already have the audience, the distribution costs are marginal on the web).

Then Apple decided to cut it out. And also cripple web apps so they can't even be alternatives properly. Can you build a Mail app on the web? No. Apple didn't add the required features to Safari that developers could build on top of. And Chrome/Firefox/Edge did add them and they work. However on iOS, Apple does not allow them, instead they're forced to use Safari under the hood with Chrome/Google branding sprinkled on top.

Tell me how much publishers pay to distribute on Windows from their websites? Or the WebApps that don't need to be installed? Apple provides little value as a middle man.

The just wanted to be parasite middlemen and they don't deserve to be. They're the mafia.

Go for them under anti-competition clauses. And if there is indication that they have colluded, start trust busting on both. Google is already not trustworthy. They colluded with Facebook already. And Apple colluded to lower wages with other tech companies.

It is entirely reasonable to think that this is anti-competitive and hinders innovation.

The reason the 30% exists isn’t collusion, it’s what both thought they needed to charge to make money on 99 cent purchases given how high transaction costs were.

Even today, it’s likely they don’t make much on those 99 cent purchases, last I looked transaction costs were probably over 10%.

To be fair - I'm more concerned about things like buying companies so that they have exclusive access to various technologies thereby denying other companies the ability to use them, e.g. the sensor used in the Kinect.

Sadly, only 40% when your opposition is fragmented and frankly a crap interface.

There are many things I like about Android, but most of them are philosophical.

I find navigating it atrocious and I have spent quite a bit time reverse engineering some applications.

Again, this is the competitor to apple? How much does each market capture. I suspect apple is doing much better here.

I think in USA, it's 60/40 in favor of Apple. Globally, 70/30 in favor of Android https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide

When Apple rejects your App you receive an explanation and even screenshots and a call from the reviewer with suggestions how to fix it.

They do? I was under the impression that they don't.

I specifically remember submitting an app, and getting denied. The response we got was relatively vague, saying it was breaking ToS. No screenshots, no call or anything of the sort.

This was the first submission though.

They do, Previously I wrote a few things about my experience with Apple. Rejection is manageable when you deal with people since you can actually reason with, unlike algorithms.

Here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25137475

Except sometimes Apple rejects your app such that you can't do anything to fix it. They straight up tell you that your whole concept isn't allowed to exist on the app store. I think I've seen a couple of stories about this a while ago. Or if there's any semblance of UGC, you're supposed to have a moderation team that would enforce Apple's ridiculous policies. Oh you're an individual and don't intend to turn that into a company? Tough luck, sorry.

I can at least get Apple on the phone. Sometimes I can’t even get an actual human to email me back from Google.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com