Hacker News Reader

Comment by gwd | Hacker News Reader

> There is room for 3rd party app stores.

The "Apple Tax" pays for the maintenance of the Apple ecosystem. Epic wants access to this amazing ecosystem, but resents having to help pay to support it.

Either "third party" app stores will also pay to support this ecosystem, in which case Epic will be paying the same amount either way; or they'll fail to support the ecosystem, in which case Apple will be forced to turn to other sources to make revenue (like selling personal information).

Right now I, as the consumer, can choose between an ecosystem whose business model is based on selling personal information (Android) or an ecosystem whose business model is based on the end user paying more (Apple). Don't take that choice away from me.

View on HN

> Either "third party" app stores will also pay to support this ecosystem, in which case Epic will be paying the same amount either way

how did you work out that the amount apple gets paid (30%) is the "correct" amount? The only way to find out is via competition. But due to the monopolistic powers of apple, there cannot be competition on their platform. Thus, we do not know the true cost of maintaining this platform - only that apple is able to maintain it with at least 30%.

> Don't take that choice away from me.

nobody is forcing you to use the third party app store if it does exist. If you continued to use apple's curated store, you will continue to get the existing benefits. Adding an extra option can't possibly hurt you.

> nobody is forcing you to use the third party app store if it does exist. If you continued to use apple's curated store, you will continue to get the existing benefits. Adding an extra option can't possibly hurt you

People need to stop saying this - it’s obvious completely false.

As soon as other app stores are involved, there will be paid exclusives. Equivalent to Joe Rogan on Spotify, or any of the streaming video services who commission studios to make content just for their platform.

It will definitely be impossible to avoid using multiple stores if you want access to the popular apps.

Not really. It would be perfectly possible to have just one store offering multiple repos/curations etc. . And in any case "but having like three stores" is an annoyance at worst. Having one grand holy arbiter of truth is a bigger problem.

> It would be perfectly possible to have just one store offering multiple repos/curations etc.

That isn’t true.

In order for it to be true you would need to explain how this would be possible if stores buy exclusive rights to apps.

> how did you work out that the amount apple gets paid (30%) is the "correct" amount? The only way to find out is via competition. But due to the monopolistic powers of apple, there cannot be competition on their platform. Thus, we do not know the true cost of maintaining this platform - only that apple is able to maintain it with at least 30%.

30% is industry standard.

It hurts the ecosystem - and all its users. Splitting the apps in multiple app stores is a nightmare

I don't get the point: the whole idea of Apple is to have everything under their control. Nobody is forcing anyone to use Apple devices

Nobody is going to not put their app on the apple app store. Look at steam for example. Almost every game on steam can be purchased somewhere else, like icth.io or the game's website. 30% is industry standard among monopolistic players (Google play store, Apple app store, Steam). There are many other storefronts that take less of a cut, and don't require IAP to go through a specific payment system that the platform also owns. FDroid, MS Store, Epic Store, Galaxy Store, GOG, the list goes on.

How is Steam a “monopolistic player” when you say “almost every game on steam can be purchased somewhere else” and go on to mention Gog, MS Store, Epic Store, and “the list goes on”?

That Steam, and others you mention, charge 30% categorically undermines the whinging about Apple’s 30% being out of line.

I’m also curious about people’s thoughts on Sony pulling CDPR’s Cyberpunk 2077 from their Playstation store.

You're right about steam. Monopoly isn't the right word.

Steam is the only one on that list that takes 30% that I know of. MS store went through a period where they would pay you to put your app there.

> Nobody is going to not put their app on the apple app store.

Certainly false - just like with streaming video, platforms will pay for exclusives from popular developers to force users to visit their stores.

> Nobody is going to not put their app on the apple app store.

Epic will, and this is what they want

> Almost every game on steam can be purchased somewhere else, like icth.io or the game's website. 30% is industry standard among monopolistic players (Google play store, Apple app store, Steam).

That is a very different use case

> how did you work out that the amount apple gets paid (30%) is the "correct" amount? The only way to find out is via competition.

The "correct" amount is the amount that everybody is happy to pay. If Epic doesn't want to pay 30%, then 30% is too high for them. That's OK -- nobody is forcing them to pay it.

The competition you're describing isn't the cost of running the app store; it's the cost of maintaining the entire Apple ecosystem, including iOS, new iPhone hardware, etc.

> Adding an extra option can't possibly hurt you.

Yes it can, and I just explained how. But let me try to spell it out.

1. New iOS "app store" starts up, but only charges 0.1%. This is possible because they don't write the OS or any of the infrastructure; they're a simple indexer

2. Everyone moves over to this app store because the fees are cheaper.

3. Apple's revenue drops precipitously

4. In order to maintain the OS, Apple either a) raises the prices of iPhones b) starts selling my information c) invests less in the iPhone and iOS.

All three of those possibilities hurt me; so yes, a new app store does hurt me.

What are you on about? App developers are not the ones who should be monetarily supporting the ecosystem, the end user has already paid for the device. Not only that, without developers, there is no ecosystem. An iPhone without apps is less useful than an iPod touch with apps.

Boohoo, the most cash rich silicon company will have to compete. Brew or Cydia never ate into Apples profit margins, instead it allowed users to do things apple couldn't be bothered supporting (Like Bluetooth audio on the 3g iPhone on iOS 2.0). Having multiple app stores will allow users to circumvent government censorship in countries where Apple is forced to follow the governments demands.

> App developers are not the ones who should be monetarily supporting the ecosystem, the end user has already paid for the device.

Where does this "should" come from? Just because you don't think that's the best way to run an ecosystem doesn't mean nobody should be allowed to do it. If it's a bad model, that's Apple's problem, not yours. If you think you have a better model, start a new company with a different model.

> Not only that, without developers, there is no ecosystem. An iPhone without apps is less useful than an iPod touch with apps.

The fact that Apple has a rich and thriving ecosystem demonstrates that their business model works just fine.

> Having multiple app stores will allow users to circumvent government censorship in countries where Apple is forced to follow the governments demands.

Won't one of those government demands be, "No third party app stores"? (Or, "No third party app stores that we haven't approved"?)

> The fact that Apple has a rich and thriving ecosystem demonstrates that their business model works just fine.

It just shows it works for Apple. It doesn't show it works for everyone else. It's like slavery was a good system because it made the slave-owners rich and they thrived because of it.

> The "correct" amount is the amount that everybody is happy to pay.

This is only valid in a free market with lots of competition and information transparency. The crux of the argument is that this does not apply to the app store ecosystem.

> New iOS "app store" starts up, but only charges 0.1%. This is possible because they don't write the OS or any of the infrastructure; they're a simple indexer

Apple was already paid handsomely for OS development through the device's purchase price.

> Apple's revenue drops precipitously

Apple has some of the highest margins in the industry. They'll survive.

> In order to maintain the OS, Apple either a) raises the prices of iPhones b) starts selling my information c) invests less in the iPhone and iOS.

See my previous point.

"Apple has lots of money so they can afford to give some of it away because we want them to" is not an argument that Epic can take to court, and it isn't a great argument to support adding app stores.

As an iPhone user I prefer the single app store approach. Multiple app stores fragments the user experience, ultimately harming the experience of owning an iPhone. Especially when apps become exclusives to different stores, because they will.

It's one of the main reasons that I moved away from Android. I completely understand the "open system" argument for Android, but a fragmented user experience is a byproduct of that openness. The last android phone I had came with a Samsung store, Google play, and I believe a Verizon app store. As well, going from my Android phone to borrowing a friends meant learning a completely new UX almost every time. "Oh, you don't have a Samsung Android, so you don't have that particular app store, so you can't get the app... Sorry"

It's been several years now, so maybe that's changed, but the biggest thing that makes me stick with Apple is the consistency of the user experience, in both its OS and app store ecosystems.

You're conflating having a single app store with having a consistent user experience. Mac OS didn't have an app store for most of its existence and it's doing fine. Android is particularly bad in that regard, not just because of the ability to side-load alternative apps and app stores. The main issue is that OEMs heavily modify the OS for their devices, something that isn't an issue with Apple's business model.

I'm not so sure it's a conflation. Having a single app store makes for a more consistent user experience when moving from device to device.

You can tell people about apps and they know how and where to get them. See an app you like on another iPhone? You can probably install it on yours fairly easily. There's less confusion around the entire ecosystem because of its simplicity.

This is one hell of a peak capitalism comment - I already payed tons of money for the richest company in the world, no way I'm bothered them getting that another 30% cut.

Look through my comments and you'll find I'm not some "the free market will magically solve all our problems" ideologue. Monopolies / monopsonies are a thing, and both workers and consumers need to be protected from them. Your attitude would make sense if there were no other smartphones around, and it was "buy an iPhone or go without".

But there are plenty of good smartphones with alternate business models. If you don't like the fact that your apps are more expensive because Apple charges a 30% commission, then buy an Android and install a third-party app store.

I really don't understand the attitude.

Because it's duopoly, there are no other options. You're free not to use alternative stores or so-called sideloading.

My understanding is that you can do both on Android.

What are you talking about? Both Microsoft and Apple have had great success developing macOS and Windows while allowing third party developers to develop and distribute apps without an additional tax. There's clearly room in the market for operating systems that don't sell personal data and aren't artificially restrictive to generate more revenue. The fact that Apple cut the tax in half for small companies just shows how disconnected the revenue from the App Store is from the cost of running it.

By all means, keep overpaying for Spotify on the App Store so Apple can collect their 30% each month, but don't force me to. Customers already pay to use a licensed copy of iOS on supported hardware and governments have every right to protect the customer from perpetually getting screwed by Apple. At the very least, we shouldn't allow Apple to limit free speech so that developers can't mention a way for their users to save money.

> The "Apple Tax" pays for the maintenance of the Apple ecosystem.

No - the ~50% margin Apple makes on the phone pays for the ecosystem. Apple could charge nothing for inclusion in the app store and still be by far the most profitable electronic device maker on the planet.

Apple is well compensated for their ecosystem with the price of their phones. Epic wants to create their own store or be allowed to use another payment processor than Apple for in app purchases. Apple would still have plenty of revenue from the app store and hardware.

If epic and others was allowed to use multiple payment processors in the apps, or to install different app stores such as epic games or steam, you wouldn't have fewer choices you would have more.

What ecosystem - i.e. what ecosystem is there that isn't already paid for by the billions and billions Apple make every year?

Apple have hundreds of billions in cash do you actually believe they're going to put ads in their services?

>Apple have hundreds of billions in cash do you actually believe they're going to put ads in their services?

That's irrelevant. The issue in question is one of principle, not whether or not someone is in a certain position at this moment in time and can or can't or will or won't do something. If Apple suddenly lost all of it's money, you'd then be ok with them putting ads into their services?

> if Apple suddenly lost all of it's money

Well no-one would be using it so I wouldn't care all that much - Apple losing all their money would basically require giving away iPhones for free with 0 revenue given apples financials.

So then your argument is just anti-Apple and not actually based on any principles...

No I'm pointing out that your hypothetical is so far into the tails that it's pointless to consider specifically.

The Apple tax pays for outsized profits for Apple shareholders. The actual cost of supporting the ecosystem is dwarfed by the absolute firehose of money coming out of the app store.

Epic has asserted and proven that you don't need to take 30% to run an app store and approval pipeline. The incredible amount of profit generated by the iOS store is further evidence that the cut doesn't need to be 30%, as is Apple's sudden willingness to make exceptions for big companies like Amazon and temporarily offer 15% to small companies.

Neither the Epic Store or Steam on PC are built around selling your data. Epic's PC store charges 12% (and if you use Unreal, they waive the licensing fee for that engine too), and Steam has a special tiered tax for massive companies (something like 25% for 50m+ in revenue, 20% at some higher tier)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com