Hacker News Reader

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.