Hacker News Reader

Comment by cpr | Hacker News Reader

Why is everyone assuming Apple's being evil here?

Not that they're perfect by any means, but the pattern seems pretty clear: they start off with a restrictive situation, see how it works, and then adjust. (Sometimes they restrict more, then relax; sometimes they stay more restrictive.)

They're engaged in a learning process, folks. Nothing quite like the App Store has been attempted before on this scale, and you know they've gotta be rather conservative at each step. You would if you were in their shoes.

Yes, they're trying to make money, but I see lots of signs that they're also trying to accommodate the needs of users first, then developers.

Never assume malice when it could just be incompetence (i.e., learning from mistakes), etc.

(I'm not shilling for Apple. I didn't even attend WWDC this year for the first time in many years. ;-)

View on HN

The "same price or less than it is offered outside the app" clause was the part I always imagined to be most likely to set off a DOJ smoke detector. Not surprised to see it go.

Right after that e-book competitor shut it's doors (It's been like 3 weeks.)

This is how apple kills off competitors. They "experiment", competitors close shop, then they come to their senses and undo the damage.

I am surprised Apple is not being brought up on monopoly charges.

Where are they a monopoly?

iTunes music accounts for 70% of legal music downloads.

Size does not matter when defining a monopoly. Monopolies restrict trade. There are many services that are actually equal in price or less than iTunes with similar catalogs. Definitely not a monopoly.

Also, just because one part of the business is a monopoly doesn’t mean that other parts of their business are monopolies.

If they were to put Rhapsody out of business that would qualify as restricting trade, no?

No, the mere possibility of restricting trade makes a "monopoly". Actual restriction of trade is "abuse of monopoly".

Do you think Apple really cares about competition from an e-book company who we never heard of before their open letter, and who's name we can't remember now?

I find that unlikely.

Microsoft used to take on little companies too and either buy them out or run them out of business with any means necessary. If you wait too long they get hard to kill.

I personally find the notion that anyone at Apple with influence over app store t's & c's has ever heard of iFlowReader insulting to our intelligence. I'm saying that this notion that Apple actively tried to kill iFlowReader is pure geek fantasy, a product of nerds like us wanting stories with clear bad guys and underdogs. It bears no relation to reality. Apple did not give a shit about them.

As Gruber writes:

>Apple doesn’t give a damn about companies with business models that can’t afford a 70/30 split. Apple’s running a competitive business; competition is cold and hard. And who exactly can’t afford a 70/30 split? Middlemen. It’s not that Apple is opposed to middlemen — it’s that Apple wants to be the middleman. It’s difficult to expect them to be sympathetic to the plights of other middlemen.

>This is what galls some: Apple is doing this because they can, and no other company is in a position to do it. This is not a fear that in-app subscriptions will fail because Apple’s 30 percent slice is too high, but rather that in-app subscriptions will succeed despite Apple’s (in their minds) egregious profiteering. I.e. that charging what the market will bear is somehow unscrupulous. To the charge that Apple Inc. is a for-profit corporation run by staunch capitalists, I say, “Duh”.

>If it works, Apple’s 30-percent take of in-app subscriptions will prove as objectionable in the long run as the App Store itself: not very.

The above was from http://daringfireball.net/2011/03/dirty_percent

Looks like Apple didn't really succeed and backtracked once Amazon and Netflix started threatening to pull their apps which would make the iDevices much less valuable to many users. You can only pillage the ecosystem so much before it starts hurting you.

Ok, but this has nothing to do with the point I was making, or the point the grandparent comment makes.

Except:

" 'It’s not that Apple is opposed to middlemen — it’s that Apple wants to be the middleman. It’s difficult to expect them to be sympathetic to the plights of other middlemen.'"

is clearly in agreement with what he replied to:

"this notion that Apple actively tried to kill iFlowReader is pure geek fantasy... Apple did not give a shit about them."

I made a stronger claim than that; I said, nobody with any influence over app store terms and conditions had ever even heard of iFlowReader. I'm trying to convey how absurd it sounds that Apple would tailor its corporate strategy to an independent software product with so little traction or market impact.

If you think they did, you're free to think that. I think it's profoundly unlikely that they even knew about them.

You are probably right, but is it possible they saw the type of business that iFlowReader what doing, not them in particular but the general idea, as something they wanted to be in and they were looking at making it hard for others to compete? I do have to admit I'm implying they were trying to be mischievous and I hardly have proof of that but it's just I possibility.

One small competitor did, yes.

One rather dominant one didn't. Amazon are, fair to say, a fairly significant threat...

In what practical sense did Apple's original rules ever impact Amazon's Kindle app? Are you just saying Apple was playing chicken with Amazon? Ok. They lost. And?

Err, I take it that you haven't been keeping up with the hoopla? Both the Netflix and Kindle apps were totally affected by these rules and would have had to pay up 30% of their subscriptions/ebooks. The deadline for enforcement was June 30th.

In the meantime, Apple started killing off the small guys while approving updates to Kindle and Netflix. Things were suppose to come to a head this month.

Did Amazon change the way it paid Apple? Did Apple hold back the Kindle app?

Presumably, had they not flinched, they would have starting June 30th. People are talking about how Apple waited until the 11th hour to relent.

Amazon doesn't pay Apple nor Apple pays Amazon. That was set to change on June 30th.

"Right after that e-book competitor shut it's doors (It's been like 3 weeks.)"

"This is how apple kills off competitors. They "experiment", competitors close shop, then they come to their senses and undo the damage."

Do you really think Apple went through all this to kill off some tiny company building software for their platform? No. They're relenting to make sure companies like Amazon, Netflix, and major newspaper and magazine publishers stay on iOS.

"I am surprised Apple is not being brought up on monopoly charges."

In what market does Apple enjoy a monopoly?

The DOJ would have most likely been looking for evidence of restraint of trade. http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/restraint-of-trade/

Note that only Section 2 of the Sherman Anti-Trust act even mentions monopolies. The rest of it deals with anti-competitive actions, of which monopoly may only be a potential outcome.

Do you really think Apple went through all this to kill off some tiny company building software for their platform?

There has been at least one "coincidence" of this sort before: http://sivers.org/itunes

If they wanted to kill them off, why allow them in the App Store at all?

It's like price-anchoring (see iPad) except instead of dollars it's restrictions. Apple sets the restriction bar at a crazy level, and then when they relax the restrictions it feels like we're all getting something great when in fact Apple is getting exactly what they wanted.

What is apple getting that they wanted?

30% of everything.

I don't think anyone is calling them evil due to the app store restriction here. But they definitely stole the guy's app and logo. That's both illegal (at least the logo part) and immoral.

Reject the app, sure. Build similar functionality yourself, perhaps a bit scumbaggy but also probably legal. (This crowd still hasn't forgiving Microsoft for doing that 20 years ago.) Do all of that and steal the logo too and you've crossed the line.

The logo was a combination of two of Apple's own images (iSync, and the wifi menu bar). I think your claim that they "stole the guys app and logo" is a little murky, at least regarding the logo.

It never fails to amaze me how early adopters react to new services and technology. Of course it's understandable that devs want to be treated fairly and (notwithstanding Apple's missteps) make a living. However it would behoove us to bear in mind that these services are new and still being developed. It's natural that a system should go through changes some of which are actually mistakes that will hopefully be reversed. Such evolution, one would hope, ensures that at some point an equilibrium is reached wherein both parties interests are addressed. Keeping in mind that the better the AppStore is (for users) the wider the reach will become and in turn this should mean a larger user base for devs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com