This the basically the summation of it all. Doesn't Apple require the ability to have anonymous logins too when creating accounts on iDevices?
Yet Apple is forcing them to give up 30% of their revenue, because they can.
Especially I'm spending $1000 USD on the thing.
You cant force a seller/company to accept every form of payment or payment processor. Especially one that takes 30% cut, and says they cant sell their goods themself to people (aka sideload).
Not only does such system seem insane for a normal payment processor. It also effects you the purchaser in multiple ways. Since to use this payment system you cant make the choice to buy anything but through them. It also prevents in you from fully owning your own hardware.
So the end results they force both developers and users through them. I find the effect of not allowing side-loading even more egregious because once apple sells the phone they no longer own it.
As for your comment normal producers of goods can sell directly or choose what stores to stock their product. However, here a developer has no choice but apple and the same goes for a payment processor. Its all because the hardware is locked down infringing on the property rights of device owners. Apple does not even own the hardware after they sell it. Apple can run their store like they want however the only reason is its a problem is because they infringe on the device owners rights, and they cant run software unless apple allows that software to run on the device.
But that argument is tired. These 'smart phones' have been advertised as PC Replacements. "Run your software, your games, your choice." To many people it is the only computer they will personally own.
They are computers with cellular modems and other useful sensors built in. That's it. There are magnitudes of people with the know how to operate these things and take full responsibility for their operation and maintenance. There are scores of people who could more easily creatively use these devices in ways we can't even imagine now.
Everyday these vendors prevent free and clear operation of this type of hardware, they hamper innovation, in favor of short term profits.
And also; to reply specifically regarding the fridge, to be honest, I actually do want to run my own code there: CPU based controller boards in appliances tend to be obnoxiously prices for replacement. The cost of the parts for a controller board + related software can't possibly be more than a RPi computer and a bunch of relays. The fridge's computer's code is probably running a software based PID controller, that could be sourced anywhere else, and perhaps even software optimized to take advantage of better energy usage algorithms.
So again, locked down hardware, short term profits. "$300 part bad on a $800 fridge, just buy a new one and throw the old one away"
Find a new proto-appliance to hack and shape, or buy from a different philosophy vendor.
Locking down devices without an escape hatch enables rent seeking and hampers innovation and creativity.
I understand your point of view, but also understand that the future where the only open hardware is expensive one-off specialty stuff is rapidly approaching. Either through legal means, or limited availability, companies are posturing themselves to be the gatekeepers + rent seekers, and will hamper new 'out-of-the-box' ideas.
Maybe Apple needs to make changes to allow apps that are only a part of a service instead of the main selling point of the service to bypass those rules? Seems like it would be tough to figure out what is and isn't covered though.
Which is precisely the problem what some people have with the App Store. Actually may be that is not even the case either. There are many accepting the fact there are economy of scale and Amazon, Netflix are big enough to get special treatment. Which is fine. That is until Tim Cook stood up and said everyone gets the same treatment in App Store. Which is a lie.
This is a bit disingenuous. Apple isn’t forcing them to give up 30% of their revenue, they are requiring they give users the option to sign up through the App Store.
If most of their customers come from outside the App Store, this won’t make much difference to them.
If they make less the $1m through the App Store, it will only be 15%.
The second is a bit of a niggle, but if most of their promotion and value comes from outside the App Store, this wouldn’t be a big problem.
Let's say Apple wants to sell their devices at "Billy's Electronics", which is a tiny kiosk at a mall with minimal foot traffic. Billy tells Apple that he'll only sell Apple devices at his kiosk if Apple agrees to give him 30% of all revenues Apple makes from all of their services from customers that buy a device at his kiosk. This includes things like iCloud subscriptions, app store sales, etc.
That's batshit right? Like literal insanity if Apple would accept that deal. So obviously, Apple would tell Billy to fuck off and will find somewhere else to sell their devices.
Except they can't, because Billy is the only person with a license to sell electronics in the entire country. He got this by convincing everyone that he wants to "protect" electronics customers from scammers and other bad people who want to exploit them. The fact that this makes Billy a trillionaire is just a nice little coincidence.
"Sure, I'm the richest entity in the entire history of the universe, but that's not why I'm doing this. I'm doing this so innocent people don't download an app only to discover that they need to go to another website to create an account first." ~ Billy
> If they make less the $1m through the App Store, it will only be 15%
That's a deflection tactic, and doesn't justify anything. 15% is still too much as long as there are no alternatives.
So the more accurate version of your story is that Apple goes to one of 100 different retailers instead of Billy, which is also what the electronics marketplace is like already.
1. Most of the apps in the App Store are games. What are the alternative app stores for other handheld gaming systems like the Nintendo Switch and 3DS?
2. I supposed it's a shame that there are no alternatives to iOS/iPhone besides Android which has an 85% market share.
3. https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut... (updated Jan. 2021.)
Android's 85% market share is global, and a lot of those are low budget garbage which makes them less important for a lot of industries (particularly gaming). In the US, Android's market share is more like 50%, and while I obviously can't speak for every developer, I at least consider the US market to be my primary focus. Doing significant business in another country is more complicated than just localizing strings and clicking a checkbox on the developer console (unless your business is relatively simple, like a utility or a game)
And while Android does allow third-party stores to exist, they're at a significant disadvantage competitively. It is practically impossible for any store to compete against Google play with the current systems and barriers Google put in place (as proven by companies that have attempted it over the years). That is also clear "anti-competitive behavior". From the point-of-view of users, the situation is better. But from the perspective of developers, it's the same bullshit. You are not going to escape Google on Android and hope to have a successful business, unless maybe you can manufacture and sell your own hardware.
And regarding Steam, I too think that 30% is too much (especially because Valve are not entirely innocent of anti-competitive practices themselves). However, it's not the same situation because there currently are many realistic alternatives to Steam, both for gamers and for developers. The same can't be said about Android or iOS.
1. Android doesn't have 85% market share, whether that is inclusive of Google Android or Android without Google.
2. Android doesn't have 85% market share, whether that is in US or Worldwide.
3. Today, the iPhone has 66% market share in the United States, 75% of U.S. App Store revenues, and over 80% of time spent on the mobile internet. And increasing.
4. Apple could have a seperate Game Store and locked in at 30%. I would have been completely fine. I may not like it, but there isn't much to debate.
5. When the whole economy are moving to Online and Digital, while Apple having the dictating power and a near monopoly of 30% cut on Digital Goods. We have a problem. Especially doing so without alternative payment system allowed. I cant have a separate signup link, nor can I advertise it with link to Web.
All I’m suggesting is we just discuss what Apple actually does rather than exaggerating it to poorly make a point.
> That's a deflection tactic, and doesn't justify anything. 15% is still too much as long as there are no alternatives.
I wouldn’t have even mentioned this if you hadn’t blown the first more important point out of proportion.
There is an absolutely massive difference between “All their revenue” and “All revenue from in app purchases”.
The OP is about Librem Tunnel, an app which is one part of a subscription service called "Librem One".
By forcing this company to add in-app purchases, Apple is taking 30% of all the revenue of the entire Librem One subscription, since Librem doesn't sell VPN access by itself.
I don't see how I'm blowing that out of proportion? The kiosk taking 30% of iCloud subscriptions is pretty much a perfect analogy to what's going on. I haven't exaggerated anything as far as I can tell.
Above, you gave (to me at least) the impression that you were referring to all of Librem’s revenue. Not just the revenue which is filtered through the App Store, every penny they earn.
I don’t care for a lot of the way the App Store works, including the point you make here. But your original post was not very clear if this is what you meant to say.
There should be room in the App Stores for businesses which sell services where the App is only part of the offering.
Real-world Billy doesn't hold the "license to sell electronics," but the various mall management companies - of which there aren't very many - do in fact exclusively control the real estate in the shopping malls. They don't charge Apple a percentage of sales, but they charge them some amount of money for simply having the store, regardless of sales, which can be even more: if you look at the latest MacBook in person at the store, go home, and decide you want to buy it from apple.com, the landlord still gets money from Apple.
The various mall management companies make, quite literally, billions of dollars a year. The landlords who own non-mall property for the Apple Store downtown also make piles of money. And they don't need a license, nor do they need to convince anyone that they're protecting anyone. They just own the land.
And Apple also sells products through various other retailers, like cell phone companies, Best Buy, etc., each of which work out deals of various sorts. You generally can't buy an unlocked, no-contract iPhone from a cell phone company. You get an iPhone with a contract that commits you to spending way more money than the cost of the phone.
Arguably, Apple's role is a lot fairer; there's no scarce resource like properly-zoned land in a populated city on which the App Store was built. Anything that happens on the App Store is entirely Apple's doing; anything that happens in a mall or in an existing retail store is partly the owner's doing and partly their good fortune to have put themselves there before someone else did. If someone wants to compete with iOS and the App Store, they are free to build their own version from scratch - nothing Apple did is stopping them. If someone wants to compete with a shopping mall, you can't just plop down a new shopping mall - the land is in use. If we think Apple doesn't deserve to take a cut for use of their platform that they built, the landlords certainly don't deserve rent for use of land that they bought.
(Which is, to be fair, my own personal opinion, but the market doesn't agree with me, and there's very little point in me pouting at the market.)
If Apple were to allow alternative app stores, I think we’d see price normalization in this space. The various app stores would then be competing on price based on the costs of hosting their App Store service.
Landlords have exclusive use of land, a limited resource. If I am running a clothing brand and I want to have a store in a particular city, my options are to build a store on empty land very far from the city center, or to negotiate with the person who has the land.n If I want to have a store in a mall, I certainly can't just built on my own, and in many cities, there's probably not even another mall to provide competition.
Apple is charging for use of the Apple App Store platform. They are not charging for the Android Play Store platform. They are not charging for anything happening anywhere else. There is no exclusive resource like land involved, as demonstrated by the fact that Android was able to build the Play Store.
I don't think it makes any sense to say that Apple has a monopoly over use of their own product, since a monopoly is about control of a market. But if we're going to make that claim, we should definitely say that each mall owner has a monopoly over use of that mall! That is at least as sensible as saying that Apple and Android both have monopolies over their respective competing products.
And I think that the concern people have isn't whether the price has been decided by the market - it clearly has, and tons of participants are willing to participate even with the 30% cut - the question is whether the price is fair in a moral sense. I do agree with the answer that it is not. But I think you have to ask the right question to get the right answer.
To access 60% of US mobile phone users, App developers must go through Apple. Apple faces no competitor pressure when deciding on their prices, it is their discretion alone. Landlords face competitor pressure but Apple does not in this space so in that sense, no, the market has not decided apple’s prices.
Aside from the practical issues concerning their control of the market, the argument that Apple should be able to charge whatever they want because it’s their product is normative. These normative claims can be challenged when we consider the practical effects their market dominance has on app developers and users alike.
[1] https://www.phonearena.com/news/apple-iphone-record-sales-us...
But anyway - there are something like 1,000 to 2,000 indoor shopping malls in the US, depending on how you count, and there are companies that own hundreds of malls, and they're consolidating. Would it become a problem if one landlord ended up owning 60% of mall retail? Why?
And how are you concluding that Apple faces no competitor pressure? Apple's 30% cut is exactly equal to Google's 30% cut. Is this a massive coincidence, or is this the market doing exactly what you'd expect a market to do and equalizing prices between competitors for similar products? Why hasn't Apple raised their take to even 35%, if it really is their discretion alone?
(Microsoft, as it happens, also takes a 30% cut of Xbox-related sales on their store. They take a 5-15% cut of other apps. https://9to5mac.com/2019/03/06/microsoft-store-revenue-share... This is pretty much exactly with what you'd expect if 30% is what the market will bear for reasonably successful products, and if Microsoft is obligated to compete on price for non-Xbox-related store purchases.)
The fact that they own 60% is not a problem in itself but it is a problem when you consider the practical effects it’s having on app developers. A growing number of developers who reject their 30% price tag have no alternative to reach that segment of the market.
If we were seeing the same level of dissatisfaction with landlords hoarding real estate and the inability of their potential customers to go elsewhere, I would of course consider their monopoly a problem as well. I don’t think we are seeing the same level of monopoly and its failure modes happening in retail real estate.
I cited US statistics because US-based companies (Epic, Purism, Basecamp) seem to be at the center of this debate. If this discussion turns into proposal for legislation or an anti-trust case, it will likely happen in the US.
> Apple's 30% cut is exactly equal to Google's 30% cut.
Google actually has decreased their fees to 15% for smaller developers [1]. This is also much less of an issue on Android because there exists alternative app installation methods on that platform. Users can install app packages without needing to go through the google play store. So there is an alternative for developers.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/16/google-app-store-fees-cut-fo...
Probably because we live in the US and we will have to depend on our courts to force Apple to open up. Those courts require a certain amount of market power, which a majority market share indicates, to move forward with an antitrust judgement.
> Microsoft, as it happens, also takes a 30% cut of Xbox-related sales on their store.
Game consoles are not nearly as ubiquitous or as important to society as smart phones. We have different laws for things important things like cars than we do for toys like bicycles.
This is why Apple will eventually be forced to allow users to install software from outside the app store.
And why is that ok?
That’s why my persona exercised free consumer choice to opt into this philosophy instead of the competing camp. Years after last Android died I still had subs I couldn’t cancel unless I did chargebacks.
Stop trying to use regulation to take away my free market choice of ecosystem approach. I want the app appliance I can trust with one experience I can trust.
For example, I've had plenty of issues on iOS with refunds. On Android refunds are given automatically if you uninstall the app within 2 hour of purchase. Why isn't Apple doing that?
> Stop trying to use regulation to take away my free market choice of ecosystem approach.
Blame Apple for trying to make enemies of the developers who created the app in the first place and added value to the ecosystem you use. Blame Apple for the increased 15 to 30% you will have to pay because Apple thinks it can extort that money from us developers - in effect Apple is only screwing you, the end user.
> Even though Librem Tunnel is just part of the overall Librem One offering, because it’s part of a subscription service, Apple is requiring us to add the ability to sign up and pay for Librem One subscriptions within the Librem Tunnel app before they will allow updated versions into the App Store.
> Why are they making that requirement even though we already have our own independent payment infrastructure? Because once that app allows in-app purchases, Apple can then automatically take their 30% cut.
You can niggle on the 15% or 30% cut that Apple takes, but they raise a very valid concern -
- why should any developer pay Apple anything at all in the first place?
- Why should they allow themselves to be blackmailed by Apple to use their payment services?
- Why should their customers bear the burden of this extra 15 to 30% that Apple demands for using their payment service?
What Librem are doing is the right thing though - go to the press, raise a big stink and Apple will back off. It's been proven to work time and time again.
I believe they do require this of large companies; it's been a while, but IIRC Netflix and Disney+ both allow you to sign up for the service in the app. The HBO app does, too.
You can log in with an existing account, but I thought the requirement was that you need to give a user the ability to sign up for a paid service account in app, and that signup needs to bill through Apple.
It's a moneymaker, no doubt; as a consumer, though, I appreciate not having to hand over credit card details to a random service I'm trying out for a month.
Disney+ does let you subscribe through Apple.
Well, for devices, its basically customer support via threat of class action lawsuit. I'm still a little miffed I had to pay $79 three times to "fix" the iPhone 6 and didn't get a refund after they finally acknowledged the issue.
Apple did not lift this requirement for the Hey email app during the controversy over that last year. Instead, they reached a compromise where Hey would offer a free trial of their service inside the app, so they could be in compliance with the rule that an app must have some functionality without an account.
> 3.1.3(b) Multiplatform Services: Apps that operate across multiple platforms may allow users to access content, subscriptions, or features they have acquired in your app on _other platforms or your web site_, including consumable items in multi-platform games, _provided those items are also available as in-app purchases within the app_.
And by that rule there are _many_ apps from big companies that violate App Store guidelines, yet they get a pass because Apple doesn't have has much leverage over those companies as they do with small independent developers.