Hacker News Reader

Comment by simonh | Hacker News Reader

It's 30% for the first year of subscriptions and 15% thereafter.

According to Apple in 2019 Spotify didn't actually pay 30% on any of it's subscriptions at that time, and only paid the 15% on 0.5% of the App's users. The rest are ad supported and Apple gets 0% of the ad revenue.

So for every Spotify app user Apple get's a 15% fee for, there are 199 Spotify app users Apple is distributing the App to for which they get nothing.

https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-fires-back-spotify-pays-fees...

OK, that's the fact side of things. As for opinion, I think it's ridiculous that App vendors can't point out alternative payment options in their apps. That's a step too far. I'm also a bit concerned about digital sales, I can see why Epic doesn't want to pay 30% on every skin or loot box sold in Fortnite, but it's a free app otherwise distributed on the App Store for nothing so I think some sort of deal needs to be struck there.

Other than that, I think the iPhone is Apple's product. They get to decide how it works, and users get to decide whether that's acceptable or not. Apple (and NeXT) spent billions of dollars over many decades, taking huge commercial risks to build that platform. A decade ago we were constantly being told they were inevitably doomed and open always wins. Well no, some of us like the way Apple does things and don't want it to massively change. Some things sure, they're not perfect, but I do not support changes that would severely undermine the integrity of their product. You can always buy an Android phone.

View on HN

But I think the key here, and probably a big reason Spotify went after Apple and not Google, is that on iOS you have to use Apple's app store. You can't distribute your app using your own infrastructure, or an alternative app store even if you want to.

And aren't even allowed to mention in your app that you can sign up outside of the app.

That fact is key to the advantage that the iPhone ecosystem offers. I, and millions of users like me, like the closed garden.

I’m effectively outsourcing the duties implied by caveat emptor to Apple. I don’t have the time/inclination to check the safety & honesty of each app developer.

> That fact is key to the advantage that the iPhone ecosystem offers.

That's not an advantage - that's a disadvantage. Having an open ecosystem is a strict superset of the functionality of a closed ecosystem. If I can sideload, then I can sideload and use Apple's app store. If I can't sideload, then I can only use Apple's app store. It's a strict downgrade.

> I, and millions of users like me, like the closed garden.

Meanwhile, I, and millions of users like me (more, if you count every Android user as not liking walled gardens), do not like the closed garden.

Popularity does not make you right.

Absolute popularity doesn't even matter - only relative popularity does.

> I’m effectively outsourcing the duties implied by caveat emptor to Apple. I don’t have the time/inclination to check the safety & honesty of each app developer.

Apple doesn't do those duties consistently - malware repeatedly appears on the app store, and Apple doesn't even attempt to make sure that the vast majority of apps adhere to their privacy labels.

> "[banning sideloading] is a strict downgrade" Nope, I can buy my mom an iPhone and know that it's not possible to totally brick it by clicking a link from a dodgy text/email

> "Popularity does not make you right" I'm not saying that the closed approach is fundamentally better than the open approach, but it sure is for some use-cases. That's why we have a phone OS duopoly.

Regarding Apple's garden walls not keeping all the creepy-crawlies out, sure, but it's vastly better than on Android.

> I can buy my mom an iPhone and know that it's not possible to totally brick it by clicking a link from a dodgy text/email

If they add sufficient warnings about sideloading etc. then I don't see a problem.

If your mom is incapable of listening to these warnings and follows some guide to install some walware then I'm sorry but maybe she needs parental controls enabled or just a nice talking to about how to use her phone? Forcing everyone else to lose out on game streaming or Spotify signups seems like an overreaction to the problem and an oversimplification of the solution space.

Jesus, calm down. No-one is forced to do anything. Buy an Android. My mom will use an iPhone. The device fits the person and their behaviour, not the other way around.

> Nope, I can buy my mom an iPhone and know that it's not possible to totally brick it by clicking a link from a dodgy text/email

Uhm, I guess that's true in the same sense that it's usually more rainy in New York than Chicago: One click RCE aren't exactly impossible for IPhone, just historically more rare than on android. Though recently at least one exploit broker stopped accepting iOS Safari one click RCE because they just got too many shrug.

"millions of users like me, like the closed garden."

Alcapone was popular, but he was still a criminal and a murderer

If you think about it really carefully, Apple vetting apps before I get to see them is not... exactly... the same thing as being a murdering gangster

It's pretty clear that the parent was not stating that those were the same thing, but instead that popularity does not mean correctness (either in the technical sense or the moral sense).

Peak hackernews comment. This is an inane comparison. Murder is not the same as me being satisfied that every app publisher under the sun cannot make their own app store to pollute my phone further.

And with alternative app stores you continue to have the choice of only using Apple's App Store, where Apple would hopefully continue to check each app.

> I, and millions of users like me, like the closed garden.

Citation needed.

While the situation is better on Android, not using the Play Store isn't a real option in most cases. Alternative stores cannot provide auto updates.

The bigger difference is that the play store does not mandate using Google as the payment processor for transactions and subscriptions. Spotify would have no reason to look for an alternative app distribution mechanism on Android.

> The bigger difference is that the play store does not mandate using Google as the payment processor for transactions and subscriptions.

The rules have changed, they do now.

Fortnite was kicked out of the Google Play store for the very same violation of rules and consumer trust that they pulled with Apple. Epic are also suing Google under the same concocted story.

No they sue Google for a different reason althougher. On how they blocked OEMs from making a deal with Epic to include their store/launcher on phones (thus allowing it the same capabilities for autoupdates and the like than the Play Store)

Google requires you to use them for payments, that's been policy for a while. (They do it because Apple proved you can get away with it)

>Alternative stores cannot provide auto updates.

That sounds nice to me. Want me to update? Provide an appealing update! Although I am still not a fan of having any sort of app store in the first place.

You can always disable updates if you want. And what alternative stores specifically cannot do is install/update apps without having Android itself ask for confirmation again. So even if you manually order the store to install/update one or more apps, Android will pop up another prompt for each.

Sure I understand that, but personally as an iPhone user I don't care. Users benefit from consolidation in the app store space, it much easier for me to have all my apps come from one app store with one set of rules and policies. I benefit from the fact Facebook can't bypass the App Store rules for security and privacy through side loading and an alternate store. Why do you want to take that away from me?

Also as a user I don't see any evidence that I am suffering from this, are app prices significantly lower on Android App Stores other than the Play Store? The vast majority of Apps are free, or rally pretty cheap. Show me the evidence.

I think the idea that competition in this area will benefit users is highly dubious. Does it really benefit users on Android? Side loading didn't work out for Fortnite very well.

At the end of the day it's Apple's product and they get to decide what code they do or don't write and what features they do or don't support and how they work. They get to decide, and are accountable for the security architecture. As long as hey are meeting trade, advertising and safety standards it's up to them.

So if you personally won't benefit from it you should not be against someone else benefiting right?

If you want to buy Cyberpunk 2077 you have the option of at least 3 stores, I did not see any Steam user getting damaged by the fact the game is on other stores too.

As the topic has been beat to death a million times, the danger is that adding additional app stores will result in decreases in the exact thing the OP likes the App Store for. All of the hard work fighting for privacy, security, etc., goes out the window. Facebook will put their app on a 3rd party store and now we’re back to them and others abusing privacy and tracking users and not sharing what and how they’re tracking. Apple’s benevolent dictator approach has revealed some nasty stuff these companies and others were doing. With a third party app, companies don’t have to tell me how they are using my data or give me an anonymous sign in option. Naturally they’re fighting back.

The App Store gives Apple a way to collectively bargain against app makers on behalf of users. Take that away and we lose what little power we have.

You can sideload on Android and yet there are stories all the time about Google removing some app and destroying some ones whole business. It's false to say that multiple avenues for app installation destroys apples leverage over app makers. The tyranny of the default is very real. Facebook is not about to move to the epic store so it can violate your privacy more.

Besides, there doesn't need to necessarily be a competing store. Even the ability to install from a website would be enough IMO. Apple can put up a scary message before you install a non app store app, and epic can side load their app. If you want the benefit of the app store, you can pay the 30%. I suspect most developers would. Additionally, you still have to get your app signed through apples developer program, so if they revoke your certificate, they could still destroy you.

And I think we can let go of the idea that apple curates it's apps for safety and security. It's been shown repeatedly that they let scams through all the time, while scrutinizing and removing apps over tiny mistakes around phrasing of payment.

> It's false to say that multiple avenues for app installation destroys apples leverage over app makers.

Sorry, I just completely disagree. Google's Play Store or w/e it is on Android is the fox in the hen house. Google is one of the offenders that Apple is making disclose data collection practices! I don't think they situation is exactly comparable and it's different enough that the prior precedent may not be applicable.

> Apple can put up a scary message before you install a non app store app, and epic can side load their app.

Yea until that becomes anti-competitive. Besides, that makes the user experience bad. Why do any of this at all? If you're sophisticated enough to want to side load apps, you're sophisticated enough to jailbreak your iPhone and get what you want.

I can already see it. You see some app in the App Store - you download it thinking it's an app but it's just a message: "Want to download our app? Go to our website!". Then I get all these pop-up warnings, download some malware on accident, whatever. IMO (and I'll vote with my dollars at least) it's just a dumb experiment to run. I see 0 benefit in doing any of this. 0.

> It's been shown repeatedly that they let scams through all the time

Failures like this aren't indicative of overall policy so I don't really see the point here.

(also hey there fellow Eric :) )

> Google's Play Store or w/e it is on Android is the fox in the hen house. Google is one of the offenders that Apple is making disclose data collection practices! I don't think they situation is exactly comparable and it's different enough that the prior precedent may not be applicable.

You don't think that it's a a good comparison to compare the only other large scale play store which implements the exact behavior I'm talking about?

And googles bad behaviors, and Google does have bad behaviors, is irrelevant to this conversation.

> Yea until that becomes anti-competitive.

How would that be anti competitive?

> If you're sophisticated enough to want to side load apps, you're sophisticated enough to jailbreak your iPhone and get what you want.

Jailbreaking your phone is a huge pita, even if you are technical, and it forces you to always be several versions behind. Not to mention very few companies will be making apps for jailbroken phones. This isn't a realistic alternative. If jailbreaking your phone were allowed by apple, then maybe it would be a reasonable compromise.

> Failures like this aren't indicative of overall policy so I don't really see the point here.

It is very indicative of the over all policy. It's very clear that the app review process is a tool for stifling competition, and that apple is abusing it.

The big argument I see is that the app store provides value, so the 30 percent is justified. If that's true, let apps side load, and keep the 30 percent fee, and let people side load.

If it's truly worth the 30 percent, very few apps would switch away from the app store. If it's not worth 30 percent, then we have introduced a mechanism for competition and it's healthier for the whole ecosystem.

> (also hey there fellow Eric :) )

Spelled the same and everything

> You don't think that it's a a good comparison to compare the only other large scale play store which implements the exact behavior I'm talking about?

Well, I didn't it wasn't good, just that I wasn't sure it's comparable. Google is a software company, and has tons of apps (Youtube, Gmail, Maps, etc.) that are big-time heavy hitters that exist on both their App Store and the Apple one. And given that they own the Play Store and aren't inherently inclined to follow Apple's privacy rules, I think it's hard to draw an exact comparison between the two.

> How would that be anti competitive?

I think people would start to say it discourages users from participating in a free market or something along those lines. But I also don't think the Apple App Store is anti-competitive.

> It is very indicative of the over all policy. It's very clear that the app review process is a tool for stifling competition, and that apple is abusing it

Sorry, I don't have much to say here that's isn't us going back and forth with. I couldn't disagree more and it's unlikely we'll reach any consensus.

> The big argument I see is that the app store provides value, so the 30 percent is justified.

I think that's one argument, but it's not the only one.

> If that's true, let apps side load, and keep the 30 percent fee, and let people side load.

> If it's truly worth the 30 percent, very few apps would switch away from the app store. If it's not worth 30 percent, then we have introduced a mechanism for competition and it's healthier for the whole ecosystem.

You'd have to convince me that, say, tracking users and avoiding Apple's privacy and security rules wouldn't be worth more for app makers. I think they're likely to change, to the detriment of users. So I'll personally oppose any changes here.

TBH I've done a lot of thinking on this topic, I'm pretty passionate about it, and I think I've arrived at a conclusion that is just and fair (in my view) and I'm unlikely to change my opinion in really any way - more likely to double down on it. I want to bring that up just to let you know where I'm coming from here.

Thanks

Just wanted to ditto everything you’ve said. I don’t think people realize how good we have it with Apple and how easily things could’ve gone in a completely different direction. Yes it’s a benevolent dictatorship, but right now it’s still benevolent. I get a lot of value out of the fact app makers have their oh-so-clever hands tied.

And do you think that if Apple offers 2 iPhones , say the "American Dream" and "The communist pirate dream for EU" , and you buy the "safe one" for you and your family, then what are the downsides? If the "American dream " version is popular then FB will still be on it so you won't lose your FB access, you will still be protected from porn or apps that are not Political Correct and some EU "Communists" would have fun will their GPL programs and their inferior choices they had the freedom to chose.

But if this to much for the Apple devs to implement they can stop selling in EU, focus more on China , they can increase the tax on that store a bit and not lose any money.

Or if it bothers you so much just don’t buy one. You don’t speak for the entire E.U.

>Or if it bothers you so much just don’t buy one. You don’t speak for the entire E.U.

Ha ha, laws don't work like that. I am speaking my opinion and it seems I am not the only one that can see past the Apple giant PR. But if you are from EU you are free not to unlock your device or buy the US cooler version. What you are not free is to demand EU to not apply the existing laws for Apple because Apple is cool but apply them for MS and Google because those companies are not cool.

Hopefully Apple wins the legal challenges or finds a good work around instead.

This is FUD.

iOS will have the sandbox, if some shitty app ask "Do you want me to open the microphone now?" the user can still say NO, if the app asks "Please give me access to location!" the user can still say No, or Apple could even be clever and offer the user the ability to give fake location data,

From your point of view iOS users are so stupid that they shold not be allowed to use a OSX device or a browser(not sure if you know but browsers ahve access to camera, , location if the user allows it so go unsintall your browser (I think you don't have the freedom to remove it , sorry for you)).

> iOS will have the sandbox

THIS. Permissions must be enforced at the operating system level. Apple, Google, and others have repeatedly demonstrated that large companies do a really bad job at policing their app stores - and the fact that the task is intrinsically harder and technically inferior to building a better operating system doesn't help.

The only correct solution to many privacy and security issues (such as microphone access) is OS-level sandboxing and permissions control, not an un-scalable and error-prone attempt at auditing before publishing to an app store.

(note that I said "many" privacy and security issues, not "all")

Idk what FUD means.

But long story short, I like things as they are and don't want them to change. If developers don't like that they can kick rocks. I'd rather have no apps and no App Store than to see things change, frankly.

> From your point of view iOS users are so stupid that they

No.. that's not my point of view or relevant at all to anything I wrote.

> shold not be allowed to use a OSX device or a browser

Well, judging by all the requests I get to fix things on computers versus iPhones...

> not sure if you know but browsers ahve access to camera

Yes you have to give the browser permission.

FUD = fear , uncertainty and doubt.

>But long story short, I like things as they are and don't want them to change. If developers don't like that they can kick rocks. I'd rather have no apps and no App Store than to see things change, frankly.

Who would force you to change? you could buy the US iPhone version with the diamond handcuffs.

>Well, judging by all the requests I get to fix things on computers versus iPhones...

Then good job to Apple PR and fanboys, the stories about Apple malware and viruses were burried very deep.

>Yes you have to give the browser permission.

So why this model will not work if you sideload an app? Do you need genius to check the menus of the app so you feel secure?

> Who would force you to change? you could buy the US iPhone version with the diamond handcuffs.

I'm not sure how up to speed you are with the current state of the discussion around this topic, but the gist of it is that if you make changes to the App Store, then Apple's work with respect to privacy, security, etc. go out the window because major apps that want to abuse these things will move to third party app stores. Apple loses the ability to collectively bargain on behalf of users.

So, making the change almost surely will result in "forcing me to change". Maybe it won't, but I don't see a point in running that experiment.

> Then good job to Apple PR and fanboys, the stories about Apple malware and viruses were burried very deep.

Yea maybe they are. My own experience - nobody has ever had a problem with their iPhone. But PCs or even Macs? Yea I've had to do work. Almost always it's downloading and installing some thing they shouldn't have.

> So why this model will not work if you sideload an app? Do you need genius to check the menus of the app so you feel secure?

If you don't like iPhone and Apple so much why not just not use the products? I don't get this desire to change things that other people are quite happy with.

Apple loses the ability to collectively bargain on behalf of users.

Without being overly smug here: Good.

Apple have been terrible stewards of the platform. Arguably better than Google, but that's a bar so low a deep-bore drilling machine couldn't clear it. The app store is overrun with scams, the approval process is nonobjective and unreliable, and prohibits entire classes of useful software on shaky moralizing grounds.

I don't want Apple to bargain on my behalf. I want apple to fuck off, get out of my way, and stop telling me what I can run on my hardware.

If you don't like iPhone and Apple so much why not just not use the products?

If Apple doesn't like the EU's rules why not just stop doing business there?

> If Apple doesn't like the EU's rules why not just stop doing business there?

What rules? These are proposals for rules, and also lawsuits. There are arguments that have merit on both sides. But yea sure, if it was me and I were Tim Cook and had unlimited authority and the E.U. made Apple open up to 3rd party App Stores I'd pull the iPhone from Europe. Bad business decision most likely, but principled at least. Instead they're likely going to just do something else about it. There's always work arounds. Closing off APIs, charging gargantuan fees to be listed on the App Store for big players like Spotify, etc.

There are plenty of companies chomping at the bit to get on the App Store top lists and happy to pay a fee to do so.

> don't want Apple to bargain on my behalf. I want apple to fuck off, get out of my way, and stop telling me what I can run on my hardware.

I think Apple platforms aren't for you then. They're highly opinionated and always have been.

> The app store is overrun with scams, the approval process is nonobjective and unreliable, and prohibits entire classes of useful software on shaky moralizing grounds.

So the solution is third party app stores that are even worse?

>Bad business decision most likely, but principled at least.

Are you trolling? Apple and principles ? They are giving Chinese customers information to the government and do bussiness with Saudi Arabia that would execute all those gay Apple executives if they could, are this principles??? Or you mean "Ferengi principles"

I said it’s what I would do and that what I would do would be out of principle. Not what Apple will do.

The E.U. Happily bows down to China all the time so if you really want to do this whole anti-China thing everybody is happily playing in the mud - Apple, and the E.U. .

>If you don't like iPhone and Apple so much why not just not use the products? I don't get this desire to change things that other people are quite happy with.

If Apple does not like EU rules for fair competition, warranties and repaiar Apple should not do bussiness there instead of breaking the laws.

People complaining about bad keyboards, bad video cards, bad batteries and even lawsuits forced Apple to not screw the users and recall bad products or offer free repair. If you like being screwed be my guest and do not use those limited"recall/repair" programs that complainers obtained (remember when Apple ass kissers would accuse people they put food int he keyboard because Apple is perfect)

Btw you have the option to buy an US version of iOS device, with the US version of the store, and never would change. you can;t say that FB will ask US people to buy an EU version of the phone so for sure on that US version Apple can continue protecting you.

It's not quite that simple. There are many APIs that are necessary for legitimate purposes that can also be abused. Many of the APIs used for device fingerprinting fall under this category. The contacts APIs are another good example (just because I want to load my contacts so I can send my friend a message doesn't mean I want you to exfiltrate my contacts to your server so you can build a shadow graph of my social network.)

Exactly, I like the fact that if Facebook want to be on my phone they have to meet Apple's security and privacy standards. That directly benefits me, and it's one of the reasons I buy iPhones. Forcing Apple to change their product to allow side loading and alternative stores takes that away from me.

The standards could be in the SDK and the sandbox. Like you don't allow location data or access to photos to any apo (not even Apple ones). So even if I sideload an app or start a Apple app I should get same prompts("Do you want to let this app ignore your firewall rules? This might be insecure The app dev is "Facebook/Apple/Unkown) .

And if Apple does not like Facebook tracking people maybe they should lobby for anti-tracking laws. They should also not allow lootboxes, gems or other gaming related shit (to be consistent with their puritanical PR spin)

You are eliding the distinction between rules that can be enforced by the API and rules that can only be enforced by pronouncement. Anyone can do the former. I buy an iPhone because Apple does a decent job of the latter.

Now of course if Apple is forced to permit third party stores, they’re going to be forced to make it really easy to get on these stores. Epic, Google and Amazon are going to make sure of that. So this isn’t going to be like obscure alt stores on Android that the nerdiest 2% tinker with, it’s going to be a shitshow.

If Google then makes Google Maps and Gmail exclusive for the iOS Play Store, all bets are off and the biggest reason why I prefer the iPhone is destroyed. And I will be sad and angry that other people wilfully supported its destruction.

>If Google then makes Google Maps and Gmail exclusive for the iOS Play Store, all bets are off and the biggest reason why I prefer the iPhone is destroyed. And I will be sad and angry that other people wilfully supported its destruction.

So is fine if Apple does not put iMessages on other stores or let open source people to create a bridge to talk with iMessages.

If there are many people like you say 50% that won't unlock the phone then Google and FB will put their apps on all stores because there are more users. But if you are just 1% then it is fair that the 99% should not suffer because you want unfair stuff because it advantages you.

What has iMessage got to do with anything? Don’t blame Apple because Google’s ten attempts to build an Android messaging platform were all dismal failures. Nothing stopped Google from mimicking iMessage and making that the default SMS app.

It’s not a question of who wants Apple to remain the sole gatekeeper of executable binaries, but rather who enjoys the benefits that come from that, even if they don’t explicitly realise it. I contend that it’s far more than 50% — especially because the few people who actually “care” about App Store diversity have already jumped ship to Android. (Or if they haven’t, they have proven that they don’t actually care.)

>iMessage

Is about your own hypocrisy. Apple is limiting iMessages and is fine with you but the notion that Google would limit the Maps app to their own store makes you mad. It makes sense that you are selfish and don't care about the larger picture

Anyway if you could look at the real world and not at the fantasy created by the FUD you would see that on Android there is no Facebook app store and Facebook is stiull present on the google Play store(and yes Apple and Apple users are not more special that for only for them Facebook will make a new store)

> It makes sense that you are selfish

As this is how you choose to converse, I'm no longer interested in discussing this with you.

Why does there need to be anti-tracking laws? What if some people want to be tracked in exchange for a cheaper product? Apple allows people that value that to buy that.

The laws will be against hidden tracking, you can track but you need to be transparent about it and if you misuse the tracking you should pay.

The question really is do you think that it's fair to expect app developers to meet the criteria and then pay the Apple tax?

To be clear, I'm not decided on my opinion yet, I can see merits on both sides of the argument.

Maybe we need to consider users, they are the larger number of victims. Should information be hidden from them? Should the user not decide if the wants to be tracked? Should the user not be allowed to donate to a developer without giving Apple a big cut?

Is the App Store really an obstacle to apps getting on the iOS platform? Is it artificially raising prices? That's what matters from a consumer interests perspective, are they losing out or are they getting ripped off. If the answer is no, there's no case to answer. The reason for companies to exist and develop and sell products isn't to benefit their competitors.

If anything I think the App Store has helped to drive the purchase price of software to $0. This in turn has driven every software vendor to either a subscription pricing model or a (privacy-invasive) ad model.

Open question on if this is net beneficial to consumers or developers, but it could also be considered an economic inevitability when MC = MR = 0.

I think maybe the ads helped this more, and what helped that is probably some ad library the developer can drop in the application.

What kind of free apps are there ?

1 some open source software that is compatible with iOS store license

2 trials or apps with pay to unlock stuff

3 free with ads

So IMO even if you have 3 stores this will not change. But you could get finally GPL software and apps/games that target adults.

> Is the App Store really an obstacle to apps getting on the iOS platform?

Yes. A tremendous amount of effort goes into playing the game of guessing what you need to do to pass the approval process. And I don't mean things like tracking. I mean things like removing any links to your website, because users could buy a subscription there instead of on through the app.

> Is it artificially raising prices?

Absolutely. That 30% has to come from somewhere. And since you aren't allowed to charge more for an app purchase than a subscription online, that means it raises the price for everyone. Not just people who use the app.

>Sure I understand that, but personally as an iPhone user I don't care.

I suspect the law is not structured so as to take your personal interest into consideration.

>I think the idea that competition in this area will benefit users is highly dubious.

this seems a very American concept of anti-trust, benefiting consumers is only one part of what concerns European anti-trust, in this case the question is does Apple Music have an unfair advantage on the platform against other music services - the answer would appear to be yes, for actually two points -

1. because they don't have the pay the fee the other music services have to pay

2. because they are not artificially restricted from communicating alternative methods of subscribing to their customers (because they don't need to because they are Apple)

You also don’t have to buy a subscription in the app, do you? You can pay on the web directly to Spotify and use the subscription in the app.

> You also don’t have to buy a subscription in the app, do you? You can pay on the web directly to Spotify and use the subscription in the app.

Apple doesn't allow App developers to Inform users about Alternate payment options.

A fact Spotify is not allowed inform you of, and is not allowed make the only way to buy a subscription

Spotify is forbidden to mention it in their app, though.

Thats a violation of freemarket

Say you buy a can of Coke at Walmart. Would Coca-Cola be allowed to print on that can that it can be bought for less at 7-Eleven?

Wallmart and Appstore are not equivalents:

I don't need to accept a huge licence agreement before I enter a supermarket

If I were to piss off their staff and get banned from Wallmart, they don't get to take away everything I bought from Wallmart in the past 10 years.

If I buy a game from Walmart, and the game sell in game items, I don't need to call wallamrt employee to come to my house to collect the money for that - that's effectively the epic lawsuit.

The way I've seen the rules inforced (though inconsistently) it would be more like walmart not letting Coke put their website on the can, because you can buy coke directly from the website.

Apple has blacklisted apps for allowing that. They're a bit selective in enforcing that rule, but that doesn't make the situation better.

"The rest are ad supported and Apple gets 0% of the ad revenue."

The vast bulk of the rest likely signed up elsewhere and aren't free users. I signed up online, as I imagine most people do for most services. I'm not sure if Spotify even had an app subscription at the time, though even if it did I wouldn't have used it.

I signed up for Netflix, Skillshare, Prime, Disney+, etc, all on their own sites. Even my Microsoft Office apps I bought a multi-year subscription on some site (saving something like 40% over the app fees). There is zero value for me subscribing to things like that through Apple. Actually negative value.

If it's some single-platform little app that needs a subscription to use the beautifier filter or something, sure, provide that "value".

"there are 199 Spotify app users Apple is distributing the App to for which they get nothing"

They have gotten hundreds of billions in purchases from consumers, all but the very first purchases predicated on a robust and healthy app ecosystem. Apple runs the app store for me, the guy who buys their devices. They are certainly getting loads for it.

It is perverse that Apple bars notifying users that they can subscribe elsewhere, and eventually that is going to be regulatory eliminated.

> only paid the 15% on 0.5% of the App's users.

That's the point.

This is clearly because they removed the ability to subscribe in the app to avoid paying those 15%. So the rule imposed by Apple is costing them subscribers, all those who would have subscribed if it was available in the app (or even just if they could be informed about how to subscribe).

The fact that Spotify has barely no customer who subscribe through their app is showing that there's anticompetitive behavior. In a healthy market they would have a share there.

I don’t necessarily think that’s the case.

I haven’t ever subscribed to Spotify because I don’t see any _value_ in Spotify as opposed to what I get from Apple Music. I’m smart enough to know how to subscribe to Spotify from the web.

(There are other services like Pandora I would have paid for, in or out of the App Store, had they been available in my jurisdiction. Spotify just never interested me.)

I know that makes me an outlier, but it seems to me that Spotify has a much heftier case to make that they’re _missing_ customers because of Apple’s payment rules.

I personally don’t want alternative app stores; they will reduce the security and trustworthiness of the iOS platform. I do think that Apple should be reviewing its app / in-app purchase pricing, and I do think that there is a market access concern problem. I don’t have any good answers for it, because I _do_ think that some of the actions criticized have been net positives.

Or most of Spotify's users want the free ad supported version?

That paints an even more anticompetitive problem.

If you started a music streaming service, could you get those lower rates? If not, is there any way you coins compete?

Is this 30%-15% only for Spotify subscribers that paid through Apple Pay or is this for all Spotify subscribers that use the iOS app?

If you sign up for Spotify outside of the app then Apple sees 0 of that revenue. And yet they are then also hosting and distributing apps for these companies.

I think they’ll probably start charging companies like Spotify a banana amount of money to be on the App Store or on iOS at all if they lose these legal battles. I think the pull of the iPhone is far stronger than any app and there are many developers waiting for their chance to reach the iOS audience.

Every major app that iOS missed would be a significant dollar amount of sales that Apple would lose. If Netflix or Spotify or PrimeVideo wasn't available on iOS, not only would that be a marketing disaster, it would yield sales consequences. This ignores the catastrophic regulatory consequences they are already poised to incur.

Apple runs the app store for users (people like me who in aggregate have made it the most valuable company in the world), and it is simply bizarre seeing these claims like it's some enormous expense that they're doing because they're benevolent (which is quite clearly the foundation of your comment, given the claim that Apple could charge "banana" amounts just for being on the app store, contrary to reality where they're already under enormous scrutiny for claiming these fees as a payment processor).

There is an argument that Apple could charge some fee for their expenses of operating the app repository. Those fees, to avoid the regulatory hammer, would be absolutely tiny compared to what they are currently getting from their take.

> it is simply bizarre seeing these claims like it's some enormous expense that they're doing because they're benevolent.

That's not a claim I've made in any way, shape, or form. Please don't misrepresent things I've written based on your own self-projections.

Predicting that they're going to charge a "bananas" amount for "hosting and distributing apps" -- ostensibly on the basis of the cost of all of these "free" users (where free means paid enormous amounts for devices based upon this service) -- certainly does seem to make that claim.

Well, I can tell you with certainty that wasn't the claim that was made.

> ostensibly on the basis

Is where you begin to separate from my comment.

But in the spirit of good conversation, my point was that Apple will collect some fee for companies to be on the App Store, especially the large ones (Facebook, Netflix, Spotify, etc.). They're not going to just say well I guess we won't charge developers anymore. I think the idea with the percentage of revenue was to have the amount taken grow in proportion with the value of the user base and number of users using a particular app, especially if they might have discovered that app on the iOS platform (i.e. lead generation).

If that goes away, there's no reason that I can see that Apple won't say, well we charged you X last year, we estimate that you're deriving Y amount of revenue from the App Store so we're going to charge an annual fee of Z to be on the App Store.

Hah, I’d rather just host my own infrastructure if they’ll start charging for hosting… oh wait…

What infrastructure would you host?

Market rates for payment processing are closer to a tenth of that amount.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com