Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by DaveExeter | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

DaveExeter

The answer is simple. Uber, Lyft, and everyone else, should have different pricing on Android and iPhone.

For something that costs $10 on Android, charge $13 for iPhone.

This is a win-win solution. The app companies get more money and Apple gets positioning as a premium brand.

View on HN

> The answer is simple. Uber, Lyft, and everyone else, should have different pricing on Android and iPhone.

Apple will not let you do that at first place. It's against their guidelines and apps that do that and get caught get the boot.

Huh, do you have a reference to the guideline that says that?

Older versions of the app review guidelines allowed apps that could access content sold outside the app store ("reader" apps) to dodge the app store commission if their in-app content was provided "at the same price or less than it is offered outside the app store" (formerly section 11.13 of the guidelines).

Here's a 2011 article about Apple revising that policy: https://appleinsider.com/articles/11/06/09/apple_backs_down_...

Hmm, I wonder if Uber/Lift could have a system where you either have an iOS account or an Android account. So then whatever you buy on Android wouldn't be transferrable to iOS. You could switch your account between the operating systems but your subscription wouldn't transfer.

actually you can do it as long as you don't mention about cheaper alternatives anywhere within the app.

Dropbox and Youtube Premium do it already.

Except that just means they'll get less subscribers. The margins on these things are razor thin. If people don't think they're getting a deal they won't sign up.

The iPhone is a premium phone. I don't think most iPhone users would balk at paying 30% more.

I have an iPhone and I certainly would.

The iPhone is the most common phone in the US. I don't think the majority of the US is price insensitive.

Compared to what, Fisher Price? The entry level iPhone is $400, with refurbs lower, and even new units are often available free on contract with a carrier in the US.

I just got a new Moto G phone, with one year of service, for ~$100. The thing is incredible.

I am not sure what $400 for an iPhone gets me. Other then Airtags. I might get a cheap used iPhone just for Airtags.

I only buy iPhones because I’m price sensitive.

Right now, Im on an iPhone SE 1st gen I bought in 2016 for $400. Still runs well, and Im on the latest iOS.

(However, I agree with your statement generally. I believe that globally the iPhone is a premium phone)

This is such a bullshit argument nowadays. There are an estimated 113 million iPhone users in the United States [1]. That's ~half of the smartphone market, and ~half of the number of adults in the US. Apple sells brand new iPhones starting at $400. Samsung sells brand new Galaxy phones at base storage starting at $1800.

Apple's best selling main-line product in 2021 was not the iPhone. Not Mac. Not the Watch or iPad. It was Airpods. Normal Airpods, not even the Pros. The cheapest product to ever be graced with a top-page tab on apple.com, Apple sells tens of millions more Airpods than iPhones. And why wouldn't they? They're cheap! Because, hate to break it, but Apple isn't a premium brand; they're just a brand.

The iPhone is about as premium a smartphone as Target is a premium store, and this notion that Apple still exclusively services the premium segment probably comes from some combination of Apple users wishing they were rich & special, and even Android users looking to play the everyman victim. None of that is valid. But it gets applied to justify Apple's unprecedented control & tax over commerce on their platform; its alright because it only impacts rich people, if you want access to the rich people you gotta charge the rich people more, and make the rich gatekeeper even richer. In reality, all it serves to do is make everyone poorer; it serves to limit affordable access to goods and services; and it makes Apple rich.

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/232790/forecast-of-apple...

> They're cheap! Because, hate to break it, but Apple isn't a premium brand; they're just a brand.

AirPods are not cheap to the average person. You can get earbuds for under ten bucks. AirPods are a premium option for most people. AirPods being for rich people was even a popular meme for a while.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2019/feb/10...

Ten dollars for headphones? United States Dollars? Who are you, Bill Gates?!

Personally; I steal a bit of copper wire from whoever had the misfortune of parking outside my box, I mean, house, then wire it up to a couple styrofoam cups I dig out of the garbage can down on the corner. With how compressed MP3s are, I doubt anyone could tell the difference. I can't imagine why anyone buys headphones, really.

Then again... Airpods & Airpods Pro are reported by many sources to be the best selling headphones of 2021... but I'm sure, in aggregate, all those wish.com $10 cans outnumber their sales... and let's also, you know, not consider the more fair comparison of aggregating Alexa Buds, Sony XM4s, Bose Buds, Surface Buds, Galaxy Buds, Galaxy Buds Pro, Galaxy Buds Live, Pixel Buds, Beats Buds... If there's a reason why every company and their mother churns out Beans like they're going out of style, it probably isn't because they're, uh, selling. They're all Premium Brands making Premium Products for Select Clientele.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMqZ2PPOLik

If you don’t think $129 for earphones is an expensive luxury for the average person, you are in a bubble. Apple offers payment plans for them because people can’t afford to drop that much cash in one go.

Math is off here.

It'd be $10 on android and $14.29 on iPhone to break even.

Make it even 15$... For the real premium feel.

My understanding was that Apps aren't allowed to do this.

To my knowledge you are allowed to do so, but aren't allowed to tell people that it's cheaper somewhere else. I don't know how this works in practice though

Apps on the Google Play Store also pay the 30% fee for subscriptions.

Would be perfectly fine if they could inform the user about it.

Apple ecosystem users are rich and can afford it.

I disagree. I think Apple should get nothing from them. The rent seeking has to stop. Anything with a service fee should be outside their grasp. The product isn’t the app, it’s the service.

I tend to agree with you, but Apple doesn't want to leave that pile of Benjamins on the table! And AFAIK, what Apple is doing is legal.

There should be the iPhone price and the Android price. Just charge iPhone users more.

Apple should not be entitled to any transaction that happens on the phone. They don't get a cut of money I move through my banks app. Anything I buy on the Amazon app. Do they get 30% of my water bill I pay? Again if something is being bought through the app store, like a game, an app, etc sure. But if your app is about a service that exists completely beyond apple, they should get nothing. Imagine comcast asking for 30% because it happened between your internet provider and an online store.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com