Telegram forced to crack down on paid posts because Apple wasn't getting a cut | Hacker News Reader

Telegram forced to crack down on paid posts because Apple wasn't getting a cut

techradar.com

43 pointsquyleanh29 comments

One characteristic of a monopolist is that it is a profit maximizer.

We need to broaden our understanding of what a monopoly is to deal with this issue of Apple’s organization trying hard to capture 30% of all e-commerce.

Apple currently has 75% of all smartphone profits. This means that the ‘# of devices sold’ is not a meaningful argument: consider the thought experiment of Apple funding a startup to sell an infinite amount of worthless $0 phones that are just advertising backed so that they have 1% of the smartphone market due to number of devices ‘sold’

Apple forcing the behavior of how apps innovate is stifling the ecosystem.

Congress should help enable dynamism in software or it will hurt the US economy in the long term.

> consider the thought experiment of Apple funding a startup to sell an infinite amount of worthless $0 phones that are just advertising backed so that they have 1% of the smartphone market due to number of devices ‘sold’

Yes. lets procecute apple based on the fact that if we have a though experiment where they kill people who don't have phones they would be murderors.

Apple isn't a monopoly and it doesn' become one just because a lot of developers want to use antimonopoly policies to gain cheaper access to Apples market.

Apple has cultivated the most profitable mobile market, which is exactly why they have the higher profit even though they don't have the higher market share. There is good reason to want entry to the market for cheaper, but consider this, is the 30% you want to save really worth Apples market losing everything it is? If your answer is yes, then just don't go to market on Apple and stick to Android, because there you literally get what you would get from apple without their walled garden, and you can get on it for cheaper just like you wanted.

But if you're making up random arguments why you need to get into Apples market, then obviously it's worth the cost to you, since those 30% are coming out of profit you would not have without their market, which means you're going into a win-win situation but doing so while complaining that you don't want Apple to win as much and you want to win more...

I wish that one day we'll have something akin to a right to general purpose computing that will once and for all stop hardware providers from interfering or charging literal taxes on users for how they use their devices. like am I going insane for thinking it's absurd that someone (other than an elected government maybe) can charge you and tell you how and who to do financial transactions with, within another app on a device?

Imagine I call you on your phone and sell you my car, does the phone company get a 30% cut? I'd compare Apple to a mafia protection racket but I think the mafia actually charges you less

With the current power of Apple ecosystem, I still wonder how long will 30% fee exist.

It is monopoly, isn't it?

A monopoly? They don't even have 50% market share... in some European countries I think they don't even have 20%

Yep, not a monopoly, just a market bully applying mafia-like extortionary tactics.

"You want your app on the app store? We want a cut, or the app may have an accident. Spontaneously combust or something. These things happen, you know."

> Yep, not a monopoly, just a market bully applying mafia-like extortionary tactics.

Yeah that's totally it. It couldn't be that people like to have a phone that gets security updates for more than 2 years. Or having an AppStore that is policed in any meaningful way that keeps blatant spam and data-slurping apps out. Or any other numerous things that the Android ecosystem is totally fucked up on.

I love Apple haters- They rarely ever make sense and just come off as bitter.

That's completely unrelated though? Of course people do like to have a phone that gets security updates for more than 2 years. Apple makes a phone which gets security updates for more than 2 years, and also is applying mafia-like extortionary tactics.

> I love Apple haters- They rarely ever make sense and just come off as bitter.

Whether I hate or love Apple as a company doesn't (inversely) weigh in on my opinion on Google - same sh*t different mafia :)

To be fair, I "love" (some) Apple products and software, though they tend to be older incarnations. (But that's true for almost anything - newer versions become too "loud" for me.) Conversely, I "hate" some business practices (and tech choices).

But I'm not a fanboy of either, I just occasionally come across their products.

And I agree on the comment on the Android ecosystem. Which goes some way to say that a totalitarian mafia is better than a laissez-faire mafia.

I wonder whether this also means that cathedrals are better than bazaars?

Who has the other 80% of the iOS apps market in those countries?

What a way of defining a monopoly.

Tesco has a monopoly on Tesco.

Of course, when I buy a lawn mower at Tesco, Tesco demands 30% of the cost from gas stations for any lawn mower fuel I purchase. So, Apple and Tesco’s abuse of their market power are directly comparable, and your bumper sticker slogan logic is sound.

Buy your lawn mower somewhere else

Duopoly, pardon the mistake.

The total situation of the smartphone market is a duopoly anyway so it isn't pretty great.

Worse now, is that android is getting increasingly limited in term of side loading and rooting limitations.

I still miss the Windows Phone day... Such a big mistake from Microsoft.

either monopoly or cartel or mafia rule.

But it's not like people are forced to use apple, nor should we force apple to stop taking their tax. But with great money comes great responsibility, Apple should be 30% financially liable for anything that happens to the makers of the apps they host as well. Not sure if it s legally valid, but we can make it so.

Claiming something is a monopoly provides gravitas to an argument, at the high cost of the inevitable semantic dithering of how to define one. I argue that anytime you'd want to use this word, an alternative exists that is as potent without this drawback. Some options: anti-competitive, anti-market, rent-seeking, bullying. Please suggest others!

Antitrust law doesn't require a violator to be a monopoly, just that they abuse their market position in anti-competitive ways.

Whether or not Apple has a monopoly is difficult to say, especially in the traditional / original sense.

The thing is, let us take the US as an example, even though there is a duopoly between IOS and Android, depending on the social circle people may not have a real choice. Remember the green bubble blue bubble fiasco in that even children are peer pressured into getting an iPhone. And until Apple won't offer iMessage on Android with exactly the same features IOS user are kind of forced to staying on IOS or look for other less wane friends. If this bind is gone, the argument we often hear here: "just buy an android" becomes valid.

Well, we all know Apple's mantra: "Don't leave money on the table!"

Telegram should have the button available on iOS, but when one clicks on it, they get an error message that said feature is not available because of Apple's policies. Then provide a link to the Samsung Galaxy store.

Apple is not very keen on jokes, they would throw your app into a bin.

They actually thought of that and I believe explicitly restrict such messages, if I remember correctly.

I personally do like your idea though.

How do apps like PayPal work on iphone? If i send some money does apple keep 30%?

No. Financial services don't have fees.

Hm, why not? I see a missed opportunity here

Apple should be crushed

Start a company and crush them

Reply on news.ycombinator.com