Hacker News Reader

Comment by ado__dev | Hacker News Reader

Honestly if forcing everything through Apple's walled garden wasn't anti-competitive enough, this move certainly makes it so.

What's next - pay 30% Apple tax for purchases made through Safari?

I'm deeply embedded in the Apple ecosystem. From phone, to computer, to home automation stuff. I have no desire to use a secondary app store. But I want that option to be be available. And there is no good reason for Apple to be charging anything extra for infrastructure they do not provide, and in fact actively discourage and fear-monger about. Come on.

View on HN

They are following the SC ruling which has explicitly given them the right to do so.

- anti competitive to force users to use their *Payment Processing* platform.

- not anti-competitive to charge 30% for purchases made from the app

The justification is that you're getting access to Apple's network of customers as "leads" and by referring them to you for purchases, Apple is justified a 27% commission.

Similar, other major digital market players such as MS, Google, Nintendo, Sony, Valve all charges 30% as a platform commission fee.

The end result is what you see now. Payment flows originating from the App, Apple is entitled to 27% (-3% which was judged to be an appropriate transaction fee for the Payment Processing).

Apple will not charge you 30% for any purchases made organically through Safari. This was not in the ruling and this remains functionally as it is now.

You can debate about the 30% being too high, especially on top of an annual fee. But claiming that all Safari purchases will incur 30% is a strawman.

> The justification is that you're getting access to Apple's network of customers as "leads" and by referring them to you for purchases, Apple is justified a 27% commission.

It’s actually more poignant than that. The court established and the appellate affirmed that the commission is primarily payment for Apple’s IP:

“First, and most significant, as discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple's intellectual property. Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission.”

All the rest is bonus.

If that option is important to you, why deeply embed yourself in an ecosystem that doesn't have it when others exist?

Responses to this talk about how the ecosystem and hardware is great. I wonder if it would be so good if they were more squeezed to chase profits?

I’m usually skeptical of companies with this many users because of the potential to mine and sell data. I’m glad Apple hasn’t had to focus on that to stay profitable to the extent others have.

I know many people who find themselves stuck in Apple's ecosystem since while they personally could switch out their computer and relearn everything, they can't really disrupt the things their older family are used to on other devices and expect them to relearn everything.

Combined with Apple's love of walled gardens (and therefore very limited interoperability with other platforms), switching out would cause too much friction.

Similar to how while I can buy my parents new Android phones as upgrades, they'll just go back to the old ones if they can't have the old school navigation bar they're used to. Unlike me they're no longer willing to relearn how everything works every few years.

It's always kind of annoying seeing this "just don't use it" argument, as it completely ignores that part of the point of the walled garden is that it gradually forces people to be so invested in the garden that it becomes increasingly expensive to leave it. It's a similar network effect as what keeps abusive platforms like YouTube alive despite no one really liking it.

>It's always kind of annoying seeing this "just don't use it" argument, as it completely ignores that part of the point of the walled garden is that it gradually forces people to be so invested in the garden that it becomes increasingly expensive to leave it.

My personal experience doesn't leave me super convinced of this, which is why I asked. I don't think I use any apps I've purchased on the regular anymore. There are a few I subscribe to, but that's an ongoing fee I could continue to pay on Android (if the app exists) and I'll buy a game every now and then, but I rarely go back to them, so I'm not sure that I'm personally losing a ton of sleep over the loss of access to Magic Research. The cost of moving is going to be my time in migration.

The issue you describe (parents preferring iOS over Android) sounds rather distinct of an issue to a walled garden.

I wouldn't say it's that they prefer it, as they have no concept of iOS or Android, nor Windows, MAC or Linux, they just care about if it's similar enough to what they've already painstakingly learned to use and deal with the quirks of.

What I'm referring to as a walled garden issue is that they've learned to use the "included" features like iCloud etc, those are walled in (ie using it on Android isn't as smooth). Thus when you switch away, you're expecting them to learn the new UI and to get used to different services (eg google drive) and their associated menus.

I suppose it's better described as vendor lock-in, similar to how before you could easily transfer your phone number between carriers, the number itself acted as a form of lock-in, if you used the number on anything important you were stuck with the number until you could get the number updated.

Apple's hardware is unmatched unfortunately.

Perhaps Apple’s hardware is unmatched in part because they profit from it by using the very mechanisms you don’t like. The engineering resources to focus on perfect hardware aren’t cheap. There is plenty of junk hardware out there that gives you more freedom.

If having good hardware means spending a lot on hardware development, then the price of the hardware can reflect that, rather than being subsidized by unrelated business segments.

Yes, let’s teach one of the most successful companies in the world how to price their products and do business.

I am sorry this is a total fabrication - we know the sales of iPhones entirely cover all expenses associated with hardware manufacturing and R&D.

Their margins on laptops are thinner but the AppStore is not as relevant there.

The situation is the other way round - it’s the App Store that makes the iPhone useful. Windows Phone (the remake one) had good hardware, it literally was killed by lack of apps. I had one, I miss it.

And who played part in Windows Phone demise?

Epic? Which never released the Unreal Engine for Windows Phone and now cries the loudest about the status quo.

Or the 1000’s of developers who abandoned pre App Store distribution models in favor of Apple’s hardware, software and APIs, happily signed up to 30% revenue share with Apple that didn't change in 15 years? (other than go down to 15% for 90% of sellers who do under a million of annual revenue)

LMAO

MICROSOFT played the hugest part in Windows Phone demise. I still had a Palm Pre at the time and was waiting for a particular yellow Nokia Windows Phone to release for Sprint. My recollection is muddy after that but Windows Phone was no more so I got an iPhone.

Possibly, but at the time Windows Phones were snappier and often had better hardware than Android.

For me, developers played a huge part.

There were a lot of popular and new apps missing in the windows store.

Microsoft had to even co-fund app developers to build apps for windows phone, without much luck or being too late.

E.g. Instagram for Windows released 18 months after Android. Did YouTube ever release on windows phone?

This played a big part in people choosing iOS/Android instead.

I haven’t looked into this for years, but that’s my recollection of early/mid 2010s.

The Verge seems to confirm my historic bias:

> If you’re wondering why none of Microsoft’s many strenuous Windows Phone efforts ultimately paid off, the key answer lies in the platform’s chronic failure to attract third-party app developers. Every time Nokia launched a new Windows Phone, it had to dodge and duck the question of when there’ll be an Instagram app for the OS. Even as Microsoft was beating Google at providing a smoother and slicker first-party app experience, Google was winning handily in having the more essential apps and the more enthusiastic third-party ecosystem.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/10/16452162/windows-phone-h...

> E.g. Instagram for Windows released 18 months after Android. Did YouTube ever release on windows phone?

You just unlocked a memory for me. I totally forgot that IG was never released for Windows Phone. Damn.

I rescind my previous comments, you're absolutely right. I think they could have a better go at it, this time. It's not Ballmer's Microsoft anymore (FWIW, I enjoyed aspects of his era).

Freedom has its limits, and Apple provides enough freedom for most users

My user experience on a Pixel 6 Pro was better than on the iPhone 15 Pro Max (had to switch for family reasons).

I do not take away from Apple that their customer service is top notch and for many users that matters as much as how good the SW is.

"That's how they get ya."

Hypothetically if Apple be forced to only allow only payment from outside links, it does not mean they don’t provide infrastructure. They absolutely do.

> What's next - pay 30% Apple tax for purchases made through Safari?

Yes. It's only fair that Apple should get 30% of your income, because an Apple computer obviously made it possible for you to earn your income.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com