Comment by dkarras | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dkarras | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I don't understand why it is wrong for Apple to profit from the platform they created and maintain. What is there to complain about other than things being expensive? If you create a platform, are you somehow obligated to let people make money off of the platform on their own terms for free?

Apple is not a monopoly. Any competitor can compete with them on price / fees and win if Apple really does not provide enough value to people to justify their prices. I genuinely hope that it happens. I just don't agree with the common heuristic of "hey you have a good thing going there, you shouldn't be allowed to have anything that good!"

Why is Apple not taking 99% of the revenue and takes 30%? Because if they took 99% nobody would develop for their platform. So there is a sweet spot between 99% and 0% where the services and market they provide is good enough that the fee is worth it. Currently it works for everyone as Apple's and developers' business is still booming after all those years. Developers want more, Apple also wants more, everyone wants more, all is natural. Wanting to optimize your gains is natural for everyone. It is not illegal, and should not be.

> I don't understand why it is wrong for Apple to profit from the platform they created and maintain.

Part of it is the double-dipping. Consider why you'd be opposed to Toyota claiming 30% of the revenue of all gas that you buy for your Camry, or why you don't like ads in things you pay for.

> Apple is not a monopoly.

Until they allow third-party app stores and sideloading worldwide, and without any of the malicious compliance like intentionally breaking PWAs along with it, they are.

If the value I get from Toyota is not worth the hassle, I would not buy it under those terms! That is the point. If Toyota is the only car I was allowed to buy, or if Toyota bought out all its competitors, that would be a different issue.

>Until they allow third-party app stores and sideloading worldwide, and without any of the malicious compliance like intentionally breaking PWAs along with it, they are.

How? Do you know what monopoly is? You being upset at how you can use a device you are in no way have to buy and use does not make the brand a monopoly.

One of the problems that plagues phones is that, if apple makes a change everyone else follows.

See it like this: Toyota arbitrarily declares that they'll disable any car without "Toyota" approved 30% taxed fuel. Then all the other car companies immediately copycat, seeing a new way to make money.

This is the case with iPhone and android. They do not have meaningful competition when they can just work together as a pseudo monopoly.

Considering that Apple is now >61% of the U.S. smartphone market-share, I would like to know at what magic number you would consider them a monopoly.

The App Store has a monopoly on iOS app distribution.

It’s becoming tiring listening to people stating “that’s not THE market so it can’t be a monopoly” when legislation already disagrees with you.

The current situation is that legislation in the EU disagrees with that claim, but a court ruling in the US agrees that defining the market as "iOS app distribution" is too narrow [0]. Until something changes, which definition of the market is accurate depends on your jurisdiction.

[0] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/21...

McDonalds is the only company that can distribute Big Macs. You can't buy a Big Mac anywhere but McDonalds.

That doesn't make McDonalds a "monopoly".

But that's not quite the same situation with Apple. It's more like if your Big Mac didn't support being eaten with non-McDonalds-approved Ketchup or Mayo.

Do restaurants not have the “no outside food/drink allowed” stickers on the doors where you live?

After I leave the McDonalds "store" with a Big Mac, I can have their food with outside food/drinks. After I leave the Apple Store with an iPhone, I cannot use my phone with outside apps.

If you tried to bring in your own burger condiments, I don't think it's likely that McDonalds management would agree to put them on for you.

But people are not asking Apple to install their apps for them on their own iPhone. People are only asking Apple to stop preventing them from installing apps. After you pay for the iPhone, it is yours, after you leave the physical Apple Store you are not in their store any more.

If McDonalds sent someone to my house with me after I purchase a Big Mac, and tried to stop me when I wanted to put some of my own condiments in it, I would find this creepy and controlling behavior very weird.

That still doesn't make Apple a monopoly.

Apple is the only place you can buy an iPhone, yes, but you don't have to buy an iPhone. You can buy an Android phone instead (in fact Android has about 2/3 of the market worldwide, which, condiments aside, make the claim that Apple is a "monopoly" pretty dubious).

I can buy a big mac from ubereats, so thats clearly not true.

So I create a device, it does not even support 3rd party apps (and does not have to).

People think the device is amazing. They want to be able to create their own applications on it. They ask for support.

I create the SDK for it support it and say "ok, you can if you want to, under my own terms. You need to pay me a fee for the privilege, we both win".

And you say "that is illegal! your device is too good! you have to let me develop and sell apps on it for no additional cost to me!"

is that really your position?

Apple, as a company, can disallow installation of any 3rd party apps on their platform tomorrow, is it not their right? I mean no one is not owed anything by Apple. iOS does not have to legally support 3rd party apps does it?

They are being punished for making it too easy. If they sold overpriced dev kits and demanded 5 figure upfront dev license costs and worked only with select partners for their apps, no one would bat an eye. They make the barrier to entry too low and suddenly everyone is entitled.

> under my own terms

And there be the dragons. Thats why antitrust laws exists. Not everything written in a contract is contractual. Given the extensive protections that apple is afforded by law to prevent circumvention of their platform, there must also be some take. He who lives by the sword...

> is that really your position?

My position is that if you open development to 3rd parties they have to be able to develop for your platform for free. You can charge for the services you provide to the developers (fees if they use your payments platform, your distribution platform, etc), but you should not be able to force them to use such services.

The win-win is that by opening your device to 3rd parties it is made more useful for your users and hence more desirable. Iphones wouldn't be so popular if you couldn't access tiktok, instagram and what not with them after all...

>Apple, as a company, can disallow installation of any 3rd party apps on their platform tomorrow

No, they can't. False advertising, etc. Installing apps is one of the expected/marketed features of an iPhone at purchase time. Apple could be sued into the ground for doing something like that.

It's like saying that an auto manufacturer can advertise their car going 0-60 in 3 seconds, so you buy it, then afterwards they release an OTA update that drops the cars performance to 0-60 in 5 seconds. It's not allowed at all, and if a company does it they owe the consumer.

But because you want to give Apple special treatment, I suppose the logic follows that you would think that this case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor.... was unjust to Microsoft, since it's their platform, they can do whatever the fuck they want, right?

Words are just words, though. I have a monopoly on what ice cream I get to put in my freezer, so what?

The legislation really isn't clear enough about this -- if it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion -- and to the extent it was clear in 1930, it's been muddied ever since Reagan.

And sometimes things have nuance! Not everything is black and white.

> It is not illegal, and should not be.

It is when you’re essentially in a market dominating position, which Apple is.

Imagine if Automotive OEMs (a great example for another industry with questionable tactics) would get a 30% licensing fee for for each independent after market accessory somebody sells for one of their cars.

Describe "market domination". They are the leading brand in the US, not anywhere near domination.

Again, with Automotive, as long as you have other options, it is fine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com