Hacker News Reader

Comment by Hikikomori | Hacker News Reader

What is the value again? Hosting software that can be downloaded?

Apple could just charge for services rendered, ie downloads, rather than a flat fee.

As Matwood pointed out in a sibling comment, the real value of being on the App Store is the ecosystem of highly affluent consumers that Apple has cultivated.

Which has would be worthless without apps like Spotify. Do you also think that Apple is entitled to 30% of anything bought with their browser? Should Microsoft be entitled to the same on windows and their browser?

If the Appstore is so good Apple should not be worried about competition by allowing side loading or alternative Appstores.

You could flip that argument around and say that Spotify might have been worthless without the App Store to grow their userbase. I don't actually subscribe to that viewpoint myself, but I do think many on HN take the benefits of publishing on the App Store for granted.

> Should Microsoft be entitled to the same on windows and their browser?

I don't know, maybe? I'm sure people would riot if they tried it now, but if Microsoft had set that precedent from the start would we be here discussing this today?

I am just going to flip this argument to put things in perspective and add a bit of contrast.

-----

What is the value again? Playing music?

Spotify could just charge for services rendered, ie number of hours played, rather than a flat fee.

You could, and any other music service could compete with Spotify on pricing. The difference here is that Apple also compete with Spotify with their own music service while they also want a 30% cut on Spotifys income.

And Apple would still demand 30% of it. Not sure how Spotify's fee structure has anything to do with Apple's fans' arguments that they're totally not behaving anticompetitively.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com