Hacker News Reader

Comment by BadHumans | Hacker News Reader

The issue that Spotify and others take with Apple is their 30% cut. So Spotify adds a payment processor that doesn't involve Apple, then what?

View on HN

Then Apple will be forced to compete on merits

I think that is what you would like to happen but this would have to play out in court because Apple makes so much money from that 30% they would fight it tooth and nail.

No, Apple will still have the advantage of not being restricted like 3rd party apps when it comes to running background activities, access to hardware features they haven't published APIs for, and integration opportunities via private Apple only APIs amongst their various apps and platforms that 3rd party apps can't replicate since Apple literally doesn't make those knobs available to them.

Why can't my non-Apple laptop start a tethering session automatically with an iPhone when I open its lid? What good reason is there that a 3rd party tool can't generate an auto-reply to a notification from a chat app with my consent? Lots of user experience niceties that Apple keeps only for their 1st party apps to the detriment of us all.

Google does similar things on Android, but at least you can get most of these features through 3rd party stores like F-Droid.

Yeah, but the only reason devs are not using those "private" APIs is because Apple owns the only distribution possibility. For now, the 3rd party stores are a joke because Apple still has too much control (and the fees are a joke) but I hope the EU runs its course and finally forces them to allow installation of any potential software without any limitations.

It is extremely dumb and uncompetitive that iPhones cannot install any apps under the guise of security or whatever. Apple has rested on its laurel and made some stupid choices that seriously limit the potential of their hardware. It's funny how they announced many features that people have wanted for years at this WWDC; they are starting to feel the pressure, I guess.

The 30% fee is not (only) for payments. It's a royalty for the core platform.

Why doesn't the same logic apply to MacOS? Perhaps because that "royalty" has already been paid by users who bought the device?

No, because people wont accept it in the "old system".

Accept what? Greediness?

Apple used to charge for MacOS. And then they made it free because hardware sales more than made up for any costs of the platform.

Apple themselves claim they don't care if AppStore is profitable. Schiller himself suggested they cap AppStore revenue at 1 billion.

If it's so costly for them to run why don't they let devs and users use the alternatives? Alternative payment methods, alternative app distribution etc.?

Edit.

Here's Apple financial report for 2023: https://s2.q4cdn.com/470004039/files/doc_earnings/2023/q4/fi...

- iPhone alone generated 200 billion in sales

- The entirety of their operational expenses is 54 billion

Apple's customers have already paid for whatever expenses Apple is incurring for the "core platform"

Couldn't they argue that these royalties don't apply if payments aren't routed through the core platform? Such as saying "oh, well, the user paid through the web version of Spotify, not the iOS one"?

Apple certainly looks at it that way, but is not legally entitled to collect a royalty simply for making apps that run on its operating system. Instead, they have created a technical mechanism to do so.

The EU and Japan have decided that's unfair.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com