[flagged]
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
* https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
- I DO want apple to spend as much money and effort as they do now on vetting apps.
- I DO realize that means they must grab some money, somwhere.
- I DO NOT want apple to take a cut out of subscriptions for services.
It's as simple as that. There is zero way in hell that apple should have a cut out of subscription services. I should be able to pay any way I want for e.g. podcasts, and Apple should just suck it up and charge $25 from the distributor, once, for reviewing the podcast app.
Basically: Apple needs to just give up their golden egg, run the app store at minium profit, and I hope the EU breaks their kneecaps if they don't swiftly agree to do so.
Would that not mean developers that update more and get better value for their customers are penalised?
Subscription cuts strikes a happy medium, where apple gets paid when the company gets paid, so if they deliver more features they are not penalised but they are also not allowed to update for free forever (potentially adding malicious code without anyone checking due to only being checked the first time they paid).
It would. So charge $25 again. So long as they charge what their actual cost is (with a reasonable margin) that's fine. But that's a universe apart from charging 10% of the profits of some streaming service because you "provide the platform".
If consumers want to pay for Apple's premium services, they can just stick to the default.
If they want stuff cheaper, they can try an app store willing to only make a 10% margin instead of Apple's 40%.
From Apple's perspective it includes the ongoing cost of providing all of the SDKs i.e. CTF.
Third party apps can't exist without the SDK, but the iPhone wouldn't be viable without third party apps. Who makes money in this arrangement has nothing to do with what's fair and everything to do with who has more power.
I get the feeling that the CTF exists more to dissuade developers from building for alt app stores.
But in either case, if the user sentiment is as strong as you claim, Apple has nothing to lose in following the laws. The users will continue to demand installs and payments go via the App Store, and developers will have to continue providing that option or lose customers. Why do you feel so threatened by these laws? It sounds like you don't really have the confidence in 95% of the users agreeing with you.
If 95%, like you say, are happy to pay extra, then it should be no problem for Apple to allow developers to communicate the Apple fees.
Maybe over time more integrated options could emergy that's as convenient, offers more features, and could be cheaper. Imagine if there was competition!
The issue is that you can't publish an app unless you hide this information from the user and as a consequence most users aren't even aware that alternatives exists.
Let the user freely decide and you can't charge how much you want for the convenience of your service, even more than 30%, nobody would care.
Who said they will download from a random website, or that the only advantage is to save a few bucks?
The advantage might be to get software that is not allowed on the app store, or to use a source that you trust more than Apple, or an otherwise better curated source - I would guess a high proportion of F-Droid users trust the software installed from there or find it easier to get what they want than in the Play Store. Why can someone not similarly improve on Apple's store?
> before Apple everything was download, pay and pray.
never had many problems myself.
And no - I prefer iOS, for various reasons (such as smooth integration with macOS, better UI), and wanting to download apps from the Apple app store is not the reason.
Almost everyone uses Google's store on Android. The average person doesn't know what 3rd party stores are, they don't go to websites to make payments. I'm a more advanced user and never had to go to a website and download and app, unless I absolutely wanted to.
Not sure why you think it would be different on iOS.
There is not a single argument or point that hasn't been made many times over.
Competition is good for markets even if you continue to buy from the incumbent.
It's not about you, It's about other companies wanting to distribute their software without giving 30% of their sales to Apple.
Whether you agree that it's unfair or not, the EU decided that it is.
Furthermore - No one is forcing anyone to click the "get this cheaper here" link ... But I'd bet you'd be surprised how many Apple users would click it if it was there. The user and developer both win in that situation.
Also, for the love of god open up the Apple Messages API please...
Regular people just want to be able to install what they want.
As a dev who has to deal with the Apple App store (and someone who is completely bought into the Apple ecosystem, owning an iPhone, Macbook Pro, Vision Pro, Apple Watch, and iPad...), I'd like to just be able to push out an app or update without involving Apple. They require us to do a lot of work that I don't think is necessary and the app approval process is a significant time waster for us.
That's complete nonsense. That's not even true on computers, let alone in an Android/iPhone where applications are de facto sandboxed.
Also, none of these changes impact prevents you and the 95% to keep using the app store exclusively.