Comment by TheDong | Hacker News Reader

Comment by TheDong | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Presumably you also would agree that it's fair if Chrome, Windows, and Lenovo all charged me 30% each for using Patreon via Chrome+Windows on a thinkpad, right?

They're doing about as much to facilitate my use of Patreon as Apple is.

This isn't like a mall at all. This is like a web browser, where apps are webpages, and Apple is insisting that the contents of that webpage are something they can dictate all payment terms on.

For the airport analogy to work, it would have to be that you go to the Airport, go into the electronics store, buy a Kindle, and then the Airport insists it can take 30% not just on the purchase of the kindle, but 30% on every single book you buy on the kindle forever.

Apple taking a cut on the purchase price of an app that a user found via the app store does make some sense. Apple taking a cut of an in-app interaction with a creator that the user almost certainly found elsewhere is nonsense.

What next, should apple take a 30% cut of my rent because I found my apartment on the Craigslist app? Should they take a 30% of my train ticket that I purchased using the Safari app? Why does Patreon have to add a 30% cut on in-app content, when Safari lets me pay for in-app content with my credit card without taking any cut?

> certainly found elsewhere

I agree that if someone discovered the artist elsewhere, Apple has weaker standing in claiming a huge commission. But if they found an artist elsewhere, they would also know that they can support that artist elsewhere and not through the iOS app. If the patron found them through the patreon iOS app and use the app to consume the artist's content, then clearly the patron has indicated that they prefer the iOS experience.

And if I access Patreon via Chrome on Windows, and use Chrome on Windows to consume the artist's content, clearly I prefer the Chrome and Windows experience, so Microsoft and Google should be getting their 30% cut, right?

... and of course the user found the artist elsewhere than the iOS app store. They found them on youtube, or reddit, or _possibly_ on the webview inside the patreon iOS app, which is also _not_ apple's App Store content, it's content provided by Patreon.

Again, should accessing my bank via the Safari or Chrome iOS app mean apple gets 30% of all my bank transactions, just because they were displayed on a webview inside an iOS app?

The logical conclusion is that if you buy an Apple device from www.apple.com on your Windows PC, Microsoft should get a 30% cut of that sale.

There's a large amount of Apples:Oranges comparisons here that should be obvious to people who even read the headline, "in the iOS app" not "on iOS", as your comparison indicates.

Sure, if Google wants to start a business model where your websites only load if you sign a business agreement and agree to commissions.

However, regulators would probably take note that Google has been aggressively pushing their browser for free for over a decade to gain market share, and have a field day.

The difference is that Apple's business model hasn't changed - you've always been restricted to distributing apps under a business agreement, and the conditions on commissions have been pretty consistent since inception, or at least since IAP was added in 2009.

"What ifs" about Apple charging 30% for bank transactions would run afoul of regulators. This is about consuming member-exclusive goods and services in-app, which again has been in the contract terms since 2009.

Goods and services consumed outside of the app (such as purchases of physical items on Amazon, or plane tickets or the like) are actually forbidden from using in-app purchase and do not have a commission rate.

>If the patron found them through the patreon iOS app and use the app to consume the artist's content, then clearly the patron has indicated that they prefer the iOS experience.

I hate IOS enough that I'm running at least a full numbered version behind with updates turned off and never plan to buy another IOS device, and I'm subscribed to multiple Patreons started through the IOS app merely because it was the device in my hand and they automatically funnel Patreon links to it.

That's not worth 30%. Imagine if Youtube charged 30% for anyone who clicked a link under a video in a web browser.

Even if people do enjoy browsing through the PAtreon app and choosing creators they want to subscribe to, that's not worth 30%. Rent-seeking is a cognitive disease.

Chrome, Windows and Lenovo don't have the payment system baked in, with all the consumer protections that come with it.

I'm not entirely pro-Apple percentage in this argument, but I think people often dismiss the magical thing that Apple created with the app store and their payment/subscription system. The rest of the world keeps ripping users off, and Apple's walled garden is as protected a thing as it gets.

I've gone directly to my bank for subscription charges billed directly to my credit card and they wouldn't reverse or stop them. Cancelling and reversing on the App Store is basic, easy, and friction-free.

Plus, the Android environment doesn't yield nearly the same sales volume even with significantly more installed units.

People spend on iOS and they don't spend on other platforms.

30% hurts and it sucks, but.. Patreon will probably take it because they'll do the math and it won't come out in favor of the alternative. That's what really sucks, beyond Apple max-max-maxing this.

They can offer to cancel or reverse subscriptions because you paid 5x that subscription amount just in fees.

The cost side of that protection is < 0.1% not 30%.

>The rest of the world keeps ripping users off, and Apple's walled garden is as protected a thing as it gets.

This keeps getting repeated but it's not actually my experience. Not even Apple believes it, otherwise they could avoid a lot of legal and regulatory trouble by giving users a choice: Pay through Apple for an extra 30% protection fee.

> Chrome, Windows and Lenovo don't have the payment system baked in, with all the consumer protections that come with it.

Chrome definitely does, at least to a degree.

But you have the option to not use it, because guess what? You're supposed to own the device.

Chrome doesn't do this, Chrome has a wallet and you're still stuck talking to your credit card company.

It looks like you may have edited your comment, but the issues of Apple's app store payment percentage, the open/closed nature of their appstore, and the ability to sideload apps are 3 separate issues.

I don't think I edited my comment...

> you're still stuck talking to your credit card company

AFAIK Apple still talks to it too, they just have a deeper/better experience on the platforms they own and provide a service where they can generate a virtual card for you, so you're shielded from the merchant, but not from your card issuer.

> Apple's app store payment percentage, the open/closed nature of their appstore, and the ability to sideload apps are 3 separate issues

Yes and no, because Apple wants to use the closed nature of their ecosystem to offer their solution as the only possible one, yet at the same time claim that they deserve their 30% cut because it's the best solution out there and they provide so much value.

> I don't think I edited my comment...

It might've been HN weirdness. I was getting the one sentence in one view and the whole message in the other view. Re-loading didn't get them consistent. Hmm.

Apple's walled garden couldn't even protect it's users from a literal LastPass scam app. It was reviewed by Apple. It passed. It was in the store.

The screenshots for the app had "Documets" and "Lasspass" prominently visible

Nothing about this is for your sake.

Chrome and Windows definitely do have payment systems baked in. Google Pay, the Microsoft Store, etc.

I had a Patreon subscription I forgot about. I went to Patreon and ended it. It took about a minute, including filling out the feedback form about why I was quitting.

I can cancel easily my subscriptions ik PayPal with ohne click, without them taking 30%

>What next, should apple take a 30% cut of my rent because I found my apartment on the Craigslist app? Should they take a 30% of my train ticket that I purchased using the Safari app?

Sure they could, and usage of those products to purchase goods would nominally drop to 0%. People do not care about a lot of things, but they do care about losing money.

Apple would then force the with-IAP price to be the same as the without-IAP price so that they get a 30% cut of your rent regardless. You may be underestimating their willingness to tax all economic activity

While this would obviously be harmful to the consumer, I don't see this as plausible.

Amazon was able to achieve this by positioning themselves as the primary distributor of the goods in question. Apple is in no position to leverage a monopoly over fiat transer or housing supply.

With regard to municipal transportation, perhaps they are edging closer with Apple Pay, NFC, Wallet, etc.. but I can't imagine municipalities supporting, or constituents accepting, a tax on their existing taxes.

Of course, maybe Apple.gov is the long game. Hard to say whether that would be better or worse that the status quo..

Reply on news.ycombinator.com