Hacker News Reader

Comment by berkes | Hacker News Reader

> Down to the manufacturer of the whole product you're buying.

In case of an app, what is the "product" you are buying? Because according to Apple, they add a lot of "value" by ensuring the software is safe, performant, etc etc. Am I not buying "a safe, checked app"? Or am I buying an app and then separately pay Apple for an added service of "checking the app for safety" etc etc. I'd very much presume the first.

But if its separate, "an app" can be rather ambigous. For a one-time-purchase game, its clear. But many apps are really a service or even more that happen to have "an app" as one of the ways to interact with the service: Netflix, Uber, protonmail, Vinted (or ebay), etc etc: the app isn't the thing I buy. It's a wrapper around a service. Or even just one of the portals through which I can buy stuff. Point being: It's not simple, so your answers don't fit the analogy of "wallmart".

View on HN

> In case of an app, what is the "product" you are buying?

The app.

> Because according to Apple, they add a lot of "value" by ensuring the software is safe, performant, etc etc. Am I not buying "a safe, checked app"? Or am I buying an app and then separately pay Apple for an added service of "checking the app for safety" etc etc. I'd very much presume the first.

If you want to, you can imagine the 30% cut being that separate service, but most analyses I've seen of this assume the first is the case, and I can't really see why it wouldn't be.

> But many apps are really a service or even more that happen to have "an app" as one of the ways to interact with the service: Netflix, Uber, protonmail, Vinted (or ebay), etc etc: the app isn't the thing I buy.

In those cases the app on the App Store is free, so there's nothing a consumer can really complain about, since they haven't bought anything. You can complain about the service rendered when you pay, but that purchase is handled completely separately from the app (non-)purchase.

> Point being: It's not simple, so your answers don't fit the analogy of "wallmart".

It does for apps bought as products. If you want an analogy for apps bought as services, then I'll use a different analogy, since they behave differently, and are treated differently in law.

I think a good analogy for this difference would be this:

Walmart sells both fresh/frozen/packaged food (lots of food safety regulations) and t-shirts (few regulations by comparison). They also sell things like cell phone plans and subscription services that have entirely different sets of regulations.

Exactly as you described, if I make a specific type of app, maybe the business address and responsible party should really be Apple. If I make a subscription service app, then it should be me.

If your app is paid, there should be a business behind it, which has a business address and other associated contacts.

Replace 'app' with literally any other product or service in that sentence, and it still seems reasonable to me. You should be able to reach the producer of your frozen nuggies from Walmart, as well as the manufacturer of their t-shirts.

If your product or service is free, then a lot of that flies out the window (assuming it isn't actively hurting someone). Netflix's free app doesn't really do anything if you don't pay, but since it's free, you can't bring a claim to Netflix to complain about it, since you haven't paid for anything. The moment you pay for service though, then your right to complain if there's a fault in the service kicks in, which may or may not involve the free app (which Netflix is pointing you to and telling you to use to use their service). Once a consumer has paid for something, they should be able to follow the trail back to whomever made the product they're using.

> Am I not buying "a safe, checked app"?

I wouldn't presume that. Malware ends up in the app store all the time.

I was merely re-iterating the marketing from Apple on why they charge the 30%.

I personally think it's a lie at best, or a scam (on multinational level) at worst. I've always been convinced that regulation should force companies that make such statements to be held responsible. Treat them like an insurance company or such.

I pay a few dollars every month to be protected against scams and malware. So when I do get infected, Apple failed to do what I paid it for and Apple should be forced to pay me for damages.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com