Apple proposes to take a 15% cut of purchases made outside the App Store | Hacker News Reader

Apple proposes to take a 15% cut of purchases made outside the App Store

techcrunch.com

85 pointssbulaev62 comments

I guess I just don't understand the indefensible greed on display here from Apple. If Apple's App Store & development software truly were still world-class & easy to build/rely on then at least one could defend a "quality tax" of sorts. That'd still be bad, but it's something.

As it stands currently, with the quality of their software & App Store benefits they should be discounting all fees by like ~50% at least.

It is just that. Greed. They would do it on macOS too if they could get away with it, but they know they can’t and so don’t make the argument. What? macOS doesn’t require investment into the platform?

That alone settles the matter for me when the apologists inevitably show up.

The DOJ had started a lawsuit against Apple due to their rampantly greedy business practices, but who knows where that is going now since Tim Apple gave a golden trophy to the current president.

https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline

Download a program and you have to pay the OS maker for it was never a thing on PC but apparently a smartphone is seen differently.

People put up with it for the last fifteen years or whatever; why would they care now?

> I guess I just don't understand the indefensible greed on display here from Apple.

The point is that greed is so embedded in the culture today that they don't even have to defend it.

I mean, you can't say "this service isn't good enough so I won't pay". The justification is surely the cost of hosting the platform and building it out, in fact if you try and demand higher quality libraries they'll probably raise the price to fund it. It is frustrating though, I wish there were a more open and free phone OS

One simple rule or law could fix this: Every hardware manufacturer that ships an OS must allow the installation of an alternative OS from any third party, with the same access to the hardware as the original OS and all the necessary technical documentation. If the original OS can be updated over the air, users must also be able to install alternative operating systems over the air. This would result in real competition across all our devices: iPhones, smart fridges, John Deere tractors, and so on. And it would force manufacturers to focus on building better products instead of using anticompetitive practices to squeeze more money out of their locked-in customers.

> One simple rule or law could fix this [...]

What's absolute simplest and most realistic way of actually going from this proposal here, into actually driving it into being a real, actual law? Would it require demonstrations? Simply gathering signatures?

In the US, I think it would require a revolution at this point. In the EU it might be viable.

There is no simple path.

There have been multiple attempts to legislate a subset of what the parent poster is asking, and they have been met with a torrent of lobbying by the entrenched tech giants. Most recently California's BASED Act, the App Store Freedom Act last year, the American Innovation and Choice Online Act some years ago. If your state and federal legislators can't enact change what hope does anyone else have?

Even the places that have successfully legislated this are struggling with enforcement - EU is dealing with extreme and prolonged compliance issues three years into enactment, Japan's FTC is having to form a new bureau just to police Google and Apple's malicious compliance.

> There is no simple path.

As with most broad societal things, I don't think anyone thinks so either.

There is for sure a "simplest way" of doing it though, question is what that is.

> Even the places that have successfully legislated this are struggling with enforcement - EU is dealing with extreme and prolonged compliance issues three years into enactment

Huh? The EU does not mandate countries to implement laws around "OS must allow the installation of an alternative OS from any third party", I'd be very aware of such a law if it existed I feel like. Are you talking about some future regulation they're discussing or something?

It's not the same legislation but it's of the same magnitude as what the grandparent poster would like, I'm citing the extreme difficulty to legislate these platforms.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." - H.L. Mencken

And for every idea shared on this site, there is an answer that dismisses it without bringing actual arguments.

Hencken’s quote is a pithy statement that can be translated thusly:

If you’re about to make an argument that starts with “just do x” or “an obvious solution is y” or come up with “simple” solutions for problems that are clearly not simple if you spend a modicum of time analyzing the issue, you’re probably wrong from the start.

If people have been disagreeing about a perceived problem for years, it’s pretty conclusive evidence that the problem is not simple, and thus neither will be the solution. There will be tradeoffs.

Thanks, I was already well aware when I wrote my response. But I'm afraid one of us is either misunderstanding textrunmax or Mencken, because (at least to me) the OP wasn't implying that this proposed law would be a holistic solution for the entire issue in all it's complexity.

I'm sure textrunmax is aware that this law would also introduce downsides, but it's absolutely normal to post ideas without listing negatives. And since you haven't explained why their proposal wouldn't actually narrowly fix the issue, all we seem to be left with is the use of "simple". Yet complex ideas can be introduced as "simple" (and frequently are!), so I'm left to assume that you're only dismissing the idea because you pattern matched "simple" to this quote.

I think we differ on the interpretation.

I’ve learned over the years not to casually claim something is simple; I come from a culture where if you say something at work is simple (or, worse, “trivial”) to do, you get assigned the work and are held responsible for the outcome. It’s a valuable lesson in humility and understanding how a junior engineer becomes a senior one.

Look, too, at the current political situation we find ourselves in today: people are too easily attracted to politicians who claim to have easy answers to problems. Then, when they get into office, they make those problems worse.

> you haven't explained why their proposal wouldn't actually narrowly fix the issue

This issue has been going on for years. There's not a lot I can add here that hasn't already been said. I will say, though, that I find it valuable to participate in a thought experiment: why did phone manufacturers insist on tightly coupling hardware with software in the first place, unlike with personal computers? The explanations are easy to find, and not all of them are about having antipathy for customers and developers or pure greed. I've no doubt that even your favorite LLM can provide one.

> complex ideas can be introduced as "simple“

I would more finely tune the language. A problem can be simply stated, but that doesn’t mean the problem itself is a simple one. Perhaps you think I’m splitting hairs here, but in a world of ambiguous communication, I believe clarity is important.

I believe to understand where this issue started:

> I’ve learned over the years not to casually claim something is simple[...]

You're interpreting textrunmax's use of "simple" as a technical judgement of difficulty/complexity/etc of their proposed law, but in the context of a political discussion I understand it as a rhetorical device (one I see used often these days, so I thought it's well-known). So from my perspective, your previous comment discounts their idea without any justification, and thus only serves to derail the conversation because their use of "simple" triggered you.

I might be wrong, but since you haven't explained what exactly makes their idea a simple solution in the quote's sense, I can't explain why I think such a law is a valid solution to the issue at hand - and that's what makes shallow dismissals like your original comment so annoying.

> in the context of a political discussion I understand it as a rhetorical device

This points to what I mentioned above: this type of rhetorical device has led to things becoming tangibly worse in our society. That alone is enough reason to dismiss it. (I forgot to mention Chesterton's Fence in my previous comment: https://fs.blog/chestertons-fence/)

Besides, the commenter offered a particular "simple" solution: "One simple rule or law could fix this: Every hardware manufacturer that ships an OS must allow the installation of an alternative OS from any third party, with the same access to the hardware as the original OS and all the necessary technical documentation." It's not the word "simple" that motivated me to respond, it's that it's also an idea that is a non-starter from a practical perspective. Again, there's nothing new I can add as to why: it's all out there already. See, e.g., https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/Building_a_Trusted_Ecosys... (this is focused specifically on sideloading apps and not the OS itself, but the logic is still applicable) and https://help.apple.com/pdf/security/en_US/apple-platform-sec... (pages 5 and 6 set the context).

They should continue this line of thinking even further.

Start charging people for all facets of their life. Use access to their iPhone as leverage.

If you use a MacBook for work, Apple should get a 30% cut of your salary!

Anything else is stealing from Apple’s generous charity of selling you a laptop for $3000.

15% is still insane. Wasn't it supposed to be a cost based fee based on the latest ruling, not a flat percentage?

Yes but Apple makes three arguments:

1) they have no costs to pass on

2) they deserve a profit

3) they dismiss the 9th Circuit's ruling as invalid

Auto manufacturers should take 15% of purchases made outside the vehicle, and 30% of purchases made inside the vehicle eco-system.

Don’t give them ideas..

You do want the window to open in the drive thru now don't-cha?

BMW is nearly there with subscription for heated seats and spider man ads in driver's faces..

Everything is just getting worse these days: TVs becoming junk ad boxes, consoles removing physical ownership, cars becoming subscription services, phones are now glorified walled gardens, operating systems are filled with ads and telemetry, and don't even get me started on software.

At work we have a phone used for a specific app. Rarely someone uses it for things that would build a targetable audience.

I play a long YouTube video (AI slop) on it and the low profit ads are both frequent and very long.

I just left it playing and didn't bother pressing skip. I'm 99% sure now the timer for the next add starts when the previous ad block starts. It runs ads for 2-10 minutes then plays only 20-30 seconds of video!

I Google for expensive products and services on my own phone. I play the same video and get one ad every 5-20 minutes. Sometimes it's just one short ad.

The moral of the story. If you are a good boy and buy all the subscriptions your time is more valuable and we won't have to bother you non stop.

Looks like Google's already doing this for apps downloaded from Google Play:

> The company also compared its link-out fees to those on Google Play, which charges 20% link-out rates for standard apps, 15% for apps in special programs, and 10% for subscription renewals, noting that Epic Games had agreed to these rates.

Do iOS users realize how much they're paying Apple? I feel like if, every time they bought something, users got a receipt with a line item showing that 30% of the money was going to Apple and not to the company they thought they were buying from, a lot of them would jump ship to Android.

But then their bubble would be a pukey green color, and not a nice blue color, and that's scary for a lot of them.

Apple makes it against the rules to tell users about the 30% tax.

That's so diabolical and fucked up tbh.

> "Apple’s position is that it should be permitted to charge fees on in-app purchases made by users of its devices as a means to recoup its investments in the tools, technology, and services that allow it to maintain its App Store and software."

That is such a ridiculous argument. Next they'll want a cut of everything you buy from Amazon using Safari, or any bank transfer you do via your banking app just because you happen to use an Apple device. Give me a break.

Mind you, this is about purchase made using "external links" inside of apps. Not even Apple's IAP infrastructure at all. Apple does zero here, the developer in this instance is offloading to their own payment stack. Apple deserves nothing more than 0% commission here.

0.25% seems fair

Not really, because it still imposes a compliance burden on every single developer using these payments. That alone is reason enough to abolish these fees IMHO. If Apple wants more money let them charge the developer an extra $50 or $100 on the annual subscription.

Daydream: US Gov't says "Sure, go for it! BTW, we'll now be talking an extra 15% cut of all transactions that you do using our dollars."

woah! don't be so harshy... they sell hardware at loss /s

You mean VAT?

No - but it'd be pretty amusing if the government called it that.

They... do. The federal corporate alternative/minimum income tax is 15%.

> Apple’s position is that it should be permitted to charge fees on in-app purchases made by users of its devices as a means to recoup its investments in the tools, technology, and services that allow it to maintain its App Store and software

This framing is so bloody disingenuous it’s vomit inducing.

What phones is everyone here using as an alternative to apple and google? rooted android phones?

and I propose that I take a 15% cut of all apple devices sold outside of apple stores. this should be super fair right? (of course one cant even fault them 100% since vast majority of people have been conditioned to think stealing more than that from everyone is 100% legit)

C'mon Apple. Ease off on the app store fees, let innovation blossom again, maybe use some of that momentum to encourage game developers to use the Mac platform for gaming. Consider throwing some extra GPU cores in future M<whatever> chips and manufacture cheap Mac Minis / Macbook Neos that come preoptimized for Steam (and other) games.

My ultimate goal: I'd really like to be able to play modern games on a laptop that doesn't also act as a makeshift space heater / 110db white noise generator.

Its sad how many cool apps no longer exists in the app store. I had a cool fluid sim, bridge building game and a game called Soccer Physics that I could play coop on a plane. Not sure why they're gone but presumably the creator didn't want to shell out developer fees.

>C'mon Apple

C'mon with your wallet. That's the only voice they hear.

I used to say that Apple and Google are evil. Turns out i was less wrong.

Incredible greed

What was it, Epic charges 63% in Fortnite starting Jan 1 2027?

https://www.fortnite.com/news/fortnite-developers-will-soon-...

I'm done putting up with this stupid pointless fight at this point so some slimy greasy developer can prey on kids some more with stupid cosmetic skins for a video game. Has Spotify kept complaining now that they've piled on the AI slop and stopped paying artists for their music and bragged they've got over 300 million paid sheep? Nope.

The willful ignorance on this topic has always been absurd. Valve skims the same 30% off a game sale as apple DID... Apple switched to 15% for below 1mil revenue. If you have only free apps you can apply for the annual developer fee to be waived as well.

Valve let's you sell your game on your own website and users can add the key to their steam for 0% skim. 30% rake for what is sold through their ridiculously popular store.

Apple should just charge devs for the services like fee per download if the app is free. I believe currently the minimum paid app is $0.99, so it seems reasonable to allow $.33 apps where the dev gets none and $0 if the dev wants to front the $0.33 per user.

I guess you could argue that even $0.99 apps are subsidized but I doubt it'd be accurate. They already charge to join the dev program and it's not that expensive to run an app store.

Valve doesn't compare because Valve doesn't care if you buy a game from someone else, even on their own hardware platforms.

Actually, increasing the fees will lead to more expensive in-game products. Higher price = higher barrier will reduce the number of players.

Therefore, this is opposite of praying on the kids.

what have you been smoking? So I can be sure to avoid it.

Where are the kids getting their money from?

Their parents?

Once upon a time the only thing I wanted for my birthday was 4 tf2 keys at $2.50 a piece.

It's not unreasonable.

$10 doesn't seem unreasonable. The highly-charged verbiage of "preying on kids" made it sound like they were bleeding them dry.

Parents have the ability to control their children's purchases. If they don't, well, that's on them.

Apple probably hates that they can’t charge 30% tax on all transactions done on Safari.

It is a travesty that free-loading scumbag users can buy stuff on the web without Apple getting a cut.

Wow! Bold! That's bold leadership, Apple. Respect.

In fact it's so bold I'm going to take my own 15%. Oh, me too.

Fuck Apple.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com