Rendered at 20:38:53 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
ebilgenius 1 days ago [-]
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.
_aavaa_ 1 days ago [-]
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.
leptons 1 days ago [-]
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.
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.
ElProlactin 1 days ago [-]
> 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.
throwaway27448 1 days ago [-]
People put up with it for the last fifteen years or whatever; why would they care now?
guywithahat 23 hours ago [-]
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
textrunmax 22 hours ago [-]
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.
otterley 21 hours ago [-]
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
Timon3 3 hours ago [-]
And for every idea shared on this site, there is an answer that dismisses it without bringing actual arguments.
otterley 3 hours ago [-]
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.
Timon3 2 hours ago [-]
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.
otterley 5 minutes ago [-]
I think we differ on the interpretation.
I’ve learned over the years not to casually claim something is simple because I come from a culture where if you say something at work is simple 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 senior engineer becomes senior.
embedding-shape 22 hours ago [-]
> 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?
benoau 20 hours ago [-]
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.
embedding-shape 11 hours ago [-]
> 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?
benoau 1 hours ago [-]
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.
thfuran 22 hours ago [-]
In the US, I think it would require a revolution at this point. In the EU it might be viable.
randyrand 1 days ago [-]
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.
forest32 22 hours ago [-]
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.
satvikpendem 1 days ago [-]
15% is still insane. Wasn't it supposed to be a cost based fee based on the latest ruling, not a flat percentage?
benoau 21 hours ago [-]
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
irq-1 24 hours ago [-]
Auto manufacturers should take 15% of purchases made outside the vehicle, and 30% of purchases made inside the vehicle eco-system.
fosk 24 hours ago [-]
Don’t give them ideas..
econ 23 hours ago [-]
You do want the window to open in the drive thru now don't-cha?
swat535 18 hours ago [-]
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.
econ 3 hours ago [-]
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.
jimrandomh 23 hours ago [-]
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.
forest32 22 hours ago [-]
Apple makes it against the rules to tell users about the 30% tax.
behnamoh 21 hours ago [-]
That's so diabolical and fucked up tbh.
leptons 22 hours ago [-]
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.
thewebguyd 1 days ago [-]
> "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.
superze 21 hours ago [-]
0.25% seems fair
benoau 21 hours ago [-]
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.
otterley 22 hours ago [-]
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.
wookmaster 7 hours ago [-]
What phones is everyone here using as an alternative to apple and google? rooted android phones?
23 hours ago [-]
gsky 19 hours ago [-]
I used to say that Apple and Google are evil. Turns out i was less wrong.
kraussvonespy 1 days ago [-]
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.
tomasphan 1 days ago [-]
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.
1970-01-01 1 days ago [-]
>C'mon Apple
C'mon with your wallet. That's the only voice they hear.
1vuio0pswjnm7 20 hours ago [-]
Incredible greed
bell-cot 1 days ago [-]
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."
adastra22 24 hours ago [-]
They... do. The federal corporate alternative/minimum income tax is 15%.
moi2388 1 days ago [-]
You mean VAT?
bell-cot 1 days ago [-]
No - but it'd be pretty amusing if the government called it that.
24 hours ago [-]
luqtas 1 days ago [-]
woah! don't be so harshy... they sell hardware at loss /s
forest32 22 hours ago [-]
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.
redeeman 21 hours ago [-]
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)
1 days ago [-]
mthoms 21 hours ago [-]
> 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.
kotaKat 1 days ago [-]
What was it, Epic charges 63% in Fortnite starting Jan 1 2027?
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.
butvacuum 1 days ago [-]
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.
verall 21 hours ago [-]
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.
wpm 21 hours ago [-]
Valve doesn't compare because Valve doesn't care if you buy a game from someone else, even on their own hardware platforms.
otterley 22 hours ago [-]
Where are the kids getting their money from?
verall 21 hours ago [-]
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.
otterley 21 hours ago [-]
$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.
ergocoder 1 days ago [-]
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.
butvacuum 23 hours ago [-]
what have you been smoking? So I can be sure to avoid it.
As it stands currently, with the quality of their software & App Store benefits they should be discounting all fees by like ~50% at least.
That alone settles the matter for me when the apologists inevitably show up.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
The point is that greed is so embedded in the culture today that they don't even have to defend it.
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.
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’ve learned over the years not to casually claim something is simple because I come from a culture where if you say something at work is simple 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 senior engineer becomes senior.
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?
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.
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?
Start charging people for all facets of their life. Use access to their iPhone as leverage.
Anything else is stealing from Apple’s generous charity of selling you a laptop for $3000.
1) they have no costs to pass on
2) they deserve a profit
3) they dismiss the 9th Circuit's ruling as invalid
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
C'mon with your wallet. That's the only voice they hear.
It is a travesty that free-loading scumbag users can buy stuff on the web without Apple getting a cut.
This framing is so bloody disingenuous it’s vomit inducing.
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.
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.
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.
Parents have the ability to control their children's purchases. If they don't, well, that's on them.
Therefore, this is opposite of praying on the kids.
In fact it's so bold I'm going to take my own 15%. Oh, me too.
/s