←back to thread

1704 points ardit33 | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
hijklmno ◴[] No.24154700[source]
It's not Apple vs. Fortnite. It's actually Apple vs. Users. Apple has been taking us for a ride this whole time. We pay damn much and buy the phone. It is the user's property from then on. What the user install's and uninstall's from his phone should be his decision. Taking a cut of say, 3%, to keep the app store running is forgivable. But 30% digging into users pocket is unpardonable. Apple is no longer the underdog that it was 40 years ago, and some fanboys pretending it to be is despicable. It's a monopoly and the only thing it cares is it's profitability. Despite all the sugarcoated lies Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google have been saying to the senate, they are a monopoly. Stop letting them deceive us. Let's take the power back. Stop enabling such deception. Death of a country is determined by it's governance. Death of a society is determined by it's culture and greedy monopolies. The way we can claim our power is by raising awareness to the point that the powers that are will take note and take action.
replies(24): >>24154744 #>>24154887 #>>24154969 #>>24154990 #>>24155082 #>>24155248 #>>24155280 #>>24155320 #>>24155360 #>>24155416 #>>24155483 #>>24155499 #>>24155506 #>>24155550 #>>24155568 #>>24155740 #>>24155744 #>>24155802 #>>24155817 #>>24155828 #>>24156004 #>>24156124 #>>24159323 #>>24165693 #
Razengan ◴[] No.24155817[source]
> It's actually Apple vs. Users. Apple has been taking us for a ride this whole time.

Oh please. Nobody who actually uses Apple feels that way. Though I agree they should allow a way to sideload apps.

One of the downsides of being primarily an iOS dev is not being able to participate in activities like game-jams because there's no way to casually share my stuff with other users.

> Taking a cut of say, 3%, to keep the app store running is forgivable. But 30%

Do you know how much Google, Microsoft, Steam and Epic themselves take from sales on their stores?

Apple protects its users better than the other major players. Their privacy and accessibility features alone are unparalleled, and they do a lot to curtail scummy developer practices. The entities which Apple protects users from are often the ones crying foul.

See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24154647 and similar comments:

> the magnitude of this is not immediately apparent unless you’ve worked in an agency / freelanced building iOS applications. You have no idea how many user-hostile and abusive things I’ve seen blown completely out of the water with the golden phrase "Apple won’t allow that". It wins arguments in favour of the user instantly and permanently.

> I’ve run up against Apple’s capricious review process more times than I can count, so I’ve got more reason than most to complain about it. But it’s impossible for me to argue that these rules don’t help the user when I’ve personally seen it happen so many times. It’s a double-edged sword to be sure, and I believe the best way of balancing things in favour of the end-user is to be more open than Apple is, but there are undeniable benefits to the user with the current system.

replies(6): >>24155935 #>>24156051 #>>24156057 #>>24168586 #>>24173331 #>>24174639 #
alkonaut ◴[] No.24156057[source]
> they do a lot to curtail scummy developer practices.

Which is excellent. Apple taking a cut for apps I have no problem with. They have support, I trust them with privacy/security and so on. That costs money.

The interesting discussion is how much apple can claim to own a part of profits made in the apps, by selling content (in-app purchases).

On one hand: if a game is free for a trial, and you can unlock the full game I think that should count as an app purchase (the alternative would be to not have in-app upgrades and just have 2 apps, which was a worse situation).

But on the other hand: if I buy a recipe app for $10 and then recipes for $1 a piece which I could also buy on the corresponding website, then I don't think apple should have a cut at all.

replies(3): >>24156108 #>>24156135 #>>24157679 #
NamTaf ◴[] No.24157679[source]
On one hand, I get where you're coming from.

On the other hand, if they offer a recipe app for free (because it contains no recipes, and let's face it, that's how you get quick user interest), then purchase recipes for $1.x each to cover the amortised app creation cost, you're basically just sidestepping the app store cut by any other name.

replies(1): >>24162367 #
graeme ◴[] No.24162367[source]
This is the crux of it. People aren’t applying second order thinking.
replies(1): >>24162744 #
alkonaut ◴[] No.24162744[source]
I don't think Apple should be allowed to charge a cut from a subscription app for example. Just because I can watch Netflix on my iPhone doesn't mean it's wrong that I can download a $0 app, and then pay Netflix for the content without Apple seeing one cent from it.
replies(1): >>24164989 #
1. graeme ◴[] No.24164989[source]
But what app couldn’t be either a subscription or be unlocked via in app purchase?

The dominant ios business model for apps currently is a basic version free to download, bigger functionality unlocked via in app purchase. Up front app costs are fading.

replies(1): >>24166696 #
2. alkonaut ◴[] No.24166696[source]
Agreed. So the current model of “take a cut of everything” makes it very simple because they don’t need to differentiate between unlocking a full version of a game and buying a monthly subscription to music.

The first I think is obviously right the second is insane (and in between there are an infinite number of cases).

I don’t think the status quo is acceptable though.