←back to thread

830 points todsacerdoti | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
pja ◴[] No.25136113[source]
I’m seeing a lot of positive comments on HN about this: to me it seems to be purely a cynical piece of PR on Apple’s part.

They hope to significantly reduce the pressure on politicians to take a close look at their App store practices by significantly reducing the absolute number of developers suffering the full impact whilst taking the minimum possible hit to their revenue. This has nothing to do with “doing the right thing” or “accelerating innovation” and everything to do with limiting the number of outraged letters to senators from devs, the number of newspaper interviews with prominent indie developers & so on.

Indie devs have an outsize PR impact relative to their revenue contribution, so buy them off with a smaller revenue tax that delivers outsize returns if it prevents the 30% house rake on the majority of Apple’s App Store income coming under scrutiny.

Apple / Google’s 30% take is the anti-competitive elephant in the room here, not a few crumbs thrown to small developers.

replies(33): >>25136142 #>>25136180 #>>25136192 #>>25136194 #>>25136229 #>>25136254 #>>25136310 #>>25136326 #>>25136369 #>>25136392 #>>25136896 #>>25136921 #>>25136932 #>>25136947 #>>25137067 #>>25137364 #>>25137458 #>>25137537 #>>25137558 #>>25137578 #>>25137627 #>>25137982 #>>25138093 #>>25138809 #>>25139232 #>>25139847 #>>25140155 #>>25140160 #>>25140313 #>>25140614 #>>25140958 #>>25141658 #>>25141813 #
indigochill ◴[] No.25136369[source]
It's along the same lines of what Microsoft did when they were being investigated as a monopoly: throw a bone to smaller developers (or in Microsoft's case, kids in school) which actually just grows their market share (in Microsoft's case, kids learn to use Microsoft products and take that to work, in Apple's case, more devs see profitability in the Mac garden).

> Apple / Google’s 30% take is the anti-competitive elephant in the room here

No. They both built a distribution channel on which developers build, but they're not open markets. Those app stores are the property of their respective creators (this is a flaw of the app store paradigm in general, at least for those who want full control over their software).

Both Apple and Google are fully within their rights to charge whatever they want within their app store and enforce whatever capricious whims they like on apps that they distribute. It's the same as traditional book publishers writing their contracts with authors they publish. Which is why open platforms and device jailbreaking remain valuable for those of us who believe in personal ownership of our software.

replies(5): >>25136494 #>>25136576 #>>25136722 #>>25139406 #>>25140518 #
baq ◴[] No.25136722[source]
the whole point of antitrust regulations is that

> Both Apple and Google are fully within their rights to charge whatever they want within their app store and enforce whatever capricious whims they like on apps that they distribute.

actually isn't always true - especially when it hurts consumers. of course it isn't up to us here to decide if it does. remember that private doesn't mean unregulated.

replies(2): >>25137559 #>>25137579 #
1. indigochill ◴[] No.25137579[source]
> of course it isn't up to us here to decide if it does

I also think it shouldn't be up to courts. It should be up to the consumers themselves. They generally seem quite happy with Apple and Google.

On the other hand, if there is a consumer need that is not being met by Google or Apple, it is a prime opportunity to disrupt the market with a new offering that fulfills that need. If Google or Apple stamp that out or have done so in the past, then I will agree it's an anti-competition issue.

replies(2): >>25137996 #>>25141030 #
2. whimsicalism ◴[] No.25137996[source]
Well glad we live in a country with laws and not a pseudo-libertarian "all governance by consumer choice" world.

Regardless of what you think "should" happen, the reality is that you massively understated the scope of the applicable law.

3. arrosenberg ◴[] No.25141030[source]
The point is that Apple and Google have used their market power in other verticals (hardware, services) to lock all other competitors out of the mobile app distribution market. They are acting as private regulators of who can publish a mobile app, which is unacceptable if we still claim to support competitive, public markets.

How would a consumer even know if they were happy given the lack of options? Are they actually happy, or do they just have bigger issues to worry about? That's why we hire experts to act as regulators for new industries.