←back to thread

830 points todsacerdoti | 7 comments | | HN request time: 0.816s | source | bottom
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 #
pja ◴[] No.25136576[source]
Appoogle are a duopoly. You can’t get significant sales on mobile phones without going through their respective App Stores, which both charge 30%. What a coincidence!

Your comparisons with book publishers are specious: if I write a book today I can go to any of a number of publishers, none of whom have any kind of control over access to readers. Or I can even self-publish and sell direct.

Jailbreaking is a complete irrelevance in market terms: It’s effectively impossible to sell on Apple devices without paying Apple’s tax & very difficult to sell on Android devices (which Google controls via carefully written contracts with mobile phone manufacturers) without paying Google 30%. We have anti-monopoly + market collusion laws for good reasons. It’s about time they were enforced.

replies(5): >>25136602 #>>25137176 #>>25137915 #>>25138162 #>>25141907 #
dpkonofa ◴[] No.25138162[source]
I don't think that's a fair assessment at all. Both Google and, especially, Apple have spent millions of dollars, hours, and effort to create their respective App Stores and the people and tools needed to run them. There's a reason why there's a difference, in the real world, between a Walmart and a Target or Sprouts. Likewise, there's a difference between Apple, Google, or anyone else's App Stores. The main difference being that Apple makes it easy and far less risky for customers to pay for what they're getting. Developers aren't buying into just the App Store, they're buying in to the whole group of customers that said App Store brings with them.
replies(3): >>25138417 #>>25138635 #>>25138673 #
1. ROARosen ◴[] No.25138673[source]
> Both Google and, especially, Apple have spent millions of dollars, hours, and effort to create their respective App Stores and the people and tools needed to run them

Both Google and especially Apple have also spent millions of resources and money, making sure they are the only app store in use (by default).

They could have spent some of those millions creating a set of rules for independent app marketplaces to be able to distribute content on their platform instead of locking everyone in to theirs'.

replies(3): >>25139835 #>>25140861 #>>25166850 #
2. ntsplnkv2 ◴[] No.25139835[source]
> creating a set of rules for independent app marketplaces

How is this any different?

replies(1): >>25140251 #
3. ROARosen ◴[] No.25140251[source]
This implies - of course - that they will allow other app marketplaces to begin with.
4. enos_feedler ◴[] No.25140861[source]
I love how we suddenly have better ideas for how the most successful public company should allocate their resources to serve their customers (developers are second tier, sorry). We sometimes forget they are sitting on mountains of money because they execute good company decision making, not because they are doing weird things to protect a monopoly. Like there is some meeting near the top between execs happening where someone goes "lets do X!" and another exec replies "no but doing X would harm our monopoly, we cant' do that". Do people think decisions are really being actively made to protect a monopoly?
replies(1): >>25141294 #
5. ROARosen ◴[] No.25141294[source]
With this rationale no monopoly should ever be investigated, broken up, etc.

The whole problem with monopolies is that they actually harm the consumer by protecting their monopoly from encroachment by someone else. So yes people really think decisions are being made by a monopoly to protect their monopoly (and their profits). A chunk of those billions they have is actually money generated by these monopolistic practices.

It's juvenile to imagine them sitting at board meeting and discussing "How can we protect our monopoly?", that's like saying the NSA is discussing by board meetings "how can we further invade everyones privacy?". But they most definitely are discussing how they can protect their market share and how to edge out competition.

replies(1): >>25142596 #
6. enos_feedler ◴[] No.25142596{3}[source]
I am sure they do discuss those things. This is why Google has onboarding training around not framing any communication around competition. The optimist in me says this is actually to help infuse a culture of good decision making and trying to combat this kind of monopolistic thinking. I guess there is another side to this that is not so good natured. I guess this is an argument around intent. Are they actually trying to be good, or hide evidence of being bad, by the highest level of these companies?
7. dpkonofa ◴[] No.25166850[source]
You're missing the point. Apple doesn't want independent App Stores because that's not what their customers want. Their customers want a simple way to install apps that they can trust and to pay for things in a way that they can trust. Independent app marketplaces are anathema to that.