←back to thread

830 points todsacerdoti | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | 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 #
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 #
bobthebuild123 ◴[] No.25136602[source]
Google literally has multiple alternative app stores currently active.
replies(6): >>25136712 #>>25136758 #>>25136785 #>>25137134 #>>25137149 #>>25140226 #
ge0rg ◴[] No.25136785[source]
I'm publishing the same (paid) app on Google Play and on Amazon's store, which is AFAICT the most widely used alternative (outside of markets where Google is not active).

My Amazon income is less than 2% of the Google income.

replies(2): >>25137490 #>>25137582 #
zaroth ◴[] No.25137490[source]
Which just goes to show how Google’s and Apple’s investment of tens of billions of dollars building out their respective ecosystem presents a tremendous opportunity to developers.

Amazon made a half-hearted effort to compete in the space and the result is “less than 2%” in your case.

replies(1): >>25137672 #
ethbr0 ◴[] No.25137672[source]
> tens of billions of dollars building out their respective ecosystem presents a tremendous opportunity to developers

That's... one way to look at it.

Another way is that they'd be spending even more if there were more healthy competition in the alternative app store market.

Amazon is incentived to run an Android app store now, in the same way Microsoft was incentivized to maintain an ARM build of Windows: it's not a corporate priority, because it doesn't make business sense for it to be until the playing field changes.

replies(3): >>25138306 #>>25139886 #>>25140081 #
1. zepto ◴[] No.25140081[source]
If there was competition in the App Store market, I’d have to deal with the overhead of dealing with publishing companies.

My apps would have to be designed to comply with all of the rules of all of the stores.

No thanks.