8 ms·
Apple to Developers: Heads I win, tails you lose (part 2)
- ianlevesque 3y agoIt’s like they want regulators to get involved. The arrogance is insane.
- spacebacon 3y agoIt’s fun and games when you have that much cash.
- danielvaughn 3y agoFun and games until a competitor arrives on the market with a solid developer experience. As soon as that happens, I’m dropping Apple like a bad habit. The only thing keeping me on their tech is my hatred for Android’s UX. Heck, if the Windows phone was still around, I’d probably be on that.
- spacebacon 3y agoI’ll be an early adopter right there with you.
- bmoxb 3y agoI'm not advocating in either direction, but I'm curious what elements of iOS's UX you prefer over Android's?
- jwells89 3y agoFor me a big part of it is how gestures track, the curves used by animations, inertia, bounciness, etc. Under iOS it all feels refined and naturalistic, whereas Android’s counterparts land somewhere in the uncanny valley and come off as more mechanical (fitting given its name, I suppose). Aside from that, in general you can feel more “seams” between components and rough edges all throughout Android’s UX. It reminds me of how the Linux desktop experience used to be several years ago actually, except Android seems to have gotten stuck for unknown reasons where Linux DEs have continually improved.
- __MatrixMan__ 3y ago> you can feel more “seams” between components That's it. I've been struggling to figure out what I can't stand about iOS and it just clicked. It's the lack of seams. When something breaks I can never figure out what specifically broke, so I can't reason about my mistake (or know who to contact if it's not my mistake). I like seams so much that I'm running google play services in a sandbox (Graphene OS) so google has to grovel for my permission like everybody else whenever they want to do something. It's a little annoying, but it's teaching me where the seams are.
- jwells89 3y agoIt all depends on what one’s looking for I guess. As an aesthetically inclined technical person, seams can be annoying to the point of distraction if they’re not thoughtfully worked into the design (90% of the time, they’re not).
- __MatrixMan__ 3y agoDifferent strokes for different folks I guess. I don't care about aesthetics at all, I'm just wanting to know where I'd put the crowbar if I wanted to turn it into something else. The ideal technology for me is quietly doing is job somewhere I can't currently see and rarely have to look. Perhaps that counts as aesthetics?
- danielvaughn 3y agoProbably the navigation I guess, though it's not something I've given much detailed thought into. I just know that whenever I pick up a friend's Android, I hate the experience.
- spacebacon 3y agoI hate the experience of a non ergonomic rectangular device in general. It’s uncomfortable to use in most situations. For example I use my pinkie finger to support the weight of my device when I type. The weight of the iPhone 14 combined with a case is enough to leave a permanent impression in my pinkie from heavy use. A contoured case that considers how people actually hold their device would be nice. If we were to rethink all of it from the ground up I’m sure there is a better way. Maybe even a silicone soft phone would be a good start.
- danielvaughn 3y agoOh I definitely agree. I'm waiting for the next SE to come out, I'll be buying it. The large form factor causes real strain in my wrists.
- Yoofie 3y agoThe regulators are asleep at the wheel. Thats why Apple feels like they can get away with all of this.
- lxgr 3y agoI agree that this has dragged on for at least a few years too long, but I do have some sympathy for wanting to do this right. If a regulator comes up with an overreaching plan to open up the app markets and that law or ruling gets struck down by a court, it could cement the status quo even further.
- MBCook 3y agoThey’re sort of trapped between a rock and a hard place. I don’t think what they’re doing is right, don’t take this as defense. On the one hand “services revenue” (their cut from casino/exploitive games) is basically the only thing growing. people who want iPhones have them. People who want iPads have them. The Vision Pro is never going to sell 1 billion units. Wall Street demand growth so they “have to“ keep finding ways to juice services revenue a bunch. Or the stock will get hammered. On the other hand, doing this is absolutely alienating every developer. And that will hurt the brand and their growth and their revenue too. You think there are as many developers who want to develop for the Vision Pro as there would have been if Apple was still as popular with devs as they were 10 years ago? But of course even if developers weren’t getting really mad they’ve gone so far as to get governments to start taking a deep look at them. And you know that’s not gonna go well. Juicing revenue makes developers and the governments more bad. Actions by the government or to be better for developers will make Wall Street mad. They mismanaged it and now they’re screwed. They could’ve been slowly cutting down and opening up this whole time. In small controlled ways they were willing to give up. In ways to let them keep the revenue growth but just slow it down a little. Instead they’ve got lawsuits. And governments forcing their hand.l to do things they hate and (in some cases) may be bad. And they’re being petulant about it all and going to get in even more trouble for defying courts/legislatures. All while hurting the brand. Good job Apple.
- foogazi 3y ago> On the other hand, doing this is absolutely alienating every developer. How did so many devs show up if the platform fees are alienating them ?
- lxgr 3y agoIn the same way that people are purchasing internet from horrible ISPs, shopping at overpriced supermarkets etc.: A lack of competition.
- MBCook 3y agoThe iPhone is too big to ignore. That’s where TONS of users are. But many ignore the iPad. Apple TV apps (outside of streaming video) ain’t doing great. How’s the Watch App Store these days? The Mac App Store is a runaway success right?
- librish 3y agoI'm surprised that so many developers are siding with Apple in this regard. If other stores and payment options were allowed I genuinely believe that: - Apple's own fees would be reduced relatively quickly - Technological savvy users will be able to discern which external sites are safe and get even lower prices when available - Very few companies will be able to afford not being on the App Store (especially if Apple lowers their fees further) - Apple will still make it hard _enough_ to use secondary stores that grandmas will not end up with iPads full of malware
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- threeseed 3y agoThat's because most iOS developers aren't confused about the situation. Apple's commission is for the App Store, SDKs, Developer Support etc. Not just a payment processing fee. And so if there are other stores and payment options which there will be soon Apple is still within their right to collect that fee. As every court around the world has said. They could collect it as a percentage of sales like Epic or just lump developers with an up front large development kit fee like Sony or Microsoft does.
- madeofpalk 3y agoNo one is confused (by these rules). But that doesn’t mean developers like it. I haven’t seen a single reaction from developers supportive of this. They seem hell bent on destroying whatever reputation and good will they have left on chasing those casino games for kids.
- librish 3y agoThen force them to unbundle those fees if they want to collect them. It just doesn't make any sense that some developers have to pay up to 30% of their iOS revenue while others (including huge corporations like Uber, Starbucks, Target etc) pay nothing.
- 3y ago
- speedylight 3y agoI don’t understand this issue too well to feel one or another. I just want all of my purchases and subscriptions to remain tied to my Apple ID and cancelable from my place. It makes life so much easier and saves money because it’s very hard to forget about subscriptions I no longer use when they’re all listed in one place. Also if I want to refund a purchase for whatever reason I can deal directly with Apple instead of the developer. All things considered Apples tight grip on the App Store works for me.
- smoldesu 3y ago> I just want all of my purchases and subscriptions to remain tied to my Apple ID and cancelable from my place. That's what you get in a world with sideloading. The apps you've bought will remain on the App Store for as long as the developer extends agreements with Apple. If you don't sideload, your App Store purchases will be consolidated and organized however Apple chooses for you. You lose nothing. The worst-case scenario for you is that your favorite developer stops using the App Store; but that's also a possibility regardless of sideloading. If a compelling alternative makes Apple's offerings seem weak, then it's up to Apple to respond.
- jwells89 3y agoMy hope is that if third party stores and sideloading come to iOS, Apple greatly incentivizes devs somehow to leverage a new unified subscription control panel API to help keep subs all in one list even if you don’t subscribe through the app store.
- willsmith72 3y agoisn't that more of a personal finance problem than a tech platform problem? you can find all your subscriptions there in one place until you start a new subscription on the web (maybe because it's cheaper), or you have one on a console. now suddenly you have multiple places to look again there's no reason subscription management couldn't be managed at a higher level, outside of any tech platform. if 99% of banks weren't so technologically incapable it would seem obvious that it would be there, with the rest of your transactions. review/cancel/challenge/refund everything in one place, subscription or not.
- qarl 3y agoGuys - Epic lost the lawsuit. That's why nothing changed. Why does this feel exactly like the 2020 election, where one side lost but keeps complaining that everyone is acting like they lost.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- judge2020 3y agoPolitical comment aside, I think everyone's talking about it because it seems like the only source of change in the current day comes from courts making decisions and changing to how existing laws are interpreted. Congress hasn't made any real meaningful new regulations to curtail anti-consumer behavior since the 08 crisis. People were hoping things would change from this lawsuit, but SCOTUS didn't want to hear it and set precedent for whatever reason. Nonetheless, people continuing to talk about it will certainly keep it in the public consciousness and might lead to eventual congressional action ( /s ).
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y agoIt wasn't a total loss though. The judge found Apple's anti-streering practices to be anti-competitive. > The Epic Games v. Apple trial took place throughout May 2021 and was decided by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who sided with Apple in nine of the ten counts brought against it by Epic Games. The count in which she sided with Epic related to Apple’s restriction against linking to web-based payments from within an app; she found that this violated California’s Unfair Competition Law and issued an injunction preventing Apple from enforcing this anti-steering provision;
- qarl 3y agoOk. It was a near total loss. My point stands.
- lxgr 3y agoSometimes everybody loses a bit.
- 3y ago
- talkingtab 3y agoThis is an example of the incredible arrogance of companies like Apple, Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Facebook. They have the ability to pour an enormous amount of money into lawyers and lobbying so that even companies like Epic or countries like the Netherlands have little chance of controlling misbehavior. Even the IRS is having a hard time getting Microsoft to pay their 28 BILLION dollar tax bill. It should be clear that this is not a developer issue. These companies have complete contempt for their customers. It is not the developer who pays Apple, it is you. At some point, customers will find a way to return that contempt.
- redeeman 3y agoby purchasing the new iphone, and calling on apple to not allow third party stores, because they know they cannot say no to installing facebook, and IF thirdparty stores or sideloading were to be allowed, facebook might just get worse! (all this seen in comments in other threads on hn)
- heavyset_go 3y agoThis is also known as the "B-but Facebook!" scare tactic.
- kj99 3y agoBy people who don't have a counterargument, maybe.
- threeseed 3y agoYou're simply wrong. And every court and government around the world agrees. Companies have a right to charge a fee for using their platform. Apple can not be forced to give you their SDKs, Services etc for free and help you sell that product on their marketplace for free. They have a right to charge something. You can rightfully argue that the 27% is way too high and courts have agreed. But those like Epic hypocritically arguing for 0% no one agrees with.
- 3y ago
- sneak 3y agoSince when did we as an industry start championing rentseeking that adds no value? Yes, the App Store is valuable. No, generic payment processing rails aren’t. Even the 1-3% charged by CC companies is bullshit. Apple, of course, charges 10x this. The only reason they get away with it is because they have leveraged cryptography to stifle competition. If other app stores were possible on iOS, Facebook and Epic and Netflix would collaborate to create one in a heartbeat and billions of people would stop having to pay higher prices to inflate Apple’s stock value.
- brcmthrowaway 3y ago1-3% of payments does not run an app store for a billion users.
- heavyset_go 3y agoApple's profit margin on the App Store was about 80% in 2019[1]. Looks like 3% to 6% fees would absolutely run an app store. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-01/apple-s-app-store-had-78-profit-margin-in-2019-testimony-shows https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-01/apple-s-a...
- kj99 3y agoA dishonest comment since we know the app store fee is not just for payment processing.
- dehrmann 3y agoIn other news, all sorts of companies aren't working on Vision Pro apps.
- mynameisnoone 3y agoWe should've stopped at the Power Glove and Wii. VR itself is a recurring non sequitur category with a cargo cult thought process akin to "It was featured in Lawnmower Man, Brainstorm, and Hackers, so let's keep pour billions into something no one wants or needs." (And The Jetson's + Back to the Future drives the inane quest for inherently inefficient and much more dangerous flying cars.)
- dav43 3y agoAdjacent topic, my prediction over the next 18 months that public perception of Apple will start to shift into the next wave - similar to what happened to Microsoft in the early 2000s. Seems the winds are aligning but again- a half thought out gut view.
- lukev 3y agoI have a lot of conflicting thoughts but I will point out that the Apple ecosystem has to a large degree resisted the enshittification that has consumed others. It is strongly more consumer friendly than alternatives. I pay my money, I receive a software or service. I use apps that are largely free of intrusive ads, scams or tracking. As a consumer I will (and do) take this deal every day of the week. I logged in to Windows for the first time in a while, the other day, and felt violated by the amount of ads, marketing and promotional content the OS itself was throwing in my face. I see similar things when I watch friends use their Android phones. No thank you.
- GeekyBear 3y agoYou may not like the judge's decision, but at this stage, all the appeals are over. The judge ruled that Apple is entitled to take a cut of transactions, regardless of who acts as your payment processor. > as discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple’s intellectual property. Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission. https://stratechery.com/2021/the-apple-v-epic-decision/ https://stratechery.com/2021/the-apple-v-epic-decision/ The judge did hint that Epic screwed up by arguing that Apple should not get a cut of transactions at all, instead of arguing that 30% was too high.