This is so incredibly developer-hostile that the fact developers keep using the play store pretty much helps make the case they're acting in an anticompetitive manner.

It certainly is interesting to note Google removed the title "Non-competition" from clause 4.5 of their developer agreement some time ago. It's still in the archived version on archive.org though, from back when it was called the Android market... Removing the title but leaving the clause intact doesn't mask the anti-competitive behaviour!

As users and developer, that's a side that we don't really get to see, so it's hard to judge how justified these techniques are. What alternative solution do you propose that would help developers without at the same time making bad actors lives easier.

Also it’s possible that specific clauses in the guidelines are anti-competitive. Fir example a guideline that simply disallows any app that competes with one of Google’s Apps might be seen this way.

So those are coherent arguments I think, I just don’t agree with them. The Play Store is a google product, with features developed and maintained by a Google. Other stores exist that compete with it, with features developed by other companies. The reason customers went with Google Play is simply because it had momentum and scale, and customers don’t want multiple stores. They want one store with one set of rules where all the Apps are, that will be on their next phone. Customers benefit from a one stop shop.

If someone wanted to develop a better store, with libraries better than ‘play services’, what stops them? If you want to inter operate with and use the services of the Play Store, you need to make a deal with a google, and the terms of that deal are standardised by Google. There’s nothing obviously illegal or a abusive about any of that, as long as the contractual relationships are fairly administered under the law.

The reason customers went with the default is mostly because it's the default. Given the choice, we'd see a lot more competition.

>If someone wanted to develop a better store, with libraries better than ‘play services’, what stops them?

The anti-competitive google behavior where they forbid you to sell any android phone with Google Play if you sell any android phone without it? IIRC there was a lawsuit/fine in EU a few years back regarding this.

Google only gets to decide what the default store is on Google's own phones. Samsung's phones come by default with their own store for example.

Customers only want choice if it gives them value and benefits. Choice without value is confusion and drudgery. A one stop shop that has everything at reasonable prices and vets out the rubbish is, by itself, a good thing for customers. Of course there is scope for abuse, the EU ruling is an example of that, but to me I don't see anything wrong with the basic approach. These are their products, I don't see that anyone else has much of a right to dictate how they design them.

Which is debatable but not as absurd as you make it out to be.

Competing app stores solves this 100% because there would definitely be a market for a developer friendly app store.

One that occurred with certifying agencies in the financial crisis of 2008.

In a world with competing app-stores, if a store does its scrutiny properly, and is seen as too strict, then the apps will flock to get listed in other less-strict app-stores. Thus all stores are incentivised to relax the scrutiny to retain apps for their own survival. Sometimes to the point of simply rubber-stamping their approvals on crappy stuff.

Thus the end-users lose the benefits of proper curation.

But your comment really points out that not everybody wants that. So your scenario won't happen on practice.

But Apple are obviously not doing proper curation. They might be good at keeping viruses out, but what they have done to Wordpress and HEY was not proper in the least.

You have a lot of faith in 60+ year old (mostly tech-illiterate men) to fix technology they don't understand. Government isn't the solution to this problem. Developers leaving the app store is probably only what will get Apple to change.

Developers leaving won't happen, Apple and Google will cut a deal with big guys (Netflix, Amazon) and ignore smaller players (even Epic in this case)

Should the developer spit in the face of those users and refuse to develop the app? No. They might not like apple. Might not support what apple is doing. The app might be horrible crippled and overpriced. Sadly the choice will still likely be to develop an app for the iphone because the small signal it would send to apple is microscopic compared to the major harm to your users.

Linus tech tips had a nice discussion around.

Developers leave the app store for which alternative on iOS?

I agree that the situation is really bad, but I do not trust that governments would be able to set laws and regulations to control such specifics of app stores.

Side note: my iPhone autocorrected app store to App Store, which I think is another example of overreach.

I wonder how familiar the people espousing an expansive view of antitrust law here on HN are with the actual administrative and judicial state of antitrust enforcement.

That the consent decree was lifted.

It’s strange because every time that the government has done anything with regard to tech, HN users are in universal disagreement - rolling back net neutrality, a DMCA, COPPA, trying to weaken encryption, finding out everything the government was doing based on the Snowden leaks, etc.

But yet they still for some reason want the government to be more involved.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic....

Interesting, but possibly not surprising that it's now been overturned.

Thinking a bit wider, the same legislation should affect e.g. how Amazon can treat people who sell on their platform. They are all monopsonies:

“In economics, a monopsony is a market structure in which a single buyer substantially controls the market as the major purchaser of goods and services offered by many would-be sellers.”

Are FAANG (well possibly not 'N') about to face nationalisation? Or United-Nationalisation given that they're all global organisations and having them run by the completely dysfunctional US government isn't a result anyone wants?

Can government really step in to control the workings of the Apple Store and change the rules without drastically effecting Apple's business? If so, what responsibility does government have if that drastic effect stops the business from being profitable?

Can government enforce fact-checking on Facebook (or Google) without affecting its advertising business? Again, if so, what responsibility does it bear if that business collapses?

Can government ignore it and allow the tech giants to continue uncontrolled? That doesn't seem to be working either.

If the business relies on anti-competitive behavior to stay profitable, then any regulation that improves the situation will necessarily affect that business' bottom line.

I wouldn't be surprised if FAANG and their dominant positions in the market are considered important to "national security", in an economic sense of the term. (And perhaps from surveillance/intelligence perspective, and control of information access.)

In that case, it would be in the national interest to support - or at least let continue without disruption by pesky regulations - their anti-competitive behavior that ensures that dominant global position.

I assume by "they" you mean "each of the 175+ countries that the app stores operate in, most with slightly different rules that a software developer would need to understand?"

To have a good App Review system, there are going to be mistakes made. Having actual people there the developers can appeal and talk to is critical.

as long as there are alternatives, it's the user choice to get into the walled ecosystem. people enjoy the ease of mind of it, and while I'm not among them, I can say I find the play store and the 'apk downloaded from somewhere' experiences both grating compared to the apple store.

a curated store has it's appeal, and it's value. is it 30%? that is for the customer to decide, not the legislator.

Coercive bundling should warrant anti-trust scrutiny, whenever it occurs. It may only seldomly warrant action, but the very ability to coerce counter-parties appears to be a strong indicator that the traded good is not inherently fungible with another offering.

> that is for the customer to decide, not the legislator.

It's not clear to me what basis this claims factual authority beyond your personal understanding of the world.

Alternatively, and equally glib,

That is for society to decide, not the individual.

likewise. that why you argue the argument, not the authority behind for a healthy discussion on anonymous forums.

> and equally glib

except I provided an argument for the benefit to the individual, while the whole of your post hinges on appeal to (un)authority

another case in point: all the pc stores exclusives. imagine having to have to install 5 different stores for accessing this or that publisher games on a phone. how can you argue that is pro-customer?

we already know that it is what is going to happen, because it has already happened. and it was not for the better; there was no reduction of prices (if anything, aaa went from 49$ to 69$) and a constant fight for user attention by undercutting each other stores with exclusives. so the price cut reduction did not materialize, and we have to fight against a tide of software spying each other on top of it.

> Coercive bundling should warrant anti-trust scrutiny

fair enough, but it still doesn't mean it has to be incorporated in law, where it gonna stay for a long time and likely used as hammer in all kind of unexpected ways.

> the traded good is not inherently fungible with another offering

or the consumers are happy with the locked platform. those who aren't, after all, can already sideload to their android. this seems more of a case of a minority wanting a cake and eat it too, not a real issue with predatory behavior.

The same could be said by taxi drivers about Uber.

It's the exploitation of the platform-economy that is the problem, really.

An extra problem is that this platform-economy is a pretty new concept. I don't even know if economists have good models for it. From this, it's no wonder that governments are lagging far behind, and we shouldn't expect much change in the near future.

At one point not too long ago, Microsoft controlled everything. They didn’t control retailers, but they would put ISVs out of business regularly. You could charge what you wanted, but were always at the risk of a “predatory pricing” attack when Microsoft would clone your feature for free in the latest version of their products.

There was a consent decree formed about product tie-ins to stymie this activity circa 1994.

Then the Web Browser came along and threatened Microsoft’s regime. We had a way to run software anywhere without Microsoft’s involvement!

And of course they tried to tie their own Browser into Windows, because that’s how they competed in the past. They were found guilty of violating it with in their 1998 trial, forming a new consent decree with penalties in 2001.

Did this actually matter when mobile took over in 2007? Google Chrome also now has vast majority browser share. Did this help there too?

What Apple and Google are doing is nowhere close to this in terms anti-competitive behaviour, it’s not even in the same league. You throw terms around like “rent seeking” without understanding what that means. Rent seeking is about expanding one’s share of wealth without also broadening the base of wealth. A retail cut is ... not that.

But even more so... why are people so devoid of knowledge of tech history or imagination that we must reach for legislation rather than building a better mousetrap?

This isn’t about consumers, it’s about ISVs wanting higher margins without putting any of the work in. It’s not likely going to be successful.

I honestly expect the congress to remove Apple powers as gatekeeper

If the Apple Store is the only store for iOS devices, they have to allow any app in and let the authorities handle misbehaviour

Apple is not a National State, so it shouldn't act as the ruler and dictator of the State.

I expect congress to force Apple to remove control over what's inside the box.

If I buy a product on Amazon when I open the box I can find a lot of promotional material put there by the manufacturer and sometimes even discount codes for affiliated businesses or coupons for other online stores, Amazon can't tell them to remove it or go elsewhere

Apple should allow promoting the product inside the apps as well

That's what I expect from the country that sell itself as the land of the free (and champion of free market)

So you expect the same government that passed DMCA, COPPA, that is trying to get rid of end to end encryption, did the things that came out via Snowden, warranties wiretaps, buying location data from carriers, dismantled net neutrality, etc. to actually not do something malicious with more power and control?

If the Apple Store is the only store for iOS devices, they have to allow any app in and let the authorities handle misbehaviour

So Apple should have allowed the Facebook VPN so that spied on users? You really want the government controlling which apps can go on your phone? Have you been paying attention to the government over the past two decades? You really want to give it more power?

That's what I expect from the country that sell itself as the land of the free (and champion of free market)

So more government control is your definition of a free market?

are you familiar with the concept of "non sequitur"?

are you obsessed with those topics?

You keep posting them over and over, are you ok?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24245096

> You really want the government controlling which apps can go on your phone?

at least I can vote for politics

can I vote for the Apple board of directors?

> So more government control is your definition of a free market?

Fair regulation is, yes.

There is no free unregulated market.

Regulation is a government duty.

BUT

as someone else already told to you

"I'm unsure how [...] it is related to any of that."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24245153

p.s.: is a Nobel laureate in economic science good enough to explain you why the faith in unregulated free markets is silly?

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/upshot/faith-in-an-unregu...

Government forcing companies to sell other company’s products is a terrible policy and completely contrary to the free market.

Really?

Amazon was born and is still a company that __literally__ sell other companies' products!

Apple is not forced to sell other companies' products, Apple should be forced to not block them from distributing freely the software users want.

The point is exactly that they shouldn't be selling other companies' products (apps) but the companies making the apps should be selling them, the way they please.

Granted, 30% would be low for retail, but surely digital marketplaces would charge less if competition was allowed. To get a sense of what pricing would look like in a competitive market, we can look at Steam, Epic, etc. for app distribution, or Stripe, Braintree, etc. for in-app purchases.

There are costs of doing business. They can all be negotiated or at least attempted, but at the end of they day you want your product where the consumers are, so you have to ultimately play within their terms. You can make 70% or make 0%.

In a market where someone is making billions in profit, it's almost de-facto evidence of a lack of competition. Not a priori, obviously, but it gives you a basis for measurement that where you're looking is somewhere on that spectrum.

For big box stores, that razor thin margin is exactly what you would expect from a very competitive market and so it's fair to say that it is one.

Who else can charge 30% on every sale just because?

Every physical product retailer charges > 30%. This is what I'm suggesting is the confusion point. If an app developer sells an app for $0.99, then the dev gets $0.66 per transaction. If a physical product producer sells something with an MSRP of $0.99, the retailer will be purchasing the item at a wholesale price of closer to 50% of the MSRP (if not a higher percentage) leaving at max $0.50 per item. This shows how much easier the software dev has it.

Just because you want to punt and say it's between the developer and Apple doesn't make it better. The point is that it shouldn't be.

I've always felt the start of a proper solution would have been to have the author distinguish whether they were selling products or services - choosing between copyright, patents and first sale doctrine for products, and trade secret protection only for services.

Now that the global economy is based on computer software, it would be a long and difficult process to make changes.

> They're handling [...] payment processing.

That has a tone-deaf shade. This piece of news is particularly volatile because Epic and Apple are now going to court over Apple expressly forbidding a developer doing their own payment processing. These are mafia-like tactics.

I've said it before: 30% is way, way too much. A very good agent gets 15%, and they actually arrange their clients with profitable opportunities. The app stores have set themselves up as gilted gatekeepers, demanding a commission twice as high.

> 30% of recurring revenue

During feudalism 1.0 the peasants were raked for 10%.[0] In this brave new world of 2.0, that would apparently give the monarch an insufficient profit margin.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe

> 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe

Since tithes are paid to the church and not the state, this immediately implies the peasants were paying more than that.

Historical tax rates are low, and so is historical productivity. For example, you can read old instructions to tax collectors saying "take everything they don't need to survive -- but no more than that".

So this becomes a question of whether today we're measuring up from the tax rate, or down from the rate of confiscation of surplus.

However, I think you bring up a much more important point, which deserves highlighting - the confiscation of surplus. The feudal lords at least understood that a starving peasant is not going to produce much surplus. Whereas we live in our respective modern societies and see concepts such as "working poor" as perfectly normal.

IMO the world is seriously bent when people who work their arses off still have to rely on charities to sustain themselves at all. Something is being confiscated but it sure isn't surplus.