Considering Tinder's parent ( The Match Group ) got sued by the FTC for fraud, not very smart to include them. Intentionally making subscriptions hard to cancel is one of the behaviors Apple's payment system seeks to prevent.

As much as I like Tim Sweeney's arguments for lower royalties, he doesn't have half a toe to stand on.

Don't want to pay the Apple tax, make your own phone. This fairness coalition is free to manufacture Android phones with a no royalties store . Hogan's Law on YouTube has done a very good take on this. The government can not compel two companies to engage in a contract. If I set up a newspaper stand and decide anyone who wants to sell news papers needs to cut me in for 30%, you can't demand special treatment.

I could see Apple making an example out of Epic and banning them for life. You don't sneak in hidden functionality, and then flick it on via a server side command

> Don't want to pay the Apple tax, make your own phone.

Oh, so the price of entry to the mobile app market is just: "creating your whole mobile device, mobile hardware, app ecosystem and operating system". Sounds simple and really in line with benefits that free market competition brings to users!

Maybe we should put this in the physical world as well - anyone trying to open a new store on the corner with different margins needs to found its own town, build all the roads, complete all infrastructure and persuade people to mov e to this town.

Bad analogy. All of that stuff is paid for by taxes. All of the stuff offered by Apple is paid for by hardware sales and software fees.

You're closer to suggesting wanting to open a store in a town but refusing to pay property taxes, income taxes, and payroll taxes because you feel they're too high. You're welcome to go open your store somewhere else that doesn't have those taxes but presumably there won't be too many people that live there that would frequent your store and you know that.

> The government can not compel two companies to engage in a contract.

It seems like there ought to be exceptions to prevent certain gatekeeping behavior. As a very extreme example, suppose a company bought up a set of private roads in such a way that without their roads, people in a certain area could not access the rest of the country. One would hope that the government would compel the gatekeeper to do business with everyone! (Perhaps with some reasonable fees, weight limits, etc.)

Apple decided to insert themselves as a gatekeeper between iOS users and developers, so it shouldn't come as a surprise to them that deciding to "not engage" with some parties raises antitrust concerns, since it means blocking users and developers from engaging in mutually beneficial relationships.

But apple didn't buy up anything preexisting -- they created the smartphone market from scratch and grew the user and developer base organically. You could argue that they leveraged their Mac developer base for this, but 1. the first iPhone didn't support third party apps and 2. there was nothing to leverage this developer base against because there was no smartphone market when the iPhone was released.

Also, if we accept that smartphones are a necessity on par with roads, iPhones aren't the only smartphones, and Androids aren't really that inferior. As a user, if you don't like iPhones, get an Android. As a developer, if you don't like developing for iPhones, develop for Android. If either group feels like they can't leave for Android because iPhones are that much better, well, that's Apple's reward for creating a good device and growing its user- and developer bases -- should they really be punished for that success?

You make it sound as if there was no market for phone applications before the iphone, which at least in europe is not true.

And the punishment would not be because a company succeeds, but because a company abuses its success position to stiffle competition and artificially placing their other offerings in a better place.

Everyone can access all the above the services via the original personal computing device, a PC.

Other roads exists. If I have a private road, but 3 or 4 other roads still go to the same place you can't drive over my gate since you feel like it

In the world I inhabit, Apple is the one that intentionally makes it really hard to cancel subscriptions. You literally cannot cancel a subscription to an iOS app from an Android phone or Linux PC.

You can't subscribe without an IOS Device , Mac or Windows PC.

If your in some strange edge case where your subscribing to services and then discarding your IOS devices before canceling , that's on you. In a worst case scenario you could borrow a friend's Windows PC. As much as I love Linux I can't imagine most Linux users don't have at least one windows PC or Mac.

If we really want to get technical, spin up an AWS instance, RDP into it, install iCloud for windows and then cancel your subscription.

There are a few services you can sign up for without any of those... but Apple has a support page telling you how to unsubscribe from those from the devices you signed up from: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT211011

Said support page also says you can contact Apple Support about it, which I imagine would also work for the "canceling an arbitrary in-app subscription" issue.

No, what the fuck? It's not "on me". It's on Apple to make it easy to cancel even if I no longer have an Apple product or Windows PC on hand.

Borrow a friend's PC? Spin up an AWS Windows instance? Seriously, WTF?! I can cancel my Android subscriptions from anywhere with a web browser.

It's not an intentional trick to force you to keep paying.

The vast vast majority of people have access to a Windows PC or Apple product. How you ended up in this edge case I'll never know.

To take this to it's logical conclusion, what if you don't run JavaScript on your browsers. Would they also need to give you a cancelation page which doesn't require JavaScript.

How about this? An email reminder N days in advance of the charge date with a cancel link.

Companies get regulated for a reason, and facilitating the cancelation of subscriptions sounds reasonable to me.

Apple does send those emails, but the link to unsubscribe simply doesn't work on Linux or Android. It's the most absurd thing.

Of course you should be able to cancel without requiring JavaScript.

Alright, after returning my iOS device I became Amish.

I fully expect Apple to cancel my subscription via Mail and refund me back dated to when the letter was post dated !

My point is Apple isn't doing this on purpose to you, you're just in a very strange use case

Yes, Apple should let you cancel by mail. And the web.

You keep making these claims that I'm sure sound more outlandish to you, and I think all of them are quite reasonable.

The purpose of a system is what it does.

How many users as a percentage do you think are signing up for IOS services , discarding their IOS devices and then don't have access to a Mac or Windows PC ?

Very few people use Linux as their desktop is. To be honest they should allow you to reply to the email and allow a cancelation, but you following into an edge case isn't deliberate.

This also applies if you sign up for, say, HBO from an iOS device. You can keep using the same subscription on Android but can't cancel.

If you subscribe to HBO on Google Play, you can keep using it and cancel it on iOS.

The asymmetry is bad and Apple should be held responsible for it.

Good point. I stand corrected. I still don't think Apple is doing this intentionally, but rather as a side effect of it's ecosystem. Thanks for your insight

I agree Epic's arguing in bad faith, but I also don't see why Apple (and other App Store companies, like Google) need to have change legislated upon them (or why this is something that needs to be protested). Apple got to where they are by being a successful platform that attracted users and developers with their walled garden ethos. If in fact that walled garden is bad for users/developers, then there are competitors. If Apple users felt they were getting ripped off (or Apple developers felt it wasn't worth it to develop for Apple platforms) they could go to Windows or Linux/Android.

The only way I can interpret this is that Epic & Friends see Apple has a nice cake which they now want to both have and eat. Given that Apple made the cake and there are other cakes, I think they're being entirely unfair to Apple. If Epic & Friends don't like Apple's rules, they're welcome to get off Apple's platform and focus on other platforms.

I personally don't think it's worth developing for Apple platforms myself, but the argument that developers somehow -have- to develop for Apple platforms is nonsense (the AAA market for games on PC vs Mac makes this obvious). That's only true if you decide you have to reach those users, which is only true if you as the developer decide it's economically worthwhile, in which case you have implicitly agreed that Apple's terms are economically justifiable.

"walled garden ethos" I like that. Apple is all about exclusivity and premium priced products. It seems like developers develop for them and consumers buy for them for that reason. But expecting Apple to be a free, fair, and open company, is really going against their business model.

Many good things in history happened because bad people had interest of them happening. At hominem attacks does not invalidate a claim.

P.S. I'm not downvoting but still trying to bring everyone down is a low-quality argument.

No hominem was attached

Attacking a companny/person behind an argument for unrelated issues is a definition of "ad hominem".

[deleted]

They're the messenger. The idea behind an ad hominem is to attack the messenger instead of the message - whether the messenger is a human or corporation doesn't really matter. Who's behind the argument doesn't matter, if the argument is solid.

Basecamp, Tile, Protonmail are also some big names listed in the site. Even Prepear, the fairly obscure company that ran afoul of Apple’s aggressive trademark protection actions, is a founding member.

I wonder if Telegram will join next. It’s as if they rallied together every company that’s had a news controversy with Apple this past year, at least the ones smaller than FANG.

All three allow games, music, and dating to happen outside of their platforms. The Apple equivalent would be Microsoft not allowing any program being installed from outside their store or Tinder closing down all bars in a city to lower competition.

What does apple not allow outside it’s platform? How would they even control that?

There is nothing _but_ their platform- from the hardware, to OS, to app store, they're arguing that their platform encompasses an entire vertically-integrated business model. Microsoft got nailed for shipping their web browser with their OS (which users could easily replace), but it's fine for Apple to control all software a user can install? Take a monopoly and call it a platform, and it's fine? No. I have little love for Epic, but I'm glad somebody has the money to try to buy some law that will ultimately result in users having more control over the technology they depend on.

> users having more control over the technology they depend on.

Bit of a chicken/egg problem there isn't it?

I bought the iOS device and depend on it being as locked down as it is—that's why I bought it.

I wasn't force to choose an iOS device for any reason. If I depended on more openness I could have gone with an Android or other device.

Do I depend on having a phone? Yes. Does it matter which one? No—the choice is there.

Prices, you are literally not allowed to offer cheaper prices outside the App Store.

I can't sell my music streaming service on Spotify.

I can't provide my own dating service on Tinder.

I can't operate my own app store on EGS.

Edit: what, I can't expect them to abide by their own demands of Apple?

> Happy to rip off their customers via in-game transactions.

If people are happy and willingly buying skins, dances, and battle passes, that's not a rip-off.

How is this different than "if developers are happy and willingly develop for iOS then [the fees] are not a rip-off"?

The developers aren’t happy. No one forces a Fortnite player to buy skins or emotes, Apple forces developers to pay the fee.

No one is forcing them to develop for iOS. I will bet you dollars to donuts developers are very happy about the money they make from iOS otherwise they wouldn't be there.

> Otherwise they wouldn't be there

They're on the App Store because they have no choice and they need to make money to pay for things like food, rent, etc.

I'll bet you dollars to donuts if some regulation required Apple to allow App Stores from other companies, most developers would dump Apple's in a heartbeat.

>They're on the App Store because they have no choice and they need to make money to pay for things like food, rent, etc.

That's crazy how before 2008 no developer was able to pay for food and rent. Sounds dreadful. Too bad there's no alternative that has an even bigger share of the total mobile market. Come on, dude.

>I'll bet you dollars to donuts if some regulation required Apple to allow App Stores from other companies, most developers would dump Apple's in a heartbeat.

Right, the same way that most car companies would abandon emissions standards if the EPA no longer forced them to (see: Volkswagen emissions scandal). That doesn't make it a good thing for consumers.

> No one is forcing them to develop for iOS.

The market is.

You can not afford not to publish something on iOS, if iOS were a niche platform used only by 1% of users maybe, but it is a mainstream platform used by more than 40% of users in the US.

I find it hard to believe that 100% of the market is the exact perfect amount that any given developer needs to sustain their business. 99% is already too little, and 60% is a non-starter. And yet this is the same market where tens to hundreds of companies have proliferated into billion dollar entities in mere years.

It's nothing more than greed, just like the greed you supposedly fight against.

> iOS App Store 2018 revenue came to $46.6 billon, while Google Play revenue stood at $24.8 billion by this measure

https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/

> Apple Users More Willing to Pay for Apps

https://www.statista.com/chart/14590/app-downloads-and-consu...

> The median iPhone app user earns $85,000 per year, which is 40% more than the median Android phone user with an annual income of $61,000. [...] The average in-app shopping check is four times higher for an iOS user! [...] iPhone owners are also more likely to make purchases on their phones on a regular basis. These are important considerations for both retail app developers and those seeking to monetize via paid apps or in-app purchase. Mobile ads are the main source of revenue generation in Android apps.

https://buildfire.com/ios-android-users/

> Distribution of free and paid apps in the Apple App Store and Google Play as of June 2020

https://www.statista.com/statistics/263797/number-of-applica...

Thank you for confirming what an incredible deal iOS developers are getting for a mere 30% fee. It sounds like Apple has created a really valuable platform that attracted wealthy customers compared to the competition and they should be rewarded for it.

It also confirms that because of Apple's dominance in terms of profitable smartphone platforms to develop for, developers are essentially obligated into having to support iOS if they want to make money. Even if you choose to spin that in a positive light, it demonstrates a power asymmetry.

It's not greed to be in the platforms where your customers are. Otherwise companies wouldn't go to difficult stretches like supporting Internet Explorer.

Denying business to your customers just because they're hostages of a greedy actor is not the best way to conduct a business.

Er, no one is forcing any developer to make an app for iOS.

I see this type of comment a lot in these discussions on the App Store - "no one is forcing you to make an iOS app". No, no one is holding a gun to your head to make an iOS app. But you know what, people need to make money to pay the mortgage and feed their kids.

If you're a programmer who has years of experience, who wants to make money in the field you have years of experience in, the field you likely enjoy doing and are good at, then YES you are forced to make an app on iOS because that's where the majority of the paying customers are.

It's a bogus excuse to say "don't make an iOS app then". That's akin to telling a programmer "just learn to eat a little less".

Oh no, won't someone think of the... talented and skilled white-collar worker in one of the hottest and highest paying industries of all time that can work literally anywhere? Enough with the appeals to emotion.

You're right, we should side with the multi-trillion dollar company that refuses to pay taxes on their multi-billion dollar profits.

Apple, like every other company and individual, pays every dollar they owe and not a penny more. If this weren't the case, the IRS would be rolling up to their doorstep. If you don't like the tax laws, then petition them to be changed and I will support you.

And yes, let's side with the company that became worth a trillion dollars by virtue of providing billions of people with devices and services that enrich their lives enough for them to shell over often times their last dollars. Not the company that peddles digital skins to children that only further glues them to their screens.

If someone commits a crime, like murder, but isn't convicted of it because a jury declared them innocent it doesn't change the fact that they did murder someone.

Apple may get away with it because they can afford to spend millions on both lobbying and finding every way to avoid paying taxes that people without the same resources would otherwise pay, but that doesn't make it okay.

We don't have to side with either of these incredibly wealthy corporations having a money fight. They can both be criticized and we can demand better.

Personally I love my iPhone/iPad because I truly feel they are the best mobile hardware available. For the same reason, I have 0 interest in the Mac ecosystem because it's objectively not the best hardware on the market. (Especially as a cost-conscious person). The wheels they sell for the Mac Pro are more expensive than the iPhone I bought from them (iPhone SE 2nd Gen). Absurd.

I would like an officially sanctioned way to sideload onto my iPhone. I am in favor of court decision that would force them to allow you to bypass the walled garden. I think it's a very simple answer to the overall issue at hand. I doubt the majority of iOS users are going to bother with it if the functionality was there, and it solves the walled garden monopoly issue.

> Not the company that ... only further glues them to their screens.

You’re right again, Apple has no part at all in kids being glued to screens.

You just responded to an appeal to emotion with an appeal to emotion.

Tinder sells rejections and disappointments too.

Tinder doesn't sell sex. It sells access to a Skinner box with intermittent positive reinforcement and frequent negative reinforcement where the reward is human connection.

Way, way more psychologically toxic.

Or happiness. I met my wife on Tinder several years ago, and we know other couples who met the same way.

70% of Spotify's revenue goes to rights holders. That's not ripping off artists. Streaming royalties have been the largest segment of music rights holder revenue for several years.

The record labels negotiated these deals and had all of the power. Also, all music streaming services have effectively the same deals. Spotify does not have preferential treatment.

Artists can distribute their music without Spotify. Spotify cannot distribute its app to iOS users without Apple.

Spotify is complicated because the big record companies are also big shareholders. They have a conflict of interest.

Also 70% doesn't mean anything without actual numbers. If they lowered their subscription to $1 / month and gave 80% to rights holders it wouldn't be an improvement.

I'd be more interested if they reported how many plays per month it takes to earn as much as you would in a minimum wage job.

Edit: I was curious about the minimum wage question so I looked it up.

Assuming $15 / hour for minimum wage it would take 750,000 streams on Spotify and 430,000 streams on Apple Music to earn the same in a month as you would working a minimum wage job.

https://soundcharts.com/blog/music-streaming-rates-payouts

My understanding is that rights holders are paid by the percentage of all plays, not per play.

Deezer is trying to fix this, but it requires the major labels to agree to the change. Deezer's user-centric payment system would apportion royalties based on an individual customer's play percentage instead of the total customer base's percentage. So if you only listen to 5 artists, all of your subscription's royalties would go to those 5 artists.

More info on UCPS at https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/news/deezer-launches-initia... and https://www.deezer.com/ucps

70% of an apple purchase goes to the app developer. That's not ripping off developers.

Apple doesn’t charge itself a 30% fee when it competes with other developers for the same paying users.

And you dont charge yourself what the lawn companies charge you to cut your yard. I don't really get your point.

Your example is faulty. No one pays you to cut your own lawn.

People pay Apple to listen to Apple Music.

People pay Apple to watch TV+.

Other competitors have to pay 30% for every customer before they can even compete with their own product.

That’s more representative of how the market has imploded.

There were 900M CDs sold in the US in 2000. This year that number will be less than 25M

Imploded or transformed?

Music consumption hasn't gone down. Consumption of physical media that I can't slip in my pocket has.

Spending on music is vastly down.

The RIAA publishes numbers - https://www.riaa.com/u-s-sales-database/

Inflation adjusted we are down by over half from the peak.

Subscription revenue is less that 30% of peak CD revenue.

Wouldn't that be the record companies though? I have heard Kanye is trying to get more money for artists but not really sure. I am puzzled why blockchain+streaming for music hasn't taken off. Artists would maintain rights and profits from what I can tell

Traditionally payment & accounting has never been a problem in the music business, so I think blockchain would not really help. The underlying economics is what has changed dramatically. Distribution is close to free, but unlike the ~ $1 an artist might have seen out of a CD sale (before discounting for costs & advances) they now see sub-cents on a single track. You used to pay $15-20 for an entire album to get 2 or 3 good songs; now you only stream everybody's top tracks and pay less than that a month. So the artist gets a couple of pennies for the period when they are hot, then nothing.

Why would you put blockchain in this?

For micropayments per stream, presumably.

Blockchain is not suitable for micropayments. The computing resource requirements are many orders of magnitude too high.

A proof of work blockchain isn't suitable, but proof of work is one of many ways to reach distributed consensus.

As an actual game developer I can say that I am very happy to see this happening, and I know for a fact that this is the case of a very large number of devs.

apparently neither does apple