Anyway, the EU is coming for them:

https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/euro...

> The Digital Markets Act (DMA) establishes a set of narrowly defined objective criteria for qualifying a large online platform as a so-called “gatekeeper”.

Didn't customers pay a premium for Apple hardware because of the unified ecosystem and superior security to begin with? And developers also pay a premium to be on the App Store ($99+30%) because it costs them money to create the infrastructure and ensure safety?

I'm pretty ignorant on the whole situation, but it does sound nice to be Apple. Raking in hundreds of billions while charging premiums on both sides, convincing them it's for their own good. Meanwhile, customers and developers descend into a feedback loop of even heavier dependence on Apple: the more customers there are, the more devs have a financial necessity to publish apps on the platform, the more value the platform has, the more customers they get.

People are quick to point out Apple is the one providing for developers, who should be honored to be able to get on the App Store for a 30% cut. But, really, how many users would Apple have without those apps? They do deserve their cut, but at some point it went from a symbiotic relationship to "oil the Apple machine." The economies of scale simply work in their favor here.

Not defending Apple, but offering forever-services for one-time fees is a great way to go out of business. I would not expect the App Store to be subsidized by hardware sales.

Also, assuming you accept the premise in the first place, it makes sense to charge the developer, who is the one generating work for reviewers.

For instance, why not charge for the services used and a low payment processing fee? If developers bring associated costs, they should pay for it. It just seems 30% is overshooting quite a bit. They want to treat developers like regular customers with regular margins, when they are more like partners bringing them nearly free revenue.

I guess I'm too ignorant to understand how building, maintaining and securing the App Store is 10x more expensive than doing the same for something like Mastercard.

Perhaps I should find a better way to communicate that - making it literally the first words of my post didn't work.

As someone currently building an app-like website – https://wormhole.app – let me tell you that Apple's neglect and underinvestment in the web platform definitely precludes websites or "PWAs" from having the "have the look, feel and functionality of a native app". Safari suffers from the twin effects of (1) limitations that Apple has intentionally put in place and (2) intentional under-staffing of the Safari team. Here's how it's affected us:

- Apple recently broke our website by adding support for a new API `blob.stream()` in Safari 14.1 (which we correctly feature-detected) but when you call the function you get a null pointer exception which crashes the renderer process [2]. Worse, the bugs was fixed on `master` several months before Safari was released but it wasn't included in the release.

- IndexedDB has been full of bugs for years and shows very slow signs of improvement. We have no other storage options on Safari, so we're stuck using their buggy implementation.

- Safari limits websites to using 1GB of temporary space after which the app must prompt the user for an additional allocation, each 200MB at a time. So if the app needs 5GB of space (for example, a video editing application, or in our case a P2P-enabled file sending app), then the user will need to click "okay" on twenty prompts for 200MB more space each to make the app work. Needless to say, this is totally ridiculous and definitely not an API that Apple would ever find acceptable to ship for native iOS apps.

- If we choose to use in-memory storage then Safari warns the user that our website is using lots of RAM. So that's not a real option.

- We can't offer streaming download + decryption from our servers because Safari's ServiceWorker implementation doesn't allow intercepting HTTP requests for file downloads.

- Missing many APIs that would actually let websites truly compete with native apps. Just a few that we use:

  * Web Share Target API (https://web.dev/web-share-target)

  * File System Access API (https://web.dev/file-system-access)

It's hard to see Apple's decisions here as anything but outright hostile to the web and designed to push developers into making native apps.

[1] https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Apple%20Pty%20Limited%2...

[2] https://twitter.com/feross/status/1386835131780931587

Apple 30% cut is for developer access to the Apple cultivated and exclusive selection of customers.

They built the platform, infrastructure, distribution channel and trust of the users, creating a market where there was none.

One can argue that a 30% margin may be too fat, but considering other industry margin and that Apple consolidates in that margin logistic, distributionship and dealership I haven't yet seen a convincing case comparing it fairly to other industries

But still, exclusive distribution rights are neither unheard of nor have scores of people up in arms about them restriction people from of choice, so why is Apple singled out and targeted?

I believe Apple is ready to die on this anti-malware hill.

This isn't just blind fanboyism, either: PC gamers absolutely loathe Epic Games Store and the Microsoft Store, because they want their entire collection of software to live on Steam. Yes, a decade and change ago everyone hated Steam, but now it's the established way of doing things. The more developer-friendly, competitive option is to have 15 different launchers, one for each publisher, with their own payment systems, terms of service, and so on.

You can see this in the reactions Apple users have to the Epic lawsuit, versus their reaction to stories of Apple demanding their cut from developers that don't have it to give. They're way more sympathetic to companies that aren't trying to split their app libraries in half.

(EDIT: I should probably clarify that I, myself, don't think alternative iOS app stores would actually take off without major cross-subsidies from powerful industry players. Google Play has a stranglehold in markets where it's available, even though Android has no technical lock-out like iOS. EGS on Android is a joke and I would never install it. On the other, OTHER hand, though... Android in China, where Google Play is banned, is basically PC digital downloads, pre-Steam.)

If you want to shop in the mall vote with your wallet if there isn't enough demand to convince merchants to situate themselves there then deal with it.

Laws forcing merchants and customers into the mall ought to be themselves illegal.

Even if only 50% of those 23M devs are actually paying the $99 fee that is still over $1B a year.

[1] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/03/apples-wwdc-2020-kick...

The one I personally experience is sheet music where I'm very careful to never buy in-app which are always priced 20-25% higher.

If they charged $5-20 per release, that I would be fine with, and not only cover costs but would generate profit.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2021/05/07/playst...

This is of course very different from apple business model.

Apple does have their app-review thing - but they said it’s paid-for by the $99 fee, so the 30% cut with all the other Kafkaesque restrictions is not a tenable position.

Anyway - my company stopped publishing to the iOS App Store over a year ago and switched to PWAs and no-regrets here at all.

Apple, on the other hand, wants to take a cut of every non-physical item purchase on their platform regardless of what it is. They also don't want any non-physical item purchases to occur off their platform. Unlike Microsoft and Sony, Apple's platform is a gateway to all kinds of businesses selling all kinds of goods, both physical and digital, with a range of business models.

Apple could even take a cut of physical item purchases if they wanted; they just decided they don't want to (for obvious reasons).

I agree it's similar but it's also not exactly the same.

In terms of business relationship and product something like this can't exist on gaming platforms. Game platforms are strictly for publishers to sell their own gaming content.

iOS is a gateway to businesses selling both physical and digital wares of all types. By their good graces, they don't force physical items through their payment processor but they do for digital goods regardless of what that good is (with a few notable exceptions).

Also, that's a "but they do it too" fallacy.

Why is this so controversial for you?

The number of restrictions on top of Apples cut is what makes the difference. The mafia wishes they could enforce the same restrictions. Apple makes them look reasonable.

Edit: your point seems to be revolving around the access to physical disks for playstation/xbox, which is 1. Limited to devices that have a disk drive, 2. Limited to software that would similarly be sold on the sony/xbox stores, and 3. Still gives sony/microsoft a cut of the sale.

Edit 2: No, I'm not talking about webapps. You can sideload apps with a free developer account, similar to xbox.

Edit 3: Right, well I guess I'm being "purposely ignorant" and am actually talking about web apps. This was fun HN, lovely discussion.

Edit 4: It does indeed only require a free developer account, and you can strip and resign apps without needing to compile from source.

This is disingenuous. Not only do you need a paid developer account, you are limited by the number apps you can sideload, you need to compile them yourself and sign them with your key, and they must be resigned and installed every 7 days. You also need to do all of that from a Mac.

Edit: Can't reply further, but the way of doing this is much the same as installing unsigned apps on an xbox. Using a (free) developer account you can sideload things quite easy using something like https://github.com/ios-control/ios-deploy

Anyone who pushes Web Apps as a viable option is being disingenuous about what it provides or purposely ignorant.

Edit: So the only way to do it besides jailbreaking is for literally everyone who wants to do it to pay Apple an extra $100 on top of what they already paid for their iDevice. (Sharing will get your certificate revoked.)

Using the web apps as a defense only shows that you won't admit to the massive problems with it - from bluetooth restrictions to lack of hardware level driver support.

That isn't a realistic option... it's a deflection from the subpar user experience Apple supports to enforce their mafia level protection racket.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/6/22421912/iphone-web-app-pw...

Anyone who pushes Web Apps as a viable option is being disingenuous about what it provides or purposely ignorant.

edit: So I answered the question and I’m getting downvoted to oblivion. Why do people even bother asking for other people’s perspectives.

I’m a developer. I grew up with Linux.

I can’t wait for Apple to turn MacOS into iOS with extras.

Linus himself said that Chromebook (with a shell) looks appealing.

I just want iOS with a shell and file system running on fanless M1 without catching fire!

I am a new Mac user and I will mostly disagree with that. Perhaps some of it is just being used to a different model, but there are lots of things I find confusing and unintuitive about the Mac. Like why can't I tile windows? And maybe it's just me, but I am having difficulty getting the close buttons to show up in full screen and the same for my dock. I am also unclear why sometimes my dock gets covered and other times it doesn't.

Also, I'm pretty disappointed with the performance. It takes 5-10s to open the context menu when right clicking a file in Finder and the thing sounds like a jet engine anytime it sees any sort of load.

I'm of the opinion that if Chrome OS would suit a person's needs, then so would desktop Linux these days.

Other App Stores mean that companies get to make that decision--not end users. How could it be otherwise?

Why would you limit everyone else rather than make a choice for yourself?

We really must steer away from this dystopian view of "choice" amongst trillion-dollar megacorps that control half of the ecosystem. Yes, there should be different rules when they get that big, like serving the user first.

What you're missing in this discussion is that these companies are so large and powerful, and their services so critical to 100s of millions of people, that the situation has changed.

Same question to you.

Mobile phones are critical computing devices, even taking over as wallets and keys for many people. There should be some standard of freedom enforced when half of the market is effectively controlled by a single massive company. Why is the profit motive of this particular corporation so much more important than serving users (and developers) better?

I explicitly bought my iOS device so that all software that is possible to be installed will always be vetted. I don’t have to worry about my parents being tricked by either maliciously crafted websites or false promises like cheaper price but they get all your data. Companies are not going to be upfront about their store’s policies.

So my argument is not the profit motive. Sure apple should probably charge 10%. 30% might be greedy BUT my issue with that is that any number is arbitrary.

Apple created the platform, the device. Fine the developers played a huge part in making iOS a success BUT nobody forced them to build for the platform. If Apple increased the % then yeah - sure I’d be behind lowering them and be angry with Apple but as of now: users want an apple device and developers have a choice to Cather to them or not. There are a lot of Android only apps that work fine so I think it’s fine if you don’t support ios

It isn't. Malware is already an option. And websites are available on the phone, along with text and calls and many other channels that are constantly being used for scams and attacks. iOS isn't magically invulnerable and security would be handled the same way as MacOS (which also has an app store). This really isn't that big of a deal as you make it seem.

As for the rest, the other comments already describe the issues with the size of the company and importance of mobile devices leading to the current challenges. Reality, and how people and companies operate, just isn't that black and white.

You already have one. iOS exploits and vulnerabilities are cheaper than Android exploits because they're so plentiful. The App Store was responsible for shipping hundreds of millions of copies of Xcodeghost, as well.

I am "people" and I absolutely do not want app developers creating their own silo'd app stores.

The last thing I want to do is download separate app stores for every major app vendor on my phone, to give them all my credit card info, to have per-store standards for warning me about privacy issues, to have different policies and UIs for managing subscriptions, etc. This is a technology nightmare.

Why do you think it wouldn't work out the same way on Apple devices?

Also if you're concerned about hypothetical "missing out" on certain apps, consider all the developers that already don't release on iOS because of their restrictive practices.

If sideloading is allowed when then malware is also close to get on the phone. Not my phone probably but the average joe, my family members, students, etc.

So... don't use other app stores? Nobody is forcing you to.

> If sideloading is allowed when then malware is also close to get on the phone. Not my phone probably but the average joe, my family members, students, etc.

Average Joe's aren't even going to know that sideloading apps is an option, let alone know how to do it. And if you're worried about grandma/kids doing something silly there's parental controls for this sort of thing. There just needs to be a way for power users to use other apps.

They optimise for profit not end-user experience. On the other hand within the iOS ecosystem the store optimises for the end-user (more or less).

So enabling different stores will create a more fractured ecosystem. Something that hinders my experience. Why would I support this?

I’d only support it if: * All apps from other stores are always in the App Store * All apps still use the in-app payment functionality and not some 3rd party system that I’m not sure steals my data. I’m also okay if the apps are forced to use Apple Pay if they don’t want to use in-app purchase functionality.

With that said I don’t see how any of those can be enforced.

What is essentially going to happen is to lower the overall security of apps on the iOS platform.

So what? There's multiple options. That's called choice and competition, which is helping drive new features and better pricing.

> "With that said I don’t see how any of those can be enforced."

Draconic measures like that are being enforced, which why other app stores are wanted in the first place.

Your entire argument seems to be that other stores are bad because of "fracturing" the market, yet desktop/macos users manage just fine, even with an app store on that platform. You're imagining a challenge that doesn't exist.

Suddenly the apps you had come to expect on the App Store are not there now.

Who do you want to pay for building and supporting this functionality? Apple presumably?

Or should phones just become a subscription service overall so that you can never actually own your own hardware?

If Apple allowed side-loading apps or custom app stores that'd cost them more to build and support that functionality, and it would damage their existing functionality through extra complexity and security surface, harming their existing happy customers. They don't want to do it. Why should they? Use Android if you have a problem with it.

No, I can assure you that other companies are perfectly willing to build and support other app stores.

Instead, Apple is the one spending extra money and extra effort in order to prevent this stuff.

Other companies would be more than happy to build these other app stores, if Apple would just get out of the way.

Well when you are engaging in illegally anti-competitive behavior, you have to take some actions to correct that.

But also, I am sure that other companies would even be willing to put in the effort to jailbreak the phone, in some combined effort, if they knew that Apple wouldn't try to engage in illegal anti-competitive practices to stop it.

Apple can't just break the law like this. I am not sure why anything you are bringing up counters the fact that they are breaking the law, with seriously illegal and anti-competitive practices.

But the jailbreaking solution, where major companies work together, to provide an easy to install solution, that enables other app stores, without help from Apple, would work pretty well, if Apple was not allowed to stop this effort.

If a company like facebook got on board, I am sure that they might be able to convince at least half of all users, to install their solution.

Also if they are, are these good laws anyway?

I will absolutely make sure to save this comment, and come back to you in a couple months.

I think that at least some, of Apple's decisions are illegally anti-competitive, and that the judge in the epic vs apple case, will at least partially rule against Apple, on some fronts.

And your position, is that you think that nothing at all that Apple is doing is illegal, and that no judge will rule against them, on anything at all.

We'll see who was right, in a couple months, and I can show you this comment then!

But in my opinion, that is a very strong statement that you seem to be making, where you think that absolutely nothing about Apple's practices are illegally anti-competitive.

We'll see if you are right! I think that the judge will rule, at least partially against Apple, on at least some counts, (although probably not on every single count).

> if they are, are these good laws anyway?

Anti-trust law? Yes, it has been around for decades, and is pretty uncontroversial. I don't think that most people support the Standard Oil railroad monopoly, for example.

I didn't predict anything. I asked if it had been found to be illegal. It hasn't. So I don't know how you're describing it as 'illegal'. Apple clearly believe it's legal, and no authority has given an opinion otherwise yet.

> And your position, is that you think ... that no judge will rule against them

Sorry I'm afraid you've misread again - I didn't say this anywhere. Where do you think I said what I think the outcome of any trial would be?

I'm giving my opinion (after being invited to) on the morality of Apple's actions. I'm not giving a legal opinion on the outcome of any trial. I even said 'if they are, are these good laws anyway?' which should have made that clear.

No, I really didn't.

If you agreed with me that Apple's actions are illegally anti-competitive, then you wouldn't ask why/how/when their actions are illegal.

So yes, by asking me why/how/when their actions are illegal, you are disagreeing with me. Thats what it means to ask that. We'll see if you were right or not, to question why/how/when their actions are illegal.

> So I don't know how you're describing it as 'illegal'.

When you say "I don't know how", that is a disagreement with me. You are saying that you do not see how their actions are illegal.

And my response, to you casting doubt on their actions being illegal (By saying that you "do not see how" they are illegal), is that I will show you why the actions are illegal, in a couple months.

And then you can re-evaluate your previous confusion as to "not seeing how" their actions are illegal, when that court decision is made.

I am pretty sure that I am right on this. And I'll be able to show this to you, when the court decision happens, and you can understand why you were incorrect to doubt that their actions are illegal.

> Where do you think I said what I think the outcome of any trial would be?

By the fact that you are saying things like "So I don't know how you're describing it as 'illegal'."

You are saying that you do not know how Apple's actions could be described as illegal, and I am saying that the court case will show you how.

Thats what it means to say stuff like "So I don't know how you're describing it as 'illegal'" It means that you don't think that their actions are illegal.

I also see that you are saying things like "Apple has less than a 50% market share on smart phones.", which is implying that you don't think that they are engaging in illegal/anti-trust behavior.

But like I said, this will all be settled in a couple months, and you will be able to see why it was incorrect to not be sure of how their actions are illegal.

You will be able to look back, and understand why it is incorrect to not be sure of how their actions are illegal.

> We'll see if you were right or not, to question why/how/when their actions are illegal.

Why would the court's opinion change my moral opinion on whether something is or should be illegal or not? Unless there's new info.

The Salem Witches were found guilty in a court, for example. Maybe there's a parallel there? A bit of an hysterical and morally unjust witch hunt.

What it would change is how you "don't know how you're describing it as 'illegal'. "

Once the court trial is over, you will know "how" it should be described as illegal, as before, you were incorrect on not being able to say why it was illegal.

And what it will do is help you understand why comments that you make such as "Apple has less than a 50% market share on smart phones.", that incorrectly attempt to imply that Apple is not engaging in anti-competitive practices, is an incorrect thing to imply.

> A bit of an hysterical and morally unjust witch hunt.

Ah, so instead of saying that you may not really understand how anti-trust law works, you are going to say that the whole court system was rigged, if the court rules against Apple in any way?

Anti-trust law is not particularly controversial, also.

You're just inventing random things that I don't think and haven't said. I don't know know where you got 'rigged' from for example. That's not a quote from me or an intelligent interpretation of what I've said.

If you find yourself constantly replying 'so you're saying' or 'so you'll say' stop and think why you think you need to rephrase everything and speculate on what the other person may say rather than going off directly what was actually said in order to make a point.

I don't think you're arguing in good faith here or actually want to understand other opinions - you seem pretty intent on deliberately misinterpreting as strongly as possible - so I'll leave you to it.

You compared the apple court cases to the salem witch trials, and compared it to a "morally unjust witch hunt".

Oh sorry, you said "Maybe there's a parallel there?". Not like that matters though. It is obvious what you are attempting to say here.

Like, C'mon. By comparing a current anti-trust court case, to the salem witch trials, you are attempting to delegitimize the process.

When you say stuff like "Maybe there's a parallel there?", you are attempting to imply that the current trials are similar to the salem witch trials. Thats what you are saying when you asking if there is a parallel there.

You even said "Why would the court's opinion change my moral opinion on whether something is (illegal)"

You straight up asked why the courts opinion on something, would change your opinion on whether it "IS" illegal. (Yes, you also included the word "should", but you also said "is" as well)

If a court says that Apple's actions are illegal, then that is a pretty good reason for you to change your mind on whether those actions are illegal, and it is silly for you to then compare well respected judges, and uncontroversial laws, to the freaking salem witch trials!

You can't just back off from your comparison to the salem witch trials now. It is clear that you are attempting to delegitimize the trial.

That is an extreme comparison. You can't just make that comparison, and then get surprised when I point out how extreme that comparison is.

Anyone who wants to list on the App Store can could still continue doing so and pay directly. The fees right now don't make sense anyway as many apps are free while others have to pay a cut for services that Apple has nothing to do with.

Possibly that experience led them to not do it when they had the clean slate of iOS.

The primary reason, as clearly shown by the way fees are currently levied, is purely for profit.

Sure, if you have 2 sales a month, I guess Apple is providing you $0.60 of revenue. That's not what this thread is about.

It's not about relative revenue, but illustrating the extent of the exploitation.

Apple might have had that in the works even without epic.

Lol they just told you they think it's reasonable!

Why bother asking for someone’s opinion if we're just going to berate them for it?

I think the Apple cut is justified because Apple provide the best platform. If someone can provide a better platform for a smaller cut people would move to it.

You could invent the best possible app store and take nothing as a cut and get no users because Apple wouldn't permit your app store and so you'd lose.

Apple uses their hardware market dominance to control the software market and extracts rent from people who want to sell software on their hardware. That's what people are complaining about.

"Why don't they just invent their own hardware, phone OS, and app store?" Hmm, yes, why not?

They certainly do on the Play Store. Developers have until September of this year to comply with Google's rule to take 30% of sales and use its payment system[1] in their apps.

It's clearly more price fixing on the part of the Apple and Google mobile app distribution and payments cartel.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/28/google-to-enforce-30percent-...

if this isn't collusion and racketeering, then what is?

So has Epic’s parent company

It is saying that, but that's not a reply to the question.

The question wasn't "What is it?", as in, "What is this, if it's not collusion?"

The question was "What is?", as in, "What would it take to count as collusion, if this doesn't?"

"This isn't collusion, it's just the market" addresses the former question. It doesn't address the later question, the one that was asked.

With the implication that a super narrow definition of collusion is not very useful.

"If this isn't stealing, than what is?"

That's not an open invitation for elucidation on property laws. It's an assertion in the form of a question.

In that situation, the question being asked is "what would they have to do for you to accuse them of stealing?", and there's an implication/assertion that your definition of "stealing" is too narrow.

Replying with "this isn't stealing, it's borrowing" doesn't answer the question, and it's ignoring the implication/assertion.

And that's basically what martimarkov did. They didn't say a single word that addresses the implication that such a narrow anti-collusion rule is too weak.

I don't know why you think that. If someone developed a compelling new mobile platform that supported side-loading apps why wouldn't you move to it since that's what you value?

> Apple uses their hardware market dominance

It's dominant because it's good. Part of the reason it's good is because it's locked down. If it wasn't locked down it wouldn't be as good. The Android experience is miserable because they aren't as locked down.

> extracts rent from people who want to sell software on their hardware

I don't know what to say apart from this seems the most honest and reasonable thing in the world to me. They provide a service with legitimate value and ask people to pay for access to it.

You also write that Apple is dominant because it is good and good because it is locked down. This is an argument that's first impossible to verify and second irrelevant. We can't know if "locking down" and preventing other app stores from existing makes Apple better or worse since we can't look at the counter-factual reality where Apple isn't locked down. My intuition would be that more choices would be better, but again, we can't know. The argument is irrelevant because it's still anti-competitive behavior and illegal regardless of if it makes the product better or not. I might sell more soda if I included a bit of cocaine in every bottle, but I couldn't argue that it was legal to do so because it made the product better. Bundling IE with Windows for free may have made Windows better, and yet...

1 - https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...

Keep reading your own link.

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...

> Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area.

Apple has less than a 50% market share on smart phones.

1 - https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/north-amer...

Read the definition you quoted from the FTC. Apple and Google are a group of two firms with monopoly positions in the mobile OS market and the mobile app distribution market. Google is even forcing developers to use their payment service on the Play Store and to give them a 30% cut[1] of all app sales to match Apple.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/28/google-to-enforce-30percent-...

I agree. That's also why I think it's unfair/unethical/monopolistic that Apple won't allow anyone else to try.

I'm of the opinion that they are not able to try because apple has blocked their ability to do so.

They can always go away from iOS it they think it is not a fair deal. No one is pointing a gun to their head.

Apple doesn't take 30% of every purchase you make online. You're free to use a browser and purchase there where Apple doesn't take a cut.

I'm not saying I agree with this, and I think 30% is about triple what's reasonable, but if we're going to rail against Apple here, we should include Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft too.

You may be free to do that, but it’s worth noting that if an app developer tells you that you can use a browser, their app will be rejected and they may have their developer account banned.

It's really funny. Imagine if every independent game developer who has ever built videogames for Windows had to pay a third of their revenue to Microsoft, and had to go through a store review to get their games approved. Would we ever had some of the more controversial games? People tore Microsoft a new one for bundling a browser. Yet you cannot even install anything other than webkit reskins on ios. Completely absurd.

Why should "closed" platforms (i.e. ones where the user doesn't get to decide) even be allowed to exist?

My parents chose iOS over Android for the security, ease of use, unification AND the App Store.

I’d say stop forcing your agenda on the users. They have the right to choose what they want. They voted with their money and do it each year.

Apple doesn't take a cut of any online purchases made through Safari. They also don't take a cut of any in-app purchases for physical goods. They only take a cut of purchases for digital good purchases and used entirely within an iOS app.

The proper comparison to Microsoft would be buying software or games for Windows through the Microsoft store. Which, by the way, Microsoft also takes their 30% cut too.

It's all the things at the start that are anti competitive, not the cut.

Apple doesn’t take 30% of anything using their phones. They take 30% of anything installed and bought using their walled garden/app store/api/etc. Similar to Windows store, Xbox, ps, steam, etc etc.

I used to be annoyed at Nintendo and Sega requiring their cut, but got used to it.

What makes it different is that Apple isn’t a monopoly. You can use Android or PCs or whatever.

If we want this to change, we probably need some version of right to repair that forces “right to sideload.”

It would be easy to force apple to let you install android on the hardware you paid for (the physical phone).

But forcing them to keep their OS backward compatible with some api used by some sideloaded app ... might be hard.

iOS has 60% of the market in the US[1], and Android has 40%, and Google and the App Store is responsible for 100% more revenue than the Play Store[2].

Also, layman definitions of monopoly do not matter when it comes to antitrust laws[3]:

> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power.

[1] https://deviceatlas.com/blog/android-v-ios-market-share

[2] https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/

[3] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...

For a monopoly you want to show market dominance by dollars, not activity.

By sales units, Android dominates [0] with 327k vs iOS’ 38k (most recent quarter was 2019-q3).

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Wide_Smartphone_S...

When there’s a market with only two players where #1 has 75% of the market and #2 has 24%, describing #2 as being part of a monopoly is inaccurate.

That’s like saying that Apple had a monopoly with Microsoft in the 90s because between the two of them they had the whole market.

It's very strange that you think worldwide market share has anything to do with market share in the US when it comes to antitrust laws in the US.

iOS has 60% of the market in the US[1], with Android taking the remainder. Apple and Google form an effective duopoly in the mobile OS, app distribution and app payment markets. They both form a mobile app distribution cartel that engages in price-fixing[2].

Again, your colloquial definition of monopoly doesn't matter when it comes to antitrust laws in the US. Please read this[3].

[1] https://www.pcmag.com/news/ios-more-popular-in-japan-and-us-...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing

[3] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-sta...

iOS has 60% of the market in the US. This is cited (repeatedly) by the exact same Wikipedia article you looked at.

PS: web traffic is largely a function of market share at this granularity.

This also shows that web traffic isn’t a function of market share because iOS users generate more traffic than Android users.

In a banking analogy, market share isn’t based on the number of checks written but by assets under management or number of customers or revenue.

It's not uncharacteristic. Apple was the leader of the wage-fixing cartel with Google, Intel and Adobe.

And all of the commerce around that computing.

You have to pay their tax to interact with Apple customers in any way.

Who are Apple customers? 50% of Americans.

It's a protection racket and it's anticompetitive af.

Furthermore, you can't use your own software stack / runtimes, have to dance to arbitrary rules, and can't deploy or update when you want or need to.

Apple got this by building an awesome product, but they also played an incredibly evil game that puts Microsoft to shame.

"We're protecting customers" really means "we're tying all of your hands and forcing you to walk the plank".

I totally get how you love your shiny pocket device and you own Apple shares (and may even work there), but this company is destroying our industry and making it unfathomably hard for startups to get off the ground and succeed.

Imagine if Apple hadn't made these draconian choices. We'd still have the technology we have today, but startups would be able to deploy when and how they want. And they wouldn't have to pay their margins away.

It really is funny how we went from a major anti trust case against Microsoft for simply bundling a web browser with their OS [1]. The original decision in that case was actually to break up Microsoft, though was lost on appeal. And here we have Apple doing many magnitudes worse. Even in this original antitrust case, you could always bypass Microsoft entirely to install whatever software you wished. Apple has quite literally never allowed that possibility, has no intention of doing so, and any software you develop for the platform entitles Apple to a 30% cut. There's many markets with a profit margin under 10%, and here we have Apple taking 30%.

And people defend them for it.

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

Talk to your legislators. That is the way to fix this tribulation.

If you don't like Apple, boycott them. Easy.

But I don't understand why you would suggest Android is unstable and reliable. I have been using miscellaneous Android devices for some time now, and I don't remember having any stability or reliability issues with the OS.

As for the "boycott", I agree as a user, it's easy. But as a an app developer it's certainly much tougher given their large market share.

That can be true while at the same time being true that Apple is taking advantage of their position to extort money from developers and end users.

If your customers demand an iOS app, boycotting them is not easy. It's expensive either way.

More than "simply bundling a web browser".

I get you are trying to win an easy sentimental argument, but making your own market definitions will not make them a monopoly.

Apple sells products, not "computing". In no market where they sell products they have a monopoly.

Computing covers many of the things people do in a modern society, including:

- Communication

- Banking

- Investing & trading

- Finding information

- Applying to jobs

In what world is that not a critical market?

Imagine there are only Chevrolet and Honda (Apple and Android).

Imagine you could only go to Chevrolet-approved locations. That Italian place you like is on the destination list, but only because they pay 30% of their revenue to Chevy.

The movie theater is protesting the 30% fee, so your car physically can't even visit. It's prohibited.

The new boutique really wants to get business. After all it bought land and paid for real estate in a prime location. But Chevy doesn't like the look of it and asks them to tear it down and rebuild.

All the artists at the market your Chevy brought you to are mad because they have to fork out to Chevy, and they're not even sure what Chevy has to do with any of this. They just want to sell their art.

The builders are complaining because everyone is driving these damn cars with their silly rules, and nobody used to work or think this way. But suddenly everyone thinks Chevy's demands are okay. They're not entitled.

Customers like Chevy.

In this way a monopoly is actually better for consumers then a duopoly because it allows the government to step in.

Apple have ~65% Market Share in US and over 70% in Japan.

-Wikipedia

It gets defined to death every time we have this discussion. Apple has a de-facto monopoly on the app store no matter if their phones have 1% or 100% of the market share of phones. This isn't about market share but if they abuse their position/control on the app store.

Is Apple the "only supplier of a particular commodity" on the app store?

Yeah I'll defend against that setup. Your comparison makes no sense.

Apple isn't taking 30% of every purchase you make online because you use an iPhone to shop on Amazon or Walmart. Why would I need to imagine a scenario where Microsoft did such a thing?

The comparison would be: imagine if Microsoft had a dominant software store tightly bound to Windows, and for any software applications sold through that store - for use on your Windows machine - Microsoft took a 30% cut of that sale.

Well for that comparison to work, we'd also have to assume Microsoft disabled installing unsigned software as well. Which is what Apple does today.

>Apple isn't taking 30% of every purchase you make online because you use an iPhone to shop on Amazon or Walmart

They try on digital goods, this is why Amazon has disabled buying ebooks in the iOS app, and asks you to open your web browser instead [1].

[1] https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=...

Look no further than Xbox Store and how well you can run unsigned code on it.

Sure, you can buy a physical game copy, but there are two issues with that:

1. Diskless versions of consoles are becoming more commonplace, thus removing that option.

2. If you buy retail, it is still a cut to Microsoft, just a smaller one. Because you pay the same price for physical as you do for digital, except instead of the entire cut going to MSFT, a part of it goes to the retail establishment selling it.

And before someone says "well, this is a gaming console, not a phone/computing device", I will say that it has apps (youtube/streaming services/etc.), it has a web browser, and plenty other functionality not related to games.

So I am struggling to draw a hard line here as to why it is ok on Xbox, but not ok on smartphones (as long as there are commonplace alternatives available that would prevent it from being a monopoly, and Android is one such commonplace alternative).

EDIT: I stand corrected, apparently you can run unsigned code officially on new Xbox consoles, and I should have picked a better example. Thanks to people in the comments correcting me on this, as I genuinely had no idea you could run unsigned code on Xbox. Despite this, I believe my general argument still stands though, because the same situation with transaction cuts is happening with Sony's and Nintendo's consoles, except you cannot run unsigned code on those.

I suspect this permissiveness was a major reason it was never hacked throughout its full 8 year lifespan - homebrewers didn't need to enable piracy to do what they wanted.

- xbox always charges you for the privilege while apple has a free developer tier. The free tier is limited (no distribution of apps you wrote, app will time out and have to be reinstalled).

- xbox requires you to put the console in developer mode, which eliminates your ability to play commercial games. Apple does not have this feature (although some commercial apps do attempt to detect things like jailbreaks themselves).

So while the xbox developer mode might give homebrewers more capabilities than a developer account by apple, it doesn't affect revenue sharing for companies who want to make a profit off of their work.

Edit: can't reply further, but this can indeed be done for free (assuming you have access to a mac or a mac vm). The paid developer account is only for publishing to the app store, you can do almost everything with a free developer account.

For instance, the primary complaint Epic has is not that Apple gives preferential treatment and deals to some companies - it is that they WOULDN'T give one to Epic. https://www.imore.com/epic-games-would-have-accepted-special...

I was about to reply with skepticism, but after looking online I found the following and have to reconsider my doubts. This Apple vs Epic trial truly is a wondrous thing

https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/6/22422691/microsoft-xbox-co...

How much is the cut for those functionalities for MS?

Looks like currently it is 30% for games, 15% for apps and app subscriptions, and they were exploring reducing the game-related cuts down to 12%. Microsoft spokesperson's reply to those leaked documents was "we have no plans to change the revenue share for console games at this time".

Though I am not sure how much the 15% (microsoft cut for app-related purchases) vs. 30% (apple's cut, or 15% if the devs haven't made over $1 million in revenue this year or the year before) difference matters here, because I am struggling to figure out how the 15% vs. 30% difference makes one a monopoly. If that's the argument, then what's the magic number threshold that makes you a monopoly after you cross it? And how does Apple's reduced cut of 15% for devs with under $1mil in revenue play into that?

0. https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/2/22415712/microsoft-xbox-st...

Let's assume a very generous 5% for payment costs (credit cards are capped at 0.3% in the EU, but US cards with their rewards can run up to 5% in merchant fees, and god knows about the cost of doing business in other markets), another very generous 5% for CDN/hosting (data traffic isn't cheap, modern games easily run into triple digit GB sizes, and gamers are notorious for bringing down even the largest CDNs on delivery dates), and another 5% for profit and other costs (development), and you end up at something like 15%.

Anything above that is ripping people off.

Because my question was less about "how things should ideally be", and more about "how much legal scrutiny can this legal case withstand".

That is entirely a question of jurisdiction. The US is famous for its deregulation, usury only covers loan interest rates - whereas in Germany the limit in §138 BGB is something that is "obviously not in a fair relationship between the payment and the value received for it", plus our whole anti-trust regulation.

The German Bundeskartellamt is already prosecuting the big tech companies, the EU anti-trust agencies also have woken up from their slumber... we will see.

Americans so much love freedom for companies to fleece them off.

Yeah, but when the CC reward gets cancelled the store still will charge the old prices.

> rising prices benefit retail workers at the expense of those living off savings and investments

That assumes that retail will distribute extra profits to its employees... which many aren't known for, Walmart and McDonald's are infamous for paying such poor wages that its employees are entitled to food stamps ffs (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/walmart-and-mcdonalds-among-...).

Maybe, just maybe, the situation will change a bit now that corona has entirely uprooted labor markets, but even then it's a smoke debate - 15$/h is the lowest of the low, even adjusting for inflation would lead to a higher minimum wage!

Adjusting the 1938 original minimum wage for inflation (cumulatively, 1794%) would lead to a 2021 minimum wage of $4.73/hr.

Adjusting the 1945 minimum wage for inflation (cumulatively, 1383.6%) would lead to a 2021 minimum wage of $5.93/hr.

Adjusting the 1950 minimum wage for inflation (cumulatively, 1008.1%) would lead to a 2021 minimum wage of $8.31/hr.

Adjusting the 1965 minimum wage for inflation (cumulatively, 747.8%) would lead to a 2021 minimum wage of $10.60/hr.

Adjusting the 1975 minimum wage for inflation (cumulatively, 396.4%) would lead to a 2021 minimum wage of $10.42/hr.

Adjusting the 1980 minimum wage for inflation (cumulatively, 224.1%) would lead to a 2021 minimum wage of $10.05/hr.

Adjusting the 1990 minimum wage for inflation (cumulatively, 104.3%) would lead to a 2021 minimum wage of $7.76/hr.

Adjusting the 1997 minimum wage for inflation (cumulatively, 66.4%) would lead to a 2021 minimum wage of $8.57/hr.

Adjusting the 2008 minimum wage for inflation (cumulatively, 24.0%) would lead to a 2021 minimum wage of $8.12/hr.

It appears that inflation of the dollar has not happened at quite the same pace as inflation of socialist demands. *shrug*