It's pretty sad that developers and companies just take it as a 'just the cost of doing business'

You should always self host where possible at a discount. I personally would never publish anything on Apple's ecosystem as there's no alternatives.

How do you self host an app? And if you can, how could you possibly reach the audience the size the app store offers?

Never publish anything on Apple's ecosystem as there no alternative... so don't publish at all is what you mean?

All these crazy ideas come from people who don't work in app development, clearly.

> All these crazy ideas come from people who don't work in app development, clearly.

Since the dawn of computers, it has always been possible to write and publish software directly from the developer to the consumer. This is the normal state.

Apple has broken this on iOS with their model where they are the sole arbiter, gatekeeper and tax extractor, of every application.

... and they're working on breaking it on the personnal computer too. For security reasons, obviously.

No, they’re not. macOS is a fully-functional Unix environment, and apple has been as welcoming towards Asahi as they can be while staying officially 100% divorced from all activity related to it (Asahi has seen apple do releases with enabling work for the bootloader that had no possible purpose other than enabling third-party OS).

> macOS is a fully-functional Unix environment

Out of the box it is not. As root I can't read or write files that the permissions say I can, among other problems. It is still possible to disable all this but they make it more and more difficult.

If I were to bet, I'd bet that the roadmap is to eventually make OSX be iOS, where you can't do anything except what apple specifically lets you do.

Apps for mobile devices! not personal computers. Self hosted PWA's are absolutely available to open on mobile.. and no one uses them.

> All these crazy ideas come from people who don't work in app development, clearly.

iOS releases. Yes, and by choice.

And if they keep at it with OSX I won't continue releasing to that either.

Call me crazy but I'm not the one writing sob stories on HN about how Apple cucked my app which seems to be a HN weekly.

Everyone complains about Apple tactics all the time. What are you talking about?

I'm not sure what more you're expecting, there's a thread on HN every few weeks with hundreds of people complaining about Apple's tactics. If what you're really asking is why Apple doesn't cave to the pressure, it's because they don't care about people ranting on the internet about their tactics. But there's no shortage of outrage around here, and it doesn't just go away.

6 days ago: Apple confirms it's breaking iPhone web apps in the EU on purpose (800 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39388218

9 days ago: Developers revolt over Apple's new app store rules (330 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39346527

27 days ago: Apple announces changes to iOS, Safari, and the App Store in the European Union (2486 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39132453

36 days ago: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission (1300 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38394364

62 days ago: Apple allows some iOS apps to track user locations via lists of nearby SSIDs (300 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38720656

75 days ago: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access (1222 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38574888

3 months ago: Developer account removed by Apple (425 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38394364

Those threads are mainly hundreds of commenters defending Apple

At the top level, yes, but there's plenty of opposition within the threads and in lower-rated comments. It's a contentious topic with no clear answers, which is why the Apple threads often turn into huge discussions.

It's also problematic arguing about a tech company on a tech forum where people are either employed at or hold shares in. Even owning an iPhone gives people a vested interest the discussions.

True, but I'm frequently in these threads as an Android user with no Apple shares I'm aware of (probably some baked into some ETFs somewhere, but not that I pay attention to).

My interest in the Apple-is-a-monopoly argument is that it frustrates me that people act like having an iPhone was forced upon them and they should be entitled to having the iPhone the way they want it, when I consciously made the trade-off between customization and great hardware and chose customization.

I don't understand why it is wrong for Apple to profit from the platform they created and maintain. What is there to complain about other than things being expensive? If you create a platform, are you somehow obligated to let people make money off of the platform on their own terms for free?

Apple is not a monopoly. Any competitor can compete with them on price / fees and win if Apple really does not provide enough value to people to justify their prices. I genuinely hope that it happens. I just don't agree with the common heuristic of "hey you have a good thing going there, you shouldn't be allowed to have anything that good!"

Why is Apple not taking 99% of the revenue and takes 30%? Because if they took 99% nobody would develop for their platform. So there is a sweet spot between 99% and 0% where the services and market they provide is good enough that the fee is worth it. Currently it works for everyone as Apple's and developers' business is still booming after all those years. Developers want more, Apple also wants more, everyone wants more, all is natural. Wanting to optimize your gains is natural for everyone. It is not illegal, and should not be.

> I don't understand why it is wrong for Apple to profit from the platform they created and maintain.

Part of it is the double-dipping. Consider why you'd be opposed to Toyota claiming 30% of the revenue of all gas that you buy for your Camry, or why you don't like ads in things you pay for.

> Apple is not a monopoly.

Until they allow third-party app stores and sideloading worldwide, and without any of the malicious compliance like intentionally breaking PWAs along with it, they are.

If the value I get from Toyota is not worth the hassle, I would not buy it under those terms! That is the point. If Toyota is the only car I was allowed to buy, or if Toyota bought out all its competitors, that would be a different issue.

>Until they allow third-party app stores and sideloading worldwide, and without any of the malicious compliance like intentionally breaking PWAs along with it, they are.

How? Do you know what monopoly is? You being upset at how you can use a device you are in no way have to buy and use does not make the brand a monopoly.

One of the problems that plagues phones is that, if apple makes a change everyone else follows.

See it like this: Toyota arbitrarily declares that they'll disable any car without "Toyota" approved 30% taxed fuel. Then all the other car companies immediately copycat, seeing a new way to make money.

This is the case with iPhone and android. They do not have meaningful competition when they can just work together as a pseudo monopoly.

Considering that Apple is now >61% of the U.S. smartphone market-share, I would like to know at what magic number you would consider them a monopoly.

The App Store has a monopoly on iOS app distribution.

It’s becoming tiring listening to people stating “that’s not THE market so it can’t be a monopoly” when legislation already disagrees with you.

So I create a device, it does not even support 3rd party apps (and does not have to).

People think the device is amazing. They want to be able to create their own applications on it. They ask for support.

I create the SDK for it support it and say "ok, you can if you want to, under my own terms. You need to pay me a fee for the privilege, we both win".

And you say "that is illegal! your device is too good! you have to let me develop and sell apps on it for no additional cost to me!"

is that really your position?

Apple, as a company, can disallow installation of any 3rd party apps on their platform tomorrow, is it not their right? I mean no one is not owed anything by Apple. iOS does not have to legally support 3rd party apps does it?

They are being punished for making it too easy. If they sold overpriced dev kits and demanded 5 figure upfront dev license costs and worked only with select partners for their apps, no one would bat an eye. They make the barrier to entry too low and suddenly everyone is entitled.

> under my own terms

And there be the dragons. Thats why antitrust laws exists. Not everything written in a contract is contractual. Given the extensive protections that apple is afforded by law to prevent circumvention of their platform, there must also be some take. He who lives by the sword...

> is that really your position?

My position is that if you open development to 3rd parties they have to be able to develop for your platform for free. You can charge for the services you provide to the developers (fees if they use your payments platform, your distribution platform, etc), but you should not be able to force them to use such services.

The win-win is that by opening your device to 3rd parties it is made more useful for your users and hence more desirable. Iphones wouldn't be so popular if you couldn't access tiktok, instagram and what not with them after all...

>Apple, as a company, can disallow installation of any 3rd party apps on their platform tomorrow

No, they can't. False advertising, etc. Installing apps is one of the expected/marketed features of an iPhone at purchase time. Apple could be sued into the ground for doing something like that.

It's like saying that an auto manufacturer can advertise their car going 0-60 in 3 seconds, so you buy it, then afterwards they release an OTA update that drops the cars performance to 0-60 in 5 seconds. It's not allowed at all, and if a company does it they owe the consumer.

But because you want to give Apple special treatment, I suppose the logic follows that you would think that this case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor.... was unjust to Microsoft, since it's their platform, they can do whatever the fuck they want, right?

The current situation is that legislation in the EU disagrees with that claim, but a court ruling in the US agrees that defining the market as "iOS app distribution" is too narrow [0]. Until something changes, which definition of the market is accurate depends on your jurisdiction.

[0] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/21...

McDonalds is the only company that can distribute Big Macs. You can't buy a Big Mac anywhere but McDonalds.

That doesn't make McDonalds a "monopoly".

But that's not quite the same situation with Apple. It's more like if your Big Mac didn't support being eaten with non-McDonalds-approved Ketchup or Mayo.

Do restaurants not have the “no outside food/drink allowed” stickers on the doors where you live?

After I leave the McDonalds "store" with a Big Mac, I can have their food with outside food/drinks. After I leave the Apple Store with an iPhone, I cannot use my phone with outside apps.

If you tried to bring in your own burger condiments, I don't think it's likely that McDonalds management would agree to put them on for you.

But people are not asking Apple to install their apps for them on their own iPhone. People are only asking Apple to stop preventing them from installing apps. After you pay for the iPhone, it is yours, after you leave the physical Apple Store you are not in their store any more.

If McDonalds sent someone to my house with me after I purchase a Big Mac, and tried to stop me when I wanted to put some of my own condiments in it, I would find this creepy and controlling behavior very weird.

That still doesn't make Apple a monopoly.

Apple is the only place you can buy an iPhone, yes, but you don't have to buy an iPhone. You can buy an Android phone instead (in fact Android has about 2/3 of the market worldwide, which, condiments aside, make the claim that Apple is a "monopoly" pretty dubious).

I can buy a big mac from ubereats, so thats clearly not true.

Words are just words, though. I have a monopoly on what ice cream I get to put in my freezer, so what?

The legislation really isn't clear enough about this -- if it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion -- and to the extent it was clear in 1930, it's been muddied ever since Reagan.

And sometimes things have nuance! Not everything is black and white.

> It is not illegal, and should not be.

It is when you’re essentially in a market dominating position, which Apple is.

Imagine if Automotive OEMs (a great example for another industry with questionable tactics) would get a 30% licensing fee for for each independent after market accessory somebody sells for one of their cars.

Describe "market domination". They are the leading brand in the US, not anywhere near domination.

Again, with Automotive, as long as you have other options, it is fine.

This is a super tricky topic, which is why it sparks so much dialog.

Like …

- video game platforms, what about them? They all have similar platform fees & requirements that Apple has but yet they are getting a pass on this topic.

- other platforms. Why is it ok that YouTube takes 40% cut of ad revenue from content creators?

- analogy to in-store retail. Imagine Apple is like your neighborhood Walmart. If Walmart is going to put a product on its shelf, they are only going to do so long as they can mark it up and sell it for a profit. Why is Apple not allowed to do the same for their “virtual shelf” (aka App Store)?

- if people think 30% is too high, what is the right rate? Is it 25? 20? Something less? Who decides what’s fair?

- Security. There’s no question that Apple being the single facilitation mechanism for payments drives out fraud and provides a better consumer experience & trust (for both the consumer and Apple). To much fraud on their platform, through rogue sideloading payments, could deter the consumer experience of Apple and effect the adoption of their products. Why should Apple be forced to allow a new fraud vector and put consumers at risk? This will deteriorate their brand.

And much more.

Note: I’m not saying I agree with Apple or its tactics, but it’s also not black or white either.

This is a very tricky topic that is way more nuanced than most people acknowledge.

And obviously there isn’t much precedent for this either.

> If Walmart is going to put a product on its shelf[...]

Because if walmart marks it up too high I can get the same thing from target or the local shop or from amazon or from tons of other places. So they are under competitive pressure to keep their markup low enough they don't chase customers away.

> Why is Apple not allowed to do the same for their “virtual shelf” (aka App Store)?

It is enraging because there is no competitive pressure on them. If the fees are too high, unlike with walmart, what are you going to do? There's nothing you can do. If walmart starts charging $100 for a bar of soap I can get for $1 at target, I'm going to target. If apple raises their cut to 200%, there's nothing you can do.

> Who decides what’s fair?

Ideally, a competitive free market. But apple does not allow that.

Are you writing this from the perspective of the consumer or the app developer?

From the consumer perspective, you have a clear recourse: don't buy Apple phones if you don't want to (or can't afford to) pay for the markup that devs have to place due to the Apple tax. It's that simple. I have an Android phone and install most of my apps through F-Droid for free. No one forced you to buy an iPhone, and no one will force you to buy one again the next time you need a new phone.

From the developer perspective you have a bit of a stronger moral point in that there are a substantial number of US customers that you cannot reach without passing through the App Store, but the current legal situation in the US is pretty clear [0]: US consumers knowingly choose to buy iPhones even though they know that they're choosing a locked-in platform, so there isn't a single-brand aftermarket and there is no monopoly.

[0] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/21...

> US consumers knowingly choose to buy iPhones even though they know that they're choosing a locked-in platform, so there isn't a single-brand aftermarket and there is no monopoly.

As far as I know, that has not been used as a successful defense of any large antitrust case. Ma Bell and Microsoft could have tried arguing the same point, but I'm not sure if it would override the anticompetitive damages of either company.

I linked to Epic v. Apple, where that exact argument was made and the court sided with Apple. It wasn't a DOJ antitrust suit, so maybe the rules are different there, but in that case Epic tried to make the argument that the relevant market was iOS app distribution and Apple therefore had a monopoly.

The court ruled that in order to make that case, Epic had to demonstrate (among three other tests) that "the challenged aftermarket restrictions are “not generally known” when consumers make their foremarket purchase". The court found that consumers do know about the restrictions in advance of making their initial purchase decision and therefore found that the relevant market had to include more than just iPhones.

Right, but other antitrust measures (eg. DMA/DSA) haven't been about monopoly power. Europe's measures are industry-wide changes that curtails certain first-party choices. Japan's legislation works the same way. It's entirely feasible to me that this sort of act could gain traction in the US, once the lobbyists are sufficiently exhausted.

It'll be a hard fight for sure, but Epic and Spotify go for low-blows because they know Apple will cede something in the end. Their hostile behavior in France and the Netherlands did not go unnoticed.

Your take on the consumer perspective ignores network effects. Lots of people, particularly children, buy iPhones just to avoid the dreaded green bubbles. Adults may be better at handling this, but it's hard to tell children to just use Android if that means they'll be bullied. I don't think it was originally Apple's intention to conscript legions of schoolyard bullies to increase their market share, but it's certainly happening, and they certainly don't mind that it is. Interoperability (particular opening up iMessage and iCloud to other devices, the same way anyone can use RCS or Google Photos from an iPhone) would mitigate that.

Your take on the developer perspective is a bit confusing. Everyone knows it's a closed system, but that doesn't mean it's not a monopoly. In many ways, it is a monopoly.

You should have stopped at "other platforms"

Because Apple are veeeery good at public perception of their company. Hell, every time they add a new hardware feature, they present it like they invented it (often they haven't) and consumers eat it up.

They've given themselves this image of everything we make just works, is designed perfectly and consumers are happy to accept any and all rules and conditions imposed on them to live in the Apple ecosystem, it's all very Stockholm Syndrome.

Apple could be taking 30% of donations to orphanages or for children with cancer thru an app and fans would be like "well it's expensive to run the app store!1!1" (no, it's really, really not...$173bn profit 2023).