One simple rule or law could fix this: Every hardware manufacturer that ships an OS must allow the installation of an alternative OS from any third party, with the same access to the hardware as the original OS and all the necessary technical documentation. If the original OS can be updated over the air, users must also be able to install alternative operating systems over the air.
This would result in real competition across all our devices: iPhones, smart fridges, John Deere tractors, and so on. And it would force manufacturers to focus on building better products instead of using anticompetitive practices to squeeze more money out of their locked-in customers.
What's absolute simplest and most realistic way of actually going from this proposal here, into actually driving it into being a real, actual law? Would it require demonstrations? Simply gathering signatures?
There have been multiple attempts to legislate a subset of what the parent poster is asking, and they have been met with a torrent of lobbying by the entrenched tech giants. Most recently California's BASED Act, the App Store Freedom Act last year, the American Innovation and Choice Online Act some years ago. If your state and federal legislators can't enact change what hope does anyone else have?
Even the places that have successfully legislated this are struggling with enforcement - EU is dealing with extreme and prolonged compliance issues three years into enactment, Japan's FTC is having to form a new bureau just to police Google and Apple's malicious compliance.
I guess I just don't understand the indefensible greed on display here from Apple. If Apple's App Store & development software truly were still world-class & easy to build/rely on then at least one could defend a "quality tax" of sorts. That'd still be bad, but it's something.
As it stands currently, with the quality of their software & App Store benefits they should be discounting all fees by like ~50% at least.
It is just that. Greed. They would do it on macOS too if they could get away with it, but they know they can’t and so don’t make the argument. What? macOS doesn’t require investment into the platform?
That alone settles the matter for me when the apologists inevitably show up.
The DOJ had started a lawsuit against Apple due to their rampantly greedy business practices, but who knows where that is going now since Tim Apple gave a golden trophy to the current president.
I mean, you can't say "this service isn't good enough so I won't pay". The justification is surely the cost of hosting the platform and building it out, in fact if you try and demand higher quality libraries they'll probably raise the price to fund it. It is frustrating though, I wish there were a more open and free phone OS
Do iOS users realize how much they're paying Apple? I feel like if, every time they bought something, users got a receipt with a line item showing that 30% of the money was going to Apple and not to the company they thought they were buying from, a lot of them would jump ship to Android.
Looks like Google's already doing this for apps downloaded from Google Play:
> The company also compared its link-out fees to those on Google Play, which charges 20% link-out rates for standard apps, 15% for apps in special programs, and 10% for subscription renewals, noting that Epic Games had agreed to these rates.
> "Apple’s position is that it should be permitted to charge fees on in-app purchases made by users of its devices as a means to recoup its investments in the tools, technology, and services that allow it to maintain its App Store and software."
That is such a ridiculous argument. Next they'll want a cut of everything you buy from Amazon using Safari, or any bank transfer you do via your banking app just because you happen to use an Apple device. Give me a break.
Mind you, this is about purchase made using "external links" inside of apps. Not even Apple's IAP infrastructure at all. Apple does zero here, the developer in this instance is offloading to their own payment stack. Apple deserves nothing more than 0% commission here.
Not really, because it still imposes a compliance burden on every single developer using these payments. That alone is reason enough to abolish these fees IMHO. If Apple wants more money let them charge the developer an extra $50 or $100 on the annual subscription.
C'mon Apple. Ease off on the app store fees, let innovation blossom again, maybe use some of that momentum to encourage game developers to use the Mac platform for gaming. Consider throwing some extra GPU cores in future M<whatever> chips and manufacture cheap Mac Minis / Macbook Neos that come preoptimized for Steam (and other) games.
My ultimate goal: I'd really like to be able to play modern games on a laptop that doesn't also act as a makeshift space heater / 110db white noise generator.
Its sad how many cool apps no longer exists in the app store. I had a cool fluid sim, bridge building game and a game called Soccer Physics that I could play coop on a plane. Not sure why they're gone but presumably the creator didn't want to shell out developer fees.
and I propose that I take a 15% cut of all apple devices sold outside of apple stores. this should be super fair right? (of course one cant even fault them 100% since vast majority of people have been conditioned to think stealing more than that from everyone is 100% legit)
> Apple’s position is that it should be permitted to charge fees on in-app purchases made by users of its devices as a means to recoup its investments in the tools, technology, and services that allow it to maintain its App Store and software
This framing is so bloody disingenuous it’s vomit inducing.
I'm done putting up with this stupid pointless fight at this point so some slimy greasy developer can prey on kids some more with stupid cosmetic skins for a video game. Has Spotify kept complaining now that they've piled on the AI slop and stopped paying artists for their music and bragged they've got over 300 million paid sheep? Nope.
The willful ignorance on this topic has always been absurd. Valve skims the same 30% off a game sale as apple DID... Apple switched to 15% for below 1mil revenue. If you have only free apps you can apply for the annual developer fee to be waived as well.
Valve let's you sell your game on your own website and users can add the key to their steam for 0% skim. 30% rake for what is sold through their ridiculously popular store.
Apple should just charge devs for the services like fee per download if the app is free. I believe currently the minimum paid app is $0.99, so it seems reasonable to allow $.33 apps where the dev gets none and $0 if the dev wants to front the $0.33 per user.
I guess you could argue that even $0.99 apps are subsidized but I doubt it'd be accurate. They already charge to join the dev program and it's not that expensive to run an app store.
One simple rule or law could fix this: Every hardware manufacturer that ships an OS must allow the installation of an alternative OS from any third party, with the same access to the hardware as the original OS and all the necessary technical documentation. If the original OS can be updated over the air, users must also be able to install alternative operating systems over the air. This would result in real competition across all our devices: iPhones, smart fridges, John Deere tractors, and so on. And it would force manufacturers to focus on building better products instead of using anticompetitive practices to squeeze more money out of their locked-in customers.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
> One simple rule or law could fix this [...]
What's absolute simplest and most realistic way of actually going from this proposal here, into actually driving it into being a real, actual law? Would it require demonstrations? Simply gathering signatures?
There is no simple path.
There have been multiple attempts to legislate a subset of what the parent poster is asking, and they have been met with a torrent of lobbying by the entrenched tech giants. Most recently California's BASED Act, the App Store Freedom Act last year, the American Innovation and Choice Online Act some years ago. If your state and federal legislators can't enact change what hope does anyone else have?
Even the places that have successfully legislated this are struggling with enforcement - EU is dealing with extreme and prolonged compliance issues three years into enactment, Japan's FTC is having to form a new bureau just to police Google and Apple's malicious compliance.
In the US, I think it would require a revolution at this point. In the EU it might be viable.
I guess I just don't understand the indefensible greed on display here from Apple. If Apple's App Store & development software truly were still world-class & easy to build/rely on then at least one could defend a "quality tax" of sorts. That'd still be bad, but it's something.
As it stands currently, with the quality of their software & App Store benefits they should be discounting all fees by like ~50% at least.
It is just that. Greed. They would do it on macOS too if they could get away with it, but they know they can’t and so don’t make the argument. What? macOS doesn’t require investment into the platform?
That alone settles the matter for me when the apologists inevitably show up.
The DOJ had started a lawsuit against Apple due to their rampantly greedy business practices, but who knows where that is going now since Tim Apple gave a golden trophy to the current president.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
Download a program and you have to pay the OS maker for it was never a thing on PC but apparently a smartphone is seen differently.
> I guess I just don't understand the indefensible greed on display here from Apple.
The point is that greed is so embedded in the culture today that they don't even have to defend it.
People put up with it for the last fifteen years or whatever; why would they care now?
I mean, you can't say "this service isn't good enough so I won't pay". The justification is surely the cost of hosting the platform and building it out, in fact if you try and demand higher quality libraries they'll probably raise the price to fund it. It is frustrating though, I wish there were a more open and free phone OS
They should continue this line of thinking even further.
Start charging people for all facets of their life. Use access to their iPhone as leverage.
If you use a MacBook for work, Apple should get a 30% cut of your salary!
Anything else is stealing from Apple’s generous charity of selling you a laptop for $3000.
15% is still insane. Wasn't it supposed to be a cost based fee based on the latest ruling, not a flat percentage?
Yes but Apple makes three arguments:
1) they have no costs to pass on
2) they deserve a profit
3) they dismiss the 9th Circuit's ruling as invalid
Do iOS users realize how much they're paying Apple? I feel like if, every time they bought something, users got a receipt with a line item showing that 30% of the money was going to Apple and not to the company they thought they were buying from, a lot of them would jump ship to Android.
Apple makes it against the rules to tell users about the 30% tax.
That's so diabolical and fucked up tbh.
But then their bubble would be a pukey green color, and not a nice blue color, and that's scary for a lot of them.
Auto manufacturers should take 15% of purchases made outside the vehicle, and 30% of purchases made inside the vehicle eco-system.
Don’t give them ideas..
You do want the window to open in the drive thru now don't-cha?
Looks like Google's already doing this for apps downloaded from Google Play:
> The company also compared its link-out fees to those on Google Play, which charges 20% link-out rates for standard apps, 15% for apps in special programs, and 10% for subscription renewals, noting that Epic Games had agreed to these rates.
> "Apple’s position is that it should be permitted to charge fees on in-app purchases made by users of its devices as a means to recoup its investments in the tools, technology, and services that allow it to maintain its App Store and software."
That is such a ridiculous argument. Next they'll want a cut of everything you buy from Amazon using Safari, or any bank transfer you do via your banking app just because you happen to use an Apple device. Give me a break.
Mind you, this is about purchase made using "external links" inside of apps. Not even Apple's IAP infrastructure at all. Apple does zero here, the developer in this instance is offloading to their own payment stack. Apple deserves nothing more than 0% commission here.
0.25% seems fair
Not really, because it still imposes a compliance burden on every single developer using these payments. That alone is reason enough to abolish these fees IMHO. If Apple wants more money let them charge the developer an extra $50 or $100 on the annual subscription.
Incredible greed
C'mon Apple. Ease off on the app store fees, let innovation blossom again, maybe use some of that momentum to encourage game developers to use the Mac platform for gaming. Consider throwing some extra GPU cores in future M<whatever> chips and manufacture cheap Mac Minis / Macbook Neos that come preoptimized for Steam (and other) games.
My ultimate goal: I'd really like to be able to play modern games on a laptop that doesn't also act as a makeshift space heater / 110db white noise generator.
Its sad how many cool apps no longer exists in the app store. I had a cool fluid sim, bridge building game and a game called Soccer Physics that I could play coop on a plane. Not sure why they're gone but presumably the creator didn't want to shell out developer fees.
>C'mon Apple
C'mon with your wallet. That's the only voice they hear.
Apple probably hates that they can’t charge 30% tax on all transactions done on Safari.
It is a travesty that free-loading scumbag users can buy stuff on the web without Apple getting a cut.
Daydream: US Gov't says "Sure, go for it! BTW, we'll now be talking an extra 15% cut of all transactions that you do using our dollars."
They... do. The federal corporate alternative/minimum income tax is 15%.
You mean VAT?
No - but it'd be pretty amusing if the government called it that.
woah! don't be so harshy... they sell hardware at loss /s
and I propose that I take a 15% cut of all apple devices sold outside of apple stores. this should be super fair right? (of course one cant even fault them 100% since vast majority of people have been conditioned to think stealing more than that from everyone is 100% legit)
> Apple’s position is that it should be permitted to charge fees on in-app purchases made by users of its devices as a means to recoup its investments in the tools, technology, and services that allow it to maintain its App Store and software
This framing is so bloody disingenuous it’s vomit inducing.
What was it, Epic charges 63% in Fortnite starting Jan 1 2027?
https://www.fortnite.com/news/fortnite-developers-will-soon-...
I'm done putting up with this stupid pointless fight at this point so some slimy greasy developer can prey on kids some more with stupid cosmetic skins for a video game. Has Spotify kept complaining now that they've piled on the AI slop and stopped paying artists for their music and bragged they've got over 300 million paid sheep? Nope.
The willful ignorance on this topic has always been absurd. Valve skims the same 30% off a game sale as apple DID... Apple switched to 15% for below 1mil revenue. If you have only free apps you can apply for the annual developer fee to be waived as well.
Valve let's you sell your game on your own website and users can add the key to their steam for 0% skim. 30% rake for what is sold through their ridiculously popular store.
Apple should just charge devs for the services like fee per download if the app is free. I believe currently the minimum paid app is $0.99, so it seems reasonable to allow $.33 apps where the dev gets none and $0 if the dev wants to front the $0.33 per user.
I guess you could argue that even $0.99 apps are subsidized but I doubt it'd be accurate. They already charge to join the dev program and it's not that expensive to run an app store.
Valve doesn't compare because Valve doesn't care if you buy a game from someone else, even on their own hardware platforms.
Where are the kids getting their money from?
Their parents?
Once upon a time the only thing I wanted for my birthday was 4 tf2 keys at $2.50 a piece.
It's not unreasonable.
$10 doesn't seem unreasonable. The highly-charged verbiage of "preying on kids" made it sound like they were bleeding them dry.
Parents have the ability to control their children's purchases. If they don't, well, that's on them.
Actually, increasing the fees will lead to more expensive in-game products. Higher price = higher barrier will reduce the number of players.
Therefore, this is opposite of praying on the kids.
what have you been smoking? So I can be sure to avoid it.
Wow! Bold! That's bold leadership, Apple. Respect.
In fact it's so bold I'm going to take my own 15%. Oh, me too.
/s
Fuck Apple.