Oh absolutely it is. But all app store developers are complicit in enabling that monopoly. What should happen is that all app store developers withdraw their apps until Apple sees the light. But that won't happen because every app store developer will be pitted against their competition in a race to the bottom who will accept the highest fees that Apple is going to impose and sooner or later you'll be back at that 30% or you'll go without income. Solidarity is what drives change, without solidarity you're without a chance.
There are so many problems with this take. Here are a few:
1) Many App Store apps are completely free, paying nothing to Apple except the $99 per year fee, so they have no stake in this issue.
2) My understanding is that more than 90% of developers in the App Store make less than $1 million per year and thus are covered by the Small Business Program, which charges only 15% rather than 30%. Revenue in the App Store is extremely top-heavy, with most going to a relatively small number of the top developers (such as Epic, previously). How much are developers willing to risk just to lower the 15% cut somewhat?
3) Let's be clear, you're talking about a strike. Many developers derive their entire income from the App Store, so withdrawing their apps means no income. A wealthy corporation such as Epic can survive, but what about little indie developers?
4) An individual developer uniterally striking would be futile and self-destructive. Developers would need to be organized and all strike simultaneously.
5) Strikes are very difficult to organize. Forming a union almost always has to come first. And union members typically work together in the same building, which greatly facilitates organization. Whereas there are a huge number of App Store developers scattered all around the world, and they speak different languages. How would you even communicate with all of them to organize? (EDIT: I see in another comment that you think it's easy as spreading cat memes. That's not a serious suggestion.)
You're certainly not talking about a strike. A strike is when employees refuse to work. What you're suggesting is that the app developers form a _cartel_, and perform a boycott.
Reddit moderators are unpaid volunteers. They lose exactly $0 if they "strike". The stakes are extremely low in comparison to pulling apps from the App Store.
And there are only 75,000 Reddit moderators in total. That's vastly smaller than the number of App Store developers.
All the subs I followed are a shadow of their former selves.. there's still some half-assed content posted, but it's not worth bothering to try and keep up any more
I was on a bunch of small niche subs with 10k users or fewer each
Seems like the giant subs like you're talking about are still running, although they're a lot lower quality now that it's effectively impossible to use Reddit on a phone
> 1) Many App Store apps are completely free, paying nothing to Apple except the $99 per year fee, so they have no stake in this issue.
I don't see that as a problem.
> 2) My understanding is that more than 90% of developers in the App Store make less than $1 million per year and thus are covered by the Small Business Program, which charges only 15% rather than 30%. Revenue in the App Store is extremely top-heavy, with most going to a relatively small number of the top developers (such as Epic, previously). How much are developers willing to risk just to lower the 15% cut somewhat?
I can't answer that question for any particular developer. But if my PSP charged me 15% I'd be looking for another one and if my PSP arranged for things in such a way that I'd owe them anyway by virtue of developing for a particular piece of hardware that they already sold and made their profits on I'd go and do something else with my time. Which is why pianojacq.com is on the web and free instead of an App in the App store because that way Apple/Google don't get to increase their grip on the market regardless of whether or not it is free. I disagree with their business model to the point that I'm not partaking in it at all.
> 3) Let's be clear, you're talking about a strike. Many developers derive their entire income from the App Store, so withdrawing their apps means no income. A wealthy corporation such as Epic can survive, but what about little indie developers?
What about those poor dockworkers? Any kind of battle with the likes of Apple (or your merchant marine overlord) comes at a price. In some cases people died to fight for their rights. 'little indie developers' are still business owners who will either stand up for their rights or they will have to live with the consequences of not doing so. More likely: those that do stand up for their rights will find themselves kicked out of the App store (monopoly power abuse...) and their competition will thrive.
> 4) An individual developer uniterally striking would be futile and self-destructive. Developers would need to be organized and all strike simultaneously.
Yes, you got it. That's exactly what they should do.
> 5) Strikes are very difficult to organize. Forming a union almost always has to come first. And union members typically work together in the same building, which greatly facilitates organization. Whereas there are a huge number of App Store developers scattered all around the world, and they speak different languages. How would you even communicate with all of them to organize?
I would start with looking for places where App developers congregate and start spreading the message (SO / HN / Reddit / whatever remains of /. / any other forum), write a bunch of press releases and build a movement, then, when the numbers are there for the GADA (the Global Appstore Developer Association) I'd announce the first collective action and take it from there.
It will be work, but so what, if you think it is worth it then it's worth doing well.
As for language barriers and such: there's an app for that...
> I can't answer that question for any particular developer.
I can answer for this particular developer. No, it's not worth it for me. There are many huge problems with the App Store, but I personally don't consider the 15% cut to be among the top problems. I could write a long screed about those problems (and I have before), but that would be a bit off topic. I will mention one thing though: I think the "race to the bottom" is a much bigger problem than the cut. I would happily pay a much higher cut if I could charge higher prices for my apps. Just look at the simple math: 85% of $1N = $0.85N < 50% of $2N = $1N. Thus, a 50% cut would be worth it if I could charge twice as much.
Incidentally, I think even for Epic, the 30% cut is not the entirety of the problem. Epic is a cross-platform company, and App Store payments, locked in and controlled by Apple, make it difficult for Epic to do anything cross-platform that includes iOS.
> What about those poor dockworkers?
Well, I'm not poor. I don't need a higher income to survive. Also, going back to the points I already made, it's realistic for dockworkers to organize and all strike simultaneously, because of their much smaller number, geographic congregation, and shared interests.
> In some cases people died to fight for their rights.
You want me to die to slightly improve the App Store? Um, no thanks.
> write a bunch of press releases and build a movement
Oh, is that all?? Write the press releases, and they will come, amirite!
> It will be work, but so what, if you think it is worth it then it's worth doing well.
I've actually tried to organize a boycott of Apple's Feedback Assistant, but it doesn't seem to have been very effective. Organizing is extremely hard, especially a global movement! No, it's nothing like cat memes or Hacker News comments, especially when the stakes are so high.
> As for language barriers and such: there's an app for that...
Give me a break... I wouldn't even trust the apps for doing customer support, much less union organizing.
Isn’t race to the bottom caused by competition? What policies could Apple implement to keep the price of apps higher? Why would consumers want that? Surely price pressure will happen in any large market.
I think the difficulty of pirating apps on iOS does help developers. At least I’ve heard that piracy is a big problem on Android.
> There are many huge problems with the App Store, but I personally don't consider the 15% cut to be among the top problems.
You and many others like you. Hence the need for solidarity and that's why I don't think it would work. It's hilarious how in the same thread devs like you are being called 'victims' and here you are expounding on how you are going to continue in the relationship unchanged because it suits you just fine.
> I could write a long screed about those problems (and I have before), but that would be a bit off topic.
Fine.
> I will mention one thing though: I think the "race to the bottom" is a much bigger problem than the cut.
Yes, that's why you need to organize. That stops the race to the bottom. This is exactly why strike breakers are looked down upon and why companies used to bring in 'scabs' to break strikes. To push that race to the bottom that much further.
> I would happily pay a much higher cut if I could charge higher prices for my apps.
Of course you would. Because that means more money in your pocket.
> Just look at the simple math: 85% of $1N = $0.85N < 50% of $2N = $1N. Thus, a 50% cut would be worth it if I could charge twice as much.
I think most people on HN have a fairly good intuition about such things.
>> What about those poor dockworkers?
> Well, I'm not poor. I don't need a higher income to survive. Also, going back to the points I already made, it's realistic for dockworkers to organize and all strike simultaneously, because of their much smaller number, geographic congregation, and shared interests.
And because they're not going to stab each other in the back at the first opportunity.
>> In some cases people died to fight for their rights.
> You want me to die to slightly improve the App Store? Um, no thanks.
No, definitely not. I don't even want you to be inconvenienced. But you've definitely illustrated why Apple is firmly in the seat of power here and given ample evidence for my thesis that the App store developers are doing it to themselves.
>> write a bunch of press releases and build a movement
>Oh, is that all?? Write the press releases, and they will come, amirite!
So, you want it to be easy? I personally don't care enough to do your work for you, and if you don't care either then the work won't get done. But then we can stop sympathizing with App store developers.
> > It will be work, but so what, if you think it is worth it then it's worth doing well.
> I've actually tried to organize a boycott of Apple's Feedback Assistant, but it doesn't seem to have been very effective. Organizing is extremely hard, especially a global movement! No, it's nothing like cat memes or Hacker News comments, especially when the stakes are so high.
The stakes are so high because people who should care don't and that includes yourself. Your boycott failed because many people look at that problem just like you look at the fees issue. Without organization you can not solve these issues at all.
> > As for language barriers and such: there's an app for that...
> Give me a break... I wouldn't even trust the apps for doing customer support, much less union organizing.
Forgive me for my failed attempt to injecting some humor into the discussion.
> Yes, that's why you need to organize. That stops the race to the bottom. This is exactly why strike breakers are looked down upon and why companies used to bring in 'scabs' to break strikes. To push that race to the bottom that much further.
Funnily enough, what he's describing is called "price fixing" and is illegal. The "race to the bottom" is competition keeping prices low for consumers and is a feature, not a bug.
Yes, indeed. But that's precisely why I don't have that much sympathy for any of the players in the App eco systems (consumers, Apple/Google, developers) they are all accepting each others transgressions each for reasons all their own. I never thought that computing would come to this but here we are.
I'm quite familiar with the guidelines, I don't see how my comment violates any of them, especially not 'badly'. Could you please point out which part you think violates which of the guidelines, I'd be more than happy to edit my comment to accommodate you.
The comment consisted of personal swipes or straw men. It was completely disparaging, not a serious response. Some examples:
> here you are expounding on how you are going to continue in the relationship unchanged because it suits you just fine.
> Of course you would. Because that means more money in your pocket.
> And because they're not going to stab each other in the back at the first opportunity.
> I don't even want you to be inconvenienced.
> So, you want it to be easy? I personally don't care enough to do your work for you, and if you don't care either then the work won't get done.
> people who should care don't and that includes yourself.
That's how you talk if, as an outsider, you don't want the perspective of an App Store developer. If your desire is just to rip on me for doing it to myself, then you don't need me here to do that; you can accomplish such denigration on your own, in the self-congratulatory, know-it-all fashion that you've been exhibiting.
Organizing masses of individual people around a shared goal against a powerful opponent is one of the hardest tasks in the world. For example, the majority of people in the United States hate both of the two major political parties, and lots of people say, "We should have a third party!", and there are indeed many minor party alternatives, but turning one of those minor parties into a viable alternative to the existing major parties is obviously extremely difficult. It's not that people don't want to, but the barriers to organization are massive and multifarious. Though everyone may have the same vague goal, the devil is in the details. And the costs of defection from the status quo can be significant; as small as they are now, third parties are still blamed as "spoilers" of elections.
What should happen is that governments regulate these policies out of existence (or into sensibility). We already do this for things like credit card processing fees (in Europe) and it works well.
Yes, that would be good. This goes for all predatory businessmodels, especially the ones where bait-and-switch is used to gain market share and then to change the model (looking at you, Youtube).
App store developers are suppliers, they don't work for Apple nor do they have to work for Apple. Technically Apple re-sells their product. But they could and should unite in order to increase their bargaining power. You see the same with every supermarket chain.
But what I think would happen is that there would be enough hold-outs from such an effort that Apple would come out on top because the players in the eco -system are more in competition with each other than that they really mind Apple. They want to pay Apple less but they want to put their competition out of business even more...
In the age of the internet I think reaching tens of millions of individuals is not as hard as it used to be. A Reddit post announcing a boycott of the App store by a few hundred or a few thousand initial App developers with enough lead time for the message to spread would be a fine starting point. I'm sure it would be all over the globe by morning.
I just posited the idea here in NL at 2:30 in the morning and you, somewhere else entirely have already heard of it. That mechanism could be vastly improved upon but I think the principle is sound as your average cat meme has proven thousands of times by now.
I'm not convinced that this would result in lower prices for me as a customer. The current prices that work for a company to stay in business and make a nice profit (think anyone from Netflix, to whoever makes Clash of Clans) show that there is a willingness to pay those prices.
If a developer union of sorts succeeds in negotiating down Apple's charge, there is absolutely 0 chance that this cost savings will make its way on the whole to consumers precisely because developers have already proven that customers are willing to take a higher price.
As an end customer I think it's a good thing if an indie developers get more money in the abstract. I don't think I care if it means that Netflix gets to keep more of their money instead of Apple.
I'm much more sympathetic toward lower fees for smaller companies. Once you are the size of Meta, Google, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Spotify, etc. it's just jostling between multi-billion (trillion) companies and I'm not really concerned one way or the other, especially if these actions result in more annoying behavior that I have to deal with, like multiple app stores, increase in spam and ads and spying, and the dissolution of the power of features like Sign in with Apple that allow me to generate fake email addresses.
> I'm not convinced that this would result in lower prices for me as a customer.
That's perfectly ok because that's not the intended effect, the intended effect is to stop Apple/Google from exacting a 30% toll on their platforms, not to improve consumer prices.
> I'm much more sympathetic toward lower fees for smaller companies.
I don’t think you’d be required to use alternative app stores. You could keep using the Apple one if you wanted. Market forces should allow the best store to win.
Having another “store” doesn’t necessarily mean having to get apps elsewhere. E.g., the one platform app store has severely degraded my ability to enjoy audiobooks. I used to be able to buy books directly in Audible (on Android anyway). It was convenient and Audible offered daily deals. I’d get books on a whim and discover new authors that way. Once Audible had to start paying a 30% tax, that feature went away. Now I have to browse & purchase in a web browser, which is far less convenient.
Incidentally, both Apple and Google sell audiobooks. Presumably they aren’t paying a 30% tax themselves and can use that as a builtin price advantage. But, then I’m tied to that platform.
In this case, you'd be making an "in-app purchase" with your Amazon account. There's no new annoyance in payment management and there's no new store to browse. You just get a more convenient way to buy content.
> I don’t think you’re required to use alternative App Store.
You’re also not required to use an iPhone. Grab an Android phone with the features you want (multiple app stores) and you’re good to go!
Anyway.
The best store isn’t necessarily the best store for me, and apps (think TikTok, etc.) have more pull than an App Store does so what will happen is they will launch their product only on non-Apple app stores that have less strict requirements and review processes and people will go download from there. Customers will have to download multiple app stores, manage subscriptions in multiple places, have to manage user profiles and credit card information across multiple app stores, etc. It’s kind of like today with the competing streaming services. Not great.
While this presents a few problems, my chief concern is that it unwinds some of the great features that Apple essentially lobbied for on behalf of customers. Features such as Sign in with Apple, and other privacy oriented features.
With multiple app stores customers have no bargaining power or anyone bargaining on their behalf. It’s a marriage of corporate interests united against customers.
I’m struggling to see the benefit to customers. It seems like we’re trying to screw normal people so a few big companies like Meta can make an extra buck and grab up more of your data.
> You’re also not required to use an iPhone. Grab an Android phone with the features you want (multiple app stores) and you’re good to go!
The situation isn't much better on Android. Yes, there are multiple stores, but since Google Play Services are locked up you effectively have to use the Play Store. Of course, there's more to consider than just the store and there are other reasons, some involving lock-in, to want to use an iPhone.
> While this presents a few problems, my chief concern is that it unwinds some of the great features that Apple essentially lobbied for on behalf of customers. Features such as Sign in with Apple, and other privacy oriented features.
Using Android as an example, that just didn't happen. Granted, part of that is the hoops Google has you jump through to sideload anything. Samsung and Amazon both have stores and outside of Amazon Fire devices, their adoption is quite minimal. So, I don't think this future where everyone abandons the Apple App Store is apt to happen. Having competition in the space should spur Apple to deliver more. And as a consumer I have the option to sideload apps on my computing device if I'd like.
> With multiple app stores customers have no bargaining power or anyone bargaining on their behalf. It’s a marriage of corporate interests united against customers.
I don't know what power I really have with Apple's App Store. Some parts are nice. Some aren't. I have no ability to influence that. I can't "let the market speak" without using a completely different device.
Moreover, other app stores need to have an actual proposition to get adopted. Assuming companies still want to make money, they'll likely still sell apps through the Apple App Store.
> I’m struggling to see the benefit to customers. It seems like we’re trying to screw normal people so a few big companies like Meta can make an extra buck and grab up more of your data.
I don't care at all about helping Meta make more money. I think you'll find that's true for almost everyone. I'm not looking to screw myself or anyone else for that matter. I do care about the grabbing more of your data part. But, that's an argument against mobile apps. In Apple's locked down ecosystem I have no control over the data collected. In a web app I can run a blocker, at least.
I care that mobile devices are the general computation devices of this generation and we ceded control of it to Apple and Google then let them add a 30% tax onto it and control what we can run on our computers. If Microsoft did this with Windows applications, we would rightfully call out their anti-competitive behavior.
The common retort at this point is "just don't use a mobile device." That was a valid answer for a while, but particularly with covid, a lot of things became mobile apps with no web alternatives. I had doctor's appointments that required using an application on one of those two platforms.
As a consumer, I also dislike that Apple and Google don't really need to respond to market demands. Changing platforms is a huge upheaval and can be quite costly, since there's really no cross-platform licenses available. You just need to re-purchase all of your apps and any media. They also lock you in with their cloud services. Sure, I could use Dropbox, but Photo shared libraries only work with iCloud. They have a captive audience and get away with a lot that they wouldn't with a competitive marketplace.
I get it. Plenty of people like the gilded Apple path. But, we're well beyond the point of platform being limited to peripherals for Apple enthusiasts. These are primary computing devices that are essentially unavoidable. Switching to Google is an impractical solution and doesn't address the core problem anyway, so that's a non-starter. If the cost of opening up the platform is you can't get Fortnite in the Apple App Store, I can live with that. In the unlikely event Apple nailed every aspect of this, from pricing, to store presentation, to content restrictions, then its massive population of happy customers will ensure the App Store is the primary destination for applications. Otherwise, competition should force Apple to improve its service or decrease its prices to actually compete.
Ah yes, this again. "We can only have nice things because of the golden handcuffs Apple has blessed us with!". Except that there's plenty of counter examples. And you might not care, but thousands of independent app developers getting bent over the barrel by Apple certainly care. In my view, it's not even really about the end consumer price.
My solution is much simpler: I've opted out of all App eco systems entirely because I think Google and Apple already have enough power as it is. My software is free, free to download and free to run.
It is. I'm not an App store developer for a reason. There is no way that you can get me to carry water for Apple or Google by putting them in between the users of my work and me. Ditto Microsoft.
And I'm perfectly ok with App store developers doing what they are doing and making lots of money. But there is a price tag and they either must be ok with that or like me they'd opt-out.
So I've been 'striking' for as long as I've had App ideas and things that I could have fielded as an App but ended up just putting on the web. I don't need to convince anybody.
Do you think that the King.com and the other large companies that make all of their money by selling coins for pay to win games are going to join the boycott?
It came out in the Epic trial that’s where 90% of the revenue comes from. It’s not from small indy developers
They were. You teach people how to treat you. If you congratulate people for working to improve their conditions you have to say they had a hand in the bad conditions before.
How is this any different from brick&mortar big box retailers beating on their suppliers to lower their wholesale prices to the point they can only make a profit with large volume in sales? I guarantee you that 70% of your MSRP is way more than selling in a store.
One difference: physical goods suppliers can theoretically choose to sell and deliver direct any of their goods to any consumer willing to pay for them. With the app store, at least in the US, the captive audience can’t side-load, and now Apple is introducing even more absurdity with its bad faith “revision” to the policy.
That's true to an extent, and your "theoretically" is doing some heavy lifting. The big box retailers have pretty much limited your options there. So while it's not a single choice of stores, you might get 3 or 4. If you want to sell physical items, you want to be sold in Walmart. That's where the shoppers are. When you come out of the meeting where they tell you what your wholesale price will be, you won't even look like the same person. Depending on your product, you might have some other options, but those sales will be well under anything a big box can offer. You just won't be making much money per item.
Walmart is the thousand pound Gorilla, yes. But countless clothing brands exist outside of Walmart & probably wouldn't want to be in Walmart anyways.
It's some weak sauce weasle wording to say, "you might have some other options". This position seems slanted as heck: working overtime to convince everyone that Walmart puts people through the ringer (true) & is the overwhelming desirable option (false), as if that justifies Apple being an awful squeezer too. As though Patagonia, North Face, Colombia, Gap, Saks 5th Avenue & every other brand only dream getting in the big store, as if they live horrible worthless lives now.
No, there's a ton of ways to sell clothing. Volume is one way to do it, but there's a free market here with lots of possibilities and no one is railroading brands and makers into awful decisions. There are also online only folks who just have their own e-storefronts and/or others. There's so many channels. Apple's App store has a unique in the world today, of dominating a massive sales channel it's customers cannot escape, on one of the most general purpose soft devices on the planet. For basically happening to do their job of building a consumer OS and not a lot more.
(Steam I think is a more interesting case, where they compete freely & without anti-competitive hacks, but still basically are the de-facto middleman.)
If you think a chain that can afford to open its own stores is the same thing as a company making a single thing or even a couple of things, then you're well beyond weasel words and are in a delusional state. Most people make something and need to have it sold at other stores. You've made hell of a leap here to try and call me a weasel
We're talking app makers. The equivalent would be pre-internet days of selling software at computer stores or again big box retailers. Again, your options are limited. If you're an app farm that just shits out clones of other software, you can burn in a fire and I don't care what happens to you.
Indeed. You can see this clearly in how even at places like 'Makro' ('Metro' in some other countries) prices ex vat can still be higher than in the big chain supermarkets.
and yet this has been happening long before Apple and App Stores were a thing, and nobody has been sued to stop it.
Also, as some other comment has pointed out, the % Apple takes is from their role as one manager. Ask an actor or sports ball player what happens if they don't pay their manager the % owed.
I just haven't figured out why software devs think they are so special that they don't have to pay to play. I have seen no honest answers to this other than Apple === BAD. Devs are pretty much "all monies are belong to us"
Just because developers have fallen victim does not mean they should all pull their apps. How would you suggest that all impacted developers go about coordinating such a strike?
Solidarity is very difficult to achieve in a large enough consensus to a point where people would pull their apps.
Organized labor has effected plenty of change, both directly and indirectly. Safer working conditions, 40 hour work weeks, sick time, pay raises, etc.. Companies without unionized employees are incentivized to offer reasonable work conditions and benefits to stave off unionization. This has all happened under capitalism.
I think this does a disservice to actual victims of actual crimes. This is at most a business dispute over fees. The app store developers were cautioned that throwing their lot in with Apple (and let's not forget Google) would eventually lead to a situation where Apple controlled their business and could charge whatever they wanted. But the money was good and so the walled garden App stores became entrenched. But in principle they were always broken.
This is why unions are a thing. They create collective bargaining power. If all of the app store vendors would unite they'd have a formidable position vis-a-vis Apple, Google etc. And there is no reason why app store developers could not form such a collective to increase their bargaining power.
You must have seen it mentioned on HN before: don't build your house in someone else's garden or something to that effect, in other words: if you make all of your income in someone else's eco system you are giving them a lot of power over your business. That's a bad move, but if you have to do it make sure you have a lot of friends, just in case.
> I think this does a disservice to actual victims of actual crimes.
Your original comment used the term “abuser”, which refers to a very specific kind of crime that not only frequently does involve a victim’s acquiescence to their abuser, but that is often the ultimate purpose for the abuse. I understand what you’re trying to say, but I think it’s probably for the best to simply avoid using domestic violence to make such analogies altogether.
It not only risks being taken to be in poor taste, but I think it’s also unnecessary in this context. It’s not especially difficult to understand why Apple’s market position gives it the kind of outsized leverage to force other stakeholders into engaging with unfair, even illegal, practices that are frequently contrary to their own interests. In negotiations, and within free markets more broadly, there’s a level to which this kind of uneven power dynamic can be productive, but it’s very clearly gone too far here, and is rightly seen as suppressing competition, stifling innovation, and sabotaging the potential for entrepreneurs and small businesses to thrive.
It’s precisely the kind of thing that the federal government should be on top of, but until congress resumes its regularly mandated duties (it’s my understanding that the United States Congress has been starring in some sort of reality TV program for the last several years, and must continue until they have voted all but the last remaining legislator off of Joe Manchin’s houseboat) it’s probably a good idea to explore other options, like labor unions or maybe crowdfunded federal class action lawsuits.
> Your original comment used the term “abuser”, which refers to a very specific kind of crime that not only frequently does involve a victim’s acquiescence to their abuser, but that is often the ultimate purpose for the abuse. I understand what you’re trying to say, but I think it’s probably for the best to simply avoid using domestic violence to make such analogies altogether.
Abuser has much wider connotations than just domestic violence and I'm not so focused on sex crimes/domestic crimes that I see the term as inexorably connected but for those that do feel free to substitute another term that indicates a power relationship between two parties in which one takes advantage of the other even if the other willingly entered into the relationship.
Note that class action suits are not powerful enough for this: they simply allow Apple to partition the world into many small fiefdoms each of which will have to fight individually for their rights. Much better to tackle this as all developers versus Apple, that way you stand a chance of making it stick.
To be fair, Apple doesn’t actually charge more than they did on Day 1. In some cases they charge less.
> And there is no reason why app store developers could not form such a collective to increase their bargaining power.
This is also where you lose me entirely. You’re basically talking about unionizing independent businesses. Just call it a cartel. That’s the word you’re looking for.
> Just call it a cartel. That’s the word you’re looking for.
No, a cartel is something different entirely. A cartel is a bunch of businesses that set the price for a market, not a collective that serves to increase the bargaining position of individual entities that are too weak to do so on their own power. Cartels are all about price fixing while keeping the competition out.
That’s a nice spin and I see why you’re determined to use nicer terminology, but in this case it’s a cartel, so own it since it’s your idea here. The aim is to fix a price, and the price you are trying to set is the price at which another business buys units of your software or services for resell. The price is 30% of purchase, 30% of in-app purchases, 30% of in-app subscriptions for the first year of an individual unit’s subscription term and then 15% for subsequent terms[1]. If you use a separate payment processor, you can reduce these figures by 3 percentage points. That’s the price, and their right to charge it has been upheld, but your proposal is to band together the small, medium and large businesses that virtually fill the App Store and have them War Doctor around going “No more!” or dictate a lower price. That’s collusion, that’s price fixing, that’s a cartel.
[1]: through some silly chicanery requiring an application process, and only if your business earns $1M or less a year. Apple may be within their rights but damn do they make themselves look bad when it comes to this shit.
> That’s a nice spin and I see why you’re determined to use nicer terminology, but in this case it’s a cartel, so own it since it’s your idea here.
No, the aim is not to 'fix price'. A cartel sells a resource at an artificially inflated price to a group of consumers who have no idea that this is happening (unless the cartel owners happen to advertise the fact). Typically cartels are illegal.
> The aim is to fix a price, and the price you are trying to set is the price at which another business buys units of your software or services for resell.
No, it is not about setting a price. It is about setting a (reasonable) cap on a margin on your own price. That's an entirely different thing.
> That’s the price, and their right to charge it has been upheld, but your proposal is to band together the small, medium and large businesses that virtually fill the App Store and have them War Doctor around going “No more!” or dictate a lower price. That’s collusion, that’s price fixing, that’s a cartel.
> No, it is not about setting a price. It is about setting a (reasonable) cap on a margin on your own price. That's an entirely different thing.
Okay, so what if Apple decided a reasonable price for doing business with them was between 12% and 30% of the price you set per unit, and that you can take it or go into a different business writing software for other platforms instead, for which a non-exhaustive list in 2024 includes the following: Windows, Android, PlayStation, Xbox, Switch, Linux, servers, the Web, embedded systems, supercomputers, mainframes (no really), webOS televisions, and custom systems? Pretty soon, depending on how this DMA stuff shakes out and how Apple ends up complying, you might even be able to develop for iPhones on less onerous terms, but only in the EU, so add EU iPhones to the list above as a “maybe” after March 7th.
Some people might take that deal, and others might choose to do their work somewhere working on something else. How do you plan to deal with the businesses that are just going to take the deal? Like they have been, every single time they’ve voluntarily signed the developer agreement without a gun to their heads and invested more money into building on Apple’s platforms?
I still disagree with the form of your rhetoric as I do see cartel as a more accurate description, but out of respect for the internal consistency of your argument, I’ll drop it. People can see the case you made and make up their own minds. :)
I don't think there are victims per-se, just people that have willingly enabled a mechanism to come into being that they profit from at the expense of general freedom in computing. That Apple and Google would throw their weight around was a foregone conclusion and if MS manages to make it so that installing software on PCs can only happen through their app store (which is a fair chance, all the indicators are pointing towards them shooting for this at some point) they definitely will not shrink away from that.
Also note that through their control of GitHub they could shut down 90%+ of of the FOSS movement out there with the click of a mouse.
That's true, any sizeable fraction will probably work. There could even be multiple such collectives which may or may not collaborate on particular efforts.
If you can legitimately blame the middle of a pyramid scheme for tolerating the top, you can blame app developers for tolerating apple. Both do so at the expense of those at the bottom.
Yes, this is exactly what enables Apple to do what they do and proves my suspicion: that there are enough developers that do not see this as a problem that things would likely remain as they are. Let's be happy that dockworkers had more spine than that.
There was side-loading on Symbian and Windows Mobile phones before iPhone and the App Store existed.
You know what the experience was in one word?
Shit.
For both developers and consumers.
Then comes Apple with amazing hardware, software and APIs with focus on developer experience.
Developers decide to ditch side-loading & stuff like xda-developers in favor of 30% fees to develop for iOS (and then Android) because it’s so amazing for them and the consumers.
It got to the stage where developers were so happy with the 30% fee and Apple/Google duopoly, many even didn’t even try to develop anything for other mobile OS’s including the Windows Phone store.
Microsoft tried to fund app developers and spent millions, without much luck.
No modern apps, no consumers, no sales.
Microsoft then had no other option than to admit defeat, write off billions and shut down the era of Windows on mobile phone devices.
Even Epic never released Unreal Engine on Windows Phone, and cries the loudest today about the duopoly they helped to build.
So now you’re saying after abandoning side-loading, agreeing to 30% fees for an access to a worldwide billion people marketplace, suddenly after 15 years it’s terrible and we should go back to side-loading again, because greedy Apple?
Yes, RMS warned about that. Convenience comes at a price. The question is whether or not it is worth it. Apple seems to have convinced enough developers and enough consumers that it is. I disagree which is why all of my stuff is 100% web based (and it even works off-line), but I don't begrudge others their income. At the same time I do think that Apple is abusing its position, but since it was obvious they were gearing up to do just that from day #1 you can only blame them for about half of it with the remainder divided between the devs and the consumers.
macOS has both an app store and sideloading. It works great!
I personally use the app store for apps I don’t know/trust the developer of, because I trust Apple’s diligent vetting regarding data collection etc., and I sideload everything that I do trust, or that Apple “wants to protect me from” for non-security/privacy reasons.
