The idea that "Apple" has "a sense of entitlement" is click-baiting anthropomorphizing from someone monetizing eyeballs. It's not even supported in his text.
So much on this topic lacks real grounding.
1. Apple's take is legal. Even Sweeney admits his objection is only on bad faith grounds; there's no failure to comply.
2. Gruber and others want Apple to be nicer. But doing more than the law requires just invites more lawsuits.
3. People objecting to 30% fail to mention the small-business program, where if you have revenues below $1M, Apple's take is 15%. So these businesses are significant, and many, many years of expectations are baked into their business models. Discounts for nothing would just be a giveaway.
Regular people are entitled to have their devices from Apple just work: no viruses, no adversarial software, no snooping by Apple or others, no creeping data overages, effective and automated (security) updates, and no premature end-of-life. The cost of even a little bit of that would be the biggest tax on productivity and enjoyment.
Something I struggle to understand: any revenue generated by your business and connected to your app, grant them the right to have 30% of this income. Even if the customer existed beforehand (Ex: Web app SaaS, now building a mobile version.) For every customer now using the app you have to give them 30% of the subscription, even if no transaction happen on the app, even if the app is a tiny subset of the functionalities of your business.
There is no business logic. They do it just because they can. And they can because the App Store is the only store on the iPhone.
Microsoft was sued (and lost) for pushing Internet Explorer with every Windows install, but Apple can push its own store on iOS (and not only push, but limit the installation of other stores on their system)
I struggle to see how this is any different. It seems the same and even worse.
>Something I struggle to understand: any revenue generated by your business and connected to your app, grant them the right to have 30% of this income. Even if the customer existed beforehand (Ex: Web app SaaS, now building a mobile version.) For every customer now using the app you have to give them 30% of the subscription
After double checking, it seems that Subscription Guidelines under "3.1.3(f) Free Stand-alone Apps" don't need to give money to apple. So you are correct, my statement wasn't entirely exact.
However the core of the issue remain: the whole conversation around the fees is because there is no competition allowed. Let other app store exists and the problem is fixed.
What does this mean, exactly. Is there some Apple competitor that does snooping. (There are certainly third parties doing some snooping on Apple users.)
Is Apple not planning to ramp up its advertising services business. According to its SEC filings it is dead set on advertising.
How does one prove that Apple does not use data from customers for its commercial gain. The company is ridiculously secretive and non-transparent.
Apple is acting as an intermediary to peoples' use of their computers, for communication or otherwise, storing vast amounts of personal data on Apple's computers instead of the owner's. It's no different than any other so-called "tech" company in that regard. The company _wants_ more customer data.
And the "no premature end of life" is untrue IME. Perhaps there is some creative definition of "premature" I am not aware of. The owner decides what is and is not premature. I have older Apple hardware that is crippled thanks to "updates".
Maybe the term "entitlement" is taken from Apple's announcement. That's the term Apple used to describe what developers might be eligible to receive from Apple.
> How does one prove that Apple does not use data from customers for its commercial gain. The company is ridiculously secretive and non-transparent.
Apple does use customer data for commercial gain. But it does so anonymously and in an aggregated fashion. I think it’s fair to be skeptical here, but Apple does take their users data privacy much more seriously than their competitors. I think it helps to understand where their value proposition is aligned compared to the competition.
At Apple, privacy and security are core features of the product. They tend to push personalization features down to the device level to avoid building customer profiles in the cloud. They are generally ok with not releasing a feature if they cannot do so in a way that respects data security and privacy.
Compare this to Google, whose philosophy is that customer data is important to protect, but they expect their customers are alright with Google building a highly tailored profile to them. Google tends to process customer data in the cloud and shares this profile across their product lines. They believe that they can build better products and features by centralizing customer data.
For Apple, there isn’t any reason for them to try to get a secret edge by telling the public they’re not using data and secretly doing so. Their customers would be rightfully weirded out if they saw over-personalized products in ways they didn’t authorize. A large part of their competitive moat is actually denying companies like Facebook access to their users data.
Probably because it’s their value proposition. The point being Apple spends a shit ton of money on privacy and security because it’s exactly what they market. It’s a bit of a naive and paranoid take to think they’re secretly disregarding that internally and actually doing the complete opposite.
Then they can put that value proposition into legally binding, non-revokable terms. Until then, I see no reason to believe a person on the internet over a trillion dollar company executives and lawyers who actively avoid making any contractual obligations to support their marketing claims.
You don't need to "believe a person on the internet", just go look up all of the privacy-respecting features and options of iOS (and related services) we have today.
I think "contractual obligations" sounds like an unfairly high standard to hold Apple to. It'd be great if we lived in a utopia where corporations were genuinely looking out for our best interests. We don't. We live in a world where corporations are relentless profit-seeking vampires, and in that world Apple is an uncommonly benevolent mega-corp relative to its peers. This benevolence is not just a factor of being mostly built by morally "good" people[0], it's also a matter of what Apple has chosen as its market niche. They build privacy-first technology because that's what they tell us they're selling us, and it's why we buy it. It's profitable for them. It's good for us. It's a mutually beneficial situation.
[0]I think there's an argument to be made that because Apple has now spent a decade positioning itself this way, it probably attracts the type of employee who believes in privacy as a human right and is largely made up of people who genuinely do believe it's the "right" thing to do.
Then charge people for it. Apple has an annual developer registration fee, they should cover their platform costs using that instead of an arbitrary surcharge. If you want us counting our blessings, Apple also generously "gives away" access to a browser and phone app that don't see the need for all-encompassing payment processing. Those aren't giveaways though, those are basic features that have existed since before the App Store was an app. Apple's insistence on conflating their value is a textbook case of bundling.
Apple can be justified in charging whatever they want for their App Store if comparable services have a chance to compete. Nobody is prevented from sticking with OEM defaults if they choose.
The developer's fee is for the SDK and other software. It has nothing to do with the store. Why this is confused feels very disingenuous to me. No vendor selling product through a 3rd party store EVER receives 100% of the retail price. They always sell at wholesale which is a much steeper rate than 30%
This is the part that I agree with, and is the only valid argument out of all of these emotional whining of not making all of the retail pricing. The fact that only one store is allowed to exist makes it a hinky situation grey area for me. I personally don't have an issue with it, as I will not just jump to any ol app store UNLESS they can prove they are not allowing absolute shite malicious stealing nefarious devs to infect the store. I have 0 trust that will happen though. We'll see what the next store decides to take as their cut though. If they come out and take 30%, I will laugh.
Okay, so you are paying for the publishing. It's still not the same thing as selling wholesale to a retailer which is where the confusion seems to be. I realize I'm on a forum catering to the devs that really want all of the pennies and feel like selling their apps at a whole price is unheard of.
The smartphone is the most essential device in the world.
Two companies have more control than entire governments. They tax everything and control what can be done in the mobile space.
Mobile means taking photos, dating, ordering dinner at a restaurant, navigating, buying at the store, presenting an officer your state ID, looking for a new home, reading the news, scheduling meetings, answering calls from loved ones, ... E V E R Y T H I N G.
The uses of mobile have outgrown these two companies, and it's time the control these two companies have is rescinded by worldwide regulators.
First class web installs must be supported, and moreover they cannot come with a scare wall. Furthermore, Apple and Google shouldn't be allowed to control which technologies can be used (JIT, runtimes, browsers, dynamic apps), which payments/login rails can be used, etc.
> dating, ordering dinner at a restaurant, buying at the store
Paraphrase: Apple/Google provide access to the internet therefore they 100% control access. You might use your argument for a mall or a credit card!
Not saying that Google/Apple are not monopolies especially in payments as you point out: I'm just suggesting to avoid using strawman examples that don't support your thesis!
normal people don't care about web apps or app stores. they care that they can tap-to-pay securely and effortlessly, and that there are pretty background photos for contacts. they care about mostly first party apps and tiktok and web browsing, and no they don't care about chrome or firefox or safari.
developers need to realise most of the world just wants a phone that works, and outside of nerds, they don't give a crap about who pays what to whom.
personally, as an engineer, i don't want any third party doing OS-level tampering or opening up secure areas of the hardware, nor do i want random power-hungry runtimes and code being ran. i want my phone to work the way it was sold to me, and i don't want meta or some leet haxxor's apps or app stores
So your argument is that you trust governments more than you trust Apple, Google, and smartphone manufacturers?
I'm no fan of any of those companies, but that doesn't mean I think they're less trustworthy than governments.
In fact, a big part of the reason smartphones as a platform can be locked down to the extent they are is government regulation of the "phone" part. Regulations intended to prevent a bad actor from using a phone or similar device to blast everyone else within range off the air by transmitting at high power (or other similar nefarious things) have had the actual effect of making entire phone platforms into jails. What should have happened is that the "phone" part that controls things like transmit power should have been separated from the "computer-like device" part, so that the latter could be open, at least to the extent that PCs are. But that didn't happen, because government regulation is a very poor tool.
Small timeline correction: the rate changed in January, they only announced it in November.
I don't know that it was specifically Epic alone, and Apple certainly wouldn't outright say "we're doing this to help strengthen our ongoing legal arguments with these specific companies", but between Epic, legal complaints from other high profile companies like Spotify, and antitrust investigations in EU opening all at the same time just before that announcement time it seems an awful large coincidence to have a press release drop about how they're cutting the commision for 98% of developers to 15% but managing to leave 95% of the total revenue at the 30% rate with no influence from these external factors at the time.
I think it was. Apple saw the writing on the wall and changed it. Hopefully, they'll see the writing on the wall again and lower it further. 15% is still too high, and what activities it's levied against is so ridiculous that I expect law makers to continue to intervene.
Either apple behaves or it's golden goose will die from a thousand cuts. Their choice.
There is simply no way around the fact that Apple demanding a cut of sales on an external platform is ridiculous. Steam does not do this. Google does not do this. This would be absolutely absurd for anyone else in any market to do, and this will likely be exhibit C at Apple's inevitable antitrust trial.
Edit:
Re-reading, and I wish that the article was longer. Of course Apple doesn't want to allow side-loading, but they're going to have to eventually, so why not do it proactively and in a way that allows third-party apps to be extra-sandboxed or reviewed? Oh right, because they're Apple. I appreciate the methodology, but a touch of openness will not kill their profits or trust level.
The comparison Apple made in the court case was not primarily to Steam or Google, it was to the consoles. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo all take a 30% cut of all of Epic's transactions across their respective platforms. Apple argued, and persuaded the judge, that Epic's targeting of Apple specifically for it's 30% share was unreasonable given that Epic was happily paying the fee to all the other platforms:
> Indeed, for example, Epic Games has agreed to such a rate on all Fortnite transactions via the Microsoft (Xbox) Store, the PlayStation Store, the Nintendo eShop, and Google Play. Epic Games has also agreed to extra payments for certain platform holders above and beyond the standard 30% commission rate. For example, for all Fortnite transactions via the PlayStation Store, Epic Games agreed to make additional payments to Sony above this commission rate based on the amount of time that PlayStation users play Fortnite cross-platform.
The judge forced Apple to allow transactions to take place off of the platform, but she explicitly noted that Apple would still be entitled to a commission on said sales.
Apple sees their App Store arrangement as similar to Upwork, Rover, or any number of other marketplaces, which all have policies preventing users from meeting through the system but transacting outside of it. From their perspective, if they hooked you up with the sale, then they're entitled to a commission. If you think you can do better without their sales, you're welcome to pull out of their marketplace, and if they find that you're abusing their marketplace they'll hasten you to the door.
That is, as far as the judge was concerned, perfectly legal, and I'm having a hard time not seeing it as a reasonable position to take.
Poor abused broker argument is invalid while Apple prevents side loading.
Yes consoles prevent side loading too, and it's exactly as wrong there too, though, I would also say there is an argument that a phone is in a different class of necessity than a game console, and could easily be argued to require different rules and consumer/society protections. A phone not only is a central and practically required part of general life today, companies like Apple and Google go further and perform many many actions to insinuate and embed and integrate and entangle their phone and their attached ecosystem into as many aspects of the users life as possible. They are not neutral, and the resulting user entrapment is not of their users own choice and creation, even though there are no guns to any heads. Apple and Google are absolutely equivalent to Phillip Morris when it comes to the users voluntarily consuming a product that is bad for them.
Point of all that is, phones are not game consoles, and not only would that be true naturally just because of how one is a necessary tool for conducting life, while the other is not, the valid culpability of the phone maker is even more compounded when you factor their own actions to amplify the users dependence on them. They actively seek it and do many different things to get it and strengthen it, from advertising to policy to tech functionality. You can't do that, and still be innocent of responsibility for it's effects.
The only valid thing I see is the argument that if Epic agree to the same deal from MS and Sony, meaning all the same significant factors not just the cost, then it will require some non-trivial argument to claim that Apple has harmed them.
It seems ironic to argue that Apple shouldn't get the same treatment as Sony/MS because phones are not game consoles, when the primary litigator in this case is Epic. Apparently there is a societal need for Fortnite to not have to pay the Apple Tax.
Is "general purpose computing devices" a relevant factor with current legislation? Is this yet another area where people want activist judges when it suits their agenda?
It is in right-to-repair legislations going on right now. "general purpose computing devices" and "gaming consoles" are two legally distinct classes of electronics.
Most right-to-repair legislation is singling gaming consoles out as excluded while general purpose computing devices are not. Legally, gaming consoles are not general purpose computing devices at the moment.
I know they legally aren't, my point is more that the difference between a PS5 and an iPhone when it comes to general purpose computing capability is entirely arbitrary. If Sony is allowed to claim that their perfectly normal desktop tower running their proprietary flavour of Linux is not a general purpose computing device because reasons, then Apple should be free to claim the same for their phones (and vice versa).
I get the argument, but it falls flat for me. Consoles are basically appliances with a primarily singular purpose: video games. Smart phones, in my opinion, are general purpose computers that should be treated differently. Games are a small subset of what people use smart phones for.
I, and a lot of other people, buy iPhones specifically because they are not Androids - it's hard to break them, install something horrible, etc. It's also why I recommend iPhones to older folk, like my mom, and from what I can tell, the need for me to help them out has decreased a ton since they stopped using Androids.
So why are you pushing for everything to have to be a general purpose computer? Why can't there be one phone maker that caters to those who don't want something like that? Why can't you just use Android, which is that? I just find it incredibly unfair that everything has to be the same for some odd reason for people who keep pushing for these things.
I feel like this "console" vs. "general computer" distinction is something Apple invented for the sake of their legal argument, and people are just accepting it as a thing. There's no reason why you can't have a console that allows sideloading. In fact, I have one: the Playdate. It has an on-device app store, but if I want I can also install any app manually. Most users who have a Playdate will only ever use the app store--they will get a curated set of apps, and every game purchase will have a cut taken by Playdate. It's sticky because it's the most convenient, and it's already on the device. This is the "safe" experience that the average user wants. But if you want to do your own thing and install some other app you found on the internet, you can! You can also run your own apps that you write!
I don't think or care about any of this. But my anecdotal evidence of seeing my elderly family members requiring a lot less help to clean their phones from unwanted spamware/adware that is crippling the device performance has gone down noticeably since the move from Android to iPhone. And I care a lot about that. All that power of Android is great for the Hacker News crowd, not so great for regular people who might not be very tech savvy.
> So why are you pushing for everything to have to be a general purpose computer?
Not the parent commenter, but I suppose that the main problem is that there is a duopoly. So either they should be forced to make general-purpose computers (so they can be made to do what the user wants), or there should be more competition, so you can have your locked-down computer, and I can have my general purpose computer.
What is preventing more companies from creating more mobile operating systems? Are they hamstrung by efforts from the duopoly to keep them down? Or is it just hard? If the latter, should government take action to help foster their creation, like tax breaks?
Microsoft tried doing this with Windows phone, but they couldn't get traction among developers, which made their OS unattractive to end users, which made it unattractive to developers, which made it unattractive ...
Users don't just want a phone, they want a phone that can run all their apps. Developers only publish their apps to the App Store and Google Play, if you want to run the apps that your users want, you need to interface with one of those. This is even harder than the "Linux on the desktop" problem. If you have a good web browser, good support for .exe files (via Wine) and apps that can support most of the file formats users need (notably Microsoft Office files), you have a desktop OS that can replace Windows for most users, no cooperation from Microsoft or third-party developers necessary. You can't do that on mobile, even if you design a perfect iOS or Android emulator, users still won't be able to download any apps unless you get access to a store.
There's nothing stopping a company from making such a phone. The pixel phones from google can probably already boot a regular linux kernel for example if you unlock the bootloader. Then we'd need documentation to be able to actually write drivers. Another part of the problem is how fast the tech is moving outside of the iphones, which makes it harder for anybody to focus on specific hardware.
Why can't you simply download everything from the App Store and avoid sideloading?
If enough people refuse to sideload, developers will continue to provide the App Store as an option. Then you can pay Apple for their curation services if you find those services valuable, and other people won't be forced to pay.
Why can’t I recommend a device to my elderly parents where I don’t have to worry about social media apps that trick them into installing apps from outside Apple’s App Store? Apps which are then free to ignore Apple’s guidelines and policies and other anti-deceptive policies?
Apple’s App Store review may not be perfect but Apple trying to police apps to make them adhere to some guidelines is better than nothing.
Remember with Facebook pushed a sneaky VPN as part of their iOS app so they could better track users?
> social media apps that trick them into installing apps from outside Apple’s App Store
Apple could make this against the terms of service for App Store apps, and ban any apps that violate them. If the sideloading option exists, then Apple should be free to regulate the behavior of in-App Store behavior more strictly.
You can't trust Apple to protect your elderly parents from being tricked. There are so many stories of people (even children) who unknowingly spent thousands of dollars on the App Store and in app purchases.
Compared to that, a Facebook app with better tracking is trivial.
> So why are you pushing for everything to have to be a general purpose computer?
They are already general purpose computers that have been locked down.
I strongly believe users should be able to own their devices no matter what kind. While users should be able to keep those devices locked down if they choose, they should also be able to unlock them and run any software or OS they choose.
I think this applies to consoles just as much as it does to smartphones and tractors.
Allowing companies to prevent users from owning their devices puts less tech savy consumers who don't understand the risks at the mercy of the giant corporations.
I agree that smart phones should be general purpose computers, but that's why I use Android. iPhones are explicitly designed to not be general purpose computers, and that's part of the appeal for a lot of people.
The only criteria that should be a controlling factor for whether something is a "general purpose computer" or not, or rather, which amount of control end-users should have over it, is the device's raw computing power. Anything else is prone to abuse and is anti-consumer.
My wife doesn't want a general purpose computer in her pocket. She wants to be able to download and install an app with near-complete confidence that it won't steal her credit card. That desire is at odds with having a general purpose computing device.
This is why she (and millions like her) chose an iPhone. Are you seriously saying that Apple providing that as an option is anti-consumer?
I agree with you, but it's not about spouses or elderly parents. I have been designing chips and custom hardware for multiple decades. Guiding and/or implementing custom firmware for a similar time span. I am highly technical and I still want a phone with a tightly controlled ecosystem that is robust and it isn't sending all my personal data back to the mother ship for them to monetize. The App Store is one of the best features of the iPhone. There are a lot of bad players doing all sorts of things. I like having Apple guarding the gates.
The thing is, I think I am similar to the vast majority of Apple's customers in my preference for the App Store. Finding and installing software was a hassle before the store. The simplicity of app management with the store has been a revelation. Some will say that my preference shouldn't keep others from getting side-loading and I get that, but I imagine creating that installation path will also create a new exploit path. I don't think most customers will be happy if Apple has to allow side-loading and that leads to weaker security. Hopefully I'm wrong and weakened security can be avoided, but I'm skeptical for now.
A large segment of the HN readership doesn't seem to understand that many of their desires with respect to a device put them in a small minority of Apple's customers. If Apple is satisfying the vast majority of customers, why is that a bad thing?
> Are you seriously saying that Apple providing that as an option is anti-consumer?
I think Apple not providing the other option is anti-consumer. It can be as on the macs, where you have SIP and you can disable it if you so wish, although it takes some effort and is not straightforward. The phone can have 2 modes, a safe mode and an unsafe mode, and it's up to people to choose which mode they want to operate in. So your wife still has the option to have the non-general purpose computer in her pocket, and others can have it as a general purpose computer.
Why should Apple be obligated to serve two product categories? I have a phone that serves the role of general purpose computer just fine. I run mostly open source apps and even have a real terminal. It's just not an Apple phone.
It's not at odds at all. Tell your wife not to install third party stores or payment processors and she'll have the locked down device she wants while the rest of us can more fully use the portable computers we paid so much for.
Except you didn't pay for a portable computer. You are technically savvy. You knew what you were buying. Now that you own it, you want something different. I don't begrudge you deciding you want something different, I just don't think it is reasonable to imply that you were sold something different than you purchased.
> This is why she (and millions like her) chose an iPhone. Are you seriously saying that Apple providing that as an option is anti-consumer?
There has to be a way for the physical owner to have full control over the device. It's not even a matter of inmediate benefit, but rather good consumer/human rights policy.
Much like the right to privacy, data control and GDPR, it didn't matter that many services relied on tracking-based ad revenue to survive, the user's right to privacy superseded that, and so the law was passed.
This is somewhat the same principle. The general "digital right" to control, or to at least have the same degree of control as the manufacturer (for cases where not even they can control it fully after it comes out of the factory), is becoming an increasingly important thing with every passing day. It's no longer only about taste, but about public policy.
I'm not talking about taste, I'm talking about needs. A huge portion of the population wants to outsource their electronic security to someone else. They want a closed, but secure, ecosystem.
You're arguing that they don't know what's good for them, but I'm not seeing how that's a more pro-consumer stance than Apple's willingness to provide what customers want.
> You're arguing that they don't know what's good for them
Not really. In fact, that security and safety can be enforced even under the framework I'm proposing. Windows Defender is quite good these days, same on Android. It really doesn't compare to the early Win32/KitKat days.
"Outsourcing security to someone else" is a slippery slope of a DRM, anti-repair and anti-ownership future. We should be striving for more individual ownership and control over the devices and assets that we rely on for our daily lives, not less.
Yeah, but the point is that, no matter the degree of trust you may individually have, the consumer should always have the full control, which should extend to all devices, not just a choice at the time of purchase.
Ok, so there can be two kinds of iPhones, one for people that want control of their devices, and the other for people who don't. It can be built into the physical phone so there's no chance of compromise. Better?
>There has to be a way for the physical owner to have full control over the device. It's not even a matter of inmediate benefit, but rather good consumer/human rights policy.
Really? Do you have "full control" over your TV? Your dishwasher? Your microwave? Your car?
I hear this argument on HN, but I've never met an iPhone customer who complained about not being able to side-load apps. Anecdata to be sure, but Apple's goal is to satisfy customers and therefore sell lots and lots of phones. If there were significant customer demand, Apple would work to satisfy that demand.
> Really? Do you have "full control" over your TV? Your dishwasher? Your microwave? Your car?
You should. I would 100% support a law that forces companies to not implement digital locks that only they can open, even when the device is no longer owned by them.
A toaster is obviously not a general purpose computing device. It's a device for making toast. A law regarding computing devices that treats it the same as a desktop PC probably won't handle either ideally.
I think this is becoming increasingly less true. The primary media center in our home is an XBox Series X. We use it for games, movies, television, youtube, and music. It gets much more use playing videos and music than it does running games these days.
This is a fair point, but I would note that physical distribution exists for the consoles, which necessitates an alternative marketplace — the used market.
The judge's comments were about the electronic stores of each platform. The distribution costs are only different for physically purchased games, Apple has to distribute just as many devices per customer as Nintendo does.
It's important to mention that consoles are typically sold at-cost or at a loss, so the markup is required to maintain the business model. This is not true of iPhones.
About $40 per unit in profit, compared to about $600 per unit for the iPhone. I'd probably feel differently if Apple clearly had to make it's margins through software.
I believe the previous poster’s point was that it is that very luxury brand margin that incentivizes Apple to protect customer data rather than sell it. The privacy is part of the luxury brand, and the luxury branding pays for the privacy.
I'm in no way defending Apple's stance, but this is a misrepresentation.
They're only demanding a cut if the lead resulting in an external sales comes from the App.
If you market your app on a website and sell there, you don't have to pay Apple anything. If you market inside the appstore, attract leads there and sell, you have to pay Apple.
I would argue that, once the app is installed, the lead for the purchase is being generated by the app, not by Apple or the App Store, and therefore Apple should not be taking a commision for the lead. They could still charge a transaction fee if using Apple Pay. And if users were able to purchase things through the App Store (Apps or Items in the App), then I would consider those to be leads generated by Apple, and applicable to their commission terms.
It's crazy to think that anything you do inside your app between you and your customer is subject to Apple forcefully inserting themselves into the relationship, and then demanding payment.
Apple's marketplace is inside the App Store, not inside the apps that are developed independent of them. You could argue that the apps are not developed independently, as they could (not by choice) use Apple's APIs, but I feel that that is what the $99/yr developer fee entitles the developer to use.
To the general problem; I really hope Apple stops being anti-consumer and anti-developer using these landlord tactics. The (second?) richest company in the world does not need to take these extra commissions. Without these developers, there would be no App Store, and it's in Apple's best interest for them to thrive. Apple is making the calculated decision of how much they can take off the top while still having developers make good products for their platform. Yes, their investors will not be happy that a source of income is being lost, but it's up to Apple to convince them that the good will from consumers and developers will provide more value through other means than that loss of income.
apple designed and built the OS, hardware, APIs, servers for building and hosting your app, payment systems, subscription APIs, developer support etc.
i'd be fine with apple saying "we take 0%, but then you have to do literally everything yourself, have fun" and then you can see how it will work.
i don't understand the entitlement. don't develop for iOS then, or make your own phone. it's not easy and costs a lot of money. 12% doesn't seem like a bad deal to reach billions of people and make money enough to be a mobile developer fulltime.
Sure, they built those things. But is this the place to extract value? Do they not extract value for their work at many other stages in their relationship with both users of their devices and developers of software for their devices? They already make money: 1. Selling the hardware. 2. Subscription for their own software/storage systems. 3. Yearly developer fees. 4. Apple Pay Transaction fees.
Also, a lot of these developers are suggesting they do everything that Apple allows them to do themselves by themselves, and Apple still wants to take a huge cut? If Apple were to say, have the exact same policy but only take a 5% cut, maybe people would balk less?
Some of the largest apps on the platform are free. These companies are using these resources more than smaller developers, but Apple has no way to extract money from these large companies. In that sense, these smaller developers that are subsidizing the platform for these large companies. I'd argue that this isn't the correct structure for the platform to have the apps using the most resources paying their cost.
You say you don't understand the entitlement, and then go on to say 12% is the amount that developers are paying to Apple? Why do you feel the need to use the lowest possible amount rather than the regular going rate?
It's 30%. 30% if you use Apple Pay in your app. 27% + 3% transaction fee when using the web and doing as much as are allowed to do by yourself, by yourself. Please tell me what edge case the 12% applies to, and if we can know how many transactions fall under that slim category.
Apple owns a huge computing platform, and has it locked down so that all commerce must go through them, and takes a huge cut of each transaction. I don't care who else is doing it, but this practice, done to this extent, is damaging to the users and developers for that platform.
The bigger problem (in my opinion) is that the new policy is practically paying for a single link with full-blown transparency. Other than paying for those leads, you have to:
> (a) still offer Apple’s IAP for those items; (b) pay Apple its adjusted 27/12 percent commissions on web sales that come from inside iOS apps; (c) send Apple sales data monthly and submit to audits of their sales; and (d) follow Apple’s stringent design edicts for these in-app links to the web.
Disclosing sales data and submitting to random audits is fairly invasive and has wide anti-trust implications. E.g.: Apple can see how effective external linking is compared to IAP and use that metric. Or they can use that metric from a similar app and guesstimate your customer base, and adjust their speed building a competing service.
Not to mention the added cost of compliance, suddenly an indie developer who could withstand a Shopify/Stripe payment processing setup won’t dare to bother linking, out of fear for messing up a report and getting randomly audited.
(I mean, I get the reason for doing this, since a % of companies will fudge numbers to pay less commission, given the chance. But it’s still just a can of worms.)
> If you market your app on a website and sell there
...then you still have to put your app on the App Store and pay Apple a commission, because they don't allow sideloading.
Which clearly proves that you aren't paying Apple for marketing or lead generation, you're paying for access to the app market. If current antitrust law (mostly written a hundred years ago) doesn't cover that, it's time to update the laws.
If your app is already installed and your app (not the Apple App Store) directs you to a payment on the web, Apple will demand its cut. This case isn't an App Store referral, this the app doing the referral. The app has already achieved installation, the App Store is no longer relevant here. Yet, Apple demands a cut.
If Apple forbids non-Apple Store app stores, how can this legitimately be considered to be lead generation by Apple?
That's like saying that highschools are doing lead generation for universities.
Sure, kids going to university do indeed come from highschool but on the other hand it's not like there was much of a choice or effort by the school involved.
That's not quite true, if the user clicked that link in the last 7 days, Apple wants a cut. That's still ridiculous, and it's still an external platform.
It feels like this comparison only holds for the Steamdeck where Valve would have comparable control and you are staying within their offering/hardware regardless. There is of course no sensible equivalent for the desktop client which sees like 99% of the usage. A better comparison might be regular video game consoles which allow none of this.
Steam is a valid comparison because they used to have IAP-style enforcement: EA’s original dispute and split to their own launcher was because they snuck a DLC store into Dragon Age 2, but used their own billing and paid zero fees. IIRC they tried to justify it by implying the DLC is not downloaded from Steam CDNs, ergo no platform cost, but it got DA2 delisted and EA left (for several years).
To this day I think you can’t sell DLC from outside Steam while in a Steam version — i.e. the in-game UI must use a Steam store API — but you can share DLC, currency, etc. bought elsewhere with the Steam version through your account system. (E.g.: Overwatch 2 credits and content is cross-platform, Sims 4 DLC is cross-launcher, Apex Legends currency and content is cross-launcher, etc.) I’m not sure if it’s an oversight or if Valve and the developer sort of handle it monetarily behind the scenes in some form.
I was wondering how the new App Store rules apply to in-game currencies that are bought on external websites with no in-app links. Presumably these work the same way Kindle or Netflix purchases do?
Currencies are shared across PC and mobile, but some games have restrictions on how you can obtain it:
* In Genshin Impact: if your account was first played / created on mobile, you can only purchase currency on mobile (either platform). Clicking the same button on PC throws an error saying you can only do this on mobile. Other way around (first played on PC) results in an account that can buy currency on all platforms.
* In Hearthstone: There doesn't appear to be a platform limitation for buying in-game packs or stuff; pricing may be different due to regional currency reasons but you can buy on either platform freely. (e.g.: Blizzard's PC marketplace has a handful of currencies but iOS has tens of them with different template prices)
The developer for Genshin is frequently featured by Apple and even has some iOS-exclusive features (e.g.: 120Hz/120FPS is iOS-only), so I assume this was a sort-of privately-negotiated revenue sharing situation.
If I download a free-to-play game from steam and then make an in-app purchase (DLC, loot box, etc) - does Steam not take a cut of that in-app purchase? Serious question, as I haven't used Steam in a while.
Do you also have objections to contracting websites having terms that don’t allow you to cut them out of the equation and directly engage with people you find there?
Usually those exist for a single contract length, and after that you are free to engage however you'd like. That's essentially a headhunting fee and is valid.
That arrangement existing in perpetuity is immoral, and that's what Apple is doing.
It seems to me that he's fine with what Apple's doing, he just objects to "bad cop, bad cop" as a court strategy lest a judge interpret that as intentionally anti-competitive.
I still remember his early fanboy/apologist days and whenever I read him writing (actually "link quoting" because, well, that's what he does) anything even seemingly or notionally "against" Apple, my first suspicion is whether he has seen a drop in his readership and is just working to pull some page views from the other side? There was another one in those days - someone probably working at TechCrunch (I am forgetting his name) among many; Sig.. someone.
> Personally, I am on the record wishing that Apple would allow some sort of “expert” or “developer” mode — chock full of warnings
Next morning Facebook removes its app from Apple Store and directs users to sideload the app, because it needs those sweet permissions that were denied before.
Why is the OS not blocking those perms regardless of where the install comes from?
I mean knowing Apple they'd probably make it so sideloaded apps break the phone more readily on purpose cause they're assholes and petty like that, but permissions should be handled at the OS level and not the app store level.
Well explained. Apple is requiring developers to pay commission on purchases over a website that users were directed to via the app, OVER THE PERIOD OF SEVEN DAYS! Lol. That should be no more than seven hours.
go to site.com/referral?via=apple with warning label on top "Wait seven days for the price to reduce (or Apple will charge us a commission and we will charge you this commission)."
Apple could easily corner the US smartphone market and a big part of the LLM hardware market in a few years.
US smartphone market? It's growing every year even with huge margins, lowering the price would accelerate this pace.
LLM hardware market? Like really, what is the incremental cost for 8gb to 16gb to 32gb to 64gb to 128gb for their macbooks? The could probably shave a few grand off the 128gb and still make a decent profit. Now you have 128gb unified memory macbook going for almost the same price as a rtx 4090 with a computer (and with only 24gb vram). That means a huge shift in hobbyist developers who will turn all their focus to ML with macbooks (e.g. MXL vs Nvidia/cuda). and if they do this with new macbooks, suddenly the market for older slower macbooks collapses, leading to much higher demand and even more hobbyists albeit with slower Cpus/less ram.
It sucks but apple laptop cpus and mobile cpus dominate anything else out there. I wish there were more competition. And their margins are massive.
> It sucks but apple laptop cpus and mobile cpus dominate anything else out there. I wish there were more competition. And their margins are massive.
Ryzen 7940HS and 7945HX are fairly close to the M3 16 core, if they had actually been able to build them on the same node, and if AMD were willing to shell out for the same die size, it's likely that they could have achieved or exceeded the uplift.
> if they had actually been able to build them on the same node, and if AMD were willing to shell out for the same die size, it's likely that they could have achieved or exceeded the uplift.
I mean yeah, probably, but they haven't been able to despite apple coming out of nowhere to dominate the laptop cpu market in performance only a few years ago with their first release m1. If AMD were to shell out more, and be able to build them on the same node, that would probably entail significant R&D costs and costs for die size and possibly raise the price to the m3 max or m3 ultra (whenever that's released).
>Ryzen 7940HS and 7945HX are fairly close to the M3 16 core,
https://nanoreview.net/en/cpu-compare/apple-m3-vs-amd-ryzen-...
fair, i didn't know about these cpus, and it seems they absolutely destroy the base m3 in multicore performance. However, it looks like even the base m3 still far exceeds the 7945HX in igpu performance, power efficiency (probably because 3nm vs 5nm) and slightly beats the 7945HX in single core performance. And the Ryzen 9 is the best AMD has to offer right now, the M3 is the base model (apple still has the pro, the max and the soon to be released ultra). The price of 7945HX laptops also already seems a lot higher than base m3 macbooks (and again I think any ram upcharge is basically pure profit for Apple).
Now i haven't even mentioned AI cores. Even M1 series from years ago still seem far ahead of most laptop cpus today it seems for hobbyists running LLMS. I'm not sure if that's something the 7945HX competes vs Apple with?
Yeah, 7945HX laptops are going to use a dedicated GPU like the 7900M or 4090 because the integrated graphics on there is mostly... vestigial. 2 CU basically means 2 cores (from the last generation) in Apple terms. Rumours are AMD might shove a (laptop) 4070-ish GPU with 40 CU into the next refresh (if I had to guess the numbering, 9950HS) but I don't think they would see a point in going higher than that (if they even try that much), because the higher GPU performance segments are going to be served by their dedicated GPUs paired with the HX CPUs that have 2 CU.
AMD doesn't really have the volume to outbid Apple on the leading nodes, so what they do get is going to keep going to server/HPC. That stuff is more money for them anyway. Adding more cores, both CPU and GPU and shrinking to TSMC's latest node, it isn't easy but it's technically simple enough that they could do it in a few months if they thought there was enough of a market for it. There just isn't, unfortunately.
I'm not going to say that Apple doesn't have the "right" to make these rules, but on an intuitive level they gross me out _more_ than the old version, and it makes me, personally, less likely to invest in writing native apps at all.
Is the reason they “gross you out” more than the old rules simply not simply because you’re thinking about it now? It seems like the rules are only more permissive than they were previously.
no, having to implement the rule where a click from the app lingers and changes the pricing logic for the website, I am relating to that as a form of contamination. The old rules may have been less permissive, but at least they were walled-off.
I’m getting weird vibes from this. I know Gruber is all in on Apple. I myself have a lot of Apple stuff. But he is an outsider, a consumer. I can’t fathom what’s going on in his head to take a position like “we all should pay Apple, and we must find ways to pay even more”. He mentions owning a device to the fullest extent but quickly dismisses it because… users dumb? Install bad software? He himself wrote multiple times about App Store overflowing with crappy apps and rip-offs. Apple doesn’t demonstrate superior curation and quality control. They frustrate developers of good apps and let through tonnes of shit. Also banned any hint of mature content.
In my eyes any sane customer take should look something like “yeah, they complied in the shittiest possible way because their legal team said it’s the only way. Let’s hope they’ll find a way to make it work the right way.”
I register a prediction. Once EU DMA goes into effect and forces some way of side loading on iOS we’ll see absolutely no change in user exploitation. No amount of bad software on iOS will meaningfully change the situation to justify Apple’s involvement in the app distribution.
The longer this case goes on, the scummier Apple looks. Firing back with a 27% cut isn't going to relieve pressure from this vessel; its going to piss off developers even more, its going to drag the case out even longer, and frankly its going to become evidence in an inevitable future, separate trial concerning broader anti-competitiveness.
Apple could make stupid amounts of money by just lowering the cut to 7%. Just lower it! You'll make the IAP system more accessible to your mega-business peers, and one company like Netflix deciding that 7% is an acceptable cut is worth ten-thousand indie developers suffering through 30% (or, I suppose, 15% if under a million now).
Anyone who believes their behavior is about security is being intentionally daft about their inaction in lowering these fees. If its about security: lower the fees. Make these problems go away. The judge insinuated it herself; there is more a case here that their fees are too high, but that's not what Epic pursued, so they lost.
The alternative is dark for both Apple and Apple's users. There's no innovation in the iOS app ecosystem anymore, beyond thirty copycat ChatGPT apps. Why should there be? Software is expensive to build, and Apple is putting up a toll-booth larger than the US Tax System to enter. There exist alternate realities where the iPhone Pro and iPad Pro are actually professional devices, which cultivate the creation of bespoke, powerful software for the form-factor. Gates defined a platform as a piece of software itself could be created with. Apple, the company, could never be created within Apple's world. Apple doesn't create platforms. I'm not confident they create much of anything anymore. Their most profitable skill nowadays is extraction, not creation.
> The alternative is dark for both Apple and Apple's users. There's no innovation in the iOS app ecosystem anymore, beyond thirty copycat ChatGPT apps
There's a multi-billion dollar revenue line item for App Store ads that Apple can't lose. Nobody on the Apple software side gives a rat's ass about innovation.
> most consumers’ Windows PCs, and many Macs, are riddled with bad software (privacy invasive, resource hogging, and all sorts of anti-user shenanigans you’d never think of) that App Store policies forbid.
I can't confirm "most", but it's possible.
A retailer can sell thousands of Windows PCs for $200 because of pack-in, preloaded apps license deals.
It's one aspect of Apple's self image as a high end boutique brand that they forbid such avenues of monetization. They fear the entropy of enshittification.
And it's possible to appreciate their paranoia...
For my past sins, (some months spent in the 1990s Netscape group that licensed product placement on the home page), as a side project I've been refurbishing a neighbor's recently acquired collection of four Windows laptops, a 16-year-old iMac, and an HP all-in-one (like iMac) desktop.
Customer states HP desktop is unusable, became too slow.
This HP Intel Atom Windows desktop was thrashing its hard disk, unresponsive for more than an hour after booting. Because security:
There were four (4) antivirus programs scanning the disk, intercepting runtime calls to windows api, doing antivirus stuff:
- Windows Defender
- Intel NetSecure ®
- HP service apps
- MacAfee antivirus suite
Also Windows Update was scanning and installing crucial licensed apps like Candy Crush Saga and had just installed new Microsoft Edge browser. Edge was eager to help out with full-screen "Onboarding" to introduce awesome new features, had another instance that was a pop up widget to tell me that Brad Pitt was having Elvis' baby and homeowners in your area are using this one weird trick to gain financial freedom and you may also like
Machine had a single channel of 4GB SODIMM and 500 GB of mechanical hard drive: "rotating rust" driving rotating tiles in the Start Menu.
Thing is: this is relatively CLEAN setup. There were no scamming web toolbars. This was the setup shipped with the computer. Customer had added Microsoft Office 2016, Google Chrome, and had them well set up.
This was an improvement over many of the Windows machines I have cleaned up in the past.
The Mac was OK... for 2010. But that's another story.
That's the inconsistency I always bring up. One could argue Apple's massive cut and anti-competitive practices make sense if the App Store was some kind of idyllic garden, or even had the mediocre signal/noise ratio of Steam, but it absolutely is not and does not.
Boot up practically any Windows machine that hasn’t run for a few months and you’ll get the same thing - unusable while Windows update & Windows Defender both hog all the resources.
> Basically, there’s an argument that iOS devices should be more like traditional PCs (including the Mac), on ethical or moral grounds. The “it’s my device, I should decide and control what software runs on it” argument. I get it. But I also get that most consumers’ Windows PCs, and many Macs,2 are riddled with bad software (privacy invasive, resource hogging, and all sorts of anti-user shenanigans you’d never think of) that App Store policies forbid. App Store review is far from perfect — I mean come on, that should go without saying — but it is undeniable that adversarial software is not a problem for any typical users on iOS.
This totally ignores that it's not a problem on Android either, a mobile platform that has enabled sideloading from the start and has a much larger marketshare than Apple.
There's some malware yes and some users are tricked into installing it but it's not widespread. And Android has a really great and safe FOSS ecosystem in F-Droid.
> There are a lot of Mac users whose Macs are overrun by adware and other scammy software. I’m not talking about viruses or malware, even — but apps that just abuse the largely free-for-all nature of the Mac platform.
Excuse my French, but this sounds like a take you'd expect from a delusional fanboy. The Mac "abuse" the author talks about is fictional. It doesn't even exist to any relevant degree on modern Windows systems.
As a largely outside observer, the arguments feel extremely disingenuous to me, the equivalent to cheating taxes by moving corporations "off-shore" while its real activities remain on-shore.
In other words, companies like to take advantage of all of the benefits purchased with taxes such as enforcement of copyright, the court systems, police, an educated workforce, etc... but not actually pay any taxes themselves.
To translate the headline: "Coming to grips with the government's unshakable sense of entitlement to taxation."
As an iPhone user, I'm happy to pay a 30% tax to avoid the relentless scamming, outright malware, and impossible-to-cancel subscriptions in every other software market out there that isn't similarly controlled. I'm happy to pay this in the same way I'm happy to pay my taxes so that I can live in a civilized society.
No matter how innocent everyone demanding this change claims to be, the inevitable outcome will be this loophole being abused mercilessly by everyone to avoid the rules and restrictions of the Apple Store. No more easy cancellations. Unclear terms. Personal data collection and onselling of that data in bulk to anyone with a checkbook. Etc...
> As an iPhone user, I'm happy to pay a 30% tax to avoid the relentless scamming, outright malware, and impossible-to-cancel subscriptions in every other software market out there that isn't similarly controlled. I'm happy to pay this in the same way I'm happy to pay my taxes so that I can live in a civilized society.
In that case, Apple should allow in-app purchases to be priced 30% higher, rather than mandating equivalent pricing to other platforms across the board.
In Australia, stores must show the final price including taxes. Vendors are not allowed to advertise one price and then charge another, higher one, at the checkout.
If Apple allowed this, then the inevitable result will be for every subscription purchase in-app to have the following blurb:
“Go to our web store for 30% off!”
What they most definitely, for sure, absolutely will not include is the rest of what that should say, which is: “Outside of the oversight of Apple, where we will be free to trick you, scam you, sell your info, and make it nigh impossible to unsubscribe.”
Speaking of which, that reminds me: I have to call my bank to reverse charges on what I thought of was a one time payment to a website that magically auto renews itself quarterly (not monthly, that I would notice more easily!). Oh, and that quarterly cadence means that Mastercard disputes won’t go through either because it’s too far in the past. Awesome.
I can’t wait for this to be the new normal for iPhone apps.
Is Apple demanding 30% on all external purchases, or is it still the 15%/30% split based on total revenue like normal?
I've seen questions on HN before about who to use for payment processing for SaaS and/or software sales, and usually Paddle or Lemon Squeezy get suggested since they're Agents of Record that provide international sales tax compliance, chargeback protection, etc.
Both are 5% + $0.50 per transaction and you're good to sell worldwide without worrying about time-wasting nonsense when it's time to cook the books for the year.
I'm assuming Apple acts in the same capacity for App Store in-app purchases and subscriptions? (unsure, this is why I'm asking)
If it's 15% for the vast majority of app developers, the point where it would be more economical to use one of those two external payment processors instead of direct through Apple would be $4.99 per transaction -- how many apps are selling in-app purchases / subscriptions for more than $4.99 that aren't aggressive impulse purchases? I've definitely seen $9.99/week, $19.99/month, $99.99/year grift subscriptions for video editing apps, that kind of thing, but the people who are psychotic enough to pay that aren't the kind of person that would actually follow through with leaving an app and completing a purchase through a website.. so I guess I'm curious, how many apps are doing huge numbers with in-app purchases greater than $4.99?
I know that's a lot of dumb questions -- just trying to understand at what point does this tip over from minor annoyance to significant loss of revenue, and how large of a population of app developers / publishers does this affect materially?
Also, is this iOS-specific, or for Mac App Store apps as well? I can definitely see it being a problem with Mac software that costs $80 a license, but it feels like maybe it's not as big of a deal for the average iOS app?
Speaking both as one of the most vocal defenders of Apple on these threads and as someone who writes those defenses on a Linux machine and an Android phone, I'd respectfully ask that you not post baseless insinuation of astroturfing. We can respectfully disagree with each other without implying that one or the other of us is a paid off corporate shill.
> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
To be pedantic, that wasn't an insinuation, it was an accusation. I also believe it is a false accusation, since Apple has many happy customers and employees on HN, but he is within the letter of the law.
Just perplexed at how fast any (even well balanced) critique on Apple is so quickly down voted here at HN. Maybe more people prefer brand over reality than I thought.
Again, for me it has nothing to do with brand loyalty—the only Apple device I use is the Mac that I have to use for work, and I regularly miss my Linux environments.
My reactions come mostly from perplexity at how many people so thoroughly misunderstood Apple's 30% fee as a ridiculously overpriced (10x) payment processor fee. That's never been how Apple or the law has thought about it, and the genuine surprise that Apple would insist on being paid is confusing to me.
It's up for debate whether the 30% was justified, but it was never in question that they'd want something.
Because Apple is a rare non-shittified company and people are apt to let them do whatever they want, in fear of upsetting the balance that keeps Apple products pleasant to use.
> This cannot be repeated enough. It’s harmful to almost everyone to allow sideloading on iPhone. Power without the knowledge to use it responsibly results in actual real world harm. This may sound paternalistic but it’s what it is. I’m all in for a developer mode with a knowledge/competency check, choke full of warnings, make the user wait x days before it is enabled, whatever. But don’t allow it, not in a way a scammer could tell my grandma “oh yes we need to use that feature behind the warning to refund the funds to your bank account, now please tap accept…”
Most people don't want to live in a lowest common denominator world dumbed down to the point where even the stupidest/most gullible person one could ever imagine can't possibly screw up.
> Most people don't want to live in a lowest common denominator world
Most of the HN crowd may indeed be like that. Meanwhile the rest of the world wants devices easy to understand and use, devices that get out of their way as much as possible.
I’d even argue Apple’s design decisions forcing everyone to use their devices The Right Way (tm) is beneficial to even devs, by preventing the technically possible but slightly non-optimal use cases devolving into increasingly unoptimal hacky and clunky use cases, creating tension between the design of the product and what it’s used for, leading to dissatisfaction. Apple devices proactively resist being used outside of their purpose, and this is a good thing. It provides a clear mental model to the user for what it is and what it does, resulting in peace of mind (low cognitive load).
I know this is controversial but whatever, I don’t care.
Amazing everyone loves free market capitalism when it comes to taking fees for their SAAS. But when someone else takes a cut after providing the platform which is optional to join or utilise in the first place, that’s not fair and everyone wants the regulators in.
As an end user I really don’t want to buy from anywhere other than the App Store or pay a subscription through anything else. Why? Because prior to it existing it was more difficult to cancel subs than a hooky porn site.
The tech industry are two faced hypocrites. And attention seekers.
You don’t have to play in the market. It’s not like there aren’t other ones. Innovate. Create a new market. That’s what you keep telling us you do.
> Because prior to it existing it was more difficult to cancel subs than a hooky porn site.
One click cancel on PayPal has been available for years. Also, doing something as menial as canceling a subscription shouldn't add a 30% tax to every single transaction. Apple charges that because it can, not because it's the cost of doing business.
> As an end user I really don’t want to buy from anywhere other than the App Store
"As an end user I really don't want to use any browser other than Internet Explorer"
You are entitled to that opinion, but having alternatives does not stop you from enjoying that. The existence of sketchy porn sites and alternatives App Stores in no way prevents you from boycotting everything besides the single platform you support.
So much on this topic lacks real grounding.
1. Apple's take is legal. Even Sweeney admits his objection is only on bad faith grounds; there's no failure to comply.
2. Gruber and others want Apple to be nicer. But doing more than the law requires just invites more lawsuits.
3. People objecting to 30% fail to mention the small-business program, where if you have revenues below $1M, Apple's take is 15%. So these businesses are significant, and many, many years of expectations are baked into their business models. Discounts for nothing would just be a giveaway.
Regular people are entitled to have their devices from Apple just work: no viruses, no adversarial software, no snooping by Apple or others, no creeping data overages, effective and automated (security) updates, and no premature end-of-life. The cost of even a little bit of that would be the biggest tax on productivity and enjoyment.