I think a lot of the takes on this are coming at it from the wrong angle - "Why does Apple deserve a third of app revenue?"
What if we flip it to: "Why do app developers deserve access to Apple's customers?"
30% is the price to access Apple's customers.
If you're a developer and don't like this, then don't build an iOS app. Build Android-only, or build a web app.
If you're a customer and don't like this, then don't buy an iPhone. Vote with your feet. Buy an Android. Or a Pinephone/Fairphone/Librem which are as close to a general purpose computer-as-a-phone outside of the Apple-Google duopoly that there is at the current time.
I understand that the value of the Apple ecosystem is not just what Apple bring to the table. It's the ecosphere of apps available. So there's definitely a symbiosis here. But Apple is like China here. No matter how ethically questionable, there will always be those for whom the market that Apple represents is too tempting to ignore. Even with a 30% cost of doing business. Meaning there will always be app developers building apps for iOS.
> What if we flip it to: "Why do app developers deserve access to Apple's customers?"
As I posted in another comment, part of the reason Apple has so many customers is that their platform has so many apps. If all developers left the App Store overnight, would anyone go out and buy an iPhone the next day?
Apple benefits greatly from their app ecosystem, even ignoring the 30% App Store cut. They should be careful not to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
I absolutely agree, however the point I made is that the temptation of the market share means there will always be app developers willing to step in to replace any that withdraw from the market.
If I'm an app developer, from a purely financial perspective, why would I forego a market of Apple's size, even with a 30% tariff? Sure, I may lobby for change, or even go to court to try to reduce that tariff. But while I'm doing that, I sure won't be leaving money on the table. And there's little chance I'll abandon that market in the interim, in order to maintain an ethical position.
I don't understand this argument. Would it apply anywhere else? Could some company sell houses where they demand 30% of the price of every appliance you buy? You're the housing company's customer so they're bringing you their customers apparently.
Could some car company demand 30% of all gas, tires, oil, and electricity? You're the car company's customer. Could a refrigerator company demand 30% of all groceries you put in it?
There have been laws that disallow you to limit customer choice. For one example, a company can't force you to buy 1st party parts for repairs
You're position seems to be if they can prevent people from doing something with their device they don't like and people still buy it then that's ok. So if a sofa manufacture found a way to prevent people of color from sitting on it and people bought it that would be perfectly fine by your position I guess. I could certain make a fridge that complained if you put something in it that had no RFID tag and that those tags must correspond to items they've licensed.
In any case, my position is, no company should have that kind of power, period. A house company shouldn't be able to decide who my guests are who what items I put in it. A fridge company shouldn't be able to decide what items I keep cold. A cabinet company shouldn't be able to to decide what I store in my cabinets. And a computer company should not be able to decide what I can run on my computer (smartphones are computers).
Apple has to pay to keep your app hosted in the store. They have to pay to check your app for safety. They have to pay developers to maintain the store. Your fridge doesn't have that. Your fridge manufacturer made something to host your food. It costs them zero dollars to perform the hosting. In fact, you have to pay another company (the electric company) that hosting cost. If a fridge manufacturer decided to become the electrical company, then it would make more sense.
Apple has to pay costs to maintain the app store, the operating system for the app store, and the hosting costs in-between.
This is mostly just arguing accounting, which is something Tim Cook admitted under oath that Apple doesn't do [1].
The benefit of such a simple fee structure is that it becomes insidiously difficult to ask questions and receive legitimate answers about equity. How much does it cost to host the app? To pay engineers & marketers to build security scanning and storefront features?
These are not questions we generally ask of private institutions. But Apple's products are decreasingly operating like a private institution; they're looking a lot more like a public institution; a critical platform that hundreds of millions of people worldwide rely on for productivity, entertainment, communication, and commerce. We do ask these questions of our governments; we want to know how much we're spending on things like the military, roads, NASA, because knowing these numbers is critical in assessing effectiveness and accountability.
Here's a question: Apple does invest some amount of money into application security scanning and reviews. Now there's an important domain; keeping your users safe. How much? We don't know. What we do know: They're REALLY bad at it. Inarguably, the worst in the industry; right down there with Microsoft Teams and Log4J. They keep many things quiet, but they can't keep that quiet. Are they spending billions, and seeing such poor outcomes? Are they spending thousands, and should be spending far more, but won't? We don't know.
This always leads to: If users had an issue with the platform, they would leave. Let's play in the space where this is true; where the smartphone market is full of fungible platforms (it isn't, but:). Would users leave if they knew just how bad the App Store & iOS was at keeping them safe? Many users don't even know what those two things are. But they still deserve to be kept safe; maybe even more-so than more experienced users like us. The onus is on Apple to keep them safe, and Apple has spent a decade failing at it. Where does the onus fall, then? To the void? It's reasonable to argue: Experts, and the Government. Someone needs to hold them accountable. If a bridge fails, injuring dozens of people, we don't say "well, they tried their best! just think on all the cars that were able to use it without it falling." Nor, do we expect drivers to do an engineering deep dive on every bridge they cross, so they can make an informed decision about which one they want to take to work today.
I won't argue Apple's safety record on absolute terms, but I am fully convinced that it is safer than the Android alternatives in the smartphone space. This is the one reason why even after I de-Appled my PC (sold the MBA and bought a made-for-linux laptop), de-Appled my cloud storage provider, and de-Appled my email, I still use an iPhone.
That totally happens by the way. When we built our house, we had to use bathroom supplier X and the builder took a cut (might very well be 30%). Same for the kitchen.
The builder brings in the customers, and the bathroom and kitchen suppliers seem to be happy to share a ~30% commission for it.
(note: this is in Belgium, but I assume similar setups are commonplace in other places)
This is way too charitable to the largest company in the world, one which enjoys a duopoly over the smartphone market in the United States. If you are Lyft and you don’t have an iOS app, then you probably go out of business.
Lyft would only go out of business (without an iOS app) because there are Lyft competitors who won't cede the Apple customer segment. If all those players stayed Android-only, not only would they survive, but they'd be turning Android into a more compelling alternative. But this would require two things - for them to collude to stay off iOS, and for no new competitors to write an iOS app.
If having access to the Apple customer segment is the difference between success or failure - even despite the 30% tariff - then why is it strange that access to that segment has a price? This is a market.
That’d be a fair point if the Google Play store didn’t charge the same 30% fees. As things stand, you have no choice but to pay these fees if you want to distribute a native app to smartphone customers.
That’s why the market isn’t fair. Because two companies control essentially all app distribution, and can charge whatever fees they want with no credible challenge from any market force.
These companies have also shown they intend to squeeze the market for whatever they can without any sympathy for consumers or app developers. I think the only reasonable option is for the government to step in with antitrust measures.
I agree with you but I think a far more effective way to "win" this for consumers, would be to press both Apple and Google to clarify disambiguate the 30% from the total cost to the consumer. i.e. just like on a grocery receipt where you clearly see the sales tax you pay as a separate item from the price charged by the vendor, this is what people should be fighting for - both in the app stores, and on the receipts that are emailed to people for their purchases.
It would (a) make the tariff visible to all consumers not just the techies, and subsequently (b) create significant customer-led pressure to lower the tarrif (I suspect something on the order of 10% would probably be acceptable to most customers as that aligns with typical sales taxes give or take).
I think price transparency would be a good start towards lowering fees. I doubt that Apple or Google would do even this without being forced to, though.
I realize that the only reason they don’t have an iOS app is because Apple didn’t let them, but OnlyFans is doing very well as a web based service. It’s certainly not iOS-or-nothing.
> If you're a customer and don't like this, then don't buy an iPhone. Vote with your feet. Buy an Android.
That's a good option. At the same time I can also work together with other citizens of my country to force Apple to allow alternative app stores. Our reason would be that we think society stands to benefit from this. Whether or not Apple "deserves" [1] a third of app revenue doesn't matter.
Allowing alternative app stores would then be the price Apple has to pay to access our market. They might not like this, but they're free to ignore this market. Other companies will be happy to comply.
[1]: I'm not sure that it's meaningful to say a trillion-dollar company does or does not deserve something.
I actually love this answer, but I will point out that any arguments relating to "deserving" - especially in relation to companies' profits - becomes a very different discussion. We live in a capitalist system and "deserves" = "can achieve within the law". I offer no assessment as to whether this is a good system or not, but its the one we have.
It's absolutely reasonable for a government to impose its own market rules - but even there, the government follows its own logic for what to impose. Either to benefit consumers, protect local industries or industry segments (e.g. smaller companies), or increase tax revenue. What's the logic behind such a restriction? Unless applied to all app stores, this would be unfair to Apple.
For both customers and app-developers, we make an assessment of value and decide which phone to buy or which phone to target with apps. For app developers this involves a contractual obligation they freely sign on to. Making an assessment of value that is based on not meeting the obligations you agreed to is an act of bad faith. You don't "deserve" to play on my turf if you're not following my rules. Go play in someone else's yard. I can see how it makes sense for a government to assess whether everyone's yards needs to be follow a basic set of rules. That currently exists in the sense that no contract or agreement can upend the laws of the land. Is new law required here? Perhaps, but then it won't be Apple specific. Depending on how its worded it may apply more broadly than to just app stores. In which case there's a whole raft of rent-seekers who may not want such laws.
Fundamentally, it boils down to this (in my view):
Are smartphone ecosystems private property upon which third parties are allowed to conduct commerce subject to the property owners rules?
OR
Are smartphone ecosystems a public commons upon which third parties are free to conduct commerce as they wish?
I completely agree that any new law should apply to not just Apple and iOS, but to all similar products. Of course what exactly "similar" should mean is likely a tricky question. Perhaps a rule like this would be sensible: If a device allows users to install third-party software, then it (also) has to allow for a reasonable way to install third-party software that doesn't involve the platform owner acting as a gatekeeper.
> If you're a customer and don't like this, then don't buy an iPhone. Vote with your feet
Alright, so then if microsoft wanted to ban alternative web browsers, or engage in anti-competitive practices that are currently illegal, and they lost the court case for, your answer is "Yes, that should be allowed for microsoft to do"?
Most of society would agree that laws that outlaw anti-competitive behavior are a good thing.
And if you opinion is the naive "just vote with your feet, lol" position, then you need to bite the bullet and just straight up say that you think that anti-trust law is bad. Just say that you support the standard oil monopoly, or the microsoft monopoly and be honest about it.
Microsoft's share of the desktop market at the time was very close to unity. You couldn't vote with your feet because there was nowhere to go. Even now, MS have about 75% of the PC OS market.
Apple's share of the smartphone market is around 15% globally, and 55% within the US. Under no definition can Apple be said to be in the same position that Microsoft was. You can indeed vote with your feet and many do (in both directions).
Anti-trust law is designed to do two things. Prevent companies from becoming monopolies in a market, and break up companies that are monopolies. By the numbers, Apple is not a monopoly, and there are plenty of healthy alternatives to Apple. Anti-trust law is just fine and dandy and I support it. It just does not apply here.
In the Internet age, monopolies should be defined in the 2nd degree.
It should not be about how many consumers using X anymore. It should be about how many consumers are related to consumers using X.
The reality is internet network effects create too much concentration of power. The question is how hard is it for a new business to build a dense network? And who profits from it being difficult?
Microsoft's anti-trust charges arrived in 1998, years before endemic Internetification of social interaction and making use of business's services. There were charged for attempting to control the Internet.
Apple's hypothetical anti-trust charges in 2022 would arrive years before endemic open APIs and personal data ownership. They would be charged for attempting to control people's freedom to interact with each other regardless of each others chosen platform.
We have court precedent that says otherwise. The Epic vs Apple case had at least 1 count that defined Apple's behavior as being illegally anti-competitive.
> Under no definition
Yes there is a definition. Under the definition that Judge Gonzalez Rogers used, they are large enough that some behavior is illegally anti-competitive.
So yes. An actual judge, who is the authority on the matter, disagrees with you, that it is impossible for apple to engage in illegal anti-competitive behavior.
> It just does not apply here.
Actually, it already did apply. Judge Gonzalez Rogers applied it to Apple.
"While Apple is not considered a monopoly and did not engage in anti-trust behavior on nine of ten counts, Apple’s conduct in enforcing anti-steering restrictions is anticompetitive."
Apple are currently appealing the anti-steering restriction.
So then, yes, on 1 count it did engage in illegal anti-competitive behavior.
See, you were the one trying to claim that it is completely impossible, that any definition of anti-trust law would cover Apple's behavior. And we have evidence that this is false.
Clearly, your previous extremely strong claim, of zero possibility of anti-trust behavior, is wrong. Because on 1 count, it was ruled that it was illegally anti-competitive.
Glad we could clear that up.
If you wanted to be more accurate, you could have instead said something like "Apple's position in the market is complicated. It does not have complete control of the market, but it has a large enough control of the market, that some of its most egregiously bad behavior, could be illegal. Really, things could go either way on some of its actions".
That would be a much better, and more nuanced statement, that opens the possibility for some of Apple's behavior to fall under anti-trust law, but not all. Clearly it is not as absurdly in Apple's favor you were trying to claim, and it is not as simple as "just vote with your feet, they aren't doing anything illegal or anti-competitive".
Leaving aside the possibility that Apple have a good chance of overturning the anti-steering ruling, I'd like to ask you directly - what is stopping you as either a customer or a developer from buying an Android phone, or developing exclusively for the Android ecosystem? i.e. why can't you just vote with your feet?
Because Apple's actions are illegally anti-competitive, and I support existing anti-trust laws.
If you think that it is totally OK to engage in illegal anti-competitive behavior, then just say that. Otherwise this is the answer.
The answer is that we have anti-trust law for a reason. So if you disagree then you need to say that you want anti-competitive behavior to be legal and bite that bullet of being in favor of that stuff.
So go ahead and just say that you support microsoft anti-competitive behavior or if you think that it is not OK, then whatever reason you have for saying that anti-competitive behavior is bad, I can use whatever reason that is.
> Because Apple's actions are illegally anti-competitive, and I support existing anti-trust laws.
Sorry but that's not a reason. You indeed can choose a different smartphone and smartphone ecosystem (as a customer), and you can choose to boycot Apple as a developer, and tell your customers that iPhone users are stuck with the web app while Android users get the benefit of better integration and features. These are real choices that people and companies are making today.
As I said in another comment, you absolutely can pursue legal remedies either through the courts and/or the political process - which is also happening right now. But absolutely nothing is stopping you from buying and using a Samsung/LG/Pixel/etc phone right now, and having a really good (by all accounts) experience.
And to make myself completely clear to you - I do not want anti-competitive behaviour to be legal. I just don't think this is anti-competitive.
Also worth noting that Microsoft filed an amicus brief in support of Epic in its fight against Apple. Google did not.
Ok, then that is not a reason that you can use against microsoft or standard oil. Thats your position that you have that you have to bite the bullet on.
> These are real choices that people and companies are making today.
Ok. Then in your opinion, those are "real choices" that people can use against microsoft or standard oil.
I don't know about Standard Oil, but I absolutely do know about Microsoft. In the late 90's and early 00's there was no realistic alternative to Microsoft Windows. So no, they are decidedly not the same. Not sure why you can't see the difference.
Microsoft engaged in illegal anti-competitive practices. As well as how Apple has engaged in illegal anti-competitive practices, as according to the decision of Judge Gonzalez Rogers.
Honestly, I can see validity in both your comment and the parent comment that you're arguing against. But I'll press you a little, if only to understand your point better:
> Microsoft's share of the desktop market at the time was very close to unity.
> Apple's share of the smartphone market is around... 55% within the US.
At what percentage of the market should Apple be required to loosen their grip over their platform / open up their marketplace? Is there a specific number they could reach where you'd feel comfortable placing more restrictions on these practices?
Good question. I don't have a view. Though the boiling frog analogy is probably apt so there should be a threshold or some agreed metric of "competitiveness". One of the key aspects though is the disparity between US market share vs global market share. Given that globally, the remaining 85% of market share are virtually all Android, is penalising Apple increasing or reducing competitiveness? I don't know there's a clear or objectively fair answer.
Good luck! Safari is crippled. The examples are too numerous to list but even the UX around existing features that would bring Web apps closer to on-par with App Store apps is terrible. For example my friend was sad that Wordle wasn't an app because they wanted it on their home screen. No problem I said! I know you can add shortcuts on iOS. But they couldn't find the option. They even game me the phone and I couldn't find it in the 30s I looked! I'm sure it is there somewhere but it is clear that the UX is damanaged to keep the moat between native and web artificially high.
Huh, maybe there's an opportunity to make an app that appifies appfiable sites. Like a captive browser. That app could be free. But Apple would find a way to say it's not OK with their rules and boot it from the store.
> 30% is the price to access Apple's customers.
Perhaps, but you'll notice many people don't agree, and those people participate in politics, and some of them will say "company store!!" and demand statutory or judicial intervention, and who knows, they might get it. Lucky for Apple 99.9% of their customers aren't those people.
I assume you are implying "access to all app providers on the phone of their choice". What about those app developers that have chosen not to target a market? For example there are plenty of app developers that are iOS-only, and some that are Android-only. Do you then force them to target both systems? (since the customers deserve it). Would you enforce this on PC developers too? I'd love to have native Microsoft Office apps on my linux laptop. But I'm not holding my breath.
What if we flip it to: "Why do app developers deserve access to Apple's customers?"
30% is the price to access Apple's customers.
If you're a developer and don't like this, then don't build an iOS app. Build Android-only, or build a web app.
If you're a customer and don't like this, then don't buy an iPhone. Vote with your feet. Buy an Android. Or a Pinephone/Fairphone/Librem which are as close to a general purpose computer-as-a-phone outside of the Apple-Google duopoly that there is at the current time.
I understand that the value of the Apple ecosystem is not just what Apple bring to the table. It's the ecosphere of apps available. So there's definitely a symbiosis here. But Apple is like China here. No matter how ethically questionable, there will always be those for whom the market that Apple represents is too tempting to ignore. Even with a 30% cost of doing business. Meaning there will always be app developers building apps for iOS.