[peterallport]

Apple must allow alternate payment modes without imposing a gatekeeper tax. It must be consistent without exceptions (i.e. not just Amazon). The issue is not the gratuitous fee, it is the lack of choice.

iOS is more ubiquitous than macOS yet more restrictive--it cannot last. This entitlement is so restrictive -- it just seems vindictive. Apple's market share and success means additional responsibility. The argument that it's their App Store and therefore they can do whatever they want is a dubious defence. They owe their loyal developers more than this.

[nostromo]

I will risk an avalanche of downvotes and steel man Apple's argument. :)

Have you ever gotten stuck with a monthly fee for something that's hard to cancel? It's a real pain the butt, no?

But that never really happens on Apple devices, because Apple makes it incredibly easy to cancel subscriptions. You don't have to call anyone, you don't have to struggle with a bad website -- you just click cancel on your phone and it's done. And it's all in one place too -- no bank statement required.

They are also a check on other dark patterns, like silently increasing charges without a clear notification to customers. I don't even get spammed because Apple proxies my emails from app developers.

One of the main reasons I buy things from Apple (on my device) and Amazon (if it's a physical good) is so that I have a company I sorta trust to do the right thing if things go sideways (cancelations, returns, fraud, etc.).

Once every app developer is pushing me to enter my credit card on their website, that all goes out the window. Dark patterns common on the web and on Android will take over the iOS ecosystem too.

I also am going to take an unpopular opinion and say that Apple probably earns that fee. The fact that Android isn't that valuable to app developers proves that Apple's reputation and standards are what drives a lot of their app store revenue. App devs feel like they're providing all the value, but I suspect it's often not truly the case. I know this is an unpopular opinion amongst us devs.

I don't even know if I truly buy these arguments, but I thought it'd be more interesting here if there was at least one comment defending Apple.

[OsrsNeedsf2P]

The main argument that you buy Apple because you can trust the payment system doesn't really go against the anticompetitive argument Epic is making.

Re Android:

* Android has the same 30% fee * Android controls the Play Store IAPs (dark patterns) almost identically to Apple

- Mobile dev of 3 years

[KingMob]

> Have you ever gotten stuck with a monthly fee for something that's hard to cancel? It's a real pain the butt, no?

Not at all, credit card charge-backs are easy. I don't need Apple at all.

In fact, Apple acting as the intermediary makes things worse, because if I wish to dispute/chargeback a payment with a particular app, I have to do that to Apple, which could have unrelated negative effects on my other purchases through them.

[beanjuiceII]

Apple doesn't have dark patterns? Tell that to my credit card bills

[smoldesu]

> One of the main reasons I buy things from Apple (on my device) and Amazon (if it's a physical good)

You don't have a choice, from Apple. With Amazon you can buy your Purina and flip-flops off a third-party, but where else do you buy a calculator app for iPhone?

The problem with this steelman is that giving third-parties more options should change nothing for you. If you're ideologically opposed to anyone that doesn't use Apple's or Amazon's fulfillment system, it doesn't matter where the competitors are anyways. In a post-sideloading world you'd keep using Apple's App Store the same way millions of Android users never enable Developer Mode. Both sides get what they want.

[dangus]

The courts specifically took this issue off the table. It sounds shocking and unfair, but if you read what they said they point out that this is a pretty standard practice among similar industries. The App Store isn’t just a payment processor. It’s giving you access to Apple IP (e.g., development tools, standard libraries, etc). Apple wrote libraries like SwiftUI and UIKit that are all proprietary code. That SDK saves you the effort of writing all that code yourself as the app developer.

The court from the start basically declared that this is what everyone else does. Epic themselves operate this way - check out the licensing model for Unreal Engine.

There was no antitrust issue being litigated here. We can all believe that there should be, but there isn’t, and this isn’t the right type of court for that issue.

Technically, the court granted Epic’s wish, Apple is now giving you the freedom to choose a different payment processor and deducting the market rate cost of doing so. The only bit left to resolve is whether Epic’s argument that Apple’s compliance is not in good faith sticks.

[lolinder]

This argument has been repeatedly made over the past 24 hours with a lot of emotion but little justification.

The judge forced Apple to unbundle their payments. Apple's solution to that is probably overly restrictive. And I suspect that you're right that 27% is too large a cut to survive.

With both of those points granted, though, your argument seems to be that Apple should be obliged to host, distribute, and market apps (including the burden of moderation and malware prevention) for free. That any commission is too much of a commission.

Can I ask you to elaborate on why you believe that Apple should be singled out and mandated to perform a service for free?

[Someone]

> And I suspect that you're right that 27% is too large a cut to survive.

I don’t see that being killed soon. The 3% for payment processors is a lot higher than the 0,2% or 0,3% limits for debet/credit card payments within the EU (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/fees-for-..., and AFAIK no payment processor decided to leave the EU market because they couldn’t earn money anymore.

There also is ‘prior art’ for that 3%/27% split in the case of dating apps in the Netherlands, where the Dutch regulator declared that OK (https://techcrunch.com/2022/06/13/apple-dutch-dating-apps-pa...). AFAIK, there hasn’t been further action on that front.

[beanjuiceII]

They don't have to perform that service if they allow other app stores or people install apps like they can on macos. The app store is more for Apple than it is for devs

[OsrsNeedsf2P]

Other than the fact I spent 1'000$ on my iPhone?

[asadotzler]

>your argument seems to be that Apple should be obliged to host, distribute, and market apps (including the burden of moderation and malware prevention) for free.

OR, you know, let me use an alternate store that has the policies I approve of.

[aurareturn]

>Apple must allow alternate payment modes without imposing a gatekeeper tax.

And I want to put my product in Walmart for free while Walmart pays for the warehouse, staff, marketing, returns, and product inspection.

[brandon272]

How is a phone that I pay for at all analagous to Walmart?

[huytersd]

They have loyal devs and a monetizable ecosystem for devs exactly because they have their policies in place. Apple doesn’t cut corners with short term thinking like your comment.

[0xfaded]

Their long term thinking includes leveraging bullying over their iMessage lock-in to ensure market capture of children.

I believe there are leaked emails floating around which pretty much irrefutablly confirm this.

[satvikpendem]

By that logic, we should have let Standard Oil or AT&T do as they pleased, since they too had loyal customers.

[postalrat]

What corners are being cut?