Unfortunately the most vulnerable will be easily manipulated into bypassing whatever prompts are needed. The threat vector is facebook telling users to install Instagram/FB from their own app store instead of from the App Store, both eroding their privacy (since they won't be mandated to respect the "do not track" popup) as well as training them how to install apps from third-party sources and that "it's OK to sideload because Facebook and Instagram require it".
I think Apple should’ve won the lawsuit. Epic broke TOS they agreed to, got punished, and whined a bunch to the court. They deserved to lose as they largely did. They’re also not innocent. They don’t want to get rid of all of this, they want the middleman cashing in to be THEMSELVES, not Apple. They’re no underdog hero.
Apple is doing something incredibly stupid and absolutely killing their relationship with developers. Right when they need it most. They should fix that, but won’t. Wall Street would crucify them for daring to lose revenue. And regulators should probably limit how much they can charge.
But this lawsuit was not the way for that to happen. Don’t root for a bad lawsuit just ‘cause you hate the plaintiff. Fix it the right way.
That's because most iOS developers aren't confused about the situation.
Apple's commission is for the App Store, SDKs, Developer Support etc. Not just a payment processing fee.
And so if there are other stores and payment options which there will be soon Apple is still within their right to collect that fee. As every court around the world has said. They could collect it as a percentage of sales like Epic or just lump developers with an up front large development kit fee like Sony or Microsoft does.
To me, apple has made it to where they are in large part because of the strict control they maintain over their ecosystem. I was an android user forever, because I wanted the freedom to root my device and do things my way. I bought into apple because I need an appliance that just works.
Trying to break apple’s control is pretty close to destroying exactly why their stuff is desirable.
> I'm surprised that so many developers are siding with Apple in this regard.
I can’t speak for others, but I’m sick and tired of big corporate devs acting as if they speak for me, a small indie dev, resulting in outlets and everyday people echoing their talking points “in support” of me.
They have their own interests, some of which directly contradict mine, and they only use people like me as pawns to make their plight seem righteous in the hopes of drumming up support.
I was content with the 30% when I eagerly signed up. I’m downright happy with the 15% discount as a nice bonus to the point that I think the 15% is a steal for what I’m getting out of this arrangement with Apple.
Of course, this is my opinion, and I have no interest in speaking for others. There’s already enough of that going around.
I’d instead ask you to be open to the idea that what you’ve been seeing so far is corporate PR trickling down to you via outlets and other means and hear out the indie devs you come across here and elsewhere.
On a separate note:
As someone who has a legal background and practiced before pivoting to indie development, I’m surprised so many seem to think Apple’s latest move is a surprise or somehow utilizing a loophole.
Legal proceedings aren’t always easy to follow, I’ll be the first to admit, but this was spelled out crystal clear in both the district court’s judgment as well as the appellate court’s judgment.
What’s especially nonsense is that the likes of Spotify and Sweeny didn’t see this coming, like they now pretend.
Either they all need to fire their entire legal team or stop being coy because the courts predicted this outcome black-on-white in their judgments.
They’re sort of trapped between a rock and a hard place.
I don’t think what they’re doing is right, don’t take this as defense.
On the one hand “services revenue” (their cut from casino/exploitive games) is basically the only thing growing. people who want iPhones have them. People who want iPads have them. The Vision Pro is never going to sell 1 billion units. Wall Street demand growth so they “have to“ keep finding ways to juice services revenue a bunch. Or the stock will get hammered.
On the other hand, doing this is absolutely alienating every developer. And that will hurt the brand and their growth and their revenue too. You think there are as many developers who want to develop for the Vision Pro as there would have been if Apple was still as popular with devs as they were 10 years ago?
But of course even if developers weren’t getting really mad they’ve gone so far as to get governments to start taking a deep look at them. And you know that’s not gonna go well.
Juicing revenue makes developers and the governments more bad. Actions by the government or to be better for developers will make Wall Street mad.
They mismanaged it and now they’re screwed. They could’ve been slowly cutting down and opening up this whole time. In small controlled ways they were willing to give up. In ways to let them keep the revenue growth but just slow it down a little.
Instead they’ve got lawsuits. And governments forcing their hand.l to do things they hate and (in some cases) may be bad. And they’re being petulant about it all and going to get in even more trouble for defying courts/legislatures. All while hurting the brand.
It wasn't a total loss though. The judge found Apple's anti-streering practices to be anti-competitive.
> The Epic Games v. Apple trial took place throughout May 2021 and was decided by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who sided with Apple in nine of the ten counts brought against it by Epic Games. The count in which she sided with Epic related to Apple’s restriction against linking to web-based payments from within an app; she found that this violated California’s Unfair Competition Law and issued an injunction preventing Apple from enforcing this anti-steering provision;
Political comment aside, I think everyone's talking about it because it seems like the only source of change in the current day comes from courts making decisions and changing to how existing laws are interpreted. Congress hasn't made any real meaningful new regulations to curtail anti-consumer behavior since the 08 crisis. People were hoping things would change from this lawsuit, but SCOTUS didn't want to hear it and set precedent for whatever reason. Nonetheless, people continuing to talk about it will certainly keep it in the public consciousness and might lead to eventual congressional action ( /s ).
I don’t understand this issue too well to feel one or another. I just want all of my purchases and subscriptions to remain tied to my Apple ID and cancelable from my place.
It makes life so much easier and saves money because it’s very hard to forget about subscriptions I no longer use when they’re all listed in one place. Also if I want to refund a purchase for whatever reason I can deal directly with Apple instead of the developer.
All things considered Apples tight grip on the App Store works for me.
isn't that more of a personal finance problem than a tech platform problem?
you can find all your subscriptions there in one place until you start a new subscription on the web (maybe because it's cheaper), or you have one on a console. now suddenly you have multiple places to look again
there's no reason subscription management couldn't be managed at a higher level, outside of any tech platform. if 99% of banks weren't so technologically incapable it would seem obvious that it would be there, with the rest of your transactions. review/cancel/challenge/refund everything in one place, subscription or not.
My hope is that if third party stores and sideloading come to iOS, Apple greatly incentivizes devs somehow to leverage a new unified subscription control panel API to help keep subs all in one list even if you don’t subscribe through the app store.
> I just want all of my purchases and subscriptions to remain tied to my Apple ID and cancelable from my place.
That's what you get in a world with sideloading. The apps you've bought will remain on the App Store for as long as the developer extends agreements with Apple. If you don't sideload, your App Store purchases will be consolidated and organized however Apple chooses for you. You lose nothing.
The worst-case scenario for you is that your favorite developer stops using the App Store; but that's also a possibility regardless of sideloading. If a compelling alternative makes Apple's offerings seem weak, then it's up to Apple to respond.
You may not like the judge's decision, but at this stage, all the appeals are over.
The judge ruled that Apple is entitled to take a cut of transactions, regardless of who acts as your payment processor.
> as discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple’s intellectual property. Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission.
This is an example of the incredible arrogance of companies like Apple, Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Facebook. They have the ability to pour an enormous amount of money into lawyers and lobbying so that even companies like Epic or countries like the Netherlands have little chance of controlling misbehavior. Even the IRS is having a hard time getting Microsoft to pay their 28 BILLION dollar tax bill.
It should be clear that this is not a developer issue. These companies have complete contempt for their customers. It is not the developer who pays Apple, it is you.
At some point, customers will find a way to return that contempt.
You're simply wrong. And every court and government around the world agrees.
Companies have a right to charge a fee for using their platform.
Apple can not be forced to give you their SDKs, Services etc for free and help you sell that product on their marketplace for free. They have a right to charge something. You can rightfully argue that the 27% is way too high and courts have agreed. But those like Epic hypocritically arguing for 0% no one agrees with.
I am not a developer, I am a consumer. I can tell you I trust Apple way more than any developer. So the premium I pay to Apple is for the low risk as a consumer.
by purchasing the new iphone, and calling on apple to not allow third party stores, because they know they cannot say no to installing facebook, and IF thirdparty stores or sideloading were to be allowed, facebook might just get worse!
(all this seen in comments in other threads on hn)
Adjacent topic, my prediction over the next 18 months that public perception of Apple will start to shift into the next wave - similar to what happened to Microsoft in the early 2000s. Seems the winds are aligning but again- a half thought out gut view.
I have a lot of conflicting thoughts but I will point out that the Apple ecosystem has to a large degree resisted the enshittification that has consumed others.
It is strongly more consumer friendly than alternatives. I pay my money, I receive a software or service. I use apps that are largely free of intrusive ads, scams or tracking.
As a consumer I will (and do) take this deal every day of the week.
I logged in to Windows for the first time in a while, the other day, and felt violated by the amount of ads, marketing and promotional content the OS itself was throwing in my face.
I see similar things when I watch friends use their Android phones.
We should've stopped at the Power Glove and Wii. VR itself is a recurring non sequitur category with a cargo cult thought process akin to "It was featured in Lawnmower Man, Brainstorm, and Hackers, so let's keep pour billions into something no one wants or needs." (And The Jetson's + Back to the Future drives the inane quest for inherently inefficient and much more dangerous flying cars.)
Since when did we as an industry start championing rentseeking that adds no value?
Yes, the App Store is valuable. No, generic payment processing rails aren’t. Even the 1-3% charged by CC companies is bullshit. Apple, of course, charges 10x this.
The only reason they get away with it is because they have leveraged cryptography to stifle competition. If other app stores were possible on iOS, Facebook and Epic and Netflix would collaborate to create one in a heartbeat and billions of people would stop having to pay higher prices to inflate Apple’s stock value.
librish|2 years ago
- Apple's own fees would be reduced relatively quickly
- Technological savvy users will be able to discern which external sites are safe and get even lower prices when available
- Very few companies will be able to afford not being on the App Store (especially if Apple lowers their fees further)
- Apple will still make it hard _enough_ to use secondary stores that grandmas will not end up with iPads full of malware
judge2020|2 years ago
MBCook|2 years ago
Apple is doing something incredibly stupid and absolutely killing their relationship with developers. Right when they need it most. They should fix that, but won’t. Wall Street would crucify them for daring to lose revenue. And regulators should probably limit how much they can charge.
But this lawsuit was not the way for that to happen. Don’t root for a bad lawsuit just ‘cause you hate the plaintiff. Fix it the right way.
threeseed|2 years ago
Apple's commission is for the App Store, SDKs, Developer Support etc. Not just a payment processing fee.
And so if there are other stores and payment options which there will be soon Apple is still within their right to collect that fee. As every court around the world has said. They could collect it as a percentage of sales like Epic or just lump developers with an up front large development kit fee like Sony or Microsoft does.
detourdog|2 years ago
30% or 15% for one stop global distribution and multi-jurisdictional tax collecting is a deal all day long.
Could Spotify have bootstrapped itself without the App Store?
generalizations|2 years ago
Trying to break apple’s control is pretty close to destroying exactly why their stuff is desirable.
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
turquoisevar|2 years ago
I can’t speak for others, but I’m sick and tired of big corporate devs acting as if they speak for me, a small indie dev, resulting in outlets and everyday people echoing their talking points “in support” of me.
They have their own interests, some of which directly contradict mine, and they only use people like me as pawns to make their plight seem righteous in the hopes of drumming up support.
I was content with the 30% when I eagerly signed up. I’m downright happy with the 15% discount as a nice bonus to the point that I think the 15% is a steal for what I’m getting out of this arrangement with Apple.
Of course, this is my opinion, and I have no interest in speaking for others. There’s already enough of that going around.
I’d instead ask you to be open to the idea that what you’ve been seeing so far is corporate PR trickling down to you via outlets and other means and hear out the indie devs you come across here and elsewhere.
On a separate note:
As someone who has a legal background and practiced before pivoting to indie development, I’m surprised so many seem to think Apple’s latest move is a surprise or somehow utilizing a loophole.
Legal proceedings aren’t always easy to follow, I’ll be the first to admit, but this was spelled out crystal clear in both the district court’s judgment as well as the appellate court’s judgment.
What’s especially nonsense is that the likes of Spotify and Sweeny didn’t see this coming, like they now pretend. Either they all need to fire their entire legal team or stop being coy because the courts predicted this outcome black-on-white in their judgments.
ianlevesque|2 years ago
MBCook|2 years ago
I don’t think what they’re doing is right, don’t take this as defense.
On the one hand “services revenue” (their cut from casino/exploitive games) is basically the only thing growing. people who want iPhones have them. People who want iPads have them. The Vision Pro is never going to sell 1 billion units. Wall Street demand growth so they “have to“ keep finding ways to juice services revenue a bunch. Or the stock will get hammered.
On the other hand, doing this is absolutely alienating every developer. And that will hurt the brand and their growth and their revenue too. You think there are as many developers who want to develop for the Vision Pro as there would have been if Apple was still as popular with devs as they were 10 years ago?
But of course even if developers weren’t getting really mad they’ve gone so far as to get governments to start taking a deep look at them. And you know that’s not gonna go well.
Juicing revenue makes developers and the governments more bad. Actions by the government or to be better for developers will make Wall Street mad.
They mismanaged it and now they’re screwed. They could’ve been slowly cutting down and opening up this whole time. In small controlled ways they were willing to give up. In ways to let them keep the revenue growth but just slow it down a little.
Instead they’ve got lawsuits. And governments forcing their hand.l to do things they hate and (in some cases) may be bad. And they’re being petulant about it all and going to get in even more trouble for defying courts/legislatures. All while hurting the brand.
Good job Apple.
Yoofie|2 years ago
spacebacon|2 years ago
qarl|2 years ago
Why does this feel exactly like the 2020 election, where one side lost but keeps complaining that everyone is acting like they lost.
2OEH8eoCRo0|2 years ago
> The Epic Games v. Apple trial took place throughout May 2021 and was decided by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who sided with Apple in nine of the ten counts brought against it by Epic Games. The count in which she sided with Epic related to Apple’s restriction against linking to web-based payments from within an app; she found that this violated California’s Unfair Competition Law and issued an injunction preventing Apple from enforcing this anti-steering provision;
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
indymike|2 years ago
lxgr|2 years ago
judge2020|2 years ago
speedylight|2 years ago
It makes life so much easier and saves money because it’s very hard to forget about subscriptions I no longer use when they’re all listed in one place. Also if I want to refund a purchase for whatever reason I can deal directly with Apple instead of the developer.
All things considered Apples tight grip on the App Store works for me.
willsmith72|2 years ago
you can find all your subscriptions there in one place until you start a new subscription on the web (maybe because it's cheaper), or you have one on a console. now suddenly you have multiple places to look again
there's no reason subscription management couldn't be managed at a higher level, outside of any tech platform. if 99% of banks weren't so technologically incapable it would seem obvious that it would be there, with the rest of your transactions. review/cancel/challenge/refund everything in one place, subscription or not.
jwells89|2 years ago
smoldesu|2 years ago
That's what you get in a world with sideloading. The apps you've bought will remain on the App Store for as long as the developer extends agreements with Apple. If you don't sideload, your App Store purchases will be consolidated and organized however Apple chooses for you. You lose nothing.
The worst-case scenario for you is that your favorite developer stops using the App Store; but that's also a possibility regardless of sideloading. If a compelling alternative makes Apple's offerings seem weak, then it's up to Apple to respond.
GeekyBear|2 years ago
The judge ruled that Apple is entitled to take a cut of transactions, regardless of who acts as your payment processor.
> as discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple’s intellectual property. Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission.
https://stratechery.com/2021/the-apple-v-epic-decision/
The judge did hint that Epic screwed up by arguing that Apple should not get a cut of transactions at all, instead of arguing that 30% was too high.
talkingtab|2 years ago
It should be clear that this is not a developer issue. These companies have complete contempt for their customers. It is not the developer who pays Apple, it is you.
At some point, customers will find a way to return that contempt.
threeseed|2 years ago
Companies have a right to charge a fee for using their platform.
Apple can not be forced to give you their SDKs, Services etc for free and help you sell that product on their marketplace for free. They have a right to charge something. You can rightfully argue that the 27% is way too high and courts have agreed. But those like Epic hypocritically arguing for 0% no one agrees with.
malshe|2 years ago
redeeman|2 years ago
(all this seen in comments in other threads on hn)
dav43|2 years ago
lukev|2 years ago
It is strongly more consumer friendly than alternatives. I pay my money, I receive a software or service. I use apps that are largely free of intrusive ads, scams or tracking.
As a consumer I will (and do) take this deal every day of the week.
I logged in to Windows for the first time in a while, the other day, and felt violated by the amount of ads, marketing and promotional content the OS itself was throwing in my face.
I see similar things when I watch friends use their Android phones.
No thank you.
dehrmann|2 years ago
mynameisnoone|2 years ago
sneak|2 years ago
Yes, the App Store is valuable. No, generic payment processing rails aren’t. Even the 1-3% charged by CC companies is bullshit. Apple, of course, charges 10x this.
The only reason they get away with it is because they have leveraged cryptography to stifle competition. If other app stores were possible on iOS, Facebook and Epic and Netflix would collaborate to create one in a heartbeat and billions of people would stop having to pay higher prices to inflate Apple’s stock value.
kj99|2 years ago
brcmthrowaway|2 years ago