| ▲ | marcusestes 7 hours ago |
| That's too much margin. They're trading net profits for user happiness and it's hurting their brand more than they understand. The app store cartel must fall. |
|
| ▲ | crazygringo 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| What evidence is there that it's hurting their brand? Outside of HN I see zero complaints. And the situation has been going on for a while. I might not like it, but it seems perfectly fine for their brand as far as I can tell. |
| |
| ▲ | latexr 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | I see a lot of complaints outside of HN. For starters, not every nerd, and not even every Apple nerd, is on HN. Outside of that, even my non-tech-savvy acquaintances have been complaining as of late. Is it enough of a damaged brand to hurt their profits as of now? Clearly not. But cracks are forming. Apple’s brand isn’t damaged when they’re seen as bad, but when they’re seen as the same as everyone else. | | |
| ▲ | crazygringo 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Outside of that, even my non-tech-savvy acquaintances have been complaining as of late. What do they say? I'm genuinely curious. Because e.g. I don't have the slightest idea what percentage Microsoft takes on Xbox games, nor would it ever occur to me to complain about it. I know there's a business model there, but it's not something I think about. And I feel like that's the way people outside of tech feel about whatever percentage Apple takes out of its App Store. But what am I missing? | | |
| ▲ | latexr 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The important bit is “trading net profits for user happiness”. Non-tech-savvy users aren’t complaining about Apple’s margins for apps, but about the things Apple is doing to degrade their experience in the name of profit. Namely excessive ads on the App Store, on System Settings, and on Apple Apps themselves such as Music and Wallet (F1). | | |
| ▲ | malshe 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yeah but again that’s all here on HN. I have plenty of friends who are not on HN and I haven’t heard anyone ever complain about these things. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | aucisson_masque 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The competition is limited to android and Google is sabotaging every advantage they held against Apple. Customization is lost, freedom is lost, even the smartphones prices are now similar to iPhones. Pixels sell for premium price nowadays. |
| |
| ▲ | decimalenough 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The sad truth is the average user couldn't care less about "customization" (unless you're talking about background images), much less "freedom". Pixel has always been the flagship and priced to match. Unlike Apple, there are plenty of Android phones at all price points. | |
| ▲ | varispeed 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
| ▲ | irl_zebra 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| imo the app store thing is very niche and only affects a small, vocal group that tends to sit on hacker news and pay attention to these things. Can almost guarantee that 95% of the iphone-having population does not know/care about the app store "issue." I do think the general decline in quality and uptick in bugs will bite them slowly, at least once there's an iphone competitor of note. |
| |
| ▲ | candiddevmike 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Most folks don't realize they're paying (up to) an extra 30% to Apple on everything they purchase in the app store. On top of an already exorbitant device price. I'm sure you'd see more outrage if you had the app price listed without the fee, and then showed the fee below it/at time of purchase. It's another hidden fee. | | |
| ▲ | no_wizard 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | They aren't because companies refuse to price discriminate. There are some exceptions, like Spotify where they called it out in a public space that the in app subscriptions were more than if you bought directly. However, I have noticed that its very rare. In every other case I've looked into, from Omni apps to streaming apps like Netflix, I'm paying the same either way, and often with a more convienent way of managing the subscription. Thereby, I think it goes undetected by most, because price comparing the app store to the non app store price will yield the same price most of the time. Though importantly, I have noticed, it is not always the same options. For example, regarding Netflix, I am paying the same price for my sub via Apple but new and returning customers can no longer pay for it this way, they must go to the website now. I also can't add additional members (effectively discounted second subs) either. This has to do with the fact Apple did captiulate to allowing companies link to their own subscription pages and actually allow customers to be directed in that way with clearer and transparent language. However, I have noticed most apps with the exception of large streaming platforms have done away completely with in app subscriptions, and the prices are still the same whether its the web or via in app purchases on Apple's platform. However, Google Play is no better in this regard. Even though they allow 3rd party payment processing as an alternative to using Google's payment processing, it has not lead to apps being cheaper on their platform, in the majority of cases. Which makes me wonder if the value is still there for a 1st party payment processor, or something else. |
| |
| ▲ | marcusestes 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It affects everyone, because the aggressive revenue cut prevents entire categories of apps and services from being published to the app store. An app store with a 5-10% cut would be an app store with a much richer choice of apps. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | What are some examples of the categories of apps and services that aren't publishable on the App Store due to Apple's services revenue? > An app store with a 5-10% cut would be an app store with a much richer choice of apps. Why? And how are you defining "rich". Rich in quality? Quantity? Something else? | | |
| ▲ | cyberax 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > What are some examples of the categories of apps and services that aren't publishable on the App Store due to Apple's services revenue? For example, Apple refuses to allow Peertube app onto the App Store. Peertube is a free version of Youtube with peer-to-peer file transfer acceleration. That's because you can use it to (bring out smelling salts!) watch porn. If you connect it to a private Peertube instance. Another example, Apple is not allowing an eBook reader app (FBReader) with full OPDS support. Because you can use OPDS to buy books in third-party stores. I'm using OPDS to get books from my own Calibre Web library, btw. These are just the ones I can list off the top of my head. No doubt there are others. | | |
| ▲ | techpression 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don’t think it’s that simple, they allow Reddit, which
Is filled to the brim with porn, and other ver ”non Apple” things.
They also allow plenty of comic book readers that open files from almost every possibly conceivable source.
Not to mention a lot of video players that can play porn of course. Is it inconsistent and frustrating, very much so, and certain apps get an unfair treatment for sure, but I don’t think it’s as simple as that ”if app can do x then it’s banned”. | | |
| ▲ | cyberax 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I don’t think it’s that simple, they allow Reddit What part of "monopolistic collusion behaivor" you do not understand? Apple likely has backroom deals with large players, while locking out smaller competitors. After all, Grok app is still in the App Store. > Is it inconsistent and frustrating, very much so, and certain apps get an unfair treatment for sure, but I don’t think it’s as simple as that ”if app can do x then it’s banned”. I gave the names of actual apps, feel free to talk with their developers. Peertube got in only after removing the ability to add custom endpoints. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | SoftTalker 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I haven't ever purchased a single thing in the App Store or in-app so I guess I don't care. But it does seem like a monopoly and something that should be forced to allow competition. | |
| ▲ | 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | dyauspitr 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don’t even know what the “issue” is. I’m guessing it’s the 30% they take because it’s definitely not the quality and range of apps they offer. | |
| ▲ | esseph 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > at least once there's an iphone competitor of note. What does this even mean? Do you mean in the US or globally? By units sold, by platform, globally: Android ~885 Million ~71% iOS (iPhone) ~247 Million ~20% HarmonyOS & Others ~118 Million ~9% |
|
|
| ▲ | PunchyHamster 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's a bit of Valve situation, the competition just refuses to make better product |
| |
| ▲ | benoau 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | No. The "competition" is artificially limited to buying an Android phone, and mobility between platforms can be very complicated, not by accident, while apps like Patreon can simply be forced to comply with massive fees even if it makes their service much more expensive. Stripe, PayPal and a bag full of other payment options would be able to compete just fine with IAP and its fees. |
|
|
| ▲ | arealaccount 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| IMHO as a user I prefer purchasing via app store because it avoids all of the dark patterns companies use to prevent subscriptions or returns. I get that it sucks that the honest folks have to pay a 30% fees I'd be happy to pay a 30% premium on my app store purchases just for the ability to unsubscribe without dark patterns. |
| |
| ▲ | ebbi 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I like the fact that when deleting an app, it reminds you about existing subscriptions related to that app, and offers to take you to the subscriptions page to unsubscribe. In saying that, I don't think I'm personally prepared to pay an additional 30% for that. It should just be what is expected as part of good business practice. |
|
|
| ▲ | raincole 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > hurting their brand more than they understand Among perhaps the 1% super tech savvy users. I never heard anyone who wants to sideload apps outside online (not even from other programmers I know in real life. Ones who care like much always have been using rooted android from day 1.) |
|
| ▲ | PlatoIsADisease 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Brand name? Apple is a faux-Veblean good targeting lower middle class people, moms, and teens (Who pretend the $50/mo payments are expensive). Its a demonstration of wealth. |
| |
| ▲ | no_wizard 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't think the sell through of Android phones to the wealthiest has been all that high. Celebs, top business execs, even heads of nations state are most often seen with Apple devices in their hands. I'm sure not in every case, but even as far back as 2018 the trend line of wealth and iPhone ownership was high. Even today most app store developers admit that iPhone users tend to have more disposable income by a good margin. Really, when I do a cursory google search of wealthy public figures that include them holding their devices, what I can find is they're clearly holding iPhones most of the time. | | |
| ▲ | PlatoIsADisease 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I didn't say anything about wealth and android usage. Different usecases. I did mention wealth and iphone usage. An insecure teen, mom, or middle income person needs an iphone for status. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | amelius 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| That's what you get with shareholders ... |