[HN Gopher] Apple blocks Coinbase Wallet ___________________________________________________________________ Apple blocks Coinbase Wallet Author : stale2002 Score : 528 points Date : 2022-12-01 18:39 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (twitter.com) (TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com) | skc wrote: | I'm in the "too bad" camp. | | This is what happens when customers and companies gleefully buy | into the idea of a walled garden. | | Because I can bet anything that there are iPhones and Macs on | every desk at Coinbase. | christkv wrote: | Next they will want 30% off every stock purchase you do using the | E*trade app | Traubenfuchs wrote: | Why can't companies like that just make a good web app? It's time | to kill native apps unless you really need them. | ShamelessC wrote: | > The biggest impact from this policy change is on iPhone users | that own NFTs - if you hold an NFT in a wallet on an iPhone, | Apple just made it a lot harder to transfer that NFT to other | wallets, or gift it to friends or family. | | Wow, so decentralized. /s | efields wrote: | The exchange is NFT for eth. In order to do that, it requires | gas. That is a fee imposed on the user, meaning they have to pay | something in order to pursue a digital transaction for digital | goods. Payments in iOS for digital goods and services must go | through the App Store. It's right there in the developer terms, | and has largely not changed since the App Store was introduced. | | Doesn't matter that it's gas. It's a purchase the user is trying | to make. The rules apply. | | Coinbase may think it's unfair, but that's what they agreed to | when they put the app in the App Store. Apple can continue to | enforce this rule as long as they're legally allowed to, which | doesn't seem to be changing anytime soon. | | No sympathy for Coinbase here. They chose to whine in public when | they could just sue Apple like a grown up. | seydor wrote: | Agreed. They should pull their wallets and become web-only. | | No sympathy for Coinbase or any other app participating in the | system. | Fnoord wrote: | There's a different reason Apple should block the feature: NFTs | are a scam. I have zero interest in falling for scams, I want | walled gardens to protect me from them. Unfortunately they did | not use this reason. | bloppe wrote: | I'm always fascinated by opinions like this. | rybosworld wrote: | NFT's are no more a scam than any digital goods. | colordrops wrote: | Public visibility helps their case by both pressuring apple and | getting customers on their side. It's not whining, it's PR. | alwillis wrote: | If Apple told the FBI to go pound sand in the San Bernardino | shooter case, where the government wanted a back door to the | iPhone, what makes you think they're going to pressures by | some crypto geeks? | sneak wrote: | That was coordinated marketing between the FBI and Apple. | | Apple does not have the power or authority to tell the USG | to pound sand: | | https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud- | exclusiv... | | There is already a backdoor in the iPhone, and Apple | already preserves it for the FBI. | snowwrestler wrote: | For those who don't know: you can fully encrypt your | iPhone backups and store them locally on your computer if | you prefer. You do not need to use iCloud backup to use | an iPhone. | | You can also skip backups entirely if you want. | willcipriano wrote: | Yeah who do these crypto guys think they are the CCP? | Spivak wrote: | It's actually kinda funny because it's exactly right. The | US has less power than the CCP to control Apple. Perks of | being too big to fail. Apple doesn't bend the knee to the | CCP -- gtfo. Apple doesn't bend the knee to the US gov't | -- five years and a massive political battle later some | Apple exec gets dragged to a congressional hearing to get | mildly berated by a 70 year old white dude who doesn't | even care outside of scoring some political points for | the next midterm election and a fine, maybe? Not too big | though, it can't actually hurt them because that's jobs | and American business. | varispeed wrote: | How do banking apps work on iOS? If my friend sells me his vase | and I pay him through banking app making a money transfer, does | Apple get 30% cut? | EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote: | Apple store people just don't know how cryptocurrencies work. | The gas fee doesn't go to Coinbase, it's going to completely | random people, called miners or stakers. Why Coinbase should | pay for the fees it doesn't receive? | kimixa wrote: | Making a system that bypasses intentional hoops doesn't make | the company go "Oh, good job!". They close those loopholes, | as they're _intentional_. | | It's not a technical problem to be solved, it's part of the | terms for using the platform. | themagician wrote: | They don't need to know because it doesn't matter and they | don't care. They see it as you buying a digital item. It | doesn't matter to them if it's coins for virtual slots or | NFTs--it's all the same. It's up to you to figure it out. | Coinbase could, conceivably, charge you through the app store | and then process the transaction for you. This would be a | nightmare to do and defeat the "purpose" of crypto, but it's | possible. | | One of the benefits of Apple's enforcement here is their | _extremely_ generous refund policy. If you ever buy something | by accident (or even on purpose, really, and just later | regret it) you can ask Apple for a refund and it 's almost | guaranteed they grant it. | | Obviously crypto users don't really think about refunds | because nothing is reversible... although who knows, maybe | they do. | | Honestly, Apple and Google should ban ALL software crypto | wallets. No one is checking to see how secure they are. A | seed generated on a software wallet may appear random to the | user, but there is NO REASON AT ALL to believe that it is, | and no way to verify that it is. IMO every iOS software | wallet is compromised simply by virtue of the fact that it's | impossible to know whether the seed was generated securely. | | I 100% guarantee you there will eventually be a massive | "hack" on a major iOS software wallet which is nothing more | than the person who wrote the code intentionally making it | such that they know how the seed is generated. It would be | trivial to generate seeds that appear random but are based on | nothing more than a passphrase you know and a timestamp that | you can increment over, allowing you at any time to generate | all possible private keys for every wallet ever made with | your app. That app is probably already out there and people | are using it, blissfully unaware that at any time all their | crypto could just disappear. If the attacker is smart they | can later patch the app, remove their proprietary seed | generation and no one will EVER know. They can drain wallets | randomly and everyone will assume that the victim must be | responsible for the compromised seed, when in reality it was | compromised on generation. The attacker will never get | caught. I would be honestly surprised if this isn't happening | right now. | HDThoreaun wrote: | > Payments in iOS for digital goods and services must go | through the App Store. It's right there in the developer | terms, and has largely not changed since the App Store was | introduced. | croes wrote: | Sue Apple? They have enough money to stretch any process until | the opponents funds are empty. | everfree wrote: | Not when your opponent is also a Fortune 500 company. | Lawsuits don't stretch on _that_ long. | rybosworld wrote: | Did the apple employee who delisted coinbase wallet write this? | electic wrote: | This is not what is happening here. It's worse. If you want to | send a NFT to another address, you need gas to complete the | transaction. | | Coinbase does not get gas fees to complete the transaction. | This isn't a swap. This isn't an exchange for ETH. | | Absurd and I've downvoted you. | cmovq wrote: | Is apple supposed to take 30% of the transaction fee when I | purchase investments in an online banking app? | ar_lan wrote: | I think this is a great question. Stocks and NFTs are largely | the same in my eyes - but I can't imagine Fidelity even | bothering with an iPhone app if they lost 30% of each | transaction people make (unless it was solely on the fees - | I'm not sure where Apple draws the lines). | | Also - does Apple take 30% from each Amazon purchase? I | overwhelmingly just use the Amazon app for purchasing - I | can't imagine the amount of money Apple makes from Amazon | alone, if so. | thehappypm wrote: | No, physical goods are exempted. | cjensen wrote: | No because investments are not digital goods. Just because | something is not physical does not mean it is digital. For | example, a right to mine iron is not a physical thing, not is | it a digital thing; instead it is a legal thing. | bsamuels wrote: | If apologists like you ran the world, I would probably have to | pay Apple 30% premium on the value of my entire house if I | tried to sign mortgage paperwork on an iphone | wkdneidbwf wrote: | let's not give apple ideas! | jerf wrote: | Oh, you can do better than that. You'd pay 30% on the | mortgage, the seller would pay 30% on the mortgage, the title | company would pay 30% on the mortgage, the listing agent | would pay 30% on the listing.... my point here not merely | being sarcasm, though it is that as well, but it isn't | scalable to have every little person involved in facilitating | some transaction trying to take 30%. | nomercy400 wrote: | You mean like how the title company, listing agent, | mortgage broker, notary etc. all take money from the simple | transaction that should be just between buyer and seller? | Same idea. | unityByFreedom wrote: | There may be an anti-trust case against Apple, but if there | is, hanging it on crypto is not the place to do it. | | Personally I am more concerned about Comcast's monopoly and | would prioritize the FTC to look at that, but that's been out | of style since 2014. | function_seven wrote: | Coinbase isn't on the other end of this. Apple demanding 30% | from gas fees would be like them taking that cut from every | Venmo or PayPal transaction. | marcfr wrote: | I remember when in school in history class we all were upset when | we learnt that the land lord demanded a "tenth" from the | agricultural gains. Those were the times... | noasaservice wrote: | Frankly, anybody who bought iPhones is an idiot. And they have | been for quite some time. | | It was OBVIOUS for ages their long term play is: create walled | garden, entice people to walled garden, and then TAX everyone for | the privilege of an iPhone with no other choices once locked in. | And "Green Bubble Shame". | | At least you can install other app stores on Android. At least we | still have a modicum of control there, and can root it fairly | easily with most phones. | trasz2 wrote: | FWIW, Coinbase Wallet hasn't been very useful simply because it's | owned by Coinbase, and thus cannot be trusted. | zenexer wrote: | HN title is incorrect. Apple is demanding 30% of gas fees, not | exchange fees. | | Personal opinion: That's even more ridiculous. Coinbase has no | access to or control over gas fees. | dang wrote: | Submitted title was "Apple Blocks Coinbase wallet, for not | giving them a 30% cut of exchange fees". We've taken the latter | bit out since it seems to be editorializing in any case. | seydor wrote: | More precisely: Coinbase is not asking for the gas | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | Add it to the antitrust pile. Is their strategy to attack | unpopular things in the current zeitgeist so nobody complains | about antitrust? Facebook, Twitter, now crypto? | josephcsible wrote: | The next logical step is for Apple to demand a 30% cut of the | revenue when you order physical goods on Amazon from your iPhone, | or 30% of money you send to people with Venmo. If you don't think | those behaviors would be okay, how can you think this is okay? | madrox wrote: | Apple wants a 30% on fees, not the good itself. This is | consistent with the rest of their policies. Arguably that still | isn't ok, but this is not an encroachment. | ldoughty wrote: | should they get 30% of my Amazon Prime fee? | | If not.. Could Coinbase Wallet offer Coinbase Wallet Prime | for. $100 that provides free transactions on qualifying | orders? | | All these rules feel arbitrary to carve out as much money as | they can from "lesser people" without upsetting the larger | players that have a budget to afford a lawsuit. | halostatue wrote: | If your Amazon Prime fee were paid via in-app purchase, why | not? | | The Coinbase thing is happening because it's an all-digital | _purchase_. There's no physical benefit being transferred | to the customer, as NFTs are wholly digital. Apple has been | consistent about the fee being applied to all digital-only | purchases, including for virtual yoga classes. | | One can argue whether 30% is still an appropriate amount | (compared to 15 years ago, it's _still_ a steal where pre- | iPhone App Store models would take 50-75% of the revenue), | but people should stop arguing in bad faith on this. | makestuff wrote: | Robinhood gets paid for order flow should apple get 30% of | that each time a trade is executed on the platform? Apple | should also take a fee from all trading apps that charge a | fee on options trades in this case. | rdtwo wrote: | So 30% of the eBay fees and 30% off the Amazon marketplace | fees should be fair game | lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: | That doesn't seem to hold up. If I buy something on eBay | it's not any different from, e.g., buying stock on Robin | Hood. There is an agreement between two parties, neither of | whom are the people distributing the app, to make an | exchange of money to [the eBay item] or stocks. | | Apple does not claim a cut of the exchange of stocks, but | they do claim a cut of the transaction fees for the | exchange of stocks. If eBay or Amazon charged a transaction | fee to facilitate their transactions, that would be an in- | app purchase of which Apple would claim 30%. | rdtwo wrote: | But they do, all eBay transactions have a 5-15% fee and | Amazon 3rd part is the same | lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: | I see. In that case, I'd agree these fees should be fair | game by the same logic. That does make me curious what's | different here, if anything. | [deleted] | Dma54rhs wrote: | Next is profit fees and transaction fees form your banking | app. Hey not salary, after all Apple is providing the | platform for banks. Peasants can always ask their salary in | cash ir build their own platform. | influx wrote: | You actually can't order Kindle books on any Amazon iOS App. | halostatue wrote: | Because Amazon doesn't want to give up the 30% IAP fee. Fair | enough. | postalrat wrote: | Isn't that circumventing apples payment system and against | their rules? | halostatue wrote: | No. They also cannot direct people to the Amazon website | to buy the books, which would be against the rules. | That's likely to change with the recent changes and | upcoming legislative requirements. | jacobr1 wrote: | It isn't a circumvention - you can't buy the products in | the app. If you try to go to the product page of a | digital product it redirects you to a browser - but | importantly you can't actually even see the product in | the app so it isn't redirecting a _purchase_. | tacker2000 wrote: | Exactly, where does it stop? Will apple also take a cut when i | buy public transport tickets or flight tickets? What about | hotels or airbnb? | | This shit has to be stop now! | | Free up the app stores and see if the customers and app devs | will be still willing to fork over these extortionate fees. | | And this security argument is just complete BS, a typical | "Totschlagargument" that gets thrown around as needed. | Y_Y wrote: | > Totschlagargument | | For others just learning this gorgeous word (literally | "killing-blow argument") Wikipedia says: | | > A thought-terminating cliche (also known as a semantic | stop-sign, a thought-stopper, bumper sticker logic, or cliche | thinking) is a form of loaded language, often passing as folk | wisdom, intended to end an argument and quell cognitive | dissonance. | actionablefiber wrote: | I prefer "thought-stopper" better. I would say | Totschlagargument sounds like it could just be a really | compelling argument that leaves the other side speechless | and "kills" the discussion with a victory; but the point is | not that the argument is compelling but rather it tries to | block substantive thought and discussion. | make3 wrote: | 30% of your bank with an app on interests on loans xD | tshaddox wrote: | I think it's bizarre to say that's "the next logical step" when | in fact that things have all been explicitly addressed and | exempted for the entire history of the App Store. It's not as | if Apple is slowly discovering new things they can take a cut | from and they just haven't discovered Amazon purchases yet. | smoldesu wrote: | It's bizarre to call any of it logical when 15 years ago this | wasn't a problem. The App Store is at the center of this, and | if Apple refuses to cede power it will be a long winter for | them. | matwood wrote: | What do you mean? 15 years ago other phone app stores | charged insane fees if you could even get on the store. At | the time, 30% was seen as a huge win for developers. | smoldesu wrote: | Those were feature phones, basically the handheld | equivalent of a games console. In the age of smartphones, | there is not a single reason that software distribution | should be centralized. | tshaddox wrote: | What's different about game consoles and smartphones? | chrisco255 wrote: | Imagine if a desktop environment had the same | restrictions. Would you accept them? | tshaddox wrote: | I'd buy from a different company if the restrictions | bothered me. | arcticbull wrote: | App Store rules have never required a cut of physical | transactions, only digital. | tyingq wrote: | So, kindle books then? | shagie wrote: | Exactly kindle books. And audible books. And Netflix shows. | | Which is why none of those companies offer the ability to | purchase them directly through an app that is on the App | Store. | tyingq wrote: | Ah. It does sort of highlight why a simple policy like | this gets silly, and isn't great for consumers. | matthewowen wrote: | Yes, which is why you can't buy ebooks in either the Amazon | app or the Kindle app. | | It's not great. | pornel wrote: | That was tolerable a decade ago when it was only about iTunes | songs and power-ups in kids' games. | | But now more and more of the economy is moving online, and | the Apple/Google duopoly gets to tax everything. | jabbany wrote: | Pretty sure there's a carve ot specifically for those. | | Ref: https://developer.apple.com/app- | store/review/guidelines/#in-... | shagie wrote: | There's also a carveout there specifically for NFTs | | > Apps may use in-app purchase to sell and sell services | related to non-fungible tokens (NFTs), such as minting, | listing, and transferring. Apps may allow users to view their | own NFTs, provided that NFT ownership does not unlock | features or functionality within the app. Apps may allow | users to browse NFT collections owned by others, _provided | that the apps may not include buttons, external links, or | other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing | mechanisms other than in-app purchase._ | | (emphasis mine) | josephcsible wrote: | There is for now. I'm saying I can see their next step being | to remove that. | brookst wrote: | That is the next "logical" step for people to claim without | regard for whether it's true or not. People will believe | anything that confirms their biases. | Dig1t wrote: | I think higher ups at Apple know things we don't know WRT how | politicians and agencies will act. It seems they are pretty | confident they won't be regulated any time soon, at least in the | US. | bogwog wrote: | Guess it's time to write to our politicians and threaten to | vote them out. Maybe collect signatures from a bunch of people | and attach it to the letter to give it more weight. | zopa wrote: | If you've got a way to distinguish between accurate | foreknowledge and hubris, please share. Everybody thinks the | party will never stop until it does. | threeseed wrote: | It's because Apple is legally allowed to charge a fee for what | happens on their platform. | | They can do it as a channel cost which is a standard concept in | business or they can do it as a fee for using their platform | services again another standard concept. | | If any government were to prevent this it would unravel the | entire economy because supermarkets, retailers and services | businesses would no longer be legal. Hence why after nearly a | decade the App Store is still fundamentally the same as day | one. | bryan_w wrote: | This would be like apple blocking your stockbroker app because | they charge $2 per trade but the broker allows you to use the | cash sitting in your account. | latchkey wrote: | The fee on gas is more like nasdaq charging $2 and the broker | can't do anything about it. | shaburn wrote: | Dorsey's call for an open mobile web os could not be more | important for this subject. Mobile payments, device to device | with crypto is so dangerous for the existing payment/financial | system, don't expect anything but resistance from establishment | players. | salawat wrote: | Your choice of establishment needs a capital E. You may not | realize it, but a significant part of the political sphere is | absolutely, cripplingly dependent on a tightly controlled | financial medium of exchange with tight, inescapable | integration with tax authorities/law enforcement. | | If everyone were to suddenly remove all their money from banks | and the financial system, and only started transacting point to | point, and (lets handwave the how and just say that everyone | immaculately keeps their own set of books/accounts with | everyone else, _not on a public ledger_ ), the entire | political/regulatory power structure of the United States falls | apart _that day_. | | Money transmission regulation cannot be coordinated/scaled to | effectively service period at a population of the U.S. scale. | | A) Private books means if you really want your tax authority to | see them, congratulations, send a warrant. Oh wait, due process | (not enough hours in the day). | | B) If we assume the magical bookkeeping extends only to | facilitating a transaction, but not records retention/OFAC, | that goes out the window. LE integration too. | | AML, gone, KYC, gone. | | On the upside, everyone can send anyone money. On the downside, | there's a hell of a lot that _no one talks about that goes into | that than anyone probably has the patience, comfort, or | intellectual fortitude to sit through_. | | Also Wall Street dead. | | I mean, for me it's a hard choice. Possible national collapse, | dead Wall Street, and chance to reaffirm and rebuild a | nation... | | Dead Wall Street... | | Let it be known: I very much dislike what out financial system | has done to the U.S. | joyfylbanana wrote: | Apple should be given a medal for making it harder to trade | NFT's. Those are bad for you. | tensor wrote: | So if I use my bank's app to pay a bill will Apple want 30% of | that too? This is really too much. | jurschreuder wrote: | They have found a way to tax websites. | nickthegreek wrote: | apple doesnt want 30% of the NFT price, they want 30% of the | _fee_ on the sell of the digital good (the nft). | camdenlock wrote: | Why is it seen as acceptable for a government to tax people for | the privilege of transacting in their (the government's) markets, | but it's seen as bad form for a corporation to do the same? | bredren wrote: | This reminds me of the last time Coinbase had its app removed | from the app store in 2013. Our secure messaging app, Gliph, had | the ability to send bitcoin and was still live in the App Store. | | Our companies shared an investor, and our app was the first to | implement Coinbase's API. Between that and SF Bitcoin meetups, I | interacted with Brian regularly enough and the App Store was a | common topic because in that first year of funding for crypto, | the goal was generally find a way to breaking Bitcoin mainstream. | (It seemed like it might happen soon, but was in fact still quite | early.) | | After some press, Apple took our app down. I blogged about it | [0], (I believe the first survey of App Store policy toward | bitcoin) and that got picked up by Tech Crunch. [1] | | I remember speaking with Brian about it on the phone. Apple's | objection was on legality of sending Bitcoin in the regions our | app was available, so I suggested we could file a legal brief as | part of our appeal. | | Brian's response was they had already tried that and that Apple | was unswayed by their brief. There wasn't much we could really do | other than commiserate on being under the thumb of the App Store. | | Those were some heady, yet comparatively innocent days in crypto | compared to now. | | [0] https://blog.gli.ph/2013/12/09/the-state-of-bitcoin- | mobile-a... | | [1] https://techcrunch.com/2013/12/09/how-does-apple-really- | feel... | unityByFreedom wrote: | > Apple's objection was on legality of sending Bitcoin in the | regions our app was available, so I suggested we could file a | legal brief as part of our appeal. | | > Brian's response was they had already tried that and that | Apple was unswayed by their brief. | | A legal brief would go to a judge. This sounds like an appeal | written by a lawyer, submitted on behalf of one company to | another. Not the same thing. | | Or maybe there _was_ a legal case and they filed a brief. Then | it would be a judge who decides whether the brief is | convincing, not Apple. | bredren wrote: | Thanks for clarifying this. It has been a long time since | this happened. | patchtopic wrote: | so apple also expect 30% from everything transacted on every | banking app? | rich_sasha wrote: | If I were a Coinbase and iphone user, I would be irate. I'm | neither but that's besides the point. | | Will Apple demand 30% of bank transfers made with a bank app? 30% | of a firstborn if the hookup happened on Tinder? | bink wrote: | Wouldn't a better comparison be 30% of the add-on fees that a | bank charged you for a bank transfer? And that does seem like | something they would expect if it were paid via the app. | blint_carton wrote: | Or possibly any extra fees eBay charges on a purchase. | LeafItAlone wrote: | FWIW, I am both and I am not irate. Mostly because I think it's | reasonable to give Apple some time to respond here. | WanderPanda wrote: | Have a nice walk with Tim around Apple Park, Mr Armstrong! | mkrishnan wrote: | pjkundert wrote: | It would help your case if you provided reasoning. | | Cost limits uptake of limited resources - storage and | processing on Ethereum blockchain must have a limiting function | - gas provides it. | Maursault wrote: | NFTs are brilliant and essential. Shame on Apple for blocking | Coinbase wallet from transferring NFTs | Maursault wrote: | NFTs are stupid and pointless. Good for Apple for blocking | Coinbase wallet from transferring NFTs and subtly protecting its | consumers from idiodic dogshit. | mcast wrote: | "At first they came for our NFTs..." | Maursault wrote: | This is pure gold. | zarzavat wrote: | If it were groceries would you say the same? You shouldn't have | to pay a tax to the phone company to buy something on your | phone. Whether you think the thing people are buying is stupid | or not is beside the point. | Maursault wrote: | > If it were groceries would you say the same? | | Weak analogy. Unlike groceries, NFTs can't do what they claim | to do. NFTs are fraud. | stevenkkim wrote: | "The American crayfish was introduced in the '20s. A guest, if | you like. And like most guests having a good time, they didn't | wanna leave. Next 50 years, they consumed all the local crayfish, | wiped them out. And then, they started eating each other. That's | the thing about greed, Arch. It's blind. And it doesn't know when | to stop." - Lenny Cole, from Rocknrolla | dontblink wrote: | I don't understand why the disgruntled companies don't simply | band together and remove their apps from Apple until Apple | complies? Apple is as reliant on their third party apps for their | ecosystems as much as the inverse. | hoherd wrote: | Doing this would piss off the entire Apple user base of those | companies, with no certain gain. Those companies would lose | lots of customers as collateral damage in a war that they could | potentially lose. Sounds like a bad strategy to me. | mensetmanusman wrote: | Meh, Apple would be the one pulling the plug. | satvikpendem wrote: | And do what? When in an oligopoly, there aren't many places to | go to. | gryf wrote: | Investors would fire the board for doing that. | HDThoreaun wrote: | People have already invested $1000 into their phones. It will | take a long time to get them to switch (probably years tbh) and | apple thinks they can wait longer than app developers. | snowwrestler wrote: | Many of the apps in the Apple App Store--including Coinbase-- | also offer a web interface which would work fine in Safari. | People would not even have to switch phones. | HDThoreaun wrote: | There is a reason these companies make apps, they increase | engagement and make it easier to track users. I don't big | tech is ready to give up apps on iPhones. | snowwrestler wrote: | Me either, which is the point: companies complain about | the App Store cut, but they are obviously getting value | for it because they don't pull their apps. | zopa wrote: | It's not a bad idea but there's no "simply" about it: | organizing is hard. And if you're one of the disgruntled | companies, you have to balance the chances a campaign like this | succeeds against the odds that Apple retaliates against the | first companies to sign on. | mberning wrote: | Apple us so flush with cash I doubt they care. | lotsofpulp wrote: | > Apple is as reliant on their third party apps for their | ecosystems as much as the inverse. | | I would take the other side of this bet. Barrier to entry for | software to make a new chat app, social network, streaming app, | crypto app, etc is much lower than barrier to entry to make | hardware. | | Another company willing to play by Apple's rules will swoop in | in relatively little time, while an alternative to iPhone/Apple | Watch/AirPods/iPads/M processor computers will not. | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | Someone will just make a Roblox or Fortnite competitor and | everyone will switch to it overnight? I doubt it | lotsofpulp wrote: | > relatively little time | | Meaning alternative Roblox or Fortnite is coming much | sooner than alternative devices equivalent to Apple's | hardware products. | actionablefiber wrote: | Sure, why not? If the top ten games from my Steam library | disappeared off the face of the earth I'd still have plenty | of other games to play. Games rise and fall all the time; | 10 years ago you could have written that about Minecraft | and 15 years ago about Runescape. There are certainly still | audiences for those games but they are smaller than before. | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | Say you have a game that you and all your friends play | which you've purchased things for and logged thousands of | hours on. You wouldn't be upset if it dumped from the App | Store simply because Tim Cook woke up and chose violence? | actionablefiber wrote: | I would certainly be sad. And then I'd start playing | something else. It happens all the time in video games. | People paid money for Club Penguin memberships and logged | untold amounts of time there, too! | threeseed wrote: | Because the most important apps to users right now are | advertising-driven. | | And the App Store has been around for nearly a decade now and | we already know that users care far more about Apple than they | do any one particular app. | laweijfmvo wrote: | Apple probably has a loaded PR statement ready for a situation | like this. Coinbase? The public perception of crypto is already | a joke at this point on its own. Facebook? Something about | "privacy". And so on. | jacamera wrote: | This is an interesting question. It reminds me of the contract | disputes that content producers sometimes have with cable | companies that might result in one or more channels suddenly | becoming unavailable for cable customers. Content producers | need distribution (or at least did, back in the day) but the | cable companies needed them as well and I would imagine must | have taken the brunt of customer outrage when a channel became | unavailable. | [deleted] | asdff wrote: | Why don't companies just get ahead of apple here, decamp from the | app store, and heavily advertise a web app instead? Most of these | apps need online connectivity anyway, so having a native app | isn't all that useful. | FractalHQ wrote: | Progressive Web Apps can run offline thanks to Service Workers. | I'm not sure how reliable or feature-complete the iOS/Safari | service worker API is (likely half-baked and bug-ridden like | the rest of their browser APIs), but in theory it can be | installed once and run offline just fine. | ravenstine wrote: | No one can figure out how to write a good web app. Give your | average web developer the task of showing _Green Eggs And Ham_ | to the user and they 'll always figure out how to make the page | really slow and clunky. | | The web has played out, and I'm pretty sure most people use it | for news, recipes, and Wikipedia. Everything else is done | through apps. You don't see a lot of young people talking about | websites. Websites are seen as something for old people, and | the App Store is the easiest way to access services and social | media, which is how Apple has these companies in a bind. If | going to The Google or typing in a URL was as easy or easier | for the average person, Apple would have lowered the cut they | take a long time ago. | asdff wrote: | If you can make an app, you can make a web app. I use a few | made by companies with very little means and they work great. | saurik wrote: | The primary purpose of the Coinbase Wallet app is to securely | store and mediate access to a private key that allows the user | to spend/transfer money (by making transactions on Ethereum or | other similar decentralized networks, which involve a payment | of gas fees to the network). It isn't clear that there is a | reasonable way to build that product as a web app. | asdff wrote: | Why not? Coinbase lets you do this stuff from their website | too. | andrewstuart wrote: | The best thing about Apple's outrageous 30% cut is it's some of | the biggest companies in the world and Apple smashing each other | to bits. | | In this society, big companies usually get all the breaks and the | little guys get nothing, so it's nice to see the big guys forced | to brawl. | | Governments, for example, folded many years ago and stopped | taxing big companies 30% and instead give them money. Apple isn't | as easily bribed as politicians. | saurik wrote: | But at the end of the day the 30% overhead goes to Apple. If | there is some sub-market of apps where there is actual | competition--where the companies making these apps are | competing with each other and are driving their price lower-- | Apple's existence tacks on a 30% overhead to all of the | competitors equally, meaning it is the user who loses out, not | the companies. | | When a government taxes you 30%, the money is supposed to go | for services or capital improvement products that eventually | indirectly help people. That isn't how Apple hoarding this cash | works. | jpttsn wrote: | Devil's advocte: Apple pays for a lot of things that benefit | the apps, like developing the chips the app runs on. This is | similar to how a government can build roads that the | businesses begin taxed can drive their trucks on et.c. | bee_rider wrote: | It is like Godzilla smashing up other monsters; yeah | technically I know I shouldn't be rooting for any of the | monsters but it is kinda cool and also funny. Apple unleashing | a giant anti-ad beam at Facebook is just great. | | Coinbase, I dunno, they are some tiny nobodies right? Seems | like punching down too much. | gl-prod wrote: | Customers still are the one paying those 30% cut. So it's not | nice. | acover wrote: | Are they? Monopolies don't set prices based on marginal costs | but on maximizing profit. A 30% tax may very well come out of | their profits as raising prices may reduce sales enough to | reduce profits. | JOnAgain wrote: | What about the wire transfer fee I pay to my bank on my app when | I send a wire? | skullone wrote: | what about buying and selling stocks? Paying yiur credit card | through banking app (with fees/interest). is apple going to | want a cut of all that? | exabrial wrote: | Apple at this point has no fear of regulatory action. | | I think both Red and Blue can agree they need to be reigned in | and split up. | yamtaddle wrote: | I'm all for this if government would outlaw all the bad | behavior I can currently pay Apple to protect me from, first. | Which they really ought to do anyway. Like, do that and I'll | join you with the pitchforks demanding Apple change its ways or | be destroyed. Meanwhile... please don't. | goosedragons wrote: | Do you just not use a computer? Why would it be any | different? | | I feel like Apple sells false safety and there's still scams | and still malware in there. | yamtaddle wrote: | Been using computers since... oh, '91 or '92, Apple stuff | only since ~2010. Having at least one platform I can use as | an actually-useful-in-real-life tool without constantly | having to scrutinize and second-guess and mistrust and un- | fuck everything is damn nice. They could absolutely be | better--a lot better, yes bad stuff gets into the store, | yes some practices like loot box gambling really ought to | be on their naughty-list except those make them tons of | money, et c.--but I like having an option for that kind of | experience--even if it's far from perfect, even if they're | not as privacy-respecting as they claim, even if App Store | rule enforcement and sandboxing protections are less than | 100% effective, et c.--especially with government asleep at | the wheel, regulation-wise. I _like_ that Apple 's in a | position to force other companies not to be shitty, while | also having an ecosystem too tempting for those companies | to ignore. That's great for me. | | I'd rather the worst behavior they protect against were | simply illegal. I'd rather Apple had other competitors | offering similar things (though, absent regulation, that | kinda _depends_ on their leveraging monopoly power, so it | 's hard to see how robust competition would fit into that | dynamic). I'd rather _no_ companies were as big as Apple | (or Microsoft, or Google, or Facebook, or...) with hands in | as many pies. But given the broader environment I 'd rather | have Apple the way it is, than broken up or destroyed. | Ideally, yes, that's what would happen, but the rest of the | situation's far from ideal. Fix some of that first, so | losing them doesn't _remove_ an option I like having, and I | 'm with you, let's break them up. | saurik wrote: | Have you ever totaled up how much money you are spending on | Apple's protection every month to verify it is actualy worth | it? And are you really sure that same tradeoff makes sense | for larger transactions? Like, if someone is spending | hundreds of dollars on gas fees or consumable access credits | every month, does it really make sense that they should be | paying Apple $30/mo for "protection"? If someone gets really | into some app and wants to plunk down $1000 for it, is there | any amount of protection in the world that makes $300 feel | right? | dmitrygr wrote: | Yes I have. Yes it is. | yamtaddle wrote: | Very little. The devices & OS are otherwise better-enough | than the competition (in the case of iOS, the _sole_ | competitor, which goes a long way to explaining why the | market sucks so bad) that I 'd still be buying them absent | app store regulations, so that doesn't count, and anyway | the premium's pretty low if you're comparing them to | actually-comparable products and factor in resale value. I | think the 30% cut (which isn't always that high, these | days, for smaller players) of my purchases amounts to low- | tens of dollars per year and almost all of that is from a | single subscription. So, less than I spend on any one | streaming service. | smoldesu wrote: | That's an awfully vague demand. Apple protects you from a | handful of things and exposes you to others, it's not a | binary situation in any sense (nor will "outlawing" | everything you disagree with). | | Mind you, neither of us need to be at each other's throat. | Apple can give me a Developer Mode toggle without taking | anything away from you. | jdminhbg wrote: | > That's an awfully vague demand. | | It's a response to saying Apple needs to be "reined in" | which is hardly a concrete proposal. | bioemerl wrote: | What prevents you from opting into a more closed garden or | having apple outline clear walls that you can jump off you | prefer? | | A law like this only gives you more choice. | yamtaddle wrote: | It's been discussed to death on here. | | One side believes there's a risk of companies leaving the | App Store if that monopoly's broken, which would make | things worse for them than the current situation. | | The other thinks that's bullshit because that hasn't | happened on Android. | | The first notes that Android hasn't restricted Facebook | practices such that Facebook's blaming them for significant | earnings misses, so, you know, things _might_ play out a | little differently on iOS than it did on Android, and also | this group prefer the status quo to even the best-likely | outcome from shaking that up, so no amount of risk to it is | worth it to them (us). | | Except usually instead of writing it out plainly like that, | the pro-Apple poster writes something shorter and less | well-considered, probably assuming certain parts of that | are obvious and don't need to be written out, the other | jumps on it, a flamewar ensues, and the next time around we | get a sea of comments that are like "I just don't | understand how this would hurt Apple-lovers, they can just | stay on the App Store" and it all repeats. | trap_goes_hot wrote: | Its BS to think Apple is the cop that is going to fight | your fights. Apple only cares about money, and they're | going to obediently abide by local laws - see China. We | need more/stronger laws, we don't need to give Apple more | power. | yamtaddle wrote: | Yes, of course, I agree. Again, I'd rather a bunch of the | stuff Apple prohibits were simply illegal (plus a few | things they don't) and that several huge companies, | including Apple, were broken up into a dozen or more | parts. But in the meantime I'm glad to have one platform | where some of those practices are _effectively_ illegal, | at least. The second government steps up I 'll be | thrilled to see them smashed to bits (and hopefully not | _only_ them--and hey, those others don 't have to wait as | far as I'm concerned!). | trap_goes_hot wrote: | Money = Power. Why would Apple allow this breaking up? | Its naive to think otherwise, see what is happening in | South Korea with Samsung accounting for like 25% of the | economy. They're untouchable in South Korea. | paulmd wrote: | thinking of "freedom" as a singular thing that exists is | misleading, there's multiple kinds of freedom, that's why | GPL exists vs BSD/MIT, there is an _inherent conflict_ | between end-user freedom vs developer freedom and the | obvious solution (MIT "do anything you want" license is | more free than one with licensing stipulations and | limitations, right?) doesn't actually maximize freedom for | everybody. | | We literally already are in a situation where people have | opted into a more closed garden, that's the Apple model | right now, and people are arguing that it needs to be | forcibly opened up, which effectively destroys the walled- | garden model. Like, the reason Facebook and Google are | arguing that isn't because it's the right thing to do and | they're on your side, they're doing it because app review | is successfully and significantly holding back their | spyware bullshit and this is the mechanism they want to use | to get around it, they've found the most-appealing argument | that will get nerds arguing on their side to produce the | desired outcome. But ultimately they're not arguing for | _your_ freedoms here, just like Sony wasn 't arguing that | they should have to open up their own app store on ps5. | They are arguing for _their_ freedoms, not end-users. | | Facebook literally already got caught using their dev | credentials to deploy a spyware build to users who _opted | in_ to additional surveillance that normally would have | been prevented by the walled-garden. If you "open it up", | the next step is Facebook withdraws their app from the | normal app-store, and now you need to install the Facebook | App-Store to use facebook, which will demand full | permissions to spy on everything, just like their spyware | build already did with the dev credentials. This shit is | literally already ready to go, they just need the ability | to pull the trigger. | | https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and- | google-... | | Yes, in a notional sense it will be "optional", in the | sense you can choose to just not use google or facebook, | but in the real world people need those things if they want | to maintain their social networks/etc, so in effect _merely | allowing sideloading to exist completely neuters any | possibility of a walled garden existing at all_ , | especially against the largest players from whom you need | the most protection. There are dozens of horoscope apps or | whatever, there is only one facebook, so you play by their | rules or you don't play, that is what the walled garden is | really about preventing. Apple is using their leverage to | hold back some of the facebooks of the world from preying | on users with permissions bullshit and spying. | | If you want to "allow some people to choose a walled | garden" that's the apple position here. You can still | choose a not-walled-garden option for yourself personally, | if you want. People are ideologically opposed to the | walled-garden existing at all, they want it eliminated, not | as merely a choice. It's sort of like the people who | "aren't pro-abortion or anti-abortion, they just think | everyone should have all the information and as safe an | environment as possible and can make their own choice". | Congrats that's the pro-choice position, and if you want | the option of being able to choose a walled garden but | nobody is actually forced to use it then congrats, that's | the apple position here, go buy an android phone. Nobody is | arguing you shouldn't be able to buy an android like people | are arguing about apple, these sides aren't equivalent at | all. It is quite literally an "anti-choice" argument from | the android side here, they want that choice to be | eliminated and walled gardens to cease to exist entirely. | | To go back to the original point, BSD/MIT vs GPL... Apple | is the GPL freedom model in this situation. Apple is | concerned about maximizing end-user freedom even if it | kills developer freedom, and _even if some specific kinds | of user-freedoms are decreased_. Yes, you are giving up the | ability to sideload apps for free... and that restriction | allows the app-review model to exist, which protects user | freedoms in the bigger picture. Android is the BSD model, | anything goes, and that means giving freedom to large | players whose interests run counter to users ' interests | and user freedoms as a whole. You have lots of freedom on | Android, as long as they're freedoms to use google services | or facebook or wechat or other closed proprietary all-in- | one platforms. And if you want to run google-less | replacement builds... go for it but that's not the | experience 99.9% of people get out of android, they are | just as locked-in to google services as apple people are on | apple, but they also get much less protection via app- | review etc. | | (and again, reminder that sideloading has NEVER been | unavailable on ios... it's just not free. the cost of | sideloading apps is $99 a year. If you allow anyone to do | sideload with no friction, then you just enable the | facebooks of the world to demand that you do it, there | _has_ to be a friction there if the walled-garden model is | ever going to exist.) | | And besides app review... in the big picture... what do you | think happens when iOS Safari gets killed off? Google | already has a basically 95% monoculture of Chrome and | Chromium-derivatives (like Edge). When you look at how | manifest-v3 has been handled (contrary to the interests of | end-users), do anybody really think Google crushing the | last 5% of the market that's holding out is going to result | in _more_ end-user freedoms? Safari on IOS is a bulwark | that nobody likes using but it holds back an ocean of salty | consequences if Google can assume complete control of the | Browser-As-An-OS platform. Like yeah Safari iOS is trash | but it's _load-bearing trash_ as far as the broader | internet and google monoculture... | orangecat wrote: | _Yes, in a notional sense it will be "optional", in the | sense you can choose to just not use google or facebook, | but in the real world people need those things if they | want to maintain their social networks/etc_ | | Also in the real world a lot of people "need" to use | iMessage or FaceTime, so they have to use iOS whether or | not they want the walled garden. Let Apple open up those | protocols, and then we can talk about having a real | choice. | | _Nobody is arguing you shouldn 't be able to buy an | android_ | | Apple was arguing exactly that for many years. | | _they want that choice to be eliminated and walled | gardens to cease to exist entirely_ | | I'll almost bite that bullet. Walled gardens are terrible | for freedom and innovation, as we've seen just recently | when Apple crippled AirDrop under orders from the Chinese | government. I wouldn't say that they shouldn't exist at | all, but it should be something that you very explicitly | opt in to rather than the default. | | _what do you think happens when iOS Safari gets killed | off?_ | | Alternatively, allowing competition might force Apple to | spend some effort making Safari not suck so that doesn't | happen. | mensetmanusman wrote: | Splitting Apple into Tv, music, App Store probably makes sense | jimbob45 wrote: | My understanding was that the new EU rules would force Apple to | open up their platform to competing app stores, no? In that | view, this would seem to be a last gasp by Apple to capture | profit that they soon won't be able to seek. | threeseed wrote: | Apple may be forced to have competing app stores but: | | a) They would be allowed to then ban apps that exist on | alternate stores. | | b) They can still collect their 30% cut which no-one has ever | said was not permitted. They already have telemetry about | what apps are being installed on their phones and can simply | bill the third party App Store. Non-payment would result in | the store being banned. | | Similar situation happened when Apple was forced to support | alternate payment processors in Netherlands. Nobody used it | because it ended up being less profitable than simply using | Apple. | unity1001 wrote: | > My understanding was that the new EU rules would force | Apple to open up their platform to competing app stores, no? | | It gave companies 6 months to comply. They are still within | that period. Then the fine hammer will start coming down. | RajT88 wrote: | When it comes to politicians, both red and blue rely on big | tech money. | | It could be as simple as investment portfolios, or the more | likely lobbyist money which fills their war chest | thatguy0900 wrote: | The politicians can just take short positions, their | investments will be fine as always | OnuRC wrote: | Yes and recent years they're great traders anyway. High ROI | then many funds and market avg. Great people | cobertos wrote: | Split up? They're not a monopoly in the phone market and only | barely have a majority market share. | | I don't defend Apple's actions but I don't think this is a | company-sized anticompetition problem. This is a regulation | problem where it should be a user right to have access to | alternate app stores, and to choose to run whatever software we | want. | weberer wrote: | >I think both Red and Blue can agree they need to be reigned in | and split up. | | Well I'm not too sure about one of them. | | https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/apple-inc/totals?id=D000021... | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | I think you overestimate the extent to which the political | parties will look at the most profitable company in America and | say "hmm, time to disrupt that". | nickthegreek wrote: | I think they need to be reigned in, but what is the reason to | split them up? | gjsman-1000 wrote: | I would love it if _public_ companies were forced to take a | niche and stick with it - because the horizontal integration | becomes a major anti-competitive tool. Imagine if iOS was | developed independently and available for other phone makers | as an Android competitor, the iPhone just being one of them. | The App Store could be its own thing, as could Apple Music. | AirPods could be its own business. Sure, things might be less | integrated and tight-knit, but the market would be far more | competitive. | | At this point I'm almost willing to say horizontal | integration is the source of so many competitive problems and | anti-consumer behavior. | threeseed wrote: | Where do you want to draw the circle ? | | Sony is allowed to sell the Playstation but not the | controllers. Tesla would be forced to have their car | support other operating systems. Leica could sell cameras | but not lenses. | | Your idea is completely unworkable. | akmarinov wrote: | Yeah but some things would never have seen the light of | day. The M1 chips for example were a huge investment that | wouldn't have been made without the behemoth that is Apple | behind it. | exabrial wrote: | I don't really understand how the M1 chip is any | different than other speciality SOC offerings though. | retromario wrote: | https://techcrunch.com/2020/11/17/yeah-apples-m1-macbook- | pro... | | 2-3x more energy efficient + the same performance (if not | better) than other (Intel) chips ~2 times more expensive. | I don't think there's been another leap like that in the | last 20-25 years. | dmitriid wrote: | Apple has had over a decade designing and testing these | chips to exact specifications and use cases. | | Without this you have... well, literally everyone else | who haven't done this (because they couldn't or | wouldn't). This is what makes it different from | "specialty SOC offerings". | exabrial wrote: | Qualcomm and Samsung have made SOCs for 5-10 years longer | than Apple though... It's not like there was no | integrated cores before the M1. | dmitriid wrote: | And where exactly are those SoCs? I mean where are the | M1-level chips? Forget M1. Where are A-level chips? They | didn't even anticipate the switch to 64-bit on mobile | devices, much less M1. | | Yes, custom SoCs are nothing new. To pretend that M1 | isn't any different from other "specialty SoCs" is | delusional. | trap_goes_hot wrote: | Apple is more than willing to milk cash cows with little | to no innovation - See iphone/ipad/macos/ios, etc. Its | the same with chip foundaries/companies - Intel et al. | will just milk their own cash cow with mild incremental | releases. Companies with nothing to loose often innovate. | (e.g. Apple with M1). | | Keeping companies "stay hungry, stay foolish" is probably | in our best interest ! :) | dmitriid wrote: | Apple could've also milked their cash cow. | | And yet they implemented and executed a multilayered | intertwined decade-long (or actually longer) plan. | | Their first custom chip was launched in 2010. It means | they were designing it since _at least_ 2008, but | definitely since before then. | | The original iPhone was launched in 2007. | | So, they were designing and releasing a new product | category, _and_ already designing custom chips for it. | | Even fat lazy companies can stay hungry and foolish. | There are not that many of them, though. | Gigachad wrote: | Even if another company did build it, it would have ended | up in a Windows RT situation where no one would want to | support it. In this case Apple can use its weight for | good and actually get everyone else to support it | resulting in a better situation for end users. | macintux wrote: | And as importantly, if the company making iPhones and the | company making Macs were forced to be different entities, | how would the A-series chips have evolved into the | M-series? Apple took a decade of hard-earned | architectural knowledge and evolution to create the M1. | gjsman-1000 wrote: | There comes a point though when you have to break | monopoly's for the market's sake. | | For example, remember Standard Oil? They made oil super | cheap, researched new oils, basically were great for | customers almost like Amazon - but they were monopolistic | and were shattered for being so. Similar monopolies in | the past like Bell Telephone or, arguably, Amazon now are | great from the consumer's perspective but terrible for | businesses. | | In the past, we were less afraid to say, "you're doing | great, but you're still too powerful." | jacobr1 wrote: | With the benefit of hindsight was breaking up Standard | Oil worth it? | [deleted] | simonh wrote: | I just don't see a monopoly though. Apple has simply been | successful, and there's no anti-consumer angle to just | making incredibly popular products. | | A big part of that popularity comes from the tight | vertical integration. That's why so many Apple users see | this kind of talk as an attack on us, you want to make | the things we like about these products illegal or | commercially infeasible. I just don't see how that is in | our interests as consumers. | | If you want to use products that work a different way, | fine, but I don't see how that's our problem. | jacobr1 wrote: | And it isn't like quality Android phones are somehow | niche, hard to find, or cost more. The competitions is | strong and Apple only maintains its lead (in fairly short | 1-2 year product cycles) with innovation. If it stopped | innovating or charging excessive amounts, they would lose | their market share very quickly. | threeseed wrote: | It's this ridiculous "everything should be a market" | concept. | | Would you expect a LG microwave to be forced to support | other operating systems ? | | And how do warranties and support work for this. | aliqot wrote: | You have to be able to pivot your company. You can't just | pick a niche and stick with it if you don't know how | profitable it is. | dmitrygr wrote: | And nothing of value was lost | ProAm wrote: | Double taxation refers to the imposition of taxes on the same | income, assets or financial transaction at two different points | of time. | Apocryphon wrote: | This doesn't even make business sense. What money is there to be | made in NFT transitions in December 2022? | tylersmith wrote: | The average Eth tx fee is around 50 cents, so the money to be | made is about 15 cents per tx sent from the Coinbase app. | imchillyb wrote: | The entire world should be required to read: The Jungle, by Upton | Sinclair. | newbie578 wrote: | Can't wait for Apple and Tim Cook to be brought back into reality | by the EU. | | I'm popping champagne on that day. | josteink wrote: | As an iPhone-user, Apple is really doing everything they can to | make sure I don't like them or their products anymore. | | The China riot iOS censor-update, this, the Twitter app threats. | And all in a about a weeks worth of time. | | Wtf guys. Seriously. | iLoveOncall wrote: | Really? Every blow they deal to crypto I start liking them | again. | josteink wrote: | I don't give a rats about crypto stuff generally or coinbase | specifically. At this point I equal blockchain to snake oil | and scamming. | | For me this is all about their flagrant abuse of platform and | gate-keeper power. | crazygringo wrote: | You know what baffles me? That Apple doesn't have a separate, | "VIP" review process for apps that are from established, known | companies. | | When I see a independent developer complaining about Apple (or | Google) being arbitrary in their app review process, I can at | least understand how it's some low-paid employee trying to | fulfill a daily quota. It still sucks, but I see the economic | rationale of low-paid, low-skilled app reviewers there. | | But it really surprises me that when it comes to apps from well- | known tech companies like Coinbase, that Apple isn't doing a | higher-quality review by people who actually know what they're | doing and understand the industry. That there isn't a | knowledgeable team inside of Apple making sure that corporate | partners are treated like partners rather than niche indie | developers. | | I'm not saying a two-tier system would be more fair, because | obviously it wouldn't be. I'm just saying it surprises me that a | company like Apple shoots itself in the foot like this with bad | decisions that then lead to bad press. It's such an own-goal. | (Because in this case, the 30% cut doesn't even make sense | conceptually, it's like trying to tax Amazon 30% on physical | goods sold through its app.) | Marsymars wrote: | > You know what baffles me? That Apple doesn't have a separate, | "VIP" review process for apps that are from established, known | companies. | | What makes you confident that they don't? | selykg wrote: | My experience working with a very large app is that, yea, | they basically do. | | Or at the very least, you get yourself in a certain | relationship with Apple that it sort of is like this. | | When we had a version we needed to get through quickly due to | a bad bug, we'd shoot our contact an email, a few leadership | members had this contact's phone number if needed. We'd make | a call, and within an hour we usually had the version | approved. Sometimes it did come with a caveat of "you're | going to need to fix this issue before the next update" or | whatever if we hadn't quite followed the rules, but they gave | us a bit of leeway in emergency situations. | | This does not really mean all updates went through this super | fast process. We had to wait weeks at times for app | approvals. So it's not really VIP reviewing, it's more like | VIP treatment if you're big enough and know the right people. | | Edit: and yes, we often ran into the situation of the | previous version did something that we figured was fine, and | approved by one reviewer but then the next update was flagged | as no good by the next reviewer despite the last one | approving it. | Aulig wrote: | This process seems to be available to regular apps too now. | When Apple rejects an update, they ask whether it's a bug | fix update you need approved quickly. If yes, you can | resolve the identified issues with the next update. | | They started mentioning this in the past few weeks when I | was updating clients' apps. | selykg wrote: | it's a little different. In our case we were | circumventing requests to make changes to the app to get | approval. We were effectively getting a free pass to ship | the version with a possible App Store rule breakage, this | one time, and getting it approved super fast. | naravara wrote: | The problem is being an established, known company doesn't mean | you can be trusted to not behave badly on the platform with | regard to security vulnerabilities or user privacy. See | Facebook as a prime example. | | The bad press doesn't really matter as long as they have such a | dominant profit share on all mobile software sales. | shagie wrote: | An old example of well known companies behaving badly... | | https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/23/15399438/apple-uber- | app-s... | | > The practice, called fingerprinting, is prohibited by | Apple. To prevent the company from discovering the practice, | Uber geofenced Apple headquarters in Cupertino, changing its | code so that it would be hidden from Apple Employees. Despite | their efforts, Apple discovered the activity, which led to | the meeting between the two CEOs, in which Cook told Kalanick | to end the practice. If Uber didn't comply, Cook told him, | Uber's app would be removed from the App Store, a move that | would be a huge blow to the ride-sharing company. According | to the article, "Mr. Kalanick was shaken by Mr. Cook's | scolding, according to a person who saw him after the | meeting," and ended the practice. | mensetmanusman wrote: | Cook love money. | | Meanwhile he is cracking down on Chinese protestors and | doesn't bat an eye. | rootusrootus wrote: | You read that story and _Cook_ is the villain? Uber | deserved to get slapped down for that behavior. Should | have knocked them off the store for a week just to punish | them for the attempt. | mensetmanusman wrote: | It just shows he has principles when he gets paid more. | shagie wrote: | Uber doesn't pay _any_ cut to apple. The money collected | by Uber is for services and clearly falls under: | | > 3.1.3(e) Goods and Services Outside of the App: If your | app enables people to purchase physical goods or services | that will be consumed outside of the app, you must use | purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect | those payments, such as Apple Pay or traditional credit | card entry. | bilbo0s wrote: | Well, this is why we can't have nice things. | | I get so ticked off with these other tech companies that on | the one hand want me to support them in their fight to get | more laisez faire access to Apple devices, and on the other | actively engage in what are undoubtedly some of the most | consumer hostile privacy invading practices on the planet. | They actively compromise security, and then lobby and | payoff senators to get better access because they are | unable to compromise consumer security enough to make the | profits they need. | | The entire industry from Apple on down to startups needs to | be nuked with a "no use of user information for any | commercial purposes at all" law. Coupled with draconian | fines that pierce the corporate veil and are assessed per | user violation. We need something like GDPR in the US, but | more strict. Apple isn't the problem. I'm starting to see | that this entire industry is problematic. | | Apologies for the rant. | shortcake27 wrote: | > The bad press doesn't really matter as long as they have | such a dominant profit share on all mobile software sales. | | It also doesn't matter because there's no alternative. | | "Side-loading" can't come quick enough. I have no issue with | the App Store vetting apps arbitrarily, but there needs to be | an alternative where developers can provide their apps direct | to consumers without this BS. | varispeed wrote: | > You know what baffles me? That Apple doesn't have a separate, | "VIP" review process for apps that are from established, known | companies. | | That sounds elitists and what is wrong with capitalism. It gets | distorted by big corporations having their way with their big | elbows inhibiting growth and competition. Then you have people | supporting the VIP lane are part of the problem. | | Corporations should get equal treatment regardless of their | size or in fact small business should get _more_ help than big | corporations. | lostgame wrote: | They do. Source: I work for a major bank in Canada and I know | people with direct lines to people at Apple who handle this | kind of thing. | hackernewds wrote: | This is what doomed Twitter early on. Not respecting the devs, | Apple has its day of reckoning approaching as well. | musk_micropenis wrote: | What difference do you think a "higher quality review" would | make? Apple is enforcing their strict policy that all purchases | from within apps (with some documented exceptions) must use | Apple's IAP and cough up the 30%. | | This has nothing to do with Apple's kafkaesque review process | and everything to do with their policies, which have been | increasingly strictly enforced for the last couple of years. | bonestamp2 wrote: | I think he means the "people who actually know what they're | doing and understand the industry" part. Someone who | understands how crypto works would understand that the user | is not making a payment to the app developer and therefore | Apple has no claim to a cut of the transaction. If this is | the way that Apple wants to enforce their policy, they'll | have to take a cut of the transaction when I open my banking | app and use that app to pay a bill. | unityByFreedom wrote: | Isn't it obvious that making crypto payments easier allows | devs to circumvent Apple's cut? | | I don't think people would accept any percentage taken of | crypto exchanges. | | Let's not beat around the bush. This is Apple protecting | the way it earns money, not trying to levy fines on crypto | to make _more_ money. I 'm pretty sure they understand that | this decision makes them unpopular with some people. Their | bet is that it preserves the model where there is still a | functional review system for code that runs on your phone. | simondotau wrote: | Apple doesn't ask for or take a mandatory cut of in-app | money transfer services. They also don't take a cut of | any physical goods sales (e.g. grocery shopping) or | physical services (e.g. Uber car rides). | | They take a 15% or 30% cut of all in-app experiences | (e.g. entertainment, productivity software, content | subscriptions). This is levied through the App Store and | IAP. | | (They take 0.15% of card payments if they are routed | through Apple Pay, levied from the regular merchant fee | associated with all card payments. However this is not | forced on anyone and bank pays anyway, willingly, as the | lower rate of fraud means the fee represents good value.) | unityByFreedom wrote: | > Apple doesn't ask for or take a mandatory cut of in-app | money transfer services. | | I suppose you mean like when I use Venmo or my bank. | Okay, but I can't readily use those to buy other in-app | things like subscriptions, right? So it's consistent. | DaiPlusPlus wrote: | > Isn't it obvious that making crypto payments easier | allows devs to circumvent Apple's cut? | | No, it isn't. Please enlighten us. | unityByFreedom wrote: | It is another form of payment. What's to get? | [deleted] | maccard wrote: | Echoing the other comments here, why do you think they don't? I | worked on <insert_very_large_game_here> and we had dedicated | contacts at apple, special agreements for (some) rules and a | different SLA to what I now know is standard. | singularity2001 wrote: | >> Apple doesn't have a separate, "VIP" review process for | apps | | they do. Some years ago my app was in the top 100 and I had | nice telephone calls with real human people. | smoldesu wrote: | It's shocking that this isn't part of the $99/year developer | program. 15-minute quarterly check-ins with an Apple | developer seem fully within their means. | richbell wrote: | But then it wouldn't be free money. | danpalmer wrote: | It sort of is. You get 2 developer technical support | tickets (DTS). These are essentially at the level of having | an engineer look at your code and help you figure it out. | With these they've done things like review my build | settings when I was having difficulty with a complex build. | I believe App Store consultation is one of the available | topics, but if not it would be worth trying anyway. These | tickets are clearly worth a lot more than $50 each if used | well. | smoldesu wrote: | Interesting, I didn't now that. Still though, my | recommendation is mostly tongue-in-cheek because even | spending 5 hours with an Apple engineer won't fix OP's | problem. Nevertheless though, thanks for sharing! | 1123581321 wrote: | What's OP's problem? Everyone has told them that there | are multiple tiers of attention in the review department. | Plus you get the support credits for specific issues | (i.e. ones that aren't a business problem like the 30% | cut.) | nailer wrote: | I imagine OPs problem is that Apple wants 30% of all the | Blockchain transactions. Which is insane. | 1123581321 wrote: | If that's what he was referring to, then agreed. There is | no red telephone access to appeal broadly strategic | decision-making, no matter who is the developer, sadly. | unityByFreedom wrote: | A review of the above three exchanges: | | "Apple doesn't have dedicated support for established devs" | | "They do, I was in it" | | "Why don't they support _all_ devs this way? Apple sux. " | | Added: | | "They do, you get 2 free support tickets" | | "Oh they do? It still wouldn't fix every problem. Apple | still sux." | | In this lose-lose environment, I can only expect Apple will | simply end up pissing people off no matter what it does. | | I realize we all know this but I've never seen it expressed | so succinctly in a thread. | smoldesu wrote: | The problem isn't Apple's lack of transparency (at least | for me) but the fact that they charge $99/year for | features that should be a God-given right. They will | always piss people off as long as they charge them for a | product that should be included with their computer by- | default. Until then, I may as well demand Apple include a | few rocks from Mars and astronaut ice-cream every year, | at least then I'd be getting my $99's worth. | unityByFreedom wrote: | > features that should be a God-given right. | | What features are you asking for that apply to this | thread? | | You do not have a god given right for _them_ to follow | _your_ policies. | | > They will always piss people off as long as they charge | them for a product that should be included with their | computer by-default. | | The goalposts move with every comment. You don't have the | right to determine what parts of their products are free | vs. paid. | freediver wrote: | Curious what would the criteria for VIP status be if there was | such system? | littlestymaar wrote: | They could charge a few tens of thousands a year for the | status, and most non-small companies would pay for it easily. | [deleted] | jjtheblunt wrote: | > ... Apple doesn't have a separate, "VIP" review process for | apps that are from established, known companies. | | Why do you say that they don't? | busymom0 wrote: | They do. Small developers get apps rejected for now including | detailed update notes whereas big companies like FB, Uber, | Google routinely put out updated with generic update notes | which is against Apple's developer guidelines. | | Uber geofenced Apple's Cupertino headquarters to hide that it | was tracking iPhones and yet they weren't banned entirely from | the App Store. They got a mere threat from Tim Cook. | | https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/23/15399438/apple-uber-app-s... | matwood wrote: | > You know what baffles me? That Apple doesn't have a separate, | "VIP" review process for apps that are from established, known | companies. | | I'm not sure this is true. I know years ago they had an | expedited track you could get on. Once we got on it, we had | very quick reviews, re-reviews, and releases. I would read | about people waiting weeks while we almost always had 48h turn | around. I don't think expedited exists anymore since turn | around is always quick now, but I could easily see them routing | big names towards a senior review team. | pavlov wrote: | Imagine a bunch of game developers join forces to create | something called the Game Asset Service. When you unlock a | feature in a game by one of these developers, it gets delivered | through the GAS. | | The GAS is legally a separate entity from the game companies | (although controlled by them), and it sets a varying fee for its | delivery network. Maybe the fee is quite high, and unlocking a $6 | game feature actually consists of $5.50 fees paid to the GAS and | $0.50 paid to the game developer. | | Would Apple say: "Sure, this delivery fee you're paying to GAS is | something completely separate from the in-app purchase. We'll | just take our cut only from the $0.50 and let you pass all of the | $5.50 through to this GAS corporation that you partially own." | | Of course not, because that structure would be such a transparent | attempt by the game developers to evade Apple's fee. | | The situation in crypto isn't all that different. These gas fees | are ultimately paid to Ethereum stakeholders, and Coinbase | happens to be a big one. | mgraczyk wrote: | This is true and matters, but there is a key difference that | affects our sense of justice and morality. | | Coinbase didn't create Ethereum, and the vast majority of | Ethereum stakeholders are not apps on the app store. The fact | that ETH gas is mostly unrelated to Coinbase and the app store | should also matter in determining how we feel about this. | zadler wrote: | You're suggesting that coinbase launched NFT support on its app | so it could make a pittance in gas fees? | Manuel_D wrote: | At this point it'd probably be better to invest in building good | browser web UIs over dedicated apps. No appstore verification, no | fees, it basically seems like a no-brainer at this point. I guess | it sacrifices viral growth through appstore installs, but maybe | just don't support transactions on the app and kick them to the | browser. | [deleted] | g42gregory wrote: | Why wouldn't companies like Coinbase just release an iOS App on | their web site? Why would they even need to go through the App | Store? What are the benefits of the App Store for established | companies with large existing customer base? If Coinbase or | Amazon, for that matter, publish an iOS app on their website, I | would not hesitate to just install and use it, without an App | Store. | skinnymuch wrote: | Most people want to update their iOS versions past iOS 14 | (jailbreakable depending on device) or iOS 15-15.1.1 where one | can install TrollStore. Which is still a whole thing people | won't want to do. | | Otherwise the user would have to take the ipa, get an app like | altstore on a compatible computer. Sync it. Then be stuck with | the limitations of sideloading like needing to refresh the | authorization every 7 days. | | Either way. Most people won't do this. We saw what happened | when Fortnite was off the Play Store. It wasn't that effective. | [deleted] | tick_tock_tick wrote: | Users of iOS don't have that kind of control over their phone. | Software is installed (or deleted) at Apple's behest not the | user's. | OnuRC wrote: | How else are they going to advertise for shitcoin (shib) in | their App name in Apple store? App in their website can't do | that. | aaronharnly wrote: | You can't install a native iOS app from a website. | snarf21 wrote: | Release it how? They can't load it on an iPhone without Apple's | cert. | | The only path would be to require jail breaking and most | consumers trust that even less. | Ekaros wrote: | Just imagine if Microsoft or Linux distributions could do this on | desktop. They would make so much money. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | You mean like the Microsoft gaming store does already? | sylens wrote: | The Microsoft Store now allows you to use your own payment | processing to avoid giving them a cut at all (https://blogs.w | indows.com/windowsexperience/2021/06/24/build...). They also | allow the installation of other app stores. | | Microsoft has been overly keen to open up their own store on | Windows to use as a cudgel against Apple in future courtroom | cases such as the Epic one. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | > _The Microsoft Store now allows you to use your own | payment processing to avoid giving them a cut at all_ | | Not for games. https://www.engadget.com/microsoft-zero- | percent-cut-doesnt-e... | smoldesu wrote: | It's been a while since I've used Windows, but I don't think | using the Microsoft Gaming Store stops you from installing | software from the internet. I could be wrong. | jobs_throwaway wrote: | you mean like how I'm free to install any games I wish to | download on my PC without Microsoft taking a cut? | nickthegreek wrote: | They do it on console. | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | Ack, a real conundrum here. On one hand, Apple's ridiculous | behavior. On the other hand, hard for me to imagine a more | useless and counterproductive invention than NFTs... | bogwog wrote: | It really is like trying to choose between Giant Douche and | Turd Sandwich. | bloppe wrote: | Gas fees are peer-to-peer transactions. This is like Apple | deciding that all Venmo transactions should be subject to their | 30% fee. Not only would it be impossible to implement given the | existing infrastructure; it would be dumb. | latortuga wrote: | It emphatically does not matter to Apple if the transactions | are peer to peer or subject to fees or paid for with doge coin. | Coinbase offers an app that allows users to purchase digital | goods ("NFTs"). In order to purchase those digital goods, iOS | apps must use app store payments. | | Solutions: | | 1. don't offer users the ability to buy those digital goods 2. | add a layer of payment indirection where users pay coinbase and | coinbase pays for the digital goods - using app store payments! | 3??? execute a PR campaign that "apple doesn't understand | crypto" amidst a historic crypto crash | gjsman-1000 wrote: | Apple... what the heck is wrong with you? | | This is _not_ the time to be strengthening the rules. You 've got | the Digital Markets Act already entering force in Europe which is | going to most likely break App Store dominance over there in just | a year or two. The US has senators eyeing the Open App Markets | Act again after Elon's threat (and if it doesn't pass now, when | senators see an open Europe and a closed US, what about then?). | You've got antitrust investigations opened in the UK. This is | time to be giving concessions hoping to keep power - _not | doubling down!_ | | Edit: If Apple's claims about it being "privacy and security" are | true, here's how to keep power. Drop the 30% cut, make a $25-$50 | fee every time a new version comes out for a quality app review | from a 3rd party independent board, drop some of the more onerous | restrictions, and maybe then regulators would be willing to allow | the App Store to remain. Instead... | acomjean wrote: | There is nothing wrong with them. They're maximizing profits. | They will get away with it, they are so big. (The biggest?) | | People will still support them, as long they can have the | fastest phones/laptops. I started on a mac clone in the mid 90s | (they almost went under), but I finally moved away last year, | though I still have an iphone. The Linux desktop works great | for developing. | | Its a societal and network effect problem. This isn't new. | We've been warned. We've chosen to ignore. | bilekas wrote: | As much as I believe companies can decide for themselves | whatever they want to do within the law, this seems incredibly | stupid. They're pushing the limits of their customer base, even | the Apple fanatics.. | | I can't fathom why this decision was made. | warcher wrote: | I mean, just make it 30%, or whatever, of stuff that _uses | their in-built app store payment_. If you don 't want to use | their payment infra, you don't pay and you make whatever | arrangements with the user both parties agree to. It forces | them to justify their cut other as more than just rent-seeking. | Netflix doesn't need any help getting a CC number. Or | delivering apps, frankly. Apple inserts themselves as a | middleman in that capacity for their benefit and theirs alone. | Despegar wrote: | Neither the Open Markets Act or the Digital Markets Act will do | anything about Apple's commission. You can have alternative app | stores, sideloading, whatever. It doesn't change anything about | using Apple's intellectual property and having to pay for it. | All it will do is make the products worse for users. But | developers aren't going to get the outcome they want, which is | to ride the rails for free. | gjsman-1000 wrote: | Right - but those pushing for external app stores _assume_ it | will work that way. Instead... Apple 's probably going to | make some forms and demand manual reporting and commission | payments. | | However, it would be so contrary to the _spirit_ , if not the | _letter_ , of the law that I expect any such attempts would | quickly gain antitrust scrutiny and new legislation declaring | that APIs and software included in a device may only be | monetized at point-of-sale (with the exception of | subscription plans marketed toward consumers). It is possible | that a court would even see it as such a violation of the | law's intended effect that they would step in. | Despegar wrote: | No government is going to expropriate Apple's intellectual | property just to move some money from Apple to developers. | It also wouldn't get passed courts. | EMIRELADERO wrote: | The whole point of the DMA EU regulations is that one | should be able to make and distribute an iOS app without | entering into a contractual relationship with Apple at | all | EMIRELADERO wrote: | How is me making an app that makes API calls to iOS an "use | of Apple's intellectual property"? I'm not distributing any | IP besides my own, all I'm doing is telling the API to | execute in a certain way inside the hardware the user already | posseses. | | A good analogy would be me making a new control panel for a | mechanical machine, where the panel has metal arms and rods | that connect to the machine's original mechanisms to bring | about a certain result that the machine itself would be | incapable of bringing on its own. | | You wouldn't say I can't distribute that new panel I made | because the original machine is patented, right? | hesdeadjim wrote: | It would be the silliest legal move to make any concessions | until forced to by a court. If they indicate that they don't | need that full 30% in enough different contexts, it will lend | credence to a larger argument against 30% _at all_. | | Disagree with it or not, were I Apple Legal, I would never in a | million years allow a concession without a fight. | midjji wrote: | Microsoft is preemptively cooperating, and will likely not be | forced to create a separate OS for the eu. Apple will be | forced to create a EU specific one, one which not just lets | people install other Appstore's, but which will ask the user | if they want the google Appstore or a free one, or the apple | one, the first time you start it. | | Knowing when to lose is quite valuable. Microsoft learned | that the hard way last time. | __derek__ wrote: | This seems like a consistent application of existing in-app | purchase rules: purchasing a digital good to enjoy within the | app requires IAP support for everyone else, so why not | Coinbase? It's not clear (to me) that Apple is doubling down or | strengthening the rules here. | | If anything, I suspect that Coinbase intentionally violated the | rules with this update so that it can sign on with Epic and | Twitter in the fight against Apple. | Y_Y wrote: | What if I buy AAPL in my trading app or USD with my forex | broker? I bet they're not taking 30% on that. | lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: | If the app you were using included a transaction fee to | purchase the AAPL stock, Apple would claim a 30% cut of | that fee. | thefounder wrote: | So online banking apps should be charged 30% of forex | transactions as well, right? Either way the whole comission | thing is plain stupid. Maybe paying for app review & download | but why for transactions? | paulmd wrote: | forex transaction _fees_ , which is different from forex | transaction value. | | yeah arguably if apple wanted to say "you're doing a forex | trade in app, TD Ameritrade makes $10 in fees on that $20k | transaction, we deserve $3 of that, and it needs to be paid | via our IAP scheme" that's a consistent application of | their rules at least. | | again though, coinbase's PR department is doing what PR | departments do, they've got you talking like coinbase would | be charged 30% of the whole transaction and that's not | actually what Apple is saying here... just like it turns | out Qualcomm may not have been entirely honest about ARM's | licensing changes and many of the specifics of EVGA's | complaints are highly misleading or specific to their | (atypical) business model, despite a generally-correct | thrust. | | Like, kinda funny that grown-ass adults don't understand | that _a literal PR department_ might not always be | presenting the situation _entirely_ fairly... and this is a | business community we 're discussing that in, no less. You | need to apply critical thinking about why someone might be | saying things now, and why they're saying them in that | particular way... they're happy to lead you into a wrongful | conclusion even if they themselves haven't said anything | technically wrong: that is the conclusion they intended for | you to draw and you consumed the information uncritically | and you did draw that conclusion. They walked you right | down the garden path there, give that PR guy a raise. | | Just like Sony can argue for app-store openness on Apple's | platforms but argue they shouldn't have to open their own | platform to competitors too... they want to keep their 30% | cut but force their competitors to give up theirs. And no, | consoles are not sold at a loss anymore, PS5 hit hardware | profitability around 6 months after launch... | jonathannorris wrote: | But Stocks and Currencies aren't technically a digital | good, they are partial ownership of a company or a hard | currency. A NFT is exactly the definition of a digital only | good, seeing as how a large number of NFT use-cases are to | replace / make portable in-app goods sold in online games / | mobile apps, which all currently require IAP fees to | purchase on mobile. So this is just Apple applying the same | rules to NFTs that apply to purchasing items in mobile | games. | | Apple was never going to allow the blockchain to remove | their 30% cut on these purely digital items, as much as | crypto folks preached that the blockchain would remove us | from the shackles of App Store IAP payments. | smileysteve wrote: | To be nuanced, cryptocurrency in a custodial wallet is no | more of a digital good than a stock/forex/cash custodial | brokerage/bank account. | sverhagen wrote: | Honest question, but is that really what's going on here? | Is the analogy 30% of forex transactions, or 30% of the | fees charged for forex transactions? | pcthrowaway wrote: | Don't forget, your stock broker should give Apple 30% of | every stock purchased. | | edit: for those paying a broker fee, does Apple even take | 30% of that? | geocar wrote: | > If anything, I suspect that Coinbase intentionally violated | the rules with this update | | Trading volume has been falling 30-44% every quarter: | | https://s27.q4cdn.com/397450999/files/doc_financials/2022/q3. | .. | | https://s27.q4cdn.com/397450999/files/doc_financials/2022/q2. | .. | | https://s27.q4cdn.com/397450999/files/doc_financials/2022/q1. | .. | | so I'm thinking they don't have a product and they know it. | This NFT product was supposed to be so hot their servers | couldn't take it! | | https://www.gfinityesports.com/cryptocurrency/coinbase- | nft-w... | | so what gives? I think _someone_ is lying here. Maybe even | bad enough someone could get fired if this doesn 't get | turned around. And if that's the case, it seems plausible to | me that someone looked at 30% of "their" revenue going to | Apple and just said _fuck it_. | throwaway290 wrote: | Yep. Then they saw Spotify and the like attacking app store | and decided it's a hot moment to pile on. | __derek__ wrote: | This fits with what I've heard from ex-Coinbase folks. | _Algernon_ wrote: | Coinbase is facilitating purchasing between third parties. Do | you have to pay 30% Apple tax when purchasing things in the | e-bay app on an iPhone? (I honestly don't know, but these | seem equivalent to me) | mrbombastic wrote: | "Digital" goods is the differentiator. ebay, amazon and the | like can sell physical goods without giving a cut. It is | why you can't buy kindle books in the amazon app, they | would have to give apple a cut. | px43 wrote: | When you buy an NFT using the Coinbase wallet, you aren't | buying it from Coinbase, you're buying it from some other | random person. The Coinbase wallet is only being used to | facilitate a person-to-person transaction, and view | personal NFT collections. | darkwizard42 wrote: | They would still take a cut. If the transaction is still | happening in the Coinbase app then it is an in-app | payment. It is still the transaction of a digital good. | HDThoreaun wrote: | they don't care who you're buying it from. | mrbombastic wrote: | It has been claimed elsewhere that coinbase charges | transaction fees for these, i don't know if that is true | or not but if it is it does not seem to be an | inconsistent application of the rules. It would be the | same as buying a kindle edition from an independent | publisher through amazon's iOS app, amazon takes a cut so | they have to pay up. I am not defending the policy just | not clear to me this is an inconsistent application. | [deleted] | luckylion wrote: | It would be 30% of the ebay fee, I suppose. That would be | wild though. Would banks be paying 30% of their account | fees that are related to actions taken on the iphone? | houstonn wrote: | From Coinbase's post: | | For anyone who understands how NFTs and blockchains work, | this is clearly not possible. Apple's proprietary In-App | Purchase system does not support crypto so we couldn't comply | even if we tried. | | This is akin to Apple trying to take a cut of fees for every | email that gets sent over open Internet protocols. | arcticbull wrote: | I guess that means there's no way for the IRS to collect | taxes on anything crypto related - or indeed on any non- | cash transactions... | | Oh, wait, they can just pay in dollars. I don't think that | Coinbase has their problem solving hat on :) | __derek__ wrote: | I read their thread before my comment because the title on | this submission was pretty inflammatory. Their tendentious | argument is exactly what made me think this was a trial | balloon. | Someone wrote: | > This is akin to Apple trying to take a cut of fees for | every email that gets sent over open Internet protocols | | No, only the ones sent using their hardware. And I think | there's no law or regulation that would forbid them from | doing that. | | Similarly, if, currently, the App Store model doesn't | support what Coinbase wants to do, they shouldn't have made | an app. | | (this isn't a statement about the desirability of the | current situation) | mistermann wrote: | > And I think there's no law or regulation that would | forbid them from doing that. | | They're lucky that the US has the particular form of | "democracy" that they do, because I suspect the current | regulations aren't exactly "the will of the people". | dahfizz wrote: | I don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of the | current rules, though. Apple doesn't (yet...) demand a | 30% cut when you buy stocks via an app on your iphone. | lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: | They're demanding a 30% cut of the _transaction fees_ , | not of what is being purchased. | CoastalCoder wrote: | > No, only the ones sent using their hardware. | | Apologies if I'm misunderstanding, but are you saying my | iPhone belongs to Apple? | | (I may be confused by how you mean "their hardware".) | lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: | I believe that could be changed to: | | > No, only the ones sent using [an app distributed via | Apple's App Store]. | | I don't want to speak for anyone, but that's (probably) | more accurate to the intended meaning. | Kab1r wrote: | Since Apple's App Store is the only practical way to | distribute apps on Apple devices, there isn't really a | difference. The fact is that the owner of an apple | devices has no control over their device. | dahfizz wrote: | Should apple also take 30% of every Venmo transaction I make? | If I use my iphone to do a check deposit to my bank account, | should apple take 30% of that? | | This is not an in app purchase, IMO. | lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: | Coinbase charges transaction fees and those are the in-app | purchases for which Apple are claiming their cut. | CharlesW wrote: | > _This seems like a consistent application of existing in- | app purchase rules..._ | | Exactly, the dumb/risky thing to do would be to make a | special exception for Coinbase. This is no different from a | consumer buying Robux to spend on a 3rd-party game. | pcthrowaway wrote: | This would only be comparable if Coinbase sold BaseBux | through the app or something, which gave access to features | within the app. | | This is more like your stock broker app letting you buy a | stock, although "cryptocurrencies aren't securities, | they're speculative assets". So maybe more like buying art | via an app. | baq wrote: | If crypt ever gets treated as securities, you'll see Apple | backing off the same minute. | shagie wrote: | (I haven't gone trawling through captures) but its been there | for at least a month. | | https://web.archive.org/web/20221030193939/https://developer. | .. (search for NFT in the page). | cocacola1 wrote: | I wonder if they think the hammer is going to fall either way? | If so, it makes sense they'll take while the takings good. | thatguy0900 wrote: | But they can't even take here. Obviously coin base can't give | them 30% revenue even if they were willing to. That would be | like asking for a 30% cut for deposits from the bank apps. | This just seems like spite for the new rules. | nick238 wrote: | I don't think in banking apps you're purchasing anything | while using the app (in-app purchases). If you buy an NFT | in an app, you are purchasing it in the app, no? | thatguy0900 wrote: | No, you're purchasing it but it's not in the app. And you | can absolutely pay bills in a lot of banking apps, or | even use zelle to buy things in a store. The whole point | of the nft is that you can trade it outside of the app. | If I buy a physical limited edition poster on etsy does | Apple get 30% of that sale? | xkqd wrote: | Yeah. Does this apply to forex fees I incur via my banks? | shagie wrote: | > 3.1.3(e) Goods and Services Outside of the App: If your | app enables people to purchase physical goods or services | that will be consumed outside of the app, you must use | purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect | those payments, such as Apple Pay or traditional credit | card entry. | | https://developer.apple.com/app- | store/review/guidelines/#goo... | | It isn't an in app purchase. It doesn't pay a cut to | Apple. | brookst wrote: | Coinbase PR got you. | | Apple is asking for 30% of fees charged, not amounts | exchanged. It's like if a bank app charged you $1 to | deposit $100; Apple would want $0.30, not $30. | | Still debatable and I've got no sympathy for Apple, but | this kind of OMG they want to take 30% of all cash flows | response is exactly the misleading PR people are trying to | gin up. | | EDIT: here is what Coinbase themselves say: | | Apple's claim is that the gas fees required to send NFTs | need to be paid through their In-App Purchase system | baq wrote: | Should they also take 30% of exchange fees in your | Fidelity app? | nickthegreek wrote: | there is no digital good in this scenario. | jakelazaroff wrote: | Coinbase isn't actually taking any cut of the | transaction. The gas fee goes directly to the blockchain | network itself. That fee varies depending on the total | number of transactions, so as far as I understand it's | actually not possible to have it go through Apple's in- | app purchase system. | | I'm not supporting Coinbase here, though, and I wouldn't | be mad if this policy were actually just a tacit way to | ban cryptocurrency transactions in the App Store. But | your analogy doesn't fit. | deadbunny wrote: | Coinbase absolutely take fees that are unrelated to | network fees. When you buy $COIN from Coinbase you don't | touch the network at all they just note in their database | that you bought 0.5 of $COIN for $10 total, $2 which was | their fee. It doesn't hit the network till you withdraw | it. This is the fee Apple is talking about. | jakelazaroff wrote: | No, it's not -- Coinbase Wallet is their non-custodial | wallet, meaning you actually get a real address on the | blockchain rather than just a row in their database. | https://www.coinbase.com/wallet | sam0x17 wrote: | I completely agree, but the real problem here is they are | dependent on, nay, addicted to the revenue they get from that | 30% cut. Only way to fix this is regulation and I believe that | Apple's quarter-based short-sightedness will essentially ensure | that they keep pushing until they get regulated. | | If someone's OKR is based on quarterly revenue from App store, | they aren't going to care until regulation is literally at | their doorstep. That's next quarter, not this quarter. Next | quarter that person could retire or quit. | Y_Y wrote: | Dependent? From over here it just seems like they're Walter | White with such a huge pile of cash that life itself becomes | meaningless. | jjoonathan wrote: | Companies exist to enrich shareholders and they all agree | on one point: they want more. | codealot wrote: | Especially newer shareholders who just started their | wealth building journey - they want more innovation and | more products so the share price and dividends can | increase as the company scales more. | [deleted] | fijiaarone wrote: | Somebody should tell shareholders about the goose. | smoldesu wrote: | I think App Store revenue is pretty close to hardware | revenue at this point, which is absolutely _mind-boggling_ | once you consider the volume /margins of the iPhone. 80-odd | billion dollars of Developer Program subscriptions and 30% | cuts, what a racket. | sharkjacobs wrote: | > App Store revenue is pretty close to hardware revenue | at this point, | | Fiscal 2022 Services revenue is 77 million and iPhone | revenue is 220 million, so it's not there yet, but it's | beating iPad (29 million) and Mac (40 million) combined | which is nothing to sneeze at. | | I don't think that Apple discloses App Store revenue | separate from Services revenue | | https://sixcolors.com/post/2022/11/apples-fiscal-2022-in- | cha... | EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote: | Hmm, I thought it's traditional media feature to confuse | millions with billions, didn't expect that on HN. | [deleted] | awinder wrote: | Apple says they paid out 60B in App Store revenue to | developers in 2021, if you used the 30% figure (which is | unfair because they charge 15% on +1yr subscriptions and | <1M revenue) that would be like 26B in commissions. Take | that for what you will. | JayPalm wrote: | Would you like a [visual representation](https://www.stat | ista.com/statistics/382260/segments-share-re...) of how | incorrect you are? App Store revenue is part of | "Services", which accounts for just shy of 1/5 of the | company's revenue. The rest is by definition hardware. | Certainly services as a growth division has been a big | part of Apple's story to investors, but to say that App | Store revenues is close to hardware revenue is clearly | daft. | usefulcat wrote: | For-profit companies (especially large ones) are machines | whose primary function is to make profits. Anything else | they do along the way (employ people, make products, | provide services, trash the environment, etc) is a side | effect. | bilbo0s wrote: | He's still got a point. there is no scenario where apple | needs the money they get from app store, so there has to | be another explanation. I mean, no one will convince me | that a company with 366 billion in revenue is dependent | on 12 billion in revenue from app store. | | There is something we're not being told here. Because the | reasons all these commenters are throwing out make zero | sense. | usefulcat wrote: | > there is no scenario where apple needs | | You're assuming the existence of a 'need'. Part of my | point is that there doesn't have to be any 'need' for | additional revenue beyond the revenue itself. | | It also seems like you may be assuming that the person or | people responsible for this and other similar decisions | are incentivized to consider _all_ of Apple 's revenue as | opposed to a specific subset of it, which I suspect is | unlikely. | [deleted] | conductr wrote: | I think they know regulation is imminent and are just wanting | to milk it dry while they can | asdajksah2123 wrote: | I was about to write a comment that Apple's App Store | earnings are basically pocket change for them, but I looked | up the most recent numbers and they've exploded. | | They claim they gave devs ~$64Bn in 2021. That means they | collected about $27Bn in revenue in 2021, and most of that is | basically money for free and almost entirely profit. | | It's probably about 10-12% of their profit and grows without | them having to do much at all. | willcipriano wrote: | How much time to iUsers spend within native apps compared | to third party apps? I'd imagine it's mostly third party, | can't imagine tons of people spend a hour a day in the call | log. If it was made illegal to take any cut on the app | store, they would still have to run it otherwise that new | iPhone is just a telephone and a browser, who's paying $1k+ | for that? | Robotbeat wrote: | Safari, photos, messages, mail, maps, notes... | willcipriano wrote: | So less functionality than a first or second generation | iPhone, but you want to charge a months rent for it? Who | cares what sensors and tech you have if there isn't any | applications to take advantage of them? It's like | releasing a state of the art game console but not having | any games to play on it. | WastingMyTime89 wrote: | Apple always pushes until they are regulated they put a spin | on it trying to present what they are forced to do as hurting | consumers. That's their usual playbook. | mistermann wrote: | Not that I'd ever expect it to happen, but the DOJ coming | down hard on Apple like they did with Microsoft could go a | long way to getting corporations to voluntarily rein in | their aggressive business practices. | | For anyone interested in the antitrust space, this is a | pretty good (though excessively optimistic imho) | newsletter: | | https://mattstoller.substack.com/ | guywithahat wrote: | Regulation will make it worse long term; what we need is | competition, which seems to be coming in the way of alternate | android OS's. ~75% of China uses android, and they all use | google alternatives. Huawei uses HarmonyOS, and there's no | reason to believe this won't slowly make its way around the | globe. | midjji wrote: | At this point apple is just in denial. The eu alone will force | them to make every user pick the default appstore on first | install from alternatives including both something free and | google, and probably samsung, and force them to provide easy to | use api for everyone else. | | Its hilarious to see the difference between apple, google and | microsofts reactions. Two of them went we will fight tooth and | nail, microsoft who tried that last time instantly went we are | dropping the fees instantly, unless you want more? and will | work with regulators to make open access ... | chrismarlow9 wrote: | Apple is about 6.5% of holdings in SPY. It's economic suicide | to hit them hard and they know it. Especially with impending | recession and a heavy bear year. | mkrishnan wrote: | Great move. I hope apple blocks all scammy apps like coinbase to | protect consumers from cryptocurrency pyramid schemes. | nerdawson wrote: | Yes, as a stupid user I can't be trusted with my own money, I | need a corporation to step in and tell me how I'm allowed to | spend it. | hello_friendos wrote: | lowbloodsugar wrote: | Well you apparently bought an Apple device despite your | awareness of its policies which you vehemently disagree with. | everfree wrote: | I also vehemently disagree with Google's policies. Where's | the third place? | stale2002 wrote: | Apple isn't blocking scammy apps. Instead what they are doing | is demanding a 30% for running such an app. | | As long as you pay them the Apple tax, they don't care. | kevinventullo wrote: | Apple didn't do this to protect consumers, they did it because | they weren't getting their cut. | nick238 wrote: | So the Ethereum network is entitled to their cut, but not | Apple? | aliqot wrote: | What exactly is the Ethereum network's cut? | tylersmith wrote: | This issue is about fees paid to the Eth network. The | exact amount depends on the gas market and what users are | doing specifically. | Veen wrote: | The gas fee is Ethereum's cut. It's paid to validators. | p0pcult wrote: | So, is it "Ethereum's" or the validator's cute? | | Who is this monolithic "Ethereum"? | Veen wrote: | It depends what you mean by "Ethereum". The usual meaning | is the network that runs the blockchain. Validators are | part of the network. I mean, it's a decentralized network | --that's the point--there is no monolithic "who". | p0pcult wrote: | Right, which is why it is weird when you say it is | "Ethereum's" cut. | [deleted] | andrewflnr wrote: | We have to ask the question: is Apple actually this stupid? I | don't particularly like or trust Coinbase, so I'm not going to | take their word as gospel. I have to wonder if (a) it's an | oversight, a possibility they raised in the thread (trying to | give Apple an out?) or (b) there's something weirder going on | that we can't figure out from outside. | arvindrajnaidu wrote: | Apple collects 30% if the product is purely digital and has no | monetary value outside of the app. | | Could one not prove that NFTs have value outside of Coinbase? Oh | wait I see the problem. | arvindrajnaidu wrote: | Ah they are paying for in-app Gas. I see. | | A customer is to pay one network for gas, but that network | won't pay another network for their value add. | tylersmith wrote: | The title is currently wrong. This is not about exchange fees | paid to Coinbase, but transaction fees paid to the Ethereum | network when using smart contracts through the Coinbase app. | anm89 wrote: | I'm so confused as to why anybody still supports apple. They have | utter contempt for their customers. | rvz wrote: | I did say that the roles have been switched, and Apple in 2022 is | like Microsoft in 1998 and is getting away with by doing even | more worse things. [0] | | It is going to take more than just Epic, to get rid of the 30% | cut in fees. | | [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23564759 | p0pcult wrote: | "If you were a product person at IBM or Xerox, so you make a | better copier or computer. So what? When you have monopoly market | share, the company's not any more successful. | | So the people that can make the company more successful are sales | and marketing people, and they end up running the companies. And | the product people get driven out of the decision making forums, | and the companies forget what it means to make great products. | The product sensibility and the product genius that brought them | to that monopolistic position gets rotted out by people running | these companies that have no conception of a good product versus | a bad product." | | -Steve Jobs | shepherdjerred wrote: | Apple still makes great products. Nothing can beat a MacBook | (especially the new ones), AirPods work pretty well. Many | (most?) people that use iPhones or Apple Watches love them. | risho wrote: | their hardware is good and the ecosystem is good, but their | software is god awful. macos has essentially zero window | management to speak of and it's refusal to adopt vulkan has | siloed it off from the rest of the industry. if they would | just stop being stupid and adopt vulkan they would pick up | support for a large number of games for free. it also has | really bad multimonitor support. | gjsman-1000 wrote: | They are getting worse particularly in the software | department. Two that really grind my gears (there are | others): | | MacOS on Apple Silicon for an extremely long time (maybe it's | solved now? 2 years later?) which caused incredibly glitchy, | almost unusable cursor movement if you let your battery drain | to 0%, then plugged it back in and woke it from hibernate. | | Screen Time in macOS is unbelievably, ludicrously, fully | broken. _Nothing_ about it works almost at all. Metrics for | children don 't show up. Web filtering falls open after a few | hours at random (presumably because the background services | crash). The "site not allowed" page predates HTML5 and | randomly doesn't work. You can't block built-in apps like | Apple News, the best you can do is set a 1-minute time limit. | Tons of IP Addresses and Apple phone-home addresses get | blocked on the "allowed sites only" mode resulting in | constant popups. I had to pay for Qustodio because it's just | _useless_. Also, it has _elementary bugs_ that are | horrifying. For example, the pane where you add allowed | websites doesn 't remember websites you just added when you | dismiss it - so if you open the pane again without a reboot, | and add another site, it forgets the one you added last time | you opened the pane. | | However janky other things might be on macOS, Screen Time | with "Allowed Sites Only" is _by far the most broken thing on | macOS_ , bar none. Try using it with your younger children | and rage in frustration as it crashes-open silently and | allows Private Browsing with no filtering after a few hours. | tomxor wrote: | All the children comments to this post are amusing... Some | things get worse, some get better, some things depend on | the use case. | | They all miss the point. The problem with Apple in it's | relentless mission of maximising vertical integration, is | that you are forced to align with their decisions at _every | single level_ , whether it's technical, social or | political. "Cult" doesn't do it justice, Apple is has gone | far beyond this. | | Most other proprietary tech is not like this because the | pieces are smaller with some reasonable degree of either | interchangeability or combinability. Apple isn't neutral | technology it's some kind of political entity. When you | sign up, you are handing over _all_ control, which is fine | until they do something you don 't like at which point your | only choice is abandon the entire thing or accept it - I | don't give a crap about NFTs, but I give a crap about some | things, and I don't want to be part of an ecosystem where I | can be pushed around. I don't blame the people who are | stuck in it, it's hard to exit something that can define a | lot about how you work with technology, they are | essentially the victim of a big bully with a very difficult | to stomach exit strategy. | smoldesu wrote: | tomxor, you may survive us yet. Unfortunately, many of | the hackers on this site aren't willing to see the forest | for the trees. We're too busy fighting over myopic | identity politics to imagine a future without the | problems we face today. | jensensbutton wrote: | My M1 Pro still randomly loses internet requiring a | restart. | iamacyborg wrote: | My asus wifi card in my pc does that too | 2muchcoffeeman wrote: | Have you tried flushing the DNS cache? | typon wrote: | This has almost become a meme at this point. Anyone in | the office who has a problem with their internet on the | Macbook, I just send them this: | | sudo dscacheutil -flushcache;sudo killall -HUP | mDNSResponder | atribecalledqst wrote: | I haven't seen mine lose Internet entirely, but I have | seen it randomly switch between the two Wi-Fi networks I | have set up where I live. I eventually got frustrated | with this and then told it it can't automatically connect | to one of them anymore. | therein wrote: | Likely that it is related to Bluetooth as well. | Especially if you have AirPods connected. I noticed the | wireless connection quality degrades significantly when | the device is connected to an AirPod. | abdusco wrote: | > _almost unusable cursor movement if you let your battery | drain to 0%, then plugged it back in and woke it from | hibernate._ | | Argh. I hate it when this happens. It's infuriating that | this hasn't been fixed yet. | flutas wrote: | > They are getting worse particularly in the software | department. | | I actually just found one that has me scratching my head... | | If I plug a USB-C -> Ethernet adapter in to my M1 MBP on | OSX Ventura...it brings down the entire network. | | Just ethernet + adapter + power is fine, plug it into the | laptop, entire network dies. | bartvk wrote: | Which USB-C -> Ethernet adapter is that? | jrmg wrote: | It's probably a bug in your network switch: | https://mjtsai.com/blog/2022/05/11/usb-c-hubs-breaking- | ether... | rootusrootus wrote: | That's a weird one. When you say it brings it down, what | do you mean is actually occurring? I have a USB ethernet | adapter in use on my M1 MBP running Ventura as I write | this, and it's been completely fine. But if there's a | gotcha out there lurking, I'd be interested to know what | triggers it. | EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote: | Do they run their own DHCP server on a laptop maybe? | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | > They are getting worse particularly in the software | department. | | I would argue the opposite. | | Their software has historically been _terrible_. | | OG iTunes ranks at the top of the worst pieces of software | I've ever used - rendered the iPod almost useless for me. | | Their software is still unimpressive, but I'd argue it's | trending in the right direction. | | The App Store is functional. Safari is not terrible. Their | email client is fine. The Apple TV UI is pretty snazzy, | etc. | sn0wf1re wrote: | The Apple TV is a multi-user device with extremely poor | multi-user support. Considering how long it has been used | by B&Bs it amazes me that Apple has never allowed guest | access. | | Music App sometimes breaks. It just doesn't play certain | sections of some songs, even on replay, closing the app | doesn't help; a device reboot is required to play songs | in their entirety. And this happens on both devices that | are connected via hardwire as well as wifi/LTE. | | Considering Apple's revenue it is ridiculous how long | bugs persist in their applications. | atribecalledqst wrote: | I can't speak for the original iTunes (I used it but not | heavily and too long ago to remember), but I've been a | consistent user of iTunes between Snow Leopard and | Monterey and my experience is that it's gotten worse with | every release. With Music being the worst iteration yet, | and significantly worse than the last version of iTunes I | used (on High Sierra). | | I actually have a whole laundry list of things I consider | regressions in the Music app, but I'll just regale you | with the most frustrating one for my use case: | | If you use Home Sharing with wired headphones, it works. | If you use wireless headphones with a local music | library, it works. If you use wireless headphones and | Home Sharing, it does not work. The program refuses to | play anything. This was a nice surprise when I first | tried to use Music after getting this laptop. | | (I'm actually really curious if anybody else experiences | this behavior -- anybody reading please chime in if so!) | ericmay wrote: | Yea I don't get this either. I find while maybe lacking | some features, a lot of their applications work either | just fine or great. Apple Maps for example, the Podcasts | app, many others. | gjsman-1000 wrote: | You have to be kidding, right? The Apple Podcasts app is | widely considered one of Apple's worst - and before Apple | started playing "rating pop up" shenanigans, it was rated | only 1.8 stars on the App Store. | | https://9to5mac.com/2021/11/19/apple-podcasts-app-store- | rati... | ericmay wrote: | I use it every day and it works just fine for me. What's | wrong with it? | olyjohn wrote: | Before iTunes, I think the OS was great. I think iTunes | was the catalyst that pushed OSX down the priority list. | | Once they saw they could make money selling music, they | started focusing on that and pushing that POS down your | throat. Then when they finally realized they could sell | apps on iPhones, that's where the focus went. The OS has | stagnated since then, IMO. Their bread and butter has | been selling apps, music and cloud storage, and it's | clear (IMO) that's where all the actual development focus | has gone. | | Also the e-mail client is trash. It is supposed to | support MS Exchange, and my co-workers and I used to use | it at work just fine with OS 10.14. It was an awesome | replacement for shitty Outlook. Once 10.15 came out, it | would quit syncing, freeze up, stop sending email, etc. | This was not just once in a while, it would literally | quit working almost immediately. I was forced back into | Outlook again. It felt like they never tested it with | Office 365 even once. But of course, their own e-mail | services work fine with it. | bink wrote: | The first example is oddly specific. I think you can find | flaws like that with almost any software or hardware | manufacturer, regardless of monopoly status. | | The second example is, I think, a perfect example of what | most large companies do, which is to neglect specific | features in favor of others. People want to work on the | "new hotness" rather than maintain something written 10 | years ago by a team that no longer exists. | | I don't think either suggests that Apple software is | getting worse as a whole. The simple fact that they rolled | out an entirely new architecture and it's worked pretty | flawlessly (except for some fraction of people when the | battery drains to 0 and it hibernates and needs a restart) | suggests to me that they aren't just resting and pulling in | money based on their monopoly status (which they don't even | have in any industry). | 2muchcoffeeman wrote: | There was a time when Apple would release a new version | that was basically a maintenance release. And they would | squash a bunch of bugs. I think a lot of people still | remember this. Perhaps through some objective measure, | it's still ok. But I agree it all feels worse. | TravelPiglet wrote: | Old macOS versions were usually extremely buggy. People | have just forgotten this | olyjohn wrote: | I don't know man. I used to work on tons of PPC and early | Intel Macs that ran OSX (before iPhone and all that). | Those were pretty great machines, and the OS basically | just was an OS. No shit software preinstalled on top of | it. | | The first real shit app was iTunes. And ever since then, | the OS has just stagnated while they put more software in | to sell music, apps, and cloud storage. | 2muchcoffeeman wrote: | There were plenty of bugs. But there were at least a few | releases that addressed these. Snow Leopard is probably | the most notable which shipped with no new features. I | think I first started on Panther and there was at least 1 | upgrade during the PowerPC times that really cleaned | things up and improved performance quite a bit. | | Which is why I speculate that overall, it might not be | better. You had to wait a couple years to get the fixes. | Now they probably ship the fixes and new features on a | more regular basis. | gjsman-1000 wrote: | > The first example is oddly specific. I think you can | find flaws like that with almost any software or hardware | manufacturer, regardless of monopoly status. | | True... but this one has caught me, over and over, and it | makes me paranoid of a low battery. Before I just had a | lazy habit of not getting off the couch until the battery | actually died from 0%. Now I panic the moment it turns | red, because the cursor bug quickly makes working | miserable and requires a restart for my sanity. | | > I don't think either suggests that Apple software is | getting worse as a whole. | | To me, it suggests they are letting more surface-level | bugs get a pass than previously. Before, they might have | had poorly designed software once in a while, but not | things this basic and easily discoverable. | PTcartelsLOL wrote: | Gawd... a restart... unthinkable. | | You should try windows... | Aeolos wrote: | Seems to have been finally fixed on MacOS Venture 13.0. | | But 2 years of this bug was embarrassing. | atribecalledqst wrote: | A lot of folks are disagreeing with you in the replies but | I actually agree with you to be honest. I recently got a | new Macbook Pro after my old one unexpectedly died and | there are a lot of things in Monterey that I find highly | annoying relative to the last version I was on (High | Sierra). I complained about Music in another reply. | | One thing that really annoys me that I don't remember from | High Sierra is this weird "overbounce"/"overscroll" | functionality. This drives me absolutely nuts! Preview does | this for example, and actually so does Firefox (but you can | disable it there). | | If you open up a PDF in Preview, set the zoom so that a | full page width is entirely within view (i.e. no scrolling | needed), then scroll a bit to the side anyway, you'll see | what I'm talking about. The viewport moves even though the | full page width is in view. I've found that this triggers | even when I'm trying to scroll down, resulting in a weird, | glitchy scroll feel. | | I feel like I should temper the bad with the good a bit | though. For example I have not had Bluetooth fail randomly | with this new computer, whereas it failed quite a lot on my | last one -- often requiring a reboot to fix. | erdos4d wrote: | > Nothing can beat a MacBook You can't upgrade the RAM, it | has a weird processor that tons of code won't run on, and it | starts at $2K. I have the latest one sitting on my desk right | now from my work and it is a useless brick that I can't do | any actual work on because so much code we use simply won't | compile on it. I use a mini from 2018 for actual work and the | macbook runs teams and zoom. Complete joke of a computer. | WanderPanda wrote: | They are really good compared to whats out there but they are | far from excellent in many details. They are still quite far | from Microsoft where almost every detail is atrocious and | only the whole is making the cut because the sum of the parts | is quite terrible. | croes wrote: | Crumbs beat a MacBook | sneak wrote: | My iPhone hostname is Capitulation because I reluctantly | switched back because Graphene is worse. | | I miss ssh clients that don't Philip K Dick me. I miss | syncthing. I miss being able to use non-Apple services to | sync my photos. I miss being able to run any apps I want from | the web without identifying myself to a vendor. I miss | NewPipe and I miss background apps and I miss basic local mp3 | players that don't report what I play to remote parties | against my will. | ubermonkey wrote: | Hilariously (at least to me), that was the hostname for my | first iPhone when I gave up on the HTC I was using and got | a 1st-gen iPhone. | | WinMo was SO AWFUL, man. | | re: SSH clients, what does "PKD me" mean? Have you tried | Blink? | throwawaymaths wrote: | Did no one here get utterly destroyed when updating to | Ventura deleted your git, requiring you to either: | | 1. install xcode, which requires apple id, which your company | might not support | | Or | | 2. Side load git, which your company's security policy might | prohibit? | TravelPiglet wrote: | Same as every major release? Accept the xcode bojo and | continue? | rootusrootus wrote: | That sounds unpleasant. Hasn't been a problem for me, | however, my work laptop is managed 100% through our | corporate IT folks, including the Apple OS updates and | packages. I've never needed a personal Apple ID to get | Xcode. | radicalbyte wrote: | I doubt that many people here would stick with companies | who had both of those policies. | throwawaymaths wrote: | 99% of the time it's not a problem, but yes, I am leaving | the company for other reasons | tourist2d wrote: | Sounds like a crappy company. | throwawaymaths wrote: | The root cause is the apple update deleting git. I mean | wtf | rootusrootus wrote: | I'm curious about that. Git has been part of xcode CLI | tools for years, I can't recall the last time it was came | by default with the OS. | p0pcult wrote: | ...according to some. | | Nothing like the trifecta of ipod/itunes/iphone under Steve. | nikanj wrote: | Especially now that they've abandoned the race to be ever | thinner and eliminate keys for a touch bar | olyjohn wrote: | Now if they can just put a fucking headphone jack back in | the iPhone, kthx. Batteries are getting denser, mainboards | are getting smaller, phones are bigger than ever... but no | room for a headphone jack! I guess they just want to sell | more AirPods. | rootusrootus wrote: | Happiest I've been about a computer in a while was when | they backtracked on the things they'd removed from the MBP | and put them back. Combined with the M1, it finally became | the first MBP since 2015 that I thought was an actual | improvement over all previous versions. | [deleted] | [deleted] | anderber wrote: | Honestly, the Pixel Buds are better than the AirPods. So it's | not a guarantee that Apple makes the best products. However, | I do like their phones and laptops better. | teawrecks wrote: | Nothing can beat a macbook at what? I literally can't think | of one thing. Maybe battery life? Maybe? It's surely not | compatibility, long term support, reparability, or | performance per $1. | | They dropped support for every graphics APIs except their | own. They launched a greenwashing campaign that is always out | of stock of parts, updates are mandatory regularly regress | performance on old hardware, and we all know you're paying an | apple premium for the same performance as something 60-70% | the price. | | They used to define good build quality, but most laptops are | pretty sturdy these days. | smoldesu wrote: | See, this is your problem. Abhorrent business practices can | exist alongside great products, just look at Nestle. Nothing | will excuse them for pumping freshwater out of inland lakes, | or paying for paramilitary organizations to oppress their | slave labor camps. It just means that people are fine eating | Hershey Bars without thinking about the child labor that made | their chocolate. | josephcooney wrote: | What products do Nestle make that you consider "great"? | smoldesu wrote: | When I'm hacking? Coffee-mate and Perrier. | | When nobody's looking I've been known to enjoy a Hot | Pocket or two, though... I can feel my dignity slipping | through my fingers as I type this. | shadowgovt wrote: | Is blocking Coinbase Wallet an abhorrent business practice? | Invictus0 wrote: | They didn't block it, they just wanted a 30% cut. Yes it | is abhorrent to rent seek 30% of every transaction when | you literally contributed nothing whatsoever to that | product. | zaphirplane wrote: | I get why people have a negative reaction and it makes | sense. Then I look at retail where there are several | wholeseller adding a %, stores adding a %, drop ship | sellers adding a percent | | There was a documentary that showed the price of a | chicken sold in a store and how much the chicken farmer | makes vs the retail price and I can't say the situation | is wildly out of tune with retail or the big SAP/ERP | consulting | Gigachad wrote: | The equivalent situation would be if the world had two | landlords which together owned essentially every single | bit of commercial property on the planet (or at least | most of the countries) and if you wanted to sell chicken, | you'd have to agree to whatever terms those landlords | set, which are mostly identical between them. | | But it's ok because you have the option of building your | own store on your own island and convincing enough people | to relocate to your island to buy chicken direct. | shadowgovt wrote: | If it actually mattered to enough people, they would sail | over to that island. The fact that most don't is | extremely telling about what people actually want, I | think. | | (F-Droid is _right there._ It 's relatively trivial to | install on an Android device. As is, last I checked, | replacing the whole Android OS). | pixl97 wrote: | In the US a large portion of phones are via carrier | contract and hardware locked. So no. | smoldesu wrote: | This might be a relevant comparison if the App Store had | any businesses it competes with, like the ones grocery | stores contend with. | dools wrote: | That's not what rent seeking is. Apple has a very strong | distribution channel, in part because of how trustworthy | it is, that costs money to run, so it's fair they take a | cut of sales. | shadowgovt wrote: | > contributed nothing whatsoever | | The hardware it's running on? | | I don't see an issue. If users have a concern, they can | use another platform. | | ETA: it does seem to be the kind of thing that the market | will sort out... If apple is going to build a reputation | for being hostile to use as a crypto transaction | platform, then Android is just a quick trip to the | nearest Best Buy away. | smoldesu wrote: | They didn't contribute that, the user already payed for | it (and Apple pocketed ~40% of the MSRP). The hardware is | paid for, same as the software it comes pre-installed | with. | | > If users have a concern, they can use another platform. | | They can't. Apple locks the bootloader even after | purchasing/unlocking the device. It would be nice if we | could though! | | > it does seem to be the kind of thing that the market | will sort out... | | No, I think the arbitrary limitation of what you can | execute on hardware you purchased will be a bit more of a | sticking point than that. At least when we're addressing | the single largest corporation in modern American | history, Europe seems to agree with me. | shadowgovt wrote: | Another hardware platform, these days Apple functionally | sells computing appliances, not general purpose | computers. It's why I recommend Apple to all my relatives | who don't want to think about the guts of the machine and | I recommend windows or Linux to everyone I know who wants | to write their own software. | smoldesu wrote: | That's great! Giving me bootloader access has nothing to | do with how your grandma uses her iPhone though, at least | if I'm understanding your grandma right. | shadowgovt wrote: | It requires more than zero engineering effort on their | part so they won't. It is also, technically, an attack | vector... A sufficiently sophisticated phisher might be | able to convince somebody to replace their bootloader, | but we both know that's not why Apple does it. | | They do it because it allows them to capture the revenue | for use of their computing appliances and it saves them | every headache of having to provide customer support for | hardware they sell that isn't running an operating system | they wrote. | | Serving your use case isn't what they make computers for. | Google does though. I recommend switching platforms. | stale2002 wrote: | > I recommend switching platforms. | | Well, there are other options. | | Other options, such as how the EU is going to force Apple | under threat of government force to make changes. | | Anti trust laws have existed for a century now. We can | make new ones, or use those existing uncontroversial laws | to apply to the newer tech monopolies. | | If Apple doesn't like it's then they can stop selling | their product in every country where this is the law. (So | that includes the entire EU, and hopefully the USA soon, | as there are laws in Congress being considered right | now). | shadowgovt wrote: | EU antitrust differs from American antitrust, IIUC, | because American is couched in harm to consumers while | Europe is couched in harm to merchants. | | So I can see how the EU might see a way towards saying | "Your ownership of the vertical stack makes you a market- | maker and market-caller on a very lucrative app market; | you bear some responsibility to making that market fair | and competitive." This is the same kind of thinking that | caused France to crack down on Amazon offering discounts | on books that undercut local booksellers because they | could collapse the booksellers' guild (even though | Amazon's shipping integration means they actually _can_ | afford to charge so little). | | But in the US, the first hurdle such a case has to cross | is "Why doesn't the user and app maker just go to Android | if Apple's so bad?" Which, indeed, is the question I'm | asking myself here; Coinbase could just jump ship and | offer their app only on Android, and then, hey, the | Android ecosystem is slightly better than their | competition. | smoldesu wrote: | Serving my use case is what computers are. If Apple | doesn't make those devices, then why are their devices | capable of doing everything I described? They already | wrote the bootloader. They already wrote the sideloading | code, app sandboxing model, filesystem isolation APIs and | even the packaging standard needed to distribute iOS | applications. What's the major engineering hurdle they're | struggling with, relative to everything they've already | done? | shadowgovt wrote: | I don't follow. They don't let you replace the | bootloader; I thought that was your concern. So they | can't do everything you want them to. | | I can run Doom on a refrigerator but it's still a | refrigerator. Apple makes computing appliances. | smoldesu wrote: | I don't follow either. If this refrigerator got an update | that started showing you advertisements, you'd want the | manufacturer to have some form of accountability that | they don't further degrade the experience. Having | multiple choices benefits everyone and forces the OEM to | not make bone-headed moves. You're arguing that Apple | shouldn't do good things because... Apple doesn't care? I | already know that. I own many of their devices and | experience it first-hand. | shadowgovt wrote: | > If this refrigerator got an update that started showing | you advertisements, you'd want the manufacturer to have | some form of accountability that they don't further | degrade the experience. | | Me personally? I might just let it happen (especially if | it goes hand-in-glove with some other benefit, like lower | cost). Or if it's too annoying I'll switch refrigerators. | | > Having multiple choices benefits everyone and forces | the OEM to not make bone-headed moves | | That's the business model of the alternatives to Apple. | Apple's business model is value delivered through | vertical integration. For their end-users, they're | building a better product _because_ they own and control | the hardware, OS, and software ecosystem. | | It's Nintendo-Seal-of-Approval thinking, and it's not | inherently wrong so long as there are alternatives (and | there are many, just none that have a supported path to | using Apple's hardware). | | > You're arguing that Apple shouldn't do good things | because... Apple doesn't care? | | I don't think Apple sees opening the bootloader as a good | thing. It increases the ways the machine can be in a | broken state with the only benefit to people tech-savvy | enough to just use other hardware. And, of course, from a | pure-business standpoint, it might kick a leg out from | under the money-made-through-vertical-integration stool, | which is of concern to them. | WJW wrote: | > They can't. Apple locks the bootloader... | | There are other hardware manufacturers than Apple? | smoldesu wrote: | Nope. Choosing your software platform on iPhone isn't an | option though, if it was then we wouldn't be having this | conversation right now. | homonculus1 wrote: | Hershey bars are made by Hershey, not by Nestle. | bluejekyll wrote: | There is the oddity of KitKat in the US being made by | Hershey but Nestle internationally. | lotsofpulp wrote: | I was expecting a Nestle product in your last sentence. | | Also, pretty sure effectively all chocolate benefits from | child labor because of where cocoa trees are located. | smoldesu wrote: | FWIW Hershey was _also_ accused of child labor /slavery | alongside Nestle, but you're right and I fumbled that one | at the 95-yard-line. | egberts1 wrote: | Right. And that would be fumbling at the "5" yard line | but the opponent touched and miraculously tipped the ball | back to you, and you recovered and still made your points | (puns intended). | [deleted] | lucisferre wrote: | Is it really _their_ problem? Blaming the consumer has | consistently proven the least effective way to effect | change. | smoldesu wrote: | Exactly, so we need to stop blaming the consumer and | start making systemic change with regulation. If the | largest player doesn't agree to play nice, then it's time | that we change the rules. | mort96 wrote: | So, p0pcult cited with a Steve Jobs quote which, in this | context, can only be understood to mean, "Apple is | becoming/has become a company where sales and marketing | people are running the companies, and the product quality | is suffering for it". shepherdjerred points out that the | product quality is still extremely high, so the quote | doesn't seem apt. | | "Apple makes some good products but is evil" is valid | criticism of Apple, which shepherdjerred hasn't disagreed | with. "Apple is making bad products these days because they | are lead by marketing and sales people" isn't valid | criticism of Apple (in shepherdjerred's, and my, opinion). | smoldesu wrote: | There is certainly proof of Apple's software quality | declining in recent years (iTunes, MacOS, Xcode, APFS, | Time Machine, oh god the list never ends) but there's a | larger point to be made about how regulation can be a | salve for our ills. Apple wouldn't need to be fighting | this war if they played nice, but much like Nestle they | refuse to heed our warning until it's too late. | | Apple is at a scale where pithy Steve Jobs quotes don't | aptly describe their relationship with the economy or | world governments. We cannot trust them to do the right | thing, so our _best hope_ for turning them around is | holding them accountable for the things we want. | aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA wrote: | What's wrong with APFS? | busymom0 wrote: | I disagree. While they may make decent products, the quality | and attention to detail has gone down. Especially the UX has | gone downhill entirely. Look at how bad the wallpaper | changing UX is on iOS 16 for example. | roody15 wrote: | Hmm apple still makes great hardware but I think software | wise quality has suffered and this quote applies... | | For example on you phone you will get a red alert in settings | ... when you click it ... says Try apple music for 3 months | .. or will say setup apple pay ... or sometimes say sign in | with icloud. (even after declining multiple times) | | These are just ads disguised as systems alerts ... hurts the | experience and comes off as cheap. | | Also on Apple Computers and Phones alike it keeps asking to | sign in and use icloud. But then gives you only 5gigs of | space ... not enough to even backup your phone and then tries | to upsell a monthly fee for expanded storage. | | The software is designed to confuse users into purchasing | when simply taking photos. New iphone with 64 gigs of storage | 40 gigs free .... user gets message they are out of space in | icloud and can purchase more space. They are quite aware that | many users are not savy enough to know they don't need to use | icloud at all with photos or anything. Every time you update | the phone it prompts you to "sign in" or "create and | account". Again comes off as cheap and pushy. | | I can go on and on but money crunchers are definitely at the | table with software these days. | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | > Nothing can beat a MacBook | | At what? Price? Performance? Gaming? I/O? | koonsolo wrote: | I'm a Linux guy, not an Apple fan. But the hardware is | always top notch. If you look at the MacBook: the trackpad, | the sound, the battery life, the overall quality, ... I | haven't found any laptop hardware that comes even close to | it. | | If you know a product that does, please let me know so I | can buy one and run Linux on it :). | TinyRick wrote: | I have a Dell XPS from around 2018 that I run arch on. | Only issue I've had is needing to replace the battery | once due to swelling (very easy to swap), but otherwise | the hardware and specs are on par with my work assigned | Macbook. | Gigachad wrote: | I have had a few dell XPSs, newest one was a 2019 one and | they work, but they were not even close to the quality of | the full macbook package. The keyboard was dogshit, the | webcam didn't work on linux, the mic picked up huge | amounts of fan noise, finger print scanner didn't work on | linux and the maintainers of the open source drivers | believed the hardware to be critically insecure so there | is no reason you'd want it supported anyway. | | You could upgrade the ram on the 16" versions though | which is nice. Although this is still not something I | have ever done on a laptop. The new Macbooks now have | easily replaceable batteries which is a welcome change. | dlivingston wrote: | But how does it feel to use? On my MacBook Pro, the | trackpad and keyboard feel like I am manipulating text | and windows at the speed of thought. On my work-assigned | Dell, with specs ~matching my MacBook, it feels like | there's a hidden friction to everything I do. Like going | from skating on ice to jogging on sand. | Gigachad wrote: | Had a 2019 16" XPS and I'd describe the keyboard as | borderline unusable. It was weirdly squeaky and if you | hit a key on the edge a bit it just wouldn't register so | I had so many typing mistakes. | trap_goes_hot wrote: | Apple is incredibly profitable, but Lenovo, dell, hp combined | ship 60% of the laptops worldwide. Customers overwhelmingly | choose non-Apple laptops. | viscanti wrote: | Apple routinely has 90%+ of the laptop marketshare for | computers that cost $1,000 or more. Seems weird to compare | their marketshare to markets they're not competing in. | dotnet00 wrote: | How does that say anything except that Apple laptops are | so expensive that for anything they don't need Apple for | they don't have to spend $1k? | mint2 wrote: | The cellular Apple watch has a terrible flaw. The networks | only support it on the premium feature post paid contract | plans and not on any prepaid plan. There's no way to have a | prepaid cell plan and add a watch for yourself. It's an awful | user experience. This limitation has no logical reason other | than short sighted cell company greed and lack of Apple | pushback | DiabloD3 wrote: | Unfortunately, none of that is true. Apple hasn't made a | product worth owning in a long long time. | | Macbooks no longer can run Windows and don't quite run Linux | yet (the two largest OSes in the world, and Linux On The | Desktop(tm) is a bigger market share than OSX), iPhones still | can't run Android after all these years (the majority phone | OS), and Apple Watches suffer the issues all the smart | watches have (no real good use case, battery lives of a day | or less, violates "zero distraction" ethical concerns, | sensors are fulltime uploaded to the cloud and there are no | good Federal controls on personal data in the US, etc). | | I see no reason to ever buy Apple until they actually catch | up to the rest of the world. Apple is a cult, and a very | expensive one to buy into. | Gigachad wrote: | Defining a phone as worth owning as "being able to run | android" is very arbitrary. I believe that nothing but the | iphone is worth owning because the other's can't run iOS | yet. Android just isn't suitable for real world usage yet. | 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: | However this is not Apple products. This is other peoples' | products. For example, other peoples' software. Following the | "tech" company playbook, Apple is simply acting as a middleman. | And in this case a 30% tax man. | | Is the volume of crypto transactions rising. Coinbase announced | something about increased volume back in September. Perhaps | those sales and marketing people at Apple see an opportunity to | profit as crypto investors lose their shirts. | donmcronald wrote: | > However this is not Apple products. | | The App Store is a product and it's a bad product for | developers and users when Apple is using their market | position to take 30% of revenue. | echelon wrote: | At this point iPhone isn't a product. It's control, | manipulation, and extortion of the free market well beyond | any notion of fair competition. | | Apple won 51+% of American consumers. Now it taxes all of the | computing and commerce workloads they engage in. | | Imagine if Tesla charged Starbucks money to drive you to | coffee. Because that's exactly what Apple has been doing for | the last decade. They've buttoned up every single industry | and put them all under thumb. | | Apple is taxing the internet, basically. (And Google's scary | and hidden side loading isn't much better.) | weixiyen wrote: | they've certainly become the very thing they've set out to | disrupt | [deleted] | mkrishnan wrote: | thelock85 wrote: | Can anyone here provide some ideas of sensible regulation on this | issue (or point to someone else talking about it)? | | IANAL or even novice on antitrust issues but seems Apple would | just find another way to make up the slack if App Store | (iOS/Android/other) fees were regulated. | | As a good friend of mine likes to say about DNC vs GOP, it's | "steak or fish" with Android and iOS (you can choose which is | which). They take up too much space for anyone else to | fundamentally reimagine and reintroduce an app ecosystem (no | disrespect to PWAs and the like). I feel regulation would | ultimately hurt developers and consumers more, at least in the | medium to long-term, but I'm open to forming a new opinion. | ThatPlayer wrote: | "Apple finding another way to make up the slack" will happen | even if it doesn't get regulated. To companies, there's no such | thing as making enough money. Look at how they're doing ads | now. | chrisco255 wrote: | Microsoft was taken to court for less than this in the 90s over | the browser wars. 1) Apple should be forced to allow side- | loaded apps. 2) they should be forced to allow competing | marketplaces. 3) they should be forced to allow PWAs to be | installed alongside regular apps. 4) they should be forced to | allow alternative web engines (inc. Chrome, Edge, Brave, | Firefox, Opera, etc) | bogwog wrote: | Government setting prices like that is a terrible idea. The | solution to this problem is competition. The only regulation | needed are laws that stop Apple from preventing competition. If | there were alternative app stores, free market forces will | naturally prevent Apple from doing stuff like this. They'll be | free to charge whatever they want, but customers and developers | will also be free to go with a competitor instead of them. | | Sure, Apple and their fanboys are going to say stuff like "it | will be bad for privacy" and "Apple needs to control everything | to protect us from malware", etc. Pretty much the exact same | type of arguments AT&T was making before they got broken up in | the ~80s. If that didn't happen, we probably wouldn't have | gotten the internet as quickly as we did (or at all). That's a | pretty clear example of how monopolies stifle competition, and | how breaking them up can be lead to incredible innovation. | | Hell, I don't think we even need new laws. I'm not a lawyer, | but I'm pretty sure what Apple is doing is already illegal, | since it's so obviously anti-competitive and detrimental to | society/the economy. Even investors will probably be better off | in the long run if all these tech giants have their monopolies | broken up, since the new opportunities in the market will | undoubtedly result in new innovations and better investment | opportunities. | | Also, I need to say this otherwise the conversation will get | predictably derailed: | | * Apple is bad | | * Google is bad too | | * Microsoft is bad too | | * Amazon is bad too | | * Meta is bad too | | * <insert tech company here> is bad too | bink wrote: | Even forcing competing app stores has problems. It's Apple | that will be forced to provide support for those app stores. | If someone installs malicious software from one and it bricks | their phone they're going to bring it to an Apple store. Even | if they have a policy of "competing app stores mean no | support" there's still going to be the time wasted | determining if another app store was used and the good will | lost when customers find they no longer receive support for | their broken phone. | bo1024 wrote: | Sure, one answer. Whenever a company owning a "platform" also | competes on the platform and sets the rules to favor | themselves, this hurts competition. Regulation should ensure a | fair playing field on the platform, preventing companies from | putting up barriers to competition. | | This is why Microsoft lost a lawsuit about bundling Internet | Explorer onto the computing platform of Windows, this is why | the platform of Google search has results rigged in favor of | Google products, etc. | | This is also why Net Neutrality is a good idea, the company | that controls the "platform" of the Internet being delivered to | your device shouldn't get to stifle competition by making some | websites cheaper or more expensive to visit. | | In this case, phones are a physical platform that should be | opened to allow any software to run, and iOS is a software | platform that should be opened to allow users to easily install | alternative App Stores and easily install alternative | applications not offered on the App Store. | nightski wrote: | I feel like I am the only one who has never made a single | transaction on a mobile device. I refuse to contribute. | throwaway290 wrote: | Cryptocurrencies and NFTs, the amount of scam in this ecosystem | makes me least concerned about them having to pay Apple fees. | dboreham wrote: | The new vampire squid. | barumrho wrote: | Maybe I'm off here, but this doesn't really seem like it's about | the 30% commission. Maybe Apple is taking a position against | allowing crypto trades on their platform? | everfree wrote: | Then maybe they should state that. | | Apple didn't block fungible tokens (crypto), they only blocked | non-fungible tokens (NFTs). Right now is the time for them to | clarify their position. | mensetmanusman wrote: | Ahahaha, they will soon be asking Charles Schwab for a 30% cut | for anyone that sells equities in the iPhone. | seydor wrote: | At what point does Apple get classified as a Bank? | | What is the point of a Coinbase wallet at this point in any case? | Free tracking by coinbase, apple, the NSA etc etc? | | If you consider the reason why Bitcoin, ETH etc were invented in | the first place, this is beyond ridiculous, absurd and a travesty | paulmd wrote: | Apple already has lending licenses for the apple pay later | feature. they're not a bank though, in the same sense that | paypal is not a bank. | madrox wrote: | At this point in the "30% is unfair" game, I'm fascinated by the | general reaction by the crowd. In every high profile case, it | comes down to which company you have more affinity for. I watched | a lot of the gaming community side with Apple against Epic, | because from their perspective it was Epic being greedy and not | the other way around. | | This time, I'm sure anyone still excited about web3 will side | against Apple. It's going to take a coalition of companies with | enough goodwill amongst enough people to break the general | conception that Apple is, overall, working more in the interests | of the consumer than other businesses. | elashri wrote: | care to mention some of these companies that have enough | goodwill?. Hopefully it is not Twitter and facebook because | they lead the attack on app store policy ( beside epic of | course) | dotnet00 wrote: | Having been someone who also sided with Apple against Epic but | has changed his tune, I think a big point there was that it was | the first notable company that spoke up about Apple's | practices. | | While I tend to think most of this web3 stuff is trash | (especially the centralized stuff), I think by now so many | cases of Apple's excessive control have piled up that changing | opinions is understandable. Especially as someone who hasn't | had to deal directly with Apple's restrictive ecosystem before. | weberer wrote: | People are against Epic because the CEO is obviously acting in | bad faith and so shameless about it. He claims to be in favor | of open platforms when it is beneficial to his bottom line, but | refuses to do the bare minimum to support Linux. Obviously tech | nerds aren't going to like that. | freedomben wrote: | Agreed, but I'm not sure we're anywhere near the tipping point. | Apple users _really_ love Apple and will (nearly) always | interpret Apple 's actions with the absolute best of | intentions/benefit of the doubt. The company is not stupid. | Like most of silicon valley they will always come up with some | justification for doing what they want to do, and odds are good | that they'll actually convince themselves that those are the | real reasons. | nluken wrote: | Honestly, I hate web3 but this move is absolutely bullshit on | Apple's part. I think it goes a step further than just "30% of | IAP money" since there's no download or product that the user | is really buying. It would be like Apple demanding fees for | Cash App or some other related service. | lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: | I'm convinced at this point that Coinbase intended for people | to be confused about this: Apple is claiming a 30% cut of the | transaction fees that Coinbase charges their customers. If | Cash App charged a fee to transfer money, Apple would claim | their cut of that fee. | nluken wrote: | > If Cash App charged a fee to transfer money, Apple would | claim their cut of that fee. | | They do, at least for rapid transfers to banks. It was | perhaps not the greatest analogy on my part since transfers | within the app are free, but I fully understand what Apple | is claiming here. You don't see them claiming Cash App's | transfer fees, or bank fees, or other similar charges. | lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: | I should apologize since I misunderstood the fees being | collected; they are the gas fees as presented in the | Wallet app (I'd been thinking the separate app they | release that includes the exchange trading, which has | transaction fees). It's likely that the gas fees as | presented by the Ethereum network are simply being passed | along to the app user, which is definitely not the same | as I'm suggesting. | | If Cash App charges their own fee (ie, it's not a bank | fee that Cash App is passing along to the consumer) then | I would actually expect Apple to want to claim their cut | of that fee. At least, that would be consistent with how | they've gone after this in, e.g., the Epic case. | (Different type of in-app "purchase", but consistent | considering who would be receiving the profit of the fee | is the app developer.) | rottencupcakes wrote: | Do you have a source for this? If this is true, then this | tweetstorm seems completely out of line. | lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: | I believe in the title I originally saw, it specified | "exchange fees". | | But also from the tweet thread (second tweet): | | > Apple's claim is that the gas fees required to send | NFTs need to be paid through their In-App Purchase | system, so that they can collect 30% of the gas fee. | zopa wrote: | That's a fee paid to the Ethereum network, not to | Coinbase itself, isn't it? | lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: | I'm not actually sure about this because it's their | Wallet app rather than the trading app. If they obfuscate | the gas fee behind their own transaction fee the way they | do with their trading app, I believe my take is correct. | | Otherwise, it actually seems way more open for debate. | It's possible I am mistaken and this is a reach from | Apple. It might also be that Apple is claiming that | Coinbase _needs_ to obfuscate the fee in such a manner, | which sounds kinda crazy to me. | | At any rate, this confusion about it being the assets | themselves being cut is what I intended to be speaking | about, so apologies if this response is not helpful. | amanj41 wrote: | The reason this is different is because the fee does not go | to Coinbase at all. It goes to the Ethereum network. If | cash app could prove they got zero profit from a service | fee that could be one thing. In this case, Coinbase can | prove exactly how much the gas fee was and that they do not | take a cut of this "fee" | lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: | Yes, I think I was mistaken. My thinking was based on a | previous title, which didn't specify Coinbase "Wallet" | and included the phrase "exchange fees". If they were the | fees from Coinbase's trading application, they wouldn't | be strictly the gas fees as charged by the Ethereum | network. Tweets in the thread also specify gas fees and | this is exclusive to NFTs, so I suspect the fees in | question are indeed the network gas fees. | | Sorry for the confusion. | andirk wrote: | Ironically, this wouldn't be an issue if your hated web3 was | the defacto app store. Maybe Apple sees crypto as a game, and | buying/selling/trading crypto on the Coinbase app is in-game | purchases to Apple. | initplus wrote: | Exactly. This seems analogous to Apple demanding 30% of the | bank fees I pay because I use my bank's app. | avgDev wrote: | Yeah.....I use Schwab as bank/brokerage and pay fees for | trading. Should apple get a 30% cut...... | [deleted] | laweijfmvo wrote: | I placed a stock trade that carried a 50 cent commission | from my iPhone this morning. | datadata wrote: | I sincerely can't tell if this is real or parody. Which | is it? | andirk wrote: | If it is, it may not be soon. I have never been a fan of | these app stores. I like a gatekeeper making sure | malicious content doesn't get on our devices, but there | should be the option to easily use other stores without | jailbreaking the device. | laweijfmvo wrote: | Neither, I just suck at English. I did place a stock | trade this morning, using my brokerage's iPhone app. It | had a commission. | | Should Apple get 30%? | threeseed wrote: | Except that NFTs are supposed to be a good and not a | currency. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-12-01 23:00 UTC)