The situation where you can purchase a service for 30% less elsewhere but not on the iPhone is pretty insane. And on top of that, you are not allowed to tell your users how to get a better deal.

Regardless of his reasoning, Apple and some others have too much power.

How can Apple have "too much power" here, when there is a clear alternative where it is cheaper?

It's not a "clear alternative" when Apple doesn't even allow you to mention that. There are other reasonable alternatives such as letting developers mention the alternative payment methods as long as they explain what the benefits of Apple payment ecosystem.

I read a lot of people writing comments like "I prefer to go through Apple because of the ease of unsubscription." If the benefits are so clear, why are developers not even allowed to mention the alternative?

Android is a very real and clear alternative. Android dominates market share. How you can say there isn't a clear alternative, I don't know.

Given the vendor lock-in and Apple's 50% market share, it's not much of an alternative.

That doesn't justify your argument. 50% is not a dominant position.

> They want to benefit from the infrastructure, but don't want to pay for it.

The infrastructure is already paid for. I paid for it when I bought my $1000 iPhone.

That would be a valid point if the phone wasn't vertically integrated with cloud services and ongoing support from the manufacturer.

The terms for access to the app store are based on licensing for the software that's part of the device. I could see a reasonable compromise where you can wipe the iPhone and start from scratch with your own OS/drivers/etc, waive your warranty, and then be free to go nuts installing anything you want from any app store. I just can't imagine anyone being happy spending the thousand bucks purely for the hardware.

My last iPhone before this one was also $1000. Oh, also, I pay for iCloud storage. I think I’ve covered the ongoing support and cloud costs as well.

Why should Apple be allowed to have a competitor in the same space without paying the 30% Apple tax on top then?

That's anti-trust 101.

So should we also stop console makers from having first party games? Stop stores from selling store brands?

I'd say yes if console makers would force all 3rd parties to not directly advertise how to create an account with them and pay through their own means for a subscription when needed instead of the console game store.

I'd say yes if stores with their own store brands would force producers of 3rd party products to always pay a 30% cut and disallow the consumers from being able to purchase the product at a different place of their choosing.

Consoles have forced third party game makers to pay a license fee for every physical game sold since the 80s no matter where you sold the game.

My example was about subscriptions, no console maker takes a cut of a subscription to a game done through the game publisher's own servers/service. No console maker takes a cut from sales of digital items done through the game's platform.

You are moving the goalposts, licencing is a well established practice and only interferes with the sale of the initial product: the game, not subsequent upsales where the console maker has absolutely no interaction with, just like royalties for IP and so on, it's another broken analogy...

Which console makers allow you to have subscriptions that you pay for outside of the game?

Final Fantasy XIV for example.

Actually, maybe yeah!

Whataboutism doesn't solve anything. Two wrongs doesn't make a right. Etc.

Not only whataboutism but also broken analogies. I can't think of a proper analogy to the market power that Apple holds by having the whole platform coupled with devices that people don't have that many other choices (Android vs iOS, that's basically it). I can always try to twist the analogy to bring it closer to the actual reality of the issue at hand but it's always an uphill battle to dismember it and re-create the analogy more similarly to what's actually the problem.

Sometimes I wonder if it's really other's ignorance about the reductionist analogy being broken or if they're maliciously using it to misrepresent the point made.

> can't think of a proper analogy to the market power that Apple holds by having the whole platform coupled with devices that people don't have that many other choices

There are three console makers as opposed to two major phone manufacturers. How is that different?

You can release your games for PCs and have enough market share to be sustainable. You can't just release your app on the web and have the exact same experience as a native application, there's no alternative with enough market share for mobile platforms.

Do you really not see a difference between these worlds or are you being purposefully obtuse and ignoring reality to try to push your point?

It's again an example from HN threads/commenters completely ignoring degree and level of issues and instead forcing a black-and-white view with broken analogies...

The PC game market is a nothingburger compared to console.

So the same people who aren’t willing to walk away from ios with 50% market share are going to suggest walking away from all consoles which combined have a much larger than 50% market share in the games market?

People have been complaining for years that Apple is holding the PWA market back. Where are all of the companies that are releasing iOS + web only and telling Android users to use the web app?

Would it be ok for you then if Apple took a 30% cut of every sale made through an app distributed by their App Store? Like Amazon, or food delivery, or grocery apps, and any other app that sells something through the app?

No I wouldn’t. But software has a zero marginal cost and even server costs are minuscule on a per user basis.

80% of all Apple revenue from the App Store comes from pay to win games (came out in the Epic trial)

What does it matter if software has marginal costs or not?

The principle is the same, it's a product being sold by a 3rd party which Apple has no involvement at all in its production costs being distributed by the App Store which Apple takes a fee of 30% off.

The costs of software services are part of the cost of a subscription, as the cost of production of something Amazon is selling is part of its cost. Streaming services have ongoing costs for development, maintenance, etc. that physical goods don't have after they're sold. You are just paying one upfront and the other one is ongoing.

> 80% of all Apple revenue from the App Store comes from pay to win games (came out in the Epic trial)

And what's the argument here? That those are easier to produce they deserve to get taken a 30% cut because marginal costs are near zero?

Netflix and other streaming services have much higher costs than these P2W games if that's your argument; costs for licencing content, maintaining infrastructure, paying for development. Nothing of that is cheap, what is the big difference between a product such as a streaming service and physical goods sold by Amazon that makes you not support Apple taking 30% from Amazon per purchase?

Do you think it'd be fair if every Netflix subscriber using Android devices had to share a slice of the 30% Apple takes if Netflix allowed subscriptions through their iOS app and Apple took a cut? Because it's either that or Netflix having different subscription prices between iOS and Android, both are bad for Netflix and good for Apple. All while Apple also produces a competitor.

In what world is this a fair market practice when you have so much power over a platform? And even directly competes with some companies that you are putting in a natural disadvantage?

Why is Netflix even relevant to the discussion? Netflix hasn’t allowed in app subscription prices for years

They don't allow it exactly because they have to pay the 30% on top, the same with Kindle books, etc. that's exactly why it's relevant in this discussion, mate... Not sure how to be clearer, I've been playing around with your analogies and get just a brick wall in return, exhausting.

The whole argument is that they didn’t have a choice but to pay the fee when they in fact chose not to go through in app purchasing. They were not forced to pay Apple to be on iOS