"Whining" is an overly prejudicial word choice for this title. These are legitimate issues people have with what Apple is doing, not mere whining.<p>This echoes the "if you don't like it so much then just leave instead of speaking up" dismissal that is so commonly used as a lampshade for suppressing dissent. Not sure if that's the intent here but that's what it comes off as.<p>And this point from the article needs to be strongly rebutted:<p>> I don’t know, it seems silly to me to cry about monopolies. The solution is obvious. Stop making apps for iOS. Sure, you’re going to take a huge hit without access to those consumers [...]<p>This guy doesn't understand what monopolies are and how they work. The whole point is that there are no other alternatives, so you literally cannot "just stop using them". "Just stop patronizing the monopoly" is not a strategy that has ever been successful. The monopoly needs to be <i>broken up</i>.
If you don’t like how Apple does business, stop using their products.<p>If you don’t like how Google does business, stop using their products.<p>If you don’t like how either one does business, stop using technology all together.<p>I am being facetious, but mainly to illustrate the point that we now have a series of entrenched monopolies in the tech world so “stop using X” isn’t a realistic solution.
Unpopular opinion: the 30% that Apple charges includes customer acquisition cost.<p>As a thought experiment, if Hey adds In-App Purchase for subscriptions, but everyone who downloads the app has first signed up for their service due to their marketing methods (an increasing likelihood considering this controversy), then nobody will use the In App Purchase, and Hey will send $0.00 to Apple.<p>If someone discovers the App in the App Store due to an organic search for Email clients, then they are likely to sign up via In App Purchase, and Hey pays Apple an affiliate fee of 30% of first year revenue, and 15% of lifetime revenue after that. This is a customer that Hey would not have had if not for the App Store, so getting 75-80% of lifetime value seems better than not acquiring the customer in the first place.<p>I realize it's not entirely as clean as that, but cast in that way, the amounts seem merely expensive, and not egregious.<p>(not to defend any of Apple's behavior - particularly the most recent letter sent).
> The solution is obvious. Stop making apps for iOS. Sure, you’re going to take a huge hit without access to those consumers<p>The solution is obvious. Sabotage your own business. Sure, you're going to go out of business without any customers.
Disclaimer: I only read the subject line and the first paragraph.<p>Years ago, when Internet Explorer had market dominance, I was working on a website and I wanted to use a feature that IE didn’t support yet. I asked a question on a forum about how to do it in IE. One of the replies was "just stop using IE."<p>Dude. It's not for me. It's for my customers.
"I know that the devices are pretty and feel nice and maybe your friends all have one and you want to signal that you’re one of the crowd, but it’s not worth it."<p>That's quite an over simplification of the appeal of an iPhone and comes off as him whining about whiners. I'd like to switch back to a flip phone from a privacy perspective, but there's a few conveniences that would be hard to go without. I refuse to buy any more Android phones as I've only had issue after issue with software and hardware, and Apple seems like the lesser of two evils.<p>It feels like we're stuck in an American political party system where our only reasonable options are to choose between two companies that only have their own best interests in mind.
I mean lets be honest. Developers actually like the iPhone as a development platform. They like how much money they make from it. They like the products themselves. They just don't want to pay the Apple commission or be restricted in any way by their rules.<p>Unfortunately those things are tied at the hip. The very rules and product decisions about the platform is what made it the popular and lucrative market it is in the first place.
If you make something like say, oh an email client, excluding the 1.5 BILLION people on the iOS platform is not just a handicap, it makes your entire business non-viable. So now Apple is the gatekeeper of new businesses and services. Fortune 500's and small one man shops alike have been terrified to speak up against Apple, because Apple has the ability to deliver a death-sentence by kicking you out of their store on a whim or simply because an app reviewer takes a personal interest in you.<p>I think what the Basecamp folks want is entirely reasonable, and Apple's behavior is entirely anti-competitive: Basecamp doesn't care to be in the app store, nor do they want to benefit from the app store discovery and other services for free. What they want is the OPTION to have a link on their web page, that when clicked, prompts the user to install the notarized/signed/whatever application. Basically you'd just have the "double click the power button twice to install" card pop-up immediately, bypassing the entire store. Do that, and Apple can charge whatever they want in the store. Suggestions that this somehow subverts the quality of the platform or the experience is entirely bullshit, Basecamp pays their developer fees and notarizes their apps on Mac, there's zero reason this wouldn't work on iOS except Apple's greed and anti-competitive behavior, and let's not forget that sweet, sweet 30% cut of every single business and service under the sun.
I can't stop. I've been buying computers and peripherals and gizmos since 1974. I have a house full of them. I code for food. But I've yet to buy my first Apple product or service. Yes, it's mostly because I'm cheap. But it's also because I avoid walled gardens. I feel pretty good about that now. Climb on out, y'all, the weather's fine out here in the jungle.
This debacle is peak popcorn. "HN Darling Reinvents Email Except Really Expensive Without SMTP Support And Asserts That Apple Is Being A Meanie For Enforcing Their Revenue Model"<p>Yet no one is going to divest from Apple because profit/weird consumer ideology.<p>Also not precluding the possibility that it's all (or mostly) a big marketing act from what is clearly a marketing-first product (Hey).
"It seems silly to me to cry about monopolies."<p>Oh, wait. So let's go back in time. When Microsoft was sued and forced to allow other browsers onto Windows. IE was the default and was free.<p>Microsoft forced OEMs to pay for Windows for every computer they made, whether or not they installed Windows on it. Effectively killing out other operating systems.<p>If you don't believe in monopolies... if the solution was "stop buying computers that come pre-installed with Windows"...<p>Or is it that you don't believe Apple is a monopoly but you're still happy Microsoft was forced to allow other browsers to be the default in Windows?
Nooooo!!!!<p>I am sustained by Apple hatred. It is an essential part of my balanced diet.<p>Every time someone complains about how expensive Apple is I grow a centimeter and every time someone bitches about their App Store policies I gain a month of lifespan.<p>I am now 40km tall and will live for 50,000 years but ultimately a lack of whining about Apple would see me wither away and die.
In my opinion, developers do have the right to articulate critics - be it towards Apple or any other gatekeeper. Just stopping to use/develop for a platform isn't enough.<p>However, I feel the discussion often misses a central point when it is focused on "developers" against "Apple" (or be it Google): the interest of the customer.<p>Of course, a developer wants to maximize return, as wants Apple. But what about the users? As a user, I love discounts on iTunes gift cards. I love Apple handling subscriptions instead of a developer I don't know. I choose iOS because of the perceived better support and lifetime value (and perhaps even the feel of some security and privacy, but of course, one can argue about that). And I even like the editorial content of the AppStore, which is some form of marketing but also a form of recommendation.<p>As a customer, the AppStore is much more than a simple storefront, some sometimes wonky review processing and some servers and payment processing: it is a 360-degree-experience. Sometimes, as a customer I'm frustrated by the AppStore as well, but I would not buy my apps at a developers site. I even buy Mac Apps in the AppStore if I can, for similar reasons.<p>As a developer, I sometimes hate myself for not giving other developers more than 60 or 70 percent of the share. But on the other hand, I remember the old days when software was sold on CDROMs and was only available at Frys and other large electronics/computer shops. Getting your software listed there cost much much more than 30 percent ... and you had to prepay all these expenses as the developer/publisher.
> The Solution for Consumers<p>> Stop buying iPhones<p>There's the problem with this argument. Consumers are suffering, but don't realize it. The lack of competition, and the increased cost to developers, are depriving consumers of innovative products like Hey, but they don't know it. You can't expect consumer to know when they buy a phone, that it will cause a future company to fail to launch an innovative new product. It's this very reason why we have anti-trust laws.
As an alternative solution that doesn't depend on defining what a monopoly is, or how to boycott a large brand, how about forcing companies to apply the same terms to everybody?<p>I think at least part of the core of the problem is that Apple applies their subscription requirements differently depending on who owns the app. That is what I think needs to stop. If Yo has to do it one way, then Google, Microsoft, Netflix and Spotify should have to do it the same way too.
> <i>Stop buying iPhones. Seriously. They’re overpriced and locked-down and controlled by Apple in infuriating ways that hurt you, even if Apple has succeeded in keeping you ignorant of that fact.</i><p>I'll take your word for it... not! iPhones are fine, everyone who has used both current Android and iOS devices can see that. It's not hurting me that "Hey" has to pay 30% for their subscriptions. Hotels, restaurants and other companies have to pay similar rates to their respective dominating "gatekeepers" as well. For the consumer it doesn't matter. For someone like "Hey" the way to go is to pay up now and if they are successful, they might be able to negotiate better terms later.
I love it when someone tries to tell me what <i>I</i> should like or do. I don’t care if you like Apple or not. I happen to like them, not everything of course, but overall yes. And you’re advocating limiting their success? They, like all of us, can succeed or fail in America. They are successful because people like their products and software. Duh. Jealousy does not suit you very well. Don’t get me wrong, I like Android and Linux too, I’m an expert on Linux myself. But there’s a reason I use an iPhone, iPad Pro and MacBook Pro. It’s called convenience and productivity. And I like it!<p>Who basically invented the App Store? And now you don’t like that they make money on it?<p>Your whole article just strikes me as sour grapes.
I have seen mainly three groups of people who continue to use Apple products. Those who want their phones, computers etc to just work together and don't want to spend time on this. Then there are those who want to get out of the walled garden but there is too much lock-in to bother spending time on it because they have other things to do. And finally those who think Apple products are aspirational/status symbol.<p>So when it comes to switching from Apple, the first group doesn't need to, the second can't afford to and the third doesn't want to. Nothing much we can do about it.
30% is extemely steep and I think if it was 15% hardly anyone would complain.<p>This is just my opinion, but a 30% tax is there because they provide something that the competition doesn't.
And that is automated security updates by default for at least 5 years and user friendly app permission management where I really can trust my settings to provide me privacy by default.<p>You will not get that from Google, they barely support their own devices for more than 3 years, I still have no idea if advertisers are allowed to read my gmail or not.<p>I remember recently a friend getting an old ipad mini with a nice screen but poor cpu specs, 1gb ram. And guess what, it ran fine, it's getting security and feature updates the same day as every other apple device. TouchID worked, everything actually just worked I can trust that thing my bank account.<p>And recently I found my old Nexus 7 with amazing specs, quad core , 4gb ram, 1920:1200 screen and now I have to do bootloader & operating system surgery just to get the thing to work.<p>Everytime I've heard of someone get their bank account hacked it usually has started with a text sent to an out of date android phone. For that reason alone I can't recommend a non-technical person to use android unless they understand security or it's on a brand new Pixel device.<p>If I'm building and deploying software and I want to have the piece of mind that all my users are running it on a secure platform that at least tries to respect their privacy my best choice is an iOS device and for that Apple wants a 3rd of my revenue.
My job is to fix other people's technology / computer problems. When I'm not working I want to use a smartphone that does what I need, behaves as expected every time, and respects my privacy concerns. I want to spend as little time as possible configuring, fixing, or troubleshooting my phone.<p>The iPhone is the closest thing to what I want. It's not 100% but it's better than any other smartphone I've come across at that price point ($400 for iPhone SE).
I am a long-time Apple customer, but my first reaction to this title was, "well I've never used cigarettes, does that mean I can't 'whine' about them?"<p>There is, to an extent, 'second hand smoke' in any industry with a dominant player who doesn't agree with your sense of ethics. The App Store and its imitators have changed the landscape of software that is available to you and I.<p>I didn't run to OS X so much as I ran away from the chaos and aggravation of custom drivers and kernel compiles for Linux laptops (compiling on a subnotebook is quite painful), and doing tech support for friends & family, so the pickiness of the App Store solves a huge pain point that I am willing to <i>compromise</i> on other things to get. That it's a compromise means that the dissenters have a point, it's just not enough for me.<p>When you are trying to keep conceptual coherence in a thing, you have to reject a lot of ideas that would be really cool to do. It doesn't mean people aren't entitled to grieve, and it doesn't mean that you will always pick the correct winners ("why did my idea get rejected but your stupid ideas 1, 2, and 3 were included?"), and in some cases the bigger person would encourage someone to 'spin off' that idea. If the market of ideas gets too constrained then it's bad for everyone.<p>I suppose you could say that I want them to win, but only as long as that doesn't mean that everybody else has to lose. Like Chrome beating Microsoft without taking out Firefox (whups). We are not very good as consumers at ensuring that.
What's the monopolistic case against Apple? Is Apple anticompetitive?<p>Here's my grievances, but I don't know if any aspects are actually monopolistic.<p>Are they competing against their own partners? Their stock apps have remained vanilla enough that there seems to be enough oxygen for alternatives for premium and power users.<p>They've definitely done monopsony. Business strategy wise, they've been wicked clever. It's always made me uncomfortable. And I'm pretty grumpy their control of the supply chain doesn't permit third party repairs. I get that they're pulling out all the stops combatting counterfeiters and fraud, which is easily pro-consumer, but there's got to be a balance.<p>I've always felt their 30% cut from App Store is excessive, unfair. But I don't know what a reasonable cut would be. Cost of doing business plus reasonable margin?<p>Pay to play schemes, like search ads and paid placement, are complete bullshit. Aka payola. But is that monopolistic?<p>All the "marketplaces" need the rule of law. Transparency, accountability, fair and impartial courts, appeals processes. This applies to apps, content, personas. No one entity can be allowed be legislator, police, judge, jury, and executioner. This is the biggest apparent conflict of interest, anti-competitive, anti-consumer, anti-democratic behavior of all these "marketplace" hosts, Apple included.<p>I'm still pissed off about the wage fixing. Sharing the bounty more fairly, broadly would diffuse a lot of the festering resentment.
I really like the iPhone. Maybe not the full Apple ecosystem so much (everything else I own is Linux), but that's only because I think Linux is the best fit for me. iPhone is the same way, and Apple's business practices don't change my fit with my phone, no matter how disappointing they may be. I think that's why many of us use Apple.<p>My happy place would be something like "Heroku for mobile", where you can jswrap a React.js app into an HTMLView or something like that, and do 'git push ios master'. Notifications API, localStorage API, and maybe authentication / session persistence API are all I really care about natively (like Firebase); React Native is too heavy. Add in a TestFlight "permanent beta" invite, or the ability to build the app from a remote mac (<a href="https://www.macincloud.com/" rel="nofollow">https://www.macincloud.com/</a>) with a lambda and transfer it to my phone (...somehow), and I'll just use the app store for things I don't make myself (which hopefully should be less and less).
Everything is a trade-off.<p>I use iOS because I want a smartphone and I'd prefer Apple's restrictions to Google's data-gathering. I'd like to see iOS be better and I'd like to see Apple's App Store policies improved.<p>If I choose to use Apple products because I find the trade-offs inherent in using iOS/ MacOS, I don't lose the right to expect better of them and want those products to improve.
If you look at the selection of apps on the Mac App Store, where developers aren't forced to use the store, it's pretty easy to see that their 30% generally outweighs the usefulness of the service. So, semantic discussions of monopoly aside, Apple is charging a rent. In general, we should be against rent-seeking in technology.
Google has <i>not</i> a similar model as Apple, alternative stores are possible.<p>These rotten apple gangsters need to be stopped (by legislation). A huge fine (50 billions) is in order!<p>It's not only about the 30 % extortion fee but also e.g. Phone Story. A member of a platform duopoly should be disallowed to uniquely control the single access point.
Easy to say, were Android not a complete dumpster fire of an OS. Stop using the iPhone and... buy into an ecosystem where every phone manufacturer installs random crapware on your device, google gets to spy on you, and whether or not you get security updates is a game of Russian roulette? Nah.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but I imagine if I wanted to stop using Google, and created my own web based spreadsheet software, or video conferencing software, that I would face a legal battle with these big tech companies if it did end up becoming successful.<p>Searching for spreadsheet patents returns a lot of really banal concepts [1]. Maybe they wouldn’t hold up in court, but having been served before, it’s a very terrifying experience.<p>Or, if you create a successful competing product, you’ll probably just get bought out (whatsapp, keybase, instagram).<p>[1] <a href="https://patents.google.com/patent/US8332878B2/en?q=Spreadsheet+google&oq=Spreadsheet+google" rel="nofollow">https://patents.google.com/patent/US8332878B2/en?q=Spreadshe...</a>
I recently bought a system76 lemur pro after being a long time macbook user:<p><a href="https://system76.com/laptops/lemur" rel="nofollow">https://system76.com/laptops/lemur</a><p>I will not claim that there are no trade offs, but I find it a very productive machine, and very light weight. I use an external monitor and keyboard, plugged in to a usb-c hub, and it works well.<p>I am hoping that the mudita pure can replace my iphone:<p><a href="https://mudita.com/products/pure/" rel="nofollow">https://mudita.com/products/pure/</a><p>I do wish someone would do a not-dumb-but-not-too-smart e-ink phone with basic maps and a physical keyboard, but I recognize that I am likely a market of one for that product.
> Let’s say we tear down Apple through legal means–we send them the message that because they’re so successful they no longer have a right to dictate their own terms around what apps they allow on their devices and how much money they can charge developers to have access to their platform. Just think of all the ways that precedent could be abused against other companies.<p>Ok, how about we instead tear down this idea that it's legally OK for a company to sell you a computer, and then prevent you from installing whatever software you want on it? Doesn't sound like we have any bad precedents then! And, apple can keep their app store if they want, and pitch it as a curated, safe walled garden.
> The idea that they have a “monopoly” seems patently ridiculous to me. A monopoly over what? Their own brand of computing devices that they are the sole manufacturers of? Operating systems for which they are the sole developers and maintainers?<p>I'm not sure where I fall on this, but I feel this is less direct than some people make it sound. I can also see the argument that the iOS phone has become it's own market segment. It might be a bit of stretch to make this comparison, but we don't just a have a market segment for electronic communication devices, we break that down further. Why can't the smart phone market be broken down further as well?
Wow, this is a long-winded semi-rant that goes through a lot of contradictory points. Summing up, it seems to take two opposite sides, the first aligned with the title:<p>1) Don't take legal action against Apple because "think of all the ways that precedent could be abused against other companies" and "it seems silly to me to cry about monopolies", so "The solution is obvious. Stop making apps for iOS" because if you "can’t survive without the ability to suckle at Apple’s teat then you’ve made bad decisions" and "Stop buying iPhones" and "Don’t buy Macs while you’re at it"<p>...but the second totally opposed to it:<p>2) "In reality, I know none of these solutions are actually going to come to fruition", "Maybe the ultimate solution is an anti-trust legal one", and "My hopes for such legal action ever succeeding are not particularly high."<p>But as in most cases, reality isn't that black and white. The author is ultimately correct in saying "boycott Apple" is simply not viable, as it should be -- it would be like taking a sledgehammer to level a nail. Unfortunately, the author is being incredibly condescending and unrealistic that a business shouldn't depend on the iOS market, which is something like 2/3 of all mobile app store revenue.<p>But government intervention here doesn't mean a slippery slope -- that's a common but totally unfounded fallacy. Economists are well acquainted with all the different ways markets can fail, and how targeted governmental remedies are required for healthy market competition to function.<p>Identifying that Apple is abusing its market position in one area to stifle competition in another is easy to show, if we write appropriate legislation to define it (applying to Amazon etc. as well). The only question is what remedy best serves consumers: whether to treat this like a monopoly situation that gets broken up (force Apple to allow apps and app stores that bypass Apple's walled garden) or regulated like public utilities (the security and trustworthiness of the App Store is valuable, so set a yearly profit limit of e.g. 12% to that segment of the company).
No, they haven't earned the right to exploit their monopoly this way. It's a monopoly because the only way to get an app onto an iPhone (at least, without rooting the device) is via the app store. The writer thinks that it is perfectly appropriate for Apple to steal from the poor and not from the rich, exploiting their power to score every dollar they can get. But antitrust law exists for a reason, and though the current US administration isn't very interested in enforcing it, the EU and Japan are less likely to let Apple continue to get away with their practices.
Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook, MS in the 90s? Which one isn't doing things people consider to be absolutely awful in some way or another.So given that, I stop buying iPhones, and do what buy an android phone? I have not really improved the moral calculus of the world. What we should do is insist on moral behavior from companies across the board, equally and fairly applied to all organizations big and small. If someone is doing something wrong, it's wrong and it's ok to call it out.
We need the same solution as the one Microsoft implemented in Windows N.<p>Once you set-up your new phone (android, iOS whatever), you get to select your default app store. Different stores will have different cost / curation structures, but it will be the user’s decision to make.<p>The OS manufacturer can still require that all of the apps need to be digitally signed to allow them to be installed, regardless of the store, to guarantee system safety.<p>Mobile App stores in 2020 are what browsers were to Windows in 90’s.
Seems to me there is a lot of heat and very little light flying around on the entire App Store issue. A lot of those "whining" the loudest——although let's call it legitimate debate instead of whining——don't seem to be fully grasping all the benefits of a walled ecosystem along with the drawbacks.<p>I don't think debating this issue gets us very far unless we're intellectually honest with each other about all the benefits as well as the drawbacks.
It's not that simple -- as Churchill said about democracy: "It's the worst form of government ever invented -- except for all the other ones".<p>I switched to Mac almost 10 years ago, and I'm basically pretty happy with it. So when it looks like Apple is planning to screw it up, I get upset -- I don't want to switch again (it was a huge PITA), and there's nothing out there even remotely close.
"Now let’s say they decide to offer a new service that allows content providers to reach Yo’s subscribers–like a newsletter or something."<p>I stopped reading after this and came here to say that we all know Hey would NEVER do that. This is exactly the kind of shit they fight against.<p>So it's not just hypocrisy from their side, they're fighting for an idea.<p>Of course the PR also can't hurt, but it's not like they planned it.
I will continue to use Apple but I pulled both of my apps from their app store years ago due to maltreatment. I don’t use their app store as a consumer either. IMO it’s a wasteland.<p>Unpopular opinion but I also think it should be completely up to them to set their revenue share. Let their app store wither away as developers create platform-independent web applications instead.
Fundamentally it's hard to see how the current situation is any different from the situation in which anti-trust regulators moved against Nintendo and Sega in the mid-90s.<p>In both cases you have a duopoly which essentially controlled the market and used access to the platform to force fees and conditions onto developers using their gatekeeping abilities.
The article completely ignores that the only way most consumers can not buy an iPhone is to buy an Android, which is as bad or worse, depending on what particular concerns you have. (Apple's got a slightly stronger walled garden, Google has far worse privacy and security. At the end of the day, their app store models are the same.)
What I find interesting is that developers usually complain about the one time app purchase, saying that this doesn't incentivize big updates and the way around it is to use in-app purchases. Some even propose an update app fee. Also, developers complain that Apple is squeezing a fee from every transaction. Which seems like the same problem, Apple wants that constant stream of revenue just like developers want that constant stream of revenue to incentivize updates. Anybody else notices this symmetry?<p>On a side note, this could be fixed with<p>1) Unpopular apps don't pay a fee until they reach a certain amount of downloads. This promotes apps created by devs just starting out.
2) Fees only apply until an upper limit is met which corresponds to the total cost they generate. i.e. Every year the count resets, the first 50k downloads have 30% fee, the next 100k have a 20% fee, the next 200k have a 10% fee, etc.<p>If you play with this parameters there might be a win-win scenario for everybody. I wonder if Apple will propose something before EU or USA governments start looking deeper into the problem. I'm guessing Apple and Google lobbyist are measuring the temperature of Congress right now to see how to proceed.
"I'm going to make one of those unpopular opinions, but alas, it must be said: It is far easier to just drop Apple support entirely."<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23286883" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23286883</a><p>(Its becoming more popular! Yaaaaaay!)
Users can stop using Apple with minimal consequences.<p>Many businesses can't. Apple puts tolls around users, and people think the pricing model is unfair.<p>That's what this uproar is about. It has nothing to do with consumers beyond the fact that consumers see how unfair the pricing model is.
Isn't this the tipping point when a company crosses the line, becomes a monopoly, restricts consumer choices, and suffocates competition by leveraging the entire playing field? We've been through that before. Sad to see Apple of all companies turn evil.
> Let’s say we tear down Apple through legal means–we send them the message that because they’re so successful they no longer have a right to dictate their own terms around what apps they allow on their devices ...<p>Their devices? So you can only rent your iPhone?
> I know that the devices are pretty and feel nice and maybe your friends all have one and you want to signal that you’re one of the crowd, but it’s not worth it.<p>This is when the author lost me. That’s not why I or many others own Apple devices.
I wouldn't say "stop using" but in a lot of businesses iOS seems be always be launched first with Android as an after-though. I think this backslash is partially about Apple falling from its pedestal and favouritism.
Serious question: Is there a non Google app store/Apple app store based smart phone that gives user control, like on a Linux box?<p>Duopoly , walled gardens, spying is getting annoying. I would like to stop using them.
The conclusion sort of "undoes" the title... and I kinda hate articles like that. I just read a bunch of stuff and we get to.<p>"Well what you just read doesn't work, maybe something else, bye..."
That's what I have been doing for more than 20 years... Apple didn't really ever change, not even when Steve Jobs died. Too many anti-user rules...
Adam Smith would disagree I think.
Apple have a quasi monopoly and are imposing an 'absurd tax' on any other business operating in their fiefdom.
Pardon, but it is actually the author who is whining here. DHH has raised some very valid points, especially when many businesses rely on Apple Store. There is nothing wrong to talk about it, especially when Apple itself provides a "web option" instead of IAP to avoid X% of cuts.
Apple a monopoly? Letting Google become the monopoly? Once again Linux is forgotten in the scene and Linux community means nothing.
Stop taking profits as a reference, there's a world beyond your iPhone.
<i>...Apple stepped in and essentially said "Nah, fuck that, you either implement in-app subscriptions in your app and give us our 30% or you can go suck an egg"...</i><p>For the record they actually said <a href="https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1272976901762478080/photo/1" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1272976901762478080/photo/1</a><p>...but thanks for translating it into mid-oughts hip-hopper mixed with 1940s farmer/GI/zoot-suiter!