These are the same rules for everyone. Any 1:1 in-app interactions are temporarily exempted from in-app purchases as they'd typically be exempt due to happening out of the app
I wouldn't say these are the same rules for everyone. These are the rules for companies which happen to fall under the same class of exemptions that FB lobbied for.
How about we go back to a place we can install whatever we want on our computers? (The phone is a computer, not a "device" or "appliance".)
If you want to use Apple's discovery and distribution system, you pay a cut.
If you want to train your customers how to install on their own, you pay nothing, but have to distribute the app yourself.
The DOJ needs to force Apple to allow this, because they've unfairly strong armed their way into being middle-man for over 40% of Americans for all of the computing they do.
It doesn't actual matter if it's unfair or not. We're the citizens, the economy should work for us.
If we think the tech industry needs less vertical integration to be healthier (imagine if Samsung made cheaper iOS phones), we simply can do it, passing laws as needed.
When the only mainstream choices are iPhone or Android, and both of those options have significant, non-overlapping pros and cons, it's not like there's much choice.
The other option, "don't have a smartphone", is becoming less and less tenable for most people who want to interact in society in a common way.
And sure, you could buy something that runs PostmarketOS or whatever, but then you lose access to banking apps and mobile payments and a whole host of other things that are becoming table stakes for a mobile platform.
That doesn't give them a right to own 100% of the activities built atop their devices. Not when these platforms capture every conceivable human action or transaction. They should have lost that privilege when their reach grew so broad and deep. (It is a privilege that the US allows them to conduct business, and that can be altered.)
If Apple put up a bubble around 40% of all Americans and you wanted to give these folks air to breathe, would you be content to pay Apple 30% or be forced to go through Apple's slow moderation and release control mechanisms? Keep in mind that they may shut off your ability to provide oxygen at any point in the future for any reason.
The correct model was Microsoft Windows. You pay to license it, but then you can execute anything you want on top of it. If you want to pay Microsoft to help with distribution, you're free to do so. Microsoft is still making bank.
What Apple has done is uniquely controlling and prohibitive. They've captured all computing-related economic activities for a large percentage of the population. You shouldn't be allowed to conduct business like that in the United States.
> The reason there isn't a third OS is because building a good OS and app ecosystem is hard. MS flunked, Blackberry flunked, to name a few heavyweights.
This is why consumer protections are even more important, not less. If a market by its very nature has a high barrier to entry and makes competition difficult, the so-called "free market" principles that drive potential competition tend to fall flat, and that's why we need regulation to help ensure consumers don't get squeezed.
> Companies winning with good consumer solutions to complex problems isn't arm-twisting in any sense of the word.
That seems to contradict your first paragraph. They're winning not because their solutions are so good, but because even getting a solution off the ground at all is really hard. And it's not hard because the problem itself is hard (from a hardware or software perspective), it's because it involves a lot of expensive, time-consuming business relationships as well as building network effects over time among your user-base.
I'd concede that MS flunked in part because they built a product people didn't really want, and RIM/Blackberry flunked because they failed to keep up with where the market was going. But if you look at some of the more recent failed/small players, like FirefoxOS, PostmarketOS, etc. -- they failed (or are destined to be a niche product) because they had/have little chance at building the required third-party relationships they need to bring table-stakes apps to their platforms. In part that's because they don't have the financial resources Google and Apple do.
Not really. Palm had an excellent product. There were a lot of startups that had ideas that are still innovative to this day in that space.
They lost because there are very few entities with the capital and manpower that Apple or Google have. A modern successor to WebOS or FirefoxOS would be what I would want as a consumer nowadays.
And yes, when more and more interactions with society depend on a smartphone, the basic rules of capitalism don't really satisfy.
This is a pitifully naive or disingenuous argument.
Even if a "free market" allowed Apple to get where they are, it doesn't mean a society can't say that the current way of things is harmful to the market. Government has a place in regulating network effects.
Well how do you define a "market"? We don't say that every market needs to be perfectly open to everyone; I can't just put my home-baked goods on a Walmart shelf and start selling stuff unilaterally, or even handing them out for free within the store.
Consumers often aren't aware of the impact of their choices. Apple is disrupting our industry. Consumers shouldn't have to change their behavior or learn about a complicated issue in order to restore balance and fairness.
The forces at play are so great that the DOJ needs to pull the levers to fix this broken and unfair system.
Who is the ”us” Apple is disrupting? There are arguments why consumers should be able to not have to think about this, and to have what Apple is doing as the default choice. I.e. everything available verified by default as mostly secure.
There’s no a priori reason to assume consumers should be aware / educated which places to download from are safe and which ones are not.
What should imho perhaps be changed if is the size of the cut, which indeed seems a lot.
Should we assume the purchasers have perfect information? I know what to expect with Apple products, but I don't know many who can really put apple's walled-garden policy into words.
It seems like a fairly easy regulation to make it possible to not need to worry about this when buying a phone or computer. You should be able to repair it, you should be able to run what you want on it.
The purchasers have more information than you give them credit for.
Pre-iPhone all loads of garbage were preinstalled on phones by carriers, and phone software was mostly garbage. Part of why iPhone uptake was so large was because Apple specifically refused to let this happen. A lot of non-tech friends I have, have owned Androids before, and anecdotally many don't have good memories of the state of the Android ecosystem around apps.
Right to repair I do believe people should have. But that's related on principle but not the same issue at hand.
Having the right to repair is just another aspect of _owning_ the device you have. Apple's app store policy restricts what you can do with your device in a similar manner.
I have no interest in smartphone form factor “PC”. I want an AppStore with humans that gatekeep what I can do. That part I have no problem with. It’s better than the situation is on my PC anyway.
I only think the payment terms for developers and customers are bad.
Fortnite was kicked because Epic willingly broke the rules by selling a premium currency without using Apple's payment infrastructure. If you want to stay on the App Store then stop breaking rules intentionally.
This. I have been saying exactly the same thing since the start of iPhone Vs Android. ( Remember there used to be a War between the two? )
Apple is trying to create its ideal computer, which is actually an Appliance. iPhone was that, with added custom and App ability on top.
Google ( And Microsoft ) was trying to shrink the PC into Phone form factor.
Arguably the two meet somewhere in the middle. But they differs in fundamental principles and values. To be point I believe if there were no profits and vested interest in App Store, Apple will be happy to shut it down and only offers default apps.
I also agree the payment terms and how the handle developers were extremely poor. Did I mention Discovery and Search on App Store sucks?
No they don't. If you want that, you can use Android. You can develop Android apps and buy devices that use it. There is no reason to force Apple to change when there is an equal competitor in the market that allows what you want.
How about we got to a place where Apple isn't taking 30% from companies just for the privilege of putting an app in the store, even when payment streams are completely unrelated to the app store and are merely provided as a convenience to customers?
Apple taking 30% (or trying) from every app is bad for everyone.
i wouldn't mind apple taking 30% on anything in the app store as long as they allowed a user to download my app from my website. Just like desktop computers.
Nobody is complaining about Apple taking a cut from the Mac App Store.
Personally, it's nobodies place to dictate how much Apple charges. The main complaint is over Apple's monopoly over the channel for getting apps onto your mobile device.
Personally, it's nobodies place to dictate how much Apple charges.
Actually, it's everybody's place to dictate them, through commercial negotiation. Antitrust generally applies where, as with the App Store, traditional market dynamics do not apply to constrain one participant's market actions.
The main complaint is over Apple's monopoly over the channel for getting apps onto your mobile device.
No, that's the foundation of the antitrust claims. The main complaints are that Apple is abusing its power over the app delivery channel to force other market participants to put up with a variety of things they would otherwise never agree to if market dynamics were functioning correctly, like giving up 30% of all their income even when it's unrelated to the app itself (e.g., ticket sales), or preventing competing apps (e.g., browsing engines, mail apps like Hey, etc.), banning third-party apps from using API features in the OS or from certain forms of outreach but letting first-party apps violate those restrictions (see, all Apple apps released in the past 3 years).
It sounded weird to me from the start because it doesn't match any traditional thing I'm aware of. Payment services are in the 3% range. Realtors are in the 5% range. Talent agents might be 10-20%, but usually 10%. Apple's 30% just seems outrageous.
This is just the start of research, but apparently Sicilian mob extracts 1.6B euro from the island with 80% of businesses paying, and the GDP is about 90B. So those businesses are perhaps losing 2.5% although the article makes it seem like they tend to be small or individual businesses that pay, which would increase that. Obviously very rough and I’d like to know more.
Interesting. It makes some sense to me that more would be extracted either from the smallest, weakest businesses, or from the largest ones able to hide it. Would love to know more.
It basically depends on your level of wealth. If you're just a middling peddler on the streets, heck, even the low constables in the police force will bully you into paying them a "fine". Gangs won't mess with you, but they might protect you for a few if you pay them (to play Robinhood mostly). When you're an SME, you'll be paying the local ganglord. When you're a mid-level businessman, you'll be paying a gangster-turned-politician. When you're a large businessman, you are likely the gangster. When you're as rich as the fat Ambani or Tata, you're essentially paying the gangsters in government to do your bidding.
What happens now if the account is created now on iOS, but then I do a transaction, say via the web? Does AAPL get a share of the offline transaction also if done via the same account? A good example might be something like the Starbucks app.
It's a physical product, so currently Apple isn't attempting to levy a 30% charge on the transaction.
Apple is having enough trouble getting retailers to accept Apple Pay as it is; attempting to tax physical sales would kill Apple Pay and likely bring about the immediate ire of pretty much every government of every jurisdiction they do business in.
Buy an iPhone for %15 off price if you use Apple's App store or buy it at full price if you don't use Apple's App store.
As in, let Apple subsidize the cost of the phone with the app store, I suspect a significant number of people would go for it even with just a five percent price drop.
The problem currently isn't that Apple is charging what they do for the App store, the problem is they are in effect selling customers of their hardware for that amount.
The vast majority of apps in the store are free, which leaves Apple footing the enormous bill for providing the apps.
The original idea, which worked for a few years, was that 30% of the for-fee apps helped cover the costs of the free apps. For the first few years, Apple operated their App Store at a loss, and aimed for break-even.
I think subscriptions is ultimately what broke that model.
I can appreciate that many people have no real concept of cost at scale, but Apple currently handles 100,000 submissions per week[0], which doesn't happen for free.
The question isn't whether Apple can afford to run an App Store. They clearly can. In fact, they currently profit from the operation, and are proud of the fact, which I think is a huge part of the problem.
What I said was that Apple initially ran the App Store at a loss and hoped to break even. That was true in 2008 when the App Store first opened, and it remained true during Steve Jobs' life, so at least 2011.
Some time after that, they stopped operating at break-even, and started profiting from it. I'm not sure when exactly that was.
Actually, as the parent comment didn't say "per year", and the App Store was opened in 2008, "trillions" (as an aggregate) doesn't seem like an exaggeration at all.
leaves Apple footing the enormous bill for providing the apps.
The enormous bill of having to pay for a dozen hard drives! Oh no! That would drive the world's most valuable company into bankruptcy! If they can't charge everyone 30% they'll go out of business sometime in 10,000 years when they run out of their 11-figure cash pile!
/s
Apple's costs for hosting app's is already covered by the $99/year they make developers pay. They have no justification for 30% on all transactions beyond base rent-seeking.
I'm okay with Apple charging a fee for hosting apps...and they do, via the annual developer fee.
The problem is with Apple forcing developers to do other things unrelated to the hosting of apps, such as giving up 30% of unrelated transactions (like events, etc) that would have occurred even in the absence of the app. And indeed, that is at the heart of the EU and US antitrust investigations.
They aren't taking 30% from anyone. That is their price for services provided. You are making it sound like thievery. It isn't. People know this price going in and agree to it.
If you don't like the price, use (or create) an alternative.
Some of the things they do are anticompetitive within their ecosystem, yes, and these things should be addressed. But charging 30% for using their app store is not. It's the price for access to the clubhouse that they built. If you don't like the entry fee, build your own clubhouse or find another one.
Every reason you provided is more reason to build a competitive solution. None of them are incentive for Apple to lower their prices.
You don't have to use Apple. You can send snail mail or use pigeon carriers like in the olden times if you want to communicate with people. And of course, you can always use the string and paper cup method to talk to your friends, rather than Facetiming. The cost you pay is for the convenience, and despite being very used to it, most people can live without it.
> But charging 30% for using their app store is not.
The issue is not that they charge this fee. Instead it is that they prevent competing app store on their platform, through the use of anti competitive practices.
If, instead, it was quick an easy to install a different app store on the iPhone, then few people would complain.
> Every reason you provided is more reason to build a competitive solution
Apple prevents competing app stores. Thats not really possible to get a different app store on the iPhone.
This is anti-competitive, due to the size of Apple's market share, which is around 50% of the US smartphone market.
This anti-competitiveness is therefore illegal, according to section 2 of the sherman anti-trust act.
> If you don't like the entry fee, build your own clubhouse or find another one.
You missed the other option. Which is to prosecute apple for their illegal, anti-competitive practices, and make them follow the law by allowing competing app stores.
The rest of your comment relies on this being an issue. I don't see how it is. They also don't make it "quick and easy" to install a different OS on their devices. Should we sue them for anti-competitive behavior here too?
"I can't one-click install Android on the phone that YOU built. That's not fair! I'm suing!"
Anti competitive practices are still illegal, under the sherman anti trust act, even if the company "owns" the platform.
To give a relevant example, most people would agree that it would be illegal and anti-competitive if Microsoft made every single app on the PC go through the microsoft store.
In fact, there was already a court case, 20 years ago, where Microsoft lost an anti-trust case, which was a bit similar to this. (Yes, microsoft had around ~80% of the market share then, but Apple now has ~50% of the smartphone market, which is enough for anti-trust law to apply. Thus it is a similar case)
> I don't understand your argument at all.
The argument is that Apple's actions are illegally anti-competitive, and that similar behavior has already been ruled illegal in the past, and if we thought about other hypotheticals, such as if Microsoft did the same behavior for the PC, that basically everyone would agree that this would be illegally anti-competitive.
Just think about the microsoft example if you are still confused. Basically everyone would agree that it would be illegally anti-competitive for microsoft to prevent people from downloading software onto their PC, and forced everyone to give them a cut through the microsoft PC app store.
Oh, I'm not confused. I just don't see it as a good argument.
One could argue that using anti-competitive laws to prevent people from controlling their platform for their own benefit, is in itself, anti-competitive.
I use my car to get to work and run errands. You could argue that my car is my platform, which I use for my benefit. Is it anti-competitive of me to not go out of my way to pick up other people and take them to their jobs? Would that be covered in the "Sherman Anti Trust Act of 1890" (Yes, I am familiar with it...), as the act was intended? I doubt it. You are of course welcome to disagree. I'll be expecting a ride to the grocery store tomorrow, and even if you have errands to run, we need to run mine first, because if you prioritize running errands in your car over mine, you are being anti-competitive, and that isn't fair!
If I went out of my way to prevent others from getting a car so that I kept an advantage over them, that is anti-competitive behavior.
Anti-trust laws were written to protect the public marketplace. As far as I'm concerned, the Apple app store is a private marketplace that Apple can do with as it sees fit. They can delete it today if they want, but that's just me.
> One could argue that using anti-competitive laws to prevent people from controlling their platform
This is a false view of how anti-trust law works.
If a company is engaging in anti-competitive practices, and has significant market power, this is illegal. And the courts can absolutely force a company to engage or not engage in certain actions.
Courts have already ruled on this. Just go look at the microsoft case. The courts forced microsoft to take certain actions.
This is a settled, legal issue, lol. The courts can absolutely force companies to stop engaging in anti-competitive practices, according to the sherman anti-trust act.
The courts can also force a company to sell to certain people and engage in certain business practices, if refusing to do is would be anti-competitive.
> You could argue that my car is my platform
Bad analogy. The reason why it is bad, is because a singular car is not a hundred billion dollar business.
If, instead, you controlled 50% of the car industry, though, then the government could absolutely force you to do things, or not do things, if your actions are ruled anti-competitive, as according to the Sherman anti-trust act.
> you are being anti-competitive, and that isn't fair!
Anti competitive actions are only illegal if you have significant market power. 1 person, with a single car does not have significant market power. Instead, I would have to control 50% of a 100 billion dollar business, in order for it to be illegal to engage in anti-competitive behavior.
You cannot have a monopoly within a product you have created from the ground up. iOS is not a market. It is licensed software. You do not own it when you buy an iPhone, merely a license to use it provided you agree that you cannot install whatever you want on it.
> You cannot have a monopoly within a product you have created from the ground up.
Yes you can. Just go look at the microsoft court case, if you don't believe me.
Microsoft created their software. But it was absolutely still possible for them to be engaging in illegal anti-competitive behavior.
The Microsoft case directly proves you wrong. The courts ruled against them. Even though microsoft created windows.
Imagine if microsoft prevented people from installing other software on the PC, that did not go through their app store.
Even IF, they changed their licensings, to whatever Apple's are, I think that basically everyone would agree that this would be illegally anti-competitive.
Or do you instead believe that Microsoft could prevent competiting software (such as web browsers) from being installed on the PC?
Microsoft didn’t create the entire product from the ground up. They created the software only. Without the software, a whole lot of hardware was obsolete. Apple creates both the hardware and the software. They are 100% at loss if the software pushes consumers away.
Doesn't matter. That is not an excuse to break the law.
There is simply nothing in the law that gives a company immunity from anti trust law, if they built both the hardware and software. Such a law simply does not exist.
They are absurd, because of things like virtual/livestreamed fitness classes. Apple isn't providing the infrstructure or bandwidth for streaming, their role is the same whether the class is real-world (impossible during covid) or virtual. But they take 30% of revenue if it's virtual.
I'm not in the space, so apologies if this question is offbase.
What happens if Apple takes a 30% cut of the app revenue, but you book the class offline (say, via web). But then you view via your iPad?
Another example might be the various learning apps. I purchased a Coursera class via the web, but then I added via my iPad -- does Apple get a revenue from this?
Apple still requires apps to offer in-app purchase (taking 30%) for virtual fitness classes, concerts, etc.
They can still offer a lower price on their own website, but they can't link to that from the app. Users would have to open a browser, go to their website, sign in, and make a purchase -- too much friction.
There are other issues, apps can be switched to the background and maintain some level of communication with the server while tabs die out faster in the background.
Look up an appointment in another app or tab while the instructor is on a short break and you get disconnected in a way the app/instructor can't tell if was connection issues or just temporary, etc.
You could attach a piece of paper to virtual purchases to get around Apple's cut. "See, I sold a physical good". Even though, that physical good could be a sheet of paper with an access code to a virtual good.
Maybe you e-mail a receipt that happens to list the paper's contents for 'quicker delivery'.
Apple wanted a cut of physical packs of Pokemon cards when the code inside that pack was redeemed inside the online game on iOS. Pokemon had to disable code redemption for iOS.
I mean you could get away with it for a while but if Apple think you are only circumventing then they’ll have you thrown out. Which I think is fine. You can’t have rigid rules, you need a human to interpret.
If Apple is going to set new terms, I'd like one more added:
Apps that allow you to sign up / subscribe to a service in the app must have an equally prominent and easy way of cancelling / unsubscribing in the app. No additional steps can be required (ie no calling a retention specialist).
I wouldn’t want that. If there was a switch on my phone where I disconnected from the AppStore and could side load what I wanted I wouldn’t switch it. I quite like the service the App Store provides for the apps themselves. But I just want them to charge a cut for apps.
Why not both? You get the AppStore and are allowed to sign apps for your own devices.
(We actually already have a workaround for this: https://altstore.io/ but it still requires Apple to sign your apps and is relatively difficult to use)
If you didn't want that, that's ok, but let the rest of us who want to do it, do it. I am perfectly happy with FDroid on Android and get a lot of my apps from there.
Apple's mentality it seems is to not care about you or your small development company. They don't care if you're a large app developer, and they never have. From antenna gate to the butterfly keyboard, Apple does what it wants and if you don't like it, well, tough.
Yeah, Apple is the opposite of a company that would bother with focus groups and surveys. The butterfly keyboard was a good example of that. The "You don't know what you want" model. It worked out really well for them for a while, but I think these days when it doesn't work out, they sit in denial a bit too long.
With the macbook pro's flimsy hinge ribbon cable and delicate butterfly keyboard that both broke way too quickly, they seemed to be trying to pull the "well, people won't use it for more than x years before they ewaste it!" method, and failed pretty spectacularly.
> Yeah, Apple is the opposite of a company that would bother with focus groups and surveys. The butterfly keyboard was a good example of that. The "You don't know what you want" model. It worked out really well for them for a while, but I think these days when it doesn't work out, they sit in denial a bit too long.
It worked until organizational entropy caught up with Apple. It's all fine and dandy when they make changes that are consistent, if not totally intuitive at first, but now the low hanging fruit has been picked and the only way to get promotions is to push for stupid projects like "fixing the keyboard."
Do you expect a customer to purchase peanuts by the kg and another customer to purchase peanuts by the tons at the same price/kg?
Larger companies bring larger revenue. They get juicy discounts. I acknowledge the situation with smaller devs, but the comparison is extreme - billion dollar company vs. a single developer. How do you reconcile these?
Every enterprise software has volume licensing even though the cost of distribution is negligible. Is an App store different? I argue its not, but open for discussion.
With Stripe, I can get 1.9% or even lower transaction fees if my volume is $2M+ annually. Usually for poor small companies, they have to pay 2.9%. So sorry for small companies :-( but that's how the world works. There is a lot of emotion behind arguments on HN when it comes to Apple. It is mob thinking and bandwagoning, I am not impressed.
Edit: Sorry, I was referring to another comment. My mistake.
The pro-Apple argument centers on “you got what you signed up for, what’s the problem?” Arguments about uniform treatment don’t play much part. The anti-Apple argument (at least the one that matters) is that Apple has hurt consumers in some way. Whether Apple has made life difficult for developers is pretty much irrelevant.
I don't think that's how most business relationships work. When I buy a high end sintering 3d printer, for instance, it doesn't come with a mountain of consumer protections because it's assumed that if I'm buying one, I know what I'm doing and will make sure the purchase contract contains warranty clauses, support, and so on. The cheap FDM 3d printer I bought off of Amazon, however, is targeted at Joe Public and thus treated differently by the law with a mandated one year warranty.
I'm not sure what the legal test is for differentiating the two, but the difference is definitely recognized by the courts. IANAL but it's unlikely that the courts would decide that app developers are consumers in the classical sense.
That said, it doesn't matter (again, IANAL). Consumers are still being harmed, as Apple so graciously showed by removing Epic from the store - removing consumer choice in a free market is anti-competitive.
Being a business doesn't render one a non-consumer, otherwise, no business would ever have recourse against another business for non-negotiated transactions.
A consumer is simply a purchaser that "consumes" a product or service rather than using it for production (of their own goods or services) or reselling it.
That assumes that antitrust regulations and the FTC use the common English definition of "consumer". I couldn't find the definition they use with a cursory search but I assume it's a more precise definition related to the definition of "consumer product" (IANAL, assume I'm wrong)
Antitrust regulations don't make a distinction between consumers and businesses. What matters is how certain market actions interfere with the function or operation of the market. Usually, antitrust actions don't even involve consumer harm--they involve harm to competitors.
Consumer products are products consumed by an end user not in the course of their business, simply meaning that the product is not resold or otherwise materially used in the production of the consumer's own products. Thus, for example, your work office is a consumer of staples, but Staples would not be (because they are in the business of (re)selling office supplies, even though they also consume them).
At some point when the amount is in multi millions, it becomes a call to the a real person at Apple - negotiations are on the table.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. Unless we see this wrong across the board including the peanut business. Any other argument is hypocrisy unless the App Store is something different than normal business dealings?
> Hasn't the pro-Apple argument centered around everyone pays the same amount and people knew what the rules are so stop complaining and pay?
To me it's looked more like the argument is: it's Apple's store, so Apple gets to make the rules. And that they don't have anything close to a monopoly in mobile hardware or mobile OSes, which is one argument for not allowing them to make their own rules.
Sorry to point out but you picked the weakest point of my argument which was my gut feeling about the what I see on HN, not sure how you can say that's disputable.
I perceive Apple struggling with the payments and cuts it takes...even during normal (“non-pandemic” for readers from the far future) times there doesn’t seem to be a simple, clear and consistent explanation for what or who merits exceptions from paying the 30% commission (and related rates for subscriptions).
This news sounds like Apple taking some more time to think things through and come up with better plans (plans for itself and payment plans for developers on its platforms) before the judiciary or lawmakers cripple its systems way beyond its tolerance for changes.
There will be more permanent “concessions” coming soon, without admitting in any shape or form that the current system doesn’t make sense and is exploitative for some/many developers (not Facebook, which I believe with its vile history, can easily eat the commissions if it really cares about its users).
This is like national vs international law. Apple can make rules for entities weaker than it, but with entities that are comparable, it's whatever they can negotiate.
When companies are privately owned and highly concentrated, you get two sets of rules: one for the weak and one for the strong.
Not that I don't empathize with your sentiments, but this is common literally in every industry. Larger the MOQ or volume, the better the price. From cotton to silicon to software, it is fundamental in business dealings.
sure, billion dollar corporations have a billion dollars in defenses to fight it but poor developers don't have anything to protect them so they get raped
In the short term businesses saved 30% since Facebook isn’t making profit from the events now, in the long term it’s probably good for Facebook, assuming Apple renews the deal.
According to the current version of the article as of noon, the exception only applies to events posted through Facebook. (Classpass and AirBnB have their own special exemptions).
The article does not say that this exemption applies to developers in general.
The article does not say everybody. It says Facebook and AirBnb. It also specifically say many will still have to pay the tax. Where did you see everybody?
Obviously to me FB and other big companies get a favor, small developers can shove it and pay.
So what about apps through which you can purchase physical goods, like Amazon's app (I presume one exists)? Do those also have to give 30% cut to apple?
Source: https://9to5mac.com/2020/09/25/apple-pausing-its-30-ios-cut-...