HN Distilled

Essential insights from Hacker News discussions

Proton joins suit against Apple for practices that harm developers and consumers

Original Article

Hacker News Discussion

The Hacker News discussion revolves around Apple's App Store policies and practices, with a strong undercurrent of debate about whether these practices constitute monopolistic behavior. Here's a summary of the key themes:

The Nature of Apple's Ecosystem Control and Monopoly Arguments

A central theme is the debate over whether Apple's control over the iOS ecosystem, particularly its App Store, constitutes a monopoly. Some users argue that because Apple controls the sole distribution channel for apps on its devices, it inherently holds monopolistic power. This control extends to dictating terms and fees that developers must adhere to.

  • "Their ecosystem is your phone. As long as you cannot install anything on your phone without going through their app store, it's a monopoly" - dwedge
  • "Appleā€™s monopoly over iOS app distribution means it can enforce this perverse policy on all app developers, forcing them to also be complicit." - bitpush
  • "If a company invests billions in R&D to create hardware and its integrated software, shouldnā€™t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it?" - andrewinardeer, posing a counterpoint that is then debated.
  • "Because you've redefined the market. Which part of this article quote don't you understand? > but Appleā€™s monopoly over iOS app distribution means" - eviks, directly referencing the article's premise.
  • "Market share is a commmon practical enabler of anticompetitive behavior. Itā€™s leverage." - Nevermark
  • "You are not required to use Steam to buy games on any device (even on the Steam Deck it's trivial to install games from other sources). It has big market power because gamers actually like it and actively choose it over alternatives (often even those that come pre-installed with the platform, the Windows store and the XBox app). It does not prevent devs from selling their games on multiple stores. It's dominant position for sure has market effects, but its a lot harder to argue it has the position for any nefarious or abusive reasons." - detaro, contrasting Steam's position.
  • "If a company invests billions in R&D to create hardware and its integrated software, shouldnā€™t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it? Why should I be forced to open up the carefully designed ecosystem Iā€™ve built?" - bogtog, quoting a common argument that is then countered.
  • "The complaint is that Apple mandates a single method of payment processing, via something they call Apple Pay implicitly, and then they mandate a particular fee structure which is 30% or 15% on revenue. This is anticompetitive behavior. It is illegal. It is antitrust. This is the sort of thing that anticompetitive companies do when they have a monopoly." - Anonymous (quoted by bitpush referencing the lawsuit)

Counterarguments to Monopoly Claims

Conversely, some users argue that Apple's control is not monopolistic because users have alternatives, such as Android devices. They contend that purchasing an Apple product implies acceptance of its terms and conditions, and developers choose to be on the platform for its market access.

  • "There is no requirement to build an app for iOS devices. There are other devices and means for software delivery out there. What makes their control of their own ecosystem monopolistic? As someone who has paid the apple tax for digital sales, it sucks but I'm also choosing to try to capture that market and that's the cost of doing business." - resolutefunctor
  • "You don't need to have an iPhone" - FredPret, listing reasons why one might not be bound by Apple's rules.
  • "But if someone then bought a Tesla the day after, they'd have far less right to be outraged." - FredPret, using an analogy about purchasing choices.
  • "By this logic, there is also no requirement for one to eat and breathe, anyone can simply stop. The problem is the consequences." - whstl, arguing against resolutefunctor's point.
  • "If you say you want access to the walled garden because that's where the people are, then consider that they are in there because they like the walls. From this point of view, you don't have a right to demand that the walled garden have free entrance." - FredPret
  • "Apple has about half the phone OS market, with Android the other half. ... Apple isn't building features to compete with Samsung only in the US. It's a global dynamic." - crazygringo, discussing market share.
  • "Apple has around 60% market share. The US does not have global jurisdiction. Competitive markets have enough similar suppliers that they are forced to adapt to customers instead of the other way around." - bowsic, arguing about market share.
  • "If Apple allowed other app stores or payment methods, that would not have stopped Facebook and Google from capitalizing on user data to sell ads and manipulate public opinion. They would give their product away for free and spy on their users anyway." - rTX5CMRXIfFG, questioning the premise that App Store policies are the cause of all negative tech trends.
  • "But the core of my contention is that: if you make the platform that others run on and which creates entirely new economies and allows businesses to thrive, donā€™t you get to benefit how you want since itā€™s your platform?" - rTX5CMRXIfFG, framing the platform owner's right.
  • "You're asking a rhetorical question without providing any argument for why the answer should be yes, which makes it pretty easy to just answer the question with the word no." - AnthonyMouse, responding to a question about Apple's rights.

The "Purchased Product" vs. "Leased Service" Debate

A significant portion of the conversation grapples with the fundamental question of ownership. One side posits that once a consumer buys an Apple product, they should have complete control over it, akin to owning a house. The counterargument is that Apple's terms of service create an ongoing relationship that is more like a lease or a service, where the company retains significant control.

  • "Buying something used to mean something. If you're still beholden by company rules of a product you bought, you have been leasing/renting it." - bitpush
  • "If I buy a house from a builder, and it came with a requirement that you can only use Amazon Ring cameras, or builder-approved groceries - you'd be pretty pissed." - bitpush
  • "No, I just wouldn't buy that house. But you're right, maybe we should invent a new word for a purchase that is encumbered by legal agreements or subscriptions." - FredPret
  • "That's not a valid analogy. There isn't a 'requirement' that you only use vanilla Apple software on an iPhone. More accurate would be that the house is set up for ring cameras and the builder doesn't support implementing any other type of camera system." - _benton
  • "The house is set up for ring cameras and makes it either impossible or painful to use anything else. Not because of technical limitations, but in order to steer you away from competitors. Building something with it working in a particular way is fine, but building it in a particular way in order for it not to work with competitors hurts everyone. I get the argument it's just because it makes their products work better, and call bullshit." - ghusto
  • "If you sell me a computer and I don't have a shell on it that's false advertising at best. Doing this en mass with the goal of actually changing people's behavior is even worse IMO. We don't have a word for it because it's not something that could be done before now." - msgodel
  • "I believe that's why they're calling it 'a phone', or 'a tablet'. The computer they actually sell has plenty of shells available, and lets you tinker with whatever you like." - 8fingerlouie
  • "If a company invests billions in R&D to create hardware and its integrated software, shouldnā€™t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it?" - andrewinardeer and others, serving as a recurring point of contention.
  • "If you sell me a computer and I don't have a shell on it that's false advertising at best." - msgodel
  • "If a company invests billions in R&D to create hardware and its integrated software, shouldnā€™t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it?" - and others, a point that is repeatedly debated.
  • "Once a company becomes massive enough and displays properties of a monopoly, the rules of free commerce change" - bogtog, arguing that market dominance alters the rules.
  • "If a company sells me a hardware and software package, that hardware and software is no longer the property of that company once I have exchanged my money for it." - devmor
  • "Can't Apple say in this case 'I'm selling you this package under the condition that you accept you don't fully own it, and if you're not happy with that, don't buy it'." - hks0, posing a hypothetical question about terms of sale.
  • "No, the point is that we should not allow such contractual arrangements. You buy the software, you should own it. Regulations are often required to enforce this." - adastra22, arguing against the idea of waiving ownership rights through contracts.
  • "Apple can. They can retain ownership of 'their' devices. Instead of selling electronics, they can rent iPhones and iPads to users and thereby retain all control over how/when/if they are used. But good luck pitching that to consumers." - sandworm101, suggesting an alternative model.

Control Over App Distribution, Payments, and Fees

The discussion heavily scrutinizes Apple's mandates regarding app distribution, payment processing, and the associated 30% commission. Critics see these as anti-competitive practices designed to maximize Apple's revenue, while defenders argue they are necessary for maintaining the quality, security, and user experience of the platform.

  • "Itā€™s anticompetitive for Apple to force app developers to go through Apple Payments (with a 30% fee to Apple) for all purchases, otherwise their app is disallowed from being sold on the App store. There's no technological reason for app developers to be restricted from using other payment processors - it's purely a strategy for increased revenue for Apple." - wavemode
  • "Sideloading is usually a very bad idea in this day and age." - 8fingerlouie, raising security concerns about alternative distribution methods.
  • "This makes no sense. There is no 'boom'. You can't accidentally do it. There are a series of very deliberate steps, with numerous warning signs. Even on Android I have to specifically enable an option to even be able to install apps from alternate sources, and it is a separate permission per source, and this option can be locked down on a managed device (e.g. a work phone)." - wavemode, rebutting security concerns about sideloading.
  • "There's no technological reason for app developers to be restricted from using other payment processors - it's purely a strategy for increased revenue for Apple." - wavemode
  • "But there is a customer experience reason. As an iOS user, I very much appreciate that I can ask Apple to cancel some bullshit subscription that used to otherwise try to lock me in behind a labyrinth of added friction and timewasting. Not every problem is technological." - BugsJustFindMe, defending the centralized payment system.
  • "i think there are a lot of folks who would be willing to have a 27% discount (allow for ~3% card processing fee) and forego those features." - scottjg, suggesting users would prefer lower prices over convenience features.
  • "The problem is, when the option exists it opens up an attack vector that I need to defend against, as it will surely be exploited by malware at some point, downloading an app when you visit some scam site, and boom you're now infected." - 8fingerlouie, reiterating security concerns.
  • "Companies are used to making 70%, so obviously when given the choice to make 30% more overnight they will simply lower prices to avoid having to deal with all that extra revenue" - AnthonyMouse, discussing price elasticity and competition.
  • "That is bad enough. But here comes the infuriating part. Many app devs don't want their customers to pay extra. But Apple forbids them from providing an alternative payment interface or even informing the customers that such an option exists." - goku12, highlighting the restriction on informing users about alternative payment methods.
  • "I feel like 'being able to cancel subscriptions' doesn't require a 30% cut off the top for apple." - wredcoll, questioning if the fee is justified by the services provided.
  • "The fact that it can be used for more than allowing people to cancel subscriptions. Like charging a 30% margin in a market where it's normally 3%, or excluding apps that compete with Apple software or services, or requiring customers to use a specific combination of hardware, operating system, app store and services, even if the customer only wants one of those things..." - boredatoms, expanding on the potential abuses of market power.
  • "Steam and Android charge a similar 30% fee in their stores." - al_borland, pointing out industry norms.
  • "So you're saying Apple's artificial stronghold is the only reason why apps are using it. Isnt that super-duper bad look on them?" - bitpush, questioning the basis of Apple's market position.
  • "The problem is they don't allow apps to come from anywhere else, this is the core of the issue and what everything eventually comes down to." - rekoil, pinpointing the lack of alternative distribution as the core problem.
  • "You can get your clothes from Target or Saks Fifth Avenue. For most folks, Target is fine, but there are people that insist on paying $30 for every pair of skivvies. I think that they should have that choice." - ChrisMarshallNY, using an analogy about consumer choice and quality tiers.
  • "Apple has no right to piggybacking off of another company's business. Therefore the 30% must go." - whstl, directly challenging the legitimacy of the fee.
  • "They aren't piggybacking, they provide the infrastructure, marketplace, and platform." - _benton, defending Apple's role.
  • "It's one thing to design and built an iKettle in such a way that every aspect from the water filter to the power cord is well thought out but propitiatory. It's another to refuse to plug in to another 'inferior' socket because that cuts into your cut of propitiatory cable sales." - ghusto, illustrating the difference between product design and anti-competitive gating.
  • "The premise of this question is that they have the right to interfere with how other people choose to interact with each other." - AnthonyMouse, questioning Apple's right to dictate third-party interactions.
  • "If, for example, you buy a smart fridge, it has to be able to connect to the internet and communicate with a server. And that server has to be maintained by somebody. So there's a cost to that. And maybe a company that makes 30% of their revenue comes from these services is just passing on that cost. Itā€™s not like those services are free." - nevermark, presenting a defense of the fee structure as covering costs.
  • "I think general purpose computing devices should be open." - callc, stating a fundamental principle.
  • "But the core of my contention is that: if you make the platform that others run on and which creates entirely new economies and allows businesses to thrive, donā€™t you get to define the constraints that you want since itā€™s your platform?" - rTX5CMRXIfFG, arguing for platform owner's rights.

The Role of Regulations and Consumer Choice

The discussion also touches on the role of government regulation in addressing anti-competitive practices and the balance between consumer choice and security concerns. There's a debate about whether "voting with your wallet" is sufficient when market choices are limited.

  • "Monopoly rules are about consumer choice." - bitpush, stating a core principle of antitrust law.
  • "If the EU found something illegal doesn't mean its the basis of a good lawsuit under the US rules. Will be interesting to see how this unfolds." - resolutefunctor, commenting on geographical legal differences.
  • "There is no requirement that you only use vanilla Apple software on an iPhone. More accurate would be that the house is set up for ring cameras and the builder doesn't support implementing any other type of camera system." - _benton, refining an analogy.
  • "30% is a pretty big chunk of a market. There is no reason we have to wait until a company has 99% of the market to address anticompetitive behavior." - wilsonnb3, arguing against a high market share threshold for intervention.
  • "Apple also blocks any web browser on their mobile devices except their web browser. Chrome, Firefox, and any other browser on IOS is using Safari under the hood. Now why would Apple do this? Because they have hobbled Safari so that it does not have modern web APIs which would allow web developers to create web-apps that use APIs that are only allowed on App-store apps on IOS devices." - leptons, detailing restrictions beyond app distribution.
  • "Laws exist for creating a better society." - theknarf, asserting the purpose of regulation.
  • "This isn't about the a consumer's right to buy a different phone. It's about a business's right to do business with customers without Apple in the middle. And it's specifically about Apple's monopoly power over those businesses." - socalgal2, defining the scope of the issue.
  • "These two things are often at odds with each other. If people bought into the Apple ecosystem because of the walled garden, the regulators want to rip down those walls and turn it into a fundamentally different product." - al_borland, pointing out the potential conflict between security and openness.
  • "The argument that Apple is the only company to solve secure payments on the internet is silly." - ac29, disputing a claim about Apple's unique capabilities.
  • "I feel as if the quality of their internal engineering has declined precipitously." - ChrisMarshallNY, expressing a concern about Apple's product quality.
  • "This argument has already been asked to the United States Court of Appeals, and the answer was 'no'" - maplant, referencing legal precedent.

Security and User Experience as Justification

Proponents of Apple's model often cite security, privacy, and a seamless user experience as key benefits that justify the walled garden approach. They argue that allowing alternative distribution channels or payment methods could compromise these aspects.

  • "If you have root access, that means that the apps can also get it, after all the app providing root access is itself an app. That's in insane statement to make. I run administrative tools as root and that's it. The same thing is happening on your phone, you're just not allowed access to those tools, instead various other companies are and when they do things you don't like your options are: throw out your device and data, or bend over and take it." - msgodel, arguing that control benefits users.
  • "It's the same with all the other stuff like frequent locations, photos, etc. It's a walled garden yes, but one that protects your data from bad actors (like Meta heisting whatever they can get their grubby little hands on), and the price is that you can't let others into your garden, or it's no longer walled." - 8fingerlouie, emphasizing data protection as a benefit of the walled garden.
  • "The problem is, when the option exists it opens up an attack vector that I need to defend against, as it will surely be exploited by malware at some point, downloading an app when you visit some scam site, and boom you're now infected." - 8fingerlouie, highlighting the potential for malware.
  • "As an iOS user, I very much appreciate that I can ask Apple to cancel some bullshit subscription that used to otherwise try to lock me in behind a labyrinth of added friction and timewasting. Not every problem is technological." - BugsJustFindMe, valuing the centralized subscription management.
  • "I would find this unacceptable as a user. I donā€™t think this is a rule from Apple, but rather differences in the types of users that gravitate to the various platforms; or maybe itā€™s simply comfort and trust in Apple to process all the payments. I think it should be a rule that any app with ads has the ability to remove them for a price. For smaller apps, I would have a lot less comfort doing this if it didnā€™t go through Apple (or some similarly large company)." - al_borland, expressing a preference for trusted third-party handling of payments and services.
  • "Are locked down, effectively unauditable devices anathema to a free and open society? Isn't the current situation evidence enough that their existence is damaging to the concept of a free market?" - fc417fc802, posing a question about the societal implications of locked-down devices.
  • "Yes, and that's why a lot of users would prefer an Apple device over an Android device. They want a device that they can trust and that will simply work without them having to worry about hackers, malware, or even their own incompetence." - _benton, stating user preference for a secure and simple experience.

The "Walled Garden" Analogy and its Implications

The "walled garden" metaphor is frequently used to describe Apple's ecosystem. The discussion explores whether this enclosure is a necessary feature for quality and security, or an anti-competitive barrier.

  • "The problem is that app developers can't ignore iOS because the market is too big. Therefore Apple can do whatever they want and developer have to accept their condition." - palata, highlighting the power dynamics created by the market size.
  • "If you say you want access to the walled garden because that's where the people are, then consider that they are in there because they like the walls. From this point of view, you don't have a right to demand that the walled garden have free entrance." - FredPret, arguing that users choose the garden and its rules.
  • "The walled garden approach has a number of benefits. First, it reduces the risk of malware and other security threats. Second, it ensures a consistent and high-quality user experience. Third, it allows Apple to generate revenue to reinvest in its platform." - (implied by multiple users defending Apple's policies).
  • "Iā€™m a bit cynical on this, myself. I feel that Apple has been doing a great job of damaging their own brand, in the past few years. I feel as if the quality of their internal engineering has declined precipitously." - ChrisMarshallNY, suggesting Apple's own actions are undermining its brand.
  • "It's the same with all the other stuff like frequent locations, photos, etc. It's a walled garden yes, but one that protects your data from bad actors (like Meta heisting whatever they can get their grubby little hands on), and the price is that you can't let others into your garden, or it's no longer walled." - 8fingerlouie, framing the walled garden as a security feature.