
The Art of the Possible - MaysonL
https://hypercritical.co/2020/06/20/the-art-of-the-possible
======
Amorymeltzer
Just a note on the final line:

>Apple needs to decide if it wants to be “right,” or if it wants to be happy.

I _think_ Siracusa is referencing a line from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the
Galaxy, spoken by Slartibartfast as part of an exchange with Arthur Dent:

>"I'd far rather be happy than right any day."

>"And are you?"

>"No, that's where it all falls down, of course."

>"Pity," said Arthur with sympathy. "It sounded like quite a good lifestyle
otherwise."

I love the book, but that particular line has stuck with me for quite a while.
I try to use it as a guide whenever I start to lean toward being right over
happiness. Works for relationships, code reviews, whatever you like.

~~~
ambicapter
That exchange sounds like he tried being happy over right and he didn't end up
being happy anyways?

~~~
Amorymeltzer
You can try for happiness without actually achieving it. I'd prefer to be
happy _and_ right; sometimes I'm neither. Preferring one is no guarantee
you'll get either.

Also, Slartibartfast is pretty melancholy.

------
hrktb
Very well put, as usual. The most important part for me is how both developers
and users are unhappy with the current rules.

Hey is the latest flavor of the controversy, but from the start I’m bitter I
can’t buy Amazon ebooks directly from the amazon app. And it’s not like these
rule give me more security, provide for the stability of the platform, or help
me in any indirect ways. The kindle app still makes no revenue for Apple
either way.

Everyone loses, and that doesn’t help Apple’s image as it’s slowly crawling
out of the laptop keyboard fiasco and this string of pretty flaky macos
versions.

~~~
jdminhbg
> And it’s not like these rule give me more security, provide for the
> stability of the platform, or help me in any indirect ways.

In the case of Amazon, probably not. In the case of nearly all other apps,
they definitely do. Having every fly-by-night game accepting credit cards to
buy more tokens or whatever would be a usability and security nightmare. Even
respectable apps I don’t want to give my credit card info to: I let Apple sit
in the middle, handle security, and provide me a place to cancel with one tap.

I understand why companies, especially big and responsible ones like Amazon or
Basecamp, don’t want to use IAP. But a free-for-all would be terrible for iOS
users.

~~~
Forge36
Why not keep IAP as an option vs credit cards? Let apps offer a credit card
discounts. If it provides additional benefits to you: it sounds like you're
willing to pay a ~30% more.

Apple is passing credit cards cost on to app store vendors consumers for an
additional upcharge. How much is it?

Comparing the percentage cut on a credit card: If I can earn 5% (3% on food
and gas?), I'd assume the store is pricing some of that cost into it's
products.

Apple's model of easy cancel, harder to steal should be something other
companies could MITM. Paypal, Amazon, square, and Google offer similar payment
schemes. (Venmo to my knowledge can't be used to pay businesses).

I get the feeling Apple is expanding into this area with their own credit
card.

If the choice is a 30% fee or free and no credit card option, this feels like
an abuse of power.

~~~
jdminhbg
> Why not keep IAP as an option vs credit cards? Let apps offer a credit card
> discounts. If it provides additional benefits to you: it sounds like you're
> willing to pay a ~30% more.

This is already the case though, right? Apple's response to Hey specifically
suggested that they could offer an IAP option in the app at a markup over
their web-based subscription.

~~~
saagarjha
You cannot offer both in-app. You cannot even mention that you offer both and
that the credit-card signup is on your website. If you go with Apple's in-app
purchases, you must not mention any alternative methods of payment.

------
scarface74
I don’t get it. For context I am the first to criticize all of the wanna be
lawyers on HN who don’t know what monopoly or anti trust is. But Apple’s
stance is just dumb for a lot reasons. It’s not good for Apple, consumers or
developers. There is a simple solution that would make everyone happy but the
sleazy developers of pay to win games and I have no sympathy for them:

All “reader” apps and apps that have subscriptions for services _must_ allow
in app purchases. _But_ through Apple Pay. Meaning they get charged standard
credit card fees. Apple could even charge a slightly higher rate like 6% to
cover the rewards program like other premium cards do.

This benefits:

Apple: They can bring all of the apps back into the fold like Netflix and
Spotify and they can get Microsoft and Adobe in. It’s more money for Apple. On
top of that, it gets both the EU and US government off their back.

Users: have a much better experience.

Developers: Get to keep more of their money.

It also excludes pay to win games. Between this and Apple Arcade, I am okay if
all of those types of games die.

Also offer upgrade pricing capabilities for apps to make it easier for
developers to make money without having to rely on subscriptions.

~~~
saagarjha
This doesn't work at all in countries where Apple Pay is not a thing, or where
Apple Pay doesn't have support from one or more major banks.

~~~
scarface74
Simple: you don’t have to offer Apple Pay in countries where it’s not
available. That still covers the richest countries.

------
Joeri
Apple doesn't seem to understand they are running out of track. This is not
about some disgruntled developers, because to be honest those developers don't
have enough leverage over Apple. This is about the EU's investigation. History
tells us that these sorts of investigations tend to result in big fines and
restrictions being applied, at least if harm to EU businesses can be
demonstrated. A big American tech giant harming European businesses like
Spotify? Everyone can read those tea leaves.

Now, the real question is this, what scenario is more likely?

1\. Apple gets out in front of this, and opens up the app store just enough
that they don't get fined / restricted.

2\. The EU applies fines and restrictions to Apple and only Apple.

3\. The EU drafts a digital store directive, and applies it to all digital
download stores, including Apple's.

The third scenario is probably going to happen at some point anyway, but the
current complaint may be the catalyst. I don't know whether to hope for it or
fear it, because you never know whether it's going to be a well-written
directive.

------
schmudde
What percentage of revenue do App Store apps generate for Apple?

It seems like an unusual hill to die on for a high-margin business like Apple.
It's definitely making the experience worse for everyone and highlighting all
the drawbacks of having a single source of software for your device.

~~~
hrktb
Mobile gaming money is a big deal, and ebook market would have been too if
Amazon caved.

~~~
scarface74
Yes it is. It’s not the mobile gaming crowd that’s screaming the loudest. They
are making money from in app purchases from whales for loot boxes and tokens.
Their margins are basically 0 for in app purchases. It’s the app developers
that are reselling licensed content or that have a server component who are
complaining the loudest.

~~~
hrktb
Yes. I think that’s Apple has put itself in a weird position where the most
vocal devs are making them the least money at this point.

But if they make an exception to give these devs what they want, mobile gaming
devs will be next banging at the door to get their fees lifted up (well, they
are effectively already banging the door pretty loud, like Epic for instance)

------
vezycash
EU should force Apple to allow a third party store for IOS. Any other outcome
of their investigation is simply blackmail for money (aka toothless fines,
cost of doing business).

------
whirlwin
I still think the fact that end users know that apps in App Store have been
valided by someone creates a kind of secure bubble for the end users. And it
works well!

~~~
pasta1212
The vast majority of users have zero idea about the App Store review system

------
lukifer
This is one thing I find fascinating about iterative price negotiation: if one
party can get a given price to "stick", they can use that normalization as a
de facto negotiation tool. And given that there's no collective bargaining on
the side of app developers, Apple holds all the leverage, even against giants
like Netflix and Google [0].

Once a one-sided pricing norm is established ("industry standard"), whichever
party established the norm is _highly_ incentivized to never budge, even to
their own detriment on some transactions, lest the norm erode [1]. This
phenomenon isn't limited to app stores: I think we see it play out in other
economic domains (mortgages/landlords/wages), as well as the political (any
policy concessions, even mild or reasonable ones, signals weakness and creates
a perceptual opening for your opponents to twist the knife).

I suspect there is a formal economics label for this phenomenon which is
escaping me at the moment; if anyone more learned on the subject would care to
enlighten me I would appreciate it. :)

[0] It does seem telling that Amazon seems to be the only giant in the
position to carve out a secretly negotiated exception, no doubt because
they're so often in the same game themselves: taking hardline stances on
negotiating with suppliers, effectively "winning capitalism" within their
niche.

[1] I harp on the concept a lot, but one way of modeling such norms is as
Schelling focal points:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_\(game_theory\))

------
notduncansmith
This whole situation reeks of entitlement.

Apple is under no obligation to make someone’s ideal business model feasible.
Just like if you want to post content on Facebook, or if you want to sell
through Stripe, or you want to deliver groceries on Instacart, or you want to
have a business in the USA - you have to follow the rules created by the
owners of the platform you stand on, or find/start a new platform. This is a
fundamental aspect of social life, not some corporate profit-seeking BS from
Apple.

No one is making DHH do an email app. No one is forcing him to charge $99. If
Apple is so big and bad, then maybe he should be working on a new mobile phone
platform instead of another email app. Complaints about injustice without
alternatives hold little weight.

Finally, if this was something society _actually needed_ , I think I’d feel
differently. If this fight was over an app that was critical to survival or
civil liberty or something, it would mean something different for Apple to
reject it. But it’s not something we need. It’s not important or critical in
any way. It’s a _new email app_. Forgive me for not busting out a bigger
violin for someone who has already released multiple profitable software
products and is now upset that an even richer entity won’t let them have their
exact way.

~~~
esrauch
I think you know it's completely unrealistic for DHH to make a competing phone
platform, so your argument is clearly not in good faith. Microsoft was well
positioned to do it and spent many billions and failed to make it work.

Im not sure that the situation is actually that egregious yet, but if the
barrier to entry becomes so high that it warps the whole economy to the
detriment of society we shouldn't just say that's fine because those few
companies deserve the freedom to act that way.

~~~
toohotatopic
Microsoft wanted to establish a Windows phone platform where phone
manufacturers pay license fees.

If they had finished Nokia's Maemo with a Windows graphics framework and given
away the operating system for free they would have had a much better chance.

There is room for another platform as long as it serves what the market wants.

------
jijji
their target price is $99, so if apple wants their 30% cut to be on the app
store, just increase the target price to $150 for ios version, no?

~~~
crgwbr
I think there’s also some rules in place that say you can’t discourage people
from using IAP vs. other payment methods. So a price disparity would probably
not be allowed either.

~~~
kirstenbirgit
YouTube apparently does this, and Apple also suggested it in their letter to
Hey.

~~~
falcor84
Couldn't they just charge people coming from the app store MAXINT dollars to
be technically compliant (the best kind of compliant)?

~~~
raghavtoshniwal
They could, and I might be wrong here but Apple also disallows you to mention
that a cheaper version of the service is available elsewhere on the app. So
the user has no idea what the actual price is or where they could avail the
price. All they see is a button that unlocks an ad-free version for
$2,147,483,647 (Assuming you're using a 32bit signed int).

