1/29/2026 at 10:13:39 AM
Apple’s App Store profits on commissions from digital sales Revenue $32 B
Operating Costs $7 B [1]
Estimated Profit $25 B
Operating Margin ~78%
Apple could take just 7% cut and still make 20% profits.
Fun Fact: During the Epic trial, it was revealed that Apple's profit margins on the App Store were so high that even Apple's own executives were sometimes surprised by the internal financial reports.
---
edit: There is no ideological argument for voluntary action here. The entire goal is to force regulators to step in. The debate over 'good vs. bad companies' is just online noise and rhetorical trik, no one on either side of the political spectrum wants these systems to be fixed voluntarily with corporate altruism.
by nabla9
1/29/2026 at 10:38:12 AM
The operating cost is the maximum Apple can come up with when their accountants attribute everything they possibly can to digital sales for the sake of legal argument. R&D shouldn't really be included, and Apple uses those same tools and APIs themselves. I think the actual profit margin is closer to 90%, and Apple could maintain a 20% margin with just a 3–4% fee.by nabla9
1/29/2026 at 11:31:53 AM
I'd say that in the case of Patreon, any fee for Apple is unjustified. Apple can justify their fee on app purchases/subscriptions in the app store, but Patreon is not an app subscription, the money goes mostly from the patrons to the people they support. Ok, Patreon takes a cut to cover their operating costs, and also make a profit (not sure how profitable they are currently), but I really can't see how Apple, who don't have anything to do with this process except for listing the Patreon app on the app store, can justify taking a cut.by rob74
1/29/2026 at 2:01:28 PM
You could make the argument that Patreon isn't much more than a banking app.It just focuses on the receiver of the money than the sender.
I think Apple is slowly killing apps with this policy. Everybody will slowly move to "web only" as 30% would kill their ability to compete with anybody else. This will likely be much stronger in countries where iPhones do not have the same market share as in the US.
by silvestrov
1/29/2026 at 4:39:01 PM
> Everybody will slowly move to "web only" as 30% would kill their ability to compete with anybody else.This is why Apple makes PWAs so miserable in Safari and disallows other browsers unless they're just Safari with lipstick.
by josephcsible
1/29/2026 at 5:22:25 PM
Apple users seem to be fine with everything being much more expensive. Not only the 30% apple tax itself, developers know Apple users pay more and specify higher prices on Apple.by direwolf20
1/29/2026 at 6:33:29 PM
30% is also the cut google takes on the google play store. This is not an apple only issue. This is a regulatory one.by jama211
1/29/2026 at 6:54:20 PM
Google allows out–of–store installation (for now...) so it's much easier to argue there's competition. Apps installed through F–Droid don't have this tax.by direwolf20
1/30/2026 at 6:43:20 PM
And in the EU alternative app stores are allowed on iphone as well. In both cases, it’s a near negligible amount of people that use them. Your exceptions prove the rule, if anything.by jama211
2/3/2026 at 6:11:54 AM
This would not be true if all markets rose simultaneously. It’s why they all fight so hard to delay the inevitable. You don’t have to win, you just have to win for long enough to be establishedby thejazzman
1/29/2026 at 3:01:08 PM
> Everybody will slowly move to "web only" as 30% would kill their ability to compete with anybody else.Frankly, yes, please. I mean, I'm biased as my whole career is in web app development, but there are so many things these days that do not need a whole native app. They're just communicating with a server backend somewhere, using none of the unique native functionality of the phone (much of which is available in browser APIs these days anyway). I can block ads in a web app much more easily. It's much harder to do customer-hostile things like block screenshots in a web app.
Native apps definitely have a place, but I think they're very overused, mostly for reasons that benefit the business at the expense of the customer.
by Spoom
1/29/2026 at 3:11:52 PM
Apple makes sure it's not practical.You still can't have a "share to" target that is a web app on iOS. And the data your can store in local storage on safari is a joke.
Of course, forget about background tasks and integrated notifications.
In fact, even on Android you miss features with web apps, like widgets for quick actions, mapping actions to buttons and so on.
And no matter how good you cache things, the mobile browser will unload the app, and you will always get this friction when you load the web app on the new render you don't have on regular apps.
by BiteCode_dev
1/29/2026 at 4:27:59 PM
Service workers solve the cache issue; web apps can run permanently offline after initial load. You may be a bit out of date on the state of the web.by mircerlancerous
1/29/2026 at 10:51:02 PM
No, I use them but loading and unloading the app in the tab still happens when the browser flushes the app from memory because the OS killed it or the browser eviction policy hits.This loading is not nearly as seamless as a regular app starting back up.
For a regular app, you have the app loading, and the os cache helping with it. If you do your job half correctly, it loads as a block almost instantly.
For a web app you have the web browser loading, the the display of the white viewport in a flash, then the app loading in the browser (with zero os cache to help with so it's slower). It needs then to render. Then restoring the scroll (which is a mess with a browser) and the state as much as you can but you are limited with persistence size so most content must be reloaded which means the layout is moving around. Not to mention JS in a browser is not nearly as performant as a regular app, so as your app grows, it gets worse.
by BiteCode_dev
1/29/2026 at 3:43:30 PM
> I think they're very overusedI disagree, native apps on iOS have important abilities that no web application can match. The inability to control cache long-term is alone a dealbreaker if trying to create an experience with minimal friction.
by xnyan
1/29/2026 at 4:25:53 PM
Service workers allow you to control cache in web apps; you may be a bit out of date.There are hardware APIs for some stuff that only works in native (cors, raw tcp), but 99% of apps don't need those.
by mircerlancerous
1/30/2026 at 2:56:32 AM
I think the parent may be referring to the fact that safari/webkit will evict all localstorage/indexeddb/caches etc after 7 days of not visiting a site. And apparently this now extends to PWAs making it a pretty big blog to building any infrequently accessed PWA that needs to persist user data locally.by benkaiser
1/31/2026 at 7:32:14 PM
I store my data in the service worker cache, so I guess I'm immune to this issueby mircerlancerous
1/29/2026 at 3:51:39 PM
Those same elevated controls are used to steal PII and sell to data brokers. Again, it's the companies that are trying to force apps on their users. If it were genuinely a much better UX, they wouldn't have to do that.by pphysch
1/29/2026 at 4:23:00 PM
I don’t think you are correct, but I could be wrong. For example, can you replicate the functionality of TikTok - autoplay unmuted videos as the user scroll down to new videos? It’s the experience that the user expects.by xnyan
1/29/2026 at 8:31:46 PM
I've probably deleted 15 apps from my phone in the past year as I steadily move over to the web for everything.My chat agent, file transfer tool, Grubhub, Amazon, YouTube, news, weather are all deleted in favor of a set of armored browsers that suppress the trash and clean up the experience. Its been an amazing change, as those companies no longer get a free advertisement on the application grid of my phone, making my use of them much more intentional.
by rpdillon
1/29/2026 at 7:27:02 PM
Sure, once the user interacts with the first video.If third party native apps were installed and run without user interaction the same as cross-origin redirects, I would expect the same limitations with native apps.
by dwaite
1/29/2026 at 5:52:02 PM
I use FB via my web browser (Firefox on Android) and when I look at Shorts, it has this exact functionality. Web browsers on mobile can do this, clearly.by peaseagee
1/29/2026 at 11:33:26 PM
The Android Browser isn't as crippled as the iOS one. Watch a full screen video on Safari and tap a few times on different places on the screen and you will get a notification about "Typing is not allowed in Full-Screen" or some other nonsenseby hermanzegerman
1/29/2026 at 8:28:54 PM
Yes I literally worked on a PWA with this exact feature.I believe you can see it working on TikTok web as well.
You just can’t have the first video unmuted on initial load, although I wonder if this can be relaxed when user installs a PWA.
by kcrwfrd_
1/29/2026 at 5:22:29 PM
I'm sorry but why do you think this can't be done in a website?by mrguyorama
1/30/2026 at 6:44:05 PM
As a user please for the love of god to not make me use a stupid mobile browser for everything. Native apps are so much better.by jama211
1/29/2026 at 4:04:15 PM
You couldn't make that argument because Patreon is also a platform to host content, not just send money. If it was something like a twitch donation app the argument would make more senseby Almondsetat
1/29/2026 at 7:49:24 PM
The hosting aspect is only necessary because a) piracy and b) Google would eat their lunch if they were the gate keeper to content. Bit like how Ticketmaster takes all the money from artists because they get to say who sits in a seat.by dboreham
1/29/2026 at 7:50:53 PM
You could if they built a donation & support trading app separate from the content app?by Already__Taken
1/29/2026 at 5:10:59 PM
Next up, Apple starts taking a cut of every money transfer you do with your banking app.by rkagerer
1/29/2026 at 11:34:34 PM
They do with Apple Pay, and don't allow Banks to roll with their own system like on Androidby hermanzegerman
1/29/2026 at 6:13:05 PM
Isn't that exactly what this is? Except they're targeting a single app.by H1Supreme
1/29/2026 at 4:58:11 PM
> You could make the argument that Patreon isn't much more than a banking app.Don't give them any ideas.
by barnas2
1/29/2026 at 2:21:38 PM
Honestly I wouldn't be that shocked if Apple tried demanding a 30% royalty on bank deposits and bills paid using iPhone apps. They've decided the future of their company depends on being huge assholes about it.by wlesieutre
1/29/2026 at 2:31:41 PM
I would be surprised by that because iPhone users would notice that. I think the App Store model relies on their fee being invisible to consumers, and the increased price you’re paying not being linked to them. AFAIK apps aren’t allowed to explain that they charge more if you subscribe on iPhone to users either, or why they do so.by mcintyre1994
1/29/2026 at 3:40:32 PM
True, hard for bank deposits where the user sees both ends of the transaction.For bill payments though, they'd just insist on taking 30% of your electric bill payment and if the electric company's margins aren't high enough to absorb that then "Haha that sounds like a you problem" - Tim Cook, probably
by wlesieutre
1/29/2026 at 4:55:39 PM
Apps are allowed to link to web services to offer payment as an alternative to IAPs and offer a discount for doing so, thanks to Apple v Epic.by odo1242
1/29/2026 at 8:48:04 PM
While you're correct, it's worth noting that this only happened because the judge in the Epic lawsuit ordered an injunction forcing Apple to allow it.Apple then "maliciously complied", allowing it while demanding a 27% fee on any web-based payments, which was found to be a violation of the injunction.
https://technologylaw.fkks.com/post/102ka4o/apple-violated-u...
by dlubarov
1/29/2026 at 5:23:10 PM
Can they, or will they be delisted if they do that?by direwolf20
1/29/2026 at 6:09:50 PM
From the Patreon FAQ:> Can I opt out of the App Store Fee?
> For U.S. fans, there’s still a way to avoid Apple’s fee. When signing up in the iOS app, they can choose web checkout instead of Apple’s in-app purchase system. Apple’s rules require that any paid content shown in the iOS app is also available to purchase through Apple’s in-app system.
https://support.patreon.com/hc/en-us/articles/28801582599181...
by bjt
1/29/2026 at 2:53:51 PM
[dead]by dr-detroit
1/29/2026 at 4:03:40 PM
When you use Apple Pay, Apple collects ~0.15% (15 bps) from the issuing banks for credit. $1B in transaction volume = $1.5MIn 2022 the total volume was estimated at $6T * .15% = $9B. Real number would be maybe half due to lower fees on debit, but it's hugely profitable for Apple, and carries zero risk.
by burgreblast
1/29/2026 at 7:17:38 PM
I think this is a very strong and simple argument to use with regulators, politicians etc.When I put my credit card into Apples ecosystem they take a 0.15% cut of the transaction and appear to be very happy with the results. When I put my application into the ecosystem they take 30%..
You can then break down why this is, but boy is that an interesting contrast.
by mox1
1/29/2026 at 5:23:41 PM
They'd much rather have 30%.by direwolf20
1/29/2026 at 3:40:05 PM
Something interesting is that Apple and Google Pay charge a tiny commission (don't have the number at hand). Which banks didn't like, so at least on Android they created their own NFC payment stacks for a while. Only to then discover that maintaining such a stack cost them more per year than the commission.by jorvi
1/29/2026 at 11:37:24 PM
My German Bank still maintains their own pay stack. It's also nice that I don't have to share my payment information or commission with another parasiteby hermanzegerman
1/29/2026 at 3:55:44 PM
I think Google Pay does not charge a fee.by fauigerzigerk
1/29/2026 at 7:30:38 PM
Ah yes, back in the Isis days. What terrible luck in the naming department on that one.by vel0city
1/29/2026 at 8:52:51 PM
Imagine seeing a popup banner in an app each time you open it that interrupts whatever you're trying to do to say "open on our website!"(Apple's censorship notwithstanding)
by crabmusket
1/29/2026 at 6:15:04 PM
No kidding. Imagine if Apple took 30% of your Venmo transfers.by yibg
1/29/2026 at 10:57:49 PM
Why are you ok with Patreon taking a cut but not Apple?by akerl_
1/29/2026 at 3:52:36 PM
Next up, 2% cut whenever you use any banking or payment app. Only 1.5% when you use Apple Pay!by MadameMinty
1/29/2026 at 4:59:05 PM
They currently do charge 0.15% on Apple Pay actually.by odo1242
1/29/2026 at 12:27:29 PM
If a user almost exclusively uses the Patreon ios app to consume the artist’s content and likes to live inside the ios ecosystem for frictionless payments using the card on file/privacy/UX/whatever, then I feel apple should get to set the terms of engagement.If you were a chain store in a high end mall where customers cars were all parked for free by valets, mall staff knew their names, and generally made them feel special, you’d not balk at a higher commission to be paid to mall for access to their customers, right? Airports come to mind for this.
I believe apple lets you set whatever price you want on their store, just not tell customers that they could get a lower price elsewhere/on the vendor’s website (I don’t follow App Store policies very closely so my info is probably out of date).
by saimiam
1/29/2026 at 1:59:02 PM
Presumably you also would agree that it's fair if Chrome, Windows, and Lenovo all charged me 30% each for using Patreon via Chrome+Windows on a thinkpad, right?They're doing about as much to facilitate my use of Patreon as Apple is.
This isn't like a mall at all. This is like a web browser, where apps are webpages, and Apple is insisting that the contents of that webpage are something they can dictate all payment terms on.
For the airport analogy to work, it would have to be that you go to the Airport, go into the electronics store, buy a Kindle, and then the Airport insists it can take 30% not just on the purchase of the kindle, but 30% on every single book you buy on the kindle forever.
Apple taking a cut on the purchase price of an app that a user found via the app store does make some sense. Apple taking a cut of an in-app interaction with a creator that the user almost certainly found elsewhere is nonsense.
What next, should apple take a 30% cut of my rent because I found my apartment on the Craigslist app? Should they take a 30% of my train ticket that I purchased using the Safari app? Why does Patreon have to add a 30% cut on in-app content, when Safari lets me pay for in-app content with my credit card without taking any cut?
by TheDong
1/29/2026 at 3:09:29 PM
> certainly found elsewhereI agree that if someone discovered the artist elsewhere, Apple has weaker standing in claiming a huge commission. But if they found an artist elsewhere, they would also know that they can support that artist elsewhere and not through the iOS app. If the patron found them through the patreon iOS app and use the app to consume the artist's content, then clearly the patron has indicated that they prefer the iOS experience.
by saimiam
1/29/2026 at 8:07:24 PM
That's not worth 30%. Imagine if Youtube charged 30% for anyone who clicked a link under a video in a web browser.Even if people do enjoy browsing through the PAtreon app and choosing creators they want to subscribe to, that's not worth 30%. Rent-seeking is a cognitive disease.
by anigbrowl
1/29/2026 at 3:12:52 PM
And if I access Patreon via Chrome on Windows, and use Chrome on Windows to consume the artist's content, clearly I prefer the Chrome and Windows experience, so Microsoft and Google should be getting their 30% cut, right?... and of course the user found the artist elsewhere than the iOS app store. They found them on youtube, or reddit, or _possibly_ on the webview inside the patreon iOS app, which is also _not_ apple's App Store content, it's content provided by Patreon.
Again, should accessing my bank via the Safari or Chrome iOS app mean apple gets 30% of all my bank transactions, just because they were displayed on a webview inside an iOS app?
by TheDong
1/29/2026 at 3:31:45 PM
The logical conclusion is that if you buy an Apple device from www.apple.com on your Windows PC, Microsoft should get a 30% cut of that sale.by tapoxi
1/29/2026 at 7:20:09 PM
There's a large amount of Apples:Oranges comparisons here that should be obvious to people who even read the headline, "in the iOS app" not "on iOS", as your comparison indicates.by ribosometronome
1/29/2026 at 8:05:08 PM
Sure, if Google wants to start a business model where your websites only load if you sign a business agreement and agree to commissions.However, regulators would probably take note that Google has been aggressively pushing their browser for free for over a decade to gain market share, and have a field day.
The difference is that Apple's business model hasn't changed - you've always been restricted to distributing apps under a business agreement, and the conditions on commissions have been pretty consistent since inception, or at least since IAP was added in 2009.
"What ifs" about Apple charging 30% for bank transactions would run afoul of regulators. This is about consuming member-exclusive goods and services in-app, which again has been in the contract terms since 2009.
Goods and services consumed outside of the app (such as purchases of physical items on Amazon, or plane tickets or the like) are actually forbidden from using in-app purchase and do not have a commission rate.
by dwaite
1/29/2026 at 5:58:44 PM
>If the patron found them through the patreon iOS app and use the app to consume the artist's content, then clearly the patron has indicated that they prefer the iOS experience.I hate IOS enough that I'm running at least a full numbered version behind with updates turned off and never plan to buy another IOS device, and I'm subscribed to multiple Patreons started through the IOS app merely because it was the device in my hand and they automatically funnel Patreon links to it.
by Talanes
1/29/2026 at 3:42:44 PM
Chrome, Windows and Lenovo don't have the payment system baked in, with all the consumer protections that come with it.I'm not entirely pro-Apple percentage in this argument, but I think people often dismiss the magical thing that Apple created with the app store and their payment/subscription system. The rest of the world keeps ripping users off, and Apple's walled garden is as protected a thing as it gets.
I've gone directly to my bank for subscription charges billed directly to my credit card and they wouldn't reverse or stop them. Cancelling and reversing on the App Store is basic, easy, and friction-free.
Plus, the Android environment doesn't yield nearly the same sales volume even with significantly more installed units.
People spend on iOS and they don't spend on other platforms.
30% hurts and it sucks, but.. Patreon will probably take it because they'll do the math and it won't come out in favor of the alternative. That's what really sucks, beyond Apple max-max-maxing this.
by browningstreet
1/29/2026 at 4:15:53 PM
>The rest of the world keeps ripping users off, and Apple's walled garden is as protected a thing as it gets.This keeps getting repeated but it's not actually my experience. Not even Apple believes it, otherwise they could avoid a lot of legal and regulatory trouble by giving users a choice: Pay through Apple for an extra 30% protection fee.
by fauigerzigerk
1/29/2026 at 5:27:35 PM
Apple's walled garden couldn't even protect it's users from a literal LastPass scam app. It was reviewed by Apple. It passed. It was in the store.The screenshots for the app had "Documets" and "Lasspass" prominently visible
Nothing about this is for your sake.
by mrguyorama
1/29/2026 at 8:11:41 PM
I had a Patreon subscription I forgot about. I went to Patreon and ended it. It took about a minute, including filling out the feedback form about why I was quitting.by anigbrowl
1/29/2026 at 3:57:21 PM
They can offer to cancel or reverse subscriptions because you paid 5x that subscription amount just in fees.by realusername
1/29/2026 at 4:41:16 PM
> Chrome, Windows and Lenovo don't have the payment system baked in, with all the consumer protections that come with it.Chrome definitely does, at least to a degree.
But you have the option to not use it, because guess what? You're supposed to own the device.
by Matl
1/29/2026 at 6:34:12 PM
Chrome doesn't do this, Chrome has a wallet and you're still stuck talking to your credit card company.It looks like you may have edited your comment, but the issues of Apple's app store payment percentage, the open/closed nature of their appstore, and the ability to sideload apps are 3 separate issues.
by browningstreet
1/30/2026 at 3:54:33 PM
I don't think I edited my comment...> you're still stuck talking to your credit card company
AFAIK Apple still talks to it too, they just have a deeper/better experience on the platforms they own and provide a service where they can generate a virtual card for you, so you're shielded from the merchant, but not from your card issuer.
> Apple's app store payment percentage, the open/closed nature of their appstore, and the ability to sideload apps are 3 separate issues
Yes and no, because Apple wants to use the closed nature of their ecosystem to offer their solution as the only possible one, yet at the same time claim that they deserve their 30% cut because it's the best solution out there and they provide so much value.
by Matl
1/30/2026 at 5:00:33 PM
> I don't think I edited my comment...It might've been HN weirdness. I was getting the one sentence in one view and the whole message in the other view. Re-loading didn't get them consistent. Hmm.
by browningstreet
1/29/2026 at 4:11:42 PM
The cost side of that protection is < 0.1% not 30%.by sroussey
1/29/2026 at 7:35:27 PM
Chrome and Windows definitely do have payment systems baked in. Google Pay, the Microsoft Store, etc.by vel0city
1/29/2026 at 11:39:56 PM
I can cancel easily my subscriptions ik PayPal with ohne click, without them taking 30%by hermanzegerman
1/29/2026 at 4:01:44 PM
>What next, should apple take a 30% cut of my rent because I found my apartment on the Craigslist app? Should they take a 30% of my train ticket that I purchased using the Safari app?Sure they could, and usage of those products to purchase goods would nominally drop to 0%. People do not care about a lot of things, but they do care about losing money.
by seemaze
1/29/2026 at 5:01:29 PM
Apple would then force the with-IAP price to be the same as the without-IAP price so that they get a 30% cut of your rent regardless. You may be underestimating their willingness to tax all economic activityby odo1242
1/29/2026 at 6:26:58 PM
While this would obviously be harmful to the consumer, I don't see this as plausible.Amazon was able to achieve this by positioning themselves as the primary distributor of the goods in question. Apple is in no position to leverage a monopoly over fiat transer or housing supply.
With regard to municipal transportation, perhaps they are edging closer with Apple Pay, NFC, Wallet, etc.. but I can't imagine municipalities supporting, or constituents accepting, a tax on their existing taxes.
Of course, maybe Apple.gov is the long game. Hard to say whether that would be better or worse that the status quo..
by seemaze
1/29/2026 at 12:40:53 PM
> If a user almost exclusively uses the Patreon ios app to consume the artist’s content and likes to live inside the ios ecosystem for frictionless payments using the card on file/privacy/UX/whatever, then I feel apple should get to set the terms of engagement.When I paid over $1000 to buy an iPhone I thought I was buying a technological product that I could use to improve my life.
I didn’t realize I was buying a ticket to Disneyland where the seller of the product decided how I interacted with everything the device enabled.
I don’t think this should be disallowed. I certainly think it’s incredibly false marketing for Apple to claim I bought an iphone, when in reality I paid upfront for essentially AOL.
by hshdhdhj4444
1/29/2026 at 4:22:05 PM
> I didn’t realize I was buying a ticket to Disneyland where the seller of the product decided how I interacted with everything the device enabled.If you're the sort of person who posts on HN and you bought an iPhone after they hit the $1000 price point, you probably did know that.
It surprises me a little that so many people who do know still make that choice.
by Zak
1/29/2026 at 4:42:48 PM
I think the point OP is making is not that they actually didn't know, but that they shouldn't have to know for that price.by Matl
1/29/2026 at 1:09:54 PM
> I certainly think it’s incredibly false marketing for Apple to claim I bought an iphone, when in reality I paid upfront for essentially AOL.I wonder if that has ever been tried against Apple or a similar company in a court of law, because I think there might be real merit there. One would have to get a bunch of people together claiming a refund on the purchase price on the grounds that ownership hasn't been transferred and therefore Apple is in breach of contract in relation to the contract for sale of an iPhone. Then those people would have to bring a class action, and the case would revolve around the concept of "ownership". Because "ownership", to a first approximation, means the legal right to do with some piece of property essentially as you please, and Apple is clearly basing much of their business on the assumption that users do not have those rights and is taking positive action to prevent users from exercising such rights.
I don't know much about the law in the rest of the world, except Germany, but in Germany that would certainly be the case, and there is a surprising amount of case law revolving around such things as horses or other animals being sold, and the former owner then trying to restrict the new owner in exercising their ownership rights, which generally end with ownership rights being upheld by courts.
by gyulai
1/29/2026 at 1:21:43 PM
I’ve been thinking for a while now that a really effective way to deal with problem companies would be coordinate a mass action on small claims closets around the world all on the same day.Often in small claims court you win by default if the other person doesn’t show up and I’m sure judges know average will sympathize with the kinds of arguments that you raised above.
by Teever
1/29/2026 at 1:43:13 PM
I don't know. We don't have any such thing as small claims court in Germany, but my expectation would be that judges in low-level courts will try their very best not to get noticed for setting any kind of precedent whatsoever. The only thing that's going to happen if you rule against Apple in a low-level court is that they will go into revision, and carrying a high probability that the higher-level judge will overturn the decision and make the lower-level judge look bad in the process.Also, any kind of effort to annoy someone by bringing coordinated actions in lots of venues all at the same time is probably abuse of process.
by gyulai
1/29/2026 at 2:52:11 PM
The idea isn't just to use small claims courts, but to use whatever first level legal venue to seek redress you can find in your area. That might mean small claims courts, or consumer protection bureaus, or binding arbitration. Whatever it is the idea is to coordinate with others to do so in a way that strains the resources of the organization you're fighting against and is in venues that are sympathetic to consumers and are able to make clear judgements with little chance for the opposing side to appeal.The goal of this isn't to annoy someone, the goal is to seek compensation for their unacceptable behavior and raise awareness of it so that others may do so as well.
With the mindboggling assymetry in resources between a single individual and an entity like Apple or Google it only makes sense for people to team up and coordinate against them.
by Teever
1/29/2026 at 5:00:32 PM
>but my expectation would be that judges in low-level courts will try their very best not to get noticed for setting any kind of precedent whatsoever.Is there even such a thing as precedent in the German legal system?
by fauigerzigerk
1/29/2026 at 5:32:19 PM
There isn't.by direwolf20
1/30/2026 at 10:12:13 AM
Case law isn't directly normative in civil law traditions like Germany and France in the same way it is in common law traditions like the U.S. and U.K. But court decisions that are deemed interesting do get picked up in journals, cited in academic literature, and cited by other judges in their own decisions. There is a herd dynamics psychology where judges and academic writers default to following along with the principles established in each other's decisions and academic writing, rather than go against that consensus. (Unless their conviction is very strong, and they are, depending on the gravity of the issue, willing to stake their reputations and careers on those convictions). -- I brushed over that distinction when I used the term “precedent”. In my mind it's pot-ay-toh po-tah-toh.by gyulai
1/29/2026 at 2:26:21 PM
I think a fair coordination would be for someone somewhere to complain about this every single day (1/country).by silon42
1/29/2026 at 5:31:48 PM
You have the legal right to do anything to your iPhone that you please, except for DMCA circumvention. Apple, cleverly, designs it so you can't do very much without DMCA circumvention. But it is the government's fault for this loophole, not Apple's.by direwolf20
1/29/2026 at 7:19:44 PM
It is the governments fault that it exists, and apples fault for exploiting it to the extent they do.It’s a choice, and you can tell it’s a choice because many, many other companies choose not to.
by xmcp123
1/29/2026 at 9:21:28 PM
Do they? Seems every company exploits DMCA anticircumvention. Even the ones that sell tractors.by direwolf20
1/29/2026 at 11:41:48 PM
DMCA is only a thing in the US.by hermanzegerman
1/29/2026 at 1:25:56 PM
Is this sarcasm? Apple pretty much invented the walled garden of personal computing.by patja
1/29/2026 at 3:22:14 PM
I subscribe to a half dozen creators and I have exclusively used the web interface to subscribe and consume this content. You cannot tell me with a straight face that if the only difference was I subscribed on my phone to someone who charges me $10/mo, Apple is entitled to $36 for the first year and $18/yr in perpetuity thereafter.by pc86
1/29/2026 at 12:39:24 PM
I don’t think anyone suggests Apple should get nothing for their app store services, just that it shouldn’t be 30% of every transaction processed through every iOS app.by rubyfan
1/29/2026 at 1:56:38 PM
The EU has the right approach. Don't try to legislate exactly what is a fair/unfair amount of profit to make - change the rules of the game by requiring third party marketplaces and payment platforms so apple has to lower rates or lose every app into a third party store.Apple can easily say "Use our store exclusively and you get our security/privacy guarantees. Go outside our store and you're in the wild west". App developers can then decide how much fee they are willing to pay for access to the user base who refuse to venture into the wild west. Other stores might try to persuade users that they are more secure and more private too via stricter review policies or more locked down permissions etc.
by londons_explore
1/29/2026 at 5:12:30 PM
From a consumer point of view, the best approach would be if devlopers had to sell their app in Apple's App Store (if Apple approves) and could optionally provide other purchasing options on top of that.It would prevent fragmentation and give people a choice to pay up if they actually value Apple's extra protections (if any).
by fauigerzigerk
1/29/2026 at 8:10:42 PM
Several years in, I don't believe Apple has lowered rates at all.If the EU has the right approach, then they still do not have the right implementation.
by dwaite
1/29/2026 at 11:44:49 PM
They did lower them to 15% due to regulatory pressure for smaller vendors. And for compliance with EU DSA, they've tried countless malicious compliance efforts, that have been struck down again and again.The only reason they haven't been smacked with a billion dollar fine for their Bullshit (Core Technology Fee)yet, is because of Trump.
by hermanzegerman
1/29/2026 at 2:27:16 PM
What they should get is customers for their phones and computers.by thfuran
1/29/2026 at 1:03:13 PM
I think that is in fact exactly what GP is suggesting.by idiotsecant
1/29/2026 at 4:20:09 PM
I don’t read it that way. I think the point is it doesn’t make sense that apple is taking a cut of a transaction that is not in their payment rails*. Apple can still be compensated for their App store service without using a model that takes 30% of all transactions, e.g. a listing fee, an app review fee, etc.*And anything on their payment rails should have a normal transaction fee, e.g. Stripe’s retail rate is 2.9% + $0.30.
by rubyfan
1/29/2026 at 8:16:59 PM
This is the model they have moved to in the EU - an annual per user-app core technology fee for apps enabled to be listed outside the store, and relaxed in-store rules (and reduced commissions) if you choose to still list in Apple's App Store. Effectively, they are acting as if commissions are paying the core technology fee, and subsidizing it for apps which aren't profitable.The per-user model means that apps which have adopted freemium and advertising-driven models wind up having quite different financials, and could be more expensive.
by dwaite
1/29/2026 at 3:08:01 PM
Yes it's fine but the 30% should be charged to the customer who wants to stay within that ecosystem of course. If they want that white glove treatment they can pay for it. Of course once the users see how much that fluffy ecosystem actually costs them I bet most of them will just pay patreon directly :)If the platform like patreon is supposed to absorb that fee they will increase prices for everyone even people who won't touch Apple like me. That's not fair. Or more likely, they will just give less to the content creators.
In the EU it's already forbidden to force payments through Apple or to forbid the platforms to charge the fee back to the customer.
by wolvoleo
1/29/2026 at 3:28:37 PM
Should Ford get a 30% cut every time you fill your gas tank ?by mrighele
1/29/2026 at 5:36:35 PM
Don't worry, we are well into "car branded fuel only" territory with electric vehicles."Buy our electricity at a huge markup to power your vehicle. Oh, you don't have one of our vehicles? Sorry, that's an extra 10% on top"
This was dystopic scifi like 20 years ago and Americans are so clueless they just sleepwalked into it because they'd rather not have a government at all.
by mrguyorama
1/29/2026 at 3:52:28 PM
Certainly not defending Apple's behavior in this instance, but isn't the success of the larger product ecosystem a direct driver of their App Store profitability? To strictly evaluate the App Store finances in isolation seems to be the sort of accusation you've levied against Apple in the opposite direction..I like Apple less and less these days for various reasons, but I haven't purchased an app on the App Store in more than a decade. It's strictly a vehicle for local utilities when, for whatever reason, a browser will not suffice. Nearly all purchasing is done on the 'open' web.
by seemaze
1/29/2026 at 7:15:05 PM
Or you could argue the App Store wouldn’t exist without the hardware, so the relevant reporting is both combined - lower margins.by jbs789
1/29/2026 at 5:06:50 PM
> ...for the sake of legal argument. R&D shouldn't really be includedThat's an incredibly ridiculous take. R&D is an operating cost and it's an ongoing expense related to the app store existing.
> I think the actual profit margin is closer to ...
You can replace "think" there with "feel".
by parineum
1/29/2026 at 11:32:35 AM
What really makes it uncomfortable is that Apple isn't just a neutral marketplace. They control the OS, the distribution channel, and the payment rails, so creators and platforms like Patreon can't realistically opt outby SwtCyber
1/29/2026 at 12:16:13 PM
They could opt out - by sticking to web platforms.Apple cannot charge for that. However, apple does attempt to gimp the web platforms on mobile to "subtly" push for apps.
by chii
1/29/2026 at 12:48:18 PM
The whole Epic vs Apple was about Apple blocking this. Before being slapped by regulators, Apple had anti-steering policies forbidding iOS apps from even mentioning that purchasing elsewhere is possible.Even after EU DSA told them to allow purchases via Web, Apple literally demanded a 27% cut from purchases happening outside of App Store (and then a bunch of other arrogantly greedy fee structures that keeps them in courts).
Apple knows how hard is not to be in the duopoly of app stores. They keep web apps half-assed, won't direct users to them, but allow knock-off apps to use your trademarks in their search keywords.
by pornel
1/29/2026 at 12:46:53 PM
They do and it’s awful. I’m making a browser based game and it works great on desktop browsers but Apple refuses to allow css filters on canvas forcing you to build your own filters and apply them to image data. The web audio api is also a pain to get working properly on iOS safari and a bunch of other arbitrary but feels like they’re intentional obstacles found only on iOS. I’m almost considering just using webgl instead of a 2d context but who knows what obstacles apple is hiding there also it will make everything so much more verbose for no real gain.Not even in the days of IE was I ever this frustrated.
by archerx
1/29/2026 at 3:59:33 PM
> Not even in the days of IE was I ever this frustrated.I've been web devving since the days of IE as well and this reeks of hyperbole. Maybe things are different for browser games, but for me, everything has vastly improved since those days.
by nozzlegear
1/29/2026 at 5:53:36 PM
Well maybe we are doing different things. Back in those days Javascript and CSS were much simpler people would cry about the position of elements and easy stuff like that. However I have to manually manage web audio api memory because if you don't release the buffers and other things the memory won't get released until the tab in closed, so it's easy for a tab to inexpertly take up 6gigs plus of ram (1min of audio is ~80mb), it's impossible to know that, that is happening unless you know, so you have this missive memory leak that even refreshing the tab won't fix and you have no idea why it happening, that is true frustration. You have to manage memory in canvas too especially if you are using bitmaps and if you are on iOS because it will crash the page because you looked at it wrong. I don't know anything that would have crashed the page in IE back in the day. So no, it is not hyperbole :)by archerx
1/29/2026 at 7:14:06 PM
Sorry, I shouldn't comment before I have my coffee. Saying it "reeks of hyperbole" was unnecessarily rude.That does sound frustrating. You're working with APIs that I don't usually touch (audio, canvas) so it's not surprising that I haven't experienced that. I was thinking back to the days I had to support IE 8, trying to debug weird issues in production like scripts not working because `console.log` wasn't defined unless the developer tools were opened.
by nozzlegear
1/29/2026 at 7:55:17 PM
To be fair, he's completely right. I have a lot of experience with IE6 and safari on iOS, and while IE6 was bad and did weird shit, Safari is much worse. It's amazing that things can work in any browser, without ever even thinking about it, but then on Safari you get weird behaviour, straight up rendering bugs because of some weird race conditions with the engine or even crashes.The latest issue that I've noticed yesterday is the button nav bar on the screen when running PWAs. The button is over the bottom navbar of the PWA, and despite apple themselves coming up with the API to inform the browser about safe display areas, it doesn't work in PWAs on iOS. PWA mode on iOS != non PWA on iOS. They often behave completely different and you often have to use JS for basic things to work, like clicking a link(yup, this was a thing for years).
by NorwegianDude
1/29/2026 at 2:13:12 PM
I tried something similar a couple years back, and fully agree. Safari is atrocious for trying to create a good mobile experience. It almost feels intentional.by danielvaughn
1/29/2026 at 11:54:20 PM
They can opt out like you can opt out of using a phone. Sure, you won't die, but you won't have much of a social life either.by stavros
1/30/2026 at 3:10:24 AM
You do know a phone has a browser installed right?by chii
1/30/2026 at 8:46:23 AM
Really? Where can I see all the games this "browser" has, ranked by rating?by stavros
1/30/2026 at 9:34:47 AM
Due to the web's distributed nature, "all" is impossible, but there are plenty of ranked-by-rating lists of web games out there. I don't want to be spammy so I'm only gonna link one of them that comes to mind, but there are a lot of other listings you can find at any search engine of your choice!(All is impossible for both iOS and Android also: Games that don't get updated, games that get unlisted due to having a link to their own website with the wrong phrasing next to it, games that get unlisted due to the app store owner not being satisfied with the description page for the game, regional restrictions, requests from governments to remove socially unacceptable apps, etc)
by its-summertime
1/30/2026 at 9:54:41 AM
My point was that the web has orders of magnitude worse discoverability than the stores, otherwise everyone would obviously just publish on the web.Saying "oh just do the thing you aren't doing" shows that one of two things is true: Either every app developer currently doesn't know the web exists, or everyone else knows something you don't.
by stavros
1/30/2026 at 2:59:25 PM
Your point doesn't make any sense. The only reason Apple's store can have "all" the apps is that they are a monopolist and take steps to disallow anyone from selling apps through any other channel, so there cannot possibly be multiple storefronts with different selections like their is in any other context.On Android for example, Play Store does not have "all" apps, or even most apps that I have on my phone. Because Play Store has mostly garbage. It's a surprise to no one that Steam's storefront has a different selection from Amazon or Epic or GoG in the same way that no one is surprised that Walmart and Target carry different items.
So "discovery" in your sense is basically "I ignore everything that isn't presented by this particular storefront", i.e. a complete lack of discovery.
by ndriscoll
1/30/2026 at 3:07:25 PM
If you think "the web has orders of magnitude worse discoverability than mobile app stores" makes no sense, then there's not enough common ground for us to have a productive discussion on this.by stavros
1/30/2026 at 4:31:04 PM
Yes it is a nonsense statement. Literally, devoid of meaning. The web contains mobile app stores. e.g.https://www.humblebundle.com/store/c/all?sort=bestselling&pa...
https://www.amazon.com/mobile-apps/b/?ie=UTF8&node=235014901...
https://play.google.com/store/
https://store.steampowered.com/ (yes, you can run PC games on Android if your hardware is up to the task)
https://store.epicgames.com/en-US/
Apple doesn't have some special magic "discoverability"; they just prevent any other stores from being able to compete with them. Actually, searching for the iOS app store, I get:
https://www.apple.com/app-store/
which has no obvious way to even browse or search apps? How am I supposed to see what's available? I need to buy an expensive phone before I can even see what it can run? This is more discoverable? The bottom nav bar entry for "App Store" just takes me to the same page. If I click on "Store" it just shows me hardware; no apps. Where's the store and how am I supposed to find it? Do I need to physically go into an Apple store and use a phone there to browse?
by ndriscoll
1/30/2026 at 11:44:54 AM
I'm aware of your point. I disagree with it. A lot of companies seemingly have found it viable to have first-class web apps as part of their lineup; Off the top of my head: Uber and Uber Eats, KFC, Patreon, (And every single competitor to Patreon), every single mini-app in China (where discoverability is much higher), etc etc.There are more app-having companies that have web apps than not
by its-summertime
1/30/2026 at 12:50:12 PM
The original point wasn't that it's viable to also have a web app, but whether it's viable to only have a web app. How many of the companies you mentioned don't have mobile apps at all?by stavros
1/30/2026 at 4:26:06 PM
Of the patreon alternatives (dependent on content), Substack, X, Youtube, BuyMeACoffee, all have fan-side apps. kofi, Fourthwall, Squarespace, all the NSFW-centric alternatives, do not.Of the mini-apps in China, I don't know, I was never exposed to the existence of their non-mini-app counterparts.
by its-summertime
1/30/2026 at 9:28:17 AM
This rethoric is destructive and threatens society and democracy alike. Apple is not just some company that you can just opt out of, if you're working in a certain field. Just like you can't opt out to YouTube if you're a content creator.It not like an email service where you can just switch from Gmail to fastmail to proton or to any of the other dozens of big email providers.
There's apple. There Google. That's it.
Opt out. Jesus Christ...
by 7bit
1/29/2026 at 12:30:48 PM
Why could Apple not charge a percentage for any user using their mobile device? Why would it be limited to app store?by sidewndr46
1/29/2026 at 12:54:51 PM
Because they don't control those. Apple could choose to only allow users to access websites that pay them a bit 30% fee, but users would notice the web was turned off on their device. They don't notice when the app store does it.by direwolf20
1/30/2026 at 2:29:47 AM
Until a court order stopped them, Apple was collecting a 27% tax on certain external payments even though they didn't control the payment rails. They required developers to report their external payment revenue and sent them invoices. Developers had to commit to that or their apps would be rejected for having external payments.by dlubarov
1/30/2026 at 3:22:40 AM
It's at least "reasonable" that if the app was where users derived usage, and would've purchased thru the app but for the external purchasing option, then apple has a case for it.However, there's no such case for web (as in, web _only_).
by chii
1/30/2026 at 6:57:44 AM
If usage of an app gives Apple some justification for taxing payments, by similar logic would usage of the iPhone itself, and Safari, give them a similar some justification?"The user would have used our payment rails had there not been other options" seems to apply universally; Apple could say the same thing about website owners steering users away from some expensive "Apple web pay" option.
I think the difference is just leverage. Apple isn't curating what websites iOS users are allowed to visit (yet...), so they can't tell website owners "pay up or we'll block you".
by dlubarov
1/29/2026 at 2:44:48 PM
I don't think people would notice if Apple just made the website behind a paywall. Most people are not going to be aware that they can access the same content without paying a fee to Apple. They may only even have an Apple device to access the internet, so they'd just see it as normalby sidewndr46
1/29/2026 at 5:24:10 PM
I doubt it. People are pretty savvy when it's about getting something more cheaply or for free.by fauigerzigerk
1/29/2026 at 12:15:42 PM
While inconvenient and likely to reduce patrons, the article does describe how they can opt out: use the web to do any payment activity.by randallsquared
1/29/2026 at 2:38:46 PM
Don't forget they also directly compete with Patreon with podcast subscriptions. You can support a podcast through Apple podcasts or Patreon, but only one of those has a 30% chunk taken out.by gumby271
1/29/2026 at 8:20:07 PM
IIRC Premium Apple podcasts charge their standard subscription fees (eg 30% the first year, 15% the years after that)by dwaite
1/29/2026 at 1:15:21 PM
That's pretty much the conclusion the EU came to and why they introduced the notion of gatekeepers in the DMA.It doesn't matter if you are not technically in a dominant position if your special role in a large ecosystem basically allows you to act like one in your own purview.
You could say this kind of move invites more scrutiny but the regulators are already there watching every Apple's move with a microscope and their patience with Apple attempts at thwarting compliance is apparently wearing thin at least in the EU if you look at preliminary findings.
by StopDisinfo910
1/29/2026 at 1:30:18 PM
Yeah, because they built it. If people were using Linux everywhere, the situation would be different.by patanegra
1/29/2026 at 11:23:19 AM
The problem is the monopoly over distribution channels. Regulation needs to force devices to allow A) downloading and using packages & executables from the internet, and B) any app to download and install other apps.Regulating the fees for one central app store is no solution.
by uyzstvqs
1/29/2026 at 1:47:33 PM
> downloading and using packages & executables from the internetOh boy, now my mom can get the full experience of having malware on her phone too!
by stouset
1/29/2026 at 2:58:15 PM
With freedom also comes responsibility, and some innocent people will inevitably shoot themselves in the foot. This is not a strong enough argument for putting everybody else in a cage and letting a duopoly take over virtually all of the distribution of consumer software.by ulrikrasmussen
1/29/2026 at 4:27:19 PM
It might be a strong argument depending on the negative effects - I don't think it's very clear cut. Also no, neither Apple nor Google have a duopoly on the distribution of all consumer software. Microsoft exists, for example.The other problem consideration here is negotiating power.
Today consumers don't have negotiating power over individual developers, but both Apple and Google do. If you complain to Meta about their unwanted tracking, you don't really have many options besides deleting the app (which you should do anyway). But if enough people complain to Apple or Google, they are more inclined to do something and have the power.
While it may be a marriage of convenience, it's undeniable that both companies through their app distribution models have also provided benefits to consumers that developers otherwise would have abused - privacy, screen recording, malicious advertising, &c.
If you want to argue from the standpoint of pro-consumer action, you have to remember that "developers" are usually pretty awful too and will get away with anything they can, even if it harms their customers. A good balance, instead of ideological purity about one "side" or the other is the smarter move. I tend to come down on the side of the mainstream app stores precisely because those asking for more "freedom" to do as they wish are a tiny minority and are usually more technical. I.e. they can jump through the hoops to install 3rd party app stores and jailbreak their phones today, and since you already can do what you want, maybe it's best to just leave the masses alone since they're very obviously happy with the duopoly.
by ericmay
1/29/2026 at 7:42:58 PM
I run GrapheneOS, but I can't use the national digital identity app because it requires Google Play Integrity. I very much cannot do what I want without it having severe consequences because the duopoly is starting to shape the basic digital infrastructure, and critical services start requiring that I use one of the two ecosystems.I think the principle of digital autonomy should be front and center. Surely we can figure out security models that don't imply that two American tech companies get to call the shots on what people can or cannot do on hardware that they supposedly own.
by ulrikrasmussen
1/29/2026 at 8:23:58 PM
Working adjacent to such digital identity app development, they are unfortunately regulated to require such device integrity approaches.If Google Play Integrity didn't exist, the app would only be certified to run on e.g. unrooted Samsung Knox devices.
by dwaite
1/30/2026 at 7:19:25 AM
Yes, but the regulation is wrong, since it is based on an irrational security analysis and cover-my-ass politics which belong in private companies and not in government institutions which are supposed to protect the freedoms of the citizens.The technical security requirements should not be hard to define, i.e. the platform on which the solution runs should require all keys to be device-bound with a certificate chain from the hardware manufacturer proving this to the issuers during enrollment. The operating system should also be able to verify to the issuer that the hash of the app is recognized as an official app.
However, the strongest integrity level of solutions like Play Integrity - which is the only level that GrapheneOS cannot pass, and which only my national identity app requires - is protecting against very theoretical attacks which I don't believe actually happen in the real world, since it not only protects against fake malicious identity apps, but also against the scenario where a scammer has convinced their target of installing a custom Android operating system which fakes the app integrity verification. This attack requires a victim with a technical aptitude that allows them to unlock the bootloader and use adb, but which is at the same time gullible enough to believe the attacker. It also requires that the attacker builds a malicious Android release for the exact hardware of the victim. Seriously, if the victim is this easy to manipulate and also this resourceful, then the attacker should just convince them to disable biometrics and send the phone to the attacker by mail.
It is very very clever of Google to disguise what is essentially voluntary vendor lock-in as a security feature.
by ulrikrasmussen
1/29/2026 at 6:54:23 PM
Apple and Google each respectively have a monopoly in their markets. Only apple approved apps may be installed on an iPhone.Digital goods DO NOT work like physical goods. I can just buy another washing machine. I CANNOT just choose to opt out of using a smartphone. My choices are apple or Google, and even within those choices it's limited by network effects.
by array_key_first
1/29/2026 at 5:47:58 PM
Well, you have to balance it with how much you want to line the coffers of malicious actors.If you go all the way to "everyone should have the freedom to get pwned", then you are also funneling the money of innocents into the pockets of some of the worst people in the world, and that's not a great outcome just to make life more convient for some HNers.
The question is about what trade-off makes sense for most people. That probably is some sort of escape hatch nontech people just won't do.
Maybe it's a hard thing to appreciate until you've watched aging family members get tricked by absolute scum, mostly enabled by how loosey-goosey modern computing can still be.
by hombre_fatal
1/29/2026 at 6:12:34 PM
The thing is, apple decides this for themselves, on a product that you fully bought and privately own. It bundles the most brilliant and most incompetent clueless people into 1 group and goes for lowest denominator. No freedom of choice.Of course thats PR argument, in reality its about distorting and manipulating the market to get the most money out of its users and bind them to their ecosystem as hard as possible to extract even more. And the amount of those same people who uncritically defend them here is still staggering. But maybe its just employees ignoring their ndas, some investors and similar folks.
by kakacik
1/30/2026 at 7:27:04 AM
You can make the default locked down and still allow other operating systems, and most alternative operating systems will also come with a suitably strong security model that does not easily allow the user to fuck themselves. I don't think not locking everything down completely will inevitably lead to every elderly person becoming a victim of scam, so I don't acknowledge that argument.by ulrikrasmussen
1/29/2026 at 2:45:39 PM
Let's not put everybody in a cage because we can't stop dumb people from walking off cliffs.by rpdillon
1/29/2026 at 2:00:36 PM
I hate the classic apple users' "mom" argument. Why are all your moms morons? And why do you want to fuck up the entire mobile landscape to baby proof it for them. Im not gonna ruin my experience with technology because you dont expect your mom to be able to wipe her ass without apple's helpby samrus
1/29/2026 at 3:59:11 PM
There is nothing stopping you from using non-Apple hardware to escape restrictions on downloading unreviewed software.by linkregister
1/29/2026 at 6:55:25 PM
There are many things impeding you from doing so and you know it, because Apple designed it that way. Walled garden, remember?by array_key_first
1/29/2026 at 10:15:11 PM
I hate the classic “everyone should be an expert at IT and it’s their fault and they had it coming due to their own ignorance if they make mistakes” argument far more than you hate mine.by stouset
1/29/2026 at 5:54:33 PM
> no one on either side of the political spectrum wants these systems to be fixed voluntarily with corporate altruismRight on. But that's exactly the wiggle room where voters could pull some of those cards like "climate change mitigation (of consequences)", "climate change preparation", "upcoming waves of climate change refugees", "AI dividing the population", "Universal Basic Income", all of which are things companies like Apple won't do anything for (or against) while their goods are still mostly for proper earners and not for people who buy stuff at a discount (I'm exaggerating).
Since corporate altruism is definitely not on the menu, government institutions and NGOs will have to pick up way more than they are currently prepared for.
We are in a strange phase of calm before the storm, despite all those wars and conflicts--or in spite of them, I don't know. Shits' gonna hit the fan sooner or later and it's up to the voters to demand adequate preparation.
Big Corps caused significantly more damage than they had to cause for all those profits, whether as a side effect or not, and they did that long enough.
Job cuts, whether due to AI or not, will remain a thing while no "new" giants will rise for quite a while ... and corporations will sing the song "it's what the people want" only as long as voters will stay quiet.
Sure, bribes, corruption and blablabla, but it doesn't change how votes work and none of it changes how the devoted clerks in the administration do their jobs and write laws (if they have to have to) ...
by funkyfiddler369
1/29/2026 at 10:45:51 AM
> Apple could take just 7% cut and still make 20% profits.We can say this to any company, "$X could reduce price by $Y and still make $Z profits", but it doesn't really make any sense. Making profits is what makes a company a company instead of a non-profit organization.
by blahgeek
1/29/2026 at 10:58:59 AM
It does make sense to highlight, because this kind of statistic is a very strong indicator that the market is not competitive. This is not a normal kind of profit margin and basically everyone except for Apple would benefit from them lowering the margins.In normal markets there are competitors who force each other to keep reasonable profit margins and to improve their product as opposed to milking other people's hard work at the expense of the consumer.
by awesan
1/29/2026 at 11:02:56 AM
Might not be competitive but it’s totally voluntary. No one needs app, it’s not food or shelter, so clearly consumers are willing and able to pay this.The consumer is willing to pay the price based on the perceived value from the App Store
by newsclues
1/29/2026 at 11:52:19 AM
The relevant market here is the creators not the consumers. As a creator you have no choice but to accept whatever fees Apple, Google, Steam etc set. Or whatever rates Spotify pays you per stream. The fact you "could" host your own website is irrelevant when the reality is nobody will visit it.by lozenge
1/29/2026 at 12:41:21 PM
> The relevant market here is the creators not the consumers. As a creator you have no choice but to accept whatever fees Apple, Google, Steam etc set. Or whatever rates Spotify pays you per stream. The fact you "could" host your own website is irrelevant when the reality is nobody will visit it.Collective action by the creators would help.
All they have to do is dual-host (a fairly trivial matter, compared to organised collective action). What would make things even better is if they dual host on a competing platform and specify in their content that the competing platform charges lower fees. If even 10% of the creators did this:
1. Many of the consumers would switch. 2. Many of the creators not on the competing platform would also offer dual-hosting.
The problem is not "As a creator you have no choice but to accept whatever fees Apple, Google, Steam etc set". The problem is the mindset that their content is not their own.
I say it's their mindset, because they certainly don't act as if they own the content - when your content is available only via a single channel, you don't own your content, you are simply a supplier for that channel.
by lelanthran
1/29/2026 at 12:58:02 PM
> specify in their content that the competing platform charges lower fees.Apple will ban you for this.
by happymellon
1/29/2026 at 1:51:45 PM
> Apple will ban you for this.How? I thought it was a Patreon thing - the "competing platform" would be competing with the Patreon app.
I'm not familiar with Patreon, but I thought the way it worked was that you could tip content creators via the Patreon app. I'm pretty certain that Apple cannot tell Patreon (a third party) that they are only allowed to offer exclusive content.
by lelanthran
1/29/2026 at 2:52:13 PM
Apple doesn’t allow you to mention that you have alternate payment channels on other platforms. Can’t even allude to it.To me this is the thing that should be outlawed. Let people pay the Apple tax if they want, but don’t prevent people from making other arrangements. Most people are lazy and will pay the tax, if it isn’t excessive.
by iamnothere
1/29/2026 at 11:32:16 AM
What is also totally voluntary is our decision to let Apple exist as an entitiy, to give them a government enforced monopoly over certain things, to make it illegal to break their technical protections of their monopoly etc.by account42
1/29/2026 at 12:45:12 PM
> No one needs app, it’s not food or shelter"No one needs app" is not the same as "No one has biological mandatory need to have an app"
by matkoniecz
1/29/2026 at 10:57:55 AM
When parts of a market become dominated by one or few companies operating in a limited choice environment, consumers can't just opt to not use both Apple and Play store. You need to choose one in practice.At this point the regulators should investigate what the barriers are to new entrants and if it's too costly and nobody has managed to cut in the last few years, establishing some rules is probably a good thing. This happens as industries mature and become critical, it happened in transportation (most bus, train companies), energy, water supply, trash, etc, depending on the country and market conditions.
by vasco
1/29/2026 at 6:01:49 PM
Barrier to entry is simple: both Google and Apple heavily discourage "sideloading" or make it practically impossible.Google is moving in that direction.
by ThunderSizzle
1/29/2026 at 11:30:44 AM
High profit margins are a sign of market failure.by account42
1/29/2026 at 12:28:43 PM
Not so much a failure. Rather, there is no intent for there to be a market here at all. A market relies on offerings being reproducible. Intellectual property laws are designed specifically to prevent reproduction.by 9rx
1/29/2026 at 11:51:10 AM
"Competition is for losers"by HPsquared
1/29/2026 at 11:31:10 AM
Makes me think of the concept of involution in Chinese business and how they understand all of this very differently, and how difficult it is to compete because of that.by lz400
1/29/2026 at 12:34:51 PM
For anyone else wondering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neijuanby RobotToaster
1/29/2026 at 4:39:49 PM
Agreed, but this is about to be a special case if it's not already. We're contending with compulsory digital IDs and cashless economies that must be used on authorized devices, and Apple is one of the two makers. While it's certainly not necessary to use Patreon, not having it or something like it is an actual barrier to individual trade. I don't think I can get behind a schema that means Apple can take whatever portion it wants from a transaction initiated on a device that it creates and that is otherwise fairly necessary for day-to-day life in the developed world.by ibejoeb
1/29/2026 at 10:53:50 AM
it sounds like it does make sense because if they are making $Z profits then they are still making profits and are not non-profit.there could also be cases where cutting back to $Z profits might be preferable in case not doing so were to prompt legislation causing someone to be forcibly cut to $Z-1 or even $0 profits from a particular profit source.
Which it has been my observation that when someone is saying "X could reduce price by $Y and still make $Z profits" it often coincides with saying therefore company X should be legislated on this particular profit source.
Note: $X didn't make much rhetorical sense.
by bryanrasmussen
1/29/2026 at 11:06:25 AM
>there could also be cases where cutting back to $Z profits might be preferable in case not doing so were to prompt legislation causing someone to be forcibly cut to $Z-1 or even $0 profits from a particular profit source.Not in an environment where regulatory capture costs so much less than any change legislation could bring. The remedy in almost every recent monopoly case has been remarkably nothing. Politicians don’t actually want change, they want the threat of legislation so that industries bring truckloads of money to line their pockets.
by rubyfan
1/29/2026 at 10:57:58 AM
I think it's a little known fact that societies don't exist for the benefit of companies. It's actually the other way around.by ImHereToVote
1/29/2026 at 1:44:32 PM
“Growth is what makes a cell a cell.”Until it turns into cancer because of unrestrained growth.
Like it or not capitalism is a part of an ecosystem. We’ve been “educated” to believe that unrestrained growth in profits is what makes capitalism work, and yet day after day there are fresh examples of how our experience as consumers has gotten worse under capitalism because of the idea that profits should forever be growing.
by gortok
1/29/2026 at 10:57:29 AM
It makes sense that regulators can step in without destroying a company.by croes
1/29/2026 at 2:33:47 PM
"Why wait until tomorrow to get one golden egg when I can kill the goose today and get all the golden eggs?"by FatherOfCurses
1/29/2026 at 4:38:35 PM
Let's be honest if this was a European company it would be capped by law at 5-10%. Problem is who has an incentive to do the right thing here? Not apple and certainly not the US government (most of this revenue comes from outside the US).Nobody can defend it, yet nobody wishes to stop it.by matt-p
1/29/2026 at 8:27:10 PM
The US government should absolutely do that, but they won't because they defends the interests of big companies rather than the interests of small companies or US citizens.by eloisant
1/29/2026 at 10:46:44 AM
> even Apple's own executives were sometimes surprised by the internal financial reports.Was this recorded or just people drawing lines between Epic's expert witness claims and the executives trying to down play them?
by chrisan
1/29/2026 at 4:01:59 PM
That's not how business works. The App Store in current form would not exist without all the collective investment that went into all of Apple's hardware, for instance.Microsoft Office: Revenue $45B Operating Costs $12B Profit $33B Operating Margin 75%
Google Search Ads: Revenue $175B Operating Costs $45B Profit $130B Operating Margin 75%
by CGMthrowaway
1/29/2026 at 4:20:20 PM
> That's not how business works. The App Store in current form would not exist without all the collective investment that went into all of Apple's hardware, for instance.While technically true, this argument doesn't provide any merit to the discussion. The App Store backed purchase for the Patreon subscription would not exist at all without the creator's work and investment in creating their form of content.
In the absence of the App Store, the creator would still have access to their patrons via mobile web and payment via the methods already provided by Patreon. The app is merely a convenience - it's a hard sell that this convenience is worth 30% of the creator's revenue through the platform.
by devmor
1/29/2026 at 6:03:26 PM
> The App Store backed purchase for the Patreon subscription would not exist at all without the creator's work and investment in creating their form of content.Both parties are getting the chance to set whatever price they want. Up to the market to resolve supply/demand equilibrium
by CGMthrowaway
1/29/2026 at 9:12:06 PM
Creators on Patreon are already loosely bound to the market of other creators. Not all creators are affected by this change.The app store payment cut harms only creators who have disproportionately high percentages of patrons that primarily consume their content from iPhones - a demographic that they have no control over.
If they wish to increase their price to make up for this, they then are forced to risk turning away their other, non-iPhone-primary patrons. Notably, Patreon is forbidden by Apple from making this pricing scheme transparent and up-charging only iPhone users to keep the creator whole.
The only party with power here is Apple - and they are using it to strongarm.
by devmor
1/29/2026 at 10:59:16 PM
> The app store payment cut harms only creators who have disproportionately high percentages of patrons that primarily consume their content from iPhonesIt cuts both ways. The app store payment disincents consuming content from iPhones (indirectly, as the iPhone-heavy creators raise their prices). Of course Apple has the greater power, but there are always tradeoffs. That is the market in action - "cutting both ways" so to speak - or "strongarm" in your parlance - until you reach equilibrium. An equilibrium which is always temporary (ever heard of disruption?).
by CGMthrowaway
1/30/2026 at 2:53:02 PM
> It cuts both ways. The app store payment disincents consuming content from iPhones (indirectly, as the iPhone-heavy creators raise their prices).That is not remotely a balanced comparison. An iPhone has more than the purpose of consuming content from Patreon and is unlikely to affect Apple. They are still gaining in this situation.
There is no magical fairy tale being called "the market" balancing the situation here. Just a large corporation exerting control over people through rent-seeking. The only disruption happening is Apple disrupting people being fairly paid for their work so they can take a large of chunk of it instead of being happy making a profit by skimming off the top already.
by devmor
1/29/2026 at 5:51:30 PM
Being a monopolist is good fun until they storm the Bastille.by sfblah
1/29/2026 at 3:16:10 PM
Plus more than $20B for the Apple developer fee without which you cannot publish the their stores.by pier25
1/31/2026 at 7:58:16 AM
> developer tools Xcode
them taking more and rents from their store-related operations is hard to justify from software product-quality perspective; its like a slap in the face
by andrekandre
1/29/2026 at 2:38:04 PM
I don't think Apple could actually, unless they could prove to shareholders that it would create more valueby micromacrofoot
1/29/2026 at 7:57:47 PM
> shareholdersYeah that has to be a good 95% of why businesses do bad things.
The last thing Apple wants is for people to think they've plateaued. Stock starts going down to normal P/E ratios, expensive engineers leave, etc.
by Herring
1/29/2026 at 6:01:46 PM
I’m surprised they were surprised because operating costs should be pretty much nil. What do they do, pay a few thousand app reviewers, a few hundred software engineers? Pretty sure if they had to, they could operate App Store for a few tens of millions of dollars per year.by ripped_britches
1/30/2026 at 5:25:30 PM
All of this could be solved easily if developers were allowed to pass on the apple tax to consumers and advertise discounts for not using the App Store. No one wants to pay more for nothing.by throwaway85825
1/30/2026 at 6:38:28 AM
Apple's App Store business model is the same as Nintendo's eShop business model.Obviously Epic would like to pay lower platform fees to Apple than it pays to Nintendo, but there is no logical reason why it should.
by musicale
1/29/2026 at 2:07:22 PM
> The debate over 'good vs. bad companies' is just online noise and rhetorical trik...Agreed, there are bad privately held corps, and worse privately held corps, with badness usually proportional to their size and profit.
by jszymborski
1/29/2026 at 2:14:47 PM
I really think I might be done with Apple. The only thing keeping me using them is how much I hate Android. The _millisecond_ a competitor arrives, I'm dropping my iPhone like a bad habit.by danielvaughn
1/29/2026 at 2:16:48 PM
Off topic, but is there anything specific that you hate about Android? I find it acceptable. I'm trying to cut down my phone usage so maybe I'm more tolerant.by vlod
1/29/2026 at 5:53:24 PM
Not OP, but: "acceptable", that's the problem. Also I dislike Google more than Apple.by goatking
1/29/2026 at 7:42:36 PM
I'm wondering what adjectives you hope to apply to a phone operating system. I'm content with mine when I don't have to think about it, for which "acceptable" seems about right, and discontent when I do.by Zak
1/29/2026 at 5:19:01 PM
GrapheneOS on a Pixel is that competitor. Open source, more secure than Apple, compatible with nearly all Android apps. It's all the positive aspects of Android without the downsides (Google).by drnick1
1/29/2026 at 8:28:26 PM
> compatible with nearly all Android appsThe "nearly" is the issue. Opting out of the Apple/Google duopoly comes at a great cost.
by eloisant
1/29/2026 at 10:20:06 PM
I've used it for 3 years and the only app I couldn't use has been Google pay/wallet.Truly is nearly. Some apps (banks) you need to toggle a compat mode.
by saintfire
1/29/2026 at 2:20:32 PM
I keep hoping and wishing for a daily drivable linux phone that's compatible with all the us networks to come along. I'll keep hoping and wishing. Someday I hope we will get there!by RDaneel0livaw
1/29/2026 at 1:29:45 PM
One company's margin, is other company's opportunity.by patanegra
1/29/2026 at 2:18:50 PM
The problem is that Apple owns the platform and half of the mobile ecosystem. You can't just launch a competitive marketplace which could compete alongside Apple's app store, nor can you launch an alternative operating system. You have to launch a whole new smartphone stack complete with operating system, app distribution and app ecosystem.by ulrikrasmussen
1/29/2026 at 3:31:29 PM
Or not use apple.by Ylpertnodi
1/30/2026 at 7:24:31 AM
I also don't use Apple, and I try to avoid the only other alternative by using GrapheneOS instead of an official Android build.But at some point everything is going to be so closely tied to Google as well that that way of living is also going to become too painful, and at that point "or not use Apple or Google" is a bit like saying "or not use the roads".
by ulrikrasmussen
1/29/2026 at 3:47:20 PM
This. Doing business with almost any major company is unethical, but Apple sits near the top of the big tech companies people shouldn't do business with. They are not a force for good in the world.by observationist
1/29/2026 at 2:34:57 PM
Indeed, that's why the former blocks the latter: not to lose margins to those opportunitiesby eviks
1/31/2026 at 7:53:37 AM
Are those number App Store revenue or services revenue ? Because both seems to be inaccurate.by ksec
1/29/2026 at 3:39:35 PM
They could lower the rates even more and still afford the government bribes and solid gold tchotchkes, but the whole point of the bribes is to not do that.by ghtbircshotbe
1/29/2026 at 6:34:45 PM
Well said. Glad to see this at the top. Google also takes 30%. And I think steam too. This is 100% a regulatory issue.by jama211
1/29/2026 at 6:44:23 PM
But competitors to Steam exist: Epic Games Store only takes a 12% cut. Publishers have an option to use other distributors but choose not to.by Manuel_D
1/30/2026 at 6:39:47 PM
Sure, and you can buy an android phone and use the play store instead and still get charged 30%. Or you could sideload, but let’s be real 99.9% of users aren’t gonna do that, and similarly most gamers are gonna buy everything on steam.The exceptions here prove the rule I’m afraid, if anything.
by jama211
1/29/2026 at 8:25:40 PM
> Publishers have an option to use other distributors but choose not toThey can choose to sell in the store where all users are, or in the store nobody goes.
by eloisant
1/29/2026 at 8:41:04 PM
Correct, but that means that publishers are choosing to distribute via Steam, despite the existence of other options, because Steam's superior features, user base, etc. justify paying that premium. They could distribute on Epic games, or even self-distribute like how Blizzard does, but they choose Steam.It's not analogous to iOS that has no other options for distribution.
by Manuel_D
1/29/2026 at 4:15:00 PM
Those margins are pretty normal in software, especially a mature product like that.by dmix
1/29/2026 at 10:35:07 AM
But people still use/buy it so why would they cut the cost?by wosined
1/29/2026 at 10:48:11 AM
There is no ideological argument for voluntary action here. The entire goal is to force regulators to step in. The debate over 'good vs. bad companies' is just online noise and rhetorical trik, no one on either side of the political spectrum wants these systems to be fixed voluntarily with corporate altruism.by nabla9
1/30/2026 at 6:41:22 PM
Well said.by jama211
1/29/2026 at 11:01:34 AM
But what are they even doing for regulators to have to step in? Making profits from someone selling their product in your market seems pretty valid to me. Are you saying this is anticompetitive to other possible app store storefronts like Google Play or something?by NewsaHackO
1/29/2026 at 3:26:06 PM
Just to ground the discussion in Apple's criminal behavior a bit, here's some excerpts from a 2025 ruling about Apple's behavior in this regard:> Apple’s response to the Injunction strains credulity. After two sets of evidentiary hearings, the truth emerged. Apple, despite knowing its obligations thereunder, thwarted the Injunction’s goals, and continued its anticompetitive conduct solely to maintain its revenue stream. Remarkably, Apple believed that this Court would not see through its obvious cover-up (the 2024 evidentiary hearing). To unveil Apple’s actual decision-making process, not the one tailor-made for litigation, the Court ordered production of real-time documents and ultimately held a second set of hearings in 2025.
> To summarize: One, after trial, the Court found that Apple’s 30 percent commission “allowed it to reap supracompetitive operating margins” and was not tied to the value of its intellectual property, and thus, was anticompetitive. Apple’s response: charge a 27 percent commission (again tied to nothing) on off-app purchases, where it had previously charged nothing,and extend the commission for a period of seven days after the consumer linked-out of the app. Apple’s goal: maintain its anticompetitive revenue stream. Two, the Court had prohibited Apple from denying developers the ability to communicate with, and direct consumers to, other purchasing mechanisms. Apple’s response: impose new barriers and new requirements to increase friction and increase breakage rates with full page “scare” screens, static URLs, and generic statements. Apple’s goal: to dissuade customer usage of alternative purchase opportunities and maintain its anticompetitive revenue stream. In the end, Apple sought to maintain a revenue stream worth billions in direct defiance of this Court’s Injunction.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.36...
by rpdillon
1/29/2026 at 7:27:46 PM
So, I wanted to avoid referring to this case because it undermines any discussion, but if you want to include it, the judge ruled in favor of Apple for nine out of ten claims made by Epic, including 1) Apple's 30% commission is not anticompetitive behavior, and 2) Apple has the right to not allow third-party apps on their platform. Apple, being Apple, attempted to subvert the part about allowing links to other storefronts by adding a 27% commission aas well as a scare page, which is what they are currently in hot water for. However, the overall decision was solidly in Apple's favor regarding the App Store's 30% commission and practices.> One, after trial, the Court found that Apple’s 30 percent commission “allowed it to reap supracompetitive operating margins” and was not tied to the value of its intellectual property, and thus, was anticompetitive.
Epic is twisting other people's words here. Notice how they quote “allowed it to reap supracompetitive operating margins” but not the point about it being anticompetitive. It's because the decision never said that.
by NewsaHackO
1/30/2026 at 6:42:01 PM
If you’re gonna cherry pick from that case, I’m not sure it’s going to go in your favour, as others have demonstrated.by jama211
1/29/2026 at 12:26:33 PM
They are not allowing other marketplaces, or creators themselves, to run apps on Apple devices directly.by gabaix
1/29/2026 at 1:48:26 PM
Why should they have to allow third parties to run apps on their platform? The fact that it is a clear security risk already gives them justification, but even looking past that, Apple is not the only platform that bars users from running third-party software or marketplaces on their products. For example, playstation, xbox, and switch all disallow running unauthorized games on their platforms. What makes Apple different?by NewsaHackO
1/29/2026 at 12:36:04 PM
No. This is a result of a market failure caused by monopoly power. Regulators must make sure market capitalism works.I'm not sure what is the basis for your question but using market definition where Google Play and Apple Store are in the same market is not correct (market definition is essential part of any monopoly regulation).
Markets are defined by choice of practice, not by choice in principle.
by nabla9
1/29/2026 at 1:26:21 PM
My question is: what is the basis for asserting that this market failure is due to monopoly power? Is your argument that their excessive profits from the services provided result from anti-competitive behavior? If so, what specific anti-competitive behavior are you referring to?by NewsaHackO
1/29/2026 at 3:14:21 PM
The specific cited anti-competitive behaviors (from DOJ and EU Commission is) are related to violating anti-steering provisions (companies forbidden for directing towards other payments methods), tying and bundling (in-app purchase requirements), self-preferencing (obvious), "tap-to-pay" monopoly, and blocking third party app-stores.by nabla9
1/29/2026 at 10:44:40 AM
and that exactly what monopoly allows you to do.by vincnetas
1/29/2026 at 1:26:13 PM
This is all money that is reducing expenditure elsewhere. I get it: capitalism and economics. Yet I still think humanity could do better and I think capitalism itself suffers. Economics theory is broken if it thinks this is good for society in general.by absynth
1/29/2026 at 1:24:42 PM
But those profits made possible by actually having other infrastructure parts existing(OS, hardware, marketing, etc).by u8080
1/29/2026 at 8:30:36 PM
The $160 billion of cash Apple is sitting on doesn't contribute to any infrastructure.by eloisant
1/29/2026 at 9:28:37 PM
I think what confuses me is that Apple is taking so much profit that it reduces their profits.It's a classic direct-indirect management problem. Think about Android for a second. It costs nothing to put an app on their app store. People can make apps for themselves and then just publish because either "why not" or it's an easy way to distribute to friends and family. So basically it is making app creation easy. Meanwhile Apple charges you $100/yr to even put something up on the store, makes it hard to sideload, and consequently people charge for apps, which Apple rejoices as they get a 30% cut (already double dipping: profiting from devs, profiting from the devs' customers).
BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SMARTPHONES
A smartphone is useless without apps! People frustrated they can't find the apps they want on iPhone? They switch to Android. People on Android want to get away from Google but they can't do half the shit they want to on iPhones (and the other half costs $0.99/mo)? They bite their tongue or rage quit to Graphene.
The only reason this "fuck over the user" strategy works is because there's an effective monopoly.
All of this is incredibly idiotic as the point of a smartphone is that it is a computer that also makes phone calls. We have made a grave mistake in thinking they are anything but general purpose computers. All our conversations around them seem really silly or down right idiotic when you recognize they are general purpose computers. And surprise surprise, the result is that seeing how profitable and abusive the smartphone market can be leads to a pretty obvious result: turn your laptops and desktops into smartphone like devices. Where everything must be done through the app stores, where they lock you out of basic functionalities, where they turn the general purpose computer into a locked down for-their-purposes computer.
The thing that made the smartphone and the computer so great was the ability to write programs. The ability to do with it as you want. It's because you can't build a product for everyone. But the computer? It's an environment. You can make an environment that anyone can turn into the thing they want and they need. THAT is the magic of computers. So why are we trying to kill that magic?
It doesn't matter that 90% of people don't use it that way, and all those arguments are idiotic. Like with everything else, it is a small minority of people that move things forward. A small percentage of players account for the majority of microtransactions in videogames. A small percentage of fans buy the majority of merchandise from their favorite musicians. And in just the same way, it is a small number of computer users (i.e. "powerusers") that drive most of the innovation, find most of the bugs, and do most of the things. I mean come on, how long did it take Apple and Google to put a fucking flashlight into the OS? It was the most popular apps on both their stores for a long time before it got built in. Do you really think they're going to be able to do all the things?
by godelski
1/29/2026 at 3:03:02 PM
Advocating for regulators to step in is already a value judgement. Why is "high profitability" a cause for regulatory scrutiny? The optimal behaviour in any ecosystem (corporate or natural) is to defend as much territory as is within your power, not to keep only to what covers your "needs". Why have you deemed this behaviour, which is emergent anywhere competition between organisms exists, as in need of regulation?Apple is succeeding largely on merit, within the bounds of civilized, peaceful competition. Shouldn't we all just be grateful for the contributions they have made to our civilization?
by thegrimmest
1/29/2026 at 2:41:44 PM
> force regulators to step in> force
> regulators
That's my whole problem, personally.
What we need much, much less of in this world is government force, especially during these trying times of government force and outreach (something I expected my more left side of the isle colleagues to have finally realized by now).
COIVD really was a test of how much governmental draconianism we would take, and we failed spectacularly, and not only that, but are demanding more government.
So no, we don't need more regulation, especially given this country's history of regulatory capture. We need new solutions.
by dimitrios1
1/29/2026 at 2:59:16 PM
We don't need "more" government, we need the government to do its job. We need the regulators who have been legally appointed to oversee these areas to actually respond to these behaviors. Regulatory capture is the issue, but the solution isn't less government. It's getting corporate money and lobbying out of the government (Citizens United is to blame for most of our woes), increase the enforcement of anti-corruption laws, and get antitrust back on the table.I want big corporations to be scared. I want them to fear for their own survival, and to tread lightly lest the sword of damocles fall upon them.
by Atreiden