August 14th, 2024

Apple's Just Fines

Apple's Services revenue is growing but faces legal scrutiny over anti-competitive practices, particularly transaction fees. Companies like Patreon and Spotify oppose these fees, raising concerns about competition and innovation.

Read original articleLink Icon
Apple's Just Fines

Apple's recent activities have drawn scrutiny, particularly regarding its Services revenue and its relationships with companies like Google, Patreon, and Spotify. The company reported a significant increase in Services revenue, which is now a major part of its earnings. However, ongoing legal challenges, including a Google antitrust trial, may impact this revenue stream. Apple has been accused of anti-competitive behavior, particularly in its insistence on receiving a cut from transactions linked to its apps, even if those transactions occur outside the App Store. This has led to backlash from companies like Patreon, which now faces a 30% fee from Apple, and Spotify, which has been granted the ability to inform users about pricing outside the App Store but cannot link to external payment options. Critics argue that Apple's practices are akin to a "tax" on digital services, undermining competition and innovation. The European Union's regulatory actions against Apple have prompted the company to adjust its fee structures, but many believe these changes still favor Apple's financial interests. The situation raises questions about the balance of power in the digital marketplace and the implications for developers and consumers alike.

- Apple’s Services revenue is increasingly significant but faces legal challenges.

- The company is accused of anti-competitive practices, particularly regarding transaction fees.

- Companies like Patreon and Spotify are pushing back against Apple's fees.

- EU regulations are prompting Apple to adjust its fee structures, but concerns remain.

- Critics argue that Apple's practices stifle competition and innovation in the digital marketplace.

Link Icon 1 comments
By @Xen9 - 5 months
Ecommerce => the statement about iPhone adjacent revenue is probably false.

---

Apple does not exercise "tyranny."

The people would probably stop using iPhones if Apple was rotten. Consequently, the majority of those against Apple publicly are either regulators, Apple competitors or want more money from App Store to themselves and their point would not stand in a direct democracy. But even the most ugly attempt to twist the public opinion for private interest works if you have the resources.

I believe the right approach would be instead to encourage competition with Apple, to the point where Apple users start switching from Apple because of the higher IAP & subscription prices.

Seems awfully lot like Chicago / Austrian vs Kaynesian debate. Do you see any good reasons why, HOW, the Apple thing IS NOT the same as old econ school vs. another debate?

---

In real world, for some reason, one can find many examples of this behaviour that are legal. Look into Airlines for example.

Rent where lots of humans are is higher. Airports are like the locked ecosystem, bringing your own lunch is perhaps like jail-breaking the Airport.

Is not the iPhone essentially an airport? Digital area with lots of of traffic and want, but artificial limitations (and for safety reasons!)

A difference: airports are less easy to systematically attack globally

---

ALSO, I know many old software humans that advocate for the old "integrated" desktop model, PARC style. On HN, at least user kkfx has often written about this. Apple is not the same but it is the closest one, is it not?

---

Apple unlocks everything, but all (including non-Apple) software must be free software, would be a great legal compromise. Might as well ditch CR.