Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Isn't that the whole point? They can only make that money because they build the phones to begin with. They also invested in building the entire platform, literally from scratch. Isn't this just a return on their investment? Aren't they perfectly entitled to it? Why can't phones be loss leaders into mobile app ecosystems, just like razors are loss leaders into razor blades?



> Aren't they perfectly entitled to it?

Up to a point, no. Common Carrier laws have been around for a long time and had demonstrable benefits. Net neutrality means phone companies can't use their infrastructure however they like. AT&T wanted to just sit on their patent for the transistor but was pushed by the government into to licensing it to Motorola, TI, etc. There's no reason why similar regulations couldn't be applied to mobile app platforms.


Common Carrier laws exist to ensure that infrastructure that occupies one physical location is shared. If AT&T had sat on the transistor patent, then Telefunken would have invented the transistron a whole two years later, and that's what we'd be calling the switches in our computers. Even failing that, delaying the information age by the expiry time of a patent doesn't seem like a big deal when you look at the big picture.


App developers shouldn't be beholden to using Apple's payment processing if they don't want to use it. Along that same line of logic, forcing developers to go through Apple for first-party distribution gives them a defacto monopoly over the iPhone. Apple could charge 85% overhead and there would be nothing developers could do about it.

The only fair resolution here is to force Apple to compete with other storefronts to prove that the value they provide is competitive. Apple could resolve this issue in a number of ways, but they've only chose to make the problem worse; that's why 34 states have come forward voicing their concern[0], and why EU regulators have been stepping in to block Apple's service expansions. They're the largest company in the world, and they deserve the most regulatory scrutiny for it; anything else is a failure of democracy and capitalism.

[0] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/1-dozens-u-states-apple-03470...


> monopoly over the iPhone > Apple could charge 85% overhead and there would be nothing developers could do about it.

That's exactly right! Then fewer and poorer apps would be built on iOS, and users would notice, and they would migrate to other platforms. This has happened plenty of times before. Yes, Apple has a monopoly over the iPhone - it's an Apple product. Just like Sony have a monopoly over the PS5, and Samsung has a monopoly over the WF45R6300AV Front Load Washing Machine.

The only fair resolution would be to allow Apple to do whatever it wants with Apple devices. If everyone at Apple collectively lost their minds tomorrow, they would have every right to pull all apps from the App Store completely. They could shut down the platform. It's literally theirs in every sense of the word. They built it. They own it. They operate it. Just because people are concerned doesn't make socializing iPhones or the App Store in any way reasonable.


> That's exactly right! Then fewer and poorer apps would be built on iOS, and users would notice, and they would migrate to other platforms.

You're admitting yourself that there's not much value provided by the appstore to developers and they only use it because they have not choice (and I do agree with that being a developer myself)

It's called market abuse. Other companies have been broken before for abuse, that won't be the first one.


Apple could decided third party apps aren't allowed and then developers make 0%. It's their platform to decided what to do with. If they think 15/30% works well, then so be it.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: