this post was submitted on 06 May 2025
1060 points (96.3% liked)
Technology
69804 readers
3606 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I bet most companies will just take that extra 30% as profit rather than giving it back to their users like proton has.
Yeah, even of the companies don’t pocket the difference, he’s an idiot to suggest that this will cut inflation.
This guy is just not very smart, I think.
So, I initially wanted to just kneejerk respond yes, it is absurd to suggest this ruling against Apple... would have any kind of generally noticable effect on inflation.
But I wanted to check the actual numbers.
Ok, so, total US consumer spending in 2024 is about $64 Trillion.
... The Apple App Store generated $105 Billion in revenue in 2024.
Ok, napkin math: 30% off of lets just say literally all App Store payments... , ok, we've cut costs by about $32 Billion... shave that off the $64 Trillion...
And voila!
A rough general price reduction of... 0.05%
Call a median US yearly income $60K, and they've saved $30 bucks. Maybe the cost of either one or two DoorDash meals, depending on where you live.... probably much closer to just one.
We're saved from inflation rofl!
Interesting that Andy Yen does not have a Wiki page. But Proton says "Previously, Andy was a research scientist at CERN and has a PhD in particle physics from Harvard University." so, I think he's very smart, he's just outside of his lane here.
I think he’s a salesperson trying to sell the idea that getting rid of the apple tax is good for consumers.
I mean that's not wrong. I had no idea Apple was double-dipping like this. I wonder if Google is doing the same thing...
Every store does this. Even Holy Valve
What? Since when does Valve prohibit companies from redirecting customers to non-Valve purchasing flows? Because that's what this ruling is about, it says Apple can't prohibit apps from telling users to go buy off-platform for lower prices. Valve isn't doing that with Steam afaik, actually I'm not aware of any other platform that does this
Valve will even allow developers to create their own Steam keys free of charge and sell them wherever they want with no commission whatsoever
That’s pretty open I’d say
Lol, as long as you properly plan in advance and coordinate such a thing, not the way that uh... Dead Matter tried to do it.
Dear god what a fustercluck.
Any of the video game console companies.
They literally do not lol
In game purchases in steam games don't have to pay Valve, nor does Valve prevent you from uploading your game to other stores, which is what this ruling was about.
Every company who takes a cut from in-app purchases, be it subscriptions or DLC, should be kneecapped by this ruling.
It's one thing for the hosting marketplace (App Store, Steam, Play Store, etc) to take a cut from the initial purchase of a game/app. But it's a whole other issue for that initial marketplace to keep reaching further into the dev's pockets and take a cut from in-app purchases unrelated to where it was originally obtained.
That just turns paid apps into splash screens for in-app purchases though. That way apple never gets a cut because the "purchase" is in-app. Pay to be listed (maybe tiered depending on downloads) seems fair especially because it doesn't incentivize people to do scammy things with pricing. It's already a fee anyway.
Welcome to Android lol
"This app is Free!"
*opens app*
"Psyche! Get your credit card out..."
I’m not entirely optimistic about this ruling, but we’ll see.
Apple had no reason NOT to give refunds and then use their weight to claw it back from the app developer.
But what happens when not-too-legit apps use non-AppStore external sites to unlock features in an app?
In a perfect world it’s cheap and easy and reliable.
But it can also be a scammy shop that lures you into expensive subscriptions with no easy way to cancel them (eg. gym membership) and what happens when Little Timmy spends $9000 for Nlartbux in a mobile game’s external store?
Could go either way 🤷🏻♂️
Greed.
I suppose we will see what happens. That's a very slippery slope though, full of FUD, and is the same logic that Apple, Microsoft, and others try to use to keep users locked into their walled gardens.
Could be. Multiple alternative markets exist for Android already though, and some shops are scammy as fuck. Google has already put protections in place to prevent sideloading potentially harmful apps (including alternative markets), but the savvy user who knows how to bypass those restrictions should* know how to spot scammy shit.
"For your security" was never about security.
That's why you don't put your credit card info in a phone or tablet and let kids play with it.
And still people do it, they even give their own devices to kids with CC info pre-filled and no safeties on purchases.
Imagine how bad it is when the next fake ad game gets Timmy to subscribe to a $99/day gem pack…
That's a failure of the parent. My 5 year old likes to do the "color by number" things on my phone (waiting at dr appts and whatnot), and even she understands not to click on the ads, or to at least hand it back to me if one comes up.
Here comes the Steam defenders.
I have many issues with the gamer deference to the steam monopoly... But they don't partake in this particular abuse: taking a cut from the dev for all in game purchases. They only take a (sizeable) cut for the initial game purchase.
What do you mean "double dipping"? I don't own any Apple products. I purchased through Proton's website.
If someone purchases a Proton plan through their iOS app, Apple got a 30% cut of that. Which is stupid. Because Proton (and every other company with an iOS app) already pays Apple to simply have their app on Apple's app store.
That explains my experience. I just brought proton vpn for the easiest travel solution for me, and when I was shopping around I thought I was losing my mind. Checked the price online and it was one price and then checked from the Apple app for convenience and it was higher. I was confused, but just bought it online and used it on the app after (along with other devices).
Uhhh I mean they pay a $100/year developer fee, which probably doesn't even cover the infrastructure costs. Is that what you're referring to?
I'm not arguing against you, Apple should consider those costs as a service to their (overpaying) customers. I'm just not sure what other costs you're referring to.
Yes (I thought it was more, but w/e). I'll admit, I don't know a whole lot about development and everything that it entails, but nuance is key here. Say what you will about Proton, but this ruling just set a precedent that a company hosting an app/game download cannot take a cut from purchases completed within said app/game. That affects everyone.
I'm just looking at this from a bigger picture perspective. Apple has more than enough money already, and frankly there are far too many companies like this who need to be cut back down.
Yeah, a fraction of a cent per customer is double dipping. w/e
Precedent is precedent, and now smaller independent devs can use this ruling to their favor.
This won't help small devs. Here's why:
You have zero market. Pay to make your own payment portal, processing, etc etc. With what? Venture funding? Personal investment? Offload to square or PayPal and they take a cut instead?
Apple charges 15% (not 30% for under 2 mil) of each $1. Making 85c per transaction with no upfront costs seems reasonable.
Or he's just shitting on other companies who he knows are too greedy to do the same. Proton is getting positive press for this and he's leaning into it with a bit of hyperbole
Not saying he's a genius or anything, he's just a spokesperson doing spokesperson things
How many years until prices go up? I bet they marked down 1-2 years where they realize they can’t up the prices. But after, it will creep up.
In a decade it'll probably be the same price it was last year.
Yeah, Proton is bucking the obvious trend, with this one. Most companies will totally take the profits rather than lowering prices.
I highly doubt Apple App Store revenues are a significant portion of the CPI.
I mean, let's not kid ourselves that it has no effect, but it's not even in the basket
Companies that were app-first like mobile games probably won't cut prices much if any. Companies that were web-first like Proton and Patreon probably will.
Yep, product prices are not based on costs but rather just the absolute maximum of what consumers are willing to pay.
Proton just seems to be an exception.
In a sufficiently competitive market, the maximum is related to costs.
Proton is trying to get cheap marketing.
It's not. It's just related to the competition AKA what people are willing to pay.
With enough competition, someone is going to compete on price to attract customers. They obviously can't sell for less than their costs (again, sufficiently competitive so you don't get monopolies starving their competition), so that's the floor for what they can sustainably charge.
It doesn't matter what the service is, if there are enough viable alternatives, at least one of them will go for the value play. Customers aren't willing to pay more than they have to, so they'll be attracted to lower cost options.
What I'm saying is that competition is included in "what people are willing to pay". Cost of production is not.
Sure. But if people aren't willing to pay more than the cost of production, games wouldn't be made. The cost of production is the floor, and the cost people are willing to pay is the ceiling, and competition finds a line somewhere in the middle. The more competition, the closer it is to the cost of production.
Then that unmade game wouldn't be relevant to this discussion.
Again, no it doesn't. "What people are willing to pay" includes the competition. If one company undercuts another with a comparable product, consumers won't pay for the more expensive one.
People would be willing to pay more if there wasn't as much competition. People obviously want to pay less, and companies obviously want to charge more, so the real variable here is how competitive the market is. And the more competitive the market, the closer to production costs companies are able to pay.
The variable here isn't how much people are willing to pay, that's elastic and depends on competition. The real variable is competitiveness in the market, since that is what drives prices closer to production costs.
I don't know how many different ways I can say the same thing and help you understand. It's a trivial semantic argument anyway. Have a nice day.
We've certainly gone in circles. Hope your day is excellent as well.
i'm scared how many ceos don't understand that rapid fall of inflation or zero inflation is bad because it means your economy is stagnant.
That is a very broad generalization. First of all inflation is not just some co-product of economic activity. It has specific reasons. An economy is not stagnant because the oil price sinks after geopolitical tensions ease. An economy is not stagnant because businesses are kept from price gouging in cartels or monopoly situations.
Also "stagnant" is not inherently bad. The reason why we need economic growth is because the super rich are siphoning off more and more wealth, so economic growth is the only thing keeping poor people from revolting. A zero growth or even degrowth economy could serve the people very well, if wealth wouldn't be hoarded away by select few.