zlacker

>>zdw+(OP)
That's too much margin. They're trading net profits for user happiness and it's hurting their brand more than they understand. The app store cartel must fall.

>>marcus+h2
imo the app store thing is very niche and only affects a small, vocal group that tends to sit on hacker news and pay attention to these things. Can almost guarantee that 95% of the iphone-having population does not know/care about the app store "issue." I do think the general decline in quality and uptick in bugs will bite them slowly, at least once there's an iphone competitor of note.

>>irl_ze+03
It affects everyone, because the aggressive revenue cut prevents entire categories of apps and services from being published to the app store. An app store with a 5-10% cut would be an app store with a much richer choice of apps.

>>marcus+S3
What are some examples of the categories of apps and services that aren't publishable on the App Store due to Apple's services revenue?

> An app store with a 5-10% cut would be an app store with a much richer choice of apps.

Why? And how are you defining "rich". Rich in quality? Quantity? Something else?

>>ericma+A4
> What are some examples of the categories of apps and services that aren't publishable on the App Store due to Apple's services revenue?

For example, Apple refuses to allow Peertube app onto the App Store. Peertube is a free version of Youtube with peer-to-peer file transfer acceleration.

That's because you can use it to (bring out smelling salts!) watch porn. If you connect it to a private Peertube instance.

Another example, Apple is not allowing an eBook reader app (FBReader) with full OPDS support. Because you can use OPDS to buy books in third-party stores. I'm using OPDS to get books from my own Calibre Web library, btw.

These are just the ones I can list off the top of my head. No doubt there are others.

>>cybera+j6
I'm not familiar with either of those apps, but it sounds to me like both break their terms of service. We can agree or disagree about those terms, but that seems to me to be the case here, versus Apple banning those apps due to services revenue.

>>ericma+7T1
Well, yes. That's the point. Apple's ToS are anti-competitive crap.