Coming to Grips with Apple's Seemingly Unshakable Sense of Entitlement

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Apple’s new App Store rules — including a 27% commission on web purchases made within seven days of an in‑app link — are intensifying criticism that the company is abusing its control over iOS to extract rent from developers. Commenters contrast Apple’s model with platforms like Steam and Android, argue over whether iPhones should be treated as locked‑down “consoles” or general‑purpose computers, and debate if security and user safety truly justify banning sideloading and alternative app stores. Many predict growing regulatory and antitrust pressure, especially in light of the EU’s Digital Markets Act.

New App Store Rules & 7‑Day Web Commission

  • Core issue: Apple will charge ~27% on web purchases made within 7 days of a user tapping an in‑app link, even though payment happens off‑platform.
  • Critics call this an overreach into “external platforms” and analogous to taxing any commerce loosely connected to an iOS app.
  • Defenders note Apple only charges when the lead originates from the app; if users discover the product elsewhere, no cut is due.
  • Developers also must keep Apple IAP available, report detailed sales data monthly, and accept audits, which some see as invasive and chilling for small devs.

Is Apple’s Cut Justified?

  • Pro‑Apple side: Apple built the hardware, OS, APIs, store, and payment infrastructure; a 12–30% take is viewed as a fair “wholesale” margin for access to billions of customers.
  • Critics counter Apple already profits heavily via hardware, services, and dev fees, and that 27–30% is excessive versus payment processors (~5%).
  • Some argue Apple could defuse scrutiny by dropping the cut (e.g., to ~5–7%) but chooses not to, implying the motive is revenue, not security.

Monopoly, Competition, and Antitrust

  • Many see this as a monopoly/monopsony problem: iOS forbids alternative app stores and sideloading, so developers cannot choose another retailer.
  • Comparisons are drawn to past antitrust cases over bundling and to laws that distinguish “general‑purpose computing devices” from locked‑down consoles.
  • Others respond that current law has largely upheld Apple’s model, likening it to contract platforms that ban taking business “off‑platform.”

Security, Curation, and User Protection

  • Supporters emphasize that tightly controlled stores prevent malware, scammy subscriptions, and “enshittified” preinstalled software seen on many low‑end Windows PCs.
  • They argue many users actively want a locked‑down device and are “happy to pay a 30% tax” for safety and easy cancellations.
  • Skeptics note iOS still has low‑quality and deceptive apps; Android allows sideloading without widespread catastrophe; and OS‑level permissions could mitigate risk even with alternative stores.

Device Ownership & General‑Purpose Computing

  • One camp insists physical owners should be able to fully control devices (sideload apps, replace OS, bypass app‑store rules), likening this to right‑to‑repair and digital rights.
  • The opposing camp says most people do not want general‑purpose complexity; if you want that, buy a different platform (e.g., Android), and Apple shouldn’t be forced to serve both markets.
  • Some propose dual modes: a safe default mode plus an expert/developer mode for sideloading, though others worry this would create new exploit paths or be abused by large apps to bypass restrictions.

Comparisons to Other Platforms and Marketplaces

  • Thread cites consoles (Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo) that also take ~30% and ban sideloading; this is used both as a defense (“Apple is similar”) and as a critique (“consoles are appliances; phones are essential infrastructure”).
  • Steam is debated: it takes a cut on in‑store DLC but does not charge on external web sales; some view Apple’s 7‑day web commission as closer to a high‑fee affiliate program than to typical platform practice.
  • Marketplaces like Upwork, Uber, and Airbnb are invoked: they ban taking relationships off‑platform; Apple sees itself similarly, while critics say the analogy breaks because users can’t install a competing “store app” on iOS.

Ecosystem Impact and Sentiment

  • Several developers say the new rules feel more disturbing than the old outright ban, because they “contaminate” web pricing logic and deepen Apple’s reach into external commerce.
  • Some fear this will depress innovation on iOS, pushing serious or expensive software away from the platform.
  • Others predict regulatory pressure (e.g., in the EU) will eventually force sideloading or alternative stores, and expect little real-world harm from that change.