Apple vs. the "Free Market"

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Apple’s 30% Cut and Digital-Only Policy

  • Apple charges its commission on digital goods and in‑app payments, not on physical goods (e.g., Amazon, Temu, Uber rides).
  • Several commenters see this digital/physical distinction as arbitrary and driven by fear of backlash if Apple taxed all retail purchases.
  • Patreon is viewed as a gray area: mixes digital access, fan “clubs,” physical swag, and tips; unclear which parts Apple can legitimately classify as in‑app purchases.
  • The “every creator loses 30% of gross” claim is disputed:
    • Only iOS / iPadOS in‑app purchases are affected.
    • Creators can raise iOS prices so Apple’s fee is added on top rather than taken from the creator’s share.
    • It’s unclear how large the affected share of Patreon’s overall revenue is.

Monopoly Power, Lock‑In, and Regulation

  • Many call this “textbook monopoly abuse” and/or a form of “enshittification” based on Apple’s control of iOS app distribution.
  • Others argue Apple faces competition from Android and the web; users and developers “can just leave,” especially by using Patreon’s mobile website.
  • Counterargument: network effects, switching costs, and app-ecosystem lock‑in make “just leave” unrealistic; comparisons are made to Microsoft bundling IE.
  • Some advocate antitrust action, mandated alternative app stores, or even splitting Apple into devices, OS, and services/marketplace units.

Privacy, “Users as Product,” and Incentives

  • One view: Apple’s privacy moves mainly ensure that all access to iOS users goes through Apple as middleman; services, App Store and ad revenue are rising faster than hardware.
  • Others respond that Apple remains meaningfully different from ad‑driven companies; its business is not primarily selling user data, and privacy features still benefit customers even if profit‑motivated.
  • Debate over whether “users are the product” properly applies to Apple; some see the phrase as misused and overly reductionist.

Ownership, Openness, and Security

  • Critics: if users cannot install arbitrary software, unlock bootloaders, or choose app stores, they don’t truly own their devices; this enables censorship and political control.
  • Defenders: locked‑down phones protect non‑technical users from a hostile ecosystem; open sideloading would massively increase malware and fraud.
  • Counterexamples are raised (Android, Linux) to argue that open models with curated repositories can balance safety and freedom.

Native Apps vs Web / PWAs

  • Strong support from some for abandoning the App Store entirely for use‑cases like Patreon, which already has a capable mobile site.
  • Others say users expect native apps; complex web apps still feel worse on phones, and until recently iOS limited key web capabilities like push notifications.