Neither is electricity, but that’s widely considered an essential utility.
Literally the entire point here is to make smartphones more consumer-friendly. You seem to think that declaring them essential will have the opposite effect, which… weird.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Minnesota and Arizona Bills Aim to Let Developers Skirt Apple's In-App Purchase Rules
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
are you saying that sending messages and viewing photos are as essential as electricity that gives you heat in the winter, lets you cook food AND CHARGE THAT SMARTPHONE?
I don’t know about your smartphone, but mine does more than that. Call emergency numbers, for example.
That’s a weird argument. You could take it further to “are you saying electricity is as essential as coal, water and wind, which create the electricity in the first place”?
Phones requiring electricity has no bearing on whether they are essential.
You don’t need electricity to make a fire either, yet here we are universally agreeing that maybe everyone should have it.
No one is asking about the ability to get manufacturer warranty repairs on third party parts.
The question is whether you think the manufacturer should be able lock down the hardware and software so that third party parts, or even third party repairs with OEM parts, are the only option. Because, you know, you chose that manufacturer.
- Water is an essential service
- Electricity is an essential service
- Internet is fast being considered as an essential service (already is in some places)
Electricity is far more than just a fire alternative and you damn well know that.
Again, nothing you have stated is limited to smartphones. Are you saying flip phones CANNOT call emergency services? Because they can.
OK, so you two think smartphones aren’t essential, and Apple and Google shouldn’t be held to special scrutiny. Whatever.
They aren’t. They are convenience devices. The fact that you can get email on a computer, log in to Facebook (which I don’t consider this essential, several of my family is not on Facebook), view/print docs/photos and more means an iPhone is not essential by definition. Again any cell phone is - a jitterbug flip phone
Change my mind. What essential service does a smartphone do that a regular phone cannot ?
Legendary tweets by certified apple fanboy & one of the app store's most successful developers (@nikitabier) who's App tbh sold to FB within 73 days of launch.
Im ashamed to admit I used to be one of those people in his first tweet. I fully support the bill to enable developers to use whatever payment gateway they want - I explain my reasoning below.
Apple's enforcement of In-app purchase is purely arbitrary, its easy money. The Apps in the App Store have infinitely many business models, advertising is one of the biggest. Apple tried to sell their own ad products (iAds) under Steve jobs which flopped because it turns out you need good data for ads to work so developers never adopted it in their apps. So now plan B is to force the entire app economy under In-App purchase paywall so they can get 30% while kneecapping advertising companies under the banner of privacy (Excellent move which I mostly support but not blindly. I love my privacy but also see clear as day that its a business move since iPhone sales are stalling. They need growth elsewhere).
Facebook and Google are some of the biggest advertising companies. Billions of FB & Google ads (Which are digital goods) are bought through iPhones yet no enforcement of In-App Purchase here why? Its way too complex a transaction for Apple to handle. In fact Apple says, YOU CANNOT USE OUR PAYMENT SYSTEM FOR THIS, USE YOUR OWN. Its not as simple as buy and unlock in a game, there's performance involved and internal metrics that apple wants no part of, so all of advertising related transactions get a pass (Turns out privacy & trust are not an issue here).
Then there are businesses selling physical goods and services like Uber, Airbnb, Amazon, Etsy you name it. Again, super complex transactions involving fulfilment of physical goods and services, Apple wants no part of this, it involves work and knowing the inner working of each company's relationship with its customers. Once again. YOU CANNOT USE OUR PAYMENT SYSTEM FOR THIS, USE YOUR OWN.
Which leaves us with the Cute Transactions (Digital goods that are not Ads). $0.99 for a new fortnite skin, $1.99 to unlock a level in a game. $9.99 subscription e.t.c. They involve knowing nothing about your business or customer, they involve almost zero customer service on the backend, and that's where Apple enforces use of its In-App Purchase under the Banner of Privacy and Trust! (Reality: It was the easiest business model to get away with) 👈 This is where Apple screwed themselves. Either you have a universal payment gateway for everything on the App Store with no exceptions or everyone gets a choice. After all, developers host their own databases, servers and other tools (No talk of privacy and trust here) but Payments (Which is literally just another piece of software like a database or server), that's where we are supposed to get all holy about privacy and consumer trust? Refer to the first tweet please (That used to be me, I was a fanboy). Fun Fact - When we say "Use our own payment system" we dont mean developers are building it themselves (NO), this a god level undertaking. We mean using a third party like Stripe which 80% of the internet uses including Apple Pay, Shopify. Well known payment providers whom trust me, You have 100% used in your online transactions whether on iPhone or web (You have spent MORE on them than Apples In-App purchase).
My opinion on In-App purchase. For small-time developers earning couple hundred thousand to tens of millions, its an excellent payment system. Even if the law passes, developers are not gonna abandon it. Its trusted, you don't have to do any work in creating trust so people can input their credit card, handle expired cards, refunds, e.t.c. This alone is SUPER VALUABLE. Well worth 30% for most if you ask me. I would bet 98% of developers would stick with it. Its not worth leaving (I wouldn't).
BUT - It still has to be a choice. You CANNOT build a venture scale business on top of In-App purchase, you just can't. Airbnb, Uber, Etsy, Amazon, Netflix, Spotify, Robinhood, Banking are NOT POSSIBLE with this payment system. Those businesses aren't just transactional businesses, they are trusted marketplaces, they build user experiences and personal relationships with their customers and frictionless payment flows that ARE NOT POSSIBLE with apple's one-size fits all In-App Purchase. In enforcing In-App purchases, Apple is saying, only they can build for trust, no one else. If you have transacted with Uber, Airbnb, Etsy, Amazon, Spotify or Netflix, Stock apps (None of them use In-App purchase and Apple won't let them even if they wanted) on your iPhone and you defend apple on this - Refer to Nikita's first tweet please (That used to be me, I was a fanboy).
For those who claim, It's Apple's store, developers are freeloaders - Check your Screentime and tell me how many of Apple's apps dominate your top 10-20? You didn't buy that phone to use iMessage & Safari guaranteed!
Thank you.
Im ashamed to admit I used to be one of those people in his first tweet. I fully support the bill to enable developers to use whatever payment gateway they want - I explain my reasoning below.
Apple's enforcement of In-app purchase is purely arbitrary, its easy money. The Apps in the App Store have infinitely many business models, advertising is one of the biggest. Apple tried to sell their own ad products (iAds) under Steve jobs which flopped because it turns out you need good data for ads to work so developers never adopted it in their apps. So now plan B is to force the entire app economy under In-App purchase paywall so they can get 30% while kneecapping advertising companies under the banner of privacy (Excellent move which I mostly support but not blindly. I love my privacy but also see clear as day that its a business move since iPhone sales are stalling. They need growth elsewhere).
Facebook and Google are some of the biggest advertising companies. Billions of FB & Google ads (Which are digital goods) are bought through iPhones yet no enforcement of In-App Purchase here why? Its way too complex a transaction for Apple to handle. In fact Apple says, YOU CANNOT USE OUR PAYMENT SYSTEM FOR THIS, USE YOUR OWN. Its not as simple as buy and unlock in a game, there's performance involved and internal metrics that apple wants no part of, so all of advertising related transactions get a pass (Turns out privacy & trust are not an issue here).
Then there are businesses selling physical goods and services like Uber, Airbnb, Amazon, Etsy you name it. Again, super complex transactions involving fulfilment of physical goods and services, Apple wants no part of this, it involves work and knowing the inner working of each company's relationship with its customers. Once again. YOU CANNOT USE OUR PAYMENT SYSTEM FOR THIS, USE YOUR OWN.
Which leaves us with the Cute Transactions (Digital goods that are not Ads). $0.99 for a new fortnite skin, $1.99 to unlock a level in a game. $9.99 subscription e.t.c. They involve knowing nothing about your business or customer, they involve almost zero customer service on the backend, and that's where Apple enforces use of its In-App Purchase under the Banner of Privacy and Trust! (Reality: It was the easiest business model to get away with) 👈 This is where Apple screwed themselves. Either you have a universal payment gateway for everything on the App Store with no exceptions or everyone gets a choice. After all, developers host their own databases, servers and other tools (No talk of privacy and trust here) but Payments (Which is literally just another piece of software like a database or server), that's where we are supposed to get all holy about privacy and consumer trust? Refer to the first tweet please (That used to be me, I was a fanboy). Fun Fact - When we say "Use our own payment system" we dont mean developers are building it themselves (NO), this a god level undertaking. We mean using a third party like Stripe which 80% of the internet uses including Apple Pay, Shopify. Well known payment providers whom trust me, You have 100% used in your online transactions whether on iPhone or web (You have spent MORE on them than Apples In-App purchase).
My opinion on In-App purchase. For small-time developers earning couple hundred thousand to tens of millions, its an excellent payment system. Even if the law passes, developers are not gonna abandon it. Its trusted, you don't have to do any work in creating trust so people can input their credit card, handle expired cards, refunds, e.t.c. This alone is SUPER VALUABLE. Well worth 30% for most if you ask me. I would bet 98% of developers would stick with it. Its not worth leaving (I wouldn't).
BUT - It still has to be a choice. You CANNOT build a venture scale business on top of In-App purchase, you just can't. Airbnb, Uber, Etsy, Amazon, Netflix, Spotify, Robinhood, Banking are NOT POSSIBLE with this payment system. Those businesses aren't just transactional businesses, they are trusted marketplaces, they build user experiences and personal relationships with their customers and frictionless payment flows that ARE NOT POSSIBLE with apple's one-size fits all In-App Purchase. In enforcing In-App purchases, Apple is saying, only they can build for trust, no one else. If you have transacted with Uber, Airbnb, Etsy, Amazon, Spotify or Netflix, Stock apps (None of them use In-App purchase and Apple won't let them even if they wanted) on your iPhone and you defend apple on this - Refer to Nikita's first tweet please (That used to be me, I was a fanboy).
For those who claim, It's Apple's store, developers are freeloaders - Check your Screentime and tell me how many of Apple's apps dominate your top 10-20? You didn't buy that phone to use iMessage & Safari guaranteed!
Thank you.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think that the current manner in which the lawsuits are being advanced is disingenuous.
First, it’s being pushed by larger companies like Epic who demonstrated time and time again that they do not have the best interests of users or smaller developers at heart. They want to take Apple hardware and iOS hostage so that they can do whatever they want and not fall under Apple's control and enforcement.
Second, why, in an investigation that has potentially wide-ranging ramifications on the end users, are there only developers testifying and not consumers? Do we as the end users not get to have a say in how we like our ecosystems?
Anyways, we are likely looking at another multi-year court battle, and I continue to maintain that Apple has some pretty good ground to stand on when making its case as well.
For now, I don’t think Apple has anything to worry about.
I tend to agree, but… this thread isn't really about lawsuits, but about tangentially related legislation.
Yes.
Probably because users missed out on a chance to form an advocacy group. (Maybe the EFF?)
Well, it's possible that some of the recent changes (like the 15% small business option) appease legislators enough.
But I don't think the general antitrust question is off the table. Smartphones are only growing in importance in our lives, and being so reliant on a relatively small number of companies (FAANG, basically) isn't healthy.