Back in the days when App Stores hadn't launched Android and iOS did not exist, apps for platforms like Palm, Pocket PC, Symbian, Blackberry etc worked like how Windows software still works today - you bought them directly from the developer's website. Stores like Handdango and Pocketgear were multi platform app stores who were taking 30% cut. I remember even back then there were voices being raised against those fees. But back then, those were not the only ways one could distribute their apps. None of the smartphone platforms back then mandated developers to distribute their apps only through their store. Even when Android launched, it was open and these stores carried Android apps as well. Apple launched the app store and changed everything in the name of security and user experience. It was just a shameless money grab by a giant corporation.
Microsoft got all the flack just for bundling a browser for free with OS while Google and Apple have been arm twisting developers into paying 30% of their revenue for years.
When I see a independent developer complaining about Apple (or Google) being arbitrary in their app review process, I can at least understand how it's some low-paid employee trying to fulfill a daily quota. It still sucks, but I see the economic rationale of low-paid, low-skilled app reviewers there.
But it really surprises me that when it comes to apps from well-known tech companies like Coinbase, that Apple isn't doing a higher-quality review by people who actually know what they're doing and understand the industry. That there isn't a knowledgeable team inside of Apple making sure that corporate partners are treated like partners rather than niche indie developers.
I'm not saying a two-tier system would be more fair, because obviously it wouldn't be. I'm just saying it surprises me that a company like Apple shoots itself in the foot like this with bad decisions that then lead to bad press. It's such an own-goal. (Because in this case, the 30% cut doesn't even make sense conceptually, it's like trying to tax Amazon 30% on physical goods sold through its app.)
Our companies shared an investor, and our app was the first to implement Coinbase's API. Between that and SF Bitcoin meetups, I interacted with Brian regularly enough and the App Store was a common topic because in that first year of funding for crypto, the goal was generally find a way to breaking Bitcoin mainstream. (It seemed like it might happen soon, but was in fact still quite early.)
After some press, Apple took our app down. I blogged about it [0], (I believe the first survey of App Store policy toward bitcoin) and that got picked up by Tech Crunch. [1]
I remember speaking with Brian about it on the phone. Apple's objection was on legality of sending Bitcoin in the regions our app was available, so I suggested we could file a legal brief as part of our appeal.
Brian's response was they had already tried that and that Apple was unswayed by their brief. There wasn't much we could really do other than commiserate on being under the thumb of the App Store.
Those were some heady, yet comparatively innocent days in crypto compared to now.
[0] https://blog.gli.ph/2013/12/09/the-state-of-bitcoin-mobile-a...
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2013/12/09/how-does-apple-really-feel...
The GAS is legally a separate entity from the game companies (although controlled by them), and it sets a varying fee for its delivery network. Maybe the fee is quite high, and unlocking a $6 game feature actually consists of $5.50 fees paid to the GAS and $0.50 paid to the game developer.
Would Apple say: “Sure, this delivery fee you’re paying to GAS is something completely separate from the in-app purchase. We’ll just take our cut only from the $0.50 and let you pass all of the $5.50 through to this GAS corporation that you partially own.”
Of course not, because that structure would be such a transparent attempt by the game developers to evade Apple’s fee.
The situation in crypto isn’t all that different. These gas fees are ultimately paid to Ethereum stakeholders, and Coinbase happens to be a big one.
This time, I'm sure anyone still excited about web3 will side against Apple. It's going to take a coalition of companies with enough goodwill amongst enough people to break the general conception that Apple is, overall, working more in the interests of the consumer than other businesses.
For people happy with the current state of affairs: nobody will be forcing you to install third party stores or sideload apps.
Will Apple demand 30% of bank transfers made with a bank app? 30% of a firstborn if the hookup happened on Tinder?
The "right" way to fix this is:
1. Apple allows users to download/install software that is not on the app store. If a user owns the device they should be able to do what they want with it, even if it's "risky" or whatever. But this means those users that feel the most comfortable continuing to only use apple-approved apps in the app store can continue to do so.
2. Software downloaded from the app store, using apple servers and services, must give Apple the cut (30%) they ask for. If the app doesn't use apple's infrastructure or payment system, apple shouldn't have any right to a cut of the payment.
Apple has billions of dollars of revenue at stake here, so of course they're going to fight it as long as they can.
Doesn't matter that it's gas. It's a purchase the user is trying to make. The rules apply.
Coinbase may think it's unfair, but that's what they agreed to when they put the app in the App Store. Apple can continue to enforce this rule as long as they're legally allowed to, which doesn't seem to be changing anytime soon.
No sympathy for Coinbase here. They chose to whine in public when they could just sue Apple like a grown up.
I think both Red and Blue can agree they need to be reigned in and split up.
This is not the time to be strengthening the rules. You've got the Digital Markets Act already entering force in Europe which is going to most likely break App Store dominance over there in just a year or two. The US has senators eyeing the Open App Markets Act again after Elon's threat (and if it doesn't pass now, when senators see an open Europe and a closed US, what about then?). You've got antitrust investigations opened in the UK. This is time to be giving concessions hoping to keep power - not doubling down!
Edit: If Apple's claims about it being "privacy and security" are true, here's how to keep power. Drop the 30% cut, make a $25-$50 fee every time a new version comes out for a quality app review from a 3rd party independent board, drop some of the more onerous restrictions, and maybe then regulators would be willing to allow the App Store to remain. Instead...
This is what happens when customers and companies gleefully buy into the idea of a walled garden.
Because I can bet anything that there are iPhones and Macs on every desk at Coinbase.
I'm popping champagne on that day.
Wow, so decentralized. /s
The China riot iOS censor-update, this, the Twitter app threats. And all in a about a weeks worth of time.
Wtf guys. Seriously.
In this society, big companies usually get all the breaks and the little guys get nothing, so it's nice to see the big guys forced to brawl.
Governments, for example, folded many years ago and stopped taxing big companies 30% and instead give them money. Apple isn't as easily bribed as politicians.
(I only care because I pay my kids' allowance in crypto, and they manage it with Coinbase Wallet on their iPads. This is what I have been doing with all that promotional XLM I got for free from Keybase before they got resorbed into Zoom.)
IANAL or even novice on antitrust issues but seems Apple would just find another way to make up the slack if App Store (iOS/Android/other) fees were regulated.
As a good friend of mine likes to say about DNC vs GOP, it's "steak or fish" with Android and iOS (you can choose which is which). They take up too much space for anyone else to fundamentally reimagine and reintroduce an app ecosystem (no disrespect to PWAs and the like). I feel regulation would ultimately hurt developers and consumers more, at least in the medium to long-term, but I'm open to forming a new opinion.
Yet when Xerox and IBM were monopolies they were at their most innovative. Xerox had PARC. AT&T had Bell Labs. IBM had --- well I'm not sure but their mainframe architecture and OS was very innovative in its day.
Now that those companies are just one of dozens that do what they do, you can't name anything groundbreaking that they are producing.
Could one not prove that NFTs have value outside of Coinbase? Oh wait I see the problem.
It is going to take more than just Epic, to get rid of the 30% cut in fees.
What is the point of a Coinbase wallet at this point in any case? Free tracking by coinbase, apple, the NSA etc etc?
If you consider the reason why Bitcoin, ETH etc were invented in the first place, this is beyond ridiculous, absurd and a travesty
This is akin to apple demanding 30% of the funds of every wire transfer initiated within its App Store app for your bank.
What are these app stores giving us?
Or are they going to start blocking web sites next, and have a permissioned web
... with batteries... and most likely a samsung logo.
;)
Personal opinion: That’s even more ridiculous. Coinbase has no access to or control over gas fees.
So the people that can make the company more successful are sales and marketing people, and they end up running the companies. And the product people get driven out of the decision making forums, and the companies forget what it means to make great products. The product sensibility and the product genius that brought them to that monopolistic position gets rotted out by people running these companies that have no conception of a good product versus a bad product."
-Steve Jobs