<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>djfdat</author><text>I would argue that, once the app is installed, the lead for the purchase is being generated by the app, not by Apple or the App Store, and therefore Apple should not be taking a commision for the lead. They could still charge a transaction fee if using Apple Pay. And if users were able to purchase things through the App Store (Apps or Items in the App), then I would consider those to be leads generated by Apple, and applicable to their commission terms.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s crazy to think that anything you do inside your app between you and your customer is subject to Apple forcefully inserting themselves into the relationship, and then demanding payment.&lt;p&gt;Apple&amp;#x27;s marketplace is inside the App Store, not inside the apps that are developed independent of them. You could argue that the apps are not developed independently, as they could (not by choice) use Apple&amp;#x27;s APIs, but I feel that that is what the $99&amp;#x2F;yr developer fee entitles the developer to use.&lt;p&gt;To the general problem; I really hope Apple stops being anti-consumer and anti-developer using these landlord tactics. The (second?) richest company in the world does not need to take these extra commissions. Without these developers, there would be no App Store, and it&amp;#x27;s in Apple&amp;#x27;s best interest for them to thrive. Apple is making the calculated decision of how much they can take off the top while still having developers make good products for their platform. Yes, their investors will not be happy that a source of income is being lost, but it&amp;#x27;s up to Apple to convince them that the good will from consumers and developers will provide more value through other means than that loss of income.</text><parent_chain><item><author>rmbyrro</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m in no way defending Apple&amp;#x27;s stance, but this is a misrepresentation.&lt;p&gt;They&amp;#x27;re only demanding a cut if the lead resulting in an external sales comes from the App.&lt;p&gt;If you market your app on a website and sell there, you don&amp;#x27;t have to pay Apple anything. If you market inside the appstore, attract leads there and sell, you have to pay Apple.</text></item><item><author>rpmisms</author><text>There is simply no way around the fact that Apple demanding a cut of sales on an external platform is ridiculous. Steam does not do this. Google does not do this. This would be absolutely absurd for anyone else in any market to do, and this will likely be exhibit C at Apple&amp;#x27;s inevitable antitrust trial.&lt;p&gt;Edit:&lt;p&gt;Re-reading, and I wish that the article was longer. Of course Apple doesn&amp;#x27;t want to allow side-loading, but they&amp;#x27;re going to have to eventually, so why not do it proactively and in a way that allows third-party apps to be extra-sandboxed or reviewed? Oh right, because they&amp;#x27;re Apple. I appreciate the methodology, but a touch of openness will not kill their profits or trust level.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Coming to Grips with Apple&apos;s Seemingly Unshakable Sense of Entitlement</title><url>https://daringfireball.net/2024/01/coming_to_grips_with_apples_seemingly_unshakable_sense_of_app_store_entitlement</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>leereeves</author><text>&amp;gt; If you market your app on a website and sell there&lt;p&gt;...then you still have to put your app on the App Store and pay Apple a commission, because they don&amp;#x27;t allow sideloading.&lt;p&gt;Which clearly proves that you aren&amp;#x27;t paying Apple for marketing or lead generation, you&amp;#x27;re paying for access to the app market. If current antitrust law (mostly written a hundred years ago) doesn&amp;#x27;t cover that, it&amp;#x27;s time to update the laws.</text><parent_chain><item><author>rmbyrro</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m in no way defending Apple&amp;#x27;s stance, but this is a misrepresentation.&lt;p&gt;They&amp;#x27;re only demanding a cut if the lead resulting in an external sales comes from the App.&lt;p&gt;If you market your app on a website and sell there, you don&amp;#x27;t have to pay Apple anything. If you market inside the appstore, attract leads there and sell, you have to pay Apple.</text></item><item><author>rpmisms</author><text>There is simply no way around the fact that Apple demanding a cut of sales on an external platform is ridiculous. Steam does not do this. Google does not do this. This would be absolutely absurd for anyone else in any market to do, and this will likely be exhibit C at Apple&amp;#x27;s inevitable antitrust trial.&lt;p&gt;Edit:&lt;p&gt;Re-reading, and I wish that the article was longer. Of course Apple doesn&amp;#x27;t want to allow side-loading, but they&amp;#x27;re going to have to eventually, so why not do it proactively and in a way that allows third-party apps to be extra-sandboxed or reviewed? Oh right, because they&amp;#x27;re Apple. I appreciate the methodology, but a touch of openness will not kill their profits or trust level.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Coming to Grips with Apple&apos;s Seemingly Unshakable Sense of Entitlement</title><url>https://daringfireball.net/2024/01/coming_to_grips_with_apples_seemingly_unshakable_sense_of_app_store_entitlement</url></story>