Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

So online banking apps should be charged 30% of forex transactions as well, right? Either way the whole comission thing is plain stupid. Maybe paying for app review & download but why for transactions?



But Stocks and Currencies aren't technically a digital good, they are partial ownership of a company or a hard currency. A NFT is exactly the definition of a digital only good, seeing as how a large number of NFT use-cases are to replace / make portable in-app goods sold in online games / mobile apps, which all currently require IAP fees to purchase on mobile. So this is just Apple applying the same rules to NFTs that apply to purchasing items in mobile games.

Apple was never going to allow the blockchain to remove their 30% cut on these purely digital items, as much as crypto folks preached that the blockchain would remove us from the shackles of App Store IAP payments.


To be nuanced, cryptocurrency in a custodial wallet is no more of a digital good than a stock/forex/cash custodial brokerage/bank account.


Honest question, but is that really what's going on here? Is the analogy 30% of forex transactions, or 30% of the fees charged for forex transactions?


Don't forget, your stock broker should give Apple 30% of every stock purchased.

edit: for those paying a broker fee, does Apple even take 30% of that?


forex transaction fees, which is different from forex transaction value.

yeah arguably if apple wanted to say "you're doing a forex trade in app, TD Ameritrade makes $10 in fees on that $20k transaction, we deserve $3 of that, and it needs to be paid via our IAP scheme" that's a consistent application of their rules at least.

again though, coinbase's PR department is doing what PR departments do, they've got you talking like coinbase would be charged 30% of the whole transaction and that's not actually what Apple is saying here... just like it turns out Qualcomm may not have been entirely honest about ARM's licensing changes and many of the specifics of EVGA's complaints are highly misleading or specific to their (atypical) business model, despite a generally-correct thrust.

Like, kinda funny that grown-ass adults don't understand that a literal PR department might not always be presenting the situation entirely fairly... and this is a business community we're discussing that in, no less. You need to apply critical thinking about why someone might be saying things now, and why they're saying them in that particular way... they're happy to lead you into a wrongful conclusion even if they themselves haven't said anything technically wrong: that is the conclusion they intended for you to draw and you consumed the information uncritically and you did draw that conclusion. They walked you right down the garden path there, give that PR guy a raise.

Just like Sony can argue for app-store openness on Apple's platforms but argue they shouldn't have to open their own platform to competitors too... they want to keep their 30% cut but force their competitors to give up theirs. And no, consoles are not sold at a loss anymore, PS5 hit hardware profitability around 6 months after launch...




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: