Just remember that Tyler Cowen sings the song of funders of Cowen's Emergent Ventures: Peter Thiel, Schmidt Futures, Fast Grants (The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative)
Their revenue is flat for last 4 years. They have established their status outside top 10 manufacturers and losing EV market share to Chinese and Europeans.
Car revenue: -11%
operating margin: 3.86%
Free cash flow -30%
Tesla PE > 280 is magic. Now they are "pivoting" to Cybercab, humanoid robots and investing billions into xAI. Jumping from hype-trend to next without any problem is impressive. Fair valuation always in the future.
Apple’s App Store profits on commissions from digital sales
Revenue $32 B
Operating Costs $7 B [1]
Estimated Profit $25 B
Operating Margin ~78%
[1] R&D, security, hosting, human review, and including building and maintaining developer tools Xcode, APIs, and SDKs.
Apple could take just 7% cut and still make 20% profits.
Fun Fact: During the Epic trial, it was revealed that Apple's profit margins on the App Store were so high that even Apple's own executives were sometimes surprised by the internal financial reports.
---
edit: There is no ideological argument for voluntary action here. The entire goal is to force regulators to step in. The debate over 'good vs. bad companies' is just online noise and rhetorical trik, no one on either side of the political spectrum wants these systems to be fixed voluntarily with corporate altruism.
The operating cost is the maximum Apple can come up with when their accountants attribute everything they possibly can to digital sales for the sake of legal argument. R&D shouldn't really be included, and Apple uses those same tools and APIs themselves. I think the actual profit margin is closer to 90%, and Apple could maintain a 20% margin with just a 3–4% fee.
I'd say that in the case of Patreon, any fee for Apple is unjustified. Apple can justify their fee on app purchases/subscriptions in the app store, but Patreon is not an app subscription, the money goes mostly from the patrons to the people they support. Ok, Patreon takes a cut to cover their operating costs, and also make a profit (not sure how profitable they are currently), but I really can't see how Apple, who don't have anything to do with this process except for listing the Patreon app on the app store, can justify taking a cut.
You could make the argument that Patreon isn't much more than a banking app.
It just focuses on the receiver of the money than the sender.
I think Apple is slowly killing apps with this policy. Everybody will slowly move to "web only" as 30% would kill their ability to compete with anybody else. This will likely be much stronger in countries where iPhones do not have the same market share as in the US.
Apple users seem to be fine with everything being much more expensive. Not only the 30% apple tax itself, developers know Apple users pay more and specify higher prices on Apple.
Google allows out–of–store installation (for now...) so it's much easier to argue there's competition. Apps installed through F–Droid don't have this tax.
And in the EU alternative app stores are allowed on iphone as well. In both cases, it’s a near negligible amount of people that use them. Your exceptions prove the rule, if anything.
This would not be true if all markets rose simultaneously. It’s why they all fight so hard to delay the inevitable. You don’t have to win, you just have to win for long enough to be established
> Everybody will slowly move to "web only" as 30% would kill their ability to compete with anybody else.
Frankly, yes, please. I mean, I'm biased as my whole career is in web app development, but there are so many things these days that do not need a whole native app. They're just communicating with a server backend somewhere, using none of the unique native functionality of the phone (much of which is available in browser APIs these days anyway). I can block ads in a web app much more easily. It's much harder to do customer-hostile things like block screenshots in a web app.
Native apps definitely have a place, but I think they're very overused, mostly for reasons that benefit the business at the expense of the customer.
You still can't have a "share to" target that is a web app on iOS. And the data your can store in local storage on safari is a joke.
Of course, forget about background tasks and integrated notifications.
In fact, even on Android you miss features with web apps, like widgets for quick actions, mapping actions to buttons and so on.
And no matter how good you cache things, the mobile browser will unload the app, and you will always get this friction when you load the web app on the new render you don't have on regular apps.
No, I use them but loading and unloading the app in the tab still happens when the browser flushes the app from memory because the OS killed it or the browser eviction policy hits.
This loading is not nearly as seamless as a regular app starting back up.
For a regular app, you have the app loading, and the os cache helping with it. If you do your job half correctly, it loads as a block almost instantly.
For a web app you have the web browser loading, the the display of the white viewport in a flash, then the app loading in the browser (with zero os cache to help with so it's slower). It needs then to render. Then restoring the scroll (which is a mess with a browser) and the state as much as you can but you are limited with persistence size so most content must be reloaded which means the layout is moving around. Not to mention JS in a browser is not nearly as performant as a regular app, so as your app grows, it gets worse.
I disagree, native apps on iOS have important abilities that no web application can match. The inability to control cache long-term is alone a dealbreaker if trying to create an experience with minimal friction.
I think the parent may be referring to the fact that safari/webkit will evict all localstorage/indexeddb/caches etc after 7 days of not visiting a site. And apparently this now extends to PWAs making it a pretty big blog to building any infrequently accessed PWA that needs to persist user data locally.
Those same elevated controls are used to steal PII and sell to data brokers. Again, it's the companies that are trying to force apps on their users. If it were genuinely a much better UX, they wouldn't have to do that.
I don’t think you are correct, but I could be wrong. For example, can you replicate the functionality of TikTok - autoplay unmuted videos as the user scroll down to new videos? It’s the experience that the user expects.
I've probably deleted 15 apps from my phone in the past year as I steadily move over to the web for everything.
My chat agent, file transfer tool, Grubhub, Amazon, YouTube, news, weather are all deleted in favor of a set of armored browsers that suppress the trash and clean up the experience. Its been an amazing change, as those companies no longer get a free advertisement on the application grid of my phone, making my use of them much more intentional.
Sure, once the user interacts with the first video.
If third party native apps were installed and run without user interaction the same as cross-origin redirects, I would expect the same limitations with native apps.
I use FB via my web browser (Firefox on Android) and when I look at Shorts, it has this exact functionality. Web browsers on mobile can do this, clearly.
The Android Browser isn't as crippled as the iOS one. Watch a full screen video on Safari and tap a few times on different places on the screen and you will get a notification about "Typing is not allowed in Full-Screen" or some other nonsense
You couldn't make that argument because Patreon is also a platform to host content, not just send money. If it was something like a twitch donation app the argument would make more sense
The hosting aspect is only necessary because a) piracy and b) Google would eat their lunch if they were the gate keeper to content. Bit like how Ticketmaster takes all the money from artists because they get to say who sits in a seat.
Honestly I wouldn't be that shocked if Apple tried demanding a 30% royalty on bank deposits and bills paid using iPhone apps. They've decided the future of their company depends on being huge assholes about it.
I would be surprised by that because iPhone users would notice that. I think the App Store model relies on their fee being invisible to consumers, and the increased price you’re paying not being linked to them. AFAIK apps aren’t allowed to explain that they charge more if you subscribe on iPhone to users either, or why they do so.
True, hard for bank deposits where the user sees both ends of the transaction.
For bill payments though, they'd just insist on taking 30% of your electric bill payment and if the electric company's margins aren't high enough to absorb that then "Haha that sounds like a you problem" - Tim Cook, probably
While you're correct, it's worth noting that this only happened because the judge in the Epic lawsuit ordered an injunction forcing Apple to allow it.
Apple then "maliciously complied", allowing it while demanding a 27% fee on any web-based payments, which was found to be a violation of the injunction.
> For U.S. fans, there’s still a way to avoid Apple’s fee. When signing up in the iOS app, they can choose web checkout instead of Apple’s in-app purchase system. Apple’s rules require that any paid content shown in the iOS app is also available to purchase through Apple’s in-app system.
When you use Apple Pay, Apple collects ~0.15% (15 bps) from the issuing banks for credit.
$1B in transaction volume = $1.5M
In 2022 the total volume was estimated at $6T * .15% = $9B. Real number would be maybe half due to lower fees on debit, but it's hugely profitable for Apple, and carries zero risk.
I think this is a very strong and simple argument to use with regulators, politicians etc.
When I put my credit card into Apples ecosystem they take a 0.15% cut of the transaction and appear to be very happy with the results. When I put my application into the ecosystem they take 30%..
You can then break down why this is, but boy is that an interesting contrast.
Something interesting is that Apple and Google Pay charge a tiny commission (don't have the number at hand). Which banks didn't like, so at least on Android they created their own NFC payment stacks for a while. Only to then discover that maintaining such a stack cost them more per year than the commission.
My German Bank still maintains their own pay stack. It's also nice that I don't have to share my payment information or commission with another parasite
If a user almost exclusively uses the Patreon ios app to consume the artist’s content and likes to live inside the ios ecosystem for frictionless payments using the card on file/privacy/UX/whatever, then I feel apple should get to set the terms of engagement.
If you were a chain store in a high end mall where customers cars were all parked for free by valets, mall staff knew their names, and generally made them feel special, you’d not balk at a higher commission to be paid to mall for access to their customers, right? Airports come to mind for this.
I believe apple lets you set whatever price you want on their store, just not tell customers that they could get a lower price elsewhere/on the vendor’s website (I don’t follow App Store policies very closely so my info is probably out of date).
Presumably you also would agree that it's fair if Chrome, Windows, and Lenovo all charged me 30% each for using Patreon via Chrome+Windows on a thinkpad, right?
They're doing about as much to facilitate my use of Patreon as Apple is.
This isn't like a mall at all. This is like a web browser, where apps are webpages, and Apple is insisting that the contents of that webpage are something they can dictate all payment terms on.
For the airport analogy to work, it would have to be that you go to the Airport, go into the electronics store, buy a Kindle, and then the Airport insists it can take 30% not just on the purchase of the kindle, but 30% on every single book you buy on the kindle forever.
Apple taking a cut on the purchase price of an app that a user found via the app store does make some sense. Apple taking a cut of an in-app interaction with a creator that the user almost certainly found elsewhere is nonsense.
What next, should apple take a 30% cut of my rent because I found my apartment on the Craigslist app? Should they take a 30% of my train ticket that I purchased using the Safari app? Why does Patreon have to add a 30% cut on in-app content, when Safari lets me pay for in-app content with my credit card without taking any cut?
I agree that if someone discovered the artist elsewhere, Apple has weaker standing in claiming a huge commission. But if they found an artist elsewhere, they would also know that they can support that artist elsewhere and not through the iOS app. If the patron found them through the patreon iOS app and use the app to consume the artist's content, then clearly the patron has indicated that they prefer the iOS experience.
That's not worth 30%. Imagine if Youtube charged 30% for anyone who clicked a link under a video in a web browser.
Even if people do enjoy browsing through the PAtreon app and choosing creators they want to subscribe to, that's not worth 30%. Rent-seeking is a cognitive disease.
And if I access Patreon via Chrome on Windows, and use Chrome on Windows to consume the artist's content, clearly I prefer the Chrome and Windows experience, so Microsoft and Google should be getting their 30% cut, right?
... and of course the user found the artist elsewhere than the iOS app store. They found them on youtube, or reddit, or _possibly_ on the webview inside the patreon iOS app, which is also _not_ apple's App Store content, it's content provided by Patreon.
Again, should accessing my bank via the Safari or Chrome iOS app mean apple gets 30% of all my bank transactions, just because they were displayed on a webview inside an iOS app?
There's a large amount of Apples:Oranges comparisons here that should be obvious to people who even read the headline, "in the iOS app" not "on iOS", as your comparison indicates.
Sure, if Google wants to start a business model where your websites only load if you sign a business agreement and agree to commissions.
However, regulators would probably take note that Google has been aggressively pushing their browser for free for over a decade to gain market share, and have a field day.
The difference is that Apple's business model hasn't changed - you've always been restricted to distributing apps under a business agreement, and the conditions on commissions have been pretty consistent since inception, or at least since IAP was added in 2009.
"What ifs" about Apple charging 30% for bank transactions would run afoul of regulators. This is about consuming member-exclusive goods and services in-app, which again has been in the contract terms since 2009.
Goods and services consumed outside of the app (such as purchases of physical items on Amazon, or plane tickets or the like) are actually forbidden from using in-app purchase and do not have a commission rate.
>If the patron found them through the patreon iOS app and use the app to consume the artist's content, then clearly the patron has indicated that they prefer the iOS experience.
I hate IOS enough that I'm running at least a full numbered version behind with updates turned off and never plan to buy another IOS device, and I'm subscribed to multiple Patreons started through the IOS app merely because it was the device in my hand and they automatically funnel Patreon links to it.
Chrome, Windows and Lenovo don't have the payment system baked in, with all the consumer protections that come with it.
I'm not entirely pro-Apple percentage in this argument, but I think people often dismiss the magical thing that Apple created with the app store and their payment/subscription system. The rest of the world keeps ripping users off, and Apple's walled garden is as protected a thing as it gets.
I've gone directly to my bank for subscription charges billed directly to my credit card and they wouldn't reverse or stop them. Cancelling and reversing on the App Store is basic, easy, and friction-free.
Plus, the Android environment doesn't yield nearly the same sales volume even with significantly more installed units.
People spend on iOS and they don't spend on other platforms.
30% hurts and it sucks, but.. Patreon will probably take it because they'll do the math and it won't come out in favor of the alternative. That's what really sucks, beyond Apple max-max-maxing this.
>The rest of the world keeps ripping users off, and Apple's walled garden is as protected a thing as it gets.
This keeps getting repeated but it's not actually my experience. Not even Apple believes it, otherwise they could avoid a lot of legal and regulatory trouble by giving users a choice: Pay through Apple for an extra 30% protection fee.
I had a Patreon subscription I forgot about. I went to Patreon and ended it. It took about a minute, including filling out the feedback form about why I was quitting.
Chrome doesn't do this, Chrome has a wallet and you're still stuck talking to your credit card company.
It looks like you may have edited your comment, but the issues of Apple's app store payment percentage, the open/closed nature of their appstore, and the ability to sideload apps are 3 separate issues.
> you're still stuck talking to your credit card company
AFAIK Apple still talks to it too, they just have a deeper/better experience on the platforms they own and provide a service where they can generate a virtual card for you, so you're shielded from the merchant, but not from your card issuer.
> Apple's app store payment percentage, the open/closed nature of their appstore, and the ability to sideload apps are 3 separate issues
Yes and no, because Apple wants to use the closed nature of their ecosystem to offer their solution as the only possible one, yet at the same time claim that they deserve their 30% cut because it's the best solution out there and they provide so much value.
It might've been HN weirdness. I was getting the one sentence in one view and the whole message in the other view. Re-loading didn't get them consistent. Hmm.
>What next, should apple take a 30% cut of my rent because I found my apartment on the Craigslist app? Should they take a 30% of my train ticket that I purchased using the Safari app?
Sure they could, and usage of those products to purchase goods would nominally drop to 0%. People do not care about a lot of things, but they do care about losing money.
Apple would then force the with-IAP price to be the same as the without-IAP price so that they get a 30% cut of your rent regardless. You may be underestimating their willingness to tax all economic activity
While this would obviously be harmful to the consumer, I don't see this as plausible.
Amazon was able to achieve this by positioning themselves as the primary distributor of the goods in question. Apple is in no position to leverage a monopoly over fiat transer or housing supply.
With regard to municipal transportation, perhaps they are edging closer with Apple Pay, NFC, Wallet, etc.. but I can't imagine municipalities supporting, or constituents accepting, a tax on their existing taxes.
Of course, maybe Apple.gov is the long game. Hard to say whether that would be better or worse that the status quo..
> If a user almost exclusively uses the Patreon ios app to consume the artist’s content and likes to live inside the ios ecosystem for frictionless payments using the card on file/privacy/UX/whatever, then I feel apple should get to set the terms of engagement.
When I paid over $1000 to buy an iPhone I thought I was buying a technological product that I could use to improve my life.
I didn’t realize I was buying a ticket to Disneyland where the seller of the product decided how I interacted with everything the device enabled.
I don’t think this should be disallowed. I certainly think it’s incredibly false marketing for Apple to claim I bought an iphone, when in reality I paid upfront for essentially AOL.
> I certainly think it’s incredibly false marketing for Apple to claim I bought an iphone, when in reality I paid upfront for essentially AOL.
I wonder if that has ever been tried against Apple or a similar company in a court of law, because I think there might be real merit there. One would have to get a bunch of people together claiming a refund on the purchase price on the grounds that ownership hasn't been transferred and therefore Apple is in breach of contract in relation to the contract for sale of an iPhone. Then those people would have to bring a class action, and the case would revolve around the concept of "ownership". Because "ownership", to a first approximation, means the legal right to do with some piece of property essentially as you please, and Apple is clearly basing much of their business on the assumption that users do not have those rights and is taking positive action to prevent users from exercising such rights.
I don't know much about the law in the rest of the world, except Germany, but in Germany that would certainly be the case, and there is a surprising amount of case law revolving around such things as horses or other animals being sold, and the former owner then trying to restrict the new owner in exercising their ownership rights, which generally end with ownership rights being upheld by courts.
I’ve been thinking for a while now that a really effective way to deal with problem companies would be coordinate a mass action on small claims closets around the world all on the same day.
Often in small claims court you win by default if the other person doesn’t show up and I’m sure judges know average will sympathize with the kinds of arguments that you raised above.
I don't know. We don't have any such thing as small claims court in Germany, but my expectation would be that judges in low-level courts will try their very best not to get noticed for setting any kind of precedent whatsoever. The only thing that's going to happen if you rule against Apple in a low-level court is that they will go into revision, and carrying a high probability that the higher-level judge will overturn the decision and make the lower-level judge look bad in the process.
Also, any kind of effort to annoy someone by bringing coordinated actions in lots of venues all at the same time is probably abuse of process.
The idea isn't just to use small claims courts, but to use whatever first level legal venue to seek redress you can find in your area. That might mean small claims courts, or consumer protection bureaus, or binding arbitration. Whatever it is the idea is to coordinate with others to do so in a way that strains the resources of the organization you're fighting against and is in venues that are sympathetic to consumers and are able to make clear judgements with little chance for the opposing side to appeal.
The goal of this isn't to annoy someone, the goal is to seek compensation for their unacceptable behavior and raise awareness of it so that others may do so as well.
With the mindboggling assymetry in resources between a single individual and an entity like Apple or Google it only makes sense for people to team up and coordinate against them.
Case law isn't directly normative in civil law traditions like Germany and France in the same way it is in common law traditions like the U.S. and U.K. But court decisions that are deemed interesting do get picked up in journals, cited in academic literature, and cited by other judges in their own decisions. There is a herd dynamics psychology where judges and academic writers default to following along with the principles established in each other's decisions and academic writing, rather than go against that consensus. (Unless their conviction is very strong, and they are, depending on the gravity of the issue, willing to stake their reputations and careers on those convictions). -- I brushed over that distinction when I used the term “precedent”. In my mind it's pot-ay-toh po-tah-toh.
You have the legal right to do anything to your iPhone that you please, except for DMCA circumvention. Apple, cleverly, designs it so you can't do very much without DMCA circumvention. But it is the government's fault for this loophole, not Apple's.
I subscribe to a half dozen creators and I have exclusively used the web interface to subscribe and consume this content. You cannot tell me with a straight face that if the only difference was I subscribed on my phone to someone who charges me $10/mo, Apple is entitled to $36 for the first year and $18/yr in perpetuity thereafter.
I don’t think anyone suggests Apple should get nothing for their app store services, just that it shouldn’t be 30% of every transaction processed through every iOS app.
The EU has the right approach. Don't try to legislate exactly what is a fair/unfair amount of profit to make - change the rules of the game by requiring third party marketplaces and payment platforms so apple has to lower rates or lose every app into a third party store.
Apple can easily say "Use our store exclusively and you get our security/privacy guarantees. Go outside our store and you're in the wild west". App developers can then decide how much fee they are willing to pay for access to the user base who refuse to venture into the wild west. Other stores might try to persuade users that they are more secure and more private too via stricter review policies or more locked down permissions etc.
From a consumer point of view, the best approach would be if devlopers had to sell their app in Apple's App Store (if Apple approves) and could optionally provide other purchasing options on top of that.
It would prevent fragmentation and give people a choice to pay up if they actually value Apple's extra protections (if any).
They did lower them to 15% due to regulatory pressure for smaller vendors.
And for compliance with EU DSA, they've tried countless malicious compliance efforts, that have been struck down again and again.
The only reason they haven't been smacked with a billion dollar fine for their Bullshit (Core Technology Fee)yet, is because of Trump.
I don’t read it that way. I think the point is it doesn’t make sense that apple is taking a cut of a transaction that is not in their payment rails*. Apple can still be compensated for their App store service without using a model that takes 30% of all transactions, e.g. a listing fee, an app review fee, etc.
*And anything on their payment rails should have a normal transaction fee, e.g. Stripe’s retail rate is 2.9% + $0.30.
This is the model they have moved to in the EU - an annual per user-app core technology fee for apps enabled to be listed outside the store, and relaxed in-store rules (and reduced commissions) if you choose to still list in Apple's App Store. Effectively, they are acting as if commissions are paying the core technology fee, and subsidizing it for apps which aren't profitable.
The per-user model means that apps which have adopted freemium and advertising-driven models wind up having quite different financials, and could be more expensive.
Yes it's fine but the 30% should be charged to the customer who wants to stay within that ecosystem of course. If they want that white glove treatment they can pay for it. Of course once the users see how much that fluffy ecosystem actually costs them I bet most of them will just pay patreon directly :)
If the platform like patreon is supposed to absorb that fee they will increase prices for everyone even people who won't touch Apple like me. That's not fair. Or more likely, they will just give less to the content creators.
In the EU it's already forbidden to force payments through Apple or to forbid the platforms to charge the fee back to the customer.
Don't worry, we are well into "car branded fuel only" territory with electric vehicles.
"Buy our electricity at a huge markup to power your vehicle. Oh, you don't have one of our vehicles? Sorry, that's an extra 10% on top"
This was dystopic scifi like 20 years ago and Americans are so clueless they just sleepwalked into it because they'd rather not have a government at all.
Certainly not defending Apple's behavior in this instance, but isn't the success of the larger product ecosystem a direct driver of their App Store profitability? To strictly evaluate the App Store finances in isolation seems to be the sort of accusation you've levied against Apple in the opposite direction..
I like Apple less and less these days for various reasons, but I haven't purchased an app on the App Store in more than a decade. It's strictly a vehicle for local utilities when, for whatever reason, a browser will not suffice. Nearly all purchasing is done on the 'open' web.
What really makes it uncomfortable is that Apple isn't just a neutral marketplace. They control the OS, the distribution channel, and the payment rails, so creators and platforms like Patreon can't realistically opt out
The whole Epic vs Apple was about Apple blocking this. Before being slapped by regulators, Apple had anti-steering policies forbidding iOS apps from even mentioning that purchasing elsewhere is possible.
Even after EU DSA told them to allow purchases via Web, Apple literally demanded a 27% cut from purchases happening outside of App Store (and then a bunch of other arrogantly greedy fee structures that keeps them in courts).
Apple knows how hard is not to be in the duopoly of app stores. They keep web apps half-assed, won't direct users to them, but allow knock-off apps to use your trademarks in their search keywords.
They do and it’s awful. I’m making a browser based game and it works great on desktop browsers but Apple refuses to allow css filters on canvas forcing you to build your own filters and apply them to image data. The web audio api is also a pain to get working properly on iOS safari and a bunch of other arbitrary but feels like they’re intentional obstacles found only on iOS. I’m almost considering just using webgl instead of a 2d context but who knows what obstacles apple is hiding there also it will make everything so much more verbose for no real gain.
Not even in the days of IE was I ever this frustrated.
> Not even in the days of IE was I ever this frustrated.
I've been web devving since the days of IE as well and this reeks of hyperbole. Maybe things are different for browser games, but for me, everything has vastly improved since those days.
Well maybe we are doing different things. Back in those days Javascript and CSS were much simpler people would cry about the position of elements and easy stuff like that. However I have to manually manage web audio api memory because if you don't release the buffers and other things the memory won't get released until the tab in closed, so it's easy for a tab to inexpertly take up 6gigs plus of ram (1min of audio is ~80mb), it's impossible to know that, that is happening unless you know, so you have this missive memory leak that even refreshing the tab won't fix and you have no idea why it happening, that is true frustration. You have to manage memory in canvas too especially if you are using bitmaps and if you are on iOS because it will crash the page because you looked at it wrong. I don't know anything that would have crashed the page in IE back in the day. So no, it is not hyperbole :)
Sorry, I shouldn't comment before I have my coffee. Saying it "reeks of hyperbole" was unnecessarily rude.
That does sound frustrating. You're working with APIs that I don't usually touch (audio, canvas) so it's not surprising that I haven't experienced that. I was thinking back to the days I had to support IE 8, trying to debug weird issues in production like scripts not working because `console.log` wasn't defined unless the developer tools were opened.
To be fair, he's completely right. I have a lot of experience with IE6 and safari on iOS, and while IE6 was bad and did weird shit, Safari is much worse. It's amazing that things can work in any browser, without ever even thinking about it, but then on Safari you get weird behaviour, straight up rendering bugs because of some weird race conditions with the engine or even crashes.
The latest issue that I've noticed yesterday is the button nav bar on the screen when running PWAs. The button is over the bottom navbar of the PWA, and despite apple themselves coming up with the API to inform the browser about safe display areas, it doesn't work in PWAs on iOS. PWA mode on iOS != non PWA on iOS. They often behave completely different and you often have to use JS for basic things to work, like clicking a link(yup, this was a thing for years).
I tried something similar a couple years back, and fully agree. Safari is atrocious for trying to create a good mobile experience. It almost feels intentional.
Due to the web's distributed nature, "all" is impossible, but there are plenty of ranked-by-rating lists of web games out there. I don't want to be spammy so I'm only gonna link one of them that comes to mind, but there are a lot of other listings you can find at any search engine of your choice!
(All is impossible for both iOS and Android also: Games that don't get updated, games that get unlisted due to having a link to their own website with the wrong phrasing next to it, games that get unlisted due to the app store owner not being satisfied with the description page for the game, regional restrictions, requests from governments to remove socially unacceptable apps, etc)
My point was that the web has orders of magnitude worse discoverability than the stores, otherwise everyone would obviously just publish on the web.
Saying "oh just do the thing you aren't doing" shows that one of two things is true: Either every app developer currently doesn't know the web exists, or everyone else knows something you don't.
Your point doesn't make any sense. The only reason Apple's store can have "all" the apps is that they are a monopolist and take steps to disallow anyone from selling apps through any other channel, so there cannot possibly be multiple storefronts with different selections like their is in any other context.
On Android for example, Play Store does not have "all" apps, or even most apps that I have on my phone. Because Play Store has mostly garbage. It's a surprise to no one that Steam's storefront has a different selection from Amazon or Epic or GoG in the same way that no one is surprised that Walmart and Target carry different items.
So "discovery" in your sense is basically "I ignore everything that isn't presented by this particular storefront", i.e. a complete lack of discovery.
If you think "the web has orders of magnitude worse discoverability than mobile app stores" makes no sense, then there's not enough common ground for us to have a productive discussion on this.
Apple doesn't have some special magic "discoverability"; they just prevent any other stores from being able to compete with them. Actually, searching for the iOS app store, I get:
which has no obvious way to even browse or search apps? How am I supposed to see what's available? I need to buy an expensive phone before I can even see what it can run? This is more discoverable? The bottom nav bar entry for "App Store" just takes me to the same page. If I click on "Store" it just shows me hardware; no apps. Where's the store and how am I supposed to find it? Do I need to physically go into an Apple store and use a phone there to browse?
I'm aware of your point. I disagree with it. A lot of companies seemingly have found it viable to have first-class web apps as part of their lineup; Off the top of my head: Uber and Uber Eats, KFC, Patreon, (And every single competitor to Patreon), every single mini-app in China (where discoverability is much higher), etc etc.
There are more app-having companies that have web apps than not
The original point wasn't that it's viable to also have a web app, but whether it's viable to only have a web app. How many of the companies you mentioned don't have mobile apps at all?
Of the patreon alternatives (dependent on content), Substack, X, Youtube, BuyMeACoffee, all have fan-side apps. kofi, Fourthwall, Squarespace, all the NSFW-centric alternatives, do not.
Of the mini-apps in China, I don't know, I was never exposed to the existence of their non-mini-app counterparts.
This rethoric is destructive and threatens society and democracy alike. Apple is not just some company that you can just opt out of, if you're working in a certain field. Just like you can't opt out to YouTube if you're a content creator.
It not like an email service where you can just switch from Gmail to fastmail to proton or to any of the other dozens of big email providers.
Because they don't control those. Apple could choose to only allow users to access websites that pay them a bit 30% fee, but users would notice the web was turned off on their device. They don't notice when the app store does it.
Until a court order stopped them, Apple was collecting a 27% tax on certain external payments even though they didn't control the payment rails. They required developers to report their external payment revenue and sent them invoices. Developers had to commit to that or their apps would be rejected for having external payments.
It's at least "reasonable" that if the app was where users derived usage, and would've purchased thru the app but for the external purchasing option, then apple has a case for it.
However, there's no such case for web (as in, web _only_).
If usage of an app gives Apple some justification for taxing payments, by similar logic would usage of the iPhone itself, and Safari, give them a similar some justification?
"The user would have used our payment rails had there not been other options" seems to apply universally; Apple could say the same thing about website owners steering users away from some expensive "Apple web pay" option.
I think the difference is just leverage. Apple isn't curating what websites iOS users are allowed to visit (yet...), so they can't tell website owners "pay up or we'll block you".
I don't think people would notice if Apple just made the website behind a paywall. Most people are not going to be aware that they can access the same content without paying a fee to Apple. They may only even have an Apple device to access the internet, so they'd just see it as normal
Don't forget they also directly compete with Patreon with podcast subscriptions. You can support a podcast through Apple podcasts or Patreon, but only one of those has a 30% chunk taken out.
That's pretty much the conclusion the EU came to and why they introduced the notion of gatekeepers in the DMA.
It doesn't matter if you are not technically in a dominant position if your special role in a large ecosystem basically allows you to act like one in your own purview.
You could say this kind of move invites more scrutiny but the regulators are already there watching every Apple's move with a microscope and their patience with Apple attempts at thwarting compliance is apparently wearing thin at least in the EU if you look at preliminary findings.
The problem is the monopoly over distribution channels. Regulation needs to force devices to allow A) downloading and using packages & executables from the internet, and B) any app to download and install other apps.
Regulating the fees for one central app store is no solution.
With freedom also comes responsibility, and some innocent people will inevitably shoot themselves in the foot. This is not a strong enough argument for putting everybody else in a cage and letting a duopoly take over virtually all of the distribution of consumer software.
It might be a strong argument depending on the negative effects - I don't think it's very clear cut. Also no, neither Apple nor Google have a duopoly on the distribution of all consumer software. Microsoft exists, for example.
The other problem consideration here is negotiating power.
Today consumers don't have negotiating power over individual developers, but both Apple and Google do. If you complain to Meta about their unwanted tracking, you don't really have many options besides deleting the app (which you should do anyway). But if enough people complain to Apple or Google, they are more inclined to do something and have the power.
While it may be a marriage of convenience, it's undeniable that both companies through their app distribution models have also provided benefits to consumers that developers otherwise would have abused - privacy, screen recording, malicious advertising, &c.
If you want to argue from the standpoint of pro-consumer action, you have to remember that "developers" are usually pretty awful too and will get away with anything they can, even if it harms their customers. A good balance, instead of ideological purity about one "side" or the other is the smarter move. I tend to come down on the side of the mainstream app stores precisely because those asking for more "freedom" to do as they wish are a tiny minority and are usually more technical. I.e. they can jump through the hoops to install 3rd party app stores and jailbreak their phones today, and since you already can do what you want, maybe it's best to just leave the masses alone since they're very obviously happy with the duopoly.
I run GrapheneOS, but I can't use the national digital identity app because it requires Google Play Integrity. I very much cannot do what I want without it having severe consequences because the duopoly is starting to shape the basic digital infrastructure, and critical services start requiring that I use one of the two ecosystems.
I think the principle of digital autonomy should be front and center. Surely we can figure out security models that don't imply that two American tech companies get to call the shots on what people can or cannot do on hardware that they supposedly own.
Yes, but the regulation is wrong, since it is based on an irrational security analysis and cover-my-ass politics which belong in private companies and not in government institutions which are supposed to protect the freedoms of the citizens.
The technical security requirements should not be hard to define, i.e. the platform on which the solution runs should require all keys to be device-bound with a certificate chain from the hardware manufacturer proving this to the issuers during enrollment. The operating system should also be able to verify to the issuer that the hash of the app is recognized as an official app.
However, the strongest integrity level of solutions like Play Integrity - which is the only level that GrapheneOS cannot pass, and which only my national identity app requires - is protecting against very theoretical attacks which I don't believe actually happen in the real world, since it not only protects against fake malicious identity apps, but also against the scenario where a scammer has convinced their target of installing a custom Android operating system which fakes the app integrity verification. This attack requires a victim with a technical aptitude that allows them to unlock the bootloader and use adb, but which is at the same time gullible enough to believe the attacker. It also requires that the attacker builds a malicious Android release for the exact hardware of the victim. Seriously, if the victim is this easy to manipulate and also this resourceful, then the attacker should just convince them to disable biometrics and send the phone to the attacker by mail.
It is very very clever of Google to disguise what is essentially voluntary vendor lock-in as a security feature.
Apple and Google each respectively have a monopoly in their markets. Only apple approved apps may be installed on an iPhone.
Digital goods DO NOT work like physical goods. I can just buy another washing machine. I CANNOT just choose to opt out of using a smartphone. My choices are apple or Google, and even within those choices it's limited by network effects.
Well, you have to balance it with how much you want to line the coffers of malicious actors.
If you go all the way to "everyone should have the freedom to get pwned", then you are also funneling the money of innocents into the pockets of some of the worst people in the world, and that's not a great outcome just to make life more convient for some HNers.
The question is about what trade-off makes sense for most people. That probably is some sort of escape hatch nontech people just won't do.
Maybe it's a hard thing to appreciate until you've watched aging family members get tricked by absolute scum, mostly enabled by how loosey-goosey modern computing can still be.
The thing is, apple decides this for themselves, on a product that you fully bought and privately own. It bundles the most brilliant and most incompetent clueless people into 1 group and goes for lowest denominator. No freedom of choice.
Of course thats PR argument, in reality its about distorting and manipulating the market to get the most money out of its users and bind them to their ecosystem as hard as possible to extract even more. And the amount of those same people who uncritically defend them here is still staggering. But maybe its just employees ignoring their ndas, some investors and similar folks.
You can make the default locked down and still allow other operating systems, and most alternative operating systems will also come with a suitably strong security model that does not easily allow the user to fuck themselves. I don't think not locking everything down completely will inevitably lead to every elderly person becoming a victim of scam, so I don't acknowledge that argument.
I hate the classic apple users' "mom" argument. Why are all your moms morons? And why do you want to fuck up the entire mobile landscape to baby proof it for them. Im not gonna ruin my experience with technology because you dont expect your mom to be able to wipe her ass without apple's help
I hate the classic “everyone should be an expert at IT and it’s their fault and they had it coming due to their own ignorance if they make mistakes” argument far more than you hate mine.
> no one on either side of the political spectrum wants these systems to be fixed voluntarily with corporate altruism
Right on. But that's exactly the wiggle room where voters could pull some of those cards like "climate change mitigation (of consequences)", "climate change preparation", "upcoming waves of climate change refugees", "AI dividing the population", "Universal Basic Income", all of which are things companies like Apple won't do anything for (or against) while their goods are still mostly for proper earners and not for people who buy stuff at a discount (I'm exaggerating).
Since corporate altruism is definitely not on the menu, government institutions and NGOs will have to pick up way more than they are currently prepared for.
We are in a strange phase of calm before the storm, despite all those wars and conflicts--or in spite of them, I don't know. Shits' gonna hit the fan sooner or later and it's up to the voters to demand adequate preparation.
Big Corps caused significantly more damage than they had to cause for all those profits, whether as a side effect or not, and they did that long enough.
Job cuts, whether due to AI or not, will remain a thing while no "new" giants will rise for quite a while ... and corporations will sing the song "it's what the people want" only as long as voters will stay quiet.
Sure, bribes, corruption and blablabla, but it doesn't change how votes work and none of it changes how the devoted clerks in the administration do their jobs and write laws (if they have to have to) ...
> Apple could take just 7% cut and still make 20% profits.
We can say this to any company, "$X could reduce price by $Y and still make $Z profits", but it doesn't really make any sense. Making profits is what makes a company a company instead of a non-profit organization.
It does make sense to highlight, because this kind of statistic is a very strong indicator that the market is not competitive. This is not a normal kind of profit margin and basically everyone except for Apple would benefit from them lowering the margins.
In normal markets there are competitors who force each other to keep reasonable profit margins and to improve their product as opposed to milking other people's hard work at the expense of the consumer.
Might not be competitive but it’s totally voluntary. No one needs app, it’s not food or shelter, so clearly consumers are willing and able to pay this.
The consumer is willing to pay the price based on the perceived value from the App Store
The relevant market here is the creators not the consumers. As a creator you have no choice but to accept whatever fees Apple, Google, Steam etc set. Or whatever rates Spotify pays you per stream. The fact you "could" host your own website is irrelevant when the reality is nobody will visit it.
> The relevant market here is the creators not the consumers. As a creator you have no choice but to accept whatever fees Apple, Google, Steam etc set. Or whatever rates Spotify pays you per stream. The fact you "could" host your own website is irrelevant when the reality is nobody will visit it.
Collective action by the creators would help.
All they have to do is dual-host (a fairly trivial matter, compared to organised collective action). What would make things even better is if they dual host on a competing platform and specify in their content that the competing platform charges lower fees. If even 10% of the creators did this:
1. Many of the consumers would switch.
2. Many of the creators not on the competing platform would also offer dual-hosting.
The problem is not "As a creator you have no choice but to accept whatever fees Apple, Google, Steam etc set". The problem is the mindset that their content is not their own.
I say it's their mindset, because they certainly don't act as if they own the content - when your content is available only via a single channel, you don't own your content, you are simply a supplier for that channel.
How? I thought it was a Patreon thing - the "competing platform" would be competing with the Patreon app.
I'm not familiar with Patreon, but I thought the way it worked was that you could tip content creators via the Patreon app. I'm pretty certain that Apple cannot tell Patreon (a third party) that they are only allowed to offer exclusive content.
Apple doesn’t allow you to mention that you have alternate payment channels on other platforms. Can’t even allude to it.
To me this is the thing that should be outlawed. Let people pay the Apple tax if they want, but don’t prevent people from making other arrangements. Most people are lazy and will pay the tax, if it isn’t excessive.
What is also totally voluntary is our decision to let Apple exist as an entitiy, to give them a government enforced monopoly over certain things, to make it illegal to break their technical protections of their monopoly etc.
When parts of a market become dominated by one or few companies operating in a limited choice environment, consumers can't just opt to not use both Apple and Play store. You need to choose one in practice.
At this point the regulators should investigate what the barriers are to new entrants and if it's too costly and nobody has managed to cut in the last few years, establishing some rules is probably a good thing. This happens as industries mature and become critical, it happened in transportation (most bus, train companies), energy, water supply, trash, etc, depending on the country and market conditions.
Not so much a failure. Rather, there is no intent for there to be a market here at all. A market relies on offerings being reproducible. Intellectual property laws are designed specifically to prevent reproduction.
Makes me think of the concept of involution in Chinese business and how they understand all of this very differently, and how difficult it is to compete because of that.
Agreed, but this is about to be a special case if it's not already. We're contending with compulsory digital IDs and cashless economies that must be used on authorized devices, and Apple is one of the two makers. While it's certainly not necessary to use Patreon, not having it or something like it is an actual barrier to individual trade. I don't think I can get behind a schema that means Apple can take whatever portion it wants from a transaction initiated on a device that it creates and that is otherwise fairly necessary for day-to-day life in the developed world.
it sounds like it does make sense because if they are making $Z profits then they are still making profits and are not non-profit.
there could also be cases where cutting back to $Z profits might be preferable in case not doing so were to prompt legislation causing someone to be forcibly cut to $Z-1 or even $0 profits from a particular profit source.
Which it has been my observation that when someone is saying "X could reduce price by $Y and still make $Z profits" it often coincides with saying therefore company X should be legislated on this particular profit source.
>there could also be cases where cutting back to $Z profits might be preferable in case not doing so were to prompt legislation causing someone to be forcibly cut to $Z-1 or even $0 profits from a particular profit source.
Not in an environment where regulatory capture costs so much less than any change legislation could bring. The remedy in almost every recent monopoly case has been remarkably nothing. Politicians don’t actually want change, they want the threat of legislation so that industries bring truckloads of money to line their pockets.
Until it turns into cancer because of unrestrained growth.
Like it or not capitalism is a part of an ecosystem. We’ve been “educated” to believe that unrestrained growth in profits is what makes capitalism work, and yet day after day there are fresh examples of how our experience as consumers has gotten worse under capitalism because of the idea that profits should forever be growing.
Let's be honest if this was a European company it would be capped by law at 5-10%. Problem is who has an incentive to do the right thing here? Not apple and certainly not the US government (most of this revenue comes from outside the US).Nobody can defend it, yet nobody wishes to stop it.
The US government should absolutely do that, but they won't because they defends the interests of big companies rather than the interests of small companies or US citizens.
That's not how business works. The App Store in current form would not exist without all the collective investment that went into all of Apple's hardware, for instance.
> That's not how business works. The App Store in current form would not exist without all the collective investment that went into all of Apple's hardware, for instance.
While technically true, this argument doesn't provide any merit to the discussion. The App Store backed purchase for the Patreon subscription would not exist at all without the creator's work and investment in creating their form of content.
In the absence of the App Store, the creator would still have access to their patrons via mobile web and payment via the methods already provided by Patreon. The app is merely a convenience - it's a hard sell that this convenience is worth 30% of the creator's revenue through the platform.
> The App Store backed purchase for the Patreon subscription would not exist at all without the creator's work and investment in creating their form of content.
Both parties are getting the chance to set whatever price they want. Up to the market to resolve supply/demand equilibrium
Creators on Patreon are already loosely bound to the market of other creators. Not all creators are affected by this change.
The app store payment cut harms only creators who have disproportionately high percentages of patrons that primarily consume their content from iPhones - a demographic that they have no control over.
If they wish to increase their price to make up for this, they then are forced to risk turning away their other, non-iPhone-primary patrons. Notably, Patreon is forbidden by Apple from making this pricing scheme transparent and up-charging only iPhone users to keep the creator whole.
The only party with power here is Apple - and they are using it to strongarm.
> The app store payment cut harms only creators who have disproportionately high percentages of patrons that primarily consume their content from iPhones
It cuts both ways. The app store payment disincents consuming content from iPhones (indirectly, as the iPhone-heavy creators raise their prices). Of course Apple has the greater power, but there are always tradeoffs. That is the market in action - "cutting both ways" so to speak - or "strongarm" in your parlance - until you reach equilibrium. An equilibrium which is always temporary (ever heard of disruption?).
> It cuts both ways. The app store payment disincents consuming content from iPhones (indirectly, as the iPhone-heavy creators raise their prices).
That is not remotely a balanced comparison. An iPhone has more than the purpose of consuming content from Patreon and is unlikely to affect Apple. They are still gaining in this situation.
There is no magical fairy tale being called "the market" balancing the situation here. Just a large corporation exerting control over people through rent-seeking. The only disruption happening is Apple disrupting people being fairly paid for their work so they can take a large of chunk of it instead of being happy making a profit by skimming off the top already.
also now one of the worst ide in mobile/desktop development and an embarrassment for a company of apple's size and profits
them taking more and rents from their store-related operations is hard to justify from software product-quality perspective; its like a slap in the face
I’m surprised they were surprised because operating costs should be pretty much nil. What do they do, pay a few thousand app reviewers, a few hundred software engineers? Pretty sure if they had to, they could operate App Store for a few tens of millions of dollars per year.
All of this could be solved easily if developers were allowed to pass on the apple tax to consumers and advertise discounts for not using the App Store. No one wants to pay more for nothing.
I really think I might be done with Apple. The only thing keeping me using them is how much I hate Android. The _millisecond_ a competitor arrives, I'm dropping my iPhone like a bad habit.
Off topic, but is there anything specific that you hate about Android? I find it acceptable. I'm trying to cut down my phone usage so maybe I'm more tolerant.
I'm wondering what adjectives you hope to apply to a phone operating system. I'm content with mine when I don't have to think about it, for which "acceptable" seems about right, and discontent when I do.
GrapheneOS on a Pixel is that competitor. Open source, more secure than Apple, compatible with nearly all Android apps. It's all the positive aspects of Android without the downsides (Google).
I keep hoping and wishing for a daily drivable linux phone that's compatible with all the us networks to come along. I'll keep hoping and wishing. Someday I hope we will get there!
The problem is that Apple owns the platform and half of the mobile ecosystem. You can't just launch a competitive marketplace which could compete alongside Apple's app store, nor can you launch an alternative operating system. You have to launch a whole new smartphone stack complete with operating system, app distribution and app ecosystem.
I also don't use Apple, and I try to avoid the only other alternative by using GrapheneOS instead of an official Android build.
But at some point everything is going to be so closely tied to Google as well that that way of living is also going to become too painful, and at that point "or not use Apple or Google" is a bit like saying "or not use the roads".
This. Doing business with almost any major company is unethical, but Apple sits near the top of the big tech companies people shouldn't do business with. They are not a force for good in the world.
They could lower the rates even more and still afford the government bribes and solid gold tchotchkes, but the whole point of the bribes is to not do that.
Sure, and you can buy an android phone and use the play store instead and still get charged 30%. Or you could sideload, but let’s be real 99.9% of users aren’t gonna do that, and similarly most gamers are gonna buy everything on steam.
The exceptions here prove the rule I’m afraid, if anything.
Correct, but that means that publishers are choosing to distribute via Steam, despite the existence of other options, because Steam's superior features, user base, etc. justify paying that premium. They could distribute on Epic games, or even self-distribute like how Blizzard does, but they choose Steam.
It's not analogous to iOS that has no other options for distribution.
There is no ideological argument for voluntary action here. The entire goal is to force regulators to step in. The debate over 'good vs. bad companies' is just online noise and rhetorical trik, no one on either side of the political spectrum wants these systems to be fixed voluntarily with corporate altruism.
But what are they even doing for regulators to have to step in? Making profits from someone selling their product in your market seems pretty valid to me. Are you saying this is anticompetitive to other possible app store storefronts like Google Play or something?
Just to ground the discussion in Apple's criminal behavior a bit, here's some excerpts from a 2025 ruling about Apple's behavior in this regard:
> Apple’s response to the Injunction strains credulity. After two sets of evidentiary hearings, the truth emerged. Apple, despite knowing its obligations thereunder, thwarted the Injunction’s goals, and continued its anticompetitive conduct solely to maintain its revenue stream. Remarkably, Apple believed that this Court would not see through its obvious cover-up (the 2024 evidentiary hearing). To unveil Apple’s actual decision-making process, not the one tailor-made for litigation, the Court ordered production of real-time documents and ultimately held a second set of hearings in 2025.
> To summarize: One, after trial, the Court found that Apple’s 30 percent commission “allowed it to reap supracompetitive operating margins” and was not tied to the value of its intellectual property, and thus, was anticompetitive. Apple’s response: charge a 27 percent commission (again tied to nothing) on off-app purchases, where it had previously charged nothing,and extend the commission for a period of seven days after the consumer linked-out of the app. Apple’s goal: maintain its anticompetitive revenue stream. Two, the Court had prohibited Apple from denying developers the ability to communicate with, and direct consumers to, other purchasing mechanisms. Apple’s response: impose new barriers and new requirements to increase friction and increase breakage rates with full page “scare” screens, static URLs, and generic statements. Apple’s goal: to dissuade customer usage of alternative purchase opportunities and maintain its anticompetitive revenue stream. In the end, Apple sought to maintain a revenue stream worth billions in direct defiance of this Court’s Injunction.
So, I wanted to avoid referring to this case because it undermines any discussion, but if you want to include it, the judge ruled in favor of Apple for nine out of ten claims made by Epic, including 1) Apple's 30% commission is not anticompetitive behavior, and 2) Apple has the right to not allow third-party apps on their platform. Apple, being Apple, attempted to subvert the part about allowing links to other storefronts by adding a 27% commission aas well as a scare page, which is what they are currently in hot water for. However, the overall decision was solidly in Apple's favor regarding the App Store's 30% commission and practices.
> One, after trial, the Court found that Apple’s 30 percent commission “allowed it to reap supracompetitive operating margins” and was not tied to the value of its intellectual property, and thus, was anticompetitive.
Epic is twisting other people's words here. Notice how they quote “allowed it to reap supracompetitive operating margins” but not the point about it being anticompetitive. It's because the decision never said that.
Why should they have to allow third parties to run apps on their platform? The fact that it is a clear security risk already gives them justification, but even looking past that, Apple is not the only platform that bars users from running third-party software or marketplaces on their products. For example, playstation, xbox, and switch all disallow running unauthorized games on their platforms. What makes Apple different?
No. This is a result of a market failure caused by monopoly power. Regulators must make sure market capitalism works.
I'm not sure what is the basis for your question but using market definition where Google Play and Apple Store are in the same market is not correct (market definition is essential part of any monopoly regulation).
Markets are defined by choice of practice, not by choice in principle.
My question is: what is the basis for asserting that this market failure is due to monopoly power? Is your argument that their excessive profits from the services provided result from anti-competitive behavior? If so, what specific anti-competitive behavior are you referring to?
The specific cited anti-competitive behaviors (from DOJ and EU Commission is) are related to violating anti-steering provisions (companies forbidden for directing towards other payments methods), tying and bundling (in-app purchase requirements), self-preferencing (obvious), "tap-to-pay" monopoly, and blocking third party app-stores.
This is all money that is reducing expenditure elsewhere. I get it: capitalism and economics. Yet I still think humanity could do better and I think capitalism itself suffers. Economics theory is broken if it thinks this is good for society in general.
I think what confuses me is that Apple is taking so much profit that it reduces their profits.
It's a classic direct-indirect management problem. Think about Android for a second. It costs nothing to put an app on their app store. People can make apps for themselves and then just publish because either "why not" or it's an easy way to distribute to friends and family. So basically it is making app creation easy. Meanwhile Apple charges you $100/yr to even put something up on the store, makes it hard to sideload, and consequently people charge for apps, which Apple rejoices as they get a 30% cut (already double dipping: profiting from devs, profiting from the devs' customers).
BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SMARTPHONES
A smartphone is useless without apps! People frustrated they can't find the apps they want on iPhone? They switch to Android. People on Android want to get away from Google but they can't do half the shit they want to on iPhones (and the other half costs $0.99/mo)? They bite their tongue or rage quit to Graphene.
The only reason this "fuck over the user" strategy works is because there's an effective monopoly.
All of this is incredibly idiotic as the point of a smartphone is that it is a computer that also makes phone calls. We have made a grave mistake in thinking they are anything but general purpose computers. All our conversations around them seem really silly or down right idiotic when you recognize they are general purpose computers. And surprise surprise, the result is that seeing how profitable and abusive the smartphone market can be leads to a pretty obvious result: turn your laptops and desktops into smartphone like devices. Where everything must be done through the app stores, where they lock you out of basic functionalities, where they turn the general purpose computer into a locked down for-their-purposes computer.
The thing that made the smartphone and the computer so great was the ability to write programs. The ability to do with it as you want. It's because you can't build a product for everyone. But the computer? It's an environment. You can make an environment that anyone can turn into the thing they want and they need. THAT is the magic of computers. So why are we trying to kill that magic?
It doesn't matter that 90% of people don't use it that way, and all those arguments are idiotic. Like with everything else, it is a small minority of people that move things forward. A small percentage of players account for the majority of microtransactions in videogames. A small percentage of fans buy the majority of merchandise from their favorite musicians. And in just the same way, it is a small number of computer users (i.e. "powerusers") that drive most of the innovation, find most of the bugs, and do most of the things. I mean come on, how long did it take Apple and Google to put a fucking flashlight into the OS? It was the most popular apps on both their stores for a long time before it got built in. Do you really think they're going to be able to do all the things?
Advocating for regulators to step in is already a value judgement. Why is "high profitability" a cause for regulatory scrutiny? The optimal behaviour in any ecosystem (corporate or natural) is to defend as much territory as is within your power, not to keep only to what covers your "needs". Why have you deemed this behaviour, which is emergent anywhere competition between organisms exists, as in need of regulation?
Apple is succeeding largely on merit, within the bounds of civilized, peaceful competition. Shouldn't we all just be grateful for the contributions they have made to our civilization?
What we need much, much less of in this world is government force, especially during these trying times of government force and outreach (something I expected my more left side of the isle colleagues to have finally realized by now).
COIVD really was a test of how much governmental draconianism we would take, and we failed spectacularly, and not only that, but are demanding more government.
So no, we don't need more regulation, especially given this country's history of regulatory capture. We need new solutions.
We don't need "more" government, we need the government to do its job. We need the regulators who have been legally appointed to oversee these areas to actually respond to these behaviors. Regulatory capture is the issue, but the solution isn't less government. It's getting corporate money and lobbying out of the government (Citizens United is to blame for most of our woes), increase the enforcement of anti-corruption laws, and get antitrust back on the table.
I want big corporations to be scared. I want them to fear for their own survival, and to tread lightly lest the sword of damocles fall upon them.
I'm with you, I like your answer, especially the last bit.
But how to get there we may disagree.
The existing avenues have proven unfruitful.
Regulating more has just lead to more control in the hands of the elites and those with resources, who know how to game the system, and more draconianism for us smaller folks. "Rules for thee, but not for me"
Anarchy/Libertarianism isn't the answer either, its too impractical, unrealistic.
I won't pretend I'm smart enough to know what the answer is, but I am experienced enough to know whats laid before us hasn't worked and isn't working. Consumer protection regulatory bodies have been made toothless over the course of decades, I don't think I can trust them again anyways after what has happened in recent years. Financial regulatory bodies only purpose is to make life as difficult for the smaller guys.
We have non-existent data and tech regulation. You know what would happen if we actually got some? It would be written by the same tech oligarchs. We would just have a new revolving door. Like how the Verizon CEO become the FCC chair. We will get Larry and Sundar passing our regulation. Elon and Mark funding the think tanks that write the legislation.
This is a waste of Sovereign Tech Fund money. That money is supposed to fund the digital sovereignty of Germany and Europe. Yet, they put €500,000 into this. It seems open-source developers have their own way of performing their own version of corporate capture.
Considering Arch is one of the big upstream distros and, alongside Debian and NixOS, one of the big community-run ones, standardizing and improving its foundations is certainly not a waste. Moreover some results are usable beyond Arch, e.g. VOA (for storage and retrieval of signature verifiers). Choosing Rust though does impose some portability limitations. (Even if makes sense to not want to use C in 2020s.)
This is not improving anything. Overly complex and starting from scratch. They should have picked dome existing package manager instead and contributed to it. Yet another package manager is not justifiable anymore. Always starting new package manager from scratch is the bane of oss it seems.
But this _is_ improving the pacman ecosystem? Afaict its aiming to be a drop-in replacement of existing tools, but with proper libraries so systems like buildbtw can be built around it.
ALPM is not a makepkg/pacman implementation, it is a set of libraries to make it easier to build makepkg/pacman implementations.
It's kind of like the OCI image specification, but for the "Dockerfile" portion of Arch Linux package management rather than the binaries. Competitors like Debian don't even have something that is equivalent to PKGBUILD or Dockerfile. You're expected to know how to setup and build a project on your own and then have packaging be a separate step that happens at the end. They are heavily reliant on institutional knowledge of package maintainers and are impenetrable to outsiders that are unwilling to spend days on building their first package.
ALPM is not new nor is it a package manager. It's a set of packaging tools dating back to 2002, older than most of package managers on that list. These are improvements to the existing ecosystem.
Technical details only verify Wasm's potential. Wide adoption is not a technical matter.
Just like with JVM and other better options before and after it, it's politics, interests and momentum. JVM in the browser was not killed by technology, it was killed by Microsoft. Similarly, we should look who gains and loses relative to other if Wasm becomes mainstream.
Easy portability and less platform dependence. Who wants it, who does not? Apple, Microsoft, Google, ...
Just like with JVM the Wasm can be killed with wrong embrace. Microsoft Java Virtual Machine (MSJVM) was named in the United States v. Microsoft Corp. antitrust civil actions, as an implementation of Microsoft's "Embrace, extend and extinguish" strategy. Adopt JVM, remove portability with extensions.
As it was retrospective study, I really hope they made sure that test images were not in a training set of the algorithm. If they were, the whole study is meaningless.
US did not invade Venezuela by the definition of the bet.
>This market will resolve to "Yes" if the United States commences a military offensive intended to establish control over any portion of Venezuela between November 3, 2025, and January 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No".
>For the purposes of this market, land de facto controlled by Venezuela or the United States as of September 6, 2025, 12:00 PM ET, will be considered the sovereign territory of that country.
>The resolution source for this market will be a consensus of credible sources.
Sounds to me like they intend to control the oil production infrastructure which is land/territory within Venezuela - but what do I know.
Isn't the entire Polymarket concept rife with ways to abuse the system? If I have insider knowledge I get shills to create a market for that knowledge - then make an extreme bet at the last moment. Seems sort of like betting the 49ers will not win the Super Bowl because you know that Purdy's kneecaps are about to be busted. Or large options trades the day before the Senate votes on Healthcare bills.
If you want a gambling site, you need to ban insider knowledge. If you want to generate accurate predictions, you want to encourage insider knowledge. But even then, the problem you mention can occur when an insider extreme bet happens at the last minute, because although you end up with an accurate prediction it isn't very useful in the few minutes before it becomes a fact. I don't know if there is a solution.
Time-weight predictions so that they're "worth" more the further in advance they are, converging to "worthless" as they approach the due date? Perhaps there is a way of making this result emerge "organically" from the rules of the system, rather than explicitly encoding it.
Depends on your goals. If you are the platform then there is nothing to solve: you’re running an illegal gambling website and currently getting away with it. If you are an inside trader you’re also doing well.
It’s not great for the gambling addicts but helping people better themselves doesn’t seem to be a theme in federal policy at the moment
Gambling sites probably do have it in their user agreements.
Further, "insider trading" in prediction markets is probably fundamentally illegal under existing commodities fraud laws in the US (I am not a lawyer,) but there's probably nobody actively policing it, and probably no precedent in how to prosecute the cases.
I think it hinges on whether "any part of Venezuela" includes intangible "parts" like being able to tell them who to sell oil to, or whether it only refers to land/territory. The second paragraph implies that control over land is the point of the bet, but it doesn't explicitly say so. Control over the oil industry doesn't require control over land.
Naive view is it's suppose to create public interest measures with real valued results.
Unfortunately, it's pretty easy to see something, eventually, like "X won't be seen in public after December 31st, 2026" essentially creating an assassination market.
> This market will resolve to "Yes" if the United States commences a military offensive intended to establish control over any portion of Venezuela between November 3, 2025, and January 31, 2026,
There are two conditions:
(1) A military offensive: obviously satisfied, and
(2) That military offensive being intended to establish control over any portion of Venezuela: The President explicitly stated that the intended outcome was that US would run the country, and that, if it was necessary to use additional military force beyond the original act to secure that because of the lack of cooperation of the remnants of the regime left in Venezuela, that additional force would be applied. So, that part is also satisfied.
Any denial that the conditions were satisfied is pure sophistry.
POTUS literally, literally announced that the US had control over all (!) of Venezuela.
Now, sure, that's kind of a lie. But (ahem) By The Definition of The Bet, actual control is not required. Only a military offensive intended to establish control. What purer definition of intent can you have than the decisionmaker's literal statement? QED.
No, this is cheating. Now, sure, the bets placed seemed very likely to be fraudulent. Which is cheating too. But there's not "technically" here. Polymarket is playing games with its bets. And that's fraud, even if it's got company.
Polymarket is not a broker, counterparty, or even resolver, so the only thing they can arguably be criticized for is hosting a market without a sufficiently clear definition of "invasion".
How can they not be a "broker" when they handled the transaction?! How can they not be a "resolver" when they're the ones refusing to pay based on their own determination?
Also, what definition of "invasion" are you thinking of (please cite) which does not apply here?
They don't handle transactions. It's a blockchain-based platform that they design and operate, but part of that design is that they don't hold money themselves, nor are they the arbiter to any of the markets hosted on their platform.
> Also, what definition of "invasion" are you thinking of (please cite) which does not apply here?
No idea what a better definition of "invasion" could have been, but the only one that's relevant for the resolution is that listed on the market description on Polymarket (which many traders don't even read, but that's a different story).
This argument seems to be about the real meaning of words versus their overloaded legal analogues. I can’t imagine Venezuela’s military kidnapping Trump, then saying they would run the United States now, being parsed like this.
The things the POTUS says, are intended to further the US Government's goals. The actual statements made may be true or false.
If POTUS says "We did X because Y", that's no guarantee that Y is the reason that X was done, or even that X was done at all. That just means that POTUS would like people to think that Y was the reason X was done.
That Trump is also a serial liar is not actually relevant here, this is true for every President. They make statements in service of their agenda, not in service of the truth.
We have to take the Presidents Statements are credible, firstly, because it's the closest thing to the truth anyone has. He has no real strategy, he makes things up on the spot.
Secondly, even if argument could be that 'some other, more credible president would lie' - this actually does not hold up, because nobody could operate in those terms.
The presidents statements in an official context are official, that's it. Except in rare cases.
"He tells people what to do on a whim" and "has longstanding personal beefs and gripes" - that's it.
We don't know what he's going to wake up and tweet tomorrow so all we have are his statements.
Also, I think we give way to much credit to this notion of '4d chess' - he lies in the moment because he can get away with it, not out of some well plotted deception. He's not servicing some complicated scheme - just his gut.
He'll say something else the next day, but for that moment, what he says is policy.
>We have to take the Presidents Statements are credible, firstly, because it's the closest thing to the truth anyone has.
* "Statements", not "statement". Past statements can be used to assess the credibility of more recent ones.
* Actions speak louder than words. Pardoning the king of cocaine trafficking demonstrates just how seriously the administration is trying to counter drug trafficking.
> We have to take the Presidents Statements are credible, firstly, because it's the closest thing to the truth anyone has. He has no real strategy, he makes things up on the spot.
I'm sorry, this is nonsense. "He makes things up, therefore we have to take the things he says as credible"?
The President is not an oracle of truth, nor are his words the most accurate representation we have on the intentions of US government actions.
Let's say he had said directly, "The January 3rd operation in Venezuela was a best-effort attempt by the US to take control over Venezuela".
Now let's say he had instead said "The January 3rd operation in Venezuela was a best-effort attempt by the US to take control over Madagascar".
You would genuinely, truly believe that in that moment, the capture of Maduro from Venezuela was the most effective thing the US government could do to take control of Madagascar?
No, the position that POTUS statements can't be taken as valid are actually 'nonsense' - it's just the opposite.
The presidents statements are the legitimate statements of the State of the United States of America, it has nothing to do with what you or I think about 'Madagascar'.
He is POTUS, his words are nominally and pragmatically state policy.
If he makes a declaration of 'use of force' against another it should be taken at face value.
This would be true if were only a nominal figurehead, leaving policy to others, but he's not, he has material power and wields it.
Given the construction of the balance of power - 'He is America' at least for the time being.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about how the Presidency of the US works.
The statements POTUS makes to the public are simply statements by a person and should be taken as such.
The instructions the POTUS gives, privately or publicly, to the various apparatuses of the US government, are what is nominally and pragmatically state policy. When these contradict public statements POTUS has made, it is these instructions that are what actually matter.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of power and geopolitics.
First this: "The statements POTUS makes to the public are simply statements by a person and should be taken as such." <-- this is definitely not true, even with a basic deference to the more traditional, formal view of the US president's role, or the role of any Head of State for that matter.
The US Presidents proclamations are policy, and always have been. Obviously - a statement at the 'correpondents dinner' is not the same thing as a quick media response, is not the same thing as a statement from behind the podium, is not the same thing as a prepared address or document - but anything above board is representative of the State.
Particularly given the current POTUS leverage over Congress and wide Judicial deference to his power.
Obviously, POTUS is going to have private discussions and give directions that are not consistent with public statements - that adds to the ambiguous nature of his statements, but his public statements are still facto policy and must be taken at face value.
A statement like 'force is on the table' internally may seem like a negotiating tactic or 'populist politics' or 'stuff tough business guys say' or even 'fodder for fox news', but geopolitically it's borderline a declaration of war. It should be taken seriously.
> We have to take the Presidents Statements are credible, firstly, because it's the closest thing to the truth anyone has.
You are welcome to believe everything that President Putin is saying about anything, including Ukraine.
That's a profoundly absurd statement. Appeal to authority is a fallacy, especially with a trackrecord of an "authority" lying.
If the President's words are the truth, what to do with the statements in which he contradicts himself? What about situations in which 2 presidents disagree?
>The presidents statements in an official context are official, that's it.
Official, perhaps most of the time. Truthful, definitely not.
What's up with the inability to separate "opinions/statements" vs. "facts/truth"?..
2. "Truthful representation of US government policy"
They are 2 very different things. And even the second one can be easily debated against due to:
1. Discrepancy between what countries say vs. what they actually do. Threats, lies, dishonesty, hiding truth, creative paraphrasing, etc. are normal ways the politics operates.
2. Trump's twitter messaging. What he says does not necessarily represent even his own opinions and policy. Case in point, when he announced the no-fly-zone over Venezuela a few weeks ago. The problem? It was only a tweet. No actual commands/decisions were made/given to the diplomats, bureucracy, military. It was a fake news by the President himself.
What credible source exists for the intent of this administration? You can have all the IR acumen in the world, but you won't be able to get into the head of this president.
News sources in Venezuela reporting on the presence of American troops might be one?
An invasion with the intent of taking control of the country would not involve troops arriving in the capital, completing their mission perfectly with no losses on their side, and then everybody leaving, such that no enemy troops remain.
The bet wasn't "will President Trump claim to have invaded Venezuela", it was whether the US would actually do it.
Your understanding of the relationship between the truth and the words being spoken by POTUS are the only discontinuity here. Update that expectation and everything makes sense.
The US did launch a military offensive in Venezuela, albeit briefly. That is not in question. What is in question is the intent, which how do you know intent without accepting the publicly stated intent of the commander in chief?
The bet was, specifically:
This market will resolve to "Yes" if the United States commences a military offensive intended to establish control over any portion of Venezuela between November 3, 2025, and January 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No".
I'm not saying I know the intent. I'm saying you don't know the intent, because the word of the commander in chief is not sufficient evidence.
Maybe Trump's eventual goal is to invade Venezuela with the intent of controlling it. I don't know. I do know that the intent of the brief military offensive was not to control it, because of what was done.
Yeah, not like the original plan was to keep the territory, but after failing they had to leave. No, they had a specific plan to capture Maduro and to leave; and this is exactly what they did.
Venezuala government calls it an invasion. U.S left with the evidence, do we trust the fascist regime of venezuala or the elected president of the U.S?
It seems like it would be common sense to trust neither party to the conflict to arbitrate such markets. That’s why e.g. for presidential election, the criterion is usually a quorum of different news outlets and not either party running.
It's not as if the site can steal money this way. Either something else happens before the 31st that does meet their definition, or else they have to pay out the "no" side.
> This market will resolve to "Yes" if the United States commences a military offensive intended to establish control over any portion of Venezuela between November 3, 2025, and January 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No".
The US attack had no intent to control territory. It was to nab one guy. Second paragraph establishes that after intent, there must be de facto control of the territory.
1. Attack intent to control did not happen.
2. De facto control of Venezuelan territory did not happen.
Second paragraph establishes that after intent, there must be de facto control of the territory.
The way I read it, the second paragraph serves as the definition of territory ("any portion of Venezuela"), not as a condition for resolving the bet. The invasion doesn't need to be successful, it just needs to have the intent you specified in 1.
...which makes the entire bet like quicksand, because it relies on the public statements from a regime known for its "inaccurate" messaging.
The more interesting question for rules lawyers is whether the president itself classifies as "any portion of Venezuela" -- the claim doesn't explicitly limit itself to only geographical portions.
There is nothing both public and credible to substantiate the claim by the POTUS.
It’s possible we have de facto control of the regime through some backroom that only the Trump Administration knows about, but that’s just speculative on my part. We don’t know this is actually the case, and thus far there hasn’t been anything to substantiate the existence of such a thing.
So we’re at at a point where if put on the spot, gun to my head, I had to answer whether the United States controls the Government of Venezuela in any meaningful way, I would have to say “No” despite what Trump himself said. This is subject to change, pending further evidence made available to the American people.
It doesn’t matter whether the US actually has control, only that the military action was taken with intent to establish control.
>This market will resolve to "Yes" if the United States commences a military offensive intended to establish control over any portion of Venezuela between November 3, 2025, and January 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No".
What the military actually did was a raid which captured Maduro and his wife, and likely took out some of Venezuela’s anti-air capabilities—for all the good they did them—in the process. As far as we know, that was the intent. Actually establishing control is an occupational effort.
I see your argument, and I think it is even defensible but I think it falls short. An actual resolution to this question may require a judge to weigh in on the contract.
"Actually establishing control is an occupational effort."
Not quite.
They're trying to establish control by threatening to kill or imprison the leaders and by blockade.
Venezuela apparently handed over a lot of oil, it seems like they've been able to do something.
That said - we don't really know how much 'control' that is.
If I were Polymarket, I wouldn't say that the US has control either, but, it's entirely plausible.
We'll see.
This could go the way of DOGE or the Trade War aka just a trailing mess of ongoing concerns that people forget about, though to play my own devil's advocate, ICE is consistently ramping up.
I understand that he made that claim, but until we see something that effectively substantiates that claim, it’s just words. Right now Maduro is in custody and being tried for the charges, but the regime he built is still in place, and as far as we know, not feeling any warm feelings about cooperating with us.
Now realistically no one in that regime is any safer than Maduro was, but it’s also a possibility they resist and carry on without Maduro. It’s only been since Saturday. I’m not saying there’s no world where Trump & Rubio are correct today or when they said it over the weekend, I’m saying that there is no public information substantiating those claims. Near as I can tell, it’s a “listen to us or else” kinda deal, which could be enough, but then we would see the effects of that through cooperation with the Trump Administration.
The claim doesn’t need to be substantiated, because it doesn’t matter whether they actually will control Venezuela, it only matters that it was their intent to do so, which Rubio and Trump have both admitted.
Like I said, I think your position is defensible but I think it falls short so I still disagree. If the people who bought into this contract can get it in front of a judge though, the judge might agree with you.
I am prepared to be wrong on this one, but I just don’t think that Trump & Rubio’s words after the fact are enough.
Except neither Trump or Rubio are credible sources. Their actions and words are notoriously unreliable.
In fact, citing them as an authority leads to the transitive property applying to credibility in an argument.
All of us here know Trump is an unreliable person, why is he being cited to support definitive claims? And Yes His unreliably most certainly extends to his own aims, there is no question on that.
You can for the most part evaluate intent based on actions. There are some actions which can have multiple possible intents behind them, where things get trickier. But in most situations, there is one primary consequence of something, and the action needs to be taken with deliberation, hence you can state with high certainty what the intention was, based purely on what was done. Consversely, if a person has complete freedom to complete some action, but chooses not to, then we can say their intention wasn't to do that thing.
The Chavez Museum was also destroyed...but no it wasn't an invasion. It didn't control land which is the definition in this case. The blockade provides de facto control which is what Trump is referring to.
They ARE, or INTEND to? It's not Jan 31, 2026 yet, so, AFAICT, only the "Yes" option can be short-circuited if it occurs. They can't pay the "No" side until Feb 1, 2026, right?
Good point, so for completeness: They'll pay out either "Yes" or "No", but definitely not nobody or themselves (except if they're also "Yes" or "No" holders).
Is it having heavy influence over through proxies? You can't just snatch a guy like Maduro out of a country without some local help. Help that would presumably be aligned with you on goals.
Or is it setting up a complete government like in Iraq, postwar Germany/Japan, etc.?
Yes, it is clear there was local help. Someone who had a lot to gain, it could even be someone from government looking for promotion or seeing maduro as a threat, including the new president herself. That does not imply control over Venezuela. Nor alignment with American goals.
I mean, official American goals are "taking oil and getting money from it, putting it to offshore account". There is no "alignment on goals" possible, but there is a space for corruption and pressure. Venezuela is highly corrupt country after all.
> Or is it setting up a complete government like in Iraq, postwar Germany/Japan, etc.?
That would require actual invasion and actual control over land - military on the ground. Soldiers in high numbers, patrolling streets and shooting it out with militias. There is nothing of the sort going on. Besides, Iraq was failure.
Germany was literally defeated and destroyed after the war. Fight capable men were already killed in large numbers and Germans themselves seen themselves as losers of that war. And comfortably, their ideology of "might is right" meant that once they were destroyed they accepted to loss.
Trump and Vance may be able to peer it with militias, as another gang competing with local gangs, but they cant build equivalent of post WWII Germany. Because both sides are different - Venezuela is not defeated, there is no American military in there and American ideology is closer to that of past Germany then that of post WWII America.
This is the whole thing about polymarket, whoever writes the original bet can lawyer it to create a misleading impression of probabilities by defining an overly narrow or vague victory condition that they will interpret to their benefit to make more money.
The conditions are public and (as far as I know) immutable, though. Getting language lawyered is part of the risk of taking such bets, which is why it's probably a bad idea for most laypeople to do it, except if they're hedging some other investment or something similar.
i think its supposed to be fun and if you get rules lawyered then you get to complain about it and have people agree with you at parties that you should have won the bet
i dont think it is intended to be used as a meaningful investment platform, or even a serious gambling establishment like an actual casino.
its whole angle is "wouldnt it be funny if you could bet on ____" and then you can
Yeah I think one could easily argue that the special military operation in Venezuela was intended to gain control over the country. Trump literally stated that his team, in particular lil Marco, would be running the country. Of course Rubio walked that back a little, explaining that we only have "leverage" (via Maduro's trial/pardoning), but that still is within the terms of the bet.
The U.S. absolutely “commence[d] a military offensive” against Venezuela. The question said if it “intended to establish control over any portion of Venezuela.”
The condition is based on intent, not outcome. (It’s a poorly-drafted contract.)
It was a helicopter evac. I guarantee you 100% at some point they intended to, and did control, the roof of a building or an area of land for some length of time in order to perform the helicopter evac. I bet they even said so, over the radio. I bet if it's not classified (unclear), you could get the operators to testify to this.
Even if it had been a boat evac they would do the same for the boat landing/evac area.
There is a 0% chance the planned military operation did not involve deliberately controlling some area, for some length of time, inside venezuela, for exfil.
The terms do not require they establish permanent control, or control for any significant length of time. Just that they intend to control, and did control, some area.
1. "Establish". Stabilize the control, not temporarily visit. Similar to flying a bit in the airspace does not count as establishing a control.
2. "Establish an area" also means that the area would be big enough and control significant/independent enough in order to maintain (!) it. E.g. imagine if most of the Delta were eliminated and only one guy survived, holding a maid hostage in the toilet. That would not count because the area is small, the control is insignificant and keeping the toilet space was not the original point anyway. Similar as attacking Brazilian servers would not count only because the traffic went through Venezuela's network.
Taking words out of sentences and trying to define them piece by piece rarely makes sense.
For example, you forgot the "intended to" part.
Especially taking terms about a military operation and appling regular dictionary definitions to them makes little to no sense.
For example, in the legal and contract realm, something like establishing control means simply having authority over something, even temporarily. IE statements of the intent to run venezuela would suffice, even without any land control, ability to do so, etc.
In practice - a court is going to give it a fairly broad reading consistent with an everyday person's understanding, since that is who is betting. They will additionally rely on public statements about intent, etc.
This assumes nobody can get enough information about the actual operational plans.
So if the court wanted to interpret "establish control" (which, again, it would not do separately from the other words, but let's say they did), it would do something like the following:
1. Is it defined in the contract? Yes - contract definition controls
2. Is it consistently used in context? Yes - context control
3. Is it a term of art in the field? Yes - definition of
term of art controls
4. Is it still ambiguous? Yes - evidence about what it means gets presented by both sides
Part 4 is where you'd present a dictionary definition.
In any case, there is no point in having this argument, as polymarket's TOS almost certainly allows them to do what they want, and nobody is going to care what random internet commentators who suddenly have turned themselves into full blown lawyers, think :)
(In fact, polymarket's terms requires you to agree that they have no control whatsoever over contract resolution, etc. They are also governed by the law of panama)
>This market will resolve to "Yes" if the United States commences a military offensive intended to establish control over any portion of Venezuela between November 3, 2025, and January 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No".
