r/technology 17h ago

Software Y Combinator says Apple's App Store has hindered startup growth

https://techcrunch.com/2025/08/22/y-combinator-says-apples-app-store-has-hindered-startup-growth/
439 Upvotes

108 comments sorted by

480

u/chimerasaurus 16h ago

Easy way for YC to (1) blame why a lot of garbage startups fail and (2) peddle a libertarian “no regulation” view that has given rise to some of their alum like Airbnb.

YC deserves zero political clout.

222

u/FollowingFeisty5321 16h ago edited 15h ago

YC deserves no political clout and Apple doesn't deserve 30% rent on every app and online service you ever use either.

Apple is fighting for the right to impose a fee if you tap a link in an app - a fee you would pay for any purchases from any devices within one week of tapping that link - and to control the wording, formatting, coloring, placement, frequency and URLs of those links to ensure you'd rather pay with IAP and incur the fee that's easiest for them to collect. And it's a recurring fee if it's a subscription.

85

u/Prior_Coyote_4376 15h ago

This one gets it.

Just so everyone knows - this is rent-seeking behavior and there is absolutely no reason they’re stopping here. Every inch for these people is just testing the cost of doing business, which is why you can’t give them any leeway.

I despise YC and think their companies are about making unprofessional snake oil salesmen that are enshittifying good tech products at record rates, but I also think it’s great when we don’t reward rent-seeking.

5

u/psaux_grep 14h ago

While the App Store to some level hinders some startups the big problem is the proliferation of crap on the App Store.

I’m not going to argue for or against the concept itself, because honestly I don’t know. The cut I’m easily opposed against, but I wonder what it would have looked like today if Apple had just let sideloading have be the default and no-one ever made this one-stop marketplace for distribution.

Would the App space still have been 99% crap, or would people think a lot harder before churning out crap? Temu, Amazon, and Ali express makes me think it would have made no difference. There seems to always be people willing to spend resources on making things that more or less just go straight into the garbage.

5

u/spritejuice 13h ago

Android allows side loading and it doesn't make the platform worse. Contrary, it allows you to install apps like aniyomi which may not be allowed in corporate stores.

1

u/FranciumGoesBoom 8h ago

And yet it's the Google Play store that ran afowl of regulators but not Apple.

5

u/QuickQuirk 11h ago

Exactly. I love my apple device, but this 30% made sense 20 years ago when the cost of bandwidth and storage & building out the software and infrastructure for all that music they were selling was high.

But now?

In some cases apple provides a dozen MB download for an app that entirely runs on the developers external servers - and Apple are expecting to make a larger slice of the profit than the developer is.

1

u/Jusby_Cause 4h ago

The 30% made sense yesterday when the majority of digital storefronts also charge 30% for the majority of the folks paying commissions. Apple’s 15% makes MORE sense as the majority of folks on the app store (those that make less than 1 million in a year) only pay 15%.

If we’re ending commissions across the board, in retail, digital sales, travel, gaming, etc. then end all commissions across the board. If commissions are only allowed when your company name is not Apple… well I suppose that’s a point of view.

1

u/QuickQuirk 2h ago

Oh, fully agree. I'm not in support of any of these: Steam, Android, etc.

Now, to be fair, the platforms DO provide value, and they should be entitled to something for the service. It's just that the expectations here are sometimes very out of wack

1

u/webguynd 3h ago

30% one time is fine. 30% for every single IAP is egregious. Telling devs they can’t link to outside methods to pay or even send an email to their users about it is truly scummy, and should be illegal.

Apple needs to get hit hard with antitrust here. It’s long past time.

7

u/GingerSkulling 14h ago

No, this particular case has nothing to do with Apple. YC is just trying to ride the IAP battles trend and even if you thing Apple is 100% in the wrong with IAP, YC should not be given leeway because they joined in. YC are shit peddlers and their only motivation is to peddleneven more shit.

5

u/FollowingFeisty5321 13h ago edited 12h ago

This "particular case" is Apple's legal appeal of the April injunction that forced them to allow apps to link to their own payments without charging a commission, after criminal contempt referrals for conspiring to circumvent a 2021 injunction forcing them to allow apps to link to their own payments and lying throughout the court proceedings about their paperwork and motivation charging an almost-identical fee for linking that they do for using IAP - for which they got criminal contempt referrals. It has "literally everything" to do with Apple.

Y Combinator has submitted an "amicus brief" in support of maintaining the injunction.

1

u/Jusby_Cause 4h ago

It’s not every app and online service a user uses. If a user does not use any Apple products and isn’t connecting with ANY iPhone customers, then they pay Apple zero. It’s TOO easy to understand, don’t do business with Apple if their practices aren’t what you like. I personally have not entered into any development agreement with Apple and haven’t tried to produce software that runs on iPhones, so I practice what I preach.

0

u/Deto 14h ago

And just in case people dont know - they aren't trying to do this , they are doing this right now!  They have been for years.  Everything digital you buy through an app they get a cut. It's ridiculous 

-5

u/leftofdanzig 14h ago

Apple doesn't deserve 30% rent on every app and online service you ever use either.

Why? Apple isn’t the end all be all for access to users. If you don’t like the fees then don’t list your app on the Apple Store?

I genuinely don’t get this take. They didn’t come in and buy up some existing market, they made the Apple Store and have grown its customer base themselves. It seems weird to me that people come in so far down the road and say “I don’t like the way you run the marketplace you created so now you have to change.”

They’re not a monopoly, as android users love to say they’re not even the majority so if it’s such a big deal switch to the play store.

9

u/FollowingFeisty5321 13h ago

I think Patreon exemplifies what is wrong with what Apple does.

  • in 2016 they launched an iOS app

  • in 2021 Apple invented a rule that apps like Patreon must use IAP

  • in 2024 while under court order to allow apps to link to their own payments, Apple forced Patreon to exclusively implement IAP

Apple has threatened to remove creator platform Patreon from the App Store if creators use unsupported third-party billing options or disable transactions on iOS, instead of using Apple's own in-app purchasing system for Patreon's subscriptions.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-says-patreon-must-switch-155232559.html

1

u/leftofdanzig 1h ago

Apple invented a rule that apps like Patreon must use IAP

All rules are invented. If Patreon doesn't like it they don't need to have their app on the apple store. Side note but why is patreon even on there? What functionality does that provide that their website/web app wouldn't?

3

u/spritejuice 13h ago

Does the word monopoly mean nothing to you?

1

u/Martin8412 12h ago

Apple does not nor has it ever had a monopoly. 

1

u/spritejuice 12h ago

Apple has a defacto monopoly on where you can get the apps on your iPhone.

2

u/Martin8412 11h ago

Yes, and so does loads of other device manufacturers as well. When is Reddit going to complain that Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo has a monopoly on where you can get apps for their respective devices? 

You are free to purchase a phone from one of the many manufacturers that allows you to choose yourself. 

Software publishers are free not to develop applications for iPhones. They actively choose to develop for the iPhone for the simple reason that it brings them the most of their revenue even after the 30%/15% Apple tax. 

1

u/spritejuice 11h ago

I thought you said Apple doesn't have a monopoly? Now you admit to it?

2

u/Martin8412 1h ago

Apple doesn’t have a monopoly on smartphones. 

1

u/leftofdanzig 55m ago

He was giving examples of similar situations to prove the ridiculousness of your point that apple has a monopoly.

0

u/leftofdanzig 9h ago

That’s a brain dead take. By that logic steam has a monopoly on the games you can buy on steam.

1

u/spritejuice 9h ago

Apple has a monopoly on where you can get your apps on the apple physical device. This monopoly is enforced by their policy of only one app store on their device platform.

Steam has a defacto monopoly by being the preferred place of videogame purchase.

Differences: The apple monopoly is enforced by policy. By using their device, you have to get your apps from the app store. The steam monopoly is enforced by popularity and network effects. They do not own the device platform.

Apple's monopoly is more anti-competitive than Steam's monopoly.

To address your point more directly, Apple has a monopoly on where you can get your apps on your physical device because they force you to get it from the store. Steam does not. This is my point.

I'm ngl, I don't know why I'm breaking this down. I'd imagine my previous statement would be clear if you listened to me in good faith.

1

u/leftofdanzig 48m ago

Fine, Switch games then. You can only buy games for your switch through the nintendo e-shop. Nintendo does not allow you to access independent stores to buy apps or games.

I'm ngl, I don't know why I'm breaking this down. I'd imagine my previous statement would be clear if you listened to me in good faith.

Same, the attitude that it is a monopoly is baffling to me because the same situation with Apple is the situation you have with the majority of other devices. You can't get apps on your Roku from anywhere but them, same thing with Fitbit, fire tablets, most smart tv's, Teslas, the Oculus, etc etc. There are dozens upon dozens of "walled gardens" that exist. Why is the Apple store different?

2

u/fatbob42 12h ago

It’s better for the economy in general if there’s regulation of what they can charge. That’s the why.

1

u/leftofdanzig 1h ago

Why? If they charge too much they'll have less apps on the store, giving them less revenue and eventually they'd lower their cut to entice people to come back. They're not a monopoly and access to the apple store isn't on the same level as a utility like power, water, or internet. Why should the government be telling what a private company can charge for the service they provide?

-14

u/tsdguy 15h ago

Why not?

11

u/FollowingFeisty5321 15h ago

Do you feel you owe Apple $50 - $60/year for using Netflix?

What Apple is arguing is that, with-or-without IAP, you should be paying that.

0

u/The_frozen_one 13h ago

Nobody does unless they subscribe via IAP. They’ve never blocked users from signing in unless they subscribed via IAP, tons of services just didn’t offer IAP sign ups.

6

u/FollowingFeisty5321 12h ago edited 12h ago

No they changed the rules last year after the Supreme Court rejected hearing more on the 2021 injunction prohibiting Apple from banning developers linking to their websites, so Apple "allowed links" but decreed that linking to your website imposed an approximately equal fee. It is the "sequel injunction" that explicitly prohibits any fee which Apple is now fighting to repeal and that YC filed a brief in support of.

That's in the US, in the EU they did the same thing but also asserted merely displaying pricing information in an app constituted a link and thus incurred that fee.

0

u/The_frozen_one 12h ago

It’s just new users who have downloaded the app from the App Store and are signing up for service that way. If you have a subscription and download the app, they never claimed to be owed a cut of that. If Netflix never enabled IAP, Apple would get $0 from Netflix and this would be a non-issue.

5

u/FollowingFeisty5321 12h ago

No their conditions were if you used a link you had to pay 27% fee on any purchases that occured within a 7-day timeframe from any device, recurring for subscriptions, along with a bunch of rules for the text, formatting, placement, frequency and URLs you could use. In court it was revealed about 3-dozen developers applied for permission to have such a link, out of over 100,000 using IAP in the US.

https://9to5mac.com/2024/01/16/apple-revises-us-app-store-rules-to-let-developers-link-to-outside-payment-methods-but-it-will-still-charge-a-commission/

Netflix fell under rules they invented for "reader apps" in 2022 to allow some apps to do what you say, the vast majority of apps do not qualify for that -

Reader apps are apps that provide one or more of the following digital content types — magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, or video

https://developer.apple.com/support/reader-apps/

5

u/gravtix 12h ago

Y Combinator are part of the techbro network state fantasy as well.

1

u/johnnybgooderer 5h ago

That’s complete double talk. In reality, Apple has abused the lack of regulation in their space to put a 30% tax on anyone trying to sell software to people who chose Apple products. How would having to pay 30% of revenue earned for your software product not hurt startups?

1

u/anotherbozo 11h ago

It sounds like that coming from YC but it is true. Early smartphone devs saw a lot of innovation from independent devs. Now, a hobbyist dev can't deploy apps as easily.

2

u/Jusby_Cause 4h ago

Wait, the commission for independent devs back then was 30%. Now it’s 15%. Now, Apple’s developer accounts used to be $99 a year, true, and today… they’re $99 a year. So a hobbyist dev today pays a lower commission and the same $99 a year. How can’t they deploy apps as easily?

72

u/groglox 15h ago

Y Combinator would blame the hot dog stand if they could. Just a Biz dev casino for them.

51

u/akkawwakka 15h ago

There are business models that you straight up can’t do on the App Store.

Are some of them predatory and should be disallowed? Yes.

But the anti-steering rules preventing developers from even mentioning the fact that you could subscribe to a premium service off-platform is straight up anti-competitive.

29

u/tmdblya 14h ago

YC can fuck aaaaaaaall the way off. Grifters.

8

u/teddyKGB- 12h ago

Maybe YC should create their own phone and sell 3 billion of them with their own app store.

Apple has absolutely been greedy and anti competitive but mostly not illegal. More importantly fuck YC

33

u/sdewitt108 16h ago

Boo fucking hoo. Go away Altman.

11

u/funfoam 14h ago

Also please stay in our unregulated hotels posing as houses.

5

u/Healthy_Razzmatazz38 11h ago

it not the worlds job to help venture capital.

1

u/ErinDotEngineer 11h ago

Demand not what venture capital can do for the world. /s

6

u/turtledancers 13h ago

Ya I don’t care about YC. YC is fucking insufferable and I hate the people that fill up this part of SF when it’s going on. Apple should be taking a smaller cut however.

4

u/RockDoveEnthusiast 11h ago

yc is basically garbage these days, if it honestly ever even had redeeming value in the first place.

2

u/Keylime29 5h ago

I know there’s problems, but I actually went into the Apple ecosystem because it was safer

2

u/turb0_encapsulator 5h ago

this is absolutely true, but YC has morphed into a libertarian crypto / effective altruism cult and shouldn't be trusted on anything.

15

u/robustofilth 16h ago

I’d rather use a secure App Store than not.

21

u/themightychris 14h ago

making the app store secure doesn't cost Apple 30% of all digital purchase revenue

2

u/robustofilth 14h ago

There’s more to an App Store than just security

6

u/themightychris 13h ago

I know that. The 30% is clearly based on what they can get away with skimming rather than what it costs to provide the service. They face zero consumer pricing pressure because they're using a monopoly in one market for undue pricing leverage in another

-1

u/robustofilth 13h ago

You understand how business works right? It’s not about costs. It’s about more

3

u/themightychris 13h ago edited 13h ago

Yes and we have anti-trust laws for cases where businesses are able to leverage their position in one market to avoid competitive pressure to reduce prices in another

Selling phones is one market, selling apps and services are another market. Apple uses their position in market A to prevent competition in market B and maintain unfair pricing

No one else can deliver apps to iPhones, devices which consumers ostensibly own, so Apple faces zero competitive pressure on their pricing for app delivery

Maybe letting them have a monopoly on app delivery is necessary. If it is, then they are a regulated monopoly. If it isn't, they should be required to permit competing app marketplaces.

You understand how markets work right?

3

u/robustofilth 13h ago

I don’t think anti trust laws would work here given Apple isn’t the dominant player. Clearly I understand markets in more depth than you. There are plenty of examples of hardware being tied to software. Boeing doesn’t let airlines side load into their planes. Auto makers also.

0

u/themightychris 12h ago

Planes and cars haven't created a second market

Apple has a monopoly on app stores for iPhone users. Looking at the broader market it's a duopoly with Google trying to pull the same shit and they should be subject to the same actions

3

u/robustofilth 12h ago

Again, Apple isn’t the dominant player

1

u/robustofilth 13h ago

I don’t think anti trust laws would work here given Apple isn’t the dominant player.

5

u/FollowingFeisty5321 13h ago

Well this will come as a surprise to the DOJ + ~half the states, who are currently preparing for their antitrust trial - which Apple already failed to get dismissed.

0

u/krum 14h ago

It's only 15% for "low" revenue stuff. If I'm making enough on my apps to have to pay Apple 30% I'd gladly fork it over because I'd be fucking retired.

-1

u/iamapizza 14h ago

The two are not related. The trillion dollar company doesn't need you carrying water for them.

6

u/robustofilth 13h ago

That was a meaningless sentence. This is about software. Not water. Or water transportation.

3

u/PLEASE_PUNCH_MY_FACE 12h ago

Wait until you hear about that horse everyone is beating.

2

u/fatbob42 12h ago

Look up what “carrying water for” means.

-3

u/sluuuurp 14h ago

You should have the freedom to make that choice yourself then. Apple doesn’t let you.

14

u/robustofilth 14h ago

You can. It’s called buy an android phone

3

u/fatbob42 12h ago

So you can’t just choose a different App Store can you? You have to change a whole bunch of other stuff at the same time.

7

u/robustofilth 12h ago

Nobody is forcing you to buy Apple products 🙄

-2

u/fatbob42 11h ago

This is you answering the question of whether you value direct personal freedom vs economic efficiency. (You’ve answered freedom)

3

u/robustofilth 11h ago

No. My answer was rather clear. Nobody forces you to buy apple. Plenty of choices out there.

1

u/fatbob42 11h ago

Yep. Usually markets satisfy both constraints so you get to have your cake and eat it. But sometimes they don’t, and you have to pick one or the other. I’m usually on the side of economic efficiency, that’s all. You can go the other way, it’s fine.

0

u/sluuuurp 13h ago

True, I wish I could have of iPhone with a free App Store though. Sensible laws would allow me to have that.

5

u/yaricks 11h ago

Tell that to Sony, Microsoft Xbox, Nintendo, Wallmart - you can't publish a Playstation game without giving 30% of revenue to Sony + the license to develop for Playstation in the first place. Same with the other consoles. You can't go to Walmart and say - "I demand you sell my product without taking a cut". It's the same everywhere. You DO have a choice, buy Android. Same with Playstation, if you don't like them taking 30%, go to Xbox, or Nintendo.

I'm not saying I LIKE this - I despise it, but Apple is not the only one here, it's standard practice globally.

0

u/sluuuurp 11h ago

I dislike PlayStation, Xbox, and Nintendo for the same reasons. My principle is that you should be allowed to run any software (that you pay for or otherwise get permission from the developers to use) on any hardware you own. This is the norm for personal computers, but sadly not for smartphones or game consoles.

I don’t have a problem with Walmart, you can always buy from somewhere else if you want.

-1

u/ABCosmos 8h ago

Zoomers have never experienced a tech ecosystem that wasn't fractured by anti competitive anti consumer business practices.

-2

u/Key-Beginning-2201 16h ago

I support Apple! I pay a premium as a consumer because I don't want your junk app code on my device. The security protects the entire Apple ecosystem.

26

u/FollowingFeisty5321 16h ago

Nearly 5% of apps they approve are scams, according to their own transparency report citing 82,509 removed last year for fraud with 1,961,596 on the App Store.

AKA their cheap-ass review process makes a mistake every ~20th review.

And it's no surprise why - the Epic trial revealed Apple's own accounting says their fees are 75% profit margin.

-12

u/chief167 16h ago

that number means nothing if you can't compare it to other app stores, or Android Play store at least. In my experience, there's a bunch more shit on those other ones (and sayin this as an android lover)

6

u/Prior_Coyote_4376 15h ago

if you can’t compare it to

I actually would rather just not eat shit instead of seeking less shit to eat

3

u/FollowingFeisty5321 15h ago edited 15h ago

I don't believe Google being more shit (most likely) is a very good justification for $3 out of every $4 rent Apple charges going to stock buybacks and dividends instead of improving their own situation.

The judge in the Epic case called them out for how little they do in their ruling:

it’s been “slow either to adopt automated tools that could improve speed and accuracy or to hire more reviewers” for its app review process. “Apple’s slow innovation stems in part from its low investment in the App Store”

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21060631-apple-epic-judgement/

-9

u/Key-Beginning-2201 15h ago

And yet Apple still has the most secure ecosystem. A judge is a cute answer to technology and statistics.

4

u/FollowingFeisty5321 15h ago edited 15h ago

Where "most secure" is selectively measured against Google, rather than Steam or GOG or shit even the Epic Games Store has ~0% scams. Pretty sure ~5% of software on GitHub isn't a scam either lmfao.

Should stop being proud they do the bare minimum and one other behemoth does slightly less, start asking "could ~5% of apps being a scam be improved".

-5

u/sixwax 14h ago

No one wants to hear that this is in part why iPhones are relatively inexpensive for what they are.

6

u/FollowingFeisty5321 13h ago

What no iPhones have a sizable profit margin themselves and generate about half of Apple's near-$100-billion/year profit before app commissions.

8

u/Rhed0x 16h ago

The security protects the entire Apple ecosystem.

The OS sandboxing is responsible for security. The only thing the App Store protects is Apples bottom line.

8

u/electracool 16h ago

If an alternative app store emerges, nothing stops you to continue to use the app store and pay the apple premium. You do understand that you would not be forced to install anything you do not want to right ? Choice is always good for the end consumers.

3

u/DrQuantum 16h ago

This is a misunderstanding of how security works. The mere fact that now attackers can put more junk on the app store makes it unsafe for everyone. There are now more vectors regardless of my choices. That is how a walled garden works. Another thing this argument fails to understand is that you are limiting choice. People have clearly bought iPhone's for a reason and you're claiming that they shouldn't be able to have that. You ultimately have restricted choices for consumers, not added them.

3

u/Key-Beginning-2201 15h ago

Exactly. They have their "choice" with different devices and OS, if they want them.

3

u/Rhed0x 16h ago

The OS sandboxing is responsible for security. The only thing the App Store protects is Apples bottom line.

-1

u/Key-Beginning-2201 15h ago

Alternative exists. Which is why you can use a Chrome device and Google store, instead of Apple.

The ecosystem is a chain link. If one is compromised, they all can be. That's the idea, until a bunch of idiots start talking about the need for a "choice" to be unsecure. Apple isn't for you, and that's fine. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

2

u/EdgiiLord 13h ago

Lol, lmao even

2

u/Key-Beginning-2201 13h ago

Edgelords = trolls

2

u/EdgiiLord 13h ago

Apple shills have no right to call others trolls, xd

-2

u/Key-Beginning-2201 13h ago

You want to not pay an extra buck for security screening on apps? Fine, get the app off an alternative phone and stop trying to put your sht on us. You have choices. Do you even understand what it is you're being a contrarian for?

6

u/EdgiiLord 12h ago

Lol, do you think only Apple does security screening? Xd, what a tech illiterate shill

1

u/twinpop 14h ago

Monopoly and a closed marketplace hurts innovation. News at 11.

1

u/Jusby_Cause 4h ago

Seeing as how the Apple App Store has been a closed market place since day one (since year one as there was no App Store on day one), that would mean there’s been no innovation in the marketplace between then and now? Interesting

-2

u/Next_Instruction_528 8h ago

Apple needs to die I wouldn't touch anything they do.

Apple’s done a ton of damage to America that people overlook:

  1. Economic hollowing out – They offshored basically all their manufacturing to China, wiping out what could have been hundreds of thousands of solid U.S. factory jobs. Now their supply chain dependence makes America vulnerable. On top of that, they sat on hundreds of billions in cash overseas to dodge U.S. taxes for years.

  2. Monopolistic behavior – The App Store is a walled garden where Apple takes a 30% cut, bans competitors, and locks you into their ecosystem (iMessage, AirPods, iCloud). They kill startups by copying their best features, then quietly shutting the originals down.

  3. Political & ethical rot – They’ve avoided paying their fair share of taxes, lobbied hard against antitrust and right-to-repair laws, and bent the knee to authoritarian regimes like China by censoring apps. For a company that markets itself as “ethical,” they play some very dirty games when power and profit are on the line.

-1

u/Actual__Wizard 10h ago

How are there still branded app stores in 2025? That has to be the second biggest scam in scamtech right now. That all has to be deleted with regulation, all of it... I'm sorry but, it doesn't make any sense that a company generates any profit at all from a 3rd party's app getting installed... It's not their business... Why would they make a single cent?

-24

u/tayroc122 17h ago

Oh hey it's another thing I talked about in my PhD

14

u/localhost80 16h ago

Who are you talking to?