App Store policy and developer fee drama won't change Apple's ways at all

Posted:
in General Discussion edited June 2020
It might be to developers' advantage to complain loudly about Apple and the App Store, but the same system they decry is what gets them to all of their customers -- and most devs have been fine with it since 2008.

The App Store changed how the world gets software
The App Store changed how the world gets software


The regular arguments over the App Store, reignited this time around by Hey email developer David Heinemeier Hansson, boil down to a crucial fact. It is very hard to get people to pay for a service if they think it should be free.

That's a problem Apple seems to be facing now, but it's also precisely the same difficulty that Hansson and all developers face over their apps. Hey is an email client and email is free -- but he needs you to pay between $99 and $999 per year to use it. We're not here to review Hey, and we can assume that the price is a bargain for some types of email users, less so for others.

Like any other product or service, Hey has to persuade people that they have a problem it can solve, and that it's worth paying for. You can't persuade people of anything, though, if they don't know about it. And then if you do persuade them, you can't profit without a way to get your product into their hands.

His first argument against the App Store on Apple's cut got Hansson and Hey a lot more notice than it might have. But it's the App Store that gets his product to people. It's the App Store that means if he persuades people it's worth it, they can instantly have it on their iOS device.

You'd have to pay good money to have that kind of product distribution, and of course Hansson's argument is that they do have to pay good money. To fire up the argument, and perhaps the publicity machine, he specifically railed against Apple's taking 30% of any subscription fee, though he doesn't also mention that this becomes 15% after the first year.

But, as always, there is more to the story than on the surface, and Twitter blurbs do no justice to the issue as a whole.

Developers welcomed the App Store in 2008

Right at the start, Steve Jobs announced the App Store as a solution for developers. It was Apple's way to get developers to their customers, and vice versa, with the nice advantage that it could sell a few iPhones on the way.

"Most developers don't have those kind of resources," said Steve Jobs. "Even the big developers would have a hard time getting their app in front of every iPhone user. Well, we're going to solve that problem for every developer. Big to small. And the way we're going to do it is what we call the App Store."






Apple makes a staggering amount of money out of the App Store, but it also spends about half of its total take including what it gets from the annual developer fee on the service. It's true that 30% is a lot, but AppleInsider has been told by longstanding developers that they remember what it was like before the App Store.

The world has changed, not least in part because of that App Store, and it is now nearly impossible to get software on CD-ROMs in boxes, much less install the software when you have. Back in these days, the developer might get 30%, but generally less.

Stores would take a cut for putting it on their shelves, for instance, if you could persuade them to stock your software at all. And, they'd take more if they featured it. The box manufacturer, disc presser, and shipping services all got paid.

Of course, back then, software cost a huge amount more than it did now. The App Store has actually devalued apps at least as much as it's promoted them. There are plenty of people who will not pay $0.99 for an app because they believe it should be free.

If your app is selling for $20 then paying Apple $6 is significant, but doesn't feel unreasonable. When you're reduced to scraping by on sales of a buck a time, Apple's $0.30 can feel like the difference between survival and not.

"Because of the market power that Apple has, it is charging exorbitant rents -- highway robbery, basically -- bullying people to pay 30 percent or denying access to their market," said Rep. David Cicilline. "It's crushing small developers who simply can't survive with those kinds of payments. If there were real competition in this marketplace, this wouldn't happen."

But real competition would mean opening the App Store to other companies, and that would make it closer to the Google Play model. Quite apart from the security issues that riddle Android, Google Play has been running since 2008 and it's assuredly not made as much for developers as Apple has. And it benefits no one if the App Store becomes free.

Hey Email is in the iOS App Store
Hey Email is in the iOS App Store


The way we might feel about Apple's cut, though, doesn't change the fact that you're getting delivered to the entire iPhone and iPad audience with only a $100 annual developer account fee up front. It doesn't change, either, that you have control over whether your app is free or paid for.

What Apple works against is the idea of having an app that comes somewhere in the middle. It's more than fine with Apple if you have an app that is free to download, and that then costs money to keep, or to do more with. It's not fine with them if you're getting money from people who use the app, and Apple isn't.

Whether your audience is directly paying for an app or not, you are profiting from them using it and your service. Apple doesn't complain about the costs it incurs distributing free apps, but it is a cost. So if Apple is paying out and you're raking it in, you're going to have a conversation.

As fair enough as it seems for Apple to get some cash for doing some work, this is how the App Store has gained its biggest friction point for users. Maybe finding an app has become harder and harder, but once you've found it, getting it on your device is so preposterously simple that it has completely erased every other way of buying software.

Unless it's an app where you have sign up or pay up, on a website. Users even have to figure a certain amount of this out for themselves, too, because Apple won't let you put a link in the app to your website to sell a subscription.

This has been a barrier for some time, and Apple isn't going to change it back to allowing it -- which is what it was originally. We'd like it to change that policy though, and a few others. That one big change would probably make most of the antitrust problems go away.

Mistakes are not conspiracy

Twelve years on from its launch, the App Store has not changed its systems, has not markedly changed its rules, and it has not altered how much benefit developers get from it. However, a dozen years and millions of apps later, it has inconsistencies.

The current arguments against the App Store try to magnify those inconsistencies and a great many of the disagreements developers have with Apple are valid. But some of them are not, and if it weren't for one major exception, we'd say that the developers of Hey are wrong.

It is odd that Apple should say it was mistaken when it first approved Hey for the iOS App Store, but not because mistakes can't happen. We have personal experience of the App Store approval system allowing an app which it later says shouldn't have been allowed. In our case, we actually thought Apple was right and before we sound saintly and magnanimous, our app had been associated with a project that by then was long completed.

Our attitude aside, the real difference between us and Hey, is that Apple removed our app. They told us they would, they said what we'd need to do to keep it on sale, and we worked the math. It wasn't worth it to us to spend money updating the app, so we let it go, and Apple removed it when they said they would.

Netflix's iOS app does nothing at all, unless you sign up
Netflix's iOS app does nothing at all, unless you sign up


We could, and Hey could, skip the App Store entirely and offer solely a web-based app. It's unsatisfactory compared to an app, but it works -- and it is even how Steve Jobs believed this should be done in the first place.

Apple points out that the Hey app literally does nothing, if you're not a subscriber. "You download the app and it doesn't work, that's not what we want on the store," says Apple's Phil Schiller.

Hey says that Apple is insisting it add a subscription service via in-app purchase, so that Apple gets a cut. Apple is saying the app does nothing.

If you were adding up the pros and cons of each side, then at this point it'd be pretty even, and hard to say who was right or wrong overall. There is, though, the fact that Apple has done a similar thing before, and perhaps many more times. While saying that apps which are front-ends to existing subscription services, Apple has pressed developers to add in-app purchases.

Amazon, Netfix, and special App Store treatment

Recently, Apple did introduce the ability for Amazon Prime subscribers to rent videos through the iOS app without Amazon paying for it. That looks to the world like Apple giving in and allowing Amazon an exception, but it isn't. Not quite.

"Apple has an established program for premium video subscription providers to offer a variety of consumer benefits," Apple told AppleInsider. "These include integration with the Apple TV app, AirPlay 2 support, Siri support, tvOS apps, universal search, and where applicable, single or zero sign-on."

"On qualifying apps such as Amazon Prime Video, Altice One, and Canal+," it continued, "customers have the option to buy or rent movies and TV shows using the payment method tied to their existing video subscription."

Amazon Prime video gets through because what people are paying for is tied to their separately-bought subscription. You're not making an entirely separate purchase, you are spending more money through your subscription. If you like, that subscription just rose by whatever the cost of your purchase is.

So even if it's a matter of semantics, Amazon Prime is not benefiting from Apple choosing to bend its own rules as people claim it is. That's not the major exception that makes us think Apple has problems.

The major exceptions for us are Disney+ and Netflix. Just as with Hey email, both apps do exactly nothing unless you're a subscriber. Both are reader apps but with no option to use it for anything else. Kindle is a reader app but you can open documents in it. Amazon lets you do some browsing and shopping.

Yet Netflix and the Disney+ apps don't do a thing, until you go to the sites and buy a subscription outside of the App Store.

All this said, Apple as a business can make special deals or custom arrangements with who it wants. And, it can refuse to do the same for anybody asking.

Apple and "reader" apps

Also adding to the anti-Apple side is how the App Store inconsistently handles different classes of app, including what it calls reader ones. In theory, it's pretty clear what a developer can and can't do in a reader app.

Apple's developer document says that a user can read content or subscriptions that they've previously bought, but developers can't present an alternative to in-app purchasing. They also can't discourage people from using in-app purchasing if that's available.

So you can't, for instance, buy Kindle books through the iOS app, not without Amazon paying Apple 30%, but you can read the ones you bought there. It's a pain, but at least Apple doesn't block an app that allows you to read purchases made elsewhere.




It's sound and fury, but it signifies something

The pressures against Apple are mounting, internationally. And, the president of Microsoft is actively advocating for App Store antitrust investigations.

"I do believe that the time has come... for a much more focused conversation about the nature of app stores," said Brad Smith, "and whether there is really justification in antitrust law for everything that has been created."

For all that the pressures against Apple are mounting, it's probable that the majority of developers are fine with the App Store. Certainly ones we've talked to who used to ship CD-ROMS are. It's equally certain that developers who have complaints about Apple's procedures have a point.

But it has always and will always come down to the same issue that every product or service has. Whether you're Hey or Apple, you have to get people to become aware of you, then you have to persuade them that you have a problem it's worth paying to solve.

In the App Store's case, the problem it solves is getting apps to every iPhone and iPad user. Every developer has to decide for themselves whether the benefit of that is worth the cost.

That's math, that's economics, that's business. Not wanting to pay for a service does not mean that the service costs too much universally.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 58
    hmlongcohmlongco Posts: 422member

    As pointed out, Apple reviews and validates app submissions. Apple handles all orders, merchant services, payment processing fees, customer service, returns, reserves, and downloads.

    Apple provides the store, the marketplace, and access to millions upon millions of validated, credit card paying customers who can and will buy your product at the click of a button.

    So what's a "fair" price for all of that?

    Try getting a product into Target or WalMart or Best Buy and tell me just how much profit one of those stores is going to want to skim off the top. Closer to 50%, actually, and that's after you've actually paid to build and produce and ship them a physical product.

    So again, what's fair? 20%? 15%? 10%?

    Tell someone a CD costs $20 and people will whine that it's not $10. Make it $10 and someone else will whine that it's not $5 and that $10 is totally "unfair".

    The problem is that pretty much ANY number you name is going to be seen as unfair by someone else who just wants more money going into their pockets and not yours.

    I'm an Apple developer and I think Apple is being more than fair.

    Could Apple do better? Sure. More consistency is the review process. Paid app updates. There are lot's of things that Apple could do.

    But 30%? Not a problem.

    BiggieTalladerutterlkruppwilliamlondondewmeuraharajony0
  • Reply 2 of 58
    aderutteraderutter Posts: 546member
    hmlongco said:

    As pointed out, Apple reviews and validates app submissions. Apple handles all orders, merchant services, payment processing fees, customer service, returns, reserves, and downloads.

    Apple provides the store, the marketplace, and access to millions upon millions of validated, credit card paying customers who can and will buy your product at the click of a button.

    So what's a "fair" price for all of that?

    Try getting a product into Target or WalMart or Best Buy and tell me just how much profit one of those stores is going to want to skim off the top. Closer to 50%, actually, and that's after you've actually paid to build and produce and ship them a physical product.

    So again, what's fair? 20%? 15%? 10%?

    Tell someone a CD costs $20 and people will whine that it's not $10. Make it $10 and someone else will whine that it's not $5 and that $10 is totally "unfair".

    The problem is that pretty much ANY number you name is going to be seen as unfair by someone else who just wants more money going into their pockets and not yours.

    I'm an Apple developer and I think Apple is being more than fair.

    Could Apple do better? Sure. More consistency is the review process. Paid app updates. There are lot's of things that Apple could do.

    But 30%? Not a problem.

    I’m a developer too and I agree. I also think Apple should raise their developer account fees and crack down much harder on ad supported and free junk apps. Maybe remove the lowest paid price tier too, prices are too low in the app store. I would be fine with all free apps being removed. But then am sure Apple have bigger brains than mine on this subject.
    williamlondonInspiredCodemacpluspluslamboaudi4jony0
  • Reply 3 of 58
    red oakred oak Posts: 986member
    What does Microsoft charge developers for distribution in their Xbox online store?   

    That’s right.  30%
    williamlondondewmejony0
  • Reply 4 of 58
    xyzzy-xxxxyzzy-xxx Posts: 138member
    I believe Apple will need to lower app provisions from 30% to about 15% ( Windows Store has 5%)!
    Alternative app stores should be allowed too, because no single company should decide what apps can be installed.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 5 of 58
    This is my own anecdotal experience. I know a lot of people that switched to Android over–at least in part–circumstances created by App Store gatekeeping. This has nothing to do with the 30% cut, but some of the issues are created in Apple’s attempts to make sure they always get that cut. If there is something you can’t do on iOS, but you can do on Android you are going to switch to Android. I would have myself if not for other parts of the Apple ecosystem keeping me here. These people no longer show up in Apple customer satisfaction because they are no longer Apple users. I‘m not going to get in to the specifics, but I certainly sense that frustration when I subscribe to a streaming service, want a new book to listen to in Audible, or want to stream my console games to my iPad.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 6 of 58
    It's not about the developer fee. It's about Apple having absolute control over what users are allowed to do with the devices they own. As someone who started programming on micro computers decades ago, I find this concept abhorrent. It's your device. You own it. It is extremely powerful and has many amazing features and capabilities. Many of them are locked behind Apple's code walls. You are prevented from accessing them for your own good. Apple has no such restrictions and can use those features without you even knowing they exist. Right now there is a massive controversy brewing over the COVID-19 trackers that Apple built into the latest iOS update. Apple is using features of the iPhone not available to users and developers to track users contacts with each other. Apple won't even allow developers to test the features and learn how they work unless they are affiliated with a government agency. That is freaking everyone out and rightfully so. We trust Apple but not that much.
    williamlondonInspiredCodecanukstorm
  • Reply 7 of 58
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,566administrator
    xyzzy-xxx said:
    I believe Apple will need to lower app provisions from 30% to about 15% ( Windows Store has 5%)!
    Alternative app stores should be allowed too, because no single company should decide what apps can be installed.
    Windows store has 5% if you use a link from the developer's site or similar. Otherwise it is 15%. Games are 30%, and the Xbox store is 30% regardless of link.
    williamlondonemoellerInspiredCodeaderutteruraharajony0muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 8 of 58
    What Apple does not want you to do with your iPhone, a concrete example.

    The iPhone has a CPU, a big battery, a microphone, GPS location and communication capabilities. Let's use those in a way that absolutely positively would not be allowed by Apple but would create an app that millions of users would find essential. The app would record sounds constantly. 24/7. It would convert all the sounds into text using voice and sound recognition. Not just the words people speak but all sounds that can be recognized. A door slamming. A car engine approaching. A bird cry. Everything. Users can see the text and search it for patterns. Find when and where someone mentioned a subject you are interested in but can't remember exactly what they said. Annotate the speech by using AI to recognize who is speaking. This would become a diary of your life.

    At this point the app would be rejected by Apple for a dozen different reasons. Now let's get to the part that Apple truly fears: Connectivity. What if you took all that text and shared it with the world? Imagine the database that would be created. The power it represents is terrifying in its potential. You could figure out where people were at particular times. You could overhear parts of conversations on the street. Secrets would get out. No one could have a private conversation anywhere.

    This is why Apple has tight controls over apps in the App Store. It is for your own good. The problem becomes this: What if features like the one I mention above already exist? What if a company has already built it into our phones and has not told anyone about it? Text is so small that it could be hidden in the encrypted diagnostic information the phone sends back to the company servers without anyone finding out about it. The only thing preventing this is trust. We trust Apple not to do this but trust only extends so far.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 9 of 58
    bulk001bulk001 Posts: 716member
    Till governments pass a law and they will have to despite all the huffing and puffing here. Apple should get ahead of this but instead are digging in deeper. 50:50 shot when it goes to politicians to decide (but they do have a lot of money to lobby with). 
  • Reply 10 of 58
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 2,606member
    xyzzy-xxx said:
    I believe Apple will need to lower app provisions from 30% to about 15% ( Windows Store has 5%)!
    Alternative app stores should be allowed too, because no single company should decide what apps can be installed.
    Windows store has 5% if you use a link from the developer's site or similar. Otherwise it is 15%. Games are 30%, and the Xbox store is 30% regardless of link.
    This is fair.
  • Reply 11 of 58
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 2,606member
    It's not about the developer fee. It's about Apple having absolute control over what users are allowed to do with the devices they own. As someone who started programming on micro computers decades ago, I find this concept abhorrent. It's your device. You own it. It is extremely powerful and has many amazing features and capabilities. Many of them are locked behind Apple's code walls. You are prevented from accessing them for your own good. Apple has no such restrictions and can use those features without you even knowing they exist. Right now there is a massive controversy brewing over the COVID-19 trackers that Apple built into the latest iOS update. Apple is using features of the iPhone not available to users and developers to track users contacts with each other. Apple won't even allow developers to test the features and learn how they work unless they are affiliated with a government agency. That is freaking everyone out and rightfully so. We trust Apple but not that much.
    edited June 2020
  • Reply 12 of 58
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,566administrator
    xyzzy-xxx said:
    I believe Apple will need to lower app provisions from 30% to about 15% ( Windows Store has 5%)!
    Alternative app stores should be allowed too, because no single company should decide what apps can be installed.
    Windows store has 5% if you use a link from the developer's site or similar. Otherwise it is 15%. Games are 30%, and the Xbox store is 30% regardless of link.
    This is fair.
    Perhaps, but Apple's margins on the App store are about 56% of Apple's 30% and 15% after a year of subscription, including revenue from paid App Store search.

    That 5% and probably even that 15% alone won't pay the bills.
    jony0
  • Reply 13 of 58
    j2fusionj2fusion Posts: 151member
    Ok so let’s see. We need to allow Anything into the store. We also need to allow developers access to the lowest levels of the system so we can create wonderful apps that are not available now. Didn’t that already happen with something called Windows? Didn’t that unfettered access cause all kinds of malware and other such?  Me personally I like to not have to worry about the Apps I install. The APIs Apple provides cover 99% of the needs. 
    JinTechwilliamlondon
  • Reply 14 of 58
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 3,060member
    Software and merchandise can be purchased through Amazon's app without Amazon having to pay Apple a percentage, but Kindle ebooks can't be bought that way (without paying a percentage, so not at all). Kindle ebooks are purchased using the same payment method as merchandise on amazon.com.

    edited June 2020
  • Reply 15 of 58
    Not sure why the article would have Disney+ listed next to Netflix as not taking in-app purchases? At least that’s how I paid for it.
  • Reply 16 of 58
    nicholfdnicholfd Posts: 808member
    cpsro said:
    Software and merchandise can be purchased through Amazon's app without Amazon having to pay Apple a percentage, but Kindle ebooks can't be bought that way (without paying a percentage, so not at all). Kindle ebooks are purchased using the same payment method as merchandise on amazon.com.

    There are different App Store rules for digital goods vs. physical services/goods (Amazon store, Uber, Lyft).  These are the policies.  Developers agree to them.  It's Apple's platform and rules.  Develop on the platform or don't.
    aderutterdewmedarren mccoyjony0
  • Reply 17 of 58
    It's not about the developer fee. It's about Apple having absolute control over what users are allowed to do with the devices they own. As someone who started programming on micro computers decades ago, I find this concept abhorrent. It's your device. You own it. It is extremely powerful and has many amazing features and capabilities. Many of them are locked behind Apple's code walls. You are prevented from accessing them for your own good. Apple has no such restrictions and can use those features without you even knowing they exist. Right now there is a massive controversy brewing over the COVID-19 trackers that Apple built into the latest iOS update. Apple is using features of the iPhone not available to users and developers to track users contacts with each other. Apple won't even allow developers to test the features and learn how they work unless they are affiliated with a government agency. That is freaking everyone out and rightfully so. We trust Apple but not that much.
    Yeah, I'll agree to your premise, but not to your point. Because we all knew that going in. From the very first iDevice anyone of us bought, we all knew that going in. So it is worth noting the reasoning behind complaining about it later on (really, quite so much—a decade later—on). I have never known of anybody who had the technological training to genuinely tinker around an advanced (like you put) hardware/software platform, while at the same time, to be so misinformed as to not know what he could, and could not, do, beforehand.

    I love free (open) software, and I use it on a daily basis on a freeBSD system I have at the University I teach. I also like Apple's approach for my personal devices, and that's why I paid a lot to have a Mac, iPhone, iPad, and AppleTV.
    aderutter
  • Reply 18 of 58
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 2,111member
    Here is the thing:

    You pay a yearly upfront fee of a few thousand dollars plus a tiny commission whenever your app sells,

    OR

    You pay a small yearly developer fee ($99) plus a fair commission when your app sells.

    The first is the model adopted by eBay, Amazon and many online marketplaces. The second is the AppStore model. Apple makes an earning if and only if the app is sold. For the others the revenue circuit is closed as soon as an item is listed.

    If Apple were to introduce the so called "listing fee" to be charged yearly upfront, developers would flee the AppStore in flocks, to struggle elsewhere...

    Thanks God they may always go to eBay or Amazon to sell their precious gems !
    aderutter
  • Reply 19 of 58
    hmlongco said:

    As pointed out, Apple reviews and validates app submissions. Apple handles all orders, merchant services, payment processing fees, customer service, returns, reserves, and downloads.

    Apple provides the store, the marketplace, and access to millions upon millions of validated, credit card paying customers who can and will buy your product at the click of a button.

    So what's a "fair" price for all of that?

    Try getting a product into Target or WalMart or Best Buy and tell me just how much profit one of those stores is going to want to skim off the top. Closer to 50%, actually, and that's after you've actually paid to build and produce and ship them a physical product.

    So again, what's fair? 20%? 15%? 10%?

    Tell someone a CD costs $20 and people will whine that it's not $10. Make it $10 and someone else will whine that it's not $5 and that $10 is totally "unfair".

    The problem is that pretty much ANY number you name is going to be seen as unfair by someone else who just wants more money going into their pockets and not yours.

    I'm an Apple developer and I think Apple is being more than fair.

    Could Apple do better? Sure. More consistency is the review process. Paid app updates. There are lot's of things that Apple could do.

    But 30%? Not a problem.

    This makes sense if you consider the App Store a store, however I think the store has evolved to sort of a virtual business district containing businesses. These business all have their own business models and Apple should be flexible to accommodate them. They can certainly tax the businesses in this district to cover their operations. They can say they don’t want certain types of businesses in their district. They can use some of their funds to help with R&D to help build technologies that broadly improve the businesses on the App Store. However the businesses in the business district usually have some sort of say in to the way the business district operates. I think there needs to be more of this. I think free apps are not carrying their weight when it comes to operating the App Store. This could be transitioned slowly. A good start would be requiring free apps to use their own CDN or pay to use Apple’s. Apple should have some free categories such as open source projects and non-profit organizations. Apple could charge for deep integration required for music apps, VPN, parental controls, etc so they pay a fair share. Currently many of these apps are free on the store. These features could be charged if the developer activates the feature and the user has enabled it so external billing systems would still be supported. As Apple gets their services game on, there need to be boundaries with the App Store. I think it is a bad idea to consider the App Store a service in itself. A service that contains services gets us in to a loop where the economics of many business models stops working. This would essentially bring us back to how Steve Jobs originally envisioned it as not a revenue stream. This characterization would exclude Apple Arcade which is clearly a service. I think App Store is a great platform to build true Apple services.  For example there could be a subscription to educational apps or business apps. Developers that participate would give up much more control to Apple. In my humble opinion, let’s see the App Store become an App Main Street!
    edited June 2020 arlomedia
  • Reply 20 of 58
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 3,060member
    nicholfd said:
    cpsro said:
    Software and merchandise can be purchased through Amazon's app without Amazon having to pay Apple a percentage, but Kindle ebooks can't be bought that way (without paying a percentage, so not at all). Kindle ebooks are purchased using the same payment method as merchandise on amazon.com.

    There are different App Store rules for digital goods vs. physical services/goods (Amazon store, Uber, Lyft).  These are the policies.  Developers agree to them.  It's Apple's platform and rules.  Develop on the platform or don't.
    You got it. Apple needs to change. Kind of like all the people who refuse to wear masks during the pandemic because it's a "free country," but they're okay with not being allowed to yell "fire!" in a theater. Freedom comes at a price that means we really can't do just anything we want. We're all in it together and will thrive only by working together.
    edited June 2020 get serious
Sign In or Register to comment.