I don’t really support or oppose the 30% myself, but I’m I’m sure if Apple didn’t have such a massive cash pile people wouldn’t complain so much. A $1.5tn company with $190bn cash on hand looks pretty petty defending a 30% cut against devs making a few thousand dollars a year from their app.
Apple is almost guaranteed to lose the antitrust suits somewhere in the world, so they’re going to have to either change their cut, change the App Store rules, allow third party stores, or drop out of the jurisdiction where they lose the antitrust suit. It would be better to capitulate now and for Apple to decide on the compromises, than having them court decided and forced, plus the negative publicity.
I think you’re headed in the right direction and I’d propose this change which would probably earn Apple enough good will to get the Wealth Redistribution people in DC to go after Amazon and Google (who deserve it): for devs makes very little (maybe under $500 or $1000/yr), 5%. Keep 30% for everyone else (sorry Epic! Go pound sand). It’s still $99/yr to place your apps; Apple wouldn’t lose much.
Guess what? If Apple only took 5% instead of 30%, THAT would be considered anticompetitive and monopolistic behavior.
Whiny developers that have issues with the 30% are more than welcome to go to another platform. Please. Just go. Apple did all the work to create an ecosystem and marketplace so freeloaders like you could spend time to make your product.
Disclaimer: I'm a developer too and have zero issue with the 30%. Why? Because I remember the days of boxed software and all the overhead required to find buyers to buy it, and stores in which to carry it. That was WAY more than 30% that Apple charges for doing everything.
Take a hike.
Someone like you needs to remind the money grabbers in Washington and around the world that the 30% is actually a very reasonable amount to charge. I'd like to know how much overhead other industries charge, like oil companies, clothing manufacturers, and food processing companies.
Every industry you listed actually MAKES something. Apple doesn't MAKE the apps. They distribute them. And they've cleverly locked down their ecosystem so that only THEY can distribute them. The "if you don't like it, go somewhere else" mentality doesn't really hold up. We have trade and consumer laws in the US against things like that.
The real question is whether 30% is considered fair, or even whether Apple will need to allow app developers for it's devices to be able to distribute directly or not. Think about it...given your examples (or any industry, really), a manufacturer is not restricted from selling direct. They can sell through retail or they can sell direct, where they are in control of the costs to sell their own products. It's the same thing here.
FaceBook's platform, gives companies who want to advertise, acess to 1 billion+ "accounts" and that is (or was), their entire company. Apple's platform, gives DEVELOPERS FREE XCODE TOOLS, that Apple has to MAKE, and a platform that they have run WITH HARDWARE. This is also access to 1 billion+ "accounts"
WORK is WORK, you want to tell me that if you bring 70% with your source code, Apple is not bringing 30% of the WORK? If you are a SOLE developer, one guy, and Apple has 1,000+ employees working on THEIR platform, I thinking they are giving you some pretty good help. 1,000 employees that you don't have to pay and health insurance, ETC ETC, is a pretty good 30%!!
This issue is about 1 company who is MAKING A TON of cash (or did), and is almost petered out, but didn't want to charge for their software!! So Apple in essence gets ZIP from them, except for in-app purchases, please this argument is outlandish!!
Times up for the Gravy Train for Fortnite, go make another hot game, bitch! or someone else will, that's all this is...
I’ve been reading a couple of articles about those who fiercely defend a company or brand no matter the situation. It’s been proven many times over that those types of people suffer from low self-esteem. That’s probably why I don’t care about situations like the ones mentioned in the article. I’ll just be glad they find a quick and friendly solution to the problem.
You expect everyone to believe you even though you don't back up your own statements. Cite the articles and we'll read them. Cite the proof that you allude to and we'll read it. Try to contribute to the conversation and you might actually make a difference. Have some confidence in yourself!
It would be better if you did your own research. Have fun finding the articles. Here’s a tease...
That was interesting. According to that study, people with low self esteem do defend their favourite brands. But what you said was that people who defend their brands have low self esteem. You actually reversed the results of the study! The study showed A->B but you said it claims B->A. Whoops! The study did not say B-> A at all. Thanks for making my case!
I’ve been reading a couple of articles about those who fiercely defend a company or brand no matter the situation. It’s been proven many times over that those types of people suffer from low self-esteem. That’s probably why I don’t care about situations like the ones mentioned in the article. I’ll just be glad they find a quick and friendly solution to the problem.
You expect everyone to believe you even though you don't back up your own statements. Cite the articles and we'll read them. Cite the proof that you allude to and we'll read it. Try to contribute to the conversation and you might actually make a difference. Have some confidence in yourself!
It would be better if you did your own research. Have fun finding the articles. Here’s a tease...
That was interesting. According to that study, people with low self esteem do defend their favourite brands. But what you said was that people who defend their brands have low self esteem. You actually reversed the results of the study! The study showed A->B but you said it claims B->A. Whoops! The study did not say B-> A at all. Thanks for making my case!
The facts haven’t changed.
If A was "Rain" and B was "Wet Grass" then clearly A->B but it is not true that B->A because grass can get wet from sprinklers, floods or a host of other sources of water. If you don't understand that we should just agree to part ways, but thanks for chatting. In your case I agreed that the study said LowSelf->Defenders but that does not suggest that Defenders->LowSelf. Logic hasn't changed in thousands of years.
I’ve been reading a couple of articles about those who fiercely defend a company or brand no matter the situation. It’s been proven many times over that those types of people suffer from low self-esteem. That’s probably why I don’t care about situations like the ones mentioned in the article. I’ll just be glad they find a quick and friendly solution to the problem.
You expect everyone to believe you even though you don't back up your own statements. Cite the articles and we'll read them. Cite the proof that you allude to and we'll read it. Try to contribute to the conversation and you might actually make a difference. Have some confidence in yourself!
It would be better if you did your own research. Have fun finding the articles. Here’s a tease...
That was interesting. According to that study, people with low self esteem do defend their favourite brands. But what you said was that people who defend their brands have low self esteem. You actually reversed the results of the study! The study showed A->B but you said it claims B->A. Whoops! The study did not say B-> A at all. Thanks for making my case!
The facts haven’t changed.
If A was "Rain" and B was "Wet Grass" then clearly A->B but it is not true that B->A because grass can get wet from sprinklers, floods or a host of other sources of water. If you don't understand that we should just agree to part ways, but thanks for chatting. In your case I agreed that the study said LowSelf->Defenders but that does not suggest that Defenders->LowSelf. Logic hasn't changed in thousands of years.
Yeah, you’re doing too much. My mistake was in the wording, but the facts haven’t changed. Kind regards.
Your points are valid, kind of. But the difference of opinion here is that some people think that Apple has a monopoly on app stores, and some people recognize Android and other platforms as "the competition." The latter is more sensible, largely because Apple has no legal obligation to have a Third Party App Store in the first place, and never did when the iPhone first came out. And my opinion is that Apple should shut down this App Store in any jurisdiction which tries to take control over its policies. Nobody can force Apple to sell a product that it doesn't want to.
Why have you responded to me when I wasn't talking to you, and with a point completely separate from my criticism of his analogy?
Also, what's the 'kind of' doing there? If you think I've said anything invalid then say why or pipe down.
P.S. A Costco customer is indeed locked into buying bread only from Costco if that's what Costco decides to do.
Costco has no monopoly over bread, and cannot 'decide' to have one. Customers can get exact substitutes for Costco bread from a variety of places. I can't see any way of reading this other than total nonsense.
Comments
Apple's platform, gives DEVELOPERS FREE XCODE TOOLS, that Apple has to MAKE, and a platform that they have run WITH HARDWARE.
This is also access to 1 billion+ "accounts"
WORK is WORK, you want to tell me that if you bring 70% with your source code, Apple is not bringing 30% of the WORK?
If you are a SOLE developer, one guy, and Apple has 1,000+ employees working on THEIR platform, I thinking they are giving you some pretty good help.
1,000 employees that you don't have to pay and health insurance, ETC ETC, is a pretty good 30%!!
This issue is about 1 company who is MAKING A TON of cash (or did), and is almost petered out, but didn't want to charge for their software!! So Apple in essence gets ZIP from them, except for in-app purchases, please this argument is outlandish!!
Times up for the Gravy Train for Fortnite, go make another hot game, bitch! or someone else will, that's all this is...
Also, what's the 'kind of' doing there? If you think I've said anything invalid then say why or pipe down.
Costco has no monopoly over bread, and cannot 'decide' to have one. Customers can get exact substitutes for Costco bread from a variety of places. I can't see any way of reading this other than total nonsense.