Apple wants 27% commission for Dutch apps using third-party payments

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 61
    InspiredCode said: Rent seeking is anti-capitalism. Apple should clearly be paid, but they shouldn’t be rent seeking either. Whether or not Apple crossed the line in to rent seeking is highly debatable, but capitalism requires being paid for your work and competitive pressure to counter rent seeking.
    Give me a break. Rent seeking is a core part of capitalism AND Apple clearly is not rent seeking.

    For the vast majority of the population, this is the way rent works: the landlord will promise to maintain the property during the lease and that's all. If the landlord offers the renter a renewal, it typically includes an increase in price without any promises of improvements. 

    That obviously isn't what Apple does. They've never increased the commission and have made significant upgrades to the iPhone hardware and iOS on an annual basis. In other words, those improvements never resulted in a higher price. That's the OPPOSITE of rent seeking. 
    williamlondonDetnatorwatto_cobra
  • Reply 42 of 61
    Beats said:
    darelrex said:
    It’s always perplexing when people think corporations should act like children throwing an [sic] tantrum. 
    You mean, like Epic Games?
    It really doesn’t matter what company it is, I’d be perplexed why someone would suggest they act like a child. 
    So Apple should deal with all the extra baggage why? Because “they’re rich”?

    Maybe 27% plus 5% for all the extra crap and work(yes, Apple employees actually have to WORK) this stupid law would require.

    You're assuming, like Epic Games, that everything is free. Fu** that.
    Why you and the other person brought Epic into the conversation is just strange. 

    Not strange at all - "Epic Games asks Apple to reinstate Fortnite in South Korea after new law" (September 9, 2021). Epic is has been desperately been trying to use law changes to get back on the store.  

    Even the article points out "Epic would also have to agree to comply with Apple’s App Store Review Guidelines regarding all apps, but Epic has not consistently abided by the Guidelines, and their request of Apple does not indicate any change in Epic’s position, added Apple’s statement."

    If Epic can't win in the court they convince clueless lawmakers to rewrite the laws and hope that will somehow change things.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 43 of 61
    InspiredCode said: Rent seeking is anti-capitalism. Apple should clearly be paid, but they shouldn’t be rent seeking either. Whether or not Apple crossed the line in to rent seeking is highly debatable, but capitalism requires being paid for your work and competitive pressure to counter rent seeking.
    Give me a break. Rent seeking is a core part of capitalism AND Apple clearly is not rent seeking.

    For the vast majority of the population, this is the way rent works: the landlord will promise to maintain the property during the lease and that's all. If the landlord offers the renter a renewal, it typically includes an increase in price without any promises of improvements. 

    That obviously isn't what Apple does. They've never increased the commission and have made significant upgrades to the iPhone hardware and iOS on an annual basis. In other words, those improvements never resulted in a higher price. That's the OPPOSITE of rent seeking. 
    You are wrong here: Price increase would come from the developer (absolute price) and Apple would participate indirectly (absolute commission increases because it is percentage)
    williamlondon
  • Reply 44 of 61
    xyzzy-xxx said: You are wrong here: Price increase would come from the developer (absolute price) and Apple would participate indirectly (absolute commission increases because it is percentage)
    You're not addressing the fact that Apple constantly updates the iPhone hardware, the operating system, the developers tools, the server structure etc. The idea that Apple collects the commission without doing anything in return has no basis in reality. The "nothing in return" part is critical to the classic business definition of rent seeking. 
    williamlondonurahararadarthekatDetnatorwatto_cobra
  • Reply 45 of 61
    xyzzy-xxx said: You are wrong here: Price increase would come from the developer (absolute price) and Apple would participate indirectly (absolute commission increases because it is percentage)
    You're not addressing the fact that Apple constantly updates the iPhone hardware, the operating system, the developers tools, the server structure etc. The idea that Apple collects the commission without doing anything in return has no basis in reality. The "nothing in return" part is critical to the classic business definition of rent seeking. 
    So you think that this updates are not compensated with the $191.9 billion iPhone revenue (2021) alone ?
    williamlondon
  • Reply 46 of 61
    xyzzy-xxx said:
    xyzzy-xxx said: You are wrong here: Price increase would come from the developer (absolute price) and Apple would participate indirectly (absolute commission increases because it is percentage)
    You're not addressing the fact that Apple constantly updates the iPhone hardware, the operating system, the developers tools, the server structure etc. The idea that Apple collects the commission without doing anything in return has no basis in reality. The "nothing in return" part is critical to the classic business definition of rent seeking. 
    So you think that this updates are not compensated with the $191.9 billion iPhone revenue (2021) alone ?
    Are you joking or you are just unable to think rationally?

    Revenue is first of all not profit, so the revenue in itself cannot compensate the updates.

    Secondly, there are more than 2 billion gadgets in use that connect to the App store, therefore clearly the NEW iphone sales cannot support the update for all those units already in use.

    You don’t know Apple’s cost structure, you don’t know their profitability requirement, it’s not your business why they want to make money and why they don’t want to sell below costs like other companies until they go bankrupt. They don’t have a chinese government like Huawei has to bail them out or keep them artificially profitable.

    Let people who want to use iphones use them and others who are not happy by Android or any other operating system that exists, nobody is stopping them from it.

    Apple has as much right to make money and charge for their services as other companies have to do the same, unless you want everything to be free and basically kill any innovation, progress, growth or wealth. Let’s just all be poor and live in a communist country where anybody who has more than a trouser or a shirt is an evil capitalist.
    uraharawilliamlondonradarthekatDetnatorwatto_cobra
  • Reply 47 of 61
    xyzzy-xxx said:
    xyzzy-xxx said: You are wrong here: Price increase would come from the developer (absolute price) and Apple would participate indirectly (absolute commission increases because it is percentage)
    You're not addressing the fact that Apple constantly updates the iPhone hardware, the operating system, the developers tools, the server structure etc. The idea that Apple collects the commission without doing anything in return has no basis in reality. The "nothing in return" part is critical to the classic business definition of rent seeking. 
    So you think that this updates are not compensated with the $191.9 billion iPhone revenue (2021) alone ?
    WOW! LOL

    Did you cut class the day they taught critical thinking skills? Or just happily trolling along here?
    uraharawilliamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 48 of 61
    My kids buy robux on the computer because it is cheaper than on the iPad. 

    Apple charges what the market charges. 

    Microsoft charges 30%
    So does Google. 

    People choose Apple exactly because it's hassle free, if we start dealing with fragmentation on where apps come from, how to pay, where to go for updates on the apps etc.
    We might as well go to Android, but I choose to buy a more expensive phone for my grandma, because I know she will not run into trouble.


  • Reply 49 of 61
    darkvader said:
    So instead of charging 30% for payment processing, Apple wants 27% for doing literally nothing at all.


    LOL  Low Energy IQ or Troll Master Level? which one is DerpVader?

    Apple - makes the hardware, the OS, the development kits (scary! they charge a HUGE $99 a year to be in the program /s) host your app, access to a massive, dedicated customer base. 

    Why don't you built something and not charge anyone for access to your hard work. See also 'capitalism' 
    Rent seeking is anti-capitalism. Apple should clearly be paid, but they shouldn’t be rent seeking either. Whether or not Apple crossed the line in to rent seeking is highly debatable, but capitalism requires being paid for your work and competitive pressure to counter rent seeking.

    My own opinion is that Apple either hasn’t crossed that line in to rent seeking or just barely. However it isn’t a good look. I think they need to try harder to look a little less greedy while taking their earned rent.
    I wonder what would you say if your employer (or client) told you: “Your salary (payment) is now reduced by x%. And we are only  helping you to be less greedy” 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 50 of 61
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,742member
    darkvader said:
    So instead of charging 30% for payment processing, Apple wants 27% for doing literally nothing at all.


    LOL  Low Energy IQ or Troll Master Level? which one is DerpVader?

    Apple - makes the hardware, the OS, the development kits (scary! they charge a HUGE $99 a year to be in the program /s) host your app, access to a massive, dedicated customer base. 

    Why don't you built something and not charge anyone for access to your hard work. See also 'capitalism' 
    Rent seeking is anti-capitalism. Apple should clearly be paid, but they shouldn’t be rent seeking either. Whether or not Apple crossed the line in to rent seeking is highly debatable, but capitalism requires being paid for your work and competitive pressure to counter rent seeking.

    My own opinion is that Apple either hasn’t crossed that line in to rent seeking or just barely. However it isn’t a good look. I think they need to try harder to look a little less greedy while taking their earned rent.
    Apple do not charge rent. Apple charges a commission. There's a big different, though it obvious you don't know what the difference is. 

    With rent, the "renter" pays the landlord a fixed amount (for the term of the lease) on a regular basis, regardless of how much the "renter" makes a month (or year). If the "renter" get a big bonus or a big pay raise, the rent do not change. And if the "renter" loses his job or retires and is now only bringing in unemployment benefits or an SS pension, the rent do not change. Rent is  a set cost that the "renter" pays, regardless of the "renter" income, for the time of the agreement (lease). 

    With a commission, the "rent" would change as it is a percentage of the "renter's" income. If the renter gets a pay raise, his rent increases. If the renter have to go on unemployment or retires with an SS pension, his rent decreases. If the "renter" has no income, he pays no "rent" but still gets to live there. But he still have to pay for the utilities.    

    With Apple commission, it cost the developer (the renter) nothing if he brings in no income. He will not be evicted. If he makes money, he pays a Apple a percentage. The $99 a year developer license is his cost for the "utilities".  

    Many starting businesses do not make enough income to pay the rent and get evicted and loses his business, but if the "rent" was a commission based on the revenue the business generates, then they can stay in business so long as the commission (rent) is a reasonable percentage of what they make. But there is no fear of being evicted when business is bad. Developers in the Apple and Google app stores are like "renters" that pays a commission. 

    If Apple was charging rent, in the rental world, over 90% of the apps that are free in the Apple App Store ( it's over 95% in the Google Play Store) would be considered "squatters". Epic wants to "squat". 

    https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/squatter.asp

    But that's not the case here because Apple charges a commission, based on the how much the developer makes with each app. And each app should make the developer something as they get to set the price.  

    Here's an example of a "renter" paying both rent and a commission. It's known as "percentage rent". It's very common with US shopping malls, been around for a long time and not considered anti-capitalism at all.

    https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/clb-percentage-rent.html ;

    It's you with your uniformed comments, that is ..... "not a good look." I think you need to try harder to be less ignorant. 

      
    edited February 2022 williamlondonRudeBoyRudyradarthekatDetnatorwatto_cobra
  • Reply 51 of 61
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,742member
    xyzzy-xxx said:
    xyzzy-xxx said: You are wrong here: Price increase would come from the developer (absolute price) and Apple would participate indirectly (absolute commission increases because it is percentage)
    You're not addressing the fact that Apple constantly updates the iPhone hardware, the operating system, the developers tools, the server structure etc. The idea that Apple collects the commission without doing anything in return has no basis in reality. The "nothing in return" part is critical to the classic business definition of rent seeking. 
    So you think that this updates are not compensated with the $191.9 billion iPhone revenue (2021) alone ?
    Are you saying that if a landlord of a 15 unit apartment building with a vacant store front on the ground floor, that has some units paying market rate rent and some units paying below market rate rent, should not collect rent on the vacant store front, if the landlord is already making enough money off the other units? Why should the other units subsidize the store front rent, when the store front business can pass their rent to their customers. And that the government should step in and force the landlord to rent out the store front at no cost to the renter that is going to profit from operating a store using the landlord's property?

    So you think that because an Apple Store, or Target, or Walmart in a shopping mall, brings in so much revenue for the shopping mall owner, that he should not charge rent to the other stores making money in the mall? 

    What Communist country are you living in? 
    edited February 2022 williamlondonradarthekatDetnatorwatto_cobra
  • Reply 52 of 61
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,742member
    xyzzy-xxx said:
    InspiredCode said: Rent seeking is anti-capitalism. Apple should clearly be paid, but they shouldn’t be rent seeking either. Whether or not Apple crossed the line in to rent seeking is highly debatable, but capitalism requires being paid for your work and competitive pressure to counter rent seeking.
    Give me a break. Rent seeking is a core part of capitalism AND Apple clearly is not rent seeking.

    For the vast majority of the population, this is the way rent works: the landlord will promise to maintain the property during the lease and that's all. If the landlord offers the renter a renewal, it typically includes an increase in price without any promises of improvements. 

    That obviously isn't what Apple does. They've never increased the commission and have made significant upgrades to the iPhone hardware and iOS on an annual basis. In other words, those improvements never resulted in a higher price. That's the OPPOSITE of rent seeking. 
    You are wrong here: Price increase would come from the developer (absolute price) and Apple would participate indirectly (absolute commission increases because it is percentage)
    No, you are wrong. 

    Suppose there's a flat tax rate of 15% and a middle-class taxpayer reports a taxable income of $100K. The taxes on that would be $15K. Now if a wealthy taxpayer that reported a taxable income of $1M and paid $150K in taxes, did the government increase the "price" for the wealthy person? You thinking that because the wealthy person paid more in taxes, that it must mean that the government increase the price (tax rate) for the wealthy person. That is  not only wrong and not thinking it out correctly but bad math.  

    A "price" increase would be a person making a $100K and paying $15K (15%) in taxes compared to a wealthy person making $1M and paying $300K (30%) in taxes.

    The "price" increase occurs with developers when they go from a 15% commission to 30% because they crossed over the $1M revenue barrier set by Apple. Not when the developers pays more in commission because they are charging more for their app. It's the same 15/30% commission. 
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 53 of 61
    darkvader said:
    So instead of charging 30% for payment processing, Apple wants 27% for doing literally nothing at all.


    Omg.  The fact that you think Apple does “literally nothing at all” is as laughable as all you other posts.  

    “Literally” no-one even remotely in their right minds, not even Sweeney, thinks Apple does “nothing at all”. 

    DarkVader, why are you here?
    williamlondonradarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 54 of 61
    darkvader said:
    So instead of charging 30% for payment processing, Apple wants 27% for doing literally nothing at all.


    Building the platform that apps run on, creating APIs, creating development tools and hosting apps isn’t nothing. And that is what I can come up with off the top of my head. 
    You mentioned you’re new here.  So no worries.  You’ll catch on soon that DarkVader’s comments are … laughable, at best.  

    He tried to tell us last year things like how outdated and under powered Apple’s Silicon is compared with Intel (despite the $1200 M1 MBA beats the $5000 Mac Pro on some tasks including some of the video editing Andrew here on AppleInsider does for videos for this site).

    When challenged on his posts he almost never replies. 

    I know nothing about him (her?) as a person, but his posts are just getting more and more entertaining in how ridiculous the claims in them are… as you can see of course from the example he’s presented this time round. Most of us have learned to just laugh or scoff rather than try to reason with him. Can’t wait to see what he’ll come up with next. 

    😉 

    Welcome to AI. 

    williamlondonradarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 55 of 61
    darkvader said:
    So instead of charging 30% for payment processing, Apple wants 27% for doing literally nothing at all.


    Assuming you read the myriad responses to your fucking stupid posts, are you getting tired of being corrected?

    You.are.in.the.wrong.place.

    Go elsewhere, I suggest MacRumors which is filled with dolts, idiots, morons and best of all your brethren: trolls.

    Go away!
    radarthekatDetnatorwatto_cobra
  • Reply 56 of 61
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,849member
    Imagine paying Proctor and Gamble for a jug of Tide, then you pick it up at Walmart.

    Or imagine going to Walmart demanding that they accept payment through ApplePay.  Of course they will decline.  So do you now sue Walmart expecting to win?

    This is the inanity of the ruling that Apple should allow alternative payment methods.

    And also posters keep saying monopoly, monopoly, monopoly about Apple.  In exactly what product does Apple have a monopoly?  Certainly not the iPhone.  The Apple App Store is not a monopoly.  They are not the only app store in the smartphone market.  There's a whole segment where they're not even competing in, the segment called 'Android smart phones'.  If you say they are monopolizing the iPhone app market, then you have to first pass a law that says companies cannot have monopolies on their own-brand products.  Which is of course, absurd.
    edited February 2022 radarthekatDetnatorwatto_cobra
  • Reply 57 of 61
    gatorguy said:
    aderutter said:
    It’s good to finally have clarity from Apple (for those that needed it) that in-app purchases are simply a means to unlock functionality in an app, be it views of peoples profiles or “virtual coins” in a game.

    Either way it is in-app functionality with no physical product only a digital service.

    As such, Apple are due their cut for payment of the digital service/product - just as the judge in the Epic case stated.

    The only thing they have to do in S.Korea, the Netherlands and likely other soon to follow territories is allow an “alternative payment processing method” but not relinquish their cut of the sale that excludes the financial processing aspect. The result will be that practically nobody bothers using an alternative payment method.

    Basically, the cheap ass developers wanted to keep all the in-app payment revenue, not just the payment processing fee from the credit card company. The Epic case showed what would happen - it’s Apple’ platform and they are due their cut just like MS on XBox.

    Philip Elmer-DeWitt, who is a huge Apple supporter on most issues, sees this one differently.
    https://www.ped30.com/2022/02/04/apple-dutch-medicine/

    "Steve Troughton-Smith, creator of apps like Broadcasts and Pastel for iOS, called the move “absolutely vile” and said Apple executives “should be ashamed.” Here’s what others are saying.

      • “This says everything about Tim Cook’s Apple and what it thinks of developers,” Troughton-Smith said. “I hope the company gets exactly what it deserves. Everybody on their executive team should be ashamed, and some of them should not be here when it’s all over.”
      • “They’re making non-App-Store payments as painful, expensive, and clunky as the regulators will tolerate,” said Instapaper creator Marco Arment. “Come on, THIS is comedy. Amazing, ridiculous comedy. I’d be surprised if a single app ever took them up on this. (And that’s exactly by design.)”
      • “Wow, Apple is going to fight dirty all the way,” said independent developer Frank Reiff. “Never mind the damage it does to its reputation.”
      • “Apple is going to fight this tooth and nail instead of adjusting its services business model from being that of a rent seeker,” said Dare Obasanjo. “They’ve created enemies among developers and regulators with their shenanigans.”

    My take (PED): I’ve read most of Apple’s 3,000 word support document “Distributing dating apps in the Netherlands” and it’s as forbidding, mean-spirited and loathsome (as) these guys say it is.


    Perhaps. But what choice do Apple’s executives have against the forbidding, mean spirited and loathsome characters who seem to have no interest in what’s best for consumers or what’s fair for Apple, and are just trying to exploit Apple because they are successful.  

    One question: why do people opposing Apple on this topic never seem to acknowledge (a) the value of Apple’s APIs and Apple’s customer base, and (b) the choice any given developer has not to pay Apple anything if those two items aren’t worth the price Apple charges for them to said developer?

    It’s been argued many times here and in other places a lot of things beyond payment processing, that go into the value Apple brings to the table for their “30%” (which of course is only 15% for the vast majority of developers - why does no one opposing Apple ever seem to acknowledge that part except as a tangential side point?)

    Now that we’ve established that Apple effectively only charges 3 out of the 15 or 30% for payment processing we can extrapolate that the rest — 12 or 27% — is what Apple seems is the price for everything else.

    Even if anyone wants to argue that the curation, hosting, delivery, etc. etc. is of no value to developers, what about Apple’s APIs and Apple’s customers.  Why should Apple give those away?

    Maybe those two things are not worth that much to some developers and if so, no problem. They have choice:  Build web apps and market them through their own websites.  What does Apple charge for this?  Zero.  And Apple holds you to no mean spirited or any other kinds of contracts either  

    If you (meaning the generic use of “you”, so you: any given developer, not you gatorguy specifically) then want to complain that web apps suck compared to native apps, most would agree with you. Although anyone who has used the entire Office 365 suite entirely in a web browser might argue that, sure the user experience kinda sucks but the functionality is almost all there. So are web apps really so bad?  But ok, let’s say they are. 

    So why are native apps better?  Hmmm… perhaps it has something to do with the 150,000 APIs that Apple has spent at least 15 years and hundreds of billions of dollars developing - and continues to do so - in order to make them (native apps) better. That’s Apple’s Intellectual property. They should give that away? (Or does anyone in their right mind think $99/yr - the price of a coffee once a month - covers that?)

    And/or… you might argue that access to Apple’s customer base through the App Store isn’t worth that price either.  No problem.  Get your own customers from your own marketing and your own web site (all of which is accessible from Apple’s devices, at no cost charged by Apple), sell them your app for anything you like, sign them up for subscriptions and in-app purchases, get all the contact details they’re willing to give you so you can keep in touch with them as much as you like, all via your own infrastructure, with your own payment processing…  and don’t pay Apple anything.  (Not even the $8/month developer program membership if it’s a web app). This is exactly what Netflix does, and I just can’t see how anyone can argue Netflix is getting any kind of raw deal from Apple. 

    And for those startup devs that want to take a punt on the App Store, there’s ZERO risk (except the $99). You don’t pay Apple anything more than that until you actually make money yourself.  Very, very few business models have such low startup investment/costs. 

    So… Someone tell me please: what’s the problem here…?

    Apple provides… stuff.  Does it have any value? I guess it’s up to each individual developer to decide. But at least they have choice.

    And in case it’s not clear: I’m pointing out that not only do we all (users and developers alike) have choice between the value (or not) and the cost (or not) of different platforms (Apple vs Android), we all have choice EVEN ON APPLE’s DEVICES. 

    The biggest thing those articles and comments tell me is that some people want, even expect, all the value they can get without having to pay anything for it. To them, any company whose business provides any less of a deal than that is “greedy” (or even mean spirited and loathsome). 

    No. I think it’s pretty clear who really are the mean spirited and loathsome characters here.

    edited February 2022 RudeBoyRudyradarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 58 of 61
    The Netherlands will never accept this, because it will only leave 3% margin to the third party payment provider, essentially backing the dating apps in a corner.
    Apple is using this case to test the waters because the Netherlands is a smaller market to them.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 59 of 61
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,742member
    The Netherlands will never accept this, because it will only leave 3% margin to the third party payment provider, essentially backing the dating apps in a corner.
    Apple is using this case to test the waters because the Netherlands is a smaller market to them.
    Why? Apple is doing exactly what the Netherlands was requiring, that Apple ..... must allow developers to use their own or any third party payment system, in their own apps. Show me where did the Netherlands required Apple to lower or eliminate their commission, if a developer were to use their own or any other third party payment system in  their own apps. You can't, can you? So how can you say the the Netherlands won't accept what Apple has done, when it meets what the Netherlands was requiring Apple to do. 

    What you really mean is that the dating apps and developers like Epic and the members in their Coalition of Fair Apps, will never accept this. Well, too bad for them. They are not the one passing the laws. If they wanted the government to pass laws requiring Apple to lower or eliminate their commission, then they should have specifically requested that. And then provide valid reasons why. (Which would be much harder to do, without any valid proof that Apple have a monopoly.) But instead these dumbassess think that by getting the government to require Apple to allow them to use their own choice of payment system in their apps, they can side step paying Apple a commission. Like developers can do now, when payment for purchases are made on their own websites. 

    These dumbasses and specially Sweeney, ought to have known that their plan is not going to work. So far, not one government entity, that have passed laws or trying to, requiring Apple to allow third party payment system in their App Store, have ever mentioned that it had anything to do with Apple right to charge a commission, regardless of what payment system the developer uses in their app or that the commission is tied to the iTunes payment system at all. Do these dumbasses just assume that the governments in these cases think like they do and that Apple commission pays for nothing but processing the payment? 

    In the Epic vs Apple case, a US Federal Judge ruled that Apple was being anti-competitive by not allowing third party payment system and yet the same Judge in the same case, awarded Apple their full 30% commission in damages, on the money Epic made when they modified their Fortnite app to bypassed Apple iTunes payment. An app that got them kicked out of the Apple App Store (and the Google Play store) for breach of contract.

    Now ask yourself this, if the Judge that ruled Apple was being anti-competitive by requiring developers to use iTunes payment system, had any inkling that Apple 30% commission was tied to being anti-competitive with their App Store iTunes payment requirement, don't you think that the Judge would not had awarded Apple their full 30% commission on the money Epic made with payments in their modified app but outside of Apple iTunes payment system?

    On second thought, don't ask yourself this, you'll most likely get the wrong answer. Ask some one that's a little more informed than yourself.   
    radarthekatDetnatorwilliamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 60 of 61
    maximara said:
    Beats said:
    darelrex said:
    It’s always perplexing when people think corporations should act like children throwing an [sic] tantrum. 
    You mean, like Epic Games?
    It really doesn’t matter what company it is, I’d be perplexed why someone would suggest they act like a child. 
    So Apple should deal with all the extra baggage why? Because “they’re rich”?

    Maybe 27% plus 5% for all the extra crap and work(yes, Apple employees actually have to WORK) this stupid law would require.

    You're assuming, like Epic Games, that everything is free. Fu** that.
    Why you and the other person brought Epic into the conversation is just strange. 

    Not strange at all - "Epic Games asks Apple to reinstate Fortnite in South Korea after new law" (September 9, 2021). Epic is has been desperately been trying to use law changes to get back on the store.  

    Even the article points out "Epic would also have to agree to comply with Apple’s App Store Review Guidelines regarding all apps, but Epic has not consistently abided by the Guidelines, and their request of Apple does not indicate any change in Epic’s position, added Apple’s statement."

    If Epic can't win in the court they convince clueless lawmakers to rewrite the laws and hope that will somehow change things.
    This is all entirely irrelevant to my comment. My comment was about people here in the comment section suggesting Apple should act like a child having a tantrum.  Literally nothing to do with Epic. So it is in fact strange that people brought up Epic in response to what I said. 
    williamlondonmuthuk_vanalingam
Sign In or Register to comment.