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

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 61
    It's only right.

    You can foist your crap little third-party payment system on users, but you still pay those who put your product/service on their virtual shelves.

    NOBODY wants the acquiring of digital goods and services to return to the wild west days of scam after scam and mess after mess.

    well... except the greedy criminals who want to trick and manipulate the contents of your wallet away from you and their business partners who do the hard work of making such goods and services securely and conveniently available to the widest audience possible.
    radarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 61
    darkvader said:
    So instead of charging 30% for payment processing, Apple wants 27% for doing literally nothing at all.


    Want to sell an ebook on Amazon? Amazon will take a 30% commission if you price your ebook between $2.99 and $9.99. If you price it higher/lower than that range, Amazon takes a 65% commission. Now compare ebooks to iPhone/iOS in terms of the annual R&D involved. ebook technology has barely changed in the last 10 years. The iPhone hardware and iOS have had massive changes in 10 years. 
    edited February 4 thtradarthekaturaharawatto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 61
    mike1 said:
    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. 
    Arguing with a moronic troll is pointless. Just block him.
    Agreed! But, it's when they constantly make stupid statements and people call them out and reply, you still can't escape them.
    radarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 61
    BeatsBeats Posts: 3,073member
    Beats said:
    Apple should charge 35%

    30% store fee and 5% to cover the hassle, customer support inquiries and stupidity of lawsuits against Apple if something were to go wrong and Apple is sued etc.
    It’s always perplexing when people think corporations should act like children throwing a tantrum. 
    It's not perplexing at all. 😉

    Wouldn’t you agree the bratty “it’s my store not yours!” Argument against Apple is childish?
  • Reply 25 of 61
    badmonkbadmonk Posts: 1,107member
    I think Apple needs to emphasize to officials and politicians that sales tax and VAT will no longer be paid by Apple when Apps are side loaded.  It would be interesting to see how the debate would change.

    Apple has a lot of resources ensuring App Store compliance with different rules and regulations of each of the countries it operates in.  I am not sure the same thing is true for smaller payment services.
    radarthekatBeatswatto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 61
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,688member
    cropr said:

    Beats said:
    Apple should charge 35%

    30% store fee and 5% to cover the hassle, customer support inquiries and stupidity of lawsuits against Apple if something were to go wrong and Apple is sued etc.

    That would be extremely unwise.  In most countries, you can appeal but not bypass a decision of a judge.  This would not only result to heavy fines but the EU  commission might see as a proof of abuse of monopoly of the Apple App store towards the iOS app developers.

    Even with the 27% Apple is giving the wrong signal to the EU commission
    How's that? Just what monopoly would Apple be abusing? In what country has Apple been accused of being a monopoly, that falls under anti-trust laws?  This "gatekeeper" BS is meant to bypass anti-trust laws, in order to extract money from the big 5 US techs. 

    The EU commission had never said that Apple was not allow to charge a commission for the commercial use of their IP or that the 15/30% commission was too high. All the EU commission stated was that .....  not allowing developers to use their own or another third party payment system, was being anti-completive. It had nothing to do with the commission. 

    Apple is now allowing third party payment system and abiding by what the EU originally sought. And as a token of their appreciation for being inform they were being anti-completive, they are giving developers that chooses to use their own method of payment, a 3% discount. Google is being even more gracious by giving a 4% discount. 

    Why should the EU commission have a problem with that? Or having to increase their commission in order to make up for the cost of collecting their commission? The EU commission got what they wanted Apple to do. So far, not one country have stated that Apple is not entitled to earn a commission. Not the US, EU or S. Korea.  Epic and their Coalition of Fair Apps organization is not a country and do not determine anti-competition or anti-trust laws. 

    You and others thinking that the commission is only for processing the payment through iTunes, is your problem. Not the countries that are only saying that ..... not allowing a third party payment system in their App Store is anti-completive. There is nothing anti-completive about earning a commission on sales.   
    williamlondonradarthekatthtBeatsuraharaDetnatorwatto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 61
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,543moderator
    Folks who thought the 30% commission is merely for collecting and processing payment are now learning the truth.  Only 3% of that commission was related to payment processing.  The other 27% is an implicit agreement that covers Apple’s costs of maintaining all the infrastructure and technology, but also access to users.  

    People somehow believed that by putting their apps in the App Store priced as free grandfathered them into to free access to Apple’s user base thereafter.  They figure that since they were granted access to that user base for no charge that they could later, via in-app purchases, exploit that free access they believe they were granted.  But that was never the deal.  The deal more more like, you pay a commission whenever you sell to the Apple user base, even if that day doesn’t come immediately upon downloading your app. This is fair because there’s a lot of value in being granted access to such a huge user base that the developers didn’t have to build themselves. 

    Maybe now the conversation can become more rational, now that people are being shown a glimpse under the hood as to how much of the commission applies to each component of value Apple provides.  
    williamlondonBeatstenthousandthingswatto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 61
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,473member
    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.



    edited February 4 ctt_zhcrowleymuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 29 of 61
    Everyone is complaining what Apple is charging. Apple is charging what the market is willing to pay. If it was that obnoxious, developers would not participate. The thing is developers are participating by the tens of thousands so obviously Apple has priced their services right. Government does not have the right to dictate what a company's markup should be, the market already does that. And if you want to chant monopoly, how do you account for Android which anyone can develop on for free and has more phones in the marketplace than Apple? Apple is not a monopoly, they just have a better ecosystem everyone wants to be on but some don't want to pay the price to participate.
    Beatsuraharawatto_cobra
  • Reply 30 of 61
    danoxdanox Posts: 1,345member
    Beats said:
    Apple should charge 35%

    30% store fee and 5% to cover the hassle, customer support inquiries and stupidity of lawsuits against Apple if something were to go wrong and Apple is sued etc.
    It’s always perplexing when people think corporations should act like children throwing a tantrum. 

    When the owner/founder runs the company they do (they take it personally), Tim Cook is a hired hand (a very good one maybe the best), owner founders able to lay down the law as CEO’s in a way that hired hands can’t, Sweeney would not give back talk to Jobs if he was still around running the company, the same would apply to Bezos, Gates, or Elon.

    Tim Cook as great as he is, would not have said no to Flash…..but Jobs said flat out no…..
    edited February 4 Beatswatto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 61
    danoxdanox Posts: 1,345member
    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.




    Perky believes in free rides, he should buy a Android phone they make up the majority of smartphone market…..
    Beatswilliamlondonuraharawatto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 61
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 3,179member
    When I buy a soft drink in my local restaurant, it costs $4. The cost of the syrup from Coca-Cola for that drink cost 7 cents (in 1990, but the wholesale price may have gone up by now.) Coca-Cola gets only 7 cents from the sale of a soft drink. So the markup on that drink is (almost) 10,000%. And people don't complain about that because they understand that the local restaurant has to buy the glass, clean the glass, buy the carbonated water, pay the server, pay the electric bill, buy the furniture, hire people to deal with regulators, pay rent on the building or pay property tax if they own it, pay the heating or air conditioning bill, pay the shareholders some profit, etc. (I probably missed many more items.) And all those things make 10,000% markup "fair." Nobody complains about that.

    Apple's markup is only 15% or 30% (and it's 0% if you distribute free apps, which is most apps, and which is subsidized by the apps which pay 15% or 30%.) By my count, Apple provides about two dozen major services for app developers. Some of those developers use some of those services, but I'm sure none of them use all of those services. Apple wants to keep everything simple and easy to use by simply charging a single number for all developers. That number is 30%, which is an industry standard.

    If someday iOS is so prevalent that there is no competition, I will consider supporting regulations that tell Apple how much they can charge (if the charges don't seem fair.) However right now Apple sells a small minority of all smart phones in Europe, (30%) so there's no need to regulate their profit levels at this time.
    radarthekaturaharawatto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 61
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 3,179member
    Folks who thought the 30% commission is merely for collecting and processing payment are now learning the truth.  Only 3% of that commission was related to payment processing.  The other 27% is an implicit agreement that covers Apple’s costs of maintaining all the infrastructure and technology, but also access to users.  

    People somehow believed that by putting their apps in the App Store priced as free grandfathered them into to free access to Apple’s user base thereafter.  They figure that since they were granted access to that user base for no charge that they could later, via in-app purchases, exploit that free access they believe they were granted.  But that was never the deal.  The deal more more like, you pay a commission whenever you sell to the Apple user base, even if that day doesn’t come immediately upon downloading your app. This is fair because there’s a lot of value in being granted access to such a huge user base that the developers didn’t have to build themselves. 

    Maybe now the conversation can become more rational, now that people are being shown a glimpse under the hood as to how much of the commission applies to each component of value Apple provides.  
    You are an optimist there, but everything you said is true.

    I think Apple's response to this situation is far more restrained than my response would have been if I was running Apple. I would simply pull the App Store out of that market because, I would say, "we aren't willing to lose money in this market. We aren't a charity."

    I think AppleInsider should write an article listing all the services that Apple provides developers for its 30% fee.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 34 of 61

    I think AppleInsider should write an article listing all the services that Apple provides developers for its 30% fee.
    Here's a good list:

    - we developers get up to 1 petabyte of user storage via CloudKit 100% free. Bear notes app does this and they manage 0 servers for their subscription-paid users.
    - we could submit 1000 app and app updates in a year which translates to Apple paying about 1000 man-hours worth of paychecks at about $30/hr or ~$30k for app review
    - we have free access to using Apple Maps instead of paying Google tons of money to use their mapping API keys (for those high volume users). this saves Yelp and Facebook a ton of money as well as small developers.
    - we get many more new features every single year via the SDK compared to Android (like ARKit, Core ML, SwiftUI, Vision, etc... just to name a few).
    - we get global distribution for free (including China, you know, where Google Play doesn't exist. also developers generally have to setup their own servers in China because of the great firewall, but if you used CloudKit, it just works without any extra setup).
    - we get app store curated editorial with a chance to reach front page in front of 500 million customers a week.
    - we have no credit card fees or international taxes to worry about
    - Apple provides support to customers asking for refund for an app and app store support in general
    - Testflight service is free (for public and private testing)
    - app store automatically creates many different binaries of our app and distributes device-optimized versions to each customer. a 1 gigabyte app with many different permutations of versions across hundreds of servers around the world means Apple is hosting about several terabytes in the cloud for us from one single app
    - push notifications/push notification sandbox servers
    - Web SDK version of cloudkit/mapkit so that you can use it for a web version of your app
    - Apple sign in
    - Mac notarization service which improves trust by the user for downloading an app from the web
    - yearly major releases of Xcode with new features
    - analytics dashboard and crash reporting
    - and the list goes on and on.

    From here:  https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/epic-games-unlikely-to-win-injunction-in-ongoing-fortnite-battle-with-apple-jury-trial-possible.2257511/page-10?post=28966869#post-28966869
    BeatsradarthekatcrowleyforegoneconclusionwilliamlondonuraharaDetnatorwatto_cobra
  • Reply 35 of 61
    BeatsBeats Posts: 3,073member

    I think AppleInsider should write an article listing all the services that Apple provides developers for its 30% fee.
    Here's a good list:

    - we developers get up to 1 petabyte of user storage via CloudKit 100% free. Bear notes app does this and they manage 0 servers for their subscription-paid users.
    - we could submit 1000 app and app updates in a year which translates to Apple paying about 1000 man-hours worth of paychecks at about $30/hr or ~$30k for app review
    - we have free access to using Apple Maps instead of paying Google tons of money to use their mapping API keys (for those high volume users). this saves Yelp and Facebook a ton of money as well as small developers.
    - we get many more new features every single year via the SDK compared to Android (like ARKit, Core ML, SwiftUI, Vision, etc... just to name a few).
    - we get global distribution for free (including China, you know, where Google Play doesn't exist. also developers generally have to setup their own servers in China because of the great firewall, but if you used CloudKit, it just works without any extra setup).
    - we get app store curated editorial with a chance to reach front page in front of 500 million customers a week.
    - we have no credit card fees or international taxes to worry about
    - Apple provides support to customers asking for refund for an app and app store support in general
    - Testflight service is free (for public and private testing)
    - app store automatically creates many different binaries of our app and distributes device-optimized versions to each customer. a 1 gigabyte app with many different permutations of versions across hundreds of servers around the world means Apple is hosting about several terabytes in the cloud for us from one single app
    - push notifications/push notification sandbox servers
    - Web SDK version of cloudkit/mapkit so that you can use it for a web version of your app
    - Apple sign in
    - Mac notarization service which improves trust by the user for downloading an app from the web
    - yearly major releases of Xcode with new features
    - analytics dashboard and crash reporting
    - and the list goes on and on.

    From here:  https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/epic-games-unlikely-to-win-injunction-in-ongoing-fortnite-battle-with-apple-jury-trial-possible.2257511/page-10?post=28966869#post-28966869

    Idiots in the comments think Apple does nothing.

    Thanks for the short list.
    michael scripradarthekaturaharawatto_cobra
  • Reply 36 of 61
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,543moderator
    Folks who thought the 30% commission is merely for collecting and processing payment are now learning the truth.  Only 3% of that commission was related to payment processing.  The other 27% is an implicit agreement that covers Apple’s costs of maintaining all the infrastructure and technology, but also access to users.  

    People somehow believed that by putting their apps in the App Store priced as free grandfathered them into to free access to Apple’s user base thereafter.  They figure that since they were granted access to that user base for no charge that they could later, via in-app purchases, exploit that free access they believe they were granted.  But that was never the deal.  The deal more more like, you pay a commission whenever you sell to the Apple user base, even if that day doesn’t come immediately upon downloading your app. This is fair because there’s a lot of value in being granted access to such a huge user base that the developers didn’t have to build themselves. 

    Maybe now the conversation can become more rational, now that people are being shown a glimpse under the hood as to how much of the commission applies to each component of value Apple provides.  
    You are an optimist there, but everything you said is true.

    I think Apple's response to this situation is far more restrained than my response would have been if I was running Apple. I would simply pull the App Store out of that market because, I would say, "we aren't willing to lose money in this market. We aren't a charity."

    I think AppleInsider should write an article listing all the services that Apple provides developers for its 30% fee.
    I agree with your sentiment, but I think Apple is playing this correctly.  If regulators want to disallow Apple the ability to collect payment for the value Apple provides, then they are going to have to pick apart that 30% bit by bit and make their case against each and every bit.  That’s the message Apple is sending by attributing just 3% to the payment processing bit that the regulators have attacked.  

    The funny part is that the regulators likely assumed they were addressing the entire 30% commission with their actions against Apple.  But by holding their cards close to their vest throughout, Apple let them believe this and only at the end showed that it’s only 3% that was being fought over.  

    I’m confident Apple will continue this same game, never breaking out the components of that remaining 27% until each assumed component is debated and litigated.  Not knowing whether the APIs represent 20% or 2%, or none of the commission, for example, leaves Apple’s detractors and litigators at a disadvantage in the fight.  As they should be. 
    edited February 5 Detnatorwatto_cobra
  • Reply 37 of 61
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,835moderator
    Apple's markup is only 15% or 30% (and it's 0% if you distribute free apps, which is most apps, and which is subsidized by the apps which pay 15% or 30%.) By my count, Apple provides about two dozen major services for app developers. Some of those developers use some of those services, but I'm sure none of them use all of those services. Apple wants to keep everything simple and easy to use by simply charging a single number for all developers. That number is 30%, which is an industry standard.
    It is interesting how so many articles online still complain about 30% when that fee only applies to millionaires/billionaires. For most people (99%), the fee is 15%.

    People also seem to not understand the difference between a payment processor and a commission:



    3% payment processor fees are pretty standard:

    https://gamerant.com/epic-games-store-revenue-split-explained/

    Epic Store costs 7% for payment processing, infrastructure and customer service.

    "grocery stores selling digital gift cards for platforms like iTunes, Steam, or Amazon have a markup of 10-15% in part because of employee costs and credit card companies take 2.5-3.5% to process transactions to cover the cost of banking and customer service."

    https://stripe.com/pricing (2.9% + 30c)
    https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/merchant-fees (2.4-3.5%)

    All the rulings about payments have been about Apple excluding other payment processors so they only need to deduct the amount for processing fees.

    This isn't about small/indie developers at all, a 15% commission for everything including payment processing and merchant services is great value for small developers. This is about very wealthy companies trying to undermine Apple's business model - match.com, Microsoft, Epic, Tencent, Spotify. These companies make billions and they don't want to give any of it to Apple. They even complain about it directly to their shareholders, this is Match Group's 2021 annual report where they complain about fees and access to customer data:

    https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0000891103/c459b488-446c-40d8-b564-8d1505b1284f.pdf

    "We fully rely on the Apple App Store and the Google Play Store to distribute our mobile applications and related in-app products. While our mobile applications are generally free to download from these stores, we offer our users the opportunity to purchase subscriptions and certain à la carte features through these applications. We determine the prices at which these subscriptions and features are sold; however, purchases of these subscriptions and features are required in most cases to be processed through the in-app payment systems provided by Apple and Google. Due to these requirements, we pay Apple and Google, as applicable, a meaningful share (generally 30%) of the revenue we receive from these transactions.

    Additionally, when our users and subscribers access and pay through the app stores, the platforms may receive personal data about our users and subscribers that we would otherwise receive if we transacted with our users and subscribers directly. The platforms have restricted our access to much of that data."

    This company makes around $2b/year directly on Apple's and Google's platforms, mostly from Tinder and have to pay around $600m in commission.They want to do everything they can to avoid paying this commission. Their entire business is based on Apple's touch UI swipe left/right, that's what made them successful in the first place and now it's oppression because their shareholders want more.

    That's what this whole thing is really about - big super wealthy companies and their wealthy shareholders arguing with each other over who gets the money from the little people and dressing it up as if it's all about the poor people to convince wealthy politicians to let them take the money instead.
    michael scripradarthekatforegoneconclusionwilliamlondonuraharatenthousandthingswatto_cobra
  • Reply 38 of 61
    genovellegenovelle Posts: 1,415member
    darkvader said:
    So instead of charging 30% for payment processing, Apple wants 27% for doing literally nothing at all.


    Apple is the reason these apps can function. The apps live on their servers, the customers find them because app drives billions of users to use the App Store. There is an option that existed before the App Store called the internet. If these companies had their own platforms like dating services did in the past and the app was only a browser the customers that those companies attracted on their own, there they would have to pay Apple in the first place. They wouldn’t need an alternative payment method because the overwhelming  of their customers would signup before they even get to the App Store. 

    The problem here is their app would be possible without the Apple Platform and access to the customers Apple attracts and keeps engaged. So, their business on iOS is 100% dependent on Apple maintaining and keeping their platform competitive. If Apple provide no APIs or the spotty access or poor customer  service, they would blame Apple and likely sue them for damaging their brand and loosing them money. 

    Apple which do you believe requires more skill, developing a platform with tool that 20 million developers with millions of diverse apps can use to with thousands of prebuilt buildings blocks lowering the technical requirements for entry in a multitude of languages and compatibility with 5 years worth of Apple devices and OS versions, or a dating app developers with a single focused idea that uses these building blocks to create an app that trusting Apple customers might want to download?
    edited February 5 foregoneconclusionwilliamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 39 of 61
    genovelle said: Apple which do you believe requires more skill, developing a platform with tool that 20 million developers with millions of diverse apps can use to with thousands of prebuilt buildings blocks lowering the technical requirements for entry in a multitude of languages and compatibility with 5 years worth of Apple devices and OS versions, or a dating app developers with a single focused idea that uses these building blocks to create an app that trusting Apple customers might want to download?
    Exactly. Applications have value and represent a substantial amount of work, but not more so than what Apple has done with the hardware/software R&D. The whole "rent seeking" thing is bizarre, as most people who pay rent know that their landlords aren't constantly providing upgrades to the property in question while also NEVER increasing the rent to be paid.
    williamlondonradarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 40 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.
    edited February 5
Sign In or Register to comment.