randominternetperson

mikethemartian said:

foregoneconclusion said:

Video game consoles: 30% commission on sales in 1st party digital store + no 3rd party digital stores + 30% commission on discs sold in 3rd party retail. That business model has never been ruled to have supracompetitive rates by a U.S. court and it predates the iPhone and App Store. Epic has tried to argue that model is "okay" because console makers don't make as much profit on hardware as Apple. But that argument is not legally based. There is no law that states specific levels of profit allowed for a company that sells a closed system. 

Antitrust laws are specifically targeted at large markets. You would have to compare the size of the console market to the size of the Apple and Google phone app markets whether or not there is a an antitrust market argument against the console makers.

Not true.  Per Google "Yes, antitrust laws apply to small markets. While antitrust laws are often associated with large corporations and mergers, they also apply to businesses operating in smaller markets. These laws aim to promote fair competition and prevent anti-competitive practices, regardless of the size of the market."

Wow.

"Jony recently gave me one of the prototypes of the device for the first time to take home," Altman says. "I've been able to live with it and I think it's the coolest piece of technology that the world will have ever seen."

Way to keep expectations reasonable, Mr. Altman.

Will this be transformative like the Segway or like the iPhone? Or somewhere in between. I guess we'll find out.

I really dislike Adobe as a company and wouldn't want to pay those prices for those products.

Having said that, the tone of this article is odd. I think AI would have been better served with 2 pieces: one reporting of the changing options and prices and the other an editorial complaining about Adobe's practices, prices, etc. Having them mixed in together makes me less trusting of the factual statements.

The fact that they are charging more for the same thing isn't remarkable. We have all experienced that costs are higher across the board (except perhaps for office space) in recent years. When costs and wages go up, it's not "greed" for a company to raise prices. They don't need to explain or defend those increases (unless they want to). It's on us as consumers to decide if their offerings as still worth paying for. It sucks when something is no longer cost effective, but oh well.

CheeseFreeze said:

cessnapaul said:

"we love developers" as long as we get a 30% cut.

Just because Karl Benz invented the automobile doesn't mean he gets a cut of every toll road.

Saying Apple deserves a 30% cut of all digital goods because they built the platform is like saying a mall owner deserves a percentage of everything sold in every store, forever, even after the store builds its own loyal customer base and no longer relies on foot traffic.

Sure, Apple built the “mall” - the App Store - and they deserve fair rent for access and discovery. But when Apple blocks tenants from even telling customers that cheaper options exist outside the mall, or forces them to use Apple’s own checkout system, it stops being about fair business and becomes about control.

The real issue isn’t whether Apple should earn money - they already do, handsomely. It’s that they’ve positioned themselves as landlord, tax authority, and competitor all at once. Epic’s win doesn’t mean developers escape costs - it just means they can finally choose how to run their businesses. That’s not freeloading. That’s competition.

And let’s be honest: a free economy isn’t absolute. It needs guardrails. When two companies are the app economy, protecting free markets requires regulation - not just to stop abuse, but to keep the system open for the next generation of creators.

Let's see how this Apple-as-mall-owner metaphor works.

Suppose I own a mall. It's a beautiful facility in a great location with massive foot traffic. I write into the lease agreement that every tenant has to pay me a percentage of gross sales (interestingly, I charge nothing else; so if you don't do any business or give away your products and services for free, you don't pay me a dime. You sign a lease under those terms; you might have preferred a flat monthly rent, but after weighing the costs and benefits you decide it's worth it.

Then you decide to get "clever" and tell customers that they can pay for purchases by going to your website instead of paying in-person. Maybe you even give them a discount for going that route. So far so good.

Then you tell me, your landlord, that those payments thru your site don't count as part of gross revenue.

Who's the bad actor in this scenario?

I didn't propose this metaphor, but I fail to see how it makes Apple the bad guy.

saarek said:

A really bad look for Apple and a sign that they have lost their moral compass.

Based on your objections, it's not at all clear when Apple had a moral compass that you would approve of. Steve Jobs defended Apple's financial interests even more aggressively than the current leadership.