mac voyer

How long before AirPods are hit with gatekeeper status? 😀 I'm sure there is some competitor in the EU pushing to force Apple to allow third-party AirPods made and branded by competitors. Otherwise, Apple has too much of an advantage.

Holy Sh!t! I'm so glad you made it and I am reminded of all those who don't in similar circumstances. A year and a half ago, I was hit by a van. I don't think I had crash detection on at the time but I was in the middle of Manhattan and surround by people. I am stopping to make sure crash detection is on for me and my wife right now. Thanks for sharing your story with us. 

I wanted to chime in as a person who used to write news and still maintains an apple blog on occasion. 

I believe it is inappropriate to socially pressure people into declining refunds that are due them. As a writer, I might change the headline so that it is clearly marked as editorial and explain why it is my position that refunds be declined. As a less partial piece for a blog, I could try a how-to approach: "Here's how to decline your refund for subscriptions that fall through." There are ways to do it without telling or even asking readers to decline as if it were some kind of moral or social imperative. I believe that is what rubs some people the wrong way.

Being left behind in this conversation is that apps, especially subscription apps, are businesses. And developers are business people. One of the big problems in the development community is that developers see opportunity but are utterly divorced from business realities. Developers are generally sole proprietors of a business. That has tax implications. Does the IRS give them a break when their business doesn't pan out? Should they? Of course not. It's a business.

If the developer has help with the app, she has to pay that help. There are marketing considerations. There are support considerations. There are platform rules and norms to consider, and a lot more. It is a business that has to be treated like a business.. When app developers do not go into it like they would with any other business, these situations arise.

Another factor exacerbating the issue is that there is an unhealthy relationship with developers and the press. Back when I first started writing, my boss wanted me to interview a developer of an app that I was also supposed to review. I pushed back on it because it would be a conflict of interests to interview the developer while trying to impartially review his app. We needed to decide whether we wanted to be an app review platform or an editorial platform. For the record, we were an app review site. I did the interview. But that was the beginning of the end of my relationship with that company.

Leo LaPort used to boast that he didn't accept review units from companies and he didn't do interviews with tech company execs because he didn't want to contaminate his honest opinion about the news. That lasted until it didn't. Since then, there are popular tech podcasts done by developers such as ATP. It is perfectly reasonable for developers to get their message out. The problem is that non-developer content creators are close friends with developers so there can be no impartial reporting about anything to do with developers. Developers are always right and Apple is always wrong. Developers are the innocent David's who fight against the evil corporate Goliaths. That is the narrative. 

In that environment, we have no hope of coverage that holds certain beloved developers to accountability. Regardless of any circumstances that might arise, the businessperson is responsible for dealing with contingencies whether they are acts of god or acts of larger companies. That does not mitigate the responsibility of the app developer/businessperson. We are so very sorry their business went under. But part of the chosen business model of subscriptions is to fulfill the orders with services rendered or monetary refunds. That is the deal that describes the circle of trust implicit in a subscription. 

Pressuring people to forgo their due receipt of compensation is to say that the businessperson should never have been treated like a businessperson and instead be treated more like a close friend or family member. That is not the relationship we signed up for when we fulfilled our end of the subscription agreement. 

Finally, there is the issue of partiality. These developers are friends of the press and not independent businesses. If Walmart reneged on a subscription delivery because they found it would drive them bankrupt to keep their end of the bargain, we would be calling for their heads. No one would suggest we should forgo our compensation because it would hurt Walmart. We wouldn't care if the situation wasn't Walmart's fault. The same is true for almost any business you can think of with the weird carve out for developers who have friendly relationships with the press. They should somehow be exempted from the business risks and consequences that every other business faces.

Personally, I have lost a business due to circumstances beyond my control. That did not have any bearing on whether or not I was required to pay my employees, vendors, and taxes. No one threw me a pity party for my loss. I was just another fool who didn't plan well enough and couldn't cut it in the cut-throat world of business. Countless people lose businesses everyday due to unfair circumstances beyond their control. Where is all this press sympathy for them? It doesn't exist, nor should it IMO. 

I believe these are some of the reasons that drive the negative response to these types of articles. I hope this does not cross a moderation line. It is not my intent to be critical of Appleinsider or any other reporting outlet. It would be impossible to spell out this position without this level of directness. Please let me know if it crosses a line. We should be able to discuss these things with respect and decorum. This is my intent with this post.

GeorgeBMac said:

mac voyer said:

GeorgeBMac said:

People like free stuff.  But there is no free lunch.   Only freeloaders.

I don't understand what it is Apple has done to be called a freeloader. They do not make the tax laws in France. They pay every penny of tax they are ordered by law to pay. I have no problem with France saying they need more money in taxes. But I do have a problem with demonizing companies for not paying their fair share. Again, they do pay their fair share according to current laws. Do you think Apple should look at their current tax bill and volunteer to pay more because it is just not enough? What could they have done to not be a freeloader in your eyes? 

The problem is that international companies have been doing business in other countries but not paying taxes to them.  Instead they create fake headquarters in tax havens and only pay minimal taxes to those places -- not where they are actually making their profits.  To say they are paying what is legally required of them is technically true -- but ignores how they've been gaming the system.

European countries have tired of being taken advantage of by international companies (mostly other than Apple).

Those loopholes were not put there by Apple or any other company. They were put there by the governments to give tax breaks to their cronies. Apple is playing the game board and pieces they inherited. Change the tax code. Don't vilify companies for using it to their advantage. 

Whenever I see these whiny complaints about the 30%, I am struck by the fact that no alternative, more reasonable percentage is ever offered. That is because at the end of the day, the real complaint is that they have to pay anything at all. The argument is that Apple is wealthy so they should give their App Store services away for free. If Apple reduced the fee to 1%, these people still wouldn't be happy. That is why I dismiss all such complaints as dishonest. No one is interested in a conversation about what might be a reasonable fee. ALL fees are unreasonable to them. When I see complaints by these developers, I just make a note to never use their apps.