liney

tjwolf said:

bloggerblog said:

I believe Apple has may more options than we realize, I am restating a previous post as an example:
Apple can change their store policy and add a hosting fee, the fee is waived only when a vendor uses Apple's payment system. Also if a vendor wants to use their own external payment system they'll get a click charge and a link to their website. If they opt for an integrated experience using their own payment system there'll be a charge for that as well.
Apple can turn this into a different type of profit center, they won't lose anything and basically make it really easy to use the current flow, and charge for alternative options.

Your suggestions completely ignore Apple's larger legal issues: the perception that they're a monopolist abusing their monopoly.  While the ruling has already struck down that aspect of Epic's suit down, the judge did rule that their behavior with regards to linking was anti-competitive.  Now, given that congress here in the US and the EU in Europe are also looking at Apple's practices, do you think Apple can really afford to willy-nilly introduce new fees?  One of the defining attributes of a monopolist is that they can raise prices with impunity.  Introducing the new pricing schemes you suggest would do exactly that.

I'm completely on the judge's side with respect to her declaration that Apple does not have a monopoly - but her ruling was for the market of 'mobile gaming' (where she estimated Apple had some 53% instead of the required 66+%).  I don't know how the EU defines monopoly and, besides, they might be defining a different 'market' when they go after Apple.

killroy said:

Other than server fees, how do you make money off of free to play when the app uses another payment system for in app purchase.

larryjw said:

mtriviso said:

Sigh. Just open the movie theaters. There's nothing like watching a movie in a massive IMAX 3D theater. If people are frightened they might get the rona, then just stay at home. Please, just let the rest of us who are unafraid enjoy what our acting troupes have to offer in the milieu to which we have become accustomed. 

Frightened? Maybe informed. My grandparents and parents were WWI and WWII generations. And I'm a boomer pre-vaccine and pre-antibiotics. We know disease and pandemics first hand. 

In reviewing census data for genealogy I would run across families asked how many children did you have? 14. How many still living? 4. My grandparents lost young siblings  and cousins to disease. STDs were a big problem among girls and guys in uniform stateside during WWII -- my mother's job was to help treat them. So was TB -- sanitariums built across the nation to confine them. Nobody thought it was bravery to not care if you came down with these diseases. Certainly, there was sympathy sometimes, but getting sick and not pulling your weight was morally reprehensible. 

Being brave by ignoring a disease. My father's WWII diary mentions some other GI's getting sick -- great way to stay behind for some R&R while others did the fighting for you. Malingering was a problem and pissed off others pulling their weight. 

And I had the pleasure of contracting polio during the 50's epidemic. It was no fun. 

So, coming down with Covid-19 when you are fortunate enough to be able to take precautions is really morally reprehensible -- not willing to pull your weight.