5 ms·

Apple could be included because of their astoundingly revolting behaviour. Microsoft never pulled a "You write a program that runs on windows we'll take 30% of

by harry8 9y ago

Apple could be included because of their astoundingly revolting behaviour. Microsoft never pulled a "You write a program that runs on windows we'll take 30% of your revenue off the top or we block your sales" stunt. Literally the only thing that has ever made apple less awful than microsoft is their lack of success. I would miss them no more than microsoft if they died in a bankruptcy event redolent with the kind of fraud they think is "good business" Cue the apple fanboys...

ksec 9y ago
Are you arguing they are charging too much or they shouldn't be charged at all?
valuearb 9y ago
So you think Apple should market and distribute apps for free?
- TheCoelacanth 9y ago
  I think they should allow people to market and distribute apps on their own without cutting Apple in on it.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - s_esser 9y ago
    They do though; almost all of my mac apps are from outside the app store.
    - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
      Oh great. They let people do it in the tiny portion of the market that is normal desktop apps. They still keep a tight leash on the much larger mobile app market.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    Kid, when I started in software development we had to give 50% of our revenues to Ingram-MicroD, plus co-op (marketing) dollars, and pay for printing manuals, boxes, copying disks, and shrink-wrapping out of the rest. Then with what was left we'd pay for advertising, development, and support. Apple created a market where they host all of your content, give you your own free marketing pages for each product, pay for all the costs of distributing your content world-wide, and pay developers tens of billions of dollars a year. That they only ask 30% is one for the greatest deals software developers have ever had.
    - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
      "Kid" There is no need to be condescending, this is HN not Reddit.
    - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
      The issue isn't whether or not 30% is a reasonable amount. The issue is that no one else is allowed to compete with them to do it better or cheaper. Maybe someone else wants to take a 70% cut will do such a fantastic job of marketing that it would be worth it. They should be allowed to do so. Maybe some larger app developers want to handle distribution and marketing in-house. They should also be allowed to do so.
      - valuearb 9y ago
        The freedom you want is called jailbreaking. Stores created for it never found much success. Or you can build android or web apps, and find similar freedoms. Apple built a huge market in part because they provided security and quality. iOS Customers like that Apple vets iOS apps so much more rigorously than Google Play and other Android stores. You want to take advantage of the huge market Apple built so carefully, by having Apple throw out all those protections for you. Or you want to take advantage of it while denying Apple any of the revenues. Both are cluelessly self centered and selfish.
flavio81 9y ago
You are right. Some Apple policies are downright disgusting.
GeekyBear 9y ago
Apple has never pulled a "You write a program for OS X and we'll take 30% of your revenue or block your sales" either. However, the last I knew, indie XBox game developers paid the same 30% cut to Microsoft to be allowed to sell their product on the XBox. Has that changed since then?
gorkonsine 9y ago
The counterargument to this is that Apple does not have a monopoly, or anything even close to it, even in the mobile device space. It's of course the most profitable company there, but its Android competitors sell far more phones than they do, even if you look only at the US. IMO, this basically means Apple's high fees are a "stupid tax" for Apple customers. If you don't like their policies or prices, don't buy an iPhone, it's that simple. Of course, this might leave you single and lonely, since studies have shown that women are more likely to discriminate against potential suitors based on their choice of phone (if a man doesn't have an iPhone, or their iPhone is too old, the women isn't interested). But this can be a useful way of screening out superficial people who spend too much money and will end up spending you into bankruptcy if you marry them. BTW, MS is trying to copy them, with Windows 10S and their policy that only software from the Windows Store will run on it.

by harry8 9y ago

ksec 9y ago

Are you arguing they are charging too much or they shouldn't be charged at all?

valuearb 9y ago

So you think Apple should market and distribute apps for free?

TheCoelacanth 9y ago
I think they should allow people to market and distribute apps on their own without cutting Apple in on it.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- s_esser 9y ago
  They do though; almost all of my mac apps are from outside the app store.
  - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
    Oh great. They let people do it in the tiny portion of the market that is normal desktop apps. They still keep a tight leash on the much larger mobile app market.
- valuearb 9y ago
  Kid, when I started in software development we had to give 50% of our revenues to Ingram-MicroD, plus co-op (marketing) dollars, and pay for printing manuals, boxes, copying disks, and shrink-wrapping out of the rest. Then with what was left we'd pay for advertising, development, and support. Apple created a market where they host all of your content, give you your own free marketing pages for each product, pay for all the costs of distributing your content world-wide, and pay developers tens of billions of dollars a year. That they only ask 30% is one for the greatest deals software developers have ever had.
  - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
    "Kid" There is no need to be condescending, this is HN not Reddit.
  - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
    The issue isn't whether or not 30% is a reasonable amount. The issue is that no one else is allowed to compete with them to do it better or cheaper. Maybe someone else wants to take a 70% cut will do such a fantastic job of marketing that it would be worth it. They should be allowed to do so. Maybe some larger app developers want to handle distribution and marketing in-house. They should also be allowed to do so.
    - valuearb 9y ago
      The freedom you want is called jailbreaking. Stores created for it never found much success. Or you can build android or web apps, and find similar freedoms. Apple built a huge market in part because they provided security and quality. iOS Customers like that Apple vets iOS apps so much more rigorously than Google Play and other Android stores. You want to take advantage of the huge market Apple built so carefully, by having Apple throw out all those protections for you. Or you want to take advantage of it while denying Apple any of the revenues. Both are cluelessly self centered and selfish.

flavio81 9y ago

You are right. Some Apple policies are downright disgusting.

GeekyBear 9y ago

Apple has never pulled a "You write a program for OS X and we'll take 30% of your revenue or block your sales" either. However, the last I knew, indie XBox game developers paid the same 30% cut to Microsoft to be allowed to sell their product on the XBox. Has that changed since then?

gorkonsine 9y ago

The counterargument to this is that Apple does not have a monopoly, or anything even close to it, even in the mobile device space. It's of course the most profitable company there, but its Android competitors sell far more phones than they do, even if you look only at the US. IMO, this basically means Apple's high fees are a "stupid tax" for Apple customers. If you don't like their policies or prices, don't buy an iPhone, it's that simple. Of course, this might leave you single and lonely, since studies have shown that women are more likely to discriminate against potential suitors based on their choice of phone (if a man doesn't have an iPhone, or their iPhone is too old, the women isn't interested). But this can be a useful way of screening out superficial people who spend too much money and will end up spending you into bankruptcy if you marry them. BTW, MS is trying to copy them, with Windows 10S and their policy that only software from the Windows Store will run on it.