4 ms·
> no apps are restricted to compete Apps are restricted from competing on price. I can't release a 79 cent app to compete with a similar 99 cent app.
by daveFNbuck 8y ago
> no apps are restricted to compete
Apps are restricted from competing on price. I can't release a 79 cent app to compete with a similar 99 cent app.
- jsjohnst 8y agoAt some point the race to the bottom is a losing battle where no one wins. Apple decided to put that bottom point at 99 cents.
- daveFNbuck 8y agoSo you agree that Apple is using its market position to increase prices compared to what they would be if apps were available from other sources?
- chipotle_coyote 8y agoI'm not convinced that "Apple's refusal to let developers set app prices at a more granular level is an unfair predatory practice" is a slam dunk argument. Additional later note: the actual court case here does, in fact, argue that requiring that all app prices end in 0.99 means Apple is dictating pricing terms, which on some level is of course absolutely true, i.e., it's Apple's fault I can't price my app at $1.49, or $3.33, or whatever. But (1) that still doesn't prove that the 30% cut is harming consumers, which is what American antitrust law is relentlessly focused on, and (2) if that's the crux of the argument, it can be addressed simply by removing that restriction. It can probably be met even if Apple says "you can price your apps anything you want to, but if your app is not free, we're going to take a minimum 29¢ cut."
- daveFNbuck 8y agoI'm not saying it's a slam dunk argument. I have no opinion on how this case will go because I don't know much about the law. I just think it's pretty clear that setting a 99 cent price floor increases the price of some apps.
- auslander 8y agoFree apps are most likely to sell your data. Don't be a product, or if its your app, charge decent price and don't sell user's data :)
- daveFNbuck 8y agoThat may be good advice, but it has nothing to do with whether price controls restrict competition.