10 ms·

I find it hard to blame anyone for leaving any store when there has been almost nothing of value added in years and things are even regressing. That 30% should

I find it hard to blame anyone for leaving any store when there has been almost nothing of value added in years and things are even regressing. That 30% should have gone a lot further It's not really a market if the seller thinks there's no alternatives, and the buyer has no choice but to put up with anything. Works the other way around, too.

sjwright 8y ago
It's not a market. It's like a shopping mall on a cruise ship—you chose to go on this cruise, and if you don't like dealing with the ship as a monopoly vendor, you can get off the ship and buy whatever you like from wherever. Just because this cruise happens to be the nicest, most comfortable vessel in the sea doesn't mean you have a right to expect space to be reserved on the ship for competitor's stores.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Sure, but in the case of the cruise ship, you can just wait until the cruise is over and buy things at your usual store at home. So the analogy falls down at a pretty fundamental level. It's more like you're living in a company town, and there's no openly advertised non-black market alternatives to the company shops.
  - sjwright 8y ago
    Yes, a company town is also a good analogy. Maybe even a better one, though it is a lot easier and cheaper to switch mobile platforms than it is to pick up your whole life. To expand your analogy, nothing stops you from owning homes in two different towns at the same time. (Nobody is forcing you to carry just one mobile phone, even though most people do.) And in this company town, yes they own all the stores and playgrounds, but you can still get stuff delivered from anywhere. (All these phones have web browsers that give you unencumbered access to the wider internet. No you can't play Fortnite through a web browser, but you can't play football by mail-order either, so the analogy holds.)
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      (Nobody is forcing you to carry just one mobile phone, even though most people do.) So now we're getting somewhere. This is the height of the wall around this particular walled garden. Now let me ask this: What percentage of the population would even consider owning two smartphones? That's how close to an idealized monopoly this walled garden is. So granted, it's not a monopoly in an idealized sense. But we now quantify how "monopolish" it is.
      - sjwright 8y ago
        Imagine you live in a town with two similarly good cable TV providers. Each has a monopoly on selling HBO subscriptions through their particular service. Most people have one cable TV subscription. Which means if you want HBO on your cable TV box, you can only subscribe through your current cable TV provider. You can call this a monopoly if you like, doesn't make it wrong or illegal.
        AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        > Most people have one cable TV subscription. Which means if you want HBO on your cable TV box, you can only subscribe through your current cable TV provider. You can call this a monopoly if you like, doesn't make it wrong or illegal. It is, however, the exact reason for having network neutrality requirements.
      - hermitdev 8y ago
        I used to carry 2 smart phones- one for work, one personal. I did it because my work phone was strictly monitored and I didnt want my company (or feds, namely SEC) reading my personal communications without a warrant just because it was on my work phone. That said, I would not pay for 2 personal smartphones. Edit: spelling
    - pentae 8y ago
      > though it is a lot easier and cheaper to switch mobile platforms Try telling that to your customers. "Yeah sure just sell your phone and buy an Android device to use our app". And having them use Safari? Yeah right. Apple doesn't even provide push notifications for web apps. Have you ever wondered why that is? The fact is, if your customer has an iOS device, you must include Apple in the transaction and pay them 30%. And if you're a smaller developer there's no way they will let you get away with what Netflix and Epic have done. Oh you thought the review process was completely fair and impartial? Well, i've got some bad news about that too.
- tomrod 8y ago
  Why not?
- stale2002 8y ago
  Wrong. There are multiple alternatives. Such as, by doing what Netflix is doing, and bypassing the whole thing completely. Netflix will still continue to work on iOS, so it seems like it is working out for them. They very much have the legal right to do this.
lance76 8y ago
This misses the point. It is not equal. I choose Apple's store for one Very Big Reason over almost all other third-party services: I trust them with my financial details. I don't have to 'beg' to later cancel my subscription. I don't have to worry about my credit card being stolen. I don't have to worry about a bunch of sophomoric engineers breaking their own website and creating grief for me. I am in control with Apple. I prefer it. I am the customer. I realize Netflix is no startup. I realize I may be paranoid and not even a fan of the Stripe madness that every two-bit startup uses. But Netflix is still YAFS (Yet Another Friggin Subscription) that I have to manage on some other platform. I prefer to have Apple be the "overseer" of even Netflix. Would I cancel my Netflix subscription if I'm not at least provided the option of continuing my Apple management of their subscription? I'm leaning heavily toward it. Don't be naive, everyone. This is more than just about the 30% cut. This is also about Netflix having a LOT of extra data on their customers they can't get within the Apple ecosystem.... home addresses, full names, credit card data, and possibly (yes, quiet possibly) cross-referencing that with other data providers to determine credit scores, income brackets, lifestyle choices, etc. Why wouldn't' Netflix want a complete 'subscriber per zip code' breakdown. Yes, they could guesstimate it with IP addresses (and probably do), but now they could even say, "Hmmm... these subscribers appear to have 700 beacon scores, are single, and pay with a Titanium credit card. Surely, we could charge them more per month and they'd still pay. Or at least spam, er, offer them premium packages". Not saying they don't have the right. Just as long as they don't say I don't have the right to stick with my Protective Shield of Apple. After 2018 and all the data breaches the past two years, it's almost enough to want to pay cash for everything - or just bow out altogether. What little things I want to stay with, I prefer some 'middleman' that I can trust. Like Apple. P.S. I am not an Apple Fanboy. But they are devoted to my privacy like no other Big tech company. So, they get my business. For now.
- m45t3r 8y ago
  > Don't be naive, everyone. This is more than just about the 30% cut. This is also about Netflix having a LOT of extra data on their customers they can't get within the Apple ecosystem.... home addresses, full names, credit card data, and possibly (yes, quiet possibly) cross-referencing that with other data providers to determine credit scores, income brackets, lifestyle choices, etc. I am no developer of iOS, but I am quite sure that Apple gives this information to developers. I worked in a payment system for years and this kind of information is quite common to share with your API users. I think they're even obligated by law because you can't really have a monetary transfer without sharing more details between both parties involved (yeah, you also have more information about the seller when money is involved). I mean, I don't see how Apple would share less information with Netflix, them say, Stripe itself. Of course Netflix has some more information about you because you're using their platform to make the payment, however about the payment data itself I would say the information they can get with both Apple or Stripe is similar [1]. [1]: Unless of course Netflix made their own payment system, that also would make sense considering their size. In this case they would have more information about you, like full Credit Card number instead of only the bin number of your Credit Card. However I don't think this would make my point much different.

sjwright 8y ago

It's not a market. It's like a shopping mall on a cruise ship—you chose to go on this cruise, and if you don't like dealing with the ship as a monopoly vendor, you can get off the ship and buy whatever you like from wherever. Just because this cruise happens to be the nicest, most comfortable vessel in the sea doesn't mean you have a right to expect space to be reserved on the ship for competitor's stores.

stcredzero 8y ago
Sure, but in the case of the cruise ship, you can just wait until the cruise is over and buy things at your usual store at home. So the analogy falls down at a pretty fundamental level. It's more like you're living in a company town, and there's no openly advertised non-black market alternatives to the company shops.
- sjwright 8y ago
  Yes, a company town is also a good analogy. Maybe even a better one, though it is a lot easier and cheaper to switch mobile platforms than it is to pick up your whole life. To expand your analogy, nothing stops you from owning homes in two different towns at the same time. (Nobody is forcing you to carry just one mobile phone, even though most people do.) And in this company town, yes they own all the stores and playgrounds, but you can still get stuff delivered from anywhere. (All these phones have web browsers that give you unencumbered access to the wider internet. No you can't play Fortnite through a web browser, but you can't play football by mail-order either, so the analogy holds.)
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    (Nobody is forcing you to carry just one mobile phone, even though most people do.) So now we're getting somewhere. This is the height of the wall around this particular walled garden. Now let me ask this: What percentage of the population would even consider owning two smartphones? That's how close to an idealized monopoly this walled garden is. So granted, it's not a monopoly in an idealized sense. But we now quantify how "monopolish" it is.
    - sjwright 8y ago
      Imagine you live in a town with two similarly good cable TV providers. Each has a monopoly on selling HBO subscriptions through their particular service. Most people have one cable TV subscription. Which means if you want HBO on your cable TV box, you can only subscribe through your current cable TV provider. You can call this a monopoly if you like, doesn't make it wrong or illegal.
      - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        > Most people have one cable TV subscription. Which means if you want HBO on your cable TV box, you can only subscribe through your current cable TV provider. You can call this a monopoly if you like, doesn't make it wrong or illegal. It is, however, the exact reason for having network neutrality requirements.
    - hermitdev 8y ago
      I used to carry 2 smart phones- one for work, one personal. I did it because my work phone was strictly monitored and I didnt want my company (or feds, namely SEC) reading my personal communications without a warrant just because it was on my work phone. That said, I would not pay for 2 personal smartphones. Edit: spelling
  - pentae 8y ago
    > though it is a lot easier and cheaper to switch mobile platforms Try telling that to your customers. "Yeah sure just sell your phone and buy an Android device to use our app". And having them use Safari? Yeah right. Apple doesn't even provide push notifications for web apps. Have you ever wondered why that is? The fact is, if your customer has an iOS device, you must include Apple in the transaction and pay them 30%. And if you're a smaller developer there's no way they will let you get away with what Netflix and Epic have done. Oh you thought the review process was completely fair and impartial? Well, i've got some bad news about that too.
tomrod 8y ago
Why not?
stale2002 8y ago
Wrong. There are multiple alternatives. Such as, by doing what Netflix is doing, and bypassing the whole thing completely. Netflix will still continue to work on iOS, so it seems like it is working out for them. They very much have the legal right to do this.

lance76 8y ago

This misses the point. It is not equal. I choose Apple's store for one Very Big Reason over almost all other third-party services: I trust them with my financial details. I don't have to 'beg' to later cancel my subscription. I don't have to worry about my credit card being stolen. I don't have to worry about a bunch of sophomoric engineers breaking their own website and creating grief for me. I am in control with Apple. I prefer it. I am the customer. I realize Netflix is no startup. I realize I may be paranoid and not even a fan of the Stripe madness that every two-bit startup uses. But Netflix is still YAFS (Yet Another Friggin Subscription) that I have to manage on some other platform. I prefer to have Apple be the "overseer" of even Netflix. Would I cancel my Netflix subscription if I'm not at least provided the option of continuing my Apple management of their subscription? I'm leaning heavily toward it. Don't be naive, everyone. This is more than just about the 30% cut. This is also about Netflix having a LOT of extra data on their customers they can't get within the Apple ecosystem.... home addresses, full names, credit card data, and possibly (yes, quiet possibly) cross-referencing that with other data providers to determine credit scores, income brackets, lifestyle choices, etc. Why wouldn't' Netflix want a complete 'subscriber per zip code' breakdown. Yes, they could guesstimate it with IP addresses (and probably do), but now they could even say, "Hmmm... these subscribers appear to have 700 beacon scores, are single, and pay with a Titanium credit card. Surely, we could charge them more per month and they'd still pay. Or at least spam, er, offer them premium packages". Not saying they don't have the right. Just as long as they don't say I don't have the right to stick with my Protective Shield of Apple. After 2018 and all the data breaches the past two years, it's almost enough to want to pay cash for everything - or just bow out altogether. What little things I want to stay with, I prefer some 'middleman' that I can trust. Like Apple. P.S. I am not an Apple Fanboy. But they are devoted to my privacy like no other Big tech company. So, they get my business. For now.

m45t3r 8y ago
> Don't be naive, everyone. This is more than just about the 30% cut. This is also about Netflix having a LOT of extra data on their customers they can't get within the Apple ecosystem.... home addresses, full names, credit card data, and possibly (yes, quiet possibly) cross-referencing that with other data providers to determine credit scores, income brackets, lifestyle choices, etc. I am no developer of iOS, but I am quite sure that Apple gives this information to developers. I worked in a payment system for years and this kind of information is quite common to share with your API users. I think they're even obligated by law because you can't really have a monetary transfer without sharing more details between both parties involved (yeah, you also have more information about the seller when money is involved). I mean, I don't see how Apple would share less information with Netflix, them say, Stripe itself. Of course Netflix has some more information about you because you're using their platform to make the payment, however about the payment data itself I would say the information they can get with both Apple or Stripe is similar [1]. [1]: Unless of course Netflix made their own payment system, that also would make sense considering their size. In this case they would have more information about you, like full Credit Card number instead of only the bin number of your Credit Card. However I don't think this would make my point much different.