3 ms·

> Spotify doesn’t pay an “Apple Tax”. You can’t subscribe to Spotify within the App store. Spotfy is an example. Plenty of Apps do pay the "Apple tax." I'd get

> Spotify doesn’t pay an “Apple Tax”. You can’t subscribe to Spotify within the App store. Spotfy is an example. Plenty of Apps do pay the "Apple tax." I'd get into the complexity of how the "Apple tax" affects Spotify even though it doesn't pay it, but you seem to have already made up your mind about all this regardless of the facts.

scarface74 8y ago
You mean companies have to pay to be a part of a marketplace? Software distributors use to pay retailers 60% of the retail price to be sold in stores. It was 70% to be distributed in online app stores like the ones that Verizon use to run to distribute J2ME apps. And you act as if most revenue from online stores is not coming from in app purchases of consumable goods.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > Software distributors use to pay retailers 60% of the retail price to be sold in stores. Because retail stores have to provide shelf space with real estate cost, unsold inventory cost, etc. How much is that cost to Apple? > It was 70% to be distributed in online app stores like the ones that Verizon use to run to distribute J2ME apps. And it costs 0% to be distributed in a Linux package manager. Possibly something to do with Verizon having the same sort of app monopoly over its device customers that Apple does.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    You could download J2ME apps from anywhere. Honestly I used Verizon as an example but thinking back, Sprint’s store was a better example. I think Verizon used something different. Because retail stores have to provide shelf space with real estate cost, unsold inventory cost, etc. How much is that cost to Apple? So now the government should also decide what is a “fair” amount of markup? And it costs 0% to be distributed in a Linux package manager. And seeing how little money you can make from Linux users, the value add for distributing packages on Linux makes the price about right....
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      > You could download J2ME apps from anywhere. Honestly I used Verizon as an example but thinking back, Sprint’s store was a better example. I think Verizon used something different. In which case the lesson is that by charging so much in a competitive market, that business unit failed. Which leads to the real point: > So now the government should also decide what is a “fair” amount of markup? It's not a matter of setting prices, it's a matter of having competition. Apple gets 30% because it's the only feasible way to distribute to iOS. If Apple was charging 30% and there was a competing Mozilla App Store for iOS charging 5%, I suspect Apple would lose some business to it. And if some people still think Apple's store is worth 30%, no problem -- let them pay 30% while others pay 5%. But the 5% option should exist. > And seeing how little money you can make from Linux users, the value add for distributing packages on Linux makes the price about right.... The point is that it shows the cost of providing that service. If Debian can do it at scale for nothing, what is Apple doing that justifies 30%, and where is the option to get just the thing Debian does for free?
      - scarface74 8y ago
        If Apple was charging 30% and there was a competing Mozilla App Store for iOS charging 5%, There was nothing stopping Mozilla from making a “Firefox phone” and having a fully integrated experience. Well they did try and failed to execute. As did Amazon, Ubuntu, and Facebook. Apple was nowhere near the behemoth it is today when the iPhone was introduced. A company shouldn’t come under government scrutiny because competitors failed to execute. If app makers don’t think the trade off is worth it, they are free to only target the other 80% of the phone market. I guess they think selling loot boxes with Apple taking a 30% cut is worth it. Don’t be mistaken, that is where most money being spent on the App Store is being spent - on in app consumables. The other major market is subscription to third party services and companies can and do sell those outside of the App Store.
        AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        > There was nothing stopping Mozilla from making a “Firefox phone” and having a fully integrated experience. Well they did try and failed to execute. The whole issue is that you shouldn't have to succeed in the phone market before you can operate an app store. Tying the phone to a specific app store is the problem. "Integrated experience" is the argument Microsoft failed to convince with when it tied Internet Explorer to Windows. > If app makers don’t think the trade off is worth it, they are free to only target the other 80% of the phone market. In other words, Apple has a monopoly over 20% of the app customers, in the same way that Charter may have a broadband monopoly in 20% of the country even if there are other providers in the other 80%. Notice that this isn't the same thing as saying that Walmart has a monopoly over its own shelf space, because customers can trivially switch from Walmart to Amazon or vice versa at any time but to buy a $1 app from Amazon or Google Play instead of Apple you would first have to replace your $1000 phone. To reach the same position as Walmart, the issue isn't that they control what's in their own store, it's that there are no competing iOS app stores. Moreover, the problem with the App Store isn't just that Apple takes 30%, it's that they can reject your app for entirely opaque reasons without recourse, explicitly including because it competes with one of theirs.

scarface74 8y ago

You mean companies have to pay to be a part of a marketplace? Software distributors use to pay retailers 60% of the retail price to be sold in stores. It was 70% to be distributed in online app stores like the ones that Verizon use to run to distribute J2ME apps. And you act as if most revenue from online stores is not coming from in app purchases of consumable goods.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> Software distributors use to pay retailers 60% of the retail price to be sold in stores. Because retail stores have to provide shelf space with real estate cost, unsold inventory cost, etc. How much is that cost to Apple? > It was 70% to be distributed in online app stores like the ones that Verizon use to run to distribute J2ME apps. And it costs 0% to be distributed in a Linux package manager. Possibly something to do with Verizon having the same sort of app monopoly over its device customers that Apple does.
- scarface74 8y ago
  You could download J2ME apps from anywhere. Honestly I used Verizon as an example but thinking back, Sprint’s store was a better example. I think Verizon used something different. Because retail stores have to provide shelf space with real estate cost, unsold inventory cost, etc. How much is that cost to Apple? So now the government should also decide what is a “fair” amount of markup? And it costs 0% to be distributed in a Linux package manager. And seeing how little money you can make from Linux users, the value add for distributing packages on Linux makes the price about right....
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > You could download J2ME apps from anywhere. Honestly I used Verizon as an example but thinking back, Sprint’s store was a better example. I think Verizon used something different. In which case the lesson is that by charging so much in a competitive market, that business unit failed. Which leads to the real point: > So now the government should also decide what is a “fair” amount of markup? It's not a matter of setting prices, it's a matter of having competition. Apple gets 30% because it's the only feasible way to distribute to iOS. If Apple was charging 30% and there was a competing Mozilla App Store for iOS charging 5%, I suspect Apple would lose some business to it. And if some people still think Apple's store is worth 30%, no problem -- let them pay 30% while others pay 5%. But the 5% option should exist. > And seeing how little money you can make from Linux users, the value add for distributing packages on Linux makes the price about right.... The point is that it shows the cost of providing that service. If Debian can do it at scale for nothing, what is Apple doing that justifies 30%, and where is the option to get just the thing Debian does for free?
    - scarface74 8y ago
      If Apple was charging 30% and there was a competing Mozilla App Store for iOS charging 5%, There was nothing stopping Mozilla from making a “Firefox phone” and having a fully integrated experience. Well they did try and failed to execute. As did Amazon, Ubuntu, and Facebook. Apple was nowhere near the behemoth it is today when the iPhone was introduced. A company shouldn’t come under government scrutiny because competitors failed to execute. If app makers don’t think the trade off is worth it, they are free to only target the other 80% of the phone market. I guess they think selling loot boxes with Apple taking a 30% cut is worth it. Don’t be mistaken, that is where most money being spent on the App Store is being spent - on in app consumables. The other major market is subscription to third party services and companies can and do sell those outside of the App Store.
      - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        > There was nothing stopping Mozilla from making a “Firefox phone” and having a fully integrated experience. Well they did try and failed to execute. The whole issue is that you shouldn't have to succeed in the phone market before you can operate an app store. Tying the phone to a specific app store is the problem. "Integrated experience" is the argument Microsoft failed to convince with when it tied Internet Explorer to Windows. > If app makers don’t think the trade off is worth it, they are free to only target the other 80% of the phone market. In other words, Apple has a monopoly over 20% of the app customers, in the same way that Charter may have a broadband monopoly in 20% of the country even if there are other providers in the other 80%. Notice that this isn't the same thing as saying that Walmart has a monopoly over its own shelf space, because customers can trivially switch from Walmart to Amazon or vice versa at any time but to buy a $1 app from Amazon or Google Play instead of Apple you would first have to replace your $1000 phone. To reach the same position as Walmart, the issue isn't that they control what's in their own store, it's that there are no competing iOS app stores. Moreover, the problem with the App Store isn't just that Apple takes 30%, it's that they can reject your app for entirely opaque reasons without recourse, explicitly including because it competes with one of theirs.