3 ms·

I've mentioned this in a reply but I think it's worth pointing out as its own comment to gather thoughts on this: What if Microsoft would take 30% of every tran

by emsy 8y ago

I've mentioned this in a reply but I think it's worth pointing out as its own comment to gather thoughts on this: What if Microsoft would take 30% of every transaction that is done via Windows? And if the sellers don't comply they gets kicked off the platform. That's essentially what Apple is doing, but I'm pretty sure if Microsoft was the one doing it the would be far fewer apologists. In fact, I very much think Microsofts business model, that is decades old, is far better for customers and developers, and helped Microsoft become so successful in the first place. Microsoft provides a platform for others to make money on. The profit their customers make on Windows exceeds Microsoft's by an inestimable factor. I'm not aware that MS ever provided a case for regulation on that basis, and I think that's worth pointing out. If your company controls a platform that affects a sizeable part of the population, it should not be able to act on their whim. And if the company doesn't play fair it needs to be regulated.

wodenokoto 8y ago
These are very good points. My loosely connected thoughts on this: We originally accepted this from Apple, because we didn't consider phones as "real" computing devices. Apple would get in a lot of trouble, with no apologist left to defend them, if they turned MacOS into an app-store-only platform. I feel like the major benefit of app-store for consumers is the curation of "good actors". What would be the consequences of adware if the protected app stores were let loose? On one hand I fear it would go completely off the rails, on the other hand it is already worse today on mobile apps than on PC/mac-apps, so can it really get worse? Would better access to opensource apps help alleviate the adware problem?
loceng 8y ago
I'd rather analysis includes looking in the opposite direction to understand the pros and cons of each business model: what would Microsoft ecosystem look safety and security wise on PCs if they took 30% to have additional resources to review applications for malicious behaviour, and so on? Fundamentality Apple decided on the 30% model for arguably good reasons. People are free to purchase other non-Apple laptops and products that use other operating systems. If it was a case where patents or other only allowed for one option, then yes, that's the case for rules to break that monopoly. And yes, I understand network effects and sunk costs of consumers, however if the value continues to be there for consumers then they will continue to use the ecosystem. If a company selling a premium Calendar app doesn't think 30% cut is fair then they don't have to build an iOS app, and then likely some other company who thinks it is fair will very likely fill in that gap - if not, then the marketplace wouldn't work. And it's true there's a lot of work to be done if you want to compete with Apple wholly with lesser or no revenue share you need to create the same or better ecosystem as them - perhaps the main differentiation being a lower or no fee for your version of the App Store. Finally you could argue Apple have enough profit from elsewhere to cover the benefit the App Store provides, however they're not setup as a co-operative to distribute costs and/or make as little profit as possible - though that certainly is an interesting option for a competitive business model, whether there's an appetite from consumers to pay into such a scheme or a path there is another question.

by emsy 8y ago

wodenokoto 8y ago

These are very good points. My loosely connected thoughts on this: We originally accepted this from Apple, because we didn't consider phones as "real" computing devices. Apple would get in a lot of trouble, with no apologist left to defend them, if they turned MacOS into an app-store-only platform. I feel like the major benefit of app-store for consumers is the curation of "good actors". What would be the consequences of adware if the protected app stores were let loose? On one hand I fear it would go completely off the rails, on the other hand it is already worse today on mobile apps than on PC/mac-apps, so can it really get worse? Would better access to opensource apps help alleviate the adware problem?

loceng 8y ago

I'd rather analysis includes looking in the opposite direction to understand the pros and cons of each business model: what would Microsoft ecosystem look safety and security wise on PCs if they took 30% to have additional resources to review applications for malicious behaviour, and so on? Fundamentality Apple decided on the 30% model for arguably good reasons. People are free to purchase other non-Apple laptops and products that use other operating systems. If it was a case where patents or other only allowed for one option, then yes, that's the case for rules to break that monopoly. And yes, I understand network effects and sunk costs of consumers, however if the value continues to be there for consumers then they will continue to use the ecosystem. If a company selling a premium Calendar app doesn't think 30% cut is fair then they don't have to build an iOS app, and then likely some other company who thinks it is fair will very likely fill in that gap - if not, then the marketplace wouldn't work. And it's true there's a lot of work to be done if you want to compete with Apple wholly with lesser or no revenue share you need to create the same or better ecosystem as them - perhaps the main differentiation being a lower or no fee for your version of the App Store. Finally you could argue Apple have enough profit from elsewhere to cover the benefit the App Store provides, however they're not setup as a co-operative to distribute costs and/or make as little profit as possible - though that certainly is an interesting option for a competitive business model, whether there's an appetite from consumers to pay into such a scheme or a path there is another question.