5 ms·

> Since you like car metaphors: it's like a taxi driver buying a car and the the dealer expecting to take a cut from all the taxi fairs even though the dealer's

> Since you like car metaphors: it's like a taxi driver buying a car and the the dealer expecting to take a cut from all the taxi fairs even though the dealer's involvement ended the moment the car rolled off their forecourt. I think this is an incorrect analogy. This is why Apple only charges for physical goods, not digital ones. The rationale is they distributed your product to customers you would never have had access to without them: - they spend marketing dollars to get those customers; - they develop and maintain a platform so you can run your business on it. By simply publishing their app on the App Store, Spotify gets access to 15% richest customers of the smartphone market. If you’re charging customers for something they consume on that device, then I think it’s fair to pay a share. That being said, I have no idea how this will play out in court. Intuitively, 30% the first year sounds like a lot of money for a distribution fee.

laumars 8y ago
> I think this is an incorrect analogy. This is why Apple only charges for physical goods, not digital ones. The rationale is they distributed your product to customers you would never have had access to without them: Would the app developers "never have access" to those consumers though? Because if the iPhone didn't exist then consumers would just use another handset. Just like we did before the iPhone and just like a significant amount of people do currently. There's definitely a blurred line somewhere though. I agree to Apple having a fee for app sales though I think 30% is a bit steep but I agree Apple ultimately get to decide how much they want to charge. I agree that some apps might try to circumvent that fee by offering in app sales instead so Apple are trying to close off that particular loophole. However I don't agree that Spotify fall into that same category because their "in app sales" is actually a subscription service to a much larger product. However where do you draw the line? > I think this is an incorrect analogy. Obviously I wouldn't agree but I can completely understand why you'd say that given how open to interpretation analogies can be. To be honest I hate posting them in debates because if you agree with the point then you'll agree with the analogy but if you don't agree with the point then you'll naturally find a reason the analogy doesn't fit. And given analogies aren't meant to be 100% representative, it means there's always plenty of ways to disprove it. Thus analogies are never persuasive in a debate. Worse still, sometimes you end up going down a rabbit hole of arguing analogies rather than discussing the actual point at hand. For this reason, I usually try to avoid them.
oneeyedpigeon 8y ago
> The rationale is they distributed your product to customers you would never have had access to without them What about the rationale that nobody would have bought their iPhone in the first place if it wasn't for apps?
rbrtl 8y ago
Agreed, see my carnival analogy in the thread :) The 30% is interesting, but so is the Verge article I read about Google lowering their fees from 30% forever to 15% forever: https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/19/16502152/google-play-store-android-apple-app-store-subscription-revenue-cut https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/19/16502152/google-play-sto... I’m sure no one is in the right here, morally speaking. But as far as I can tell, big business is as far as you get from morals.

laumars 8y ago

> I think this is an incorrect analogy. This is why Apple only charges for physical goods, not digital ones. The rationale is they distributed your product to customers you would never have had access to without them: Would the app developers "never have access" to those consumers though? Because if the iPhone didn't exist then consumers would just use another handset. Just like we did before the iPhone and just like a significant amount of people do currently. There's definitely a blurred line somewhere though. I agree to Apple having a fee for app sales though I think 30% is a bit steep but I agree Apple ultimately get to decide how much they want to charge. I agree that some apps might try to circumvent that fee by offering in app sales instead so Apple are trying to close off that particular loophole. However I don't agree that Spotify fall into that same category because their "in app sales" is actually a subscription service to a much larger product. However where do you draw the line? > I think this is an incorrect analogy. Obviously I wouldn't agree but I can completely understand why you'd say that given how open to interpretation analogies can be. To be honest I hate posting them in debates because if you agree with the point then you'll agree with the analogy but if you don't agree with the point then you'll naturally find a reason the analogy doesn't fit. And given analogies aren't meant to be 100% representative, it means there's always plenty of ways to disprove it. Thus analogies are never persuasive in a debate. Worse still, sometimes you end up going down a rabbit hole of arguing analogies rather than discussing the actual point at hand. For this reason, I usually try to avoid them.

oneeyedpigeon 8y ago

> The rationale is they distributed your product to customers you would never have had access to without them What about the rationale that nobody would have bought their iPhone in the first place if it wasn't for apps?

rbrtl 8y ago

Agreed, see my carnival analogy in the thread :) The 30% is interesting, but so is the Verge article I read about Google lowering their fees from 30% forever to 15% forever: https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/19/16502152/google-play-store-android-apple-app-store-subscription-revenue-cut https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/19/16502152/google-play-sto... I’m sure no one is in the right here, morally speaking. But as far as I can tell, big business is as far as you get from morals.