4 ms·

If you charge for listing and take 30% for sales, people are going to try some aggressive revenue techniques. One of the biggest unsolved problems for users is

If you charge for listing and take 30% for sales, people are going to try some aggressive revenue techniques. One of the biggest unsolved problems for users is how to get the security of a walled garden while still encouraging open development, the sort of little experiments that become free simple QoL apps or toy proof of concept programs that spawn a business. It's a problem only for users of course, less so for the gardeners.

scarface74 7y ago
You mean they are going to charge enough money to account for the cost of distribution? That could even be a new business model -- charging people money and giving them stuff. Like software makers have done since the first personal computer or game console came out? You realize that retail stores were routinely charging 60%?
- brownbat 7y ago
  This has sat for a while. I don't really understand why the sudden dismissive sarcasm, but my best guess is I just didn't explain my point very well. You probably don't care at all, but for posterity maybe I ought to explain what I meant. I feel like it's easier to find reputable free software on PCs than on app stores. I'm not saying all software should be free, or that free software is better than paid or ad-supported software, or that it's crazy to charge for hard work. Nothing radical. It just seems like on other platforms there are a variety of models that all overlap. Less so on app stores. My best hunch is that the dev fees have something to do with that. I feel like you're saying this is purely a distribution cost, but all these platforms are using the same Internet. I also don't think Apple is setting these fees at pure cost. They have a captive set of users that developers can't get access to in other ways. Monopoly rents for access to that unique set of users wouldn't be that crazy. Maybe I'm wrong though. If there's some other theory that explains this, I'd love to hear it. "It's expensive to move electrons" doesn't seem to explain why the ecosystems on different platforms are so different though. EDIT: tone.
- buckminster 7y ago
  And don't forget manufacturing costs! You'd be lucky to take 20% of the retail price.

scarface74 7y ago

You mean they are going to charge enough money to account for the cost of distribution? That could even be a new business model -- charging people money and giving them stuff. Like software makers have done since the first personal computer or game console came out? You realize that retail stores were routinely charging 60%?

brownbat 7y ago
This has sat for a while. I don't really understand why the sudden dismissive sarcasm, but my best guess is I just didn't explain my point very well. You probably don't care at all, but for posterity maybe I ought to explain what I meant. I feel like it's easier to find reputable free software on PCs than on app stores. I'm not saying all software should be free, or that free software is better than paid or ad-supported software, or that it's crazy to charge for hard work. Nothing radical. It just seems like on other platforms there are a variety of models that all overlap. Less so on app stores. My best hunch is that the dev fees have something to do with that. I feel like you're saying this is purely a distribution cost, but all these platforms are using the same Internet. I also don't think Apple is setting these fees at pure cost. They have a captive set of users that developers can't get access to in other ways. Monopoly rents for access to that unique set of users wouldn't be that crazy. Maybe I'm wrong though. If there's some other theory that explains this, I'd love to hear it. "It's expensive to move electrons" doesn't seem to explain why the ecosystems on different platforms are so different though. EDIT: tone.
buckminster 7y ago
And don't forget manufacturing costs! You'd be lucky to take 20% of the retail price.