5 ms·

While I sympathize with the idea of losing 30% of your revenue just paying to play, I struggle to see Apple as being somehow "extortionate" as others have sugge

While I sympathize with the idea of losing 30% of your revenue just paying to play, I struggle to see Apple as being somehow "extortionate" as others have suggested. While they didn't invent the App Store as a concept, they did popularize it, and built the software platform (iOS) that allows the apps to run, as well as built the tools and frameworks (swift, Xcode, etc) for building said apps, as well as built the hardware that the software runs on (iPhone), and then spent billions in marketing to popularize the idea of using "mobile apps" in the first place (ie. Remember there's an app for that?). In addition, when you sell on the App Store, you get free distribution in front of the highest income, most desirable segment of smartphone buyers--because that's the customer base Apple has invested billions in building and cultivating over 40+ years. Given the above, how is 30% extortionate vs. 20%? It is their platform. Anybody can choose to only create apps for Android instead.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
LunaSea 6y ago
> then spent billions in marketing to popularize the idea of using "mobile apps" in the first They didn't do it for charity though. > In addition, when you sell on the App Store, you get free distribution in front of the highest income, most desirable segment of smartphone buyers--because that's the customer base Apple has invested billions in building and cultivating over 40+ years. It's like saying that Google should get 30% of every website's revenue due to them indexing large chunks of the web. Also, Apple directly profits by having a large amount of apps available for their hardware customers. Maybe Apple should be paying developers to write apps?
- pembrook 6y ago
  Of course they didn't do it for charity. That's my point. They spent billions on development and marketing to risk the idea people would want to use mobile apps from an "App Store." Spoiler alert, people liked it. Shouldn't they be rewarded for taking that risk? Or is the problem just that they became too popular? Also, the Google analogy would only work if websites were directly built on google's platform. Google did not create HTML, doesn't host your website, and doesn't provide the hardware and browser software for you to access it through.
  - LunaSea 6y ago
    > Shouldn't they be rewarded for taking that risk? They are already, every time someone buys an iPhone because of the large supply of apps that exist. > Also, the Google analogy would only work if websites were directly built on google's platform. They do. They benefit from Google's crawling and indexing infrastructure which they researched, developed and host on their hardware. > Google did not create HTML, doesn't host your website, They are one of the biggest contributors to HTML, CSS and JavaScript both in standardisation and implementation. Also tangentially, in the AMP standard Google does host your website. > and doesn't provide the browser software for you to access it through. They provide Google Chrome which is exactly that.
  - fauigerzigerk 6y ago
    >Shouldn't they be rewarded for taking that risk? In a market economy, popularising a concept and taking risk should only be rewarded to the degree that it gives you a headstart over the competition. That reward should peter out over time as new competitors enter the market. If the market structure (for whatever reason) turns out to be such that new competitors can no longer enter the market then that is a dysfunctional market that doesn't serve its purpose. Clearly the network effects that govern operating systems are so strong that the likelihood of new market entrants is extremely low. App stores don't compete on merit. They derive their pricing power from the fact that market forces have ceased to exist. So the question is whether we should allow the handful of companies that dominate operating systems at any given point in time to leverage that power to set prices in related markets without any restriction. At what point does that result in rent seeking that frustrates risk taking and innovation?
bsaul 6y ago
i’ve got many reasons for that : - you are forced to purchase an apple computer to push to the app store (which are more expensive) - you are forced to use the app store to deploy to end-user phones that they bought. There’s no other « app store » than apple’s one, because it’s forbidden by their app store guidelines in the first place - you are forced to pay and register your company on the app store to deploy on iOS devices inside your own company. - they can, and do, remove your authorization to deploy your own app on your consumer’s devices at any time, for any reason,without any appeal possible to a third party legislator. And thus, they can kill your business at any time (and they did many times). It’s a totally controlled environment in which you pay the apple tax over and over again, for having the privilege to be f*cked over at any time, for any reason. I’m never going to develop on non cross-platform tools ever again.
matheusmoreira 6y ago
> Given the above, how is 30% extortionate vs. 20%? The percentage is irrelevant. The fact is they don't have a choice. > It is their platform. No, it is people's computers. Why should Apple be allowed to monopolize iPhone consumers? People should be allowed to run whatever software they want on the hardware they bought. The fact Apple created the phone shouldn't give them the right to establish harmful monopolies around it. Apple gets away with these rates because they restricted the freedom of their users in order to prevent competition. Revenue generated by creating and leveraging monopolies are always objectionable, even if it was 1%. It would be fine if Apple's store offered enough value to justify a 30% cut even in the face of competition.
- Terretta 6y ago
  > People should be allowed to run whatever software they want on the hardware they bought. They didn't buy hardware, they bought an ecosystem experience. And anyway, we don't hold that principle across all devices with code in them. - Including microwaves or refrigerators? - What about game consoles? - What about the emissions control systems in our automobiles where bad code causes cancer? The iPhone and iPad are in a new "What's a computer?" category: appliances.
  - mjburgess 6y ago
    > They didn't buy hardware, they bought an ecosystem experience Repeating the propaganda of one of the largest corporations in the world, I think, does little to advance the argument. In any sane modern system of property rights, people bought the hardware. That entails ownership of the device. Presently there is a disconnect between hardware purchase and ownership that does not occur with non-software goods. This is a legal oversight. The "right to repair" and "right to modify" etc. did not need to be explicitly granted historically because there was no disconnect. Today they do, and so they should. > What about the emissions control systems in our automobiles where bad code causes cancer? The law prevents pollution, not EULAs.
    - Terretta 6y ago
WrongThinkerNo5 6y ago
I believe you are immensely discounting the totalitarian duopolistic nature of the system, a facade of "competition" between two not only ideologically aligned, but even essentially colocated centers of totalitarian and supremacist power and control over us is not choice, let alone freedom. It seems rather naive to believe believe that "simply create/move to Android" is a viable solution. There is no easy or even cheap way to switch between Apple and Android if you don't like one or the other. It's simply not a viable, let alone reasonable choice/option And, again, both of the options consist of corporations that are so mutually aligned in basically all ways that they may as well be divisions of the same corporation; which they essentially are … akin to the various corporations the European aristocracy used to enrich themselves on the backs of their own serf/slave class as well as the people of various places all around the world. If one looks back on history and laments what was done then … but does not realize that the very same strata of society are doing the vary same types of things using the very same methods and machinations to achieve it … is simply being herded by these global corporations that are dominating us all, just as they divide and pitch us against each other in order to control and distract us from the shackles they are placing on all of us. You may shrug and dismiss lamentation about 30% vs 20%, but that's basically no different than saying; what difference is 1000% markup vs 900% markup in the company store of the mine/factory that you are essentially a prisoner/slave on with only theoretical/imaginary, but no real or practical alternatives. We are in a kind of digital, online tyrannical regime and most people seem to not realize that as they are too distracted by the constant two minutes of hate being fed them by the tech tyrants who fear more than anything else that we all realize what they are really up to. As Zuckerberg once put it (I witnessed it myself) "I want facebook to replace the internet". Did he say that in support of self-governance and free speech?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

LunaSea 6y ago

> then spent billions in marketing to popularize the idea of using "mobile apps" in the first They didn't do it for charity though. > In addition, when you sell on the App Store, you get free distribution in front of the highest income, most desirable segment of smartphone buyers--because that's the customer base Apple has invested billions in building and cultivating over 40+ years. It's like saying that Google should get 30% of every website's revenue due to them indexing large chunks of the web. Also, Apple directly profits by having a large amount of apps available for their hardware customers. Maybe Apple should be paying developers to write apps?

pembrook 6y ago
Of course they didn't do it for charity. That's my point. They spent billions on development and marketing to risk the idea people would want to use mobile apps from an "App Store." Spoiler alert, people liked it. Shouldn't they be rewarded for taking that risk? Or is the problem just that they became too popular? Also, the Google analogy would only work if websites were directly built on google's platform. Google did not create HTML, doesn't host your website, and doesn't provide the hardware and browser software for you to access it through.
- LunaSea 6y ago
  > Shouldn't they be rewarded for taking that risk? They are already, every time someone buys an iPhone because of the large supply of apps that exist. > Also, the Google analogy would only work if websites were directly built on google's platform. They do. They benefit from Google's crawling and indexing infrastructure which they researched, developed and host on their hardware. > Google did not create HTML, doesn't host your website, They are one of the biggest contributors to HTML, CSS and JavaScript both in standardisation and implementation. Also tangentially, in the AMP standard Google does host your website. > and doesn't provide the browser software for you to access it through. They provide Google Chrome which is exactly that.
- fauigerzigerk 6y ago
  >Shouldn't they be rewarded for taking that risk? In a market economy, popularising a concept and taking risk should only be rewarded to the degree that it gives you a headstart over the competition. That reward should peter out over time as new competitors enter the market. If the market structure (for whatever reason) turns out to be such that new competitors can no longer enter the market then that is a dysfunctional market that doesn't serve its purpose. Clearly the network effects that govern operating systems are so strong that the likelihood of new market entrants is extremely low. App stores don't compete on merit. They derive their pricing power from the fact that market forces have ceased to exist. So the question is whether we should allow the handful of companies that dominate operating systems at any given point in time to leverage that power to set prices in related markets without any restriction. At what point does that result in rent seeking that frustrates risk taking and innovation?

bsaul 6y ago

i’ve got many reasons for that : - you are forced to purchase an apple computer to push to the app store (which are more expensive) - you are forced to use the app store to deploy to end-user phones that they bought. There’s no other « app store » than apple’s one, because it’s forbidden by their app store guidelines in the first place - you are forced to pay and register your company on the app store to deploy on iOS devices inside your own company. - they can, and do, remove your authorization to deploy your own app on your consumer’s devices at any time, for any reason,without any appeal possible to a third party legislator. And thus, they can kill your business at any time (and they did many times). It’s a totally controlled environment in which you pay the apple tax over and over again, for having the privilege to be f*cked over at any time, for any reason. I’m never going to develop on non cross-platform tools ever again.

matheusmoreira 6y ago

> Given the above, how is 30% extortionate vs. 20%? The percentage is irrelevant. The fact is they don't have a choice. > It is their platform. No, it is people's computers. Why should Apple be allowed to monopolize iPhone consumers? People should be allowed to run whatever software they want on the hardware they bought. The fact Apple created the phone shouldn't give them the right to establish harmful monopolies around it. Apple gets away with these rates because they restricted the freedom of their users in order to prevent competition. Revenue generated by creating and leveraging monopolies are always objectionable, even if it was 1%. It would be fine if Apple's store offered enough value to justify a 30% cut even in the face of competition.

Terretta 6y ago
> People should be allowed to run whatever software they want on the hardware they bought. They didn't buy hardware, they bought an ecosystem experience. And anyway, we don't hold that principle across all devices with code in them. - Including microwaves or refrigerators? - What about game consoles? - What about the emissions control systems in our automobiles where bad code causes cancer? The iPhone and iPad are in a new "What's a computer?" category: appliances.
- mjburgess 6y ago
  > They didn't buy hardware, they bought an ecosystem experience Repeating the propaganda of one of the largest corporations in the world, I think, does little to advance the argument. In any sane modern system of property rights, people bought the hardware. That entails ownership of the device. Presently there is a disconnect between hardware purchase and ownership that does not occur with non-software goods. This is a legal oversight. The "right to repair" and "right to modify" etc. did not need to be explicitly granted historically because there was no disconnect. Today they do, and so they should. > What about the emissions control systems in our automobiles where bad code causes cancer? The law prevents pollution, not EULAs.
  - Terretta 6y ago

WrongThinkerNo5 6y ago

I believe you are immensely discounting the totalitarian duopolistic nature of the system, a facade of "competition" between two not only ideologically aligned, but even essentially colocated centers of totalitarian and supremacist power and control over us is not choice, let alone freedom. It seems rather naive to believe believe that "simply create/move to Android" is a viable solution. There is no easy or even cheap way to switch between Apple and Android if you don't like one or the other. It's simply not a viable, let alone reasonable choice/option And, again, both of the options consist of corporations that are so mutually aligned in basically all ways that they may as well be divisions of the same corporation; which they essentially are … akin to the various corporations the European aristocracy used to enrich themselves on the backs of their own serf/slave class as well as the people of various places all around the world. If one looks back on history and laments what was done then … but does not realize that the very same strata of society are doing the vary same types of things using the very same methods and machinations to achieve it … is simply being herded by these global corporations that are dominating us all, just as they divide and pitch us against each other in order to control and distract us from the shackles they are placing on all of us. You may shrug and dismiss lamentation about 30% vs 20%, but that's basically no different than saying; what difference is 1000% markup vs 900% markup in the company store of the mine/factory that you are essentially a prisoner/slave on with only theoretical/imaginary, but no real or practical alternatives. We are in a kind of digital, online tyrannical regime and most people seem to not realize that as they are too distracted by the constant two minutes of hate being fed them by the tech tyrants who fear more than anything else that we all realize what they are really up to. As Zuckerberg once put it (I witnessed it myself) "I want facebook to replace the internet". Did he say that in support of self-governance and free speech?