3 ms·

OP's point is that it's unfair for Apple to take a cut when they didn't have anything to do with creating the game. My point is that Epic does the same thing.

OP's point is that it's unfair for Apple to take a cut when they didn't have anything to do with creating the game. My point is that Epic does the same thing. Apple created the app store. The iPhone brand is built on security, reliability, and ease of use. I can completely understand why Apple strongly resists people trying to disrupt that. It's not in Apple's interests because it'll diminish the appeal of their devices, and it's not in consumer interests either.

wccrawford 6y ago
Apple is providing a service that distributes the game and does some marketing for it. If you want to use that service, it's fair that Apple gets some cut, and I'm okay with them setting how large that cut is. What is not fair is that they are the only service allowed on Apple devices. They place themselves in a situation where they can set the cut without any negotiation allowed. I find Google's situation more fair (because it's at least possible to load apps/games with other stores or no store at all), but they still actively work against third-party stores by degrading the experience that the user has with those stores compared to Play's store.
- georgespencer 6y ago
  > If you want to use that service, it's fair that Apple gets some cut, and I'm OK with them setting how large that cut is So you draw a distinction between the fairness of Apple making money from your use of their marketplace and the fairness of Apple making money from your use of their device? I don't see it. Apple made the app store and you think it's fair that if you want to use it you should pay. Apple makes the iPhone but it should not be the case that if you want to use it you should pay? What if alternative app stores on iPhone had to pay a 30% cut of all revenue to Apple? > What is not fair is that they are the only service allowed Are you at risk of conflating 'equal' and 'fair'? It's definitely not equal, but it doesn't seem unfair to me. It seems fair that Apple should be able to build a platform they would want to use and ensure that it is safe, secure, and held to the standards they like. There is a good analogy here around sovereignty of nations. One common legal argument for war is that a nation has violated its own sovereignty somehow -- usually by attacking another or hurting its own population. Apple the Nation has a high tax rate for corporations and individuals who live there. It is non-negotiable and there is no way around it. But citizens can come and go freely, and if they are unhappy living in Apple land they can move to a different country. What is it that makes Apple's behaviour unfair?

wccrawford 6y ago

Apple is providing a service that distributes the game and does some marketing for it. If you want to use that service, it's fair that Apple gets some cut, and I'm okay with them setting how large that cut is. What is not fair is that they are the only service allowed on Apple devices. They place themselves in a situation where they can set the cut without any negotiation allowed. I find Google's situation more fair (because it's at least possible to load apps/games with other stores or no store at all), but they still actively work against third-party stores by degrading the experience that the user has with those stores compared to Play's store.

georgespencer 6y ago
> If you want to use that service, it's fair that Apple gets some cut, and I'm OK with them setting how large that cut is So you draw a distinction between the fairness of Apple making money from your use of their marketplace and the fairness of Apple making money from your use of their device? I don't see it. Apple made the app store and you think it's fair that if you want to use it you should pay. Apple makes the iPhone but it should not be the case that if you want to use it you should pay? What if alternative app stores on iPhone had to pay a 30% cut of all revenue to Apple? > What is not fair is that they are the only service allowed Are you at risk of conflating 'equal' and 'fair'? It's definitely not equal, but it doesn't seem unfair to me. It seems fair that Apple should be able to build a platform they would want to use and ensure that it is safe, secure, and held to the standards they like. There is a good analogy here around sovereignty of nations. One common legal argument for war is that a nation has violated its own sovereignty somehow -- usually by attacking another or hurting its own population. Apple the Nation has a high tax rate for corporations and individuals who live there. It is non-negotiable and there is no way around it. But citizens can come and go freely, and if they are unhappy living in Apple land they can move to a different country. What is it that makes Apple's behaviour unfair?