4 ms·

My interpretation of the piece is that it is advocating for the reduction of the Apple cut and less reliance on the subscription model. Not alternate app stores

by mthoms 6y ago

My interpretation of the piece is that it is advocating for the reduction of the Apple cut and less reliance on the subscription model. Not alternate app stores, lesser security or lesser privacy. I think the vast, vast majority of the app store developers would agree that the App store cut of 30% is not reasonable (or sustainable). >a place where people are willing to spend money on software is exactly why they should continue to receive commission. What part of the piece said "Apple should not receive any commission"? >I simply don’t see any reason to believe that forcing Apple to allow other stores What part of the article claimed "the solution is allowing other stores"? It looks like you have no problem with strawmen when they're yours. The piece could have been better written, sure. But your reading of it seems very disingenuous.

zepto 6y ago
Epic’s demand is that they be allowed to run their own Store. The article strongly supports Epic, and dismisses all counterarguments as ‘bullshit’ or uses ad-hominem. The fact that they do this but then don’t even mention what Epic is actually asking for, shows that it is not my reading, but the article which is disingenuous. Supporting Epic is to make the argument for other stores to be allowed. Epic’s strategy simply doesn’t allow for the remedy to be a reduction in percentage. They are all in on being allowed to run their own store. If you support this is what you support. In addition, the article clearly claims that the security argument is ‘bullshit’. That claim is simply incompatible with claiming you want to maintain the current level of security. I didn’t mention privacy. It’s also worth noting that nothing in the article does any work towards explaining how to reduce reliance on the subscription model, and it certainly makes no case for how Epic, or anyone else would achieve that. It just says users ‘hate’ subscriptions, but then says they aren’t needed in order to run a successful App business anyway, which is oddly conflicted. It’s a bad piece.
- mthoms 6y ago
  >The fact that they do this but then don’t even mention what Epic is actually asking for, shows that it is not my reading, but the article which is disingenuous. Are you kidding? He "mentions" it right here - >Epic doesn’t want a reduction to 5%, it wants to pay nothing and run its own store on iOS. Which, let’s be real, has to be a negotiation tactic. On its own store, Epic charges 12% to developers. The author doesn't think Epic even wants its own store and that the ask is merely "a negotiation tactic". I don't see how you can interpret that as wanting Epic to have their own store like you claimed. How can he want Epic to have their own store when he thinks they don't even want one!? Secondly, you said he advocates for Apple earning 0%. Here's the closest thing I could find: >30% share is too much. 30% is what a run operation makes in profit. It’s higher than the highest tier in corporate tax. every developer we talk to and Business analysts around the world say 30% revenue share comes from a dark fairytale. What would be a fair share? 5% would be a fair share. Is there hope? From this you claimed the author wants Apple to earn 0%? Really? The author merely suggested 5% is closer to a fair share. He never said what you claimed he did. I'm not interested in debating the App store or the article per se. I just wanted to point out the irony of harshly condemning him for using strawmen, and then shamelessly inventing several of your own. 1) He didn't advocate for Apple earning 0%, and 2) didn't advocate for Epic having their own iOS store, and (3) absolutely did mention that Epic claims to want an app store. Per the above, you've now mis-represeted the authors` words several times in the space of two comments. That's not cool, no matter how "bad" you think the piece is.
  - zepto 6y ago
    I believe you would be correct under only one circumstance. That circumstance would be the one in which the authors is both sincere in their believe that Epic is not being honest about their goal and correct. If you support Epic, and you believe they are being honest, then you do in fact support Apple getting 0%. I don’t misrepresent the Author at all - they claim that 30% is too much, and that they support Epic. However, given the sarcasm, ad-hominem, and dismissiveness inherent in the piece it is completely reasonable to question their sincerity. Your read of the piece is based on assuming Epic is being dishonest in their objective. This is completely unexamined by the author and there is no reason at all to take it at face value, when the entire piece is arguing not to take other people’s positions at face value. (I.e. they call other position ‘bullshit’) I am not being disingenuous. If someone wants to make the argument that Epic is being disingenuous, that is fine. Your reading of the piece seems to rely on that, but yet it is not argued - it is just assumed. The piece also dismisses other people’s views in the disingenuous ways I have already outlined. The piece is terrible. It’s not an argument at all - it’s just ad hominem. The piece is basically saying everyone’s position is ‘bullshit’ including Epic’s but Epic is the hero. Your reading just reinforces that.
    - mthoms 6y ago
      >I don’t misrepresent the Author at all Wow. Lets recap: You claimed the author never mentioned Epics' stated goal of running their own store: Provably false. You claimed the author wanted Apple to get no percentage: Provably false. He never said that, you're inferring it (!?) from his support of Epic. Yet Epic earns 12% in its own store. Presumably Epic thinks 12% is a reasonable take for an App store? You claimed the author wants Epic to have their own store: Provably false. The author thinks Epic is bluffing (Epic may or may not want a store, but what we're debating is what the _author_ said, not what Epic said/wants/believes). You've misrepresented the author at least three times (I've noticed others but don't have the time or inclination to point them out). >Your read of the piece is based on assuming Epic is being dishonest in their objective. My reading of the piece is based on the words actually written by the author. You're inferring a whole bunch of things based on the authors' "support" of Epic. Stop focussing on what you think Epic wants and read the words the author wrote. Take a hint from the replies you've received here and try to do better.

by mthoms 6y ago

zepto 6y ago

Epic’s demand is that they be allowed to run their own Store. The article strongly supports Epic, and dismisses all counterarguments as ‘bullshit’ or uses ad-hominem. The fact that they do this but then don’t even mention what Epic is actually asking for, shows that it is not my reading, but the article which is disingenuous. Supporting Epic is to make the argument for other stores to be allowed. Epic’s strategy simply doesn’t allow for the remedy to be a reduction in percentage. They are all in on being allowed to run their own store. If you support this is what you support. In addition, the article clearly claims that the security argument is ‘bullshit’. That claim is simply incompatible with claiming you want to maintain the current level of security. I didn’t mention privacy. It’s also worth noting that nothing in the article does any work towards explaining how to reduce reliance on the subscription model, and it certainly makes no case for how Epic, or anyone else would achieve that. It just says users ‘hate’ subscriptions, but then says they aren’t needed in order to run a successful App business anyway, which is oddly conflicted. It’s a bad piece.

mthoms 6y ago
>The fact that they do this but then don’t even mention what Epic is actually asking for, shows that it is not my reading, but the article which is disingenuous. Are you kidding? He "mentions" it right here - >Epic doesn’t want a reduction to 5%, it wants to pay nothing and run its own store on iOS. Which, let’s be real, has to be a negotiation tactic. On its own store, Epic charges 12% to developers. The author doesn't think Epic even wants its own store and that the ask is merely "a negotiation tactic". I don't see how you can interpret that as wanting Epic to have their own store like you claimed. How can he want Epic to have their own store when he thinks they don't even want one!? Secondly, you said he advocates for Apple earning 0%. Here's the closest thing I could find: >30% share is too much. 30% is what a run operation makes in profit. It’s higher than the highest tier in corporate tax. every developer we talk to and Business analysts around the world say 30% revenue share comes from a dark fairytale. What would be a fair share? 5% would be a fair share. Is there hope? From this you claimed the author wants Apple to earn 0%? Really? The author merely suggested 5% is closer to a fair share. He never said what you claimed he did. I'm not interested in debating the App store or the article per se. I just wanted to point out the irony of harshly condemning him for using strawmen, and then shamelessly inventing several of your own. 1) He didn't advocate for Apple earning 0%, and 2) didn't advocate for Epic having their own iOS store, and (3) absolutely did mention that Epic claims to want an app store. Per the above, you've now mis-represeted the authors` words several times in the space of two comments. That's not cool, no matter how "bad" you think the piece is.
- zepto 6y ago
  I believe you would be correct under only one circumstance. That circumstance would be the one in which the authors is both sincere in their believe that Epic is not being honest about their goal and correct. If you support Epic, and you believe they are being honest, then you do in fact support Apple getting 0%. I don’t misrepresent the Author at all - they claim that 30% is too much, and that they support Epic. However, given the sarcasm, ad-hominem, and dismissiveness inherent in the piece it is completely reasonable to question their sincerity. Your read of the piece is based on assuming Epic is being dishonest in their objective. This is completely unexamined by the author and there is no reason at all to take it at face value, when the entire piece is arguing not to take other people’s positions at face value. (I.e. they call other position ‘bullshit’) I am not being disingenuous. If someone wants to make the argument that Epic is being disingenuous, that is fine. Your reading of the piece seems to rely on that, but yet it is not argued - it is just assumed. The piece also dismisses other people’s views in the disingenuous ways I have already outlined. The piece is terrible. It’s not an argument at all - it’s just ad hominem. The piece is basically saying everyone’s position is ‘bullshit’ including Epic’s but Epic is the hero. Your reading just reinforces that.
  - mthoms 6y ago
    >I don’t misrepresent the Author at all Wow. Lets recap: You claimed the author never mentioned Epics' stated goal of running their own store: Provably false. You claimed the author wanted Apple to get no percentage: Provably false. He never said that, you're inferring it (!?) from his support of Epic. Yet Epic earns 12% in its own store. Presumably Epic thinks 12% is a reasonable take for an App store? You claimed the author wants Epic to have their own store: Provably false. The author thinks Epic is bluffing (Epic may or may not want a store, but what we're debating is what the _author_ said, not what Epic said/wants/believes). You've misrepresented the author at least three times (I've noticed others but don't have the time or inclination to point them out). >Your read of the piece is based on assuming Epic is being dishonest in their objective. My reading of the piece is based on the words actually written by the author. You're inferring a whole bunch of things based on the authors' "support" of Epic. Stop focussing on what you think Epic wants and read the words the author wrote. Take a hint from the replies you've received here and try to do better.