6 ms·

I think the inevitable move here is for the EU to enact a maximum % commission for platforms above $1b revenue, at something like 20%. Maybe for sales from that

I think the inevitable move here is for the EU to enact a maximum % commission for platforms above $1b revenue, at something like 20%. Maybe for sales from that region or for developers in that region. Unfortunately the EU is going the opposite way - increasing VAT and digital taxes, which are passed straight onto developers.

tekkk 6y ago
To be fair most digital content is still purchased out of app stores so I dont think the developers are the losers there. Losers are the governments if they cant pay for their healthcare or care for their elderly because all the big internet co's dont pay any taxes for their profits in their countries. A digital tax would at least put pressure on them to take a smaller slice of the pie. Granted, it might be not the optimal solution for the problem.
- ArkVark 6y ago
  Europe generates a lot of content, but owns none of the platforms. Lower commissions on those stores would translate directly to higher profits and investment by those content creators, which would be taxed directly and indirectly.
jonatanheyman 6y ago
No. The solution is to allow third party app stores, and then Apple can keep charging whatever commission they want. The high commission percentage is not the only issue with Apple's monopoly. It's also that they are gate keepers of apps they don't approve of, they can decide to throw out apps to destroy competition, etc.
aravindet 6y ago
I don't know about inevitable, but price regulation would not be the best outcome here. My hope for this is to see regulation that recognizes that hardware, operating systems, application distribution and payment processing are four separate markets and must be unbundled. That does not mean breaking Apple and Google up or preventing them from providing all these things within an integrated user experience; it should however prohibit: - using technical or legal methods to prevent consumers from installing any operating system or app store on their hardware, and independent developers from creating such operating systems or app stores. - using technical or legal methods to prevent developers from using a payment processor of their choice while using Apple's or Google's application distribution service. I think the judgements against Microsoft in the browser wars might serve as precedent. The tricky part is recognizing that in two-sided markets, the threshold of market share at which a company achieves a harmful, competition-stifling amount of market power is much lower than in traditional one-sided markets.
izacus 6y ago
Except this fight is not about percentages themselves. It's not about whether it's 30%, 20%, 5% or 1%. It's about the fact that there's no free market and that Apple dictates content, prices and censors at their own whim and there cannot be free market competition to them on one of the most popular computing platforms. Capping the commission does nothing to solve this - opening up a competition when someone else can provide better terms, vetting or different type of content (now deemed unacceptable to Apple political outlook or prudish stance) is the solution. It also makes Apple actually work harder and start thinking about what ACTUALLY means to build a secure, user respecting OS instead of copping out by randomly rejecting app updates.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Looking forward to Epic Store on the Playstation 5.
  - t-writescode 6y ago
    Looking forward to when people recognize game consoles and general purpose computing devices that carry an LTE antennae are understood to be different classes of devices with vastly less competition.
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      Apparently someone missed the news on PSP, PlayStation Vita, DS and Switch capabilities and ecosystems. I can provide some learning materials to catch up with the world.
    - colejohnson66 6y ago
      > [...]with vastly less competition. On consoles, as far as the majority of consumers are concerned, there’s three players: Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo. On phones, there’s... Apple, Google, Samsung, Huawei, OnePlus, etc. Sure, it’s basically iOS and Android, but even then, it’s 3 for consoles and 2 for phones. So to say that phones have “vastly less competition” is simply disingenuous.

tekkk 6y ago

To be fair most digital content is still purchased out of app stores so I dont think the developers are the losers there. Losers are the governments if they cant pay for their healthcare or care for their elderly because all the big internet co's dont pay any taxes for their profits in their countries. A digital tax would at least put pressure on them to take a smaller slice of the pie. Granted, it might be not the optimal solution for the problem.

ArkVark 6y ago
Europe generates a lot of content, but owns none of the platforms. Lower commissions on those stores would translate directly to higher profits and investment by those content creators, which would be taxed directly and indirectly.

jonatanheyman 6y ago

No. The solution is to allow third party app stores, and then Apple can keep charging whatever commission they want. The high commission percentage is not the only issue with Apple's monopoly. It's also that they are gate keepers of apps they don't approve of, they can decide to throw out apps to destroy competition, etc.

aravindet 6y ago

I don't know about inevitable, but price regulation would not be the best outcome here. My hope for this is to see regulation that recognizes that hardware, operating systems, application distribution and payment processing are four separate markets and must be unbundled. That does not mean breaking Apple and Google up or preventing them from providing all these things within an integrated user experience; it should however prohibit: - using technical or legal methods to prevent consumers from installing any operating system or app store on their hardware, and independent developers from creating such operating systems or app stores. - using technical or legal methods to prevent developers from using a payment processor of their choice while using Apple's or Google's application distribution service. I think the judgements against Microsoft in the browser wars might serve as precedent. The tricky part is recognizing that in two-sided markets, the threshold of market share at which a company achieves a harmful, competition-stifling amount of market power is much lower than in traditional one-sided markets.

izacus 6y ago

Except this fight is not about percentages themselves. It's not about whether it's 30%, 20%, 5% or 1%. It's about the fact that there's no free market and that Apple dictates content, prices and censors at their own whim and there cannot be free market competition to them on one of the most popular computing platforms. Capping the commission does nothing to solve this - opening up a competition when someone else can provide better terms, vetting or different type of content (now deemed unacceptable to Apple political outlook or prudish stance) is the solution. It also makes Apple actually work harder and start thinking about what ACTUALLY means to build a secure, user respecting OS instead of copping out by randomly rejecting app updates.

pjmlp 6y ago
Looking forward to Epic Store on the Playstation 5.
- t-writescode 6y ago
  Looking forward to when people recognize game consoles and general purpose computing devices that carry an LTE antennae are understood to be different classes of devices with vastly less competition.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Apparently someone missed the news on PSP, PlayStation Vita, DS and Switch capabilities and ecosystems. I can provide some learning materials to catch up with the world.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    > [...]with vastly less competition. On consoles, as far as the majority of consumers are concerned, there’s three players: Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo. On phones, there’s... Apple, Google, Samsung, Huawei, OnePlus, etc. Sure, it’s basically iOS and Android, but even then, it’s 3 for consoles and 2 for phones. So to say that phones have “vastly less competition” is simply disingenuous.