5 ms·

Going to fall on its head. Apple isnt asking for fruits of their labour but charging from device abuse, management of store and general device health.

zxcmx 6y ago
Credit card companies charge ~ 3% to manage a far more complex and fraud-prone ecosystem. It's Apple's sandpit and they make the rules, but I think it's hard to rationally justify their take other than "because they can".
- pjmlp 6y ago
  I guess the 80% previously charged by mobile operators specific stores was much better then, how quickly people forget about how things were.
  - cercatrova 6y ago
    You said this on another comment, it's disingenuous to say that just because it was bad before that it's not bad now. Apple really shouldn't charge 30 percent for doing basically nothing except gate keeping.
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      They do more than gatekeeping and aren't the only ones doing 30%.
      - cercatrova 6y ago
        You seem biased in favor of Apple. Why is that? > aren't the only ones doing 30%. Again, just because "other people do it" does not a compelling argument make. It's just an "argument to the people" logical fallacy. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
        pjmlp 6y ago
        Because I am no hippie pointing the finger to the man and they are entitled to their business. Don't like it? Give your money to someone else and stop complaining.
        cercatrova 6y ago
        If there are only two sellers of mobile apps, you can't just "give your money to someone else" because no one else exists. That's the essence of antitrust, whether it be monopoly, duopoly, or oligopoly. I'd agree with you if there were a free market of device OSes and app stores, but a market of only two is fundamentally unfree.
        pjmlp 6y ago
        If there are two, there is someone else, basic English grammar rules here. Then there are feature phones like those Nokias with KaiOS, Jolla, Tizen,... be the change you want the world to become, instead of giving the money and then feeling entitled to something it wasn't available right from the start.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
quelltext 6y ago
I don't think the biggest issue is that the AppStore is the only distribution channel. The core issue that escalated this is that the distribution channel forces additional fees for no value in some cases (i.e. services/apps/games that have their own payment collection system in place). I don't think the fee is there to protect device health. There are plenty of free apps with no fees levied, so that point doesn't make sense. I think it's fair to charge a fee for using the store as a paid app distribution channel. If Apple takes on the burden of risk, funds flow management, etc. it's fair to take a cut. If Epic instead builds their own payment system, they shouldn't be charged for it or forced into using Apple's. Apple could claim that they need to cover hosting costs or review costs. And I think there's an argument here, but it's not made, and it would raise additional questions around fairness.

zxcmx 6y ago

Credit card companies charge ~ 3% to manage a far more complex and fraud-prone ecosystem. It's Apple's sandpit and they make the rules, but I think it's hard to rationally justify their take other than "because they can".

pjmlp 6y ago
I guess the 80% previously charged by mobile operators specific stores was much better then, how quickly people forget about how things were.
- cercatrova 6y ago
  You said this on another comment, it's disingenuous to say that just because it was bad before that it's not bad now. Apple really shouldn't charge 30 percent for doing basically nothing except gate keeping.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    They do more than gatekeeping and aren't the only ones doing 30%.
    - cercatrova 6y ago
      You seem biased in favor of Apple. Why is that? > aren't the only ones doing 30%. Again, just because "other people do it" does not a compelling argument make. It's just an "argument to the people" logical fallacy. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
      - pjmlp 6y ago
        Because I am no hippie pointing the finger to the man and they are entitled to their business. Don't like it? Give your money to someone else and stop complaining.
        cercatrova 6y ago
        If there are only two sellers of mobile apps, you can't just "give your money to someone else" because no one else exists. That's the essence of antitrust, whether it be monopoly, duopoly, or oligopoly. I'd agree with you if there were a free market of device OSes and app stores, but a market of only two is fundamentally unfree.
        pjmlp 6y ago
        If there are two, there is someone else, basic English grammar rules here. Then there are feature phones like those Nokias with KaiOS, Jolla, Tizen,... be the change you want the world to become, instead of giving the money and then feeling entitled to something it wasn't available right from the start.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

quelltext 6y ago

I don't think the biggest issue is that the AppStore is the only distribution channel. The core issue that escalated this is that the distribution channel forces additional fees for no value in some cases (i.e. services/apps/games that have their own payment collection system in place). I don't think the fee is there to protect device health. There are plenty of free apps with no fees levied, so that point doesn't make sense. I think it's fair to charge a fee for using the store as a paid app distribution channel. If Apple takes on the burden of risk, funds flow management, etc. it's fair to take a cut. If Epic instead builds their own payment system, they shouldn't be charged for it or forced into using Apple's. Apple could claim that they need to cover hosting costs or review costs. And I think there's an argument here, but it's not made, and it would raise additional questions around fairness.