4 ms·

> By making a small concession here, apple prevented the law of society from opening up the walled garden No they didn't. It's not clear if Apple would have ev

> By making a small concession here, apple prevented the law of society from opening up the walled garden No they didn't. It's not clear if Apple would have ever been affected by government regulation here. It's even less clear if this would affect any potential regulation. This is purely speculation. > it has zero ounce of altruism Irrelevant and unknowable. While we can speculate about Apple's motivations, none of us have access to insider info on this so it is just speculation and ultimately doesn't matter. The simple fact is it helps Indies. Whether it's altruism or pure profit motivation, doesn't matter.

chii 6y ago
> It's even less clear if this would affect any potential regulation. Regulation only happens when there's public pressure for such regulation. the argument by epic was that apple's 30% cut of revenue is too high. I don't agree because i don't see the %-take as the issue at all. Apple is framing the issue as far away from the real issue as possible - that of the device being locked down and you can only install via the app-store. By conceding to a 15% cut, they've steered the overton window of discussion to just the %-cut rate, rather than the actual issue of having a competing app-store (or at least side-loadable apps).
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  This makes zero sense. All I'm getting out of your comment is it's bad because it makes fewer people hate Apple. Again... I still see plenty of room for improvement by Apple. Just failing to see how "Pay more to Indies" is bad.
  - chii 6y ago
    > Just failing to see how "Pay more to Indies" is bad. let me give you a simile to illustrate why paying more to indies now can be bad in the future. Imagine a charity trying to help feed the poor in a poor country, by donating large amounts of grain and food. Or try to help cloth them by donating free clothing. It's not "bad" to receive these donations, but the un-intended side effect is that they destroy the local industry, and prevent competition from forming. Thus, the country has a hard time building up their own industry. Of course, these charities aren't doing so with any ill intensions (which is where the simile deviates). Apple hides the true issue of device open-ness by lowering their %-cut they take, and indies celebrate. But they are blind to the future possibility of being locked out by apple by decree (see epic), or some other arbitrary rule they create.
    - ogre_codes 6y ago
      I don't think I've ever seen such an inappropriate and wrong headed analogy in my life. > But they are blind to the future possibility of being locked out by apple by decree (see epic), or some other arbitrary rule they create. Indies aren't stupid. Their paychecks come from the uncertain whims of App Store review. Many of them have gotten rejections for various reasons and had to fight for them or revise their apps to keep them in the store. They are the first to back other Indies when things go south. The same people who are celebrating this rate change were among the most vocal critics when Apple pulled Hey out of the App Store. People aren't one-dimensional. It's possible to celebrate that one part of being in business with the App Store has gotten a hell of a lot better. Even while recognizing that other parts still have a sign on them that says "Here be Dragons".
      - shard972 6y ago
        > Indies aren't stupid He didn't say that, did his quote say that? No it didn't, please don't spread falsehoods on HN
  - imtringued 6y ago
    This is an example of mob rule. Each individual in the mob has a different goal. If Apple makes concessions about something they least care about they can still gain half the mob on their side. The rest of the mob runs out of steam and gets ridiculed. It's the textbook way of dealing with a revolution.
username90 6y ago
> It's not clear if Apple would have ever been affected by government regulation here. They almost certainly will get hit by regulations in EU. USA is a different matter, but EU has no love for US tech giants.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  > They almost certainly will get hit by regulations in EU. You are sidestepping the bigger point here. It's not clear this will have any effect on potential regulatory action.

chii 6y ago

> It's even less clear if this would affect any potential regulation. Regulation only happens when there's public pressure for such regulation. the argument by epic was that apple's 30% cut of revenue is too high. I don't agree because i don't see the %-take as the issue at all. Apple is framing the issue as far away from the real issue as possible - that of the device being locked down and you can only install via the app-store. By conceding to a 15% cut, they've steered the overton window of discussion to just the %-cut rate, rather than the actual issue of having a competing app-store (or at least side-loadable apps).

ogre_codes 6y ago
This makes zero sense. All I'm getting out of your comment is it's bad because it makes fewer people hate Apple. Again... I still see plenty of room for improvement by Apple. Just failing to see how "Pay more to Indies" is bad.
- chii 6y ago
  > Just failing to see how "Pay more to Indies" is bad. let me give you a simile to illustrate why paying more to indies now can be bad in the future. Imagine a charity trying to help feed the poor in a poor country, by donating large amounts of grain and food. Or try to help cloth them by donating free clothing. It's not "bad" to receive these donations, but the un-intended side effect is that they destroy the local industry, and prevent competition from forming. Thus, the country has a hard time building up their own industry. Of course, these charities aren't doing so with any ill intensions (which is where the simile deviates). Apple hides the true issue of device open-ness by lowering their %-cut they take, and indies celebrate. But they are blind to the future possibility of being locked out by apple by decree (see epic), or some other arbitrary rule they create.
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    I don't think I've ever seen such an inappropriate and wrong headed analogy in my life. > But they are blind to the future possibility of being locked out by apple by decree (see epic), or some other arbitrary rule they create. Indies aren't stupid. Their paychecks come from the uncertain whims of App Store review. Many of them have gotten rejections for various reasons and had to fight for them or revise their apps to keep them in the store. They are the first to back other Indies when things go south. The same people who are celebrating this rate change were among the most vocal critics when Apple pulled Hey out of the App Store. People aren't one-dimensional. It's possible to celebrate that one part of being in business with the App Store has gotten a hell of a lot better. Even while recognizing that other parts still have a sign on them that says "Here be Dragons".
    - shard972 6y ago
      > Indies aren't stupid He didn't say that, did his quote say that? No it didn't, please don't spread falsehoods on HN
- imtringued 6y ago
  This is an example of mob rule. Each individual in the mob has a different goal. If Apple makes concessions about something they least care about they can still gain half the mob on their side. The rest of the mob runs out of steam and gets ridiculed. It's the textbook way of dealing with a revolution.

username90 6y ago

> It's not clear if Apple would have ever been affected by government regulation here. They almost certainly will get hit by regulations in EU. USA is a different matter, but EU has no love for US tech giants.

ogre_codes 6y ago
> They almost certainly will get hit by regulations in EU. You are sidestepping the bigger point here. It's not clear this will have any effect on potential regulatory action.