4 ms·

> Sure it does. That is because competition is being prevented. No it doesn't. The 30/70 split for revenue share is a standard thing across industries. This in

> Sure it does. That is because competition is being prevented. No it doesn't. The 30/70 split for revenue share is a standard thing across industries. This includes other industries that aren't related to IT at all. > Except for epic! They charge 12%. So that is one specific example right there, that would reduce the fee below the current fee that Apple charges. Epic are trying to buy their way into the market. They are flush with cash from fortnite and unreal engine. Once they wedge themselves in it will raise their take I would wager. Every other player is at 30%. Nintendo have lowered it to 30% to be inline with others. Every brainlet brings up EPIC as a gotcha, ignoring the fact that EPIC are buying their way into the market. Which is very important thing to consider. > All I need is a singular example to prove my point. And we have that example. Epic's app store is being prevented, and they charge less money. A singular example where a company is buying it way into the market is not representative of the whole. There were banks that had interest rates of 16% back in the 1970s. That doesn't mean that the other banks should have offered that or that it is fair (those banks with high interests rates would always collapse). So no that isn't true. > Even if you are willing to ignore basic economic theory completely by saying it would have no effect on price, giving more money to developers indirectly helps consumers even if prices stay exactly the same. I am not ignoring basic economic theory. You are. If people buy a triple A game for £50 or £60 in the sufficient numbers then the prices won't be lowered. As for developers getting more money helps consumer. Absolute nonsense. The company will pocket the cash. You are living in fantasy land if you think anything else. > It helps them because more resources can be spent on the game to make it better. That is good for developers by not necessarily for consumers. And no it won't be spent on making the game better. > And to go even further, even if such benefits don't exist, it is still better to give the money to the people who made the game, who I think deserve that money more than Apple. Apple deserve the money because the devs agreed to put their software on their store and the stipulation (until now) is that Apple got 30% of the purchase.

stale2002 6y ago
> Epic are trying to buy their way into the market. So then you agree that what they offer is cheaper, and that this cheaper option is being prevent by Apple. Cool. Glad you agree! > ignoring the fact that EPIC are buying their way into the market. Which is very important thing to consider. Cheaper is cheaper. Thats all that I care about. I care about the end result of lower fees. > it is not representative of the whole. It is representative of Apple actions unfairly causing prices to be higher for this specific competitor is being kept out though! All I need is a single example, to show that Apple's actions have prevented a lower priced option from competing. > Once they wedge themselves in it will raise their take I would wager. Even so, that still means that prices are lower for this previous period of time! Thats still lower pricing, for a period of time. > The company will pocket the cash. You are living in fantasy land if you think anything else. Even if we agree that this is the case, I would still prefer this to Apple receiving any of the money. I would still rather the game companies receive all of the money, even if they pocketed it, because I want more money to go to game devs, and less to go to Apple. > Apple deserve the money because the devs agreed to put their software on their store Nope! Because their actions are illegally anti-competitive, and Apple has significant market power. Regardless if game devs agreed to the contract, the contract can still be illegally anti-competitive. And the law can be used against Apple on that. And even further more, I still want any and all actions to be taken, through whatever means possible, whether they be through the existing laws/court system, or that is through changing the law to retroactively target Apple and its employees, or if it through game devs working together to oppose apple, so as to make the game companies get more of the money, and for Apple to receive less of it, no matter how it happens.
- forest_dweller 6y ago
  > So then you agree that what they offer is cheaper, and that this cheaper option is being prevent by Apple. Cool. Glad you agree! Nope. Not at all. It isn't cheaper to the consumer. You keep on conflating revenue share between who owns the store and the dev, with the amount the customer pays at the checkout. > Cheaper is cheaper. Thats all that I care about. I care about the end result of lower fees. That won't be the end result as I have already explained. > It is representative of Apple actions unfairly causing prices to be higher for this specific competitor is being kept out though! No it isn't. Prices aren't higher. You keep on conflating the price to the end user with the revenue share. They are not the same thing. Even on revenue split everyone except for EPIC (which are buying their way in) are about the same in their respective stores. > All I need is a single example, to show that Apple's actions have prevented a lower priced option from competing. You are the not the arbiter of what is a valid example. I've already explained why in a previous comment why one example isn't representative of a whole, you chose to ignore it. That is on you and not I. > Nope! Because their actions are illegally anti-competitive, and Apple has significant market power. If* it is proven so in court than I may agree with you. IIRC the case is still ongoing. Your opinion isn't a fact. Google have significant market power, Steam has it, Microsoft has it (to a lesser extent). You keep on pretending that there is only one phone manufacturer on the market. All of this is nonsense. > Regardless if game devs agreed to the contract, the contract can still be illegally anti-competitive. And the law can be used against Apple on that. We will see if that is the case in court. > And even further more, I still want any and all actions to be taken, through whatever means possible, whether they be through the existing laws/court system, or that is through changing the law to retroactively target Apple and its employees, or if it through game devs working together to oppose apple, so as to make the game companies get more of the money, and for Apple to receive less of it, no matter how it happens. You want the market to be legislated because you don't like Apple. How foolish. If people argued from the fact that there should be able to sideload applications. Then I maybe inclined to agree with you. I suspect the conversation from here on out will be a waste of time because you keep on selectively ignoring caveats to your arguments.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > You keep on conflating the price to the end user with the revenue share. So then the game devs get more revenue share for the specific example of the Epic Game store. Great. Glad you agree. > everyone except for EPIC So epic gives a larger revenue share to game devs. Great. And Apple's actions are preventing this revenue share increase to game developers, for that game store, at the very least. > You are the not the arbiter of what is a valid example. What? Even you agree that epic is giving game developers a large revenue share. That is an example right there, that exists. > isn't representative of a whole Its representative of at least one example though! So that means that Apple is preventing at least 1 competing app store that would have a better revenue share, for game developers. That single example, is an example of harm done to game developers. > If* it is proven so in court than I may agree with you. So then your previous statement about who "deserves" the money could be invalid. > You keep on pretending that there is only one phone manufacturer Anti-competitive practices do not require a literal singular monopoly, for them to be illegal. Instead, all that is required is them having significant market power. Which Apple clearly has. > Your opinion isn't a fact. Ok, then your opinion, of Apple "deserving" anything is also not a fact, because the court case could prove that the actions are anti-competitive. You cannot at all say that Apple "deserves" this money, if the courts prove their actions to be anti-competitive. > You want the market to be legislated because you don't like Apple. No, it is because philosophically I want game devs to get more of the revenue split. Why? Because they developed the game. > If people argued from the fact that there should be able to sideload applications. What? Thats basically what this is about. Allowing other competing app stores on the platform.

stale2002 6y ago

> Epic are trying to buy their way into the market. So then you agree that what they offer is cheaper, and that this cheaper option is being prevent by Apple. Cool. Glad you agree! > ignoring the fact that EPIC are buying their way into the market. Which is very important thing to consider. Cheaper is cheaper. Thats all that I care about. I care about the end result of lower fees. > it is not representative of the whole. It is representative of Apple actions unfairly causing prices to be higher for this specific competitor is being kept out though! All I need is a single example, to show that Apple's actions have prevented a lower priced option from competing. > Once they wedge themselves in it will raise their take I would wager. Even so, that still means that prices are lower for this previous period of time! Thats still lower pricing, for a period of time. > The company will pocket the cash. You are living in fantasy land if you think anything else. Even if we agree that this is the case, I would still prefer this to Apple receiving any of the money. I would still rather the game companies receive all of the money, even if they pocketed it, because I want more money to go to game devs, and less to go to Apple. > Apple deserve the money because the devs agreed to put their software on their store Nope! Because their actions are illegally anti-competitive, and Apple has significant market power. Regardless if game devs agreed to the contract, the contract can still be illegally anti-competitive. And the law can be used against Apple on that. And even further more, I still want any and all actions to be taken, through whatever means possible, whether they be through the existing laws/court system, or that is through changing the law to retroactively target Apple and its employees, or if it through game devs working together to oppose apple, so as to make the game companies get more of the money, and for Apple to receive less of it, no matter how it happens.

forest_dweller 6y ago
> So then you agree that what they offer is cheaper, and that this cheaper option is being prevent by Apple. Cool. Glad you agree! Nope. Not at all. It isn't cheaper to the consumer. You keep on conflating revenue share between who owns the store and the dev, with the amount the customer pays at the checkout. > Cheaper is cheaper. Thats all that I care about. I care about the end result of lower fees. That won't be the end result as I have already explained. > It is representative of Apple actions unfairly causing prices to be higher for this specific competitor is being kept out though! No it isn't. Prices aren't higher. You keep on conflating the price to the end user with the revenue share. They are not the same thing. Even on revenue split everyone except for EPIC (which are buying their way in) are about the same in their respective stores. > All I need is a single example, to show that Apple's actions have prevented a lower priced option from competing. You are the not the arbiter of what is a valid example. I've already explained why in a previous comment why one example isn't representative of a whole, you chose to ignore it. That is on you and not I. > Nope! Because their actions are illegally anti-competitive, and Apple has significant market power. If* it is proven so in court than I may agree with you. IIRC the case is still ongoing. Your opinion isn't a fact. Google have significant market power, Steam has it, Microsoft has it (to a lesser extent). You keep on pretending that there is only one phone manufacturer on the market. All of this is nonsense. > Regardless if game devs agreed to the contract, the contract can still be illegally anti-competitive. And the law can be used against Apple on that. We will see if that is the case in court. > And even further more, I still want any and all actions to be taken, through whatever means possible, whether they be through the existing laws/court system, or that is through changing the law to retroactively target Apple and its employees, or if it through game devs working together to oppose apple, so as to make the game companies get more of the money, and for Apple to receive less of it, no matter how it happens. You want the market to be legislated because you don't like Apple. How foolish. If people argued from the fact that there should be able to sideload applications. Then I maybe inclined to agree with you. I suspect the conversation from here on out will be a waste of time because you keep on selectively ignoring caveats to your arguments.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > You keep on conflating the price to the end user with the revenue share. So then the game devs get more revenue share for the specific example of the Epic Game store. Great. Glad you agree. > everyone except for EPIC So epic gives a larger revenue share to game devs. Great. And Apple's actions are preventing this revenue share increase to game developers, for that game store, at the very least. > You are the not the arbiter of what is a valid example. What? Even you agree that epic is giving game developers a large revenue share. That is an example right there, that exists. > isn't representative of a whole Its representative of at least one example though! So that means that Apple is preventing at least 1 competing app store that would have a better revenue share, for game developers. That single example, is an example of harm done to game developers. > If* it is proven so in court than I may agree with you. So then your previous statement about who "deserves" the money could be invalid. > You keep on pretending that there is only one phone manufacturer Anti-competitive practices do not require a literal singular monopoly, for them to be illegal. Instead, all that is required is them having significant market power. Which Apple clearly has. > Your opinion isn't a fact. Ok, then your opinion, of Apple "deserving" anything is also not a fact, because the court case could prove that the actions are anti-competitive. You cannot at all say that Apple "deserves" this money, if the courts prove their actions to be anti-competitive. > You want the market to be legislated because you don't like Apple. No, it is because philosophically I want game devs to get more of the revenue split. Why? Because they developed the game. > If people argued from the fact that there should be able to sideload applications. What? Thats basically what this is about. Allowing other competing app stores on the platform.