4 ms·

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd say some of this looks awfully convenient, and maybe even well timed, for Apple. "See, the 30% we charge you isn't so bad a

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd say some of this looks awfully convenient, and maybe even well timed, for Apple. "See, the 30% we charge you isn't so bad after all, is it?"

cheald 15y ago
I sincerely don't think that it's a stunt by Apple, and to claim that it is would require a fairly myopic view of the state of software patents today. That said, the "conspiracy theory" falls apart because this is ultimately self-serving by Apple; in-app purchases translate to money for them, and if developers are too scared to include content purchasing options in their apps (since in-app is the only permitted method, natch), it means a direct hit to Apple's bottom line. It isn't altruistic towards developers, so it's silly to see it as a justification of Apple's 30% cut.
- juiceandjuice 15y ago
  Apple Exec: People are pissed about the 30% in-app thing, what should we do? Other Apple Exec: Add value to it. Apple Exec: How do we do that? Other Apple Exec: Show people that if they didn't use our methods and lose their 30%, they'll get sued for licensing fees for an in-app purchasing patent and probably lose it anyways. Apple Exec: "Hey Lodsys, we're already paying you money, but could you do us a favor real quick..." I'm not claiming this is what happened, because I sincerely don't think it is what went down. I'm just illustrating a theoretical and likely fictional path.
  - evan_ 15y ago
    Why bring it up then?
  - cheald 15y ago
    But...the problem is that developers are getting sued for the thing they were pissed about before, so now they're just double-pissed. It's not like they're getting sued for using some alternative that saves them 30% on purchases.
lallysingh 15y ago
For the original application purchase, 30% wasn't ever bad. Back in the heyday of PalmOS apps, I was paying 50 on the big ones. Per-subscription costs, however, are a different story.
- juiceandjuice 15y ago
  This issue is only about in-app purchases, not app purchases, and that's where my comment was targeted (i.e. Amazon's kindle app)
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
user-id 15y ago
30% is a lot more than the 0.575% Lodsys is asking for licensing. http://goo.gl/Q1gnn+ http://goo.gl/Q1gnn+
- Luyt 15y ago
  Unshortened URL: http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/q-what-are-you-charging.html http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/q-what-are-you-charging... 0.5% doesn't seem much, but if they succeed in this, many more other patent trolls will come out of the woodwork and all will demand a small percentages. Lots of these quickly add up, with 100 patent trolls parasiting on your App, you lose already half the profit.

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd say some of this looks awfully convenient, and maybe even well timed, for Apple. "See, the 30% we charge you isn't so bad after all, is it?"

cheald 15y ago

I sincerely don't think that it's a stunt by Apple, and to claim that it is would require a fairly myopic view of the state of software patents today. That said, the "conspiracy theory" falls apart because this is ultimately self-serving by Apple; in-app purchases translate to money for them, and if developers are too scared to include content purchasing options in their apps (since in-app is the only permitted method, natch), it means a direct hit to Apple's bottom line. It isn't altruistic towards developers, so it's silly to see it as a justification of Apple's 30% cut.

juiceandjuice 15y ago
Apple Exec: People are pissed about the 30% in-app thing, what should we do? Other Apple Exec: Add value to it. Apple Exec: How do we do that? Other Apple Exec: Show people that if they didn't use our methods and lose their 30%, they'll get sued for licensing fees for an in-app purchasing patent and probably lose it anyways. Apple Exec: "Hey Lodsys, we're already paying you money, but could you do us a favor real quick..." I'm not claiming this is what happened, because I sincerely don't think it is what went down. I'm just illustrating a theoretical and likely fictional path.
- evan_ 15y ago
  Why bring it up then?
- cheald 15y ago
  But...the problem is that developers are getting sued for the thing they were pissed about before, so now they're just double-pissed. It's not like they're getting sued for using some alternative that saves them 30% on purchases.

lallysingh 15y ago

For the original application purchase, 30% wasn't ever bad. Back in the heyday of PalmOS apps, I was paying 50 on the big ones. Per-subscription costs, however, are a different story.

juiceandjuice 15y ago
This issue is only about in-app purchases, not app purchases, and that's where my comment was targeted (i.e. Amazon's kindle app)

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

user-id 15y ago

30% is a lot more than the 0.575% Lodsys is asking for licensing. http://goo.gl/Q1gnn+ http://goo.gl/Q1gnn+

Luyt 15y ago
Unshortened URL: http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/q-what-are-you-charging.html http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/q-what-are-you-charging... 0.5% doesn't seem much, but if they succeed in this, many more other patent trolls will come out of the woodwork and all will demand a small percentages. Lots of these quickly add up, with 100 patent trolls parasiting on your App, you lose already half the profit.