3 ms·
Of course it does. Phone manufacturers exploit child labor in third world countries to make their phones (and that's not okay, for the record). But if I rob the
by Sebb767 6y ago
Of course it does. Phone manufacturers exploit child labor in third world countries to make their phones (and that's not okay, for the record). But if I rob their shipments and steal their phones, I'm wronging them anyway. Being a criminal does not exclude you from being a victim.
And, as said in a sister comment, I'm fully on your side of 30% being to much. But that does not mean that I think they should get nothing.
- pydry 6y ago>if I rob their shipments and steal their phones This is supposed to be analogous to publishing an app and asking for donations? >Being a criminal does not exclude you from being a victim. This is not a criminal dispute nor analagous to a criminal dispute in any way, shape or form.
- Sebb767 6y agoYou said it's a contradiction that I say that a) Google exploits developers (in a way) and b) developers [can try to] to exploit Google. I made an over-the-top example to show that these two are not mutually exclusive.
- pydry 6y agoI think by using an irrelevant example you inadvertently demonstrated the exact opposite - that they are. If two parties "economically exploit each other equivalently", there is no exploitation.
- Sebb767 6y agoThese are not the same people, however. There are the developers which give in to the rules and process their payment via the app store. These are somewhat exploited by having 30% of their profits taken. Then there are those which circumvent the store payments by using external integrations and therefore exploit Google by denying them their fair share[0]. These groups are distinct. [0] Whereas the "fair share" is not necessarily 30%, but >0%.