6 ms·

How is apple entitled to 30 percent of what any other business makes? Apple developed a platform and says to developers "pay is 30 percent to use it" sounds fa

How is apple entitled to 30 percent of what any other business makes? Apple developed a platform and says to developers "pay is 30 percent to use it" sounds fair to me. Huge streaming service comes along "I want to use you platform but not pay the fee". How is that remotely fair? No one is making Spotify use it. What right has any one or any company got to demand special treatment. Many other app developers are fine with the fee. If they weren't, they wouldnt use it. It's a choice. Also "abusing market position" what does that mean. It's purposely broad, it can mean anything.

f6v 5y ago
People pretend that for-profit entities are supposed to build platform as a public good. When in fact corporations are incentivized by the market to be a monopoly.
- simion314 5y ago
  You should not be allowed to build a platform and then compete unfair with apps for that platform.
  - f6v 5y ago
    Why build a platform then?
    - simion314 5y ago
      Don't build one, build good products that users want and not forced to use. But this is from the users point of view. From a capitalistic point of view I agree you need to screw the users and environment as much as legally possible.
      - bennysomething 5y ago
        How do apple "screw" users. Anyone buying Apple products is making choice: keep my money or spend on a thing I find beneficial. I think anyone would be forgiven for calling this a first world problem. Getting screwed usually means having money stolen. Here it just means demanding someone else's services cheaper.
        simion314 5y ago
        >How do apple "screw" users. Apple forbids you to put a link or a text message in your app to inform the users that they could pay for a subscription or product on a webpage. So how can we spin "forcing developers not to inform users so users pay more and Apple makes more money" in such a way where this is not "screwing users". If I was a fanboy I would say that "most iOS users are poor old grandmas and to much information and options is too much for them AND for sure the grandma hit I agree on the TOS where Apple says that they force users to hide useful information"
- bennysomething 5y ago
  Apple aren't even close to a monopoly. If the app store wasn't useful to the public the public wouldn't use it.
  - f6v 5y ago
    > Apple aren't even close to a monopoly. Let's see if the EU says "No, it is" and shakes apple for some money.
    - bennysomething 5y ago
      So if the EU say it's s monopoly it is? Given there are multiple places to stream music I find it hard to think of it as a monopoly.
      - f6v 5y ago
        I’m not an economist so my naïve reasoning is: 1. Is Apple using their platform to promote their services? Yes. 2. Is Apple making it harder for competition to compete on their platform? Yes. Someone mentioned Apple Music is not a subject to 15-30% fees while Spotify is. 3. Are companies building platforms to do exactly that? Also yes. There’s no point in building platform and not using the benefits of controlling it. So where does that leave us? Apple is doing exactly as you’d expect it to do. Government will try to restrict that, that’s what it’s for. What I don’t get is why people are so emotional about it. It’s all out in the open, why pretend Apple isn’t using their platform ownership to undermine completion? Why get upset that they do? People perceive this situation as black and white, nothing in between.
simion314 5y ago
Think about the regular people or the artists, not the giant. Say we are a group of musicians and we hate the fact that a big chunk of our money is going to giants including ones from authoritarian countries... so we the musicians think . "let's make our own steaming platform, all the profit goes to the musicians"... what is the problem then? Did you found it ? If mobile devices, consoles and computers are locked then I will not be able to realize my dream of removing the parasites from the industry, I would be happy to pay for the SDK, to pay for a genous to review the app, to pay for the bandwith of the updates, but I will not be happy to let a parasite to suck 30% of my sales(NOT even profit)
- bennysomething 5y ago
  No one is making anyone use apple platforms. They are free to choose from others.
  - simion314 5y ago
    Sure . the free market with only 2 players that were caught in the past colluding to do illegal shit https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-tech-jobs-settlement-20150903-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-tech-jo... , they would never collude to non compete on the Store tax or offering "transfer" services .
    - bennysomething 5y ago
      Again, no one is making Spotify use apple. They don't have too. They choose to because they ll make money. They just want to make more money by going to court and demanding a cheaper service. Why should apple have to, just because they happen to be in the same business?
      - simion314 5y ago
        Nobody forces Apple to sell in EU, they follow China rules so they should follow EU rules too.
FridayoLeary 5y ago
>Also "abusing market position" what does that mean. It's purposely broad, it can mean anything. There's a reason for that. Not everything can be defined clearly. If every law gets defined down to a t, we will be in a very sorry state indeed. (off topic, but that seems to be happening more and more, with every lawsuit that goes to court and gets somewhat arbitrarily -and permanantly- defined)

f6v 5y ago

People pretend that for-profit entities are supposed to build platform as a public good. When in fact corporations are incentivized by the market to be a monopoly.

simion314 5y ago
You should not be allowed to build a platform and then compete unfair with apps for that platform.
- f6v 5y ago
  Why build a platform then?
  - simion314 5y ago
    Don't build one, build good products that users want and not forced to use. But this is from the users point of view. From a capitalistic point of view I agree you need to screw the users and environment as much as legally possible.
    - bennysomething 5y ago
      How do apple "screw" users. Anyone buying Apple products is making choice: keep my money or spend on a thing I find beneficial. I think anyone would be forgiven for calling this a first world problem. Getting screwed usually means having money stolen. Here it just means demanding someone else's services cheaper.
      - simion314 5y ago
        >How do apple "screw" users. Apple forbids you to put a link or a text message in your app to inform the users that they could pay for a subscription or product on a webpage. So how can we spin "forcing developers not to inform users so users pay more and Apple makes more money" in such a way where this is not "screwing users". If I was a fanboy I would say that "most iOS users are poor old grandmas and to much information and options is too much for them AND for sure the grandma hit I agree on the TOS where Apple says that they force users to hide useful information"
bennysomething 5y ago
Apple aren't even close to a monopoly. If the app store wasn't useful to the public the public wouldn't use it.
- f6v 5y ago
  > Apple aren't even close to a monopoly. Let's see if the EU says "No, it is" and shakes apple for some money.
  - bennysomething 5y ago
    So if the EU say it's s monopoly it is? Given there are multiple places to stream music I find it hard to think of it as a monopoly.
    - f6v 5y ago
      I’m not an economist so my naïve reasoning is: 1. Is Apple using their platform to promote their services? Yes. 2. Is Apple making it harder for competition to compete on their platform? Yes. Someone mentioned Apple Music is not a subject to 15-30% fees while Spotify is. 3. Are companies building platforms to do exactly that? Also yes. There’s no point in building platform and not using the benefits of controlling it. So where does that leave us? Apple is doing exactly as you’d expect it to do. Government will try to restrict that, that’s what it’s for. What I don’t get is why people are so emotional about it. It’s all out in the open, why pretend Apple isn’t using their platform ownership to undermine completion? Why get upset that they do? People perceive this situation as black and white, nothing in between.

simion314 5y ago

Think about the regular people or the artists, not the giant. Say we are a group of musicians and we hate the fact that a big chunk of our money is going to giants including ones from authoritarian countries... so we the musicians think . "let's make our own steaming platform, all the profit goes to the musicians"... what is the problem then? Did you found it ? If mobile devices, consoles and computers are locked then I will not be able to realize my dream of removing the parasites from the industry, I would be happy to pay for the SDK, to pay for a genous to review the app, to pay for the bandwith of the updates, but I will not be happy to let a parasite to suck 30% of my sales(NOT even profit)

bennysomething 5y ago
No one is making anyone use apple platforms. They are free to choose from others.
- simion314 5y ago
  Sure . the free market with only 2 players that were caught in the past colluding to do illegal shit https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-tech-jobs-settlement-20150903-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-tech-jo... , they would never collude to non compete on the Store tax or offering "transfer" services .
  - bennysomething 5y ago
    Again, no one is making Spotify use apple. They don't have too. They choose to because they ll make money. They just want to make more money by going to court and demanding a cheaper service. Why should apple have to, just because they happen to be in the same business?
    - simion314 5y ago
      Nobody forces Apple to sell in EU, they follow China rules so they should follow EU rules too.

FridayoLeary 5y ago

>Also "abusing market position" what does that mean. It's purposely broad, it can mean anything. There's a reason for that. Not everything can be defined clearly. If every law gets defined down to a t, we will be in a very sorry state indeed. (off topic, but that seems to be happening more and more, with every lawsuit that goes to court and gets somewhat arbitrarily -and permanantly- defined)