3 ms·
The middle ground here is to allow multiple certified backend processors for larger and more trusted providers who appear have that infrastructure. What Apple
by cletus 5y ago
The middle ground here is to allow multiple certified backend processors for larger and more trusted providers who appear have that infrastructure.
What Apple should’ve been doing (IMHO) is by controlling the conversation and thus the outcome. It’s going to be bad if a court decides this.
Apple added a small developer program to reduce their cut. This is clearly just a PR move and shows it’s not about costs anymore (it would’ve been when this was a much smaller venture). It’s simply a profit center now.
This move was completely backwards. If Apple had been willing to offer larger customers a smaller cut, scaling down to say 10% (remember this includes credit card processing) then I believe they could’ve completely avoided the risks of this lawsuit.
Why? If someone sues you, you just kick them out of the discount program. Would Epic risk a lawsuit in this case? I have doubts.
- sircastor 5y agoI agree that the reduction is a PR move but I doubt any reduction for large shops would be received well. If the cut was 10% they’d want 5%. If the cut was 5% they want 3%. This debate is much less about expense than it is about principle.
- EricE 5y agoAfter what Apple did with Parlor I'm firmly in the camp that there needs to be a mechanism for alternative stores. And not Google's handling of alternative stores, but alternative stores that have an equal first party footing with Apple's store so they can't claim to support third party stores, but make the experience so shitty that they might as well not exist (Google's favorite trick).