4 ms·

Sure they do. They provide the devices that enable this TSMC should get the lion's share of the cut since they make all the chips to allow every part of the op

by 8note 5y ago

Sure they do. They provide the devices that enable this TSMC should get the lion's share of the cut since they make all the chips to allow every part of the operation

aparsons 5y ago
I didn’t realize they gave the devices away for free
Cu3PO42 5y ago
How about ASML who make the EUV lithography machines that TSMC uses? How about those companies making parts that ASML uses, such as Zeiss and Trumpf? I'm not actually sure what exactly your point is, so I'm not arguing for or against it. I just thought the chain could be extended some.
echelon 5y ago
AT&T and Verizon should get a 30% cut. The electric company should get a 50% cut. UPS, FedEx, and DHL should get a 72% cut. ... Oh my god, this is fucking stupid. In this entire chain, the only innovation and service being provided is by the app creator. All the dues to the other companies are already paid. The fucking OS vendor has nothing to do with anything other than enforcing their draconian bloodsucking rules.
- nexuist 5y ago
  And they do! Phone contracts, electric bills, shipping fees. Everyone gets their cut when they deliver a service to the user. After I get Twitter from the App Store, the service is delivered. The App Store isn't doing anything other than providing free OTA updates which they could charge for if they want (not my fault they don't). Why should Twitter continue paying the App Store once the service is delivered? Would anyone pay FedEx every time they use an appliance shipped by FedEx, just because FedEx brought it to their house years ago? This is the same ask the App Store has whenever a developer wants to collect payment from users. And you can't even collect the payments yourself, even if you wanted to. And you can't tell users why payments are more expensive (not even through email or any web pages reachable through the app - Hey got kicked out for this). AND AND - this is truly outrageous mafia-like behavior - you can't sell your services for less outside of the App Store. That's right, if your monthly photo backup service is $9.99/mo on the App Store, you have to sell it for $9.99 on your web site, even if you want to sell it for $6.99/mo. And if you do sell it for $6.99 in your app, you have to accept the fact that 30% of your profits are just pissed away even before taxes. An entire subset of online businesses aren't even financially possible because the 30% Apple cut and forced pricing model would eat up profit margins that would be healthy otherwise. I would happily sell a service for $9.99 in app and $6.99 on web, and give the user a choice, but of course I can't, because the App Store is a racket.
  - darren_ 5y ago
    > AND AND - this is truly outrageous mafia-like behavior - you can't sell your services for less outside of the App Store. That's right, if your monthly photo backup service is $9.99/mo on the App Store, you have to sell it for $9.99 on your web site, even if you want to sell it for $6.99/mo. And if you do sell it for $6.99 in your app, you have to accept the fact that 30% of your profits are just pissed away even before taxes. >An entire subset of online businesses aren't even financially possible because the 30% Apple cut and forced pricing model would eat up profit margins that would be healthy otherwise. I would happily sell a service for $9.99 in app and $6.99 on web, and give the user a choice, but of course I can't, because the App Store is a racket. Er, I do remember this being the case a long while ago but it seems to have been fixed in 2011? https://appleinsider.com/articles/11/06/09/apple_backs_down_on_in_app_purchasing_rules_allows_lower_prices_for_out_of_app_purchases https://appleinsider.com/articles/11/06/09/apple_backs_down_... "Apple this week revised its rules for in-app subscriptions, and no longer requires that subscriptions purchased outside of an iOS application have the same price or less." And I don't see anything in the current guidelines that would contradict that - did it come back sometime in the last ten years? (Definitely not a fan of the other guidelines like not being allowed to even hint to your users that they can subscribe on your website or disclose the Apple cut)
    - nexuist 5y ago
      Oh damn, you might be right and I might be getting this mixed up with some press coverage on Hey. I vaguely remember them mentioning this rule as a reason why their app got taken down; because their site made clear that the IAP option would be more expensive than paying online.

by 8note 5y ago

Sure they do. They provide the devices that enable this TSMC should get the lion's share of the cut since they make all the chips to allow every part of the operation

aparsons 5y ago

I didn’t realize they gave the devices away for free

Cu3PO42 5y ago

How about ASML who make the EUV lithography machines that TSMC uses? How about those companies making parts that ASML uses, such as Zeiss and Trumpf? I'm not actually sure what exactly your point is, so I'm not arguing for or against it. I just thought the chain could be extended some.

echelon 5y ago

AT&T and Verizon should get a 30% cut. The electric company should get a 50% cut. UPS, FedEx, and DHL should get a 72% cut. ... Oh my god, this is fucking stupid. In this entire chain, the only innovation and service being provided is by the app creator. All the dues to the other companies are already paid. The fucking OS vendor has nothing to do with anything other than enforcing their draconian bloodsucking rules.

nexuist 5y ago
And they do! Phone contracts, electric bills, shipping fees. Everyone gets their cut when they deliver a service to the user. After I get Twitter from the App Store, the service is delivered. The App Store isn't doing anything other than providing free OTA updates which they could charge for if they want (not my fault they don't). Why should Twitter continue paying the App Store once the service is delivered? Would anyone pay FedEx every time they use an appliance shipped by FedEx, just because FedEx brought it to their house years ago? This is the same ask the App Store has whenever a developer wants to collect payment from users. And you can't even collect the payments yourself, even if you wanted to. And you can't tell users why payments are more expensive (not even through email or any web pages reachable through the app - Hey got kicked out for this). AND AND - this is truly outrageous mafia-like behavior - you can't sell your services for less outside of the App Store. That's right, if your monthly photo backup service is $9.99/mo on the App Store, you have to sell it for $9.99 on your web site, even if you want to sell it for $6.99/mo. And if you do sell it for $6.99 in your app, you have to accept the fact that 30% of your profits are just pissed away even before taxes. An entire subset of online businesses aren't even financially possible because the 30% Apple cut and forced pricing model would eat up profit margins that would be healthy otherwise. I would happily sell a service for $9.99 in app and $6.99 on web, and give the user a choice, but of course I can't, because the App Store is a racket.
- darren_ 5y ago
  > AND AND - this is truly outrageous mafia-like behavior - you can't sell your services for less outside of the App Store. That's right, if your monthly photo backup service is $9.99/mo on the App Store, you have to sell it for $9.99 on your web site, even if you want to sell it for $6.99/mo. And if you do sell it for $6.99 in your app, you have to accept the fact that 30% of your profits are just pissed away even before taxes. >An entire subset of online businesses aren't even financially possible because the 30% Apple cut and forced pricing model would eat up profit margins that would be healthy otherwise. I would happily sell a service for $9.99 in app and $6.99 on web, and give the user a choice, but of course I can't, because the App Store is a racket. Er, I do remember this being the case a long while ago but it seems to have been fixed in 2011? https://appleinsider.com/articles/11/06/09/apple_backs_down_on_in_app_purchasing_rules_allows_lower_prices_for_out_of_app_purchases https://appleinsider.com/articles/11/06/09/apple_backs_down_... "Apple this week revised its rules for in-app subscriptions, and no longer requires that subscriptions purchased outside of an iOS application have the same price or less." And I don't see anything in the current guidelines that would contradict that - did it come back sometime in the last ten years? (Definitely not a fan of the other guidelines like not being allowed to even hint to your users that they can subscribe on your website or disclose the Apple cut)
  - nexuist 5y ago
    Oh damn, you might be right and I might be getting this mixed up with some press coverage on Hey. I vaguely remember them mentioning this rule as a reason why their app got taken down; because their site made clear that the IAP option would be more expensive than paying online.