6 ms·

Developers have no leverage because there are no alternatives. What can they do, take their apps and leave the store?

by calsy 5y ago

adflux 5y ago
Do you think the same about paying taxes?
- calsy 5y ago
  That reference makes no sense.
toss1 5y ago
Yes, exactly that - go on strike. And the position is just like employees - one leaves, and mgt says "so what"? Many leave and mgt is screwed. Maybe developers could even create a fund to help themselves survive a 'strike', and/or to help fund alternatives such as versions on Android. Enough leave en masse, and Apple will have no choice but to listen. Until then, Apple divides & conquers.
- calsy 5y ago
  So developers on mass will decide to effectively kill their mobile apps and revenue streams on principle alone and hope by setting up a fund that people can donate money to ‘help fight for developers’ it will subsidise their lost income. This fund will support entire businesses who’s primary interface to its customers are it’s mobile apps. Destroy your business to ‘stick it to Apple’. You seem to also be bizarrely comparing the app store and the apps hosted to the plight of workers and union action. Apps are in 99% of cases produced by business. Developers are but a single part of a business workforce, which could include HR, support, accounting, management and any number of other personal needed to keep a business running. Businesses don’t just go ‘on strike’.
  - toss1 5y ago
    Yes. I am making an analogy; of course apps are produced by businesses. And, no, it wouldn't be a literal strike, but there are many parallels. The first parallel is that if one developer quits Apple, Apple won't even notice, but if enough do take the same action en masse, they have real power. The second parallel is that if the the developers (not individual workers) want to seize this power, could form a consortium (analogous, but not equal to, a union). This consortium would pay into a collective fund via dues (not random donations). Yes, this costs part of the business' income, just as union dues cost part of workers' wages. When they collectively decide to wield their power and attempt to force changes upon Apple, they could then use the savings to bridge the chasm of no income while negotiations proceed. They could also use the fund to support alternative platform development so the consortium members would be better able to sustain any 'strike' by having alternate platform revenue streams. Apple is very much in the position of an exploitative employer. Apple and the employer both own key elements of the means of production, but are pretty much nowhere without the developers or the workers. Until developers band together to take some kind of collective action like this, Apple will continue to exploit them and extract every last possible fee. You might say "Apple will go too far and no one will develop for them", but at the point where they start losing developers, they just reduce the fees by a marginal amount. It really is a no-win game for developers until they work together. (And when they do, it'll also be a bit the reverse if they go too far.). EDIT: The alternative route is for most of them to suffer and hope one developer can spend the funds to take Apple to court and force changes that way, which is what is now happening, but that may also apply only country-by-country.
    - calsy 5y ago
      Again, apps are owned by businesses, not developers. Developers don't work for Apple, they work for their employer. Any industrial action by developers hurts their employer, not Apple. If what you suggested was an effective strategy it would have been taken already.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    > Businesses don’t just go ‘on strike’. That is exactly what businesses do, and workers bargaining for wages is also “business”. If you do not like the terms of a deal, you walk away. Like Costco walking away from American Express, for example. Another example is healthcare in the US. Payers (governments and managed care organizations), hospitals groups, doctor groups, and nurse unions have to band together to negotiate with each other. Another example is when cable/satellite TV operators drop channels from their service if they do not like the terms being offered by the content owner.
shadowgovt 5y ago
Release on Android only.
- sciprojguy 5y ago
  https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/01/05/app-store-earns-723-billion-in-2020-almost-double-google-play-revenues https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/01/05/app-store-earns-7...
- calsy 5y ago
  The idea of halving your potential customer reach sounds so appealing.
lotsofpulp 5y ago
Yes, and if that does not work, then the situation is that not only does each developer need Apple more than Apple needs each developer, but that developers in general need Apple more than Apple needs developers. Which would contradict the claim that developers are having to pay outsize fees compared to their relevance to Apple’s business.
- calsy 5y ago
  Yeah maybe in the land of make believe where developers kill their apps, their user base and their profit on principle.
- calsy 5y ago
  Why are you ignoring the whole purpose of this case? Apple has created an anti-competitive environment that allows them to dictate terms by controlling app distribution on its devices. If there were alternative ways to distribute apps on an iOS device, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    I’m not opining on the merits of the case, just on who needs who more. For the record, I think transparency (in general) is always good, and so any terms and conditions that restrict price transparency are inherently bad for society.
    - calsy 5y ago
      The anti-competitive environment setup by Apple means that the developers are beholden to Apple. That is the whole point of the case.

Developers have no leverage because there are no alternatives. What can they do, take their apps and leave the store?

by calsy 5y ago

Developers have no leverage because there are no alternatives. What can they do, take their apps and leave the store?

adflux 5y ago

Do you think the same about paying taxes?

calsy 5y ago
That reference makes no sense.

toss1 5y ago

Yes, exactly that - go on strike. And the position is just like employees - one leaves, and mgt says "so what"? Many leave and mgt is screwed. Maybe developers could even create a fund to help themselves survive a 'strike', and/or to help fund alternatives such as versions on Android. Enough leave en masse, and Apple will have no choice but to listen. Until then, Apple divides & conquers.

calsy 5y ago
So developers on mass will decide to effectively kill their mobile apps and revenue streams on principle alone and hope by setting up a fund that people can donate money to ‘help fight for developers’ it will subsidise their lost income. This fund will support entire businesses who’s primary interface to its customers are it’s mobile apps. Destroy your business to ‘stick it to Apple’. You seem to also be bizarrely comparing the app store and the apps hosted to the plight of workers and union action. Apps are in 99% of cases produced by business. Developers are but a single part of a business workforce, which could include HR, support, accounting, management and any number of other personal needed to keep a business running. Businesses don’t just go ‘on strike’.
- toss1 5y ago
  Yes. I am making an analogy; of course apps are produced by businesses. And, no, it wouldn't be a literal strike, but there are many parallels. The first parallel is that if one developer quits Apple, Apple won't even notice, but if enough do take the same action en masse, they have real power. The second parallel is that if the the developers (not individual workers) want to seize this power, could form a consortium (analogous, but not equal to, a union). This consortium would pay into a collective fund via dues (not random donations). Yes, this costs part of the business' income, just as union dues cost part of workers' wages. When they collectively decide to wield their power and attempt to force changes upon Apple, they could then use the savings to bridge the chasm of no income while negotiations proceed. They could also use the fund to support alternative platform development so the consortium members would be better able to sustain any 'strike' by having alternate platform revenue streams. Apple is very much in the position of an exploitative employer. Apple and the employer both own key elements of the means of production, but are pretty much nowhere without the developers or the workers. Until developers band together to take some kind of collective action like this, Apple will continue to exploit them and extract every last possible fee. You might say "Apple will go too far and no one will develop for them", but at the point where they start losing developers, they just reduce the fees by a marginal amount. It really is a no-win game for developers until they work together. (And when they do, it'll also be a bit the reverse if they go too far.). EDIT: The alternative route is for most of them to suffer and hope one developer can spend the funds to take Apple to court and force changes that way, which is what is now happening, but that may also apply only country-by-country.
  - calsy 5y ago
    Again, apps are owned by businesses, not developers. Developers don't work for Apple, they work for their employer. Any industrial action by developers hurts their employer, not Apple. If what you suggested was an effective strategy it would have been taken already.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  > Businesses don’t just go ‘on strike’. That is exactly what businesses do, and workers bargaining for wages is also “business”. If you do not like the terms of a deal, you walk away. Like Costco walking away from American Express, for example. Another example is healthcare in the US. Payers (governments and managed care organizations), hospitals groups, doctor groups, and nurse unions have to band together to negotiate with each other. Another example is when cable/satellite TV operators drop channels from their service if they do not like the terms being offered by the content owner.

shadowgovt 5y ago

Release on Android only.

sciprojguy 5y ago
https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/01/05/app-store-earns-723-billion-in-2020-almost-double-google-play-revenues https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/01/05/app-store-earns-7...
calsy 5y ago
The idea of halving your potential customer reach sounds so appealing.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

Yes, and if that does not work, then the situation is that not only does each developer need Apple more than Apple needs each developer, but that developers in general need Apple more than Apple needs developers. Which would contradict the claim that developers are having to pay outsize fees compared to their relevance to Apple’s business.

calsy 5y ago
Yeah maybe in the land of make believe where developers kill their apps, their user base and their profit on principle.
calsy 5y ago
Why are you ignoring the whole purpose of this case? Apple has created an anti-competitive environment that allows them to dictate terms by controlling app distribution on its devices. If there were alternative ways to distribute apps on an iOS device, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  I’m not opining on the merits of the case, just on who needs who more. For the record, I think transparency (in general) is always good, and so any terms and conditions that restrict price transparency are inherently bad for society.
  - calsy 5y ago
    The anti-competitive environment setup by Apple means that the developers are beholden to Apple. That is the whole point of the case.