3 ms·
Remember: the whole reason we are having this discussion is because of Apples’ App Store commissions. This whole side-loading, “other App stores” thing is a dis
by mthoms 5y ago
Remember: the whole reason we are having this discussion is because of Apples’ App Store commissions. This whole side-loading, “other App stores” thing is a distraction from the real issue. The main problem would (mostly) go away if Apple wasn’t gouging developers and users.
I’m sympathetic to the “I love my walled garden” crowd. There are good points being made on both sides.
The funny thing is that I never hear the pro-Apple side suggesting (or being agreeable to) lowering App Store fees as an acceptable compromise. Or suggesting the Apple should do the right thing and properly support PWAs.
Apple is redirecting the argument towards privacy/security and we are giving them a pass on the core issue.
Can the HN crowd not agree (in principle) that a compromise is possible? Why does the pro-Apple side never seem to be willing to budge on anything? Allowing PWAs? Nope. Other browser engines? Nope. Lower fees? No way.
It’s infuriating.
Note: I use Apple products almost exclusively and love them. I just don’t think Apple is entitled to take 30% from me for every thing I do on the $1200 phone I already bought.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago> Can the HN crowd not agree (in principle) that a compromise is possible? I can envision a possible Nash equilibrium arising if, ceteris paribus, the fee was capped at the actual cost for running the App Store.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago> I just don’t think Apple is entitled to take 30% from me for every thing I do on the $1200 phone I already bought. Interestingly, 30% seems to be a common business threshold for acceptable profit margin in other industries, as well.
- mthoms 5y ago30% is their commission, not their profit margin. Apple deliberately hides their App Store profit margin from everyone, including shareholders. Doesn't it make you wonder why?
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y agoNot really, no, but an updated Sarbanes-Oxley that requires publicly traded companies to issue reporting at that level of granularity could be an interesting approach to economic reform.
- mthoms 5y agoGiven the outrage over Apples fees, don't you think it would be smart of them to release some numbers? At least then they can prove whether they are gouging customers or not. It would be the easiest way to settle the discussion. The truth is, if those numbers were known, the level of outrage would skyrocket. >an updated Sarbanes-Oxley that requires publicly traded companies to issue reporting at that level of granularity could be an interesting approach to economic reform. I generally agree, that would be interesting.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago> don't you think it would be smart of them to release some numbers I think it is smarter for them to operate in the same legal construct as everyone else: only admit what you are legally required to admit.
- mthoms 5y agoSure. But the debate is wether the fees would be considered reasonable or abusive. Although nobody has a problem with Apple making a healthy profit, there is a line at which the fees abusive (to most people). Apple understands that they cannot win the PR war in being open and honest with its customers and partners. Who knows though, maybe this was disclosed in court and/or to legislatures. It will be interesting to see if it comes out.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago> The truth is, if those numbers were known, the level of outrage would skyrocket. Or, since it is currently unknown, they could be operating at a loss. Not likely, I know. However, it does appear that the market competition of Apple’s small business fee reduction is driving down the fees at other ecosystems. One could infer that an overall market adjustment of the profit margin has already occurred.