7 ms·

30% seems to imply that Apple somehow brings 1/3 of the value, simply by not allowing you to sell anywhere outside of the marketplace. It's extreme lockin.

Lamad123 5y ago
The only solution is to drop regulators hammer on their ass!
- imglorp 5y ago
  Or offer a competing platform.
  - cheriot 5y ago
    Want to launch a delivery service? Start by manufacturing a phone and getting a deal with AT&T.
  - dralley 5y ago
    Competing platforms (to Apple, Android Store, etc) don't exactly grow on trees. Especially when both have done everything in their power to make the lives of "competing platforms" as difficult as possible. It's hardly a winning VC pitch.
    - judge2020 5y ago
      The App Store was ruled not to be a separate product from iOS in Epic v Apple, so the iPhone really is the full package including iOS and App Store, and you must compete against it fully.
    - cbozeman 5y ago
      > It's hardly a winning VC pitch. Strong language is coming, skip my post if you're delicate. They're cowards. Plain and simple. They want a "safe" investment with a pre-defined path to an IPO in 2-10 years so they can cash out. Makes me fuckin' sick. We could have a third alternative to iOS and Android, but it won't be easy, it won't be fast, and it won't be cheap. These VC vultures don't have the goddamned balls to put significant amounts of money on the line with the prospect of absolutely no return ever, and that's why it'll take a miracle straight from Heaven for us to get a third option - because these people have no real grand vision and no damned backbone. No one on Planet Earth is going to convince me that the best the human species can do is Android and iOS.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        Forget the VC, even Microsoft, with a market cap close to Apple’s, and the net income to support it, are too cowardly to invest a few billion and 10 years into developing quality device.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    That would be my preference. Regulating a service fee like this can get messy. There are plenty of models where intermediaries take a cut of something and actually provide roughly equivalent value for it that you'd have to write a "This only applies to Apple and Android" app store law. Even then, 30% for a small low profile developer just starting out isn't entirely unreasonable when no one would easily find them or know who they are without App Store exposure, even with the noise in there. (I think devs like this get a slight discount already though) Of course household names like Uber are different, but it would also be difficult for Apple to have a policy like "The top 100 most recognizeable brand only pay 10% because we're not providing exposure value to them since people already know who they are." I think a regulation that requires the ability for competing app stores that can be installed without Apple or Android putting scary security warnings in user's eyeballs before installing them would be a cleaner move. Admittedly, even then I'm not sure where to draw the line-- should Xbox also then be required to allow competing game stores? Samsung smart watches? Fitbits? I don't have an easy answer to that.
    - Lamad123 5y ago
      Not the fee, but just allowing other payment services on the platform.
      - ineedasername 5y ago
        I think that would be good too, but breaking the walled garden would also be useful.
  - Lamad123 5y ago
    Do we deserve another messiah like Torvald or Stallman?
- plandis 5y ago
  Couldn’t you just not use Apple devices?
  - colinmhayes 5y ago
    I'm locked into apple products for many reasons. That means I can't subscribe to postmates or uber?
    - plandis 5y ago
      What is locked into mean in this context? If you’re an adult I don’t know how this would happen unless you chose to use Apple products which you could equally choose not to do. > That means I can't subscribe to postmates or uber? Those are available on Apple devices, don’t know why you think you can’t subscribe to them?

Lamad123 5y ago

The only solution is to drop regulators hammer on their ass!

imglorp 5y ago
Or offer a competing platform.
- cheriot 5y ago
  Want to launch a delivery service? Start by manufacturing a phone and getting a deal with AT&T.
- dralley 5y ago
  Competing platforms (to Apple, Android Store, etc) don't exactly grow on trees. Especially when both have done everything in their power to make the lives of "competing platforms" as difficult as possible. It's hardly a winning VC pitch.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    The App Store was ruled not to be a separate product from iOS in Epic v Apple, so the iPhone really is the full package including iOS and App Store, and you must compete against it fully.
  - cbozeman 5y ago
    > It's hardly a winning VC pitch. Strong language is coming, skip my post if you're delicate. They're cowards. Plain and simple. They want a "safe" investment with a pre-defined path to an IPO in 2-10 years so they can cash out. Makes me fuckin' sick. We could have a third alternative to iOS and Android, but it won't be easy, it won't be fast, and it won't be cheap. These VC vultures don't have the goddamned balls to put significant amounts of money on the line with the prospect of absolutely no return ever, and that's why it'll take a miracle straight from Heaven for us to get a third option - because these people have no real grand vision and no damned backbone. No one on Planet Earth is going to convince me that the best the human species can do is Android and iOS.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      Forget the VC, even Microsoft, with a market cap close to Apple’s, and the net income to support it, are too cowardly to invest a few billion and 10 years into developing quality device.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  That would be my preference. Regulating a service fee like this can get messy. There are plenty of models where intermediaries take a cut of something and actually provide roughly equivalent value for it that you'd have to write a "This only applies to Apple and Android" app store law. Even then, 30% for a small low profile developer just starting out isn't entirely unreasonable when no one would easily find them or know who they are without App Store exposure, even with the noise in there. (I think devs like this get a slight discount already though) Of course household names like Uber are different, but it would also be difficult for Apple to have a policy like "The top 100 most recognizeable brand only pay 10% because we're not providing exposure value to them since people already know who they are." I think a regulation that requires the ability for competing app stores that can be installed without Apple or Android putting scary security warnings in user's eyeballs before installing them would be a cleaner move. Admittedly, even then I'm not sure where to draw the line-- should Xbox also then be required to allow competing game stores? Samsung smart watches? Fitbits? I don't have an easy answer to that.
  - Lamad123 5y ago
    Not the fee, but just allowing other payment services on the platform.
    - ineedasername 5y ago
      I think that would be good too, but breaking the walled garden would also be useful.
- Lamad123 5y ago
  Do we deserve another messiah like Torvald or Stallman?
plandis 5y ago
Couldn’t you just not use Apple devices?
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  I'm locked into apple products for many reasons. That means I can't subscribe to postmates or uber?
  - plandis 5y ago
    What is locked into mean in this context? If you’re an adult I don’t know how this would happen unless you chose to use Apple products which you could equally choose not to do. > That means I can't subscribe to postmates or uber? Those are available on Apple devices, don’t know why you think you can’t subscribe to them?