3 ms·

Surprised it took this long. If they would have taken a more reasonable 5-10% of developer earnings they’d still collect billions upon billions in rent while no

Surprised it took this long. If they would have taken a more reasonable 5-10% of developer earnings they’d still collect billions upon billions in rent while not angering millions of developers and lawmakers writing this legislation. Or at least charge a tiered annual publication fee plus payment processing fees. But greed got the best of them. Their fees are akin to a shopping mall owner taking 30% of store revenues off the top, plus the usual monthly rent. Oh and by the way, there’s no other malls in town to move your business to.

aserdf 5y ago
dozens of congresspeople had to prepare their positions around reporting periods. this must have been the most opportune time :)
ribosometronome 5y ago
>Oh and by the way, there’s no other malls in town to move your business to. I mean, given that this bill is targeting two companies, I'm not sure your analogy holds. There clearly is another mall you could move to. You just wouldn't get the patrons at the other mall. And they charge the same and always have. And, your business doesn't even have to be located in the mall if you think the fees are unreasonable. You just don't get the benefit of all the people already shopping at the mall. I also generally want to have my cake and eat it, too, though.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  There are two malls, both are charging the same ridiculous fees and have created a situation where competition is not possible. The fix for that is legislative, not judicial. The legislature can decide that two malls with bad rates is a situation that needs fixing.
- panzagl 5y ago
  The analogy is saying there are malls in two different towns- there's only one mall in Androidville, and if I want to go to the one in Appletown I have to sell my house and all the stuff I bought at the Androidville mall and move there. Trying to argue its not a monopoly is engaging in the worst type of pointless semantic argument.
  - ribosometronome 5y ago
    >Trying to argue its not a monopoly is engaging in the worst type of pointless semantic argument. So, you think this bill is a waste of time, then? If Apple has a monopoly, no legislation is needed as we already have laws to address it. Epic's lawsuit failed specifically because they couldn't prove Apple was a monopoly. This legislation's existence is specifically predicated on that there could be issues that might be worth addressing outside of monopolies.
    - panzagl 5y ago
      No, I support the bill. I guess I should have typed 'monopoly that is not already covered adequately by current anti-trust regulation', but at some point you have to stop.
- jliptzin 5y ago
  Ok here is another analogy. Imagine Microsoft not only bundling internet explorer with windows in the early 2000s, they made it not physically possible to even install a different web browser on the computer. On top of that, Microsoft demands complete control over what’s on your website (in its website review policy), and takes 30% of all your revenue otherwise Microsoft customers are no longer able to visit your website. And sure you can buy a Macintosh instead, but they’re doing the exact same thing except with Safari. The current situation is not any different. People seem to be tricked into going along with this because “security.” Legislators would have had a field day with that.
- TipiKoivisto 5y ago
  You can also drive any road but you choose the highway because it's the fastest and you know where it's headed.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
sircastor 5y ago
If it were 20%, people would complain it wasn’t 10%. And If it were 10%, they’d complain it should be 5%. And there are plenty of other malls to move to, is just that your customers aren’t there. I really don’t get the complaint about Apple’s monopoly on iOS. To me, it’s like VW’s monopoly on Jettas.
- jliptzin 5y ago
  By your logic they should just charge 80 or 90%
  - sircastor 5y ago
    We’ll, that’s where market forces push back on you. If you abuse your position then people (developers willing to work on your platform) walk. There’s a threshold, and I don’t know what it is, but Apples platform and it’s customers are currently worth the 15/30%. I suspect that the number of developers at 80% would fall off a cliff. But that would be Apples decision to make. They set it at 30% and there are apparently plenty of developers who are willing to pay that rather than not develop for the platform.

aserdf 5y ago

dozens of congresspeople had to prepare their positions around reporting periods. this must have been the most opportune time :)

ribosometronome 5y ago

>Oh and by the way, there’s no other malls in town to move your business to. I mean, given that this bill is targeting two companies, I'm not sure your analogy holds. There clearly is another mall you could move to. You just wouldn't get the patrons at the other mall. And they charge the same and always have. And, your business doesn't even have to be located in the mall if you think the fees are unreasonable. You just don't get the benefit of all the people already shopping at the mall. I also generally want to have my cake and eat it, too, though.

vorpalhex 5y ago
There are two malls, both are charging the same ridiculous fees and have created a situation where competition is not possible. The fix for that is legislative, not judicial. The legislature can decide that two malls with bad rates is a situation that needs fixing.
panzagl 5y ago
The analogy is saying there are malls in two different towns- there's only one mall in Androidville, and if I want to go to the one in Appletown I have to sell my house and all the stuff I bought at the Androidville mall and move there. Trying to argue its not a monopoly is engaging in the worst type of pointless semantic argument.
- ribosometronome 5y ago
  >Trying to argue its not a monopoly is engaging in the worst type of pointless semantic argument. So, you think this bill is a waste of time, then? If Apple has a monopoly, no legislation is needed as we already have laws to address it. Epic's lawsuit failed specifically because they couldn't prove Apple was a monopoly. This legislation's existence is specifically predicated on that there could be issues that might be worth addressing outside of monopolies.
  - panzagl 5y ago
    No, I support the bill. I guess I should have typed 'monopoly that is not already covered adequately by current anti-trust regulation', but at some point you have to stop.
jliptzin 5y ago
Ok here is another analogy. Imagine Microsoft not only bundling internet explorer with windows in the early 2000s, they made it not physically possible to even install a different web browser on the computer. On top of that, Microsoft demands complete control over what’s on your website (in its website review policy), and takes 30% of all your revenue otherwise Microsoft customers are no longer able to visit your website. And sure you can buy a Macintosh instead, but they’re doing the exact same thing except with Safari. The current situation is not any different. People seem to be tricked into going along with this because “security.” Legislators would have had a field day with that.
TipiKoivisto 5y ago
You can also drive any road but you choose the highway because it's the fastest and you know where it's headed.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

sircastor 5y ago

If it were 20%, people would complain it wasn’t 10%. And If it were 10%, they’d complain it should be 5%. And there are plenty of other malls to move to, is just that your customers aren’t there. I really don’t get the complaint about Apple’s monopoly on iOS. To me, it’s like VW’s monopoly on Jettas.

jliptzin 5y ago
By your logic they should just charge 80 or 90%
- sircastor 5y ago
  We’ll, that’s where market forces push back on you. If you abuse your position then people (developers willing to work on your platform) walk. There’s a threshold, and I don’t know what it is, but Apples platform and it’s customers are currently worth the 15/30%. I suspect that the number of developers at 80% would fall off a cliff. But that would be Apples decision to make. They set it at 30% and there are apparently plenty of developers who are willing to pay that rather than not develop for the platform.