3 ms·
That's what Apple's lawyers argue. The 30% is to pay for Xcode and the APIs. It's BS; Apple's providing an iPhone SDK willingly in order to make the iPhone a vi
by concinds 4y ago
That's what Apple's lawyers argue. The 30% is to pay for Xcode and the APIs. It's BS; Apple's providing an iPhone SDK willingly in order to make the iPhone a viable product.
The argument completely falls apart when you consider that Windows devs don't need to pay Microsoft a per-unit sale tax, beyond paying for Visual Studio Enterprise licenses (which are completely optional; there's many other IDEs). Microsoft charging devs for Windows APIs would be nonsensical.
Running the App Store is just a cost of doing business. Again, nobody forced Apple to. It benefits them tremendously, and benefits users as well. Why gouge devs?
- bee_rider 4y agoI don't buy the argument really that it is "to pay for" Xcode. It is just another revenue stream and they charge what they can get. Microsoft would charge for their product if people were willing to pay for it.
- concinds 4y agoSure. The Xcode argument is Apple's.
- randomdata 4y ago> It is just another revenue stream No different than the iPhone itself. Apple has already paid for the iPhone out of their coffers before you buy it. Your purchase is nothing more than another source of revenue that replenishes those coffers. It is just a colloquialism to say that the money you spent was to pay for the iPhone, as it is for Xcode in this case.