4 ms·

I'm saying they have over-extended to the point where they are begging for regulation. Much wiser to not over-extend to the point where regulators are pissed of

I'm saying they have over-extended to the point where they are begging for regulation. Much wiser to not over-extend to the point where regulators are pissed off. Now they could lose it all instead of having a more reasonable rate. At this point they should self-regulate, like any misbehaving child who realizes they are in the wrong should before they get punished. It's not a risk and it's not going to hurt their stock if it's self-imposed. People always praise anything that comes from within with Apple so it would actually be a pretty savvy play, given what's on the horizon.

dmix 4y ago
So what should they have done? Conceded to a group of Epic type companies on a VIP-type basis so regulators don't eat their lucrative subscription model? Without bigco lobbying the gov I doubt there'd be as much regulatory pressure. So the best bet might have been to work with the major companies hiring lobbyists and getting PR. Rumour is Apple is opening up side-loading so the "walled garden" thing might be neutered. Not sure what other regulatory risks they have.
- sam0x17 4y ago
  No no they should have never had it above 10% to begin with. The case with Epic never should have needed to happen. They've been over-extended all along.
  - ElevenLathe 4y ago
    I agree that the cut is too big, but its entirely reasonable to think that setting and keeping the cut at 30% is the rational profit-maximizing course even in a long run that includes new laws throttling them to some lower number.
  - azinman2 4y ago
    I think you lack a lot of historic perspective of how software was sold and distributed, and the cuts involved.
    - sam0x17 4y ago
      As a solo developer at the time, I was astounded by the 30% cut when it first came out in the early 2000s and I'm still just as astounded now.
taylodl 4y ago
Have you ever sold anything in a retail channel such as Walmart or Target? Do you know how much they charge to put your product on their shelves? Welcome to the world of retail! If Apple tried to make it so that you couldn't make an app and offer it both on Android and Apple, i.e. it had to be an Apple exclusive, then I'd say you have a point. The regulators aren't concerned with the 30%. Their concern is with the fact you can't go to another store and shop for a better price. THAT is what they're trying to fix. Watch out though - deregulation and market competition all-too-often leads to higher prices. People always act surprised by this.

dmix 4y ago

So what should they have done? Conceded to a group of Epic type companies on a VIP-type basis so regulators don't eat their lucrative subscription model? Without bigco lobbying the gov I doubt there'd be as much regulatory pressure. So the best bet might have been to work with the major companies hiring lobbyists and getting PR. Rumour is Apple is opening up side-loading so the "walled garden" thing might be neutered. Not sure what other regulatory risks they have.

sam0x17 4y ago
No no they should have never had it above 10% to begin with. The case with Epic never should have needed to happen. They've been over-extended all along.
- ElevenLathe 4y ago
  I agree that the cut is too big, but its entirely reasonable to think that setting and keeping the cut at 30% is the rational profit-maximizing course even in a long run that includes new laws throttling them to some lower number.
- azinman2 4y ago
  I think you lack a lot of historic perspective of how software was sold and distributed, and the cuts involved.
  - sam0x17 4y ago
    As a solo developer at the time, I was astounded by the 30% cut when it first came out in the early 2000s and I'm still just as astounded now.

taylodl 4y ago

Have you ever sold anything in a retail channel such as Walmart or Target? Do you know how much they charge to put your product on their shelves? Welcome to the world of retail! If Apple tried to make it so that you couldn't make an app and offer it both on Android and Apple, i.e. it had to be an Apple exclusive, then I'd say you have a point. The regulators aren't concerned with the 30%. Their concern is with the fact you can't go to another store and shop for a better price. THAT is what they're trying to fix. Watch out though - deregulation and market competition all-too-often leads to higher prices. People always act surprised by this.