3 ms·
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? Withou
by 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 agoNo 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 agoI 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 agoI think you lack a lot of historic perspective of how software was sold and distributed, and the cuts involved.
- sam0x17 4y agoAs 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.