4 ms·

The vast majority of consumers prefer and benefit from aspects of this control. Despite all the horror stories (both fp and fn) they keep the App Store much sa

by lokar 3y ago

The vast majority of consumers prefer and benefit from aspects of this control. Despite all the horror stories (both fp and fn) they keep the App Store much safer then mass direct installs would be.

fsflover 3y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39137917 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39137917
johnnyanmac 3y ago
Okay, and they can keep that control while some minority choose to host elsewhere. Androids Play store (pending some anti-trust issues, ironically) still has the majority of apps there and it'd be doubtful that any android alternative store can steal that mindshare away.
- judge2020 3y ago
  > Androids Play store (pending some anti-trust issues, ironically) still has the majority of apps there and it'd be doubtful that any android alternative store can steal that mindshare away. If so, why did Google feel the need to bribe developers to keep their apps on the Play store? https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/19/22632818/google-project-hug-game-developers-play-store-millions-epic-lawsuit-complaint https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/19/22632818/google-project-h...
  - refulgentis 3y ago
    Objection, argumentative: being doubtful of X, and a company wanted to move X to 0 probability, aren't in tension.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    I did mention that part briefly. And I am still a bit confused about the decision as well given some of the subjects that suppressed. I guess 2010's Google didn't want any trace of a popular gaming store to take over, given that we now know F2P mobile games are 70% of the app store revenue (and I'm sure it's similar to Google). If EA made the supposed Steam of Android and most games chose to focus on the EA store, that's a huge cut into Google revenue, even if most other apps would still be on the play store. So better not to risk it at all.
bilbo0s 3y ago
Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but the reality is that yes consumers do get some bit of benefit, but the real hole in the argument being made is that OS developers do make money off of us using our computers. We all had to pay the licensing fee for the software. For many of us, a fee is paid yearly to the OS developer on our behalf. Just because the fee is not explicitly placed against our own debit/credit card balances doesn't mean a fee isn't being paid. But even the fee argument misses the point. Myself and others are not asking that Apple not charge a fee. My feeling was that 30% on App revenue for example was too much. Given that the charges are now being itemized out in the open a bit better, do I still believe the fee was too high? I cautiously respond 'yes'. But I can now see where I might have been mistaken about what the amalgamation of the costs incurred to run this thing look like. I guess all I really wanted was transparency. Let's get it all on the table and see what's what. Maybe 30% is a good deal? Maybe it's not? I don't know if you don't tell me everything that went into that. Consumers should be informed, that's probably more what I believe now. I no longer believe we should change the model before we get a better idea of what the costs will be going forward. That could bankrupt a lot of small devs right now.

by lokar 3y ago

The vast majority of consumers prefer and benefit from aspects of this control. Despite all the horror stories (both fp and fn) they keep the App Store much safer then mass direct installs would be.

fsflover 3y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39137917 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39137917

johnnyanmac 3y ago

Okay, and they can keep that control while some minority choose to host elsewhere. Androids Play store (pending some anti-trust issues, ironically) still has the majority of apps there and it'd be doubtful that any android alternative store can steal that mindshare away.

judge2020 3y ago
> Androids Play store (pending some anti-trust issues, ironically) still has the majority of apps there and it'd be doubtful that any android alternative store can steal that mindshare away. If so, why did Google feel the need to bribe developers to keep their apps on the Play store? https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/19/22632818/google-project-hug-game-developers-play-store-millions-epic-lawsuit-complaint https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/19/22632818/google-project-h...
- refulgentis 3y ago
  Objection, argumentative: being doubtful of X, and a company wanted to move X to 0 probability, aren't in tension.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  I did mention that part briefly. And I am still a bit confused about the decision as well given some of the subjects that suppressed. I guess 2010's Google didn't want any trace of a popular gaming store to take over, given that we now know F2P mobile games are 70% of the app store revenue (and I'm sure it's similar to Google). If EA made the supposed Steam of Android and most games chose to focus on the EA store, that's a huge cut into Google revenue, even if most other apps would still be on the play store. So better not to risk it at all.

bilbo0s 3y ago

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but the reality is that yes consumers do get some bit of benefit, but the real hole in the argument being made is that OS developers do make money off of us using our computers. We all had to pay the licensing fee for the software. For many of us, a fee is paid yearly to the OS developer on our behalf. Just because the fee is not explicitly placed against our own debit/credit card balances doesn't mean a fee isn't being paid. But even the fee argument misses the point. Myself and others are not asking that Apple not charge a fee. My feeling was that 30% on App revenue for example was too much. Given that the charges are now being itemized out in the open a bit better, do I still believe the fee was too high? I cautiously respond 'yes'. But I can now see where I might have been mistaken about what the amalgamation of the costs incurred to run this thing look like. I guess all I really wanted was transparency. Let's get it all on the table and see what's what. Maybe 30% is a good deal? Maybe it's not? I don't know if you don't tell me everything that went into that. Consumers should be informed, that's probably more what I believe now. I no longer believe we should change the model before we get a better idea of what the costs will be going forward. That could bankrupt a lot of small devs right now.