3 ms·

The fee is paid by the user when they buy the phone. No additional cost to Apple exists because the user downloaded an app that I wrote from my website/store. T

The fee is paid by the user when they buy the phone. No additional cost to Apple exists because the user downloaded an app that I wrote from my website/store. Thus, Apple should not be paid for it. That's really simple - we've been doing this model for general purpose computers for decades already.

spacebanana7 3y ago
Just as Unity has a legal ability to charge a fee for a game engine, Apple has a legal ability to charge for the Swift programming language along with the rest of the SDK. It sucks because Apple is hiding behind intellectual property rights to protect its ability to tax the app economy.
- trumpeta 3y ago
  You can choose a different game engine or write your own. You can not write an app for iOS without Apple SDK
  - spacebanana7 3y ago
    Market power doesn't nullify IP rights. Disney could allows 3rd party cafes in Disneyland, mandate the use of Disney logos on all products, and charge a $2 royalty of every product sold with a Disney logo. It's a dick move but shifts the legal argument from one of monopoly / gatekeeper status to one of intellectual property rights, the latter being much more business friendly and entrenched in international agreements.
threeseed 3y ago
a) Nobody knows other than Apple about whether the cost of building the SDKs etc are included in the price of the iPhone. So making definitive statements about their being no additional cost makes no sense. b) Microsoft and Apple both charge for developer programs and in the past it used to be significantly higher than today. So there is a precedent for this.
- andersa 3y ago
  Apple financial statements are public. We know the income from hardware sales exceeds all costs and R&D by far. The app store fees are basically stealing from society on top of that to enrich themselves.
wtallis 3y ago
That argument carried a lot more weight when OS updates were $129 instead of $0.
- andersa 3y ago
  As if that cost wasn't included in the $1500 phone?
- smoldesu 3y ago
  That argument carried a lot more weight when per-unit profit margins were lower than per-unit manufacturing costs.

spacebanana7 3y ago

Just as Unity has a legal ability to charge a fee for a game engine, Apple has a legal ability to charge for the Swift programming language along with the rest of the SDK. It sucks because Apple is hiding behind intellectual property rights to protect its ability to tax the app economy.

trumpeta 3y ago
You can choose a different game engine or write your own. You can not write an app for iOS without Apple SDK
- spacebanana7 3y ago
  Market power doesn't nullify IP rights. Disney could allows 3rd party cafes in Disneyland, mandate the use of Disney logos on all products, and charge a $2 royalty of every product sold with a Disney logo. It's a dick move but shifts the legal argument from one of monopoly / gatekeeper status to one of intellectual property rights, the latter being much more business friendly and entrenched in international agreements.

threeseed 3y ago

a) Nobody knows other than Apple about whether the cost of building the SDKs etc are included in the price of the iPhone. So making definitive statements about their being no additional cost makes no sense. b) Microsoft and Apple both charge for developer programs and in the past it used to be significantly higher than today. So there is a precedent for this.

andersa 3y ago
Apple financial statements are public. We know the income from hardware sales exceeds all costs and R&D by far. The app store fees are basically stealing from society on top of that to enrich themselves.

wtallis 3y ago

That argument carried a lot more weight when OS updates were $129 instead of $0.

andersa 3y ago
As if that cost wasn't included in the $1500 phone?
smoldesu 3y ago
That argument carried a lot more weight when per-unit profit margins were lower than per-unit manufacturing costs.