3 ms·
The point is that it’s half their bottom line
by jncfhnb 3y ago
The point is that it’s half their bottom line
- walterbell 3y agoMostly from a handful of apps, why limit everyone else?
- jncfhnb 3y agoBecause there’s dozens of billions of dollars on the line and they don’t give a fuck about anything else
- walterbell 3y agoWhy not make rules for the apps which generate "billions of dollars"? Constrain those apps via special APIs subject to Apple policy. Why stop at 30% extortion, go for more. Leave the rest of apps alone, until a new billion dollar category appears, then it can get the same mafia treatment. This is Platform Sherlocking 101. Let new crops grow before demanding a cut. Don't scare everyone from farming.
- jncfhnb 3y agoI’m unclear if you’re genuinely asking why, or playing out rhetoric for show.
- walterbell 3y agoI'm asking why not have application-specific fees and policy, instead of both Apple and regulators dancing around the revenue issue, while using the rhetoric of generic business actors and app-neutral policy. There's a reason that only gaming companies have taken Apple to court. Why should the economics of low-volume and low-profit medical or security applications be subject to the business mechanics of addictive games, which generate billions of revenue for Apple and gaming app developers?
- jncfhnb 3y agoThe regulators have largely paid very little attention to the magnitude of the fee and revenue cut Even though it is outrageous. The us judgements in fact suggested that epic should have focused on that issue as the unfair bit