3 ms·

Counter offer: the tooling is ultimately for their benefit. They need the apps to make their platform what it is.

eviks 3y ago
They ultimately need money, not apps or platforms, so this is exactly how they achieve that ultimate benefit, no top-level logic will just justify free here
- fauigerzigerk 3y ago
  >no top-level logic will just justify free here Not true. The technical term for "ultimately need money" is discounted future cash flow. It is impossible to know for sure what price you have to charge for any particular item at any given time in order to optimise for this metric. Realistically, the answer depends on the state of competition between platforms. We all know what that state is.
  - eviks 3y ago
    > It is impossible to know so it is true, you can't provide any top-level logic to justify 0, you need some facts
    - fauigerzigerk 3y ago
      If "top level logic" is supposed to mean "analytic statements" then you are right. The optimal price cannot be derived analytically. As this is such a pointlessly contrived interpretation of the term "logic" in this context, I chose to use a different one: Is there a set of empirical circumstances under which an optimisation algorithm could conclude that the optimal price is zero? The answer to that is clearly yes.
      - eviks 3y ago
        Top level logic is supposed to mean the logic the comment I'm responding to uses to justify free. You know, "in this context". And I'm not talking about "optimal", just a single price of 0 Now, what exactly is the point of you insisting on your wrong interpretation?
- _aavaa_ 3y ago
  I mean by that logic, no top level logic will justify a cut of all revenue. They want to be feudal lords, requiring us to pay a tithing for the privilege of selling something to customers.
  - eviks 3y ago
    you're right, no top level logic would help you settle on any specific price, hence you need to engage with actual reality instead of simply noticing one party that benefits while ignoring the other that also "ultimately benefits" and "needs the platform to run apps on". You, of course, want to be their feudal lord and get access to all their customers by right while also requiring them to pay a tithing of their hardware sales to you since you advance "their ultimate benefit" (they wouldn't sell any hardware without software)
    - _aavaa_ 3y ago
      > You, of course, want to be their feudal lord and get access to all their customers by right If someone buys an iPhone, Apple does not have the right to interpose themselves between that person and what they want to do with the iphone they bought. They have no right to a cut of the sales any more than the power company that provided the electrons to charge the battery. What I want is for Apple to get out of the way. > while also requiring them to pay a tithing of their hardware sales to you since you advance What I want them to do, for a start, is to the same thing on ios that they already do on macos. I can already write a piece of software an sell it without forking 30% over to Apple. The current situation where they feel entitled to a cut of every software sale that happens on ios, and veto power over it, is a wet dream that even Microsoft in the 90s wouldn't have thought they'd get away with.

They ultimately need money, not apps or platforms, so this is exactly how they achieve that ultimate benefit, no top-level logic will just justify free here

fauigerzigerk 3y ago
>no top-level logic will just justify free here Not true. The technical term for "ultimately need money" is discounted future cash flow. It is impossible to know for sure what price you have to charge for any particular item at any given time in order to optimise for this metric. Realistically, the answer depends on the state of competition between platforms. We all know what that state is.
- eviks 3y ago
  > It is impossible to know so it is true, you can't provide any top-level logic to justify 0, you need some facts
  - fauigerzigerk 3y ago
    If "top level logic" is supposed to mean "analytic statements" then you are right. The optimal price cannot be derived analytically. As this is such a pointlessly contrived interpretation of the term "logic" in this context, I chose to use a different one: Is there a set of empirical circumstances under which an optimisation algorithm could conclude that the optimal price is zero? The answer to that is clearly yes.
    - eviks 3y ago
      Top level logic is supposed to mean the logic the comment I'm responding to uses to justify free. You know, "in this context". And I'm not talking about "optimal", just a single price of 0 Now, what exactly is the point of you insisting on your wrong interpretation?
_aavaa_ 3y ago
I mean by that logic, no top level logic will justify a cut of all revenue. They want to be feudal lords, requiring us to pay a tithing for the privilege of selling something to customers.
- eviks 3y ago
  you're right, no top level logic would help you settle on any specific price, hence you need to engage with actual reality instead of simply noticing one party that benefits while ignoring the other that also "ultimately benefits" and "needs the platform to run apps on". You, of course, want to be their feudal lord and get access to all their customers by right while also requiring them to pay a tithing of their hardware sales to you since you advance "their ultimate benefit" (they wouldn't sell any hardware without software)
  - _aavaa_ 3y ago
    > You, of course, want to be their feudal lord and get access to all their customers by right If someone buys an iPhone, Apple does not have the right to interpose themselves between that person and what they want to do with the iphone they bought. They have no right to a cut of the sales any more than the power company that provided the electrons to charge the battery. What I want is for Apple to get out of the way. > while also requiring them to pay a tithing of their hardware sales to you since you advance What I want them to do, for a start, is to the same thing on ios that they already do on macos. I can already write a piece of software an sell it without forking 30% over to Apple. The current situation where they feel entitled to a cut of every software sale that happens on ios, and veto power over it, is a wet dream that even Microsoft in the 90s wouldn't have thought they'd get away with.