8 ms·

It's like a public negotiation between the EU and Apple. Basically everyone wants Apple to forgo all fees on the platform. That's not realistic, nor likely eve

by quitit 2y ago

It's like a public negotiation between the EU and Apple. Basically everyone wants Apple to forgo all fees on the platform. That's not realistic, nor likely even something a public company can do without either breaking their fiduciary responsibility to share holders or tanking the stock. It's also not helpful that the EU's approach to legislation requires that companies implement something in market before they'll take a look at it.

jorams 2y ago
The actual solution is very simple, and wouldn't even need the EU to "look at it": They charge consumers for the hardware and the OS, they charge developers the $100 per year for the tooling, they charge however much they want to sell apps on their app store, and they stop restricting and demanding to be a party to anything else.
- olliej 2y ago
  No, software updates in the EU could just start costing money, like software updates used to. Google would be able to continue “android updates are free” because they’re an advertising company and android exists for the sole purpose of ensuring Google has a constant revenue stream from their OS. And then users get to choose “do I pay for an update” or “do I accept my only option is Google gets to know everything I do?” Similarly people competing with that get to go “well do I charge money for my work so I can pay bills or do I just pay on and sell out my users?” Obviously developers will also have to support older OSs as well because they won’t be able to rely on people updating. Pretty much sounds like an all round win to me: Google gets to continue being a shitty company without restraint, developers have to support more platforms, and users stop updating software. I’m also curious what you think the store commission should be capped at, because obviously the cap needs to apply to companies like steam and epic as well as the console vendors.
  - sagarm 2y ago
    I suppose if Apple won't fix security vulnerabilities in software they sold, the only remedy would be a return and refund? Sounds costly for Apple.
  - kalleboo 2y ago
    > do I accept my only option is Google gets to know everything I do? GDPR lets people opt-out of this, see what is going on with Facebook right now. Enforcement may not have hit Android yet but it will eventually. > obviously the cap needs to apply to companies like steam and epic No regulation is needed on platforms where there is competition - you aren't required to release your games on Steam to reach customers on Windows. The cap on Windows is already zero. > as well as the console vendors Consoles are way too insignificant a market to be counted as gatekeepers.
  - talldayo 2y ago
    I really hope this comment is just trolling people, because if you believe both of these things you've been lied to by someone. > android exists for the sole purpose of ensuring Google has a constant revenue stream from their OS. Does it? That's funny, it seems to be the other way around. Android can be built without Google services at all. You do not need a single bit of Google telemetry, advertising or otherwise, to build, run and enjoy Android. iOS fits that description better. Apple sues anyone that tries to modify and redistribute the OS or prevent user tracking at a software level. For fuck's sake, this is a thread about Apple trying to charge developers money for using the hyperlinking feature and you're trying to call Android the moneygrubbing OS? Methinks you're projecting your insecurity as an iOS user. > because obviously the cap needs to apply to companies like steam and epic as well as the console vendors. Obviously they don't, but I guess I wouldn't expect any different from someone in denial that the DMA and DSA exist. Read them; Steam, Epic, Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo are all alike in that they offer third-parties a fair opportunity to compete. Steam and Epic are very literally in direct competition with each other, so unless your point is highlighting how different these stores are from the App Store your point makes no sense. Seriously; read the source material of what you are talking about before you take up Apple's sword and go to war for them. Your deliberate misinterpretation of the law isn't going to make people reconsider anything besides their initial support for Apple.
- quitit 2y ago
  >The actual solution is very simple Pretending doesn't make a problem go away. The reality of your solution is anticompetitive and would crush small developers. Your solution would also run afoul of competition legislation in the EU and beyond. The OS and app store aren't magic, they're developed and run by people, software, hardware, and electricity. None of those are free, all of them require constant investment and training/maintenance, and a supporting management and logistical structure. What you're asking for is for all the current cost-free items to be pay-for items. Neglecting all the other costs in the equation doesn't make them go away, but let's see your idea through: perhaps it might seem fairer to you if each individual download, update, app review and every act of moderation required a line item fee, but to rational people that seems like a hellish way to bill a service that punishes apps that are either not commercially driven or low-earners. For small developers that would be a squeeze that encourages apps to flail, decay and worsen security issues. This model could easily be seen as anticompetitive because it enforces an uneven playing field. A $100 annual developer fee wouldn't cover an hour of professional overview, it certainly doesn't cover the cost of ongoing app review, it wouldn't cover the cost of not having a managed backup, insurance, or an up to date system. The lack of 3rd party stores on Android is because it doesn't make good business, frankly"good" and "cheap" sit at opposite ends of a service offering, no amount of "nerding harder" will fix that. Your thoughts on a service are divorced from reality, they're frankly naive. If the cost to consumers/developers was divided out in the way you suggest, the annual dev membership would be several thousand and all interactions would be billable items. This would be fine for Microsoft, Google, etc - but present absolutely no chance for a small developer to establish a business. Working from a model that takes a slither of revenue when revenue is made is simply the fairest way to go about collecting an appropriate fee. It's also the norm with every other industry, none of which seem to get the foaming-at-the-mouth reactions that I read on here.
  - jorams 2y ago
    The fees I'm proposing are the exact fees Apple has been charging since the beginning and that have kept them extremely profitable all along. They are higher than the fees they charge for macOS, and they're doing fine with that. All the new fees Apple is introducing are extra, and they are for things that don't need to involve them.

by quitit 2y ago

jorams 2y ago

The actual solution is very simple, and wouldn't even need the EU to "look at it": They charge consumers for the hardware and the OS, they charge developers the $100 per year for the tooling, they charge however much they want to sell apps on their app store, and they stop restricting and demanding to be a party to anything else.

olliej 2y ago
No, software updates in the EU could just start costing money, like software updates used to. Google would be able to continue “android updates are free” because they’re an advertising company and android exists for the sole purpose of ensuring Google has a constant revenue stream from their OS. And then users get to choose “do I pay for an update” or “do I accept my only option is Google gets to know everything I do?” Similarly people competing with that get to go “well do I charge money for my work so I can pay bills or do I just pay on and sell out my users?” Obviously developers will also have to support older OSs as well because they won’t be able to rely on people updating. Pretty much sounds like an all round win to me: Google gets to continue being a shitty company without restraint, developers have to support more platforms, and users stop updating software. I’m also curious what you think the store commission should be capped at, because obviously the cap needs to apply to companies like steam and epic as well as the console vendors.
- sagarm 2y ago
  I suppose if Apple won't fix security vulnerabilities in software they sold, the only remedy would be a return and refund? Sounds costly for Apple.
- kalleboo 2y ago
  > do I accept my only option is Google gets to know everything I do? GDPR lets people opt-out of this, see what is going on with Facebook right now. Enforcement may not have hit Android yet but it will eventually. > obviously the cap needs to apply to companies like steam and epic No regulation is needed on platforms where there is competition - you aren't required to release your games on Steam to reach customers on Windows. The cap on Windows is already zero. > as well as the console vendors Consoles are way too insignificant a market to be counted as gatekeepers.
- talldayo 2y ago
  I really hope this comment is just trolling people, because if you believe both of these things you've been lied to by someone. > android exists for the sole purpose of ensuring Google has a constant revenue stream from their OS. Does it? That's funny, it seems to be the other way around. Android can be built without Google services at all. You do not need a single bit of Google telemetry, advertising or otherwise, to build, run and enjoy Android. iOS fits that description better. Apple sues anyone that tries to modify and redistribute the OS or prevent user tracking at a software level. For fuck's sake, this is a thread about Apple trying to charge developers money for using the hyperlinking feature and you're trying to call Android the moneygrubbing OS? Methinks you're projecting your insecurity as an iOS user. > because obviously the cap needs to apply to companies like steam and epic as well as the console vendors. Obviously they don't, but I guess I wouldn't expect any different from someone in denial that the DMA and DSA exist. Read them; Steam, Epic, Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo are all alike in that they offer third-parties a fair opportunity to compete. Steam and Epic are very literally in direct competition with each other, so unless your point is highlighting how different these stores are from the App Store your point makes no sense. Seriously; read the source material of what you are talking about before you take up Apple's sword and go to war for them. Your deliberate misinterpretation of the law isn't going to make people reconsider anything besides their initial support for Apple.
quitit 2y ago
>The actual solution is very simple Pretending doesn't make a problem go away. The reality of your solution is anticompetitive and would crush small developers. Your solution would also run afoul of competition legislation in the EU and beyond. The OS and app store aren't magic, they're developed and run by people, software, hardware, and electricity. None of those are free, all of them require constant investment and training/maintenance, and a supporting management and logistical structure. What you're asking for is for all the current cost-free items to be pay-for items. Neglecting all the other costs in the equation doesn't make them go away, but let's see your idea through: perhaps it might seem fairer to you if each individual download, update, app review and every act of moderation required a line item fee, but to rational people that seems like a hellish way to bill a service that punishes apps that are either not commercially driven or low-earners. For small developers that would be a squeeze that encourages apps to flail, decay and worsen security issues. This model could easily be seen as anticompetitive because it enforces an uneven playing field. A $100 annual developer fee wouldn't cover an hour of professional overview, it certainly doesn't cover the cost of ongoing app review, it wouldn't cover the cost of not having a managed backup, insurance, or an up to date system. The lack of 3rd party stores on Android is because it doesn't make good business, frankly"good" and "cheap" sit at opposite ends of a service offering, no amount of "nerding harder" will fix that. Your thoughts on a service are divorced from reality, they're frankly naive. If the cost to consumers/developers was divided out in the way you suggest, the annual dev membership would be several thousand and all interactions would be billable items. This would be fine for Microsoft, Google, etc - but present absolutely no chance for a small developer to establish a business. Working from a model that takes a slither of revenue when revenue is made is simply the fairest way to go about collecting an appropriate fee. It's also the norm with every other industry, none of which seem to get the foaming-at-the-mouth reactions that I read on here.
- jorams 2y ago
  The fees I'm proposing are the exact fees Apple has been charging since the beginning and that have kept them extremely profitable all along. They are higher than the fees they charge for macOS, and they're doing fine with that. All the new fees Apple is introducing are extra, and they are for things that don't need to involve them.