3 ms·

Without an insight into how a company pays for its RnD internally, one cannot conclusively say that the consumers are the ones who pay for the HW/OS. I’ll also

by dagmx 2y ago

Without an insight into how a company pays for its RnD internally, one cannot conclusively say that the consumers are the ones who pay for the HW/OS. I’ll also reiterate that the majority of devs pay 15% now on the App Store. Not 30%. And then this gets into every other market choice as well if we’re saying all the stuff is paid for up front by the consumer. What does Steam offer for its 30%? The majority of games on steam don’t use any steam services unlike apps on the AppStore. Valve doesn’t do educational sessions for developers or provide support for system issues. So is Steam not a terrible deal at double the cost? But then we get to consoles, where the consumer not only pays for the device but also pays a subscription for online play. If we say that Sony/Microsoft are funded up front by the consumer and then recurring for online fees, then what the value to developers for the 30% (in addition to devkit costs)? I’m not defending apples cut here. That’s a subjective argument that goes nowhere, but I am saying: if we say Apple’s cut is unfair, why are we okay with the others that are arguably more? And why do people defend the other marketplaces ?

ffgjgf1 2y ago
> I’ll also reiterate that the majority of devs pay 15% now on the App Store. Not 30%. Probably not relative to total revenue. But it doesn’t really change much. To be fair I don’t have a problem at all with 15% or even 30% but with the fact that Apple is running a lite extortion racket by not allowing any competition. > how a company pays for its RnD internally, one cannot conclusively say that the consumers are the ones who pay for the HW/OS I don’t think the exact nuances of internal accounting (even if they do it this way instead of just putting all revenue into a single “pot”) really changes anything. It’s pretty clear (based on all evidence from the last 30+ years) that platforms can generate significantly higher revenue by maximizing the amount of third party software and by giving away development tools/etc. for free or significantly below cost than by trying to extract as much money as feasible possible from 3rd part developers (and it wasn’t a huge concern anyway since all major desktop platforms have always been mostly open) > why are we okay with the others that are arguably more? And why do people defend the other marketplaces ? IMHO mainly because Apple has a very large market share and is effectively a monopoly in certain ways. If you want to develop a mobile app/game you can’t not make it available on iOS. It’s just not an option. This gives Apple a huge amount of pricing power and effectively allows them to exploit developers and consumers by generating a surplus they don’t have to work for. It a scale of course but no other company is quite in the same position. Steam can lose most of their customers if they stop providing value. Even Google is in a much weaker position (consequently they don’t have such strict controls on iAPs) since phone makers can (and have) make their own app stores, side loading etc. I think consoles are closers but they are purely an entertainment product with a lot of alternatives and substitutes. Overall I personally believe consumer surplus should most dwarf everything else to an extent. Therefore I don’t see any reason why can’t we apply “arbitrary” rules/standards to corporations based on their size and influence on the market.

by dagmx 2y ago

ffgjgf1 2y ago

> I’ll also reiterate that the majority of devs pay 15% now on the App Store. Not 30%. Probably not relative to total revenue. But it doesn’t really change much. To be fair I don’t have a problem at all with 15% or even 30% but with the fact that Apple is running a lite extortion racket by not allowing any competition. > how a company pays for its RnD internally, one cannot conclusively say that the consumers are the ones who pay for the HW/OS I don’t think the exact nuances of internal accounting (even if they do it this way instead of just putting all revenue into a single “pot”) really changes anything. It’s pretty clear (based on all evidence from the last 30+ years) that platforms can generate significantly higher revenue by maximizing the amount of third party software and by giving away development tools/etc. for free or significantly below cost than by trying to extract as much money as feasible possible from 3rd part developers (and it wasn’t a huge concern anyway since all major desktop platforms have always been mostly open) > why are we okay with the others that are arguably more? And why do people defend the other marketplaces ? IMHO mainly because Apple has a very large market share and is effectively a monopoly in certain ways. If you want to develop a mobile app/game you can’t not make it available on iOS. It’s just not an option. This gives Apple a huge amount of pricing power and effectively allows them to exploit developers and consumers by generating a surplus they don’t have to work for. It a scale of course but no other company is quite in the same position. Steam can lose most of their customers if they stop providing value. Even Google is in a much weaker position (consequently they don’t have such strict controls on iAPs) since phone makers can (and have) make their own app stores, side loading etc. I think consoles are closers but they are purely an entertainment product with a lot of alternatives and substitutes. Overall I personally believe consumer surplus should most dwarf everything else to an extent. Therefore I don’t see any reason why can’t we apply “arbitrary” rules/standards to corporations based on their size and influence on the market.