4 ms·

I think the most obvious examples of this are the Apple and Android app stores. We know exactly how much money the end user is paying for these, and so unlike

I think the most obvious examples of this are the Apple and Android app stores. We know exactly how much money the end user is paying for these, and so unlike the tik-tok video with 800k views we can easily understand their value. We also know Apple/Google are taking is 30% of that value. It's not just individual creators on social media that are suffering from this but also large companies.

Viliam1234 2y ago
The strategy is not to build a product but a marketplace, where others will build products and you will take a cut. App stores are the largest marketplaces. Instead of taking a cut from levels produced for a game, articles published on a website, videos published on YouTube, or plugins developed for some enterprise software, they take a cut from all applications developed for a platform. But the principle is the same. The problem here is not taking the cut, per se, but rather the oligopoly. If we had dozens of app stores, with easy switching for users, the developers would move to less abusive ones. Maintaining the infrastructure costs some money, so taking maybe 5% would be appropriate. Or maybe taking 10% and providing excellent development tools in return. With websites that monetize articles, I don't mind that they take a cut, because I can easily move away from them if I decide that they take too much and it would be cheaper to host everything myself, and maybe pay someone to move the articles from the old place to the new one. Moving articles is simple, it's just text and pictures, and maybe some formatting gets lost in the process. With Apple and Android, there are no other places to move, and the applications would need a rewrite. Which is why they have greater leverage. The problem is not taking a cut (what the author refers to as parasitism). Infrastructure costs something; how else do you imagine it would be paid for? The problem is the lack of choice.
- aesh2Xa1 2y ago
  There's a network to consider. Yes, a creator might wish to choose a platform that is less abusive (for example, that takes a smaller cut). Well, Bandcamp exists, but it doesn't have the reach that Spotify has. Creators need to be willing to jointly create the marketplace platform themselves, or they need to be ready to constantly struggle against the interests of the platform's owner.
musicale 2y ago
It's almost like they copied the business model (and platform fees) from other walled garden game stores and systems. Why should any game developer (Epic for example) have to pay the same amount to Apple or Google that they are currently paying to Nintendo or Sony for the same game? Do we need some new laws to force Google to allow other game stores for Android other than Google Play? Maybe one from Amazon or something. Or some stores in China.

Viliam1234 2y ago

The strategy is not to build a product but a marketplace, where others will build products and you will take a cut. App stores are the largest marketplaces. Instead of taking a cut from levels produced for a game, articles published on a website, videos published on YouTube, or plugins developed for some enterprise software, they take a cut from all applications developed for a platform. But the principle is the same. The problem here is not taking the cut, per se, but rather the oligopoly. If we had dozens of app stores, with easy switching for users, the developers would move to less abusive ones. Maintaining the infrastructure costs some money, so taking maybe 5% would be appropriate. Or maybe taking 10% and providing excellent development tools in return. With websites that monetize articles, I don't mind that they take a cut, because I can easily move away from them if I decide that they take too much and it would be cheaper to host everything myself, and maybe pay someone to move the articles from the old place to the new one. Moving articles is simple, it's just text and pictures, and maybe some formatting gets lost in the process. With Apple and Android, there are no other places to move, and the applications would need a rewrite. Which is why they have greater leverage. The problem is not taking a cut (what the author refers to as parasitism). Infrastructure costs something; how else do you imagine it would be paid for? The problem is the lack of choice.

aesh2Xa1 2y ago
There's a network to consider. Yes, a creator might wish to choose a platform that is less abusive (for example, that takes a smaller cut). Well, Bandcamp exists, but it doesn't have the reach that Spotify has. Creators need to be willing to jointly create the marketplace platform themselves, or they need to be ready to constantly struggle against the interests of the platform's owner.

musicale 2y ago

It's almost like they copied the business model (and platform fees) from other walled garden game stores and systems. Why should any game developer (Epic for example) have to pay the same amount to Apple or Google that they are currently paying to Nintendo or Sony for the same game? Do we need some new laws to force Google to allow other game stores for Android other than Google Play? Maybe one from Amazon or something. Or some stores in China.