6 ms·

It is funny and a bit sad that many root for anticompetitive behavior by these companies out of what appears to be largely simply due to fanboyism. Making mark

It is funny and a bit sad that many root for anticompetitive behavior by these companies out of what appears to be largely simply due to fanboyism. Making markets highly competitive and open to new entrants/innovation is far better for society in the long run. Is society better off if Visa can take 5% of every Transaction? Apple/Google 30%? Clearly not. In a competitive market, margins will trend towards marginal value add of the player. Margins well in excess of the add are signs a market is not competitive. Open protocols for payments, storefronts, Identity/Auth, messaging etc can solve most of these inefficiencies. Eventually government will get smarter on technology. (Maybe on the cusp?)

scarface_74 2y ago
It came out in the Epic trial that 90% of App Store revenue comes from pay to win games and loot boxes. Most of the other popular apps on either store are clients to services where Apple doesn’t get a cut at all. You’ll have to forgive me if I don’t feel sorry for those types of apps - the 90%. The small Indy developers are mostly paying 15%
- adam_arthur 2y ago
  And how much of Apple's services revenue comes from Google? When's the last time you paid Microsoft 15% to download an exe?
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    Well, seeing that I don’t buy pay to win in app purchases of games and none of my subscription services - Prime, various streaming services, Office365. etc - were purchased through the App Store, the other 10% don’t apply to me. People pay Microsoft all of the time to buy games for XBox
Dylan16807 2y ago
> It is funny and a bit sad that many root for anticompetitive behavior by these companies out of what appears to be largely simply due to fanboyism. Is anyone doing that here? Why did you reply where you replied? This accusation is not relevant to the parent comments.
- adam_arthur 2y ago
  It is entirely relevant to the parent comment. As to the second part, it requires a bit of reading comprehension and contextual awareness, unfortunately.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    It's not relevant. You're looking for something to complain about and latching on where it doesn't fit. Even full approval of Apple's motion would not be rooting for anticompetitive behavior. It makes sense for Apple to be involved in this rulemaking. And it does seem like too much if the rule blocks any dealing between the two companies in any market. But the above comment was far weaker than that. It was just saying a restriction that strong would prevent things that are not already illegal. That is a basic fact.

scarface_74 2y ago

It came out in the Epic trial that 90% of App Store revenue comes from pay to win games and loot boxes. Most of the other popular apps on either store are clients to services where Apple doesn’t get a cut at all. You’ll have to forgive me if I don’t feel sorry for those types of apps - the 90%. The small Indy developers are mostly paying 15%

adam_arthur 2y ago
And how much of Apple's services revenue comes from Google? When's the last time you paid Microsoft 15% to download an exe?
- scarface_74 2y ago
  Well, seeing that I don’t buy pay to win in app purchases of games and none of my subscription services - Prime, various streaming services, Office365. etc - were purchased through the App Store, the other 10% don’t apply to me. People pay Microsoft all of the time to buy games for XBox

Dylan16807 2y ago

> It is funny and a bit sad that many root for anticompetitive behavior by these companies out of what appears to be largely simply due to fanboyism. Is anyone doing that here? Why did you reply where you replied? This accusation is not relevant to the parent comments.

adam_arthur 2y ago
It is entirely relevant to the parent comment. As to the second part, it requires a bit of reading comprehension and contextual awareness, unfortunately.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  It's not relevant. You're looking for something to complain about and latching on where it doesn't fit. Even full approval of Apple's motion would not be rooting for anticompetitive behavior. It makes sense for Apple to be involved in this rulemaking. And it does seem like too much if the rule blocks any dealing between the two companies in any market. But the above comment was far weaker than that. It was just saying a restriction that strong would prevent things that are not already illegal. That is a basic fact.