4 ms·
It's a good thought but I think adding this kind of complexity , even with good intent, is exactly the sort of thing the 70/30 split was created to avoid. Ther
by filmgirlcw 12y ago
It's a good thought but I think adding this kind of complexity , even with good intent, is exactly the sort of thing the 70/30 split was created to avoid.
There is something nice about just knowing, this is my split. I don't have to worry about it switching and my profit formulas being altered once I hit a certain sales threshold, My take is $.70x, with x being downloads. Period.
Beyond that, I'd have to ask what happens when we take this to its logical conclusion:
Say you start with an 85% split for the first 10,000 sales or something -- what happens if the split then eventually goes below 70/30, say 65/35 or 60/40 or worse, the more copies you sell? How do people react then.
I suppose the counter-argument is that that's how the tax system works -- and that's fair -- but I still don't see developers being happy to have to give up more of their take down the road, just because they have reached "success."
I mean, if you're going to go to tiers, then the next argument becomes about what defines one tier from the next.
Again, it introduces all kinds of complexities that having a straight 70/30 system avoids. And to me, that simplicity ultimately trumps the other arguments, as sympathetic to indie developers as I might be.
- thesimpsons1022 12y agothat tax argument isn't compelling at all. i don't think apple should use big sellers to cover the costs for indies, it makes no sense as a private company. It does make sense in society as a whole with income.
- filmgirlcw 12y agoI actually don't disagree with you at all, I'm just acknowledging the obvious counterpoint to that argument, that's all.
- hackbinary 12y agoThe point of having tapered rates is well established as being progressive and fair. Governments do this with income tax. The basic premise is that $1 means more to a person with an income of $10,000 per year, compared to a person with an income of $100,000, or a $1,000,000. It therefore follows that developers earning less money are not as able to pay as those earning higher incomes. A flat rate favours bigger developers. If Apple wants to promote diversity, then they should have a progressive system, and lower the barrier to smaller developers. This actually may prove to increase Apple revenues ultimately by helping smaller developers stay in the game over the long term because their business would not have been otherwise viable. Adding income tiers is not that more complex.
- thesimpsons1022 12y agoyeah but apple isn't a charity or government. they aren't in the industry of solving income inequality. imagine if you went to a restaurant and they checked your income and set the price of your meal based on that. it doesn't make any sense.
- zaroth 12y agoCompletely OT, but, if you file a Schedule C and are deducting 50% of the cost as a business expense, then effectively the meal actually costs less the higher your tax rate. In CA and at the highest marginal rates the state+federal deduction is worth around 20% the cost of the meal!