131–140 of 559 posts
I think the standard response should be to allow the in-app signup/purchase with a 42% marked up rate and a very clear line item that it is the "Apple platform tax, not charged via other distributors". Worth doing the same to Google IMO. I think the "right" amount to charge would be something like a standard credit card processor - 30 cents + 3% or so. Maybe a flat 5 or 10% for apps under a certain price. I can't ima…
I really don’t get the hills people choose to die on these days. Do you want a successful business? Ok, then follow the rules, cover your ass, and do what you need to do to get your business going, even if it’s not always the ideal situation for you. But no, I guess lashing out explosively and torpedoing everything because you’re not treated like the big players when you’re still a little guy is more satisfying, if l…
Not to pick on your bio too much, but I'm wondering if you may be having difficulty understanding the situation as a self described "ethically challenged software engineer working for a major tech company". But, you'll never get a new business off the ground successfully if you "follow the rules, cover your ass, ..." because the incumbents you are competing with are already doing that.
As I've ranted about before, running a startup is about taking calculated risks. You need to fight these fights if you think they have a high positive expected value. As sibling commentators explained, you do not always do this for altruistic reasons -- picking fights with a Goliath when you're a David is easy free PR for you.
Now granted, this kind of easy, free PR might be a drop in the bucket if you're a BigCo. And on the other hand, the expected risk might be high enough that the tradeoff really doesn't work out in your favor in that situation! But that is because the strategy for handling this kind of a setback is really not fungible from running a startup to running a BigCo.
> "That’s not what we want on the store" -- Apple Vice President of Worldwide Marketing What if I own an iPhone and HEY is what I want on my phone? How can I override Apple's decision? If I can't, who really owns this device?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not just Apple, the entire electronics industry.
TVs used to come with circuit diagrams so that people could repair it themselves at home using standard parts. I've not seen anything like that in many years, even for far simpler appliances.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They do it at no benefit to the OSS providers, that's the issue.
Why do they need to benefit the OSS provider? The license doesn't contain anything suggesting otherwise. If authors want credit and money, the license needs to state as much. You can't publish something saying "do whatever you want" and then complain that people aren't being fair to you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They do it at no benefit to the OSS providers, that's the issue.
But isn't that part of the point of open source? If you want people to have to pay for it in some way, it needs to be part of the license. The license is essentially free for all.
There is an expectation of contribution back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They do it at no benefit to the OSS providers, that's the issue.
Why do they need to benefit the OSS provider? The license doesn't contain anything suggesting otherwise. If authors want credit and money, the license needs to state as much. You can't publish something saying "do whatever you want" and then complain that people aren't being fair to you.
I am sure some people don't steal/murder because of laws, but I optimistically think the majority don't because they don't wish to hurt others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do too. But, a better middle-ground needs to be found which services both consumers and developers. It could literally be as simple as something closer to a 90/10 split.
There wouldn't be uproar if it was 10%. Everything else is perfectly reasonable but taking a 30% cut is extreme.
For developers I think a possible strategy would be to sell two products; standard edition and iOS optimized. Charge +30% for the iOS version since Apple users are (supposedly) willing to pay more.
I've been a freelance iOS app developer for almost a decade. Apple has always operated this way. They have rules that are somewhat vague, and they choose when they want to enforce them and how they should be interpreted. For example: you weren't allowed to show device bezels in app store screenshots for a long time, even though all the major apps did exactly that. If you were a small time developer though you would g…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They do it at no benefit to the OSS providers, that's the issue.
But isn't that part of the point of open source? If you want people to have to pay for it in some way, it needs to be part of the license. The license is essentially free for all.
The issues are only a little over a half decade old now the OSS players are starting to figure it out.
Open source just doesn't mean anyone can use it, there's a definition to adhere to and and org managing that definition. [1]
It was never intended as a free for all.
[0] https://opensource.org/licenses [1] https://opensource.org/about