481–490 of 513 posts
Discussion of Apple topics here on HN almost always gets reduced to the argument that Apple is not a monopoly, so what they are doing is OK. I want to present an alternative viewpoint. It's not a monopoly issue, it is an anti-competitive issue. In Canada, we have three major cell carriers. None of them has a monopoly, or anything close to it. None of them has even 50% market share. You can have a 10 GB smartphone pla…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Far from it, I'm thinking more in terms of Liz Warren's Accountable Capitalism Act: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accountable_Capitalism_Act
Ah okay this at least makes some sense. I don't know how effective something like this would be, wouldn't this just incentivize hiring people that fit your political agenda? For instance let's say you hire a bunch of Chinese/Indian immigrants on H-1B visas, they'll just vote in people that benefit China/India Also the 1997-2011 era Apple probably wouldn't have worked under a law like this
That's what all companies already do: the political agenda of every publicly held large company today is to please its shareholders, and only to please its shareholders. The proposal changes the political agendas of large companies so that they also have to please their workers and communities.
> For instance let's say you hire a bunch of Chinese/Indian immigrants on H-1B visas, they'll just vote in people that benefit China/India
Kind of a pessimistic view of humanity there. Immigrants are just as good as native-born citizens at collectively deciding what's best for the organization they work in.
> Also the 1997-2011 era Apple probably wouldn't have worked under a law like this
Apple would certainly be different, but so would its competition.
Discussion of Apple topics here on HN almost always gets reduced to the argument that Apple is not a monopoly, so what they are doing is OK. I want to present an alternative viewpoint. It's not a monopoly issue, it is an anti-competitive issue. In Canada, we have three major cell carriers. None of them has a monopoly, or anything close to it. None of them has even 50% market share. You can have a 10 GB smartphone pla…
> They don't gather in smoke-filled rooms and decide how to screw over their customers. While that makes for nice rhetoric in your great comment, you don't actually know that this doesn't happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple is at a much higher dollar share of the high-spending consumer segment that is relevant to app developers.
But could it be that the extra 30% Apple charges goes partly towards curating apps and ensuring they work well and are reasonably secure? And that the high-spending consumer segment appreciates this?
Discussion of Apple topics here on HN almost always gets reduced to the argument that Apple is not a monopoly, so what they are doing is OK. I want to present an alternative viewpoint. It's not a monopoly issue, it is an anti-competitive issue. In Canada, we have three major cell carriers. None of them has a monopoly, or anything close to it. None of them has even 50% market share. You can have a 10 GB smartphone pla…
Same for webdev
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure make them general computers too. I would rather have all of these devices give more choices to users. However the current focus is on Apple due to their size.
I'll reiterate: I've already stated, the market decides to buy iPhones understanding (even appreciating) that the user cannot side-load non-Apple approved apps (other than through a less trusted channel i.e. the browser). As such the market through demand, has decided there is a niche ecosystem where 30% fees for in app purchases are appropriate and fair. Why is this market dynamic an issue given there are so many ga…
But I disagree that consumers agree to 30% because they continue to buy expecting sideloading to be relegated from relevancy.
If polled, I doubt consumers would guess the royalty is even that high. Someone should run a survey.
I am in general, very favorable toward Apple as a company. I’ve commented before that I believe in the company’s stance toward privacy. I see Apple as a benevolent dictator in its continued security restrictions on MacOS. With some exception to his deference to Trump, I admire Tim Cook as he presents himself as a person.
However, I have also sold apps through the App Store.
And there’s no real way around Apple’s massive financial success. It’s so big, if it were a person they would be burned at the stake.
There is an upper bound on reasonable net income.
This isn’t even about tax revenue, it is about any developer getting more than 70 cents on the dollar for their work.
Getting an app into the App Store barely means anything; you have to market it. Sure it is “safe” and incredibly easy to install. But good luck thinking that because you see a Ready For Sale message your app is going to be a hit.
In my experience, Apple is snobbish in interaction with developers.
At least historically, there is very little goodwill, even when Apple magically decides to “feature“ your work. Which is again self-serving because they take their cut regardless.
I am having a hard time defending Apple’s rate. Not because of Epic but because of someone like me who wants to sell software on the best (and only other serious) mobile platform.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They don't gather in smoke-filled rooms and decide how to screw over their customers. While that makes for nice rhetoric in your great comment, you don't actually know that this doesn't happen.
You don’t know that OP doesn’t actually know that doesn’t happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Unreal were the problem, Fortnite could have chosen a different game engine at the start (this is not about terms changing after all) and it would not affect their options to sell to customers. And while porting would be expensive, it would be possible without loosing access to customers. Nobody doesn't buy a game because they bought an unreal-only PC somewhere.
> Fortnite could have chosen a different game engine at the start (this is not about terms changing after all) Right. Apple's terms were clear from the start, so Fortnite had no reasonable expectation to be allowed to violate them. Just like Fortnite could have chosen to use a different game engine if they didn't like the terms of a particular game engine, they could choose to focus on non-Apple platforms (or choose…
Which is why the game engine comparison is a bad one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Unreal were the problem, Fortnite could have chosen a different game engine at the start (this is not about terms changing after all) and it would not affect their options to sell to customers. And while porting would be expensive, it would be possible without loosing access to customers. Nobody doesn't buy a game because they bought an unreal-only PC somewhere.
> Fortnite could have chosen a different game engine at the start (this is not about terms changing after all) Right. Apple's terms were clear from the start, so Fortnite had no reasonable expectation to be allowed to violate them. Just like Fortnite could have chosen to use a different game engine if they didn't like the terms of a particular game engine, they could choose to focus on non-Apple platforms (or choose…