41–50 of 671 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except Unreal Engine actually delivers some value for their cut.
The Apple software/hardware ecosystem delivers no value?
The way this is worded makes no sense - surely it should be for the first $1,000,000? $1,000,000 = $150,000 $1,000,001 = >$300,000? It feels like a knee-jerk reaction to the ongoing complaints without much forethought other than an arbitrary change in the percentage below some round number.
Weird how this is the exact opposite of Valve's strategy: > For all sales between $10 million and $50 million, the split goes to 25 percent. And for every sale after the initial $50 million, Steam will take just a 20 percent cut. https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/30/18120577/valve-steam-gam...
Why weird? 2 different strategies with completely different goals. Valve's strategy looks like to maximise revenue and get big companies on board that do $10+ mil in sales giving them incentives and discounts to be on the platform. (I think of it as tax break to incentivise high-earners to stay in the state/country) Apple's strategy looks like to put more money into small companies/developers, while still charging th…
The correct amount is still 0%, from anyone.
Weird how this is the exact opposite of Valve's strategy: > For all sales between $10 million and $50 million, the split goes to 25 percent. And for every sale after the initial $50 million, Steam will take just a 20 percent cut. https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/30/18120577/valve-steam-gam...
Steam wants to disincentivize big companies making their own distribution, which is why they have the regressive split.
If I understand correctly though, since it's a hard cutoff it creates this gap between 1m and ~1.2m where you're actually worse off by making more money pre-tax.
999k --[-15%]--> 849k
1000k --[-30%]--> 700k
1213k --[-30%]--> 849kEarlier quoted context omitted.
This really isn't a problem in practice, unless you are going out of your way to try to bend the rules set in place, especially about sales.
It can be a problem in practise since the rules aren't fairly or consistently enforced. Look to recent issues with iSH being approved and rejected. Edit: as others have pointed out iSH isn't the best example of this.
iSH tried to circumvent this with a technicality, and it seems to have initially "worked", but I think it's a poor example of an app unfairly/inconsistently targeted.
Great move! 30% is a case for antitrust given how big Apple App Store today is. 15% seems reasonable, 10% would be ideal. Though it should be 15% for everybody, no artificial caps. Moreover, I believe once you become a platform there should be an independent nano-courthouse where you can appeal. Today being rejected by Apple, Amazon, or Google platform is equivalent to the economical death penalty for many individual…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Apple software/hardware ecosystem delivers no value?
Why should developers also pay for this, when end users already do? Apple is double dipping like a world-class monopolist (see: ISPs who charge both peers and customers).