Apple Announces App Store Small Business Program

To somewhat oversimplify, you are allowed to not invite competitors to sell to your customers in your own backyard. Unless you are a monopoly. Because then that “backyard” isn’t rightfully yours to control.

At the moment I am inclined to believe the iPhone is Apple’s own backyard and they should have dominion over what happens there.

If you want to confiscate Apple’s backyard, you do it at the risk that you damage a company that has done a great service for the world, and a company that IMO deserves the benefit of controlling its own destiny and should be left to continue innovating on its own terms.

If someone thinks they can do better then there’s trillions of dollars in market cap on the line and I welcome them to try. Apple won’t stop them from trying, but will certainly compete fiercely on the merits.

You are right. Choices and options just are messy. We should just have one company that does everything. Lets just merge everything together.

> all of it is from a company that can be trusted to do things in a secure and private way.

Are you for real? Apple is one of the greediest immoral and anti-competitive companies in the world. Not just in terms of tax avoidance via offshore shenanigans or slave labor in china, but their overall ethos of closed platform. But trust Saint Apple if you must.

> Do you really want the likes of PayPal or Epic to dominate mobile App Store payments?

What's wrong with nobody dominating anything and having competition?

So then the game devs get more revenue share for the specific example of the Epic Game store. Great. Glad you agree.

> everyone except for EPIC

So epic gives a larger revenue share to game devs. Great. And Apple's actions are preventing this revenue share increase to game developers, for that game store, at the very least.

> You are the not the arbiter of what is a valid example.

What? Even you agree that epic is giving game developers a large revenue share. That is an example right there, that exists.

> isn't representative of a whole

Its representative of at least one example though! So that means that Apple is preventing at least 1 competing app store that would have a better revenue share, for game developers. That single example, is an example of harm done to game developers.

> If* it is proven so in court than I may agree with you.

So then your previous statement about who "deserves" the money could be invalid.

> You keep on pretending that there is only one phone manufacturer

Anti-competitive practices do not require a literal singular monopoly, for them to be illegal. Instead, all that is required is them having significant market power. Which Apple clearly has.

> Your opinion isn't a fact.

Ok, then your opinion, of Apple "deserving" anything is also not a fact, because the court case could prove that the actions are anti-competitive.

You cannot at all say that Apple "deserves" this money, if the courts prove their actions to be anti-competitive.

> You want the market to be legislated because you don't like Apple.

No, it is because philosophically I want game devs to get more of the revenue split. Why? Because they developed the game.

> If people argued from the fact that there should be able to sideload applications.

What? Thats basically what this is about. Allowing other competing app stores on the platform.

That would be dangerous, because imagine being under 1million all year, and in December you make 1 dollar too much - suddenly you would have to pay Apple a lot of money you may have already spent. You never pay Apple though, they just keep their cut.

No I don't. How disingenous. The claim was that it would reduce the cost. There is no guarantee this will happen.

> So epic gives a larger revenue share to game devs. Great. And Apple's actions are preventing this revenue share increase to game developers, for that game store, at the very least.

At the moment they do. But they won't in the future. You need to actually see EPIC's stance on this. If you read some of the interviews of the guy that runs it (I can't remember his name now) you would come to the same conclusion as I have.

All you are doing is thinking short term. I am thinking long term. So in the long-term there it won't benefit anyone except for EPIC.

> Its representative of at least one example though! So that means that Apple is preventing at least 1 competing app store that would have a better revenue share, for game developers.

You keep on reframing (dishonestly) the subject. When I originally replied to this thread I was specifically debunking the 30/70 split as being unreasonable as it simply isn't true as it something that exists outside of the IT industry. It just a split that people over the course of time have decided is reasonable. Maybe it is vestigial remnant of the past, but it is still seen as reasonable in similar types of relationships. To say otherwise (despite your protests) is a nonsense.

Also EPIC are buying their way in. They won't be able to keep it up forever (sooner or later people will stop buying skins on fortnite). Which means they will have to up their take at some point. If you don't think this will happen you are simply foolish.

> That single example, is an example of harm done to game developers.

The way the term harm is used these days is disgraceful.

> So then your previous statement about who "deserves" the money could be invalid.

No. The operative word in there is if.

> Anti-competitive practices do not require a literal singular monopoly, for them to be illegal. Instead, all that is required is them having significant market power. Which Apple clearly has.

That hasn't been decided by anyone. So you cannot claim that.

>Ok, then your opinion, of Apple "deserving" anything is also not a fact, because the court case could prove that the actions are anti-competitive.

Because something can be decided in the future doesn't mean it can be considered anti-competitive. This is a nonsense.

> You cannot at all say that Apple "deserves" this money, if the courts prove their actions to be anti-competitive.

Yes I can. If you want to be on the App Store, the agreement until recently was that it is a 30/70 split. That was the agreement between them and the app publisher. They are owed that money because that was what was in the agreement.

> No, it is because philosophically I want game devs to get more of the revenue split. Why? Because they developed the game.

I doubt that is the case. You wouldn't be supporting EPIC if that was the case. EPIC want a sea of launchers and return us to the days of game publishers which Steam btw broke that bullshit (for PC at least).

> What? Thats basically what this is about. Allowing other competing app stores on the platform.

No it isn't. It is about one large company EPIC trying to force another large company's hand (Apple) and trying to convince you that it is for your benefit. Both companies are doing PR and you are stupid enough to fall for the BS.

If EPIC wins. Do you know what will happen? There will be two dominate app stores. One owned by EPIC where 99% of the money taken through it will be for fortnite skins the Apple one. There will be others and nobody will use them because most normies will just use whatever is already on the phone. Independent devs will still get most of their revenue from Apple's store and nothing will change for them.

The only people that is likely to get any benefit out of this if they win is EPIC and it won't be the indie dev hacker. You are foolish to think otherwise.

Anyway this deffo will be last reply to you are you seem to be disingenous.