141–150 of 1001 posts
If something like that had been in incubation and available for lawyers to draw on for their arguments I wonder if it would have impacted the case (especially when judge says things like "failed to prove the existence of substantially less restrictive alternatives").
Am I getting this right? Say I use Stripe as my payment processor. Stripe takes 2.9% + $0.30, then Apple takes 27% so I'm at 29.9% + $0.30 being taken out of however much I charge for my app? For a $10 app, $0.30 is 3% putting the fee at 32.9%. For the privilege of paying 2.9% more, my users get to see a scary privacy message and when I bill the customer a year later for a subscription, there's a 20-30% chance that t…
[flagged]
Am I getting this right? Say I use Stripe as my payment processor. Stripe takes 2.9% + $0.30, then Apple takes 27% so I'm at 29.9% + $0.30 being taken out of however much I charge for my app? For a $10 app, $0.30 is 3% putting the fee at 32.9%. For the privilege of paying 2.9% more, my users get to see a scary privacy message and when I bill the customer a year later for a subscription, there's a 20-30% chance that t…
Oh absolutely it is. But all app store developers are complicit in enabling that monopoly. What should happen is that all app store developers withdraw their apps until Apple sees the light. But that won't happen because every app store developer will be pitted against their competition in a race to the bottom who will accept the highest fees that Apple is going to impose and sooner or later you'll be back at that 30…
1) Many App Store apps are completely free, paying nothing to Apple except the $99 per year fee, so they have no stake in this issue.
2) My understanding is that more than 90% of developers in the App Store make less than $1 million per year and thus are covered by the Small Business Program, which charges only 15% rather than 30%. Revenue in the App Store is extremely top-heavy, with most going to a relatively small number of the top developers (such as Epic, previously). How much are developers willing to risk just to lower the 15% cut somewhat?
3) Let's be clear, you're talking about a strike. Many developers derive their entire income from the App Store, so withdrawing their apps means no income. A wealthy corporation such as Epic can survive, but what about little indie developers?
4) An individual developer uniterally striking would be futile and self-destructive. Developers would need to be organized and all strike simultaneously.
5) Strikes are very difficult to organize. Forming a union almost always has to come first. And union members typically work together in the same building, which greatly facilitates organization. Whereas there are a huge number of App Store developers scattered all around the world, and they speak different languages. How would you even communicate with all of them to organize? (EDIT: I see in another comment that you think it's easy as spreading cat memes. That's not a serious suggestion.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh absolutely it is. But all app store developers are complicit in enabling that monopoly. What should happen is that all app store developers withdraw their apps until Apple sees the light. But that won't happen because every app store developer will be pitted against their competition in a race to the bottom who will accept the highest fees that Apple is going to impose and sooner or later you'll be back at that 30…
I suspect that after 15 years of the App Store existing most developers know the score. And so by all means withdraw your app but the rest of us will simply continue to pay the 15/30% as we have always done.
The “better security” argument just doesn’t make sense in this context.
There's a strong chance this will be shot down as "bad-faith" compliance. Rumor is Epic will quickly contest it [Update: confirmed] https://twitter.com/timsweeneyepic/status/174740814726057173...
They did back when they were part of the developer program. If they can make their case that it is bad faith compliance as part of their original case before the Court goes “c’ya, we’re done here”, they might have something, but Apple revoked Epic’s membership for violating their terms in the developer program worldwide and at the conclusion of this lawsuit, Apple has not been ordered to reinstate it. So Epic can’t really argue that they have or will have suffered a harm under these new terms since they’re still in a position where Apple isn’t doing business with them and their lawsuit under which they did have standing is basically at its conclusion.
Am I getting this right? Say I use Stripe as my payment processor. Stripe takes 2.9% + $0.30, then Apple takes 27% so I'm at 29.9% + $0.30 being taken out of however much I charge for my app? For a $10 app, $0.30 is 3% putting the fee at 32.9%. For the privilege of paying 2.9% more, my users get to see a scary privacy message and when I bill the customer a year later for a subscription, there's a 20-30% chance that t…
Apple need the 30% to keep the services revenue up to keep the stock price up. I have no doubt many people at Apple know this is wrong, including the people at the very top, but stock must not go down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, in a regular browser you can make purchases on Amazon like normal. If you attempt to purchase a kindle book from within the kindle app, you will not be able to. Nor will there be any messaging explaining how to make a purchase (because apple does not allow such messaging). You’ll just be mysteriously confused about why you can’t buy a book.
Why can I buy an Audible audiobook directly in the app on iOS (and for cheaper than listed on Amazon), but not a Kindle book?
You can use your credits from your subscription, but you cannot pay for a new audiobook in the app.
I’m not leaving the app to pay…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh absolutely it is. But all app store developers are complicit in enabling that monopoly. What should happen is that all app store developers withdraw their apps until Apple sees the light. But that won't happen because every app store developer will be pitted against their competition in a race to the bottom who will accept the highest fees that Apple is going to impose and sooner or later you'll be back at that 30…
This is a weird take. It’s similar to saying workers pre unionisation and labour movements were complicit in enabling poor working conditions.