Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Y Combinator files brief supporting Epic Games, says store fees stifle startups

macrumors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 247 posts

Re: Y Combinator files brief supporting Epic Games, says store fees stifle startups

#101

Post by johnnyanmac »

ianbutler wrote: post #51
lloyddobbler wrote: post #4

“A 30% revenue share can easily be the difference between a company that can afford to scale, hire new employees, and reinvest in its product, and one that is perpetually struggling to stay afloat.” This brought up a fun thought exercise for me. Pretty sure that Y Combinator would argue that giving away 7% of one's company for access to intangible (but beneficial) things like funding, advisors, etc, is completely wor…

The dynamics of 7% of ownership and 30% of ongoing revenue are vastly different. So different in fact that the comparison doesn't hold water.

I'd love to hear a proper cointerargument, and not a dismissal.

Re: Y Combinator files brief supporting Epic Games, says store fees stifle startups

#102

Post by johnnyanmac »

JustExAWS wrote: post #99
Hammershaft wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Startup founders can choose between many models of funding, VCs, etc. Starups cannot choose between different ways of accessing willing customers over iOS, they have to comply with a %30 cut and a jungle of regulations that act in Apple's interest. These two examples aren't the same, even just on the basis of market power.

Startups aren’t paying 30% of sales unless they have more then $1 million in revenue coming through the App Store, they are selling access to digital goods and even then, they can still sell access to subscriptions and services outside of the App Store and now they can link directly to their website from the App Store thanks to the courts ruling - at least in the US.

>they can link directly to their website from the App Store thanks to the courts ruling - at least in the US.

In Apple. fashion, they are still pushing back on this despite the court ruling. It only shows more so why Apple needs to be made to open up.

Re: Y Combinator files brief supporting Epic Games, says store fees stifle startups

#103

Post by johnnyanmac »

sokoloff wrote: post #62
maximus_01 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are really trying to say that for a startup trying to build software, say a productivity app or whatever, they should consider launching their own hardware device? They are very different things and would basically make indie development impossible (or really any software company that can't raise hundreds of millions to billions)

You’re arguing that Apple’s App Store, even with its commission, is a better business proposition. I agree, and from that conclude that Apple’s earned their commission/fees.

Apple with a 90% commission would still be a better business proposition.Did they earn that or are they at that point a monopoly on half a domain of tech?

Re: Y Combinator files brief supporting Epic Games, says store fees stifle startups

#104

Post by JustExAWS »

maximus_01 wrote: post #67
sokoloff wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re arguing that Apple’s App Store, even with its commission, is a better business proposition. I agree, and from that conclude that Apple’s earned their commission/fees.

There is a limit to this sort of logic though. Don't get me wrong, I'm generally pro free markets. But: A) Apple's policies make some products completely unviable (anything with a gross margin less than 30%). Even for products at say 40% gross margin, Apple as a storefront is taking 75% of the gross margin pool (ie 30% to Apple, 10% to developer). This in my view is direct consumer harm. B) Apple acts egregiously and…

This hasn’t been true in months in the US because of the courts ruling. Right now, just looking at two apps, you can click on “Buy book” from the Kindle app and be redirected to Amazon’s website and download the Netflix app, click on “Get Started” and create an account.

Re: Y Combinator files brief supporting Epic Games, says store fees stifle startups

#105

Post by JustExAWS »

frollogaston wrote: post #60
bentocorp wrote: post #2

I recently wrote about how Apple now has the most hostile developer ecosystem of any major platform: https://www.magiclasso.co/insights/apple-development/ Good to see VCs and Y Combinator now supporting and pushing for change.

I know this isn't the biggest thing, but it's funny how even simple questions have complicated answers in Swift, ex https://stackoverflow.com/questions/39677330/how-does-string...

Someone hasn’t programmed on Windows…

https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp_questions/comments/10pvfia/look...

Re: Y Combinator files brief supporting Epic Games, says store fees stifle startups

#106

Post by JustExAWS »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #81
MagicMoonlight wrote: post #75

I don’t care that developers have to pay 30%, it makes no difference to me. If that fee went away… it would just give them 30% more profit.

In a lot of cases prices would go down, that extra 30% makes app development often pretty unprofitable if you aren't the store. And a lot of things just aren't available on mobile because of the cut. Most apps which offer movies or books for sale for instance only let you view them on the phone, you have to buy on the web.

90% of in app purchases on the App Store come from pay to win games. I don’t think the cost of loot boxes and coins would go down. The 90% number came from the Epic Trial.

The other major players in the App Store haven’t allowed in app purchases for years.

Re: Y Combinator files brief supporting Epic Games, says store fees stifle startups

#107

Post by bloomca »

rootusrootus wrote: post #64

If there was more than a duopoly in smartphones, I'd say Apple should be able to have whatever horrible app policy they want, so long as it is clearly communicated to everyone including customers. Let the market decide. But that's not where we are. I think it makes sense to treat both Apple and Google as de facto monopolies with respect to the smartphone market, and impose some regulation on what they have to allow a…

Is it allowed to charge more in storefronts which take these cuts? Why nobody does that?

What about Steam? Can a publisher sell a game for ~$45 in their store and $60 in Steam, or is it against some TOC?

Re: Y Combinator files brief supporting Epic Games, says store fees stifle startups

#108

Post by Fomite »

maximus_01 wrote: post #55
addaon wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Starups cannot choose between different ways of accessing willing customers over iOS What? They can offer an SPA, or a traditional web page. They can offer a hardware device. They can make an android app compelling enough to convert users.

You are really trying to say that for a startup trying to build software, say a productivity app or whatever, they should consider launching their own hardware device? They are very different things and would basically make indie development impossible (or really any software company that can't raise hundreds of millions to billions)

I believe we call that a "pivot"

Re: Y Combinator files brief supporting Epic Games, says store fees stifle startups

#109

Post by echelon »

bloomca wrote: post #107
rootusrootus wrote: post #64

If there was more than a duopoly in smartphones, I'd say Apple should be able to have whatever horrible app policy they want, so long as it is clearly communicated to everyone including customers. Let the market decide. But that's not where we are. I think it makes sense to treat both Apple and Google as de facto monopolies with respect to the smartphone market, and impose some regulation on what they have to allow a…

Is it allowed to charge more in storefronts which take these cuts? Why nobody does that? What about Steam? Can a publisher sell a game for ~$45 in their store and $60 in Steam, or is it against some TOC?

Games are silly and inessential. And there are a dozen markets to choose from. Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Steam, GOG, Epic, Ubisoft, Humble, Itch, direct download, retro games, ...

Phones are essential. You can't get a job without one. It's impossible to stay connected or navigate without one. You can't even order food in a restaurant these days without your smartphone. Yet two companies control and tax the entirety of mobile computing.

Scratch that. Mobile computing *IS* computing for most people. It's the only computer or internet portal they know.

And two companies own it all. The passport to the modern world is owned and taxed by two trillion dollar companies.

2000's-era DOJ-litigated antitrust abuser Microsoft dreams that they had this much of a monopoly.

The Halloween papers sounded evil. Mobile computing monopolization is evil.

Here's what needs to be done:

1. Web installs. Both companies need to allow web native installs without scare walls or buried settings flags that need to be enabled. First class apps from the web, with no scaring users about it. We have all the technology to make this work safely: permissions, app scanning, signature blacklisting, etc.

2. Defaults. Both companies need to be prevented from pushing their apps as defaults. No more default browsers, default wallets, default app stores, default photo galleries, default search engine, etc.

3. Taxation and control. Apps cannot be taxed on any transactions. Users must not be forced to "sign in" with the monopoly provider's identity system. Apps must not be forced to use the monopoly payment rails. Apps must not be forced to be human reviewed or update to the latest UI changes / SDK on a whim.

Mobile apps and platforms must work like desktop software.

We need this freedom and flexibility for consumers, and we need competition to oxygenate the tech sector and reward innovation. Capitalism shouldn't be easy - it should be hard to keep your spot at the top. Resting on the laurels of easily defended moats for twenty years while reaping some of the most outsized benefits in the industry has created lethargy and held us back.

Re: Y Combinator files brief supporting Epic Games, says store fees stifle startups

#110

Post by ianbutler »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #101
ianbutler wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dynamics of 7% of ownership and 30% of ongoing revenue are vastly different. So different in fact that the comparison doesn't hold water.

I'd love to hear a proper cointerargument, and not a dismissal.

Equity ownership doesn't directly effect operating capacity on the same timescale as revenue. (sure investment does but in a positive way, but again not quite the same) Where as revenue does on shorter timescales, and 30% off revenue is an ongoing constraint to operating capacity day to day in a way ownership just isn't.

They don't behave the same way so to make the comparison didn't make any sense.

Note: Edited this a few times because words are hard.

Post reply on HN