211–220 of 247 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or maybe the iPhone should be that phone and those who don’t like the closed ecosystem should get something else? Why would buy a phone that doesn’t work the way you like when alternatives exist?
Because we want the iPhone on our terms .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A family member of mine has an Apple phone, and the lack of availability of not just open source software but even freeware or freemium software astounds me. They make it so difficult to distribute anything, that it's not worth it unless you are getting significant revenue. This means that often the only option is something extremely scammy that charges monthly for the most trivial capabilities. Of course, Apple gets…
You know how we got here? It used to be a free-for-all where grandma could download any software off the Internet on her Windows computer. You know how the rest went. I honestly don't mind it. It's so easy to recommend an iPhone to non-technical users, knowing the app store is still not compromised with low quality/malicious garbage. (Sure it requires a bit of expectation attenuation but the Android app stores are wo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because we want the iPhone on our terms .
So? I want it on my terms, which are mutually exclusive to yours. Who wins?
We're asking to rewire the economics and regulatory framework, not change how you personally use your phone.
I don't care how you use your phone. I care how the world works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's about provisioning for credit losses. Roughly speaking, when a transaction needs to be unwound, if the merchant cannot cover the reversal (for example, because it has defaulted), then the payment processor needs to pony up instead. Note that this isn't an edge case, this is something that happens every day. If the payment processor defaults (gasp!), then the processor's sponsor bank needs to cover it. This is wh…
Okay, why does this all work basically the same in Europe, but interchange fees are capped at 0.3% by law? The reason has nothing to do with fraud or technology.
2. In EU, while Interchange is regulated, Scheme fees, Acquirer fees, and Processor fees are not. These are usually also expressed as percentage of the transaction value.
3. Because of the more limited avenues to offset risk, access to credit in EU is more difficult than in more dynamic markets like the US (not saying it’s good or bad, just highlighting that there are downstream impacts).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Many startups are still losing money at $1M ARR. So getting a bump up to 30% of revenue at $1M can be catastrophic. Investors don't want large percentages of pre-profit money being siphoned off by Apple. Generally speaking, an optimized win-win fee would be some percentage of profits, not revenue. That might be far too difficult to manage, accounting wise. But we can safely say that 30% of revenue, would translate to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So? I want it on my terms, which are mutually exclusive to yours. Who wins?
You can choose not to download anything. We're asking to rewire the economics and regulatory framework, not change how you personally use your phone. I don't care how you use your phone. I care how the world works.
I indeed choose not to download software from Facebook and friends, but it’s quite likely others will need to as it will become the only way to get their software. At that point: tracking out the ass.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> prohibitively expensive fact checking Apple Tier 1 mandatory store services: 0.5€ Core Technology fee per install 2% Initial acquisition fee 5% Store service fee This includes app reviews, manual updates, and fraud protection. This tier is mandatory for any app that promotes external payment options. Compare that to 20-30% that Apple's own AppStore take and its a bargain. Even with Tier 2 with marketing tools, auto…
> fact checking You forgot that just to set up an alternative app store you need this: --- start quote --- Provide Apple a stand-by letter of credit in the amount of €1,000,000 from a financial institution that’s at least A-rated or equivalent by S&P, Fitch, or Moody’s, and maintain that standby letter of credit as long as your alternative app marketplace is in operation --- end quote --- > 0.5€ Core Technology fee p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> fact checking You forgot that just to set up an alternative app store you need this: --- start quote --- Provide Apple a stand-by letter of credit in the amount of €1,000,000 from a financial institution that’s at least A-rated or equivalent by S&P, Fitch, or Moody’s, and maintain that standby letter of credit as long as your alternative app marketplace is in operation --- end quote --- > 0.5€ Core Technology fee p…
[flagged]
Never new that "having a letter of credit for 1 000 000 dollars" and "having to pay 0.5 cents for every install potentially amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars just because people are installing your app" isn't prohibitively expensive
> Now after you started Googling
That's what you did. I knew about all those charges before you pretended they are nothing to write home about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can choose not to download anything. We're asking to rewire the economics and regulatory framework, not change how you personally use your phone. I don't care how you use your phone. I care how the world works.
What you are proposing is the balkanization of software delivery. I indeed choose not to download software from Facebook and friends, but it’s quite likely others will need to as it will become the only way to get their software. At that point: tracking out the ass.
The better analogy is a forest fire. We're clearing up the overgrowth (ossification, unfair taxation, and unfair control) and creating room for new life to start and flourish.
> I indeed choose not to download software from Facebook and friends, but it’s quite likely others will need to as it will become the only way to get their software. At that point: tracking out the ass.
Don't like a negative externality? Tax and regulate it. It's what Europe does. And it's what we're good at doing in every industry except for the software industry. We need to stretch those muscles and get back into the habit of doing it.
We should pass regulations on giant social media companies as well.
But in a world where we have no software freedoms and where certain software tracks us, having software freedoms is the more important cause and it's where we must start our battle. You don't need to use Facebook, but you need to use a smartphone. New social media apps are started all the time (TikTok, Tea, etc.) but smartphones are trillion dollar moats.
Our smartphones are our gateway to digital life. They need to be liberated from Apple and Google. Mobile computing belongs to all of us.
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.
Just because people will go along with something because they have no other choice, it doesn't mean it's a fair business practice that we should allow. Apple's deal is still an acceptable business proposition because there aren't any alternatives. Android users don't spend much on apps compared to iPhone users. It's an ok market, but not a great one, and in the US, if you aren't on the iPhone, then you aren't relevan…
People clearly have other choices here: develop for Android, develop for the web, create a telephony-based or text-response system, operate in bricks-n-mortar format, etc.