Apple: if we get you subscribers, we deserve a cut • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple: if we get you subscribers, we deserve a cut

#71

Post by brisance » Wed, Feb 16, 2011, 12:35 AM UTC

enjo wrote: post #18

brisance wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You get heavy promotion. Look at how Angry Birds and all the other games did by being featured on "New and Noteworthy" or "Staff Picks" or "Top Grossing Apps". It's a two-way street; don't make it sound like Apple is taking advantage of your efforts.

That works for a hugely small subset of apps. Each (well written) app creates a lot of value for iOs, most of those won't get anything at all from Apple. So again, why isn't the inverse true? If I'm building something that helps sell an iOs device, why shouldn't I get a cut? Of course I shouldn't, but that's the problem in Apples logic here.

That's like saying because Paris Hilton has an address in Beverly Hills and attracts tourists, the city should pay her. Actually that's not quite as insane as it sounds. Cities and counties give tax breaks to companies that bring jobs to their constituents, all the time. It all depends on who is in the position of power. If your app really is that good, concessions can always be made. Look at how long it took the Beatles to get on iTunes.

Re: Apple: if we get you subscribers, we deserve a cut

#72

Post by brisance » Wed, Feb 16, 2011, 12:58 AM UTC

I think this whole thing is overblown.

When I trade stock, options or pretty much anything, I get charged commissions. So by the same reckoning e*trade, Schwab, Ameritrade, are thieves and have been "stealing" from investors/traders for centuries.

Re: Apple: if we get you subscribers, we deserve a cut

#73

Post by chc » Wed, Feb 16, 2011, 2:37 AM UTC

nopal wrote: post #31

nomurrcy wrote: post #24

Full disclosure: I generally like apple products and have used NeXT / apple products for a long time. I don't see how Apple's stance here is defensible or honest. They using their position as a large platform provider to steal from 3rd party developers. To me this is akin to me writing a program for OSX that allows users to sign up for a subscription service, and apple taking a 30% cut of my cash flows just because I…

The cut is high, but Apple does do more with iOS than they do in your hypothetical. Apple has created a ecosystem in which it is very easy for consumers to purchase subscriptions. They're further enhancing the usefulness of this system by blocking applications that do not allow consumers to easily purchase subscriptions in a uniform way (e.g. in-app). And they're requiring app developers to pay 30% for the benefits t…

I might agree if Apple didn't force developers to make the price in Apple's ecosystem the same as the lowest price available elsewhere. If you want to take 30% of my money for the service of "exposing" my app (which I think that means "not banning" in the context of a walled garden), I need to charge 50% more just to maintain my profit margin.

Re: Apple: if we get you subscribers, we deserve a cut

#74

Post by chc » Wed, Feb 16, 2011, 2:40 AM UTC

relic17 wrote: post #40

nomurrcy wrote: post #24

Full disclosure: I generally like apple products and have used NeXT / apple products for a long time. I don't see how Apple's stance here is defensible or honest. They using their position as a large platform provider to steal from 3rd party developers. To me this is akin to me writing a program for OSX that allows users to sign up for a subscription service, and apple taking a 30% cut of my cash flows just because I…

"Dishonest", "steal", "anti competitive" - these are some heavy accusations. In the context of Apple's relationship with developers, dishonest would mean deliberately lying, cheating, or signing a contract and then reneging on it (in which case the developer has legal recourse). "Steal" is quite irrelevant here - if Apple stole anything from anyone, it would have been sued. "Anti-competitive" - if your definition of…

When framing arguments about Apple, I find it helpful to ask, "Would this defense apply just as well to Microsoft in the '90s?" And as far as I can see, your arguments apply better to Microsoft in the '90s than they do to Apple today. All Microsoft did was create a Web browser, create terms favorable to their interests and ensure that their Web browsing experience was the default. Unlike Apple, they didn't require competitors on their platform to pay them money or GTFO, they didn't require competing Web browsers to use a restricted subset of Explorer's engine, and they certainly didn't demand a cut of any revenue from transactions done through Netscape.

And yet Microsoft was convicted of anticompetitive behavior by pretty much every court in the world. So even if Apple really is on the up-and-up, your reasoning doesn't come close to showing it.