Comment by endisneigh
2 years ago
Why does the percent taken matter? How much is appropriate? Ultimately they’re transparent about the fee, the choice is the developers.
In any case there should be a way to put your phone into some insecure mode and then you can explicitly download any app you want, yes.
But about Tesla - if you could make money, lots of money, selling Tesla dash apps, who cares if they take 30%? The alternative is today, you don’t really make anything at all.
> Why does the percent taken matter?
These are legitimate businesses taking aim at Apple's predatory anti-competitive behavior. If the percent taken was 0, there would be no case. Why does it matter? Because profit margins
> How much is appropriate?
It depends. That's what this case is about. In the case of Spotify, probably 0% because Apple is their largest direct competitor. It's the definition of anti-competitive.
> Ultimately they’re transparent about the fee, the choice is the developers.
Stop saying there's a choice... There's no choice. Again, that's what the whole case is about. The market is what it is. Consumers are using iPhones. A business like Spotify can't choose to reduce their revenue by 50%. They have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders.
> if you could make money, lots of money, selling Tesla dash apps, who cares if they take 30%?
You keep missing the part where Apple is a direct competitor. So in this very terrible analogy, say my app was a music app, and after seeing that my music app is making lots and lots of money, Tesla releases their own music app, they would effectively earn 30% of my revenue and could freely use it to drive my business into the ground. 30% extra to advertise, do research and development, and acquire more music licenses. It's impossible to compete in a market where your competitor has their hands in your pockets. So in that (again very terrible) analogy, yes it would be anti-competitive, and who cares? I would.
We should agree to disagree. Perhaps in your world the government makes profit illegal and everyone is happy.
I will say your whole thing about Spotify reducing revenue by 50% is also just wrong. Apple along with others are the one who curated such users willing to pay to begin with. How much would they be making if the iPhone didn’t exist? If android didn’t exist? Clearly google and apple respectively should profit off their effort.
My last comment will be: despite what you keep on saying, companies do have a choice. That’s why there are both iOS and Android exclusive apps and businesses.
> We should agree to disagree
Agree. But lastly...
> Apple along with others are the one who curated such users willing to pay to begin with.
In what world is Apple responsible for curating the users of _music_? The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Taylor Swift, and Beyonce curated those users. If Apple never existed, just as many people would still be listening to their music. For the last time, Apple created the App Store - the Market for apps, yet they also have their own music app. They're a direct competitor of Spotify, which is why their tax is anti-comptetitive.
> That’s why there are both iOS and Android exclusive apps and businesses.
Again, you're going in circles. I'm not talking about those businesses and never have been. It's existing businesses. They can't leave because their customers are using those devices... They're contractually obligated to their customers and shareholders. Perhaps in your world Apple makes profit illegal and everyone is happy.
Apple is not transparent about the fee at all. Developers are not allowed to use other payment processors, can't mention that prices are cheaper elsewhere, or tell users why the prices are higher.
How is that transparent?