It’s not governments job to tell me if I can smoke or not or drink or bunjee jump. Tell me those are dangerous sure.
Apple provides access to it’s customer base, games (and other apps) use it’s apis to run. Whether you like it or not, that is the value add. Plus some other things.
Because it’s easier than recognizing that Apple has cultivated over a billion paying users and THAT’S what developers pay the commission for. That’s why developers may a commission to Steam, that’s why they pay a commission to Sony, to Nintendo, to Epic, to Roblox, to anyone that has built something that developers can use to try to get money from the customers they’ve built.
They provide relatively easy and seamless access to a worldwide group of over a billion users that purchase digital content. A LOT of digital content.
I know what you mean. I accepted that many believe Apple is a not for profit company and should behave like that and in no way shape or form is entitled to any fee or commission….and even the $99/year is highway robbery.
A dev can develop for windows, web apps, websites or Linux. Where is a dev only tied down to the iPhone or some android variant?
Those terms are applicable to devs using the App Store. We're talking about devs using their own app store, links in apps to outside sites and processing their own payments.
Additionally, there are BILLIONS of folks making a living right now that never have to pay Apple a commission. Software development… very specifically Apple iOS Software Development is not required for a human to make the currency needed to survive. Potential developers should weigh the benefits and disadvantages and choose the path that best suits them personally. If potentially making, say $765,000 after paying $135,000 commission on sales of $900,000 just rubs a person the wrong way… just NOT a line they can cross, then they shouldn’t be a developer for iOS.
But there is only effectively two mobile platforms because of Google, not Apple. Google is the one that entered into anticompetitive agreements with its competitors.
Look up the definition of "mutually beneficial". Imagine if devs started leaving iOS platform because they don't like the terms (as you suggest they should do). Imagine iPhone consumers starting to complain that their favorite app is only on Android. Imagine iPhone sales declining as previous iPhone buyers move to Android. Now, ask yourself how much Apple depends on their developers to write iOS apps.
You're the one who brought up the developer terms by bringing up the $99 developer fee. Try to keep up with your own statements.
Imagine Apple steps in as developer. Of course there may be some antitrust implications, but Apple with its pile of cash could start a new business line.
Seems like the terms are already mutually beneficial since the exodus you describe isn’t happening.
You're wrong, again. I brought up the $99 developer fee as the reason devs have the right to the tools to write apps.
Sigh, no, you don’t get rights to software by paying part of the required fees. You get it by agreeing to terms and paying all the required fees.
Imagine that’s “business as usual”. Because that’s what it is. Developers could leave iOS, Users could leave iPhones and poor Apple would just have to deal with it. Their stock would tank, yadda, yadda. They’d be fine, though. Their company value is such that they could weather the storm and have an opportunity to come up with something else.
> iOS platform
I might be weird, but I like going in circles debating the same topics again and again 🙂
Yes, admittedly I phrased it wrong in my original message. What *additional value* other than that I've mentioned earlier is so essential that Apple has to go out of their way to seek their money for?
While I don't agree with the commenter about some of the examples given, it is worth asking what governments need to be involved in. Do they need to regulate everything that can or might protect people's lives? For example, is it the role of governments to pass a law that people must wear helmets when riding bicycles? Or should people know the benefits of wearing helmets but have the personal responsibility to choose to wear or not wear a helmet? Or, what about requiring when riding motorcycles but not bicycles? What about ebikes? Where's the line to draw in regulations?
This entirely removes from the equation the developers who helped popularize the platform, and without which iOS would've never reached the level of popularity it did.
No, they don’t. Access requires agreement to terms which include the annual fee AND commission when applicable.
It’s certainly not rent seeking. It’s clearly profit seeking in that they provide value in exchange for compensation. And greed is little more than loaded language in this context.
WE are the stadium owners. We bought the iPhone, licensed the OS, but Apple still wants to collect rent for apps we put on it. That is the correct analogy.
