On Monopolies, Apple, and Epic
ia.net
ia.net
Full of straw men, dishonesty, ad hominems, and deeply one sided.
One way to make this piece better, the author needs to stop pretending that the only people who are supporting Apple against Epic have no experience shipping apps.
I have shipped many, and I vehemently disagree with the author.
It seems to me that there are just as many people on both sides of this debate with experience and just as many who don’t have it. The author’s claim is disingenuous.
Another claim that must be queried is the idea that Android users are by definition people who don’t want to spend money.
This seems like it’s a true observation, but unless we ask why it’s true, we can’t reason about this topic.
Apple will of course say it’s because of the effort they have put into building a safe platform, and the fact that they maintain a place where people are willing to spend money on software is exactly why they should continue to receive commission.
If we stop Apple from doing what they are doing, it’s completely plausible that we’ll end up with everyone having the willingness to pay that is demonstrated by Google Play, and software sales decimated by piracy.
It’s worth noting that I would love an environment without a gatekeeper. I actually agree that it’s bad for Apple to have this power.
I simply don’t see any reason to believe that forcing Apple to allow other stores (which is technically problematic since it requires that the state force Apple to maintain software) would produce the desired outcome.
I also think it’s completely disingenuous to dismiss benefits like security. That just makes it seem like the author doesn't have experience in the area. Malware is an obvious problem which clearly does exist.
Disclaimer: I love IA’s products. I think they are some of the best on the App Store.
I think the vast, vast majority of the app store developers would agree that the App store cut of 30% is not reasonable (or sustainable).
>a place where people are willing to spend money on software is exactly why they should continue to receive commission.
What part of the piece said "Apple should not receive any commission"?
>I simply don’t see any reason to believe that forcing Apple to allow other stores
What part of the article claimed "the solution is allowing other stores"?
It looks like you have no problem with strawmen when they're yours. The piece could have been better written, sure. But your reading of it seems very disingenuous.
The article strongly supports Epic, and dismisses all counterarguments as ‘bullshit’ or uses ad-hominem.
The fact that they do this but then don’t even mention what Epic is actually asking for, shows that it is not my reading, but the article which is disingenuous.
Supporting Epic is to make the argument for other stores to be allowed.
Epic’s strategy simply doesn’t allow for the remedy to be a reduction in percentage. They are all in on being allowed to run their own store.
If you support this is what you support.
In addition, the article clearly claims that the security argument is ‘bullshit’.
That claim is simply incompatible with claiming you want to maintain the current level of security.
I didn’t mention privacy.
It’s also worth noting that nothing in the article does any work towards explaining how to reduce reliance on the subscription model, and it certainly makes no case for how Epic, or anyone else would achieve that.
It just says users ‘hate’ subscriptions, but then says they aren’t needed in order to run a successful App business anyway, which is oddly conflicted.
It’s a bad piece.
Are you kidding? He "mentions" it right here -
>Epic doesn’t want a reduction to 5%, it wants to pay nothing and run its own store on iOS. Which, let’s be real, has to be a negotiation tactic. On its own store, Epic charges 12% to developers.
The author doesn't think Epic even wants its own store and that the ask is merely "a negotiation tactic".
I don't see how you can interpret that as wanting Epic to have their own store like you claimed. How can he want Epic to have their own store when he thinks they don't even want one!?
Secondly, you said he advocates for Apple earning 0%. Here's the closest thing I could find:
>30% share is too much. 30% is what a run operation makes in profit. It’s higher than the highest tier in corporate tax. every developer we talk to and Business analysts around the world say 30% revenue share comes from a dark fairytale. What would be a fair share? 5% would be a fair share. Is there hope?
From this you claimed the author wants Apple to earn 0%? Really? The author merely suggested 5% is closer to a fair share. He never said what you claimed he did.
I'm not interested in debating the App store or the article per se. I just wanted to point out the irony of harshly condemning him for using strawmen, and then shamelessly inventing several of your own.
1) He didn't advocate for Apple earning 0%, and 2) didn't advocate for Epic having their own iOS store, and (3) absolutely did mention that Epic claims to want an app store.
Per the above, you've now mis-represeted the authors` words several times in the space of two comments. That's not cool, no matter how "bad" you think the piece is.
That circumstance would be the one in which the authors is both sincere in their believe that Epic is not being honest about their goal and correct.
If you support Epic, and you believe they are being honest, then you do in fact support Apple getting 0%.
I don’t misrepresent the Author at all - they claim that 30% is too much, and that they support Epic.
However, given the sarcasm, ad-hominem, and dismissiveness inherent in the piece it is completely reasonable to question their sincerity.
Your read of the piece is based on assuming Epic is being dishonest in their objective.
This is completely unexamined by the author and there is no reason at all to take it at face value, when the entire piece is arguing not to take other people’s positions at face value. (I.e. they call other position ‘bullshit’)
I am not being disingenuous.
If someone wants to make the argument that Epic is being disingenuous, that is fine.
Your reading of the piece seems to rely on that, but yet it is not argued - it is just assumed. The piece also dismisses other people’s views in the disingenuous ways I have already outlined.
The piece is terrible. It’s not an argument at all - it’s just ad hominem. The piece is basically saying everyone’s position is ‘bullshit’ including Epic’s but Epic is the hero.
Your reading just reinforces that.
Wow. Lets recap:
You claimed the author never mentioned Epics' stated goal of running their own store: Provably false.
You claimed the author wanted Apple to get no percentage: Provably false. He never said that, you're inferring it (!?) from his support of Epic. Yet Epic earns 12% in its own store.
Presumably Epic thinks 12% is a reasonable take for an App store?
You claimed the author wants Epic to have their own store: Provably false. The author thinks Epic is bluffing (Epic may or may not want a store, but what we're debating is what the _author_ said, not what Epic said/wants/believes).
You've misrepresented the author at least three times (I've noticed others but don't have the time or inclination to point them out).
>Your read of the piece is based on assuming Epic is being dishonest in their objective.
My reading of the piece is based on the words actually written by the author. You're inferring a whole bunch of things based on the authors' "support" of Epic. Stop focussing on what you think Epic wants and read the words the author wrote.
Take a hint from the replies you've received here and try to do better.
If Epic runs their own Store alongside Apple’s and takes 12%, then Apple will get nothing from those sales.
Oddly, your previous comment contains a quote which agrees with me:
>Epic doesn’t want a reduction to 5%, it wants to pay nothing and run its own store on iOS.
Which you gave chosen to now disregard.
This is simply what it means for Epic to be allowed to run their own Store.
I am not focusing on what “I think” Epic wants.
I’m focusing on what Epic says that they want, and what the author says.
Why should I only base my view on the author’s words?
Facts matter when putting those words in context, unless you are suggesting we critique the piece purely as a work of fiction.
The author’s position is that Epic is lying about what they want for strategic reasons. As you say, a bluff.
But the author is dismissing opinions to the contrary of their own as “bullshit” or the opinions of people who don’t know what they are talking about etc.
My reading is based on the words the author is saying.
You can do better by addressing my points as written and not misrepresenting them.
The piece is terrible, and contains all of be problems I attribute to it.
It also contains some valid opinions and interesting ideas to debate, but it claims them as fact, and uses innuendo to fend off criticism.
An obvious example is the dismissal of security concerns as ‘bullshit’. The author asserts that people who don’t have experience shouldn’t comment or be taken seriously, but we have no reason to believe the author has any serious security experience, because their claim was to expertise is that they have been developing an excellent Markdown editor for the past decade.
See how the piece is bad?
If you start to acknowledge what’s true about the faults of the article, we might be able to have a reasonable debate over the parts of the article which are worth exploring.
If you can’t admit that the article contains problems, so be it.
>I'm not interested in debating the App store or the article per se. I just wanted to point out the irony of harshly condemning him for using strawmen, and then shamelessly inventing several of your own.
I don't know how to be any clearer to you. I really don't. I don't care about the article anymore. You've taken out any potential fun from debating the actual message by being blatantly and unabashedly dishonest about its content.
Please, please take a hint from the replies to your comments here. No one will engage you in civilized debate when you demonstrate such a careless disregard for trying to understand what is written in front of you.
Oh, and a stylistic tip that might help (assuming you're actually interested in having respectful, honest, civilized debate someday): Try using paragraphs in your writing. There's a reason paragraphs are a thing; disjointed random sentences come across as incoherent rambling.
Don't bother replying. I'm not interested. Best of luck.
It’s completely reasonable to consider the cases that interventions would make things worse, and there are plenty of models for that.
I’m actually not against intervention - only intervention based on singling out Apple, or unjustified assumptions.
This is why pieces which rely on sarcasm, and as I point out but you neglect, ad-hominem, are likely to lead to an ill-thought out solution.
The piece is bad, even if some of the points it makes are worth examining, because the piece is aimed at discouraging that examination.
1. The article doesn't say if you don't support Epic you don't ship apps. It says if you didn't ship ads, your opinion on the 30% cut will not impress them:
> You are entitled to your opinions, but if you have no experience lecturing people that have worked in the industry for over ten years and managed to be one of the few among Millions to be profitable in this tough environment, your opinions is about as as important as your butterfly technique to Michael Phelps.
2. As you say, the Android claim is valid, even more because the authors have actual experience there, as well. This is rare and valuable information. Sure, you can always ask why, and why again, as a 5 year old child will prove, but contrary to your claim the article's weakness definitely is not a lack of thought or depth, or writing skill, and contrary to your disingenuous and one sided comment, it doesn't lack humour in presenting its argument:
> Running both an iOS and an Android app, we know that the stats are right. Android users do not want to spend money. If you offer your app for 5 Dollars per year you get called a megalomanic. This is why Google hands out more than 7 Billion Dollars per year just to be the default search on iPhone. Android users don’t spend money on apps. Not spending money is the Android brand. Android is not an alternative, it’s an alternate reality.
3. The main line argument is "Lower the share, Apple!", not "Epic is right". When it comes to Epic the article it destroys Epic:
> "Of course, Epic is not an immaculate saint. Fortnite is not the hero, it’s the heroin of games. It frightens parents, especially those who are addicted to Fortnite themselves, to death. Fortnite has an appetite for time that would devour years of childhoods if not stopped. Epic doesn’t want a reduction to 5%, it wants to pay nothing and run its own store on iOS. Which, let’s be real, has to be a negotiation tactic. On its own store, Epic charges 12% to developers. As some will point out, Sony demands a similar share and it’s not entirely clear if one can get around it. And, to make your head spin a bit more with corporate ping-pong: Let’s not leave out that Sony has a stake in Epic Games."
Every second comment on HackerNews tries to go meta and claim uses "Straw Men" and "Ad Hominem" and "Hypocrisy!" That rhetoric is getting old. Where is ad hominem? Which hominem is unfairly attacked to disqualify their valid argument? That people without experience can have an opinion without experience, but it is not relevant. That's just logical. Straw men? Where is the straw man. What argument is made to disqualify another that is valid? And how is it disingenuous?
I give you one thing: It is one sided though. It's fully the perspective of a developer dealing with Apple for over 10 years. And it doesn't pretend to be above it all. It can't be and doesn't want to be. It's also rare to see developers speaking out against Apple.
I know that this doesn't matter. But it had to be said. Have a nice Sunday.
The ad hominem is that they dismiss a bunch of positions as ‘bullshit’ based on their own (true) claim to experience, and the assertion that the people making these claims don’t have the experience. I.e. ‘if you don’t see things as clearly as the author, you are just a commenter with no experience’.
Any favorable reading of the author’s position is based on believing they are sincere and correct about Epic lying about what they want.
There is no favorable reading where one of these conditions is not met.
If the author is not being sincere, the piece is disingenuous.
If Epic is not lying, the piece is delusional and self-contradictory.
But this central conceit is not justified at all by any reasoning. The consequences of it being true are not explored.
The fact is that Epic’s positioning doesn’t allow for Apple to settle in this way.
There is no way for them to do so without entering into an illegal cartel with Epic.
The fact that they are honest about Epic’s flaws is very positive but it doesn’t change the overall positioning of the article. Epic is not ‘destroyed’ at all. That is a misrepresentation. They simply aren’t held out to be a saint.
I can make a statement like “Apple has engaged in egregious corporate behavior and was guilty fo conspiring to hold down developer wages, so why should we think they aren’t doing this on a grand scale with the App Store?”
This is a true statement followed by a valid question. It’s also innuendo. But more importantly, the fact I’m willing to make it does nothing to change the rest of the arguments I’m making here. Do you suddenly think I’m being fair? I wouldn’t imagine so.
The positioning of the author is that much reasoning about this is ‘bullshit’, or the work of people who don’t have enough experience.
If the piece were a HN comment in response to another commenter, it would be against the guidelines.
It’s a bad piece. It doesn’t make any real arguments, rather it seeks to defeat arguments with innuendo.
I agree with you about the value of the opinions in the piece, and that it’s good to have them shared, but that doesn’t take away from the overall criticism.
A bad or disingenuous argument can include many important and valuable points, and still be bad.