https://twitter.com/benthompson/status/1395766118304780292
> A creator sells a Ticketed Space for $5. The creator, who people are willing to pay for, gets $2.80. Twitter, who facilitated the connection and created the product, gets $0.70. Apple/Google, who leverage OS API control into a tax on all activity, do nothing and get $1.50.
> Imagine people arguing in 1998 that Microsoft deserves 30% of all software sales with zero alternatives allowed lmao
It is a lot like all the furor over patent trolls. It only really hurts large companies, but techies decided it was somehow victimizing them and screamed about it constantly but consumers still didnt care.
I would support this, as I believe that we pay high taxes because we're pacified into not thinking about the amount.
In reality you could sell your software by direct mail if you thought it was a better cost structure than a store, or if a store didn’t want to carry your product.
IIRC, that's exactly how some famous companies/developers (Apogee, for one) started out. They uploaded the demo to BBSes and then had interested users buy the full product by mail.
Except they offer you a channel for distribution, discoverability, promotion, rating and monetization of your app.
On Android you don't have to serve your app over Google Play you can distribute .apk file elsewhere and pay 0% fee but on iOS unfortunately you can not do that.
Only because they don't allow you to do any of that yourself or allow for any alternatives.
From what I understand places like Amazon don't get charged for in app purchases, but Audible (owned by Amazon) would & so they don't offer buying books.
I assume finance stock/crypto/etc apps don't get charged.
I've heard that food & drink, taxi services, & house rentals don't get charged.
-- I could be mistaken about many of these above.
The modern web has pretty good audio support these days.
Of course they can build PWA's to try to keep more of the money but Apple will eventually find a way to capture that money. Apple controls the only browser engine on IOS and I don't expect them to investing in features that threaten the Apple tax.
If PWAs become popular enough then Apple will add a browser feature redirects/proxies payments through Apple and they'll take their 30% cut.
Nothing is preventing creators from setting up their own infrastructure and building their own platform and then taking all the profit. They don’t, thus they must believe that what both Twitter and Apple and Google are delivering is valuable and with the cost.
No curated/moderated/policed App Store?
No storage/distribution network for applications?
No vetted and trusted secure authentication and payment systems?
No meticulously-created hardware in the first place?
Yep, that sounds about right. They're just "doing nothing" and don't deserve to be able to run their businesses while other people build on top of their platforms.
But overall, I'm surprised how common the take is in the software industry that this is a fine state of things. How much of Apple's cut is because they run a good distribution network, vs. how much is because they are the only distribution channel?
Surely we don't think it's a bad thing that desktop software went in the direction of being an open platform (which, it's worth noting, may not have gone in that direction without DOJ intervention). Why aren't we rooting for the same on mobile devices, which have become just as essential?
> I don’t want an open platform.
Do you think the state of the world would be better if desktops were not open platforms? I'm genuinely curious because this is something I just can't relate to.
The way it is now is very straightforward. If you want an app, you know where to get it. You know who’s vetted it. You know who’s handling your payment info. You (now) know what information about you is being gathered and disseminated.
Can you imagine how terrible a world where every App thinks it needs its own store would be?
Having a uniform way to handle payments is a great feature, but it would happen naturally if payment terms were competitive with industry norms instead of extractive prices that require a lock on distribution.
For those that answer "yes, actually" the option for them to be able to use the walled garden would still be there - allowing others the option does not take that away from those that are actually choosing the walled garden vs being required to use it after getting the phone for other reasons.
Microsoft didn't build those computers.
Microsoft didn't sell those computers.
Microsoft didn't ship those computers.
They merely licensed their OS to the manufacturers and/or end users.
The X Box would be a better analogy, and MS does get a 30% cut there.
Didn't they? QDOS was bought, but 9x and NT were mostly MS with a little bit of IBM AFAIK.
Ever heard of CP/M? That was an improvement over having every manufacturer ship it's own (unmaintained) OS. Microsoft's genius was seeing the value in Software, not just in shipping physical goods. And people believed they were crazy at the time.
Yes, Apple builds excellent hardware, and deserves to be rewarded for it. They are rewarded when I give them money for their products. They shouldn't have a say in what I do with the product after I receive it. Imagine buying a new Ford or Nissan and the dealership sets which highways you're allowed to drive on!
BlackBerry, Nokia, they all failed to create an app ecosystem.
"Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine."
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."