Snap CEO: We’re happy to pay Apple 30% – without Apple we wouldn’t exist
cnbc.com
cnbc.com
In this situation, building your own roads is probably unfeasible or just not possible because there is no land available. So now you're at the whim of the owner. Should the road owner be allowed full control over what can be done on the road and how much it costs because it built the roads in the first place, even though it has become an indispensable part of everyone's lives, thus granting the owner immense power over everyone's lives and livelihoods? By the way, the same argument applies to FB, Google, Twitter and others. I think the individualist, wild west attitude of the US is going to hurt humanity in the long run. Our society needs to figure out a way to deal with the fact that we are granting private companies powers over people's lives beyond mere monetary value.
That is pretty inaccurate. It is more like there are three interoperable road networks (apple, Google, other-free) and you are asking one of the roads to make you an additional toll operator.
My biggest problem isn't with the price, but with the conditions. Because currently people are saying I am not allowed to drive a Car that support certain political positions in these roads, and you are forced to use other road network which does not collect to Half of the country.
Also, are single ecosystem households more common than multi ecosystem ones? Is that obvious?
we really need to treat all corporations as varioud forms of sociopathy
It’s about early access, and promotion in Keynotes and the App Store.
What's not acknowledged is that perhaps other models might have got Snap the downloads it needs. It's not easy to tell how necessary Apple or Google are, because they are the status quo, because there hasn't been much opportunity to explore alternatives. Apple in particular won't even permit competition. Android has allowed alternate app stores- but also, Android 12 is the first release where a 3rd party app store can automatically update apps. The system's been stacked this whole time.
Being able & willing to imagine alternatives is really a pre-requisite that Evan failed to meet, when he attributed his app's success to these incumbents.
"Sin taxes" (heavy taxes on alcohol, tobacco, etc.) are very popular with normal voters and greedy politicians. But doubtless the Big Shots in the liquor industry are quietly practicing all the usual political sleaze - campaign donations, well-connected lobbyists, wining & dining, regulatory capture, ... - in attempts to influence things in their own favor.
Point 1 - Even if those Big Shots get nowhere with their political sleaze...the fact that they can try, try, try does provide feelings of empowerment, and an emotional outlet. Big Shots in the Apple App industry don't get either of those.
Point 2 - If I was buying a beer, and had heard that $Brewer was in a big legal fight with the state over this setup - I'd probably get an $Other_Brewer beer instead. It's an unpleasant reminder that my few-dollar beer is making the rich & powerful even richer. And strongly suggests that $Brewer is run by greedy MBAs - vs. the idealistic craft brewmasters that beer companies seem more inclined to highlight in their advertising. Snap's CEO is [cough] probably aware of such appearances and their value.
I see this behavior as fundamentally anti competitive but don't see this discussed in the trial too much. This should be illegal.
And the crazy thing is that, at an earlier time, a lot of idiots had supported Intel saying that their bad behavior was in the interest of consumers, and that it is thanks to that that they were able to provide innovation to the market...
Honestly - Snap should pay Apple 99.99%. Without Apple, Snap wouldn’t exist.