When your app has revenues of $100M a month, let's see if you think Apple is providing you $30M worth of value.
Sure, if you have 2 sales a month, I guess Apple is providing you $0.60 of revenue. That's not what this thread is about.
Sure, if you have 2 sales a month, I guess Apple is providing you $0.60 of revenue. That's not what this thread is about.
It's not about relative revenue, but illustrating the extent of the exploitation.
Apple might have had that in the works even without epic.
Lol they just told you they think it's reasonable!
Why bother asking for someone’s opinion if we're just going to berate them for it?
I think the Apple cut is justified because Apple provide the best platform. If someone can provide a better platform for a smaller cut people would move to it.
You could invent the best possible app store and take nothing as a cut and get no users because Apple wouldn't permit your app store and so you'd lose.
Apple uses their hardware market dominance to control the software market and extracts rent from people who want to sell software on their hardware. That's what people are complaining about.
"Why don't they just invent their own hardware, phone OS, and app store?" Hmm, yes, why not?
They certainly do on the Play Store. Developers have until September of this year to comply with Google's rule to take 30% of sales and use its payment system[1] in their apps.
It's clearly more price fixing on the part of the Apple and Google mobile app distribution and payments cartel.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/28/google-to-enforce-30percent-...
if this isn't collusion and racketeering, then what is?
So has Epic’s parent company
It is saying that, but that's not a reply to the question.
The question wasn't "What is it?", as in, "What is this, if it's not collusion?"
The question was "What is?", as in, "What would it take to count as collusion, if this doesn't?"
"This isn't collusion, it's just the market" addresses the former question. It doesn't address the later question, the one that was asked.
With the implication that a super narrow definition of collusion is not very useful.
"If this isn't stealing, than what is?"
That's not an open invitation for elucidation on property laws. It's an assertion in the form of a question.
In that situation, the question being asked is "what would they have to do for you to accuse them of stealing?", and there's an implication/assertion that your definition of "stealing" is too narrow.
Replying with "this isn't stealing, it's borrowing" doesn't answer the question, and it's ignoring the implication/assertion.
And that's basically what martimarkov did. They didn't say a single word that addresses the implication that such a narrow anti-collusion rule is too weak.
I don't know why you think that. If someone developed a compelling new mobile platform that supported side-loading apps why wouldn't you move to it since that's what you value?
> Apple uses their hardware market dominance
It's dominant because it's good. Part of the reason it's good is because it's locked down. If it wasn't locked down it wouldn't be as good. The Android experience is miserable because they aren't as locked down.
> extracts rent from people who want to sell software on their hardware
I don't know what to say apart from this seems the most honest and reasonable thing in the world to me. They provide a service with legitimate value and ask people to pay for access to it.
You also write that Apple is dominant because it is good and good because it is locked down. This is an argument that's first impossible to verify and second irrelevant. We can't know if "locking down" and preventing other app stores from existing makes Apple better or worse since we can't look at the counter-factual reality where Apple isn't locked down. My intuition would be that more choices would be better, but again, we can't know. The argument is irrelevant because it's still anti-competitive behavior and illegal regardless of if it makes the product better or not. I might sell more soda if I included a bit of cocaine in every bottle, but I couldn't argue that it was legal to do so because it made the product better. Bundling IE with Windows for free may have made Windows better, and yet...
1 - https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
Keep reading your own link.
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
> Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area.
Apple has less than a 50% market share on smart phones.
Read the definition you quoted from the FTC. Apple and Google are a group of two firms with monopoly positions in the mobile OS market and the mobile app distribution market. Google is even forcing developers to use their payment service on the Play Store and to give them a 30% cut[1] of all app sales to match Apple.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/28/google-to-enforce-30percent-...
1 - https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/north-amer...
I agree. That's also why I think it's unfair/unethical/monopolistic that Apple won't allow anyone else to try.
I'm of the opinion that they are not able to try because apple has blocked their ability to do so.
They can always go away from iOS it they think it is not a fair deal. No one is pointing a gun to their head.