You have to flip the percentage. The fraction of money that goes to the intended destination after a 30% tax is 70%. The fraction of money that goes to the intended destination with a one year 100% APR loan is 50%.
Though there's no reason to assume a year in particular. If you take a six month loan at 100% APR, you have to pay back 141%. Paying back 141% is equivalent to a 29% tax. And if the best comparison is "six months of compounding payday loans" that's even worse than the initial comment suggested.
The better analogy is Tony Soprano with a migraine.
On human welfare? Every other day a new study comes out on the destructive force that heavily marketed smart phones represent: Phillip Morris and Enron put together couldn’t collapse the birth rate in a nation.
This debate is about economic activity as a good a priori. A lot of people assume that.
Some are ill-informed: they haven’t read the designer of GDP talk about the perils of GDP as a metric.
A small few know how mathematically comical the fucking Laffer Curve is and who thought it up and where and prey on the good intentions of the former group.
They’re going to catch a guillotine no matter how much caution I or anyone else advocates for.
Collapsing the birthrate?
Human welfare?
We're talking about the App Store my friend. You need to take it easy on the ideology.
It’s not done in a day but I’m on track to finish in 2025.
The problem with X is… the other people who use X.
Their hardware sales shouldn't entitle them to a cut of the software used on it, and the hosting is not worth particularly much.
The value of their platform is in both hardware and software by the way.
If that's what you think matters above all else, would you support a literal mafia group taking a cut if they had started the market in that particular city?
> public property
It's a market, not property.
But Apple owns none of the iPhones, so why do they get a say?
> The value of their platform is in both hardware and software by the way.
They shouldn't be artificially tied together by DRM.
> But Apple owns none of the iPhones, so why do they get a say?
This is an interesting point. But the key thing is people buy iPhones in part because of the walled garden, and Apple bakes it into the price. Without that App Store revenue, those $999 iPhones would simply see a price increase.
And if they baked the price into the phones, at least that would be honest. But they likely wouldn't increase the phone price by that much.
If you didn't mean that, I'm not sure why you gave me that advice. I'll keep it in mind but I'd prefer we keep the discussion focused on what Apple is doing and whether it should be accepted by the general public, both in terms of popularity and legality. And Google too, because this discussion started about both app stores.
Why would that happen instead of Apple taking less profit overall?
I suspect that Apple's pricing for phones is based on primarily on what the customer is willing to pay rather than on the amount needed to be profitable.
Today that’s so captured that Mickey Mouse is still in copyright and insulin for diabetics costs more than the saline it’s in.
It defies both the law as written and the human sense that wrote it to advocate for unproductive rent seeking: sixteen years? With a few point patches along the way? Thirty percent.
The Europeans find it ridiculous, the FTC finds it ridiculous, anyone who likes innovation finds it ridiculous.
But it’s mostly ridiculous because history is unambiguous on this point: you tell the peasants to eat cake long enough and you’ll swing from a dockyard crane.
Let’s seek to avoid that kind of thing?
This is called being a "landlord" and it's actually completely legal.
You buy some land, you build a mall, you invite shopkeepers to set up shops and sell to customers visiting the mall, and the shopkeepers give you $$$$ every month, forever. If they ever stop paying, they lose their shops.
Even though it's shopkeepers that draw customers to the mall in the first place, and even though the shopkeepers are covering all the maintenance costs of the mall, you get paid anyway. Because you own the mall.
So if a mafia group created a market, took a cut from every shop, and threw out anyone who wouldn't pay them their cut? That's actually a legitimate business.
That analogy still doesn't quite hold as you legally agree to pay HOA dues when buying the property and agree the property can seized eventually if you don't pay. No such agreement is made between phone owners and Apple, Apple just sells you the thing and puts some of it's functionality behind ongoing fees.
I have heard the rent argument made for property tax and it holds better there. Own your house outright but fall behind on property taxes and the government can take your house and land - now that feels a lot more like rent.
There is no useful analogy from an idyllic high street with people shopping at leisure to what happens when you give sociopaths unbounded compute and legal carte blanche.
I struggle with this as a meme and I have a more and less charitable theory. My more charitable theory is that people never learned finance seriously. My less charitable theory is that people stand to benefit personally and are indifferent what it costs, as long as someone else pays the cost.
None of these concepts are in the bedrock law of the land: shopping mall, home owner’s association? Which amendment protects HOAs?
It is completely possible to change all of this, and while we should deliberate thoughtfully before making sweeping change, I mistrust anyone who just asserts dubious shit as bedrock laws of nature.
Maybe we’ve got a pretty sickening system composed of dubiously legal and strictly unethical status quos and it’s time to make some changes at arbitrary effort and cost.
Profit margins and low-friction competition go hand in hand, if one endorses the one without demanding the other?
I’ll show you a pretty small-minded person with distressingly little empathy.
Some internet platform thing stops being socially useful from competitive innovation and starts being an extractive rent?
The public has the power to dictate terms to the people running it. It’s a power the public hasn’t exercised a lot recently, but it’s only been about 30 years since LA 92, a little longer to Watts and Detroit.
It would be a grave error to mistake the public’s kindness for weakness.