Miguel de Icaza ᯅ🍉The issue is that these developers wanted one thing (lower fees), but lobbied for “freedom of stores” and “external payment systems”
They got what they asked for, which is not what they wanted.
mcc@Migueldeicaza This isn't how it works. The problem with install-based fees isn't that it's too high. It's that it makes it generally impossible to make software at all. This is why it was rejected so completely with Unity.
An install fee means "with these terms, you're not going to release the software at all". It was how Unity used it (they didn't want you to pay the fee; they wanted you to use their ad network) and it's how Apple is using it (they don't want you to use an alt app store).
Louis Ingenthron@mcc @Migueldeicaza That may be their complaint now, but it's not the original complaint that spawned the lawsuit.
phi1997@LouisIngenthron
Because charging people for the privilege of running their code on a device is utterly ludicrous. It's totally reasonable for developers not to expect that catch.
@mcc @Migueldeicaza
Because charging people for the privilege of running their code on a device is utterly ludicrous. It's totally reasonable for developers not to expect that catch.
@mcc @Migueldeicaza