Craig HockenberryWhen you start seeking rent on the livelihood of artists, I don’t think you get to claim you work at the intersection of Technology and Liberal Arts anymore.
https://news.patreon.com/articles/understanding-apple-requirements-for-patreon
Marty@chockenberry I get that Apple provides a service with the app store and whatnot, but I will never, ever understand why they feel entitled to a cut of subscriptions that they literally do nothing to furnish or support.
Their platform is alive (and thriving) because people choose to develop for it. They make money hand over fist from hardware sales. Why isn't that enough?
Daniel@martincrownover @chockenberry because they make the computers where the transaction happens
FreediverX@danielinoa @martincrownover @chockenberry
OK, so since the cell phone companies own the networks on which most of those transactions happen, will Apple be paying them a commission as well?
30% seems fair.
amonduin@freediverx @danielinoa @martincrownover @chockenberry I think people don't realize how absurd it would end up getting if this way of thinking took hold. TSMC's IP is used, so they should get a cut, so is ARMs, so is some of Qualcomms, then we have the internet carriers, we could even move onto the electrical grid. After all without electricity non of these transactions could take place.
Darkpaw@amonduin @freediverx @danielinoa @martincrownover @chockenberry I don't think that's how it works.
Apple has agreements with TSMC, ARM, Qualcomm etc. to pay what it says in those contracts, and nothing more. Just as Apple has an agreement with a data center to pay them for their services and nothing more, that data center has an agreement with their electricity company. And so on...
An iOS developer agrees to a contract with Apple, and those terms mean the developer gives Apple a cut.
@darkpaw @amonduin @danielinoa @martincrownover @chockenberry
Sure, but I think the broader conversation is about the fairness of those agreements and how Apple’s justification for extracting 30% of all commerce on their platform could easily be used as an argument by others against Apple, putting aside present legal contracts.
Sure, but I think the broader conversation is about the fairness of those agreements and how Apple’s justification for extracting 30% of all commerce on their platform could easily be used as an argument by others against Apple, putting aside present legal contracts.
@freediverx @danielinoa @martincrownover @chockenberry I was just pointing out that what @amonduin suggested was not possible because there are gaps in the chain caused by other contracts.