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.
MarkV@darkpaw @amonduin @freediverx @danielinoa @martincrownover @chockenberry If I remember well, Qualcomm’s price to Apple was such that Apple has to pay a percentage of the price of the device that the modem chip is used in, and Apple sued them for price gouging 🤷♂️😂
@markv @darkpaw @amonduin @danielinoa @martincrownover @chockenberry
Exactly. Apple's bitter legal fight with Qualcomm was precisely over the same argument in reverse. They argue that the terms they agreed to with Qualcomm are unreasonable, while the similar terms they demand from developers is perfectly valid and fair.
Exactly. Apple's bitter legal fight with Qualcomm was precisely over the same argument in reverse. They argue that the terms they agreed to with Qualcomm are unreasonable, while the similar terms they demand from developers is perfectly valid and fair.
@freediverx @markv @amonduin @danielinoa @martincrownover @chockenberry I have no opinion on the fairness or otherwise of the cut Apple wants. I was literally just pointing out that the chain of payments cannot be as was suggested. That's all.
@darkpaw @freediverx @amonduin @danielinoa @martincrownover @chockenberry I work in pricing (for chemicals, not electronics). I don’t think there’s any legal or theoretical reason why it couldn’t work that way. Apple’s pricing strategy to developers is Value-Based Pricing (the more money you make, the more you pay), while Apple’s suppliers are doing cost-plus pricing (a fixed price based on cost to produce).
@darkpaw @freediverx @amonduin @danielinoa @martincrownover @chockenberry IMHO, the only real reasons why Apple suppliers can’t impose the same kind of value extraction on Apple as Apple does on developers are negotiating power, alternatives, and switching barriers.
TSMC could try to ask a percentage of device price if they wanted to, like Qualcomm did. But Apple is a behemoth and has massive negotiating power, so their procurement side is able to reject terms while developers have no choice.
@darkpaw @freediverx @amonduin @danielinoa @martincrownover @chockenberry Apple is acting as if they’re the only ones in the value chain adding any value. Everyone upstream is treated as a commodity supplier and squeezed (“Put on your big boy pants” - see GTAT lawsuit), and everyone downstream is treated as a platform freeloader and has to pay a tax for access to the loyal customer base. They may be drinking a bit too much of their own koolaid here.