Why do a minority of taxpayers finance the government? Because they are the ones who have the money.
dylan604 · 15h ago
man does this miss the mark. most of the uber wealthy pay less than middle class. when you have money, you can afford to do things with that money that avoids paying taxes for your full value.
ahmeneeroe-v2 · 15h ago
>most of the uber wealthy pay less than middle class
Incredibly wrong. You're talking about paying "as a percentage of their income/wealth"[1], whereas the GP is talking about actual dollars into the treasury.
The other response to you has the stats.
[1]and you might not even be right about that
kgwgk · 15h ago
> The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI [Adjusted Gross Income] of $663,164 and above) paid the highest average income tax rate of 26.1 percent—seven times the rate faced by the bottom half of taxpayers.
> In all, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid $864 billion in income taxes while the bottom 90 percent paid $599 billion.
The first paragraph is the nominal tax rate and the claim that OP is offering is based on the idea that the ultra wealthy find ways to avoid that tax rate and end up paying less than middle class income earners as a percentage of their income. I believe that this is true.
The second paragraph is the actually relevant stat, though: for all that they avoid the nominal tax rate, they still pay the majority of all taxes.
kgwgk · 14h ago
> The first paragraph is the nominal tax rate
No, that's the effective tax rate for the top 1% in aggregate:
Adjusted gross income: $3,309,589,000,000
Tax paid: $863,631,000,000
demosthanos · 14h ago
Oh, my bad! You're right.
dragonwriter · 5h ago
The top 1% of tacpayers by AGI isn't the uber-wealthy (major capitalists), it is mostly high-income workers, who have lots of regular income.
jjani · 14h ago
"The top 1 percent of tax payers pays the most tax" is a tautology. GP talked about the uber wealthy.
kgwgk · 14h ago
> The top 1 percent of tax payers pays the most tax" is a tautology.
What does "the most tax" mean? If you mean "most of the tax" how is that a tautology? If everyone paid $1 the top 1 percent would pay 1% of the total - which is far from "most".
Also, the language can be ambiguous in some places but it says "by Income Group" so the top 1 percent of tax payers probably refers actually to the top 1 percent of (adjusted) earners.
> GP talked about the uber wealthy.
And GGP talked about how "a minority of taxpayers finance the government".
5% is a minority paying 61% of the taxes.
25% is a minority paying 87% of the taxes.
jjani · 14h ago
Sure, replace "the most tax" with "the highest tax rate", as that was your sentence.
> And GGP talked about how "a minority of taxpayers finance the government".
Your reply was to GP, and it wasn't one pointing that out.
kgwgk · 14h ago
GP says that the (uber)rich pay a lower tax rate than the middle class so he wouldn't necessarily agree that the top earners pay the highest tax rate.
(And actually GP would only make sense at all as a reply to GGP if he meant lower tax amount in dollars - not just a lower tax rate.)
dragonwriter · 5h ago
> GP says that the (uber)rich pay a lower tax rate than the middle class so he wouldn't necessarily agree that the top earners pay the highest tax rate.
The uber-rich aren't the top earners.
Capital holdings and labor income aren't the same thing.
michaelt · 14h ago
Both things can be true at the same time.
Obviously, it's widely reported that the very richest of the rich pay very little tax.
But according to table C-1 of [1] the richest 20% of US households have an average income of $418,100 and, after taxes and benefits, contribute $101,300 to the treasury. The middle 20% of households have an income of $86,500 and overall contribute $200 to the treasury. And the poorest 20% of households have an income of $22,500 and receive $26,200 from the treasury.
Which makes sense when you think about it - the garbage truck visits the household on $40k just as often as it visits the household on $400k. Taxes are progressive, benefits are (mostly) equal.
So even though the richest 0.1% of people might be dodging tax entirely, the richest ~30% are the ones financing the government.
This is such odd framing. Apple fully owns the App Store; it isn't financed at all. People pay into Apple for access to their market. Finance doesn't even enter the equation.
bitpush · 15h ago
That's a gross characterization of what's going on. When I download Uber on App Store, the business relationship is between me and Uber (and Apple doesnt and shouldnt come into the picture).
Do you think Ford needs to get a cut if a user buys Michelin tyres of their Ford Car? Will you argue that Michelin needs to "pay into Ford for access to their market"?
lesuorac · 15h ago
If you walk into a Krogers and buy a pint of Bryer's ice cream I can definitely understand Kroger getting a cut.
einszwei · 11h ago
But we also understand that Krogers can’t expect a cut of every transaction on Xbox just because the Xbox was purchased from Krogers.
oneplane · 8h ago
Unless Krogers maintains the Xbox software and Xbox servers and Xbox business processes so it can keep functioning.
echaozh · 57m ago
Um, does a mall normally gets a cut in all the sales which happen in the stores on its ground? The mall surely keeps the stores running by providing services like security, parking, advertising to attract people, etc.
bigyabai · 11h ago
In this case, the "ice cream" is a zero-margin utility. It can be reproduced infinitely without incurring extra costs beyond what Kroger deems sufficient. The act of installing an app on iOS can't even be compared to Kroger charging money for you to drink out of their hose in the back of the store. Software is simply not a physical commodity, apps like Safari are proof that data still flows freely.
In a fair universe people would stop going to this store and visit other places with lower margins. But Apple conveniently took steps to prevent you from leaving their shop, so they can charge whatever they consider a fair price. You cannot rationally defend this, jurisdictions worldwide are suing Apple for this, because it's a blatant racket. It is indefensible.
SoftTalker · 15h ago
If you buy the tires from the Ford dealer, Ford absolutely gets a cut. Or they add a surcharge.
looofooo0 · 15h ago
Sure and if you buy it from somewhere else your Ford refuses to drive with them.
catsma21 · 15h ago
i'd skip the dealership and go straight to the warehouse, if it was possible. (sideloading)
alistairSH · 15h ago
That argument has some merit (ie, users should't be limited to a single app store). But, not what the parent argued.
alistairSH · 15h ago
Apple incurs the ongoing cost of hosting the App Store, so yes, they're absolutely entitled to charge either or both vendors and consumers for access.
Giant and Safeway mark-up food they sell.
The shop that stocked and installed those Michelin tires charged a premium.
Etc.
If you're arguing the App Store shouldn't exists, or Apple shouldn't limit their users to a single App Store, that's an argument with some merit. But, it's not what you said.
troupo · 14h ago
> Apple incurs the ongoing cost of hosting the App Store, so yes, they're absolutely entitled to charge either or both vendors and consumers for access.
You mean $99 per year that developers pay? Or $1000+ dollars per phone that customers pay? Or multiple devices that developers pay for?
alistairSH · 14h ago
Yes.
troupo · 13h ago
So they do all that (and iPhone sales alone cover basically everything Apple does), and they are "entitled" to charging for a business transaction that happens between users and non-Apple businesses?
xoa · 12h ago
>So they do all that (and iPhone sales alone cover basically everything Apple does), and they are "entitled" to charging for a business transaction that happens between users and non-Apple businesses?
Yes, absolutely they are entitled to that. What they shouldn't be entitled to do (and we should pass laws to enforce) is not offer owners a choice as to whether to have Apple be the exclusive software/hardware source or not. By law, at purchase time anyone should be able to choose to have access to their device's software certificate root of trust, hardware rot, or both. Apple should have to compete on the merits of the App Store, on their service, curation, etc. And fwiw I think that for a large number (maybe even the majority) of regular people they'd perfectly well be able to do so. There's significant value there, particularly if the threat of straightforward alternatives kept Apple's incentives better aligned.
But within their own store, in a world with the choice to opt out, sure I don't see why there would be any problem with them charging for their role anymore then for any other store of any kind ever. The core issue is the required technical lock in.
troupo · 2h ago
> But within their own store
When I buy stuff from an app, it's not happening "in apple's own store". It's happening between a person and a business. Why is Apple entitled to a cut of that transaction?
luckylion · 15h ago
> Giant and Safeway mark-up food they sell.
Does Apple sell the app? Or are they only facilitating the transaction, but you're buying from the app author? Because grocery stores are selling you something, they are not middlemen who only connect you with the manufacturer. They've bought the products from the manufacturer and are now selling them to you.
demosthanos · 14h ago
It's more complicated than that. Nominally there's an ownership transfer, but the big players also charge the suppliers stocking fees [0], which seems to translate quite well to what Apple is doing. And if you're charging a fee to stock the product, it's clearly not being treated as a straightforward ownership transfer to the retailer like you say it is.
Plus, since when is a middleman connecting you to a party with the product or service you want not a party you have a business relationship with (as GP claims)? Brokers have been a thing since forever.
I think stocking fees are comparable to the ads you can buy in the app store. But Apple does not buy the apps and then resells them, which Walmart does.
Brokers are a thing, but would you consider Apple's "app store" a broker? A broker's value-add is making the connection, but Apple's app store's is "being the only app store available on Apple devices".
If you forced them to let users choose like Microsoft had to with browsers, that would be different, and I predict their perceived "value as a broker" would drop of a cliff because others could provide the same at a fraction of the cost.
alistairSH · 15h ago
Ok, you got me, the brick & mortar example doesn't translate perfectly.
My main point still stands... there is a real cost to hosting an App Store, and the entity doing that hosting should be compensated for doing so.
The "problem" is Apple (and now Google?) want to be the only App Store for their platforms. So, you can't pick between Safeway and Giant. But, that's not what the parent suggested - they only suggested the host of the App Store shouldn't be paid.
luckylion · 13h ago
I don't think that necessarily follows from what they said. Apple might charge, much like grocery stores, for exposure (i.e. ads, which they also do), or they might charge the consumer a fee.
They shouldn't be a permanent middle man between consumer and manufacturer is what I took away from that comment. The app stores are only money printers because they are (largely) exclusive on their platforms. Would users and developers choose Apple's app store and its hefty fees if there was fair competition? Possibly, but likely not at the same conditions Apple can dictate today.
shwouchk · 14h ago
actually, many grocery chains in many parts of the world charge vendors for shelf space, and the vendors choose what to place on those shelves.
Nab443 · 15h ago
If they sell tires in Ford shops, yes. Same for uber going through the App Store.
AISnakeOil · 15h ago
It's Apple's phone, they can do what they want.
ta1243 · 15h ago
I distinctly remember buying it. Not renting it, buying it.
The apple webpage says
> Why buy iPhone anywhere else?
> When it comes to purchasing a new iPhone, there’s no better place to buy than Apple. For all your questions about payment options and getting your new iPhone set up, we have the answers you need.
AISnakeOil · 14h ago
You bought the hunk of metal and glass, but you didn't buy the app store servers, the software has a legal agreement and you sign that.
If you don't agree, don't sign it.
ta1243 · 1h ago
So it's not Apples phone?
bitpush · 14h ago
What apple store servers comes into the picture when I use my apps (uber, lyft, amazon, candycrush ..) on a daily basis?
I understand a one time fee ($99 or something) for hosting the app and allowing downloads, but why does Apple get an ongoing 30% cut?
fingerlocks · 8h ago
Routing push notifications, telemetry, marketing and promotions, sales analytics, they handle all the internationalization of sales such as currency exchange and local sales laws. They also provide cloud storage for core dumps and other crash logs, persistent iCloud storage for user data, and remote build pipelines. That’s just off the top of my head.
And of course the absolutely massive SDK that makes it easy to build all these apps natively without rolling your own computer vision framework or audio processing engine.
catsma21 · 15h ago
that's the issue! it should not be apple's phone! i paid for the hardware and current version of the software - anything more should be provided to me out of their goodwill, not because it is their device.
bobmcnamara · 15h ago
With Android, it's my phone.
AISnakeOil · 14h ago
Some of them, but that's changing soon.
cameldrv · 15h ago
The point of the article is that many very successful apps don't pay Apple for access to their market. You can sell anything that's not "digital goods" and Apple gets nothing, but if what you're selling is "digital goods", then Apple wants 30%.
zamadatix · 14h ago
This is what the article concludes as well and why the final summary paragraph phrases it as "forced to (allegedly) support the ecosystem". The article never really fully agrees that's the case, it's just making an argument that even in a world it is for financing the infrastructure, as Apple likes to claim in court, the system still makes no sense for completely unrelated reasons anyways.
m463 · 13h ago
You must pay a fee to sign up as a developer.
additionally, iphone owners buy the phones.
If I pay comcast to access the web, it is amazing to me that comcast would charge websites for access to my traffic.
conductr · 11h ago
Why use the retail analogy? Seems like PC is the exact same comparison. There’s no need for an App Store at all. Any argument otherwise is silly after having such a long history of installing whatever I want whenever I want by developers who can bill me however they want.
mrweasel · 15h ago
How on earth is Apple doing $1.3 trillion in billings on the App Store?
My kid asked if we could buy an iPad game last week, that was like $12. I can't remember when I last bought something in the App Store (iPhone or macOS) beyond that. Some people would have to buy insane amounts of stuff. Are they counting their own subscription products as well, like AppleTV og iCloud?
Discordian93 · 15h ago
I believe it's game "whales" who spend thousands on in game purchases.
WindyCityBrew · 14h ago
Also a steady stream of people that unknowingly have subscriptions. If you have older parents or grand parents, show them the subscriptions screen in the app store from time to time.
jjani · 14h ago
They're talking about "facilitated by the App Store ecosystem" so it includes everything from online shopping to advertising. 1 billion iPhone users spending/generating on average $1000 on their phones per year? Seems reasonable. I think even if you just consider Amazon, the Amazons of elsewhere, supermarkets etc, Ali, it goes on and on. Their combined revenue from people buying stuff on their iPhones, iPads, Mac apps downloaded through the app store will get you a great length towards $1.3 trillion.
People are not spending $1.3 trillion per year on IAPs, it's not the game whales as the other comment suggests.
fragmede · 15h ago
People spend a truely stupendous amount on in-app purchases a dollar or two (or fifty) at a time. A friend's easily spent a couple hundred on Monopoly over the course of a year.
bitpush · 15h ago
> Apple today announced the global App Store ecosystem facilitated $1.3 trillion in developer billings and sales in 2024, according to a new study by economists Professor Andrey Fradkin from Boston University Questrom School of Business and Dr. Jessica Burley from Analysis Group.
That opening reads wrong. Yes, the study was funded by Apple but the conclusions are of the authors. But yet it reads as "Apple today announced that .., according to a study".
It will be like Pizza Hut saying "Pizza Hut today announced that their pepperoni pizza is the best ever, according to a review posted by pizzalover123 on Yelp"
CrimsonCape · 15h ago
In a parallel universe, it seems like the opposite billing policy makes more sense: for paid purchase of apps, Apple should take zero commission. For in-app advertising revenue, Apple should take commission.
nrb · 15h ago
In yet another parallel universe, in-app advertising doesn't exist and paid purchases have a flat-fee commission commensurate with the cost of providing that service.
oneplane · 15h ago
TL;DR: profit (direct and/or indirect).
I don't know if they do, but I do know the universal answer to all of it: because that's what makes the big bucks. While there will always be inefficiencies and weird situations, multinationals that stick around for a long time and make lots of money do so because there are a bunch of people working there who have to figure out how to make money and keep making that money.
jocaal · 15h ago
Like most things in life, the profit that companies make follows a decaying exponential, the so called power law. Most of the money is in the big winners.
m3kw9 · 14h ago
If you put it that way, yes if you make a couple million, you are using more of the resources and accessing more of the benefits it provides, fair to pay more
mvdtnz · 14h ago
Nobody should be "financing" the app store, it's a ludicrous position that Apple has somehow convinced you people to accept. Apple should optionally provide their payments system for a reasonable price comparable to other payment providers (a low single digit percentage) and that's it.
The idea that you pay to have your merchandise in someone else's store and then keep paying a commission for any ongoing revenue beyond the point of sale is ridiculous and I can't believe even a single person agreed to do it.
shwouchk · 14h ago
thats how b&m food distribution often works: vendors pay for shelf space.
that’s how barbers works: they pay for a chair.
that’s how many professions works. you pay for access to customers.
jonathanstrange · 15h ago
I don't think the author uses the term "free rider" correctly. Apple chooses who has to pay based on whatever criteria they like. To me, those listed criteria make sense, for example it would make no sense to charge developers who make their apps available for free, since they would then stop publishing them in the app store and that would concern a lot of useful software.
eviks · 6h ago
Or they wouldn't since they would still like to generate those $1.3T, not everything distributed for free is completely free.
Moreover, they currently *are* charged to distribute, the apple developer program isn't free.
cyberax · 15h ago
> A full 84 percent of the apps in the App Store pay nothing to Apple when you download or use the app. That’s not discrimination, as Spotify claims; it’s by design
This is a bald-faced lie. To develop an app for the App Store, you need to spend:
1. $100 a year on the certificate.
2. Around $500 a year on Apple hardware (amortized).
This is way more than you need to develop for Microsoft, even with their official tools.
GeekyBear · 14h ago
> This is way more than you need to develop for Microsoft
Windows, by default, will block apps from lesser known developers unless they shell out quite a bit more than $99 a year for an Extended Validation (EV) Code-Signing Certificate from a certificate authority that Microsoft finds acceptable.
Also, Mac Minis are a one time $500 purchase, and will be good enough to use for more than one year.
cyberax · 14h ago
> Also, Mac Minis are a one time $500 purchase, and will be good enough to use for more than one year.
The cheapest Mac Minis ($600, btw) are barely usable for serious development, a more reasonable one is $1000. You also need at least a couple of iOS devices for testing, which works out to ~$200 a year.
And if you want a laptop, then it's even worse.
bilbo0s · 14h ago
I'm thinking Spotify would shout even louder indignations if smaller App Store developers don't even have to pay the $100.
But look, everyone is not gonna be happy with whatever structure Apple or the courts come up with. The courts might come up with a structure where people pay nothing unless the users use Apple payment systems to buy in-app. Guess what Spotify, you're still gonna be financing all the developers who'd rather choose to pay nothing and instead put up with the headaches and chargebacks of using payment systems outside of Apple.
Spotify doesn't want to finance the rest of us? Fine, when the time comes, make that choice not to use Apple payment systems. Now you're not financing the rest of us.
But you can't say, "I want to use Apple payment systems because the chargebacks are lower and people trust them more", on the one hand; and say, "but Apple should not use any of the money I generate to float infrastructure for other developers to also use their payment systems", on the other.
cyberax · 14h ago
There's a novel way: charge app developers the costs of running the AppStore, with a reasonable profit margin on top.
To make it fair, have it as a separate unit, that Apple itself has to use for internal apps.
citizenpaul · 15h ago
Because they like their monopoly? More players in the game means less control. It's the dictator playbook. Minimize your key supporters.
os2warpman · 15h ago
One of my favorite things about Hacker News is how much we like to bitch about Apple.
nullwarp · 15h ago
To be fair it's not hard, there is no shortage of things to complain about.
No comments yet
surgical_fire · 14h ago
As opposed to the countless sycophants in every Apple thread making excuses for the company?
"Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds", 600 comments, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43852145
"Judge rules Apple executive lied under oath, makes criminal contempt referral", 300 comments, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43856795
"Apple App Store guidelines remove ban on encouraging external payments in US", 300 comments, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43867692
Incredibly wrong. You're talking about paying "as a percentage of their income/wealth"[1], whereas the GP is talking about actual dollars into the treasury.
The other response to you has the stats.
[1]and you might not even be right about that
> In all, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid $864 billion in income taxes while the bottom 90 percent paid $599 billion.
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-in...
The second paragraph is the actually relevant stat, though: for all that they avoid the nominal tax rate, they still pay the majority of all taxes.
No, that's the effective tax rate for the top 1% in aggregate:
Adjusted gross income: $3,309,589,000,000
Tax paid: $863,631,000,000
What does "the most tax" mean? If you mean "most of the tax" how is that a tautology? If everyone paid $1 the top 1 percent would pay 1% of the total - which is far from "most".
Also, the language can be ambiguous in some places but it says "by Income Group" so the top 1 percent of tax payers probably refers actually to the top 1 percent of (adjusted) earners.
> GP talked about the uber wealthy.
And GGP talked about how "a minority of taxpayers finance the government".
5% is a minority paying 61% of the taxes.
25% is a minority paying 87% of the taxes.
> And GGP talked about how "a minority of taxpayers finance the government".
Your reply was to GP, and it wasn't one pointing that out.
(And actually GP would only make sense at all as a reply to GGP if he meant lower tax amount in dollars - not just a lower tax rate.)
The uber-rich aren't the top earners.
Capital holdings and labor income aren't the same thing.
Obviously, it's widely reported that the very richest of the rich pay very little tax.
But according to table C-1 of [1] the richest 20% of US households have an average income of $418,100 and, after taxes and benefits, contribute $101,300 to the treasury. The middle 20% of households have an income of $86,500 and overall contribute $200 to the treasury. And the poorest 20% of households have an income of $22,500 and receive $26,200 from the treasury.
Which makes sense when you think about it - the garbage truck visits the household on $40k just as often as it visits the household on $400k. Taxes are progressive, benefits are (mostly) equal.
So even though the richest 0.1% of people might be dodging tax entirely, the richest ~30% are the ones financing the government.
[1] https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2024-09/60341-income.pdf
Do you think Ford needs to get a cut if a user buys Michelin tyres of their Ford Car? Will you argue that Michelin needs to "pay into Ford for access to their market"?
In a fair universe people would stop going to this store and visit other places with lower margins. But Apple conveniently took steps to prevent you from leaving their shop, so they can charge whatever they consider a fair price. You cannot rationally defend this, jurisdictions worldwide are suing Apple for this, because it's a blatant racket. It is indefensible.
Giant and Safeway mark-up food they sell.
The shop that stocked and installed those Michelin tires charged a premium.
Etc.
If you're arguing the App Store shouldn't exists, or Apple shouldn't limit their users to a single App Store, that's an argument with some merit. But, it's not what you said.
You mean $99 per year that developers pay? Or $1000+ dollars per phone that customers pay? Or multiple devices that developers pay for?
Yes, absolutely they are entitled to that. What they shouldn't be entitled to do (and we should pass laws to enforce) is not offer owners a choice as to whether to have Apple be the exclusive software/hardware source or not. By law, at purchase time anyone should be able to choose to have access to their device's software certificate root of trust, hardware rot, or both. Apple should have to compete on the merits of the App Store, on their service, curation, etc. And fwiw I think that for a large number (maybe even the majority) of regular people they'd perfectly well be able to do so. There's significant value there, particularly if the threat of straightforward alternatives kept Apple's incentives better aligned.
But within their own store, in a world with the choice to opt out, sure I don't see why there would be any problem with them charging for their role anymore then for any other store of any kind ever. The core issue is the required technical lock in.
When I buy stuff from an app, it's not happening "in apple's own store". It's happening between a person and a business. Why is Apple entitled to a cut of that transaction?
Does Apple sell the app? Or are they only facilitating the transaction, but you're buying from the app author? Because grocery stores are selling you something, they are not middlemen who only connect you with the manufacturer. They've bought the products from the manufacturer and are now selling them to you.
Plus, since when is a middleman connecting you to a party with the product or service you want not a party you have a business relationship with (as GP claims)? Brokers have been a thing since forever.
[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/r-wal-mart-to-impose-charges...
Brokers are a thing, but would you consider Apple's "app store" a broker? A broker's value-add is making the connection, but Apple's app store's is "being the only app store available on Apple devices".
If you forced them to let users choose like Microsoft had to with browsers, that would be different, and I predict their perceived "value as a broker" would drop of a cliff because others could provide the same at a fraction of the cost.
My main point still stands... there is a real cost to hosting an App Store, and the entity doing that hosting should be compensated for doing so.
The "problem" is Apple (and now Google?) want to be the only App Store for their platforms. So, you can't pick between Safeway and Giant. But, that's not what the parent suggested - they only suggested the host of the App Store shouldn't be paid.
They shouldn't be a permanent middle man between consumer and manufacturer is what I took away from that comment. The app stores are only money printers because they are (largely) exclusive on their platforms. Would users and developers choose Apple's app store and its hefty fees if there was fair competition? Possibly, but likely not at the same conditions Apple can dictate today.
The apple webpage says
> Why buy iPhone anywhere else?
> When it comes to purchasing a new iPhone, there’s no better place to buy than Apple. For all your questions about payment options and getting your new iPhone set up, we have the answers you need.
If you don't agree, don't sign it.
I understand a one time fee ($99 or something) for hosting the app and allowing downloads, but why does Apple get an ongoing 30% cut?
And of course the absolutely massive SDK that makes it easy to build all these apps natively without rolling your own computer vision framework or audio processing engine.
additionally, iphone owners buy the phones.
If I pay comcast to access the web, it is amazing to me that comcast would charge websites for access to my traffic.
My kid asked if we could buy an iPad game last week, that was like $12. I can't remember when I last bought something in the App Store (iPhone or macOS) beyond that. Some people would have to buy insane amounts of stuff. Are they counting their own subscription products as well, like AppleTV og iCloud?
People are not spending $1.3 trillion per year on IAPs, it's not the game whales as the other comment suggests.
That opening reads wrong. Yes, the study was funded by Apple but the conclusions are of the authors. But yet it reads as "Apple today announced that .., according to a study".
It will be like Pizza Hut saying "Pizza Hut today announced that their pepperoni pizza is the best ever, according to a review posted by pizzalover123 on Yelp"
I don't know if they do, but I do know the universal answer to all of it: because that's what makes the big bucks. While there will always be inefficiencies and weird situations, multinationals that stick around for a long time and make lots of money do so because there are a bunch of people working there who have to figure out how to make money and keep making that money.
The idea that you pay to have your merchandise in someone else's store and then keep paying a commission for any ongoing revenue beyond the point of sale is ridiculous and I can't believe even a single person agreed to do it.
that’s how barbers works: they pay for a chair.
that’s how many professions works. you pay for access to customers.
Moreover, they currently *are* charged to distribute, the apple developer program isn't free.
This is a bald-faced lie. To develop an app for the App Store, you need to spend:
1. $100 a year on the certificate.
2. Around $500 a year on Apple hardware (amortized).
This is way more than you need to develop for Microsoft, even with their official tools.
Windows, by default, will block apps from lesser known developers unless they shell out quite a bit more than $99 a year for an Extended Validation (EV) Code-Signing Certificate from a certificate authority that Microsoft finds acceptable.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/48946680/how-to-avoid-th...
Also, Mac Minis are a one time $500 purchase, and will be good enough to use for more than one year.
The cheapest Mac Minis ($600, btw) are barely usable for serious development, a more reasonable one is $1000. You also need at least a couple of iOS devices for testing, which works out to ~$200 a year.
And if you want a laptop, then it's even worse.
But look, everyone is not gonna be happy with whatever structure Apple or the courts come up with. The courts might come up with a structure where people pay nothing unless the users use Apple payment systems to buy in-app. Guess what Spotify, you're still gonna be financing all the developers who'd rather choose to pay nothing and instead put up with the headaches and chargebacks of using payment systems outside of Apple.
Spotify doesn't want to finance the rest of us? Fine, when the time comes, make that choice not to use Apple payment systems. Now you're not financing the rest of us.
But you can't say, "I want to use Apple payment systems because the chargebacks are lower and people trust them more", on the one hand; and say, "but Apple should not use any of the money I generate to float infrastructure for other developers to also use their payment systems", on the other.
To make it fair, have it as a separate unit, that Apple itself has to use for internal apps.
No comments yet
No comments yet