ProtonMail vs Apple

[Lagi Pittas]

Hi

People are missing something here.

Apple allows programs from Argos, Sams, Amazon (not books) , Free software
access for the yearly fee of $99.

They take 30% the FIRST years and subsequently 15% - that second figure to
me is the important one.

You have access to that market and IF you have a successful product you
reap the ongoing benefits.

If You sell 100 Apps in the first year and you are charging $5 I
don't think it matters whether you get 70% or 100% your product has failed.

If you sell a $10,000  worth in the second year you get $8500 without
having to spend as much on advertising.

The elephant in the room is Google - they charge 30% by just  copying
Apple's charges and because Google hasn't budged in 12 years Apple has no
reason to either.

A bit of maths 100% of Zilch is still Zilch. (expletive deleted for the
snowflakes/woke/offended crowd ;-) )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceS_jkKjIgo

As Sean said :-

"If EPIC follow the rules they lose 30% income but gain millions of
potential users. If they choose not to, they get kicked off and gain
nothing! They're just being dumb while thinking they are winning some moral
high-ground (which does not exist)"

If I were a betting man i'd say EPIC will blink first.

Lagi




On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 15:45, Sean Cole (Pi) via use-livecode <
use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> It's all a pointless debate. Apple can do what it likes with THEIR
> *platform*! if YOU _choose_ not to agree with their policies for use on
> THEIR platform, YOU can _choose_ to go elsewhere.
>
> The same or similar issues come up with ALL brands! Google, Samsung, Nike,
> AT&T, Ford, Cadbury, so on and so on and so on.
>
> If EPIC follow the rules they lose 30% income but gain millions of
> potential users. If they choose not to, they get kicked off and gain
> nothing! They're just being dumb while thinking they are winning some moral
> high-ground (which does not exist).
>
> Andre, What on earth are you talking about regards browsers? There is a
> crapload of other browsers to choose from on ALL platforms, including iOS.
> They all play happily by the rules. Which ones are you talking about that
> can't get onto Apple because they choose not to follow the rules of that
> one low market share platform? 'Brave' is a new one that offers in-app
> purchase following the rules. All of the other 'top players' are there. I'm
> sure any you are talking about are run by juveniles that have a pile of
> rattles laying around their prams. ;)
>
> Myself, I'd be glad to see the back of ALL of them. But in this 'world
> order' that won't happen. Someone else will just rise up in their place.
> Better the 'devils' you know for now!
>
> Sean
>
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 15:04, Kee Nethery via use-livecode <
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:
>
> > Bypassing Apple in app purchasing is technically trivial, plenty of apps
> > have done it for years and they have followed the App Store rules when
> > doing so. Physical services (eg Plumbers) and physical products (eg
> Amazon)
> > they cannot use Apple IAP. Digital goods and services (eg Epic) are
> > required to use IAP. Those are the terms of service. Of course Epic got
> > booted. Nothing surprising about it other than that they thought they
> would
> > get away with it.
> >
> > Kee Nethery
> >
> > > On Aug 14, 2020, at 2:32 AM, JeeJeeStudio via use-livecode <
> > use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Waaah, now even EPIC with Fortnite has been kicked off the appstore,
> > > because they found a way to sell things past the appstore. And then
> Apple
> > > don't get 30%....
> >
>
>
> > >>> Do Apple's actions and policies monopolistically harm consumers?
> > >>
> > >> Yes it does. There is a ton of innovation that is user friendly that
> is
> > >> prevented from being present in iOS due to Apples practices. A simple
> > >> example is new browser engines, you can't have them. Which means you
> > can't
> > >> have more private engines than what Safari uses. This also makes it
> > harder
> > >> to bring lots of API innovation to iOS which would benefit users
> > because it
> > >> would allow for better and more powerful web apps.
> >
>
>
> > >> On Sat, 8 Aug 2020 at 22:16, Jim Lambert via use-livecode <
> > >> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> BrianM wrote:
> > >>>> One thing that seems to be missing in this discussion is the point
> of
> > >>> view of the ?client?, the one who downloads the app and pays for it
> > >>>
> > >>> True.
> > >>> In the U.S. the laws against monopoly (the Sherman Act of 1890, the
> > >>> Clayton Act of 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914) are
> > >> there
> > >>> to promote competition amongst companies for the benefit of
> consumers.
> > >> Or
> > >>> our end users.
> > >>>
> > >>> Do Apple's actions and policies monopolistically harm consumers?
> > Consumer
> > >>> behavior itself argues against that. Quite the contrary, consumers
> are
> > >>> willing to pay a premium for Apple products and services.
> > >>>
> > >>> Andre notes that Apple exercises a monopoly WITHIN the iOS system.
> But
> > >>> that is a misnomer. Apple has a proprietary system not a monopolistic
> > >> one.
> > >>> And they strictly control it. It's simply not true that "there is
> > nothing
> > >>> iOS users can do about that." Yes, there is. Consumers who don't want
> > to
> > >>> buy into Apple’s closed system are free to buy elsewhere. Consumers
> can
> > >>> choose Android or any other alternative products. No one is forcing
> > >>> consumers to buy and use Apple products, which is what would happen
> if
> > >>> Apple had an actual monopoly. In fact, some consumers prefer Apple's
> > >> strict
> > >>> proprietary control and are willing to pay mucho dinero for it.
> > >>>
> > >>> Now look at it from the developers' point of view. Apple makes us
> jump
> > >>> through many more hoops than Android developers do. Apple constantly
> > >>> changes these hoops which can seem inexplicably capricious. But is
> it?
> > Or
> > >>> is it a constant effort to assure safe computing for their consumers?
> > >>>
> > >>> There seems to be an assumption that the 30% cut Apple takes is
> > >>> outrageous. But what does a developer get for that Apple %? If you
> > think
> > >>> you can replace what Apple offers for less money, then just sell your
> > app
> > >>> on Android and rake in the extra bucks. What's stopping you?
> > >>>
> > >>> The reality is that the vast majority of smartphone apps make little
> or
> > >> no
> > >>> money, regardless of OS.
> > >>> So is it painful to surrender 30% of nothing? ;)
> > >>>
> > >>> But back to the purpose of this list, aren't we lucky to have
> > LiveCode, a
> > >>> development platform that gives us the power to develop for whatever
> > >>> platforms make sense for us?
> >
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>


-- 
KIndest Regards Lagi