
On Monopolies, Apple, and Epic - monkin
https://ia.net/topics/monopolies-apple-and-epic
======
zepto
This piece is terrible.

Full of straw men, dishonesty, ad hominems, and deeply one sided.

One way to make this piece better, the author needs to stop pretending that
the only people who are supporting Apple against Epic have no experience
shipping apps.

I have shipped many, and I vehemently disagree with the author.

It seems to me that there are just as many people on both sides of this debate
with experience and just as many who don’t have it. The author’s claim is
disingenuous.

Another claim that must be queried is the idea that Android users are by
definition people who don’t want to spend money.

This seems like it’s a true observation, but unless we ask _why_ it’s true, we
can’t reason about this topic.

Apple will of course say it’s because of the effort they have put into
building a safe platform, and the fact that they maintain a place where people
are willing to spend money on software is exactly why they should continue to
receive commission.

If we stop Apple from doing what they are doing, it’s completely plausible
that we’ll end up with everyone having the willingness to pay that is
demonstrated by Google Play, and software sales decimated by piracy.

It’s worth noting that I would love an environment without a gatekeeper. I
actually agree that it’s bad for Apple to have this power.

I simply don’t see any reason to believe that forcing Apple to allow other
stores (which is technically problematic since it requires that the state
force Apple to maintain software) would produce the desired outcome.

I also think it’s completely disingenuous to dismiss benefits like security.
That just makes it seem like the author doesn't have experience in the area.
Malware is an obvious problem which clearly does exist.

Disclaimer: I love IA’s products. I think they are some of the best on the App
Store.

~~~
mthoms
My interpretation of the piece is that it is advocating for the _reduction_ of
the Apple cut and less reliance on the subscription model. Not alternate app
stores, lesser security or lesser privacy.

I think the vast, vast majority of the app store developers would agree that
the App store cut of 30% is not reasonable (or sustainable).

>a place where people are willing to spend money on software is exactly why
they should continue to receive commission.

What part of the piece said "Apple should not receive _any_ commission"?

>I simply don’t see any reason to believe that forcing Apple to allow other
stores

What part of the article claimed "the solution is allowing other stores"?

It looks like you have no problem with strawmen when they're yours. The piece
could have been better written, sure. But your reading of it seems very
disingenuous.

~~~
zepto
Epic’s demand is that they be allowed to run their own Store.

The article strongly supports Epic, and dismisses all counterarguments as
‘bullshit’ or uses ad-hominem.

The fact that they do this but then don’t even mention what Epic is actually
asking for, shows that it is not my reading, but the _article_ which is
disingenuous.

Supporting Epic _is_ to make the argument for other stores to be allowed.

Epic’s strategy simply doesn’t allow for the remedy to be a reduction in
percentage. They are all in on being allowed to run their own store.

If you support this is what you support.

In addition, the article clearly claims that the security argument is
‘bullshit’.

That claim is simply incompatible with claiming you want to maintain the
current level of security.

I didn’t mention privacy.

It’s also worth noting that nothing in the article does any work towards
explaining how to reduce reliance on the subscription model, and it certainly
makes no case for how Epic, or anyone else would achieve that.

It just says users ‘hate’ subscriptions, but then says they aren’t needed in
order to run a successful App business anyway, which is oddly conflicted.

It’s a bad piece.

~~~
mthoms
>The fact that they do this but then don’t even mention what Epic is actually
asking for, shows that it is not my reading, but the article which is
disingenuous.

Are you kidding? He "mentions" it right here -

>Epic doesn’t want a reduction to 5%, it wants to pay nothing and run its own
store on iOS. Which, let’s be real, has to be a negotiation tactic. On its own
store, Epic charges 12% to developers.

The author doesn't think Epic _even wants its own store_ and that the ask is
merely "a negotiation tactic".

I don't see how you can interpret that as wanting Epic to have their own store
like you claimed. How can he want Epic to have their own store when he thinks
_they_ don't even want one!?

Secondly, you said he advocates for Apple earning 0%. Here's the closest thing
I could find:

>30% share is too much. 30% is what a run operation makes in profit. It’s
higher than the highest tier in corporate tax. every developer we talk to and
Business analysts around the world say 30% revenue share comes from a dark
fairytale. What would be a fair share? 5% would be a fair share. Is there
hope?

From this you claimed the author wants Apple to earn 0%? Really? The author
merely suggested 5% is closer to a fair share. He never said what you claimed
he did.

I'm not interested in debating the App store or the article per se. I just
wanted to point out the irony of harshly condemning him for using strawmen,
and then shamelessly inventing several of your own.

1) He didn't advocate for Apple earning 0%, and 2) didn't advocate for Epic
having their own iOS store, and (3) absolutely _did_ mention that Epic claims
to want an app store.

Per the above, you've now mis-represeted the authors` words several times in
the space of two comments. That's not cool, no matter how "bad" you think the
piece is.

~~~
zepto
I believe you would be correct under only one circumstance.

That circumstance would be the one in which the authors is both sincere in
their believe that Epic is not being honest about their goal and correct.

If you support Epic, and you believe they are being honest, then you do in
fact support Apple getting 0%.

I don’t misrepresent the Author at all - they claim that 30% is too much, and
that they support Epic.

However, given the sarcasm, ad-hominem, and dismissiveness inherent in the
piece it is completely reasonable to question their sincerity.

Your read of the piece is based on assuming Epic is being dishonest in their
objective.

This is completely unexamined by the author and there is no reason at all to
take it at face value, when the entire piece is arguing _not_ to take other
people’s positions at face value. (I.e. they call other position ‘bullshit’)

I am not being disingenuous.

If someone wants to make the argument that _Epic_ is being disingenuous, that
is fine.

Your reading of the piece seems to rely on that, but yet it is not argued - it
is just assumed. The piece also dismisses other people’s views in the
disingenuous ways I have already outlined.

The piece is terrible. It’s not an argument at all - it’s just ad hominem. The
piece is basically saying everyone’s position is ‘bullshit’ including Epic’s
but Epic is the hero.

Your reading just reinforces that.

~~~
mthoms
>I don’t misrepresent the Author at all

Wow. Lets recap:

You claimed the author never mentioned Epics' stated goal of running their own
store: Provably false.

You claimed the author wanted Apple to get no percentage: Provably false. He
never said that, you're inferring it (!?) from his support of Epic. Yet Epic
earns 12% in its own store.

Presumably Epic thinks 12% is a reasonable take for an App store?

You claimed the author wants Epic to have their own store: Provably false. The
author thinks Epic is bluffing (Epic may or may not want a store, but what
we're debating is what the _author_ said, not what Epic said/wants/believes).

You've misrepresented the author at least three times (I've noticed others but
don't have the time or inclination to point them out).

>Your read of the piece is based on assuming Epic is being dishonest in their
objective.

My reading of the piece is based on the words actually written by the author.
You're inferring a whole bunch of things based on the authors' "support" of
Epic. Stop focussing on what you think Epic wants and read the words the
author wrote.

Take a hint from the replies you've received here and try to do better.

~~~
zepto
I’m doing just fine, but you are misrepresenting me now.

If Epic runs their own Store alongside Apple’s and takes 12%, then Apple will
get nothing from those sales.

Oddly, your previous comment contains a quote which agrees with me:

>Epic doesn’t want a reduction to 5%, it wants to pay nothing and run its own
store on iOS.

Which you gave chosen to now disregard.

This is simply what it means for Epic to be allowed to run their own Store.

I am not focusing on what “I think” Epic wants.

I’m focusing on what _Epic says_ that they want, _and_ what the author says.

Why should I only base my view on the author’s words?

Facts matter when putting those words in context, unless you are suggesting we
critique the piece purely as a work of fiction.

The author’s position is that Epic is lying about what they want for strategic
reasons. As you say, a bluff.

But the author is dismissing opinions to the contrary of their own as
“bullshit” or the opinions of people who don’t know what they are talking
about etc.

My reading is based on the words the author is saying.

You can do better by addressing my points as written and not misrepresenting
them.

The piece is terrible, and contains all of be problems I attribute to it.

It also contains some valid opinions and interesting ideas to debate, but it
claims them as fact, and uses innuendo to fend off criticism.

An obvious example is the dismissal of security concerns as ‘bullshit’. The
author asserts that people who don’t have experience shouldn’t comment or be
taken seriously, but we have no reason to believe the author has any serious
security experience, because their claim was to expertise is that they have
been developing an excellent Markdown editor for the past decade.

See how the piece is bad?

If you start to acknowledge what’s true about the faults of the article, we
might be able to have a reasonable debate over the parts of the article which
are worth exploring.

If you can’t admit that the article contains problems, so be it.

~~~
mthoms
Stop. Just stop. You may have missed it (surprise, surprise!) but I've already
been quite clear:

>I'm not interested in debating the App store or the article per se. I just
wanted to point out the irony of harshly condemning him for using strawmen,
and then shamelessly inventing several of your own.

I don't know how to be any clearer to you. I really don't. I don't care about
the article anymore. You've taken out any potential fun from debating the
actual message by being blatantly and unabashedly dishonest about its content.

Please, please take a hint from the replies to your comments here. No one will
engage you in civilized debate when you demonstrate such a careless disregard
for trying to understand what is written in front of you.

Oh, and a stylistic tip that might help (assuming you're actually interested
in having respectful, honest, civilized debate someday): Try using paragraphs
in your writing. There's a reason paragraphs are a thing; disjointed random
sentences come across as incoherent rambling.

Don't bother replying. I'm not interested. Best of luck.

