This absolutely improves the situation for a lot of indie developers, but praising Apple for it is short-term thinking. It's a strategic move, and it's not cynical to recognize that.
Praising Apple for doing the right thing for small developers is not "Short Term thinking".
It's a good first step, It should be recognized as such. There is a lot of room for improvement, but whining about something that puts millions of dollars in the pockets of indie developers is just not cool.
You have a point, but we can't ignore they are showing good will while being sued for abusive behaviour. Sure it's a step in the right direction, but it's much alike a kid giving his snack to one of his siblings when caught racketing their lunch money.
The issue is they are trying to make 15% seem reasonable. 1.5% is unreasonable. They provide developers negative value, it's just a tax on all transactions.
Last I checked, 15% is closer to zero than 30% so it's objectively better. Nobody is saying it's perfect or that there isn't a lot of room for improvement.
Yet the fact remains that what they’re doing is still not good. It’s a bad thing. Them taking a 15% cut for no reason other than they can is bad, and evil.
The reason people shouldn’t be praising them for loosening their iron grip ever so slightly is because they are currently in the midst of the most antitrust scrutiny they’ve ever had to worry about. With that context, this 15% reduction is clearly nothing more than an underhanded deflection tactic.
The legal system is the only thing that’s going to help “indie” developers. Apple themselves are not going to do it. They’ve shown nothing but more and more disdain towards competition over these past 10 years, and the only time that has started to change is when an actual legal threat appeared.
I don’t even know why I bother writing this, since it’s all obvious. And even though it’s obvious, some people continue to ignore it and come up with excuses for this company for some reason. I don’t know what that reason is, but I doubt logical arguments are going to make a difference. Hopefully the courts aren't the same way.
> Can we at least agree that this is 50% less bad. Or perhaps 25% less bad? 10%?
No, because as has been said many times already, it's a deflection tactic. Focusing on whether 15% is less bad than 30% is a bad thing to do because it accomplishes exactly what Apple's underhanded deflection tactic seeks to accomplish.
But if you really need that addressed, here's a response to your very important question: no, 15% is not less bad than 30% because it means Apple makes less money, and if Apple makes less money they might have to abandon their fancy new M1 chips, and the pace of technological progress will once again fall into stagnation. Sure, small devs will make some more money, but those small devs aren't giving the world shiny toys with rounded corners.
> Ultimately the impression I get from posts like yours is some people just think whatever Apple does is bad regardless of how it affects others.
So if Apple releases a cure for cancer, you get the impression that I'll think that's bad? What is even the point of you writing this, is it an argument? Are you trying to passive-aggressively call me something negative? How does this even relate to the discussion?
> What is even the point of you writing this, is it an argument?
When someone tells me that something which is good is bad. I point it out. When they insist on defending that with a bunch of irrational hand-waving, I'm going to call them on it.
Everything you've said that makes this "Bad" is supposition and conjecture. Everything which is good about it is actual benefits people will see. Even if it is indeed "deflection", the effect is a massive benefit for a huge number of small developers.
They only have to shut up whiny tech giants complaining about the cut. This thing started with greed and will end with greed. Small developers and users don't matter.
it isn't. By making a small concession here, apple prevented the law of society from opening up the walled garden (which is the bestest outcome for all, except for apple).
A corporation only under take actions that it stands to benefit from - it has zero ounce of altruism, even if what it did seem altruistic.
> By making a small concession here, apple prevented the law of society from opening up the walled garden
No they didn't. It's not clear if Apple would have ever been affected by government regulation here. It's even less clear if this would affect any potential regulation. This is purely speculation.
> it has zero ounce of altruism
Irrelevant and unknowable. While we can speculate about Apple's motivations, none of us have access to insider info on this so it is just speculation and ultimately doesn't matter.
The simple fact is it helps Indies. Whether it's altruism or pure profit motivation, doesn't matter.
> It's even less clear if this would affect any potential regulation.
Regulation only happens when there's public pressure for such regulation.
the argument by epic was that apple's 30% cut of revenue is too high. I don't agree because i don't see the %-take as the issue at all.
Apple is framing the issue as far away from the real issue as possible - that of the device being locked down and you can only install via the app-store.
By conceding to a 15% cut, they've steered the overton window of discussion to just the %-cut rate, rather than the actual issue of having a competing app-store (or at least side-loadable apps).
> Just failing to see how "Pay more to Indies" is bad.
let me give you a simile to illustrate why paying more to indies now can be bad in the future.
Imagine a charity trying to help feed the poor in a poor country, by donating large amounts of grain and food. Or try to help cloth them by donating free clothing.
It's not "bad" to receive these donations, but the un-intended side effect is that they destroy the local industry, and prevent competition from forming. Thus, the country has a hard time building up their own industry.
Of course, these charities aren't doing so with any ill intensions (which is where the simile deviates).
Apple hides the true issue of device open-ness by lowering their %-cut they take, and indies celebrate. But they are blind to the future possibility of being locked out by apple by decree (see epic), or some other arbitrary rule they create.
I don't think I've ever seen such an inappropriate and wrong headed analogy in my life.
> But they are blind to the future possibility of being locked out by apple by decree (see epic), or some other arbitrary rule they create.
Indies aren't stupid. Their paychecks come from the uncertain whims of App Store review. Many of them have gotten rejections for various reasons and had to fight for them or revise their apps to keep them in the store. They are the first to back other Indies when things go south. The same people who are celebrating this rate change were among the most vocal critics when Apple pulled Hey out of the App Store.
People aren't one-dimensional. It's possible to celebrate that one part of being in business with the App Store has gotten a hell of a lot better. Even while recognizing that other parts still have a sign on them that says "Here be Dragons".
This is an example of mob rule. Each individual in the mob has a different goal. If Apple makes concessions about something they least care about they can still gain half the mob on their side. The rest of the mob runs out of steam and gets ridiculed. It's the textbook way of dealing with a revolution.
HN users and Twitter users might both be developers but they're very different types of people that have very different views of the world of computing.
To brush it off as "cynicism" is ignoring the full picture.
Right, the app store is an issue for users not developers already invested in Apple's platform. That's probably a PR goal for Apple, to turn users and developers for other platforms into one group and iOS developers into another group.
Perhaps that’s because Twitter people are less well-versed in technology and its business models? This move is clearly moving towards a low local maximum.
If anything, it's the reverse since I'm talking about Twitter comments by independent developers who are directly affected by this. I'm pretty sure they are quite familiar with technology and their own businesses.
Meanwhile in my Twitter thread, every single Indie developer I follow is over the moon about it.
Whatever the end goal here, Apple is helping the smallest developers the most here.
And yes, there are a lot of places Apple can do better, but the cynicism around this is overblown.