> 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".
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.