Your comment shows a lack of understanding of what he's saying. You're not paying for software or payment systems, or anything, it's more like a tax. I'd get all of that if I just paid $100 and sold nothing. That stuff is provided for Apple's benefit as well as your benefit.
But there is benefit to be gained by not taxing the "poor". This is the same argument as the entire "regressive/progressive" tax regimes.
I mean, yes, 30% of fuck all is not a lot and well worth what you get, but that's not the point, Apple's not making much from the long tail, so why not give the long tail the economic freedom to experiment and grow and make everyone richer. That's the point. Let the small businesses grow into bigger businesses by alleviating the tax burden.
The point is that the big fat Rovio's of this world can easily pay for the Apple ecosystem by themselves. The take from the little businesses is relatively small, so why not cut them slack by introducing tiered pricing, allowing them to spend more on growing and advertising, or simply stay in the market, and thus increasing the growth rate of the overall app economy.
By using terms like "providing a service" and "platform" and "do all that yourself", you're fundamentally missing the OPs argument. He's not talking about the value of the services, the virtual bin men, or the armies, or the law systems, he's talking about the economy that pays for all that in the first place.
Honestly I don't think its going to do squat. For the majority of apps if I search I am bound to find an equal number of free apps or even lower priced apps.
So first we reduce the burden then find out that the big guys cut their prices because they can afford too. What is next, surcharging the big guys because its not fair? Really that is all this article is about, its not fair. Guess what, someone is going to come in under you and if they did implement tiered pricing why not farm off a bunch of subsidiaries? One per product to keep yourself under thresholds?
I imagine the tax comparison is part of why they wouldn't want to do it. As your app is more successful, you have to pay Apple more and suddenly this favor to indie developers feels like a tax on the successful. Rebates would be a good work around – we plebs are dumb like that.
You know what else is an obstacle? Having to set up discovery, hosting, delivery, and payment processing yourself, and convincing the public to use your fly by night store.
If they're barely profitable, if they have employees, if they have to pay a lot of taxes in their countries.. Yes 30% is a pain in the ass. It's also a disincentive to anyone who'd rather start anything where they can get 100% instead of mobile apps.
When you don't know whether you're going to break even- because you don't, since this is a risky field and app stores are not even free markets to begin with-, a 30% tax is a strong deterrent.
no, but it would certainly help. This year I will cross 100k paid to Apple, and I've been making slightly below market rates for a few years. If I had the 100k back, I would have not only gotten to market rates, but also have enough cash on hand to consider hiring someone. At the very least I could hire someone on a part time/freelance basis.
If you're paying 100k to Apple, that means you've made about $330k. If you're not making market rates with that, then you're doing something wrong. Not Apple.
But there is benefit to be gained by not taxing the "poor". This is the same argument as the entire "regressive/progressive" tax regimes.
I mean, yes, 30% of fuck all is not a lot and well worth what you get, but that's not the point, Apple's not making much from the long tail, so why not give the long tail the economic freedom to experiment and grow and make everyone richer. That's the point. Let the small businesses grow into bigger businesses by alleviating the tax burden.
The point is that the big fat Rovio's of this world can easily pay for the Apple ecosystem by themselves. The take from the little businesses is relatively small, so why not cut them slack by introducing tiered pricing, allowing them to spend more on growing and advertising, or simply stay in the market, and thus increasing the growth rate of the overall app economy.
By using terms like "providing a service" and "platform" and "do all that yourself", you're fundamentally missing the OPs argument. He's not talking about the value of the services, the virtual bin men, or the armies, or the law systems, he's talking about the economy that pays for all that in the first place.