Whataboutism doesn’t justify anything. There are quite a few nuances. For example that Android and iOS have way higher adoption numbers than game consoles, and that these OSes play a crucial role in people’s everyday lives. In addition, do these platforms have a duopoly, so perfect competition doesn’t exist on that level, and like elboomy states, does Apple have a monopoly on its own platform. Apple forcing a piece of the cake is thus merely a power play which is enabled by the imperfect market of smartphone OSes and their app stores.
Prior to the App Store, boxed retail software generally had a 50% cut.
Also, you can call it a duopoly, but Apple didn’t leverage market share into this 30% cut; it started when they were closer to 1% of the phone market, and the policy has only ever gotten cheaper (second year of subscriptions and small business program) and more permissive. They offered a closed platform and competed their way to the top based on the product. Developers are given the chance to sell to a huge market of high-end hardware with aggressive consumer uptake of software updates, making it a very attractive platform. Apple wants a commission. It’s not exactly outrageous of them.
Just friendly reminder, whataboutism typically involves deflecting criticism by pointing out a similar issue in an unrelated context, often with the intention of avoiding the original critique.
Their response directly addresses the issue of fee percentages in the same industry, making it more of a comparative argument than a diversion.
May I offer a subtly snarky approach for you to use in the future?
“Our main goal today is to delve into the reasons and consequences of Apple’s fee structure. Let’s try to keep our discussion centered on that topic.”
Whataboutism doesn’t justify anything. There are quite a few nuances. For example that Android and iOS have way higher adoption numbers than game consoles, and that these OSes play a crucial role in people’s everyday lives. In addition, do these platforms have a duopoly, so perfect competition doesn’t exist on that level, and like elboomy states, does Apple have a monopoly on its own platform. Apple forcing a piece of the cake is thus merely a power play which is enabled by the imperfect market of smartphone OSes and their app stores.
Prior to the App Store, boxed retail software generally had a 50% cut.
Also, you can call it a duopoly, but Apple didn’t leverage market share into this 30% cut; it started when they were closer to 1% of the phone market, and the policy has only ever gotten cheaper (second year of subscriptions and small business program) and more permissive. They offered a closed platform and competed their way to the top based on the product. Developers are given the chance to sell to a huge market of high-end hardware with aggressive consumer uptake of software updates, making it a very attractive platform. Apple wants a commission. It’s not exactly outrageous of them.
Just friendly reminder, whataboutism typically involves deflecting criticism by pointing out a similar issue in an unrelated context, often with the intention of avoiding the original critique.
Their response directly addresses the issue of fee percentages in the same industry, making it more of a comparative argument than a diversion.
May I offer a subtly snarky approach for you to use in the future?
“Our main goal today is to delve into the reasons and consequences of Apple’s fee structure. Let’s try to keep our discussion centered on that topic.”
Ooooo snap! 🫰