1. how is a 30% cut screwing over everyone? if developers are essential "vendors" providing goods and service through a retail channel, then they always have a choice of who to sell through. if developers can't survive with Apple's revenue share agreement then they simply won't sell via that channel. if enough developers move, then Apple will revisit the T&Cs and adjust the revenue share accordingly.
also look at it this way. the original app store rules were 70/30, developer/Apple. this type of revenue share is quite typical as the retail distribution channel offers a service of bringing customers directly to the product maker. a typical example can be grocery stores. Haagen Daz sells their wonderful ice cream for $7 a pint at Store X, upon a successful sale, Store X gets some percentage of the transaction because they provided the freezer to store it in, the electricity to keep it cool, the retail lease for the store etc etc etc.
subscription based apps became problematic because customers can d/l the apps for free, sign up for the service through Rdio, and the revenue will never go to Apple. however, Rdio has used the infrastructure that Apple has provided for the hosting service and they benefited from Apple's wide user base.
if Apple didn't take a 30% cut from Rdio, then the developers of Angry Birds would probably start to question why should they be subjected to the revenue share when the only difference between them and Rdio is the timing of payment from customer? so right from the beginning, if Rdio had a decently smart executive team, they should have realized the 30% would
have to be applied to maintain revenue equality across paid apps.
regardless, on their earnings call they continue to reiterate that the iTunes + App Store only runs at a break even. if the 30% was really about "greed" as tech bloggers whined back then... well, that was a waste of effort in trying to develop an additional revenue stream since it's still running at break even.
2. i'm not quite sure where you're driving with the "lock in" analogy as most electronic retailers all do essentially the same thing. Sony wants to cover you from PS3, to HDTV, to headphones, and cameras. Same with Samsung, LG, Panasonic etc. all these brands want to make consumers a Sony/Samsung/Panasonic customer. i mean, come on... how is this even an argument? this is just basic retail strategy. Gucci/Armani/J.Crew/Banana don't just make purses, they make shoes, evening gowns, club attire, and swim wear so their target demographic can always stay loyal to their in multiple conditions.
from a finance perspective, all of these product guys have a high(er) fixed cost to hurdle over... this is just the nature of making products and why so many things get made in China. due to the fixed costs, there is a natural barrier to entry for a lot of companies who are serious about competing. notice i said serious. you can be like Meizu cranking out knock offs through a cheap manufacturer but you'll never be in same playing field with titans.
i'm unsure of how this hurts consumers... you have Sony, Panasonic, Apple, Samsung, LG, Philips, HTC, Lenovo, Asus, Acer, Nokia, HP, Dell, Blackberry... i mean, this is a pretty decent sized list of companies that compete with Apple directly across their product categories.
3. what would outrage some of y'all is their supply chain strategy. this is where the
real fixed cost hurdle is located. they plunked down $5B with Samsung just to secure a flash memory deal. they funded Foxconn's factory and equipment building just so they can have capacity priority over others. they did a similar deal with the iPad glass screens where they bought out the capacity on the market for 2 quarters. these three events have delayed phone and tablet manufactures from getting their products out to market, prevented them from creating a substitutable product, and achieving similar cost levels through economies of scale.
traditionally most tech product companies focused on cost cutting and operational efficiencies. i don't think i've seen any of them so skillfully use supply and manufacturing capacity as a lever against their competitors... without them realizing it either. i remember the when Samsung proudly announced the $5B during an earnings call. what Tim Cook orchestrated behind the scenes since 2007 has been absolutely brilliant. this is stuff CXOs dream about back in H/W/S that they'll someday achieve.
all this focus on lawsuits, patents, walled gardens... it's just side drama. even Apple doesn't believe they will succeed in banning Samsung products across the world. their headache would really begin if that happened as i'm sure multiple countries would have governments very interested in finding ways to fine a company with $100B in cash. Palm and Moto went the longest with using openess as their battle stance. Samsung and HTC both moved to other areas of attack. 2 companies still make money.
come on people, this is how business gets done around the world...
I see you choose to pass over the fact. I already see you are doing your typical BS of posting profit from Apple. Not a valid argument here.
Lets see Apple system screws over anyone not Apple. The required to use Apple 30% cut for in App purchases was crap. It magically started being enforced right after Apple started prepping for their own streaming services and offering iBooks. WOO huge suprise there.
Also its lock in prevents other companies from entering the market or offering competing services. It puts a near to impossiblely high front loading cost to break in. This hurts consumers.
You have the insane Apple lock in that once you invest anything into the Apple eco system it pretty hard to break out as Apple only plays nice with Apple products.
But you LTD do not get the point. Instead you try your spin tricks to justify it. Heck your own so called arguments could be turned against you when you point to MS. MS did some dirty things in the past. Apple is doing plenty as well. Remember you had to CHOOSE to use MS windows, and you had to CHOOSE to use MS office. Apple is hurting competition not helping.
if you want other examples you have Apple string of law suits with it crapents.
