There’s more than one way to interpret that. As people who have made significant investments in the platform, they want it to stay strong and fear that Apple’s inflexibility will ultimately hurt the platform. They are thinking about years into the future rather than the next quarter or two.

They were fans of Apple before they ever started building in the ecosystem.

> There’s more than one way to interpret that

Sure, but there’s also the really obvious interpretation.

These are people who will immediately earn more if the apple tax is reduced.

Marco Arment has repeated time and time again that he doesn't care about changing his payment system. He wants Apple to see the regulatory Armageddon it is facing.

It may be an obvious interpretation, but it isn't very charitable.

Are you trying to make the argument that Apple's rules make sense and those who want to see change likely have a conflict of interest? If so, then you may be the person I didn't think existed. Do you think Apple's doing the right thing?

> Are you trying to make the argument that Apple's rules make sense and those who want to see change likely have a conflict of interest?

In fact I’d argue that it’s almost exclusively those with a conflict of interest who care the least bit about the Apple tax.

> Do you think Apple's doing the right thing?

Yes. Apple can charge whatever they feel is appropriate. If at some point their prices will be too high, I can jump ship.

> Apple can charge whatever they feel is appropriate.

I think you are answering a slightly different question than I’m asking. You might think they should be allowed to run their platform however they want but the reality is that because of their size and power, they can’t. Regulators will at least force them to allow alternate payment providers and if Apple keeps pushing back, they will eventually be forced to allow side loading or alternate app stores (which I would think would be a disaster).

So given the regulatory environment they exist in, they only way their current strategy is smart is if they can defeat the EU. I don’t think they can and I think we will all be worse off in a few years because of Apple’s petulance.

> Regulators will at least force them to allow alternate payment providers

Yes, but the 27% apple tax is separate from the payment providers.

yep, and that’s probably what’s going to get them in the most trouble. The platform is getting to the point where I could see it being regulated like a public utility.

That’s a hilariously bad comparison.

If my electricity company starts fucking around, people might literally freeze to death.

Apple store is not at all like a public utility, it would be downright madness to regulate it like such. Public utilities have very real impact on the lives of the public, Apple tax doesn’t.

How about if your telephone company starts fucking around? As more services are provided through apps, the stakes grow.

I agree with you that it shouldn’t be regulated like a utility. I’m saying that Apples obstinance is going to lead them there.

> How about if your telephone company starts fucking around?

If emergency calls don’t work, people die. Phone calls not working would have significant economic impact too, although less so nowadays.

The transactions covered by Apple Tax only pay a significant part in some developers lives, they don’t matter to the public in the same way utilities do.

> I’m saying that Apples obstinance is going to lead them there.

Unlikely, the iOS appdev lobbyists don’t have that kind of pull.

Of the three hosts, only Marco makes an iOS app.

Casey does as well: https://www.caseyliss.com/2020/2/6/peek-a-view