Here in the Netherlands I'm starting to smell and hear about lots of people warming their houses by burning wood since the natural gas prices have skyrocketed. Personally I'm not too fond of the idea of breathing in more fine particulate. But trying to ban wood fire heating would be political suicide.
In the city I live in it's borderline impossible to go outside during late hours in winter because you get literally gassed with smog from the various shit people burn for heating, it's absolutely unreal.
Most NL farmers are in favor of stopping all subsidies if it means that it also stops in other countries. Because unlike in other countries subsidies in NL come with lots of strings attached.
They halved their emissions in just a couple of decades. If you truly want progress, be realistic with the deadlines you state and keep on giving them the incentives to continue this positive trend.
You make It sound like apple's service will disappear over night. If you're fine with them taking 30% then that's your choice. And if your app does become big enough to reap the benefits of implementing mutiple payment providers then thats even better.
It doesn't work like that. Friction destroys revenues, large companies can remove friction by having their portfolio of users with credit cards collected. Small devs cannot do that because the user will need to enter payment details each time. The best chance would be to use something like Paypal, which is again a huge friction since the user will need to switch apps or enter login information.
As a result, unless you are a huge publisher you don't actually have a realistic chance to sell over alternate low-cost methods. This is not because you can't put the code there but because it will make the user experience so bad that a fraction of your users will proceed.
It's not about being technically possible but it's about being feasible. It doesn't matter that you can technically do it if not enough people want to play along and deal with it.
Maybe I wasn't clear. The problem is that smaller developers will not have access to the same frictionless services anymore. 180 million people have an account with Epic, who knows how many of them have already provided the CC.
If you are an indie, you don't have access to the 180 million people, which creates uneven competition.
When the only payment in town is Apple IAP, you and Epic have the same margin. Suddenly, Epic has %28 more margin with at about the same level of friction. If you need to match Epic's margin, you need to introduce friction.
Are there App devs on this site anymore? It feels like arguing with people who have no idea.
> will not have access to the same frictionless services anymore.
Yes they will... They will have access to same exact Apple In App Purchases feature that they had before.
> Suddenly, Epic has %28 more margin
Ok, so then it is not about you having access to the exact same thing that you had before.
Instead, it is that other developers, have more money, and don't have to pay an Apple fee.
Thats pretty different.
You are not complaining about losing something. Instead, you are complaining that other developers, have to pay a lower fee than they had before. But you still have exactly the same thing as you had before.
Generally speaking, lowering costs are not something to complain about.
Large corporations not paying taxes is bad, because it means society has less money to pay for things.
That is very different from companies paying less money to a multi trillion dollar company. Companies paying less to a multi trillion dollar company is a good thing.
It is dishonest to equate that to necessary government services being underfunded.
Lower costs are good. So no, I reject that this is bad for small developers.
It is most bad for apple, as they get less money.
> Tough luck
There is no tough luck. Smaller developers can continue to pay the same amount as they were paying before.
They are not disadvantaged by it, as they get access to the same deals that they had in the past.
The only different is that now, some companies, have the ability of no longer having to pay large amounts of money to a multi-trillion dollar company (apple).
That is a win.
The fact that less companies have to pay many millions and millions of dollars, to one of the most valuable companies in the world, is a win.
And small companies, still have access to the same exact programs that they had before.
I believe hypercars are typically much more limited in supply than even supercars. With respects to the timeline that they get developed in, the technology in them is so bonkers that it basically makes them modern marvels. I doubt there is anything stopping Tesla calling the Model S a hypercar, but I don't even know if they would want to be in that 'market'.
Why did you phrase your question in a way that implies it'd be ridiculous to call the Model S a hypercar? The Plaid edition set new world records for both 0-60 and 1/4 mile times among production cars.
A rocket sled accelerates very quickly too; that doesn't make it a competitor to Ferrari and Lamborghini.
The Model S seems analogous to quartz watches, that meant expensive watches couldn't compete on accuracy any more, but that doesn't make it a hypercar even if it were to make them obsolete.
This wasn't meant to be an attack to Tesla, it was just a random car model I chose. And in terms of price the plaid is far off from the other commonly accepted hypercars.
