So what’s the right number? 0%? Any number would elicit moaning from the peanut gallery. Look at retail store gross margins on the products they sell (I.e. their cut of the retail price), and the terms they set for their wholesalers.
The right number is decided by competition. Different payment processors vie for customers by offering better deals until profit margins stabilize at a reasonable level. That's impossible with a monopoly.
Thank you for this. People seem to get bogged down in what percentage is right or wrong (something that reasonable people can very reasonably disagree about), but ultimately the problem is that there's no competitive marketplace.
Apple Store isn't a Point of Sale system you outsource to IBM.
It's inventory, delivery, and to an extent stewardship. The same with Steam. I don't expect junk and I expect refunds when I find it. Once you split that to a vendor the perverse incentives kick in and you end up right back in the Bad Place.
I personally think somewhere in the neighborhood of 18% is probably closer to sustainable, given all that we expect. And I also think Apple fucked up. If they had voluntarily reduced their fees and created the intro level at the same time, and a year or so earlier, they could have picked a higher number than they are likely now to end up with when all is said and done.
Did you just compare the markup of a retailer after negotiation with their supplier to the fee of a monopolist of the means of distribution on someone else's offered price? Because it seems to me those are very different things.
Yeah, I'm aware, but for the entities who have the revenue that justifies taking Apple or Google to court, it's 30%. Which is fairly egregious for a glorified package manager.
You can send encrypted notifications without any entitlement. I assume you are talking about sending notifications without displaying the notification to the user.
Sorry but I don't want random apps spaming me with junk. If they want to send me notifications, then yes they should request my (the user's) permission.
Not exactly. That would be a purely progressive tax like US income taxes. With the Small Business Program, what you say is only true the first time you cross 1 mil. Assuming your revenue never goes down (you can appeal if it does), in all future years you pay the full price. So if your app makes a consistent $1.5 mil / year, you’re paying the full tax on all of that revenue, not just $.5 of it.
This is a bit of a tangent, but I want to discuss how deviously literal the Supreme Court decided to be in order to avoid letting anyone establish any precedent about what was or wasn't a legal abortion.
The original filing said "It is also Dr. Karsan’s good faith belief and medical recommendation that that the Emergent Medical Condition Exception to Texas’s abortion bans and laws permits an abortion in Ms. Cox’s circumstances, as Ms. Cox has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from her current pregnancy that places her at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of her reproductive functions if a D&E abortion is not performed. Dr. Karsan is unsure how close to death her patients need to be before abortion is permitted under Texas law. As has been the case with prior patients over the last two years, Dr. Karsan is unsure if Ms. Cox’s current medical condition counts as close enough to death under Texas law for the Emergent Medical Condition Exception to apply." (clauses 139,140)
The Texas Supreme Court said "The pleadings state that Ms. Cox's doctor believes Ms. Cox qualifies for an abortion based on the medical-necessity exception. But when she sued seeking a court's pre-authorization, Dr. Karsan did not assert that Ms. Cox has a 'life-threatening physical condition' or that, in Dr. Karsan's reasonable medical judgement, an abortion is necessary because Ms. Cox has the type of condition the exception requires."
In short, the court decided that Dr. Karsan described the statute, and that Dr. Karsan stated that the statute applied, but Dr. Karsan did not actually say "the patient had a life-threatening physical condition," but only that the patient WOULD have a life-threatening condition if an abortion were not performed. Or at least that's probably the argument; it's not explained very well. Therefore, the Court cannot not rule on whether the abortion is legal or not. After all, only a doctor could make that determination, not a court (you can read the smirk).
Truly an amazing decision, and if there's an award in Hell for achievements in pedantry, that court would have a real shot. Sadly, the Court would probably be disqualified for such an award as they technically lied (Dr. Karsan did in fact say "Ms. Cox has a life-threatening physical condition"), and one presumes Hell's Pedantry Awards interpret such rules quite strictly.
What I never understood is how Republicans can be for one type of abortion say before 6 weeks but not for 15 weeks? What is their rationale? If Bible says that abortion is murder, and life begins at conception, then how can they allow abortion at 6 weeks and vote for that?
This is a tangent within a tangent, but it's basically a political strategy. Abortion bans are deeply unpopular, even in many Republican-majority states. By framing it "after six weeks", they're attempting to project the image that they're the reasonable ones. After all, women would have had six whole weeks to make up their mind! And it will allow an escape hatch for women in rape or incest situations.
As a practical matter, they know that many women won't realize they're pregnant until it's too late to feasibly schedule the procedure. They're minimizing the number of abortions while moving what the American public sees as reasonable from 24 weeks to 6. Once everyone's used to six, they can reduce it even more.
The religious beliefs that underlie these laws are the driving force. The people who hold these beliefs see the political system as a means to an end, and future losses do not matter if the goal is reached.
I grew up in an ultra conservative religious community, and as a kid, stuffed envelopes for a pro-life candidate’s campaign without fully understanding what it was I was doing, because I was a kid. I’ve seen the mindset up close, and it’s very worrisome.
Do think it’s ultimately short sighted because of the likely pendulum swing. But there is certainly a lot of damage to be done before that happens.
Interesting. Coming from a progressive european coutry, this sounds outrageously absurd. The idea of enacting laws based on the bible seems not just archaic but almost surreal. Are they stuck in the middle ages?
I can only speak for the bubble I grew up in, but almost everyone in that circle came from some kind of traumatic background. Vietnam vets, victims of sexual assault and other forms of abuse, etc.
These ultra religious groups provide a sense of community, and the highly restrictive rules and policies they espouse give them a sense of control - something that many of them have lost in various ways. It’s as sad as it is dangerous.
Some of them. It's not entirely different to or Poland's PIS or Northern Ireland's DUP, though I don't know of any modern major Republican leader who thinks the world is literally 6,000 years old.
Looking at data from 2022, about 13.6% of the population is White Evangelical Protestant, but that's been on the decline. It was around 25% a couple decades ago. Overall, just over half of the country is Christian, most being Protestant of some denomination.
But it's the White Evangelical Protestants that are the big driver here. You might think it's the 12.6% White Catholic and the 8.6% Hispanic Catholic populations that are the most fervently anti-abortion, but most actually vote for more liberal politicians.
The thing is, Evangelicals, if I understand correctly, weren't even that anti-abortion to begin with. That was seen as more of a Catholic issue historically. But what they're very big on is the idea that 1) America is the greatest country in the world, and 2) America is great because it's a Christian country. As such, they feel it's important to elect Christian leaders who feel and think like they do. And because they are predominantly white and their leadership is exclusively male, they want white men to be in control. (And I say this as a white, cisgender man.)
Because they've always been such a large percentage of the US population, and, more recently, because US distracting gives rural voters a greater voice than urban voters, they've been a large political force in the country since the 19th century, but in the 20th century, they were never so large as to completely dominate US politics. And this kinda worked well for both sides in the early 20th, since towns, counties, and states dominated by Evangelicals were largely autonomous enough to do whatever they wanted locally. But when desegregation came, and women entered the workforce in greater numbers, Evangelicals were forced to accept nonwhites and women holding important positions, even in their areas of the country.
Abortion became an issue they could use to gain support from Catholic voters, and as a wedge issue for the larger community. For Evangelicals, it was less about writing specific religious creeds into law, and more about forming strategies to gain political power so they could put the "right people" in back in charge of the country. It also helps reinforce that men are in control by removing autonomy from women.
> Why are politicians trying to pass a law that is, "deeply unpopular?" Do they want to lose elections, or something?
That is an interesting question which may have something to do with Game Theory and Prisoner's Dilemma. Even though Republicans as a whole will lose votes because of this, each individual Republican candidate will stand to gain an advantage over their primaries rivals by being perceived as more uncompromising, more principled.
And it is curious if not silly, 6 weeks is seen as, conceived to be "more principled", than 7 weeks.
The bible doesn't say anything at all about abortion. It wouldn't matter if it did though, because they have no problem ignoring plenty of things that actually are in it when it would conflict with political success.
If anything, that sounds like it's saying life begins _before_ conception, not at conception. By that logic, it's also murder to wear a condom or pull out
In a way we were set up before birth as said by Jeremiah above, because our DNA existed before we became the fertilized egg. Our DNA was in two parts which were then combined by the act of conception.
There's a large sect that believes that abortion should never be performed. However, the vast majority understands the pragmatism behind the six week restriction: forcing women to carry rape/incest/coerced babies incentivizes the raping/incesting/coercing parties to do so knowing that their actions will pay off. Allowing abortion before six weeks dissuades such behavior.
More practically, it allows you to claim what Jimbo here is describing without any practical loss. At two weeks pregnant, you likely haven't even had sex yet. A pregnancy test might not be positive until week five or so, and there are only a couple of abortion clinics in conservative states, so you've potentially got a window of just a couple of days between finding that you need one and getting one. So a six week ban is more of a PR move than an actual thing that people believe in.
But that argument goes both ways? Why should abortion be legal at 9 month but killing a born infant being one day older is murder? And if it is not then what is the cutoff point? The previous schelling point of viability (which was moved earlier over time by medical progress) also is unconvincing.
Time limits can be a pragmatic and tested solution. I think most European countries use 12 to 15 weeks.
Time limits make sense and EVERYBODY agrees they are a good thing.
But if you want a shorter time-limit you should give a good rationale for it. Why you want it 6 weeks but not 1 week?
Whereas those who didn't propose any change to Roe vs. Wade do not really need a reason for NOT making a change. There must be a reason when we make or try to make a change.
Because Republicans are trying to curry favor with everyone. Hard-liners like myself believe that abortion at any stage is morally equivalent to homicide—only acceptable if the life of the mother is also at risk. The 6 week ban doesn't actually solve the problem, just delivers a pyrrhic victory to win votes.
Maybe pick an analogy that isn’t picture perfect for starting a flame war? I don’t think it edifies anyone to bring that debate into a discussion about intellectual property rights.
“Court System” is very contextual: the Texas Supreme Court just blocked a woman getting an abortion for a non-viable pregnancy.