There's plenty of digital goods with low margins that apple forces a 30% cut.
e.g. Spotify, Twitch, Patreon etc. Most of the funds go to the creator. Completely breaks the model when Apple forces a 30% cut of gross.
That being said, i'd also argue Apple's app store is a complete monopoly on iPhones. Iphones and app stores are such an essential part of life, they deserve to be neutral a la internet neutrality. Not sure how we all become pro internet neutrality but somehow suffer Apple's 30% tax.
Dollars and euros are in areas with the strongest economic regions in the world. What about the billions of people in emerging markets such as turkey, argentina, africa etc that dont have a stable currency to transact?
Crypto is used everyday by millions in many countries including turkey, argentina, africa. You may be lucky to have a great financial system in the US but thats a very narrow POV.
It's all dependent on performance.
$30/month is actually really low if it works well.
If an employee costs $300k/yr fully loaded, then they only need to save ~15 minutes per month to break even (At $150k/yr per employee, its still breakeven at 1 minute saved per day)
It's not that different to superhuman.com charging $30/mo for an email client.
According to the S-1:
They are paying out about $400m/yr to preferred shared holders, which will be wiped clean on IPO (preferred shares convert to common), allowing the company to retain these earnings.
Under "Undistributed earnings attributable to preferred stockholders"
There is no 100% painting of Yoda, with exception of perfectly copying an existing work.
You can a take a photo of Yoda at Disneyland. Disney still cant take your photo and slap it on t-shirts to sell without your permission. (It doesnt mean you can either)
Let's say you are a software developer working on an extensive library that deals with data processing. You come across a small, but particularly efficient algorithm developed by Company A, which they've shared on their blog. This algorithm, called the XYZ Algorithm, is explicitly mentioned to be freely usable but retains the copyright to Company A.
You decide to use this XYZ Algorithm as a component within your larger library. You integrate it as-is, without modifying the original code of the XYZ Algorithm.
Implications:
Rights on the XYZ Algorithm: Even though you've integrated the XYZ Algorithm into your library, Company A retains the copyright on that specific algorithm. If they've specified particular licensing terms or conditions for use (like attribution), you'd have to abide by them.
Rights on the Entire Library: The rest of your library, which you developed independently, remains your intellectual property. Company A's copyright doesn't extend to the whole library, just the specific portion that constitutes the XYZ Algorithm.
Distribution and Licensing: If you decide to distribute or sell your library:
You'd have to ensure you comply with any licensing terms or conditions attached to the XYZ Algorithm.
For the parts of the library you own, you can choose any licensing model you like.
Just because Company A can stop you from commercializing your entire Library, does not mean they own rights to your entire Library.
Just because Disney can stop you from commercializing something does not mean they own the copyright of the entire work.
Suppose you make a Yoda painting. You do not own the rights of _Yoda_, but Disney does not own rights of your painting, either. If you make a painting of Yoda, Disney can't commercialize and sell it either.
In this case, Disney owns some rights, and you the artist have rights. But it doesn't mean Disney "owns the copyright" to your work. They cannot publish/commercialize your exact Yoda painting and put it on t-shirts to sell.
Imagine you're an human artist, and you painted Mickey Mouse (let say playing pickeball). Disney doesn't own the copyright to your artwork, but of course they own the copyright to _Mickey Mouse_ (the character), but that doesn't entitle them to all art with Mickey Mouse in it.
A common narrative lately is that a lot of stock prices are highly correlated with money supply. E.g. The only reason 2021 bubble happened is because the FED printed trillions of dollars.
I wouldn't say its completely arbitrary given this has been a common discussion point.
No opinions on whether it has meaning, but wanted to add the relevance.
Network effect. The mods don't really offer anything. People won't leave for another platform because there's no content/community. It's even hard for an individual subreddit to leave because a single subreddit isn't enough to be self-sustaining.
e.g. Spotify, Twitch, Patreon etc. Most of the funds go to the creator. Completely breaks the model when Apple forces a 30% cut of gross.
That being said, i'd also argue Apple's app store is a complete monopoly on iPhones. Iphones and app stores are such an essential part of life, they deserve to be neutral a la internet neutrality. Not sure how we all become pro internet neutrality but somehow suffer Apple's 30% tax.