All the arguments about what company is most evil entirely miss the point.<p>You don't make a decision on a specific issue based on what company you like more, you base it on who is right on the specific issue.<p>From an ethical perspective that's what having a codified rule of laws is all about. Everyone get's the same rules no matter how much you like them. You don't arbitrarily punish people for doing things you don't like by denying them unrelated things that they are entitled to unless you go in front of a judge and get a judge to order that as a punishment for doing the thing you don't like.<p>From a entirely practical and short term perspective these decisions do not just impact the companies you don't like, they also impact everyone else because our legal system puts a very heavy weight on precedent.<p>I'm strongly reminded of the quote "Freedom of speech doesn't protect speech you like; it protects speech you don't like." (though obviously in this case it is applied to justice in general instead of speech in particular).
Can we just link directly to the advocacy group's page (<a href="https://appfairness.org/" rel="nofollow">https://appfairness.org/</a>)? I'm not certain the article is adding anything.<p>----<p>I'm generally supportive of at least some of Epic's arguments towards Apple, and I do believe that Apple (and multiple other FAANG companies) are engaged in anti-competitive behavior that's currently hurting the market. But a lot of the arguments I'm reading on the App Fairness site in particular seem really poorly phrased, almost to the point of being incoherent.<p>From their objection on "user freedom":<p>> Think about this a little differently: A box of Cheerios costs about $3.00 at Kroger, but sometimes Cheerios offers a coupon which lowers the price to $2.50 at any store that offers Cheerios. What Apple is doing is basically like Kroger telling Cheerios that they’re not allowed to offer coupons, and if they do, Cheerios is at risk of being kicked out of the cereal aisle. Consumers wouldn’t stand for this type of monopolistic behavior over their cereal, so why should they allow it for the apps used on their mobile devices?<p>I had to think really hard what they mean by this and how it actually relates to user freedom. Most resellers <i>are</i> allowed to choose their own prices for goods. I don't think this analogy corresponds at all to what Apple is doing. Apple is banning apps from telling consumers <i>in app</i> about other purchasing options. That's a totally different objection.<p>I'm pleased to see developers banding together, but if this is the result then I wish they'd spend more time making more reasonable, understandable arguments. If this site was my first introduction to the debate over app store policies, I think I'd probably be on Apple's side.
Device freedom is a must. Any device should be completely controllable by the end user. There's two parts to this to me: app stores and the data collected by the devices. Users should have the freedom to install any software on their devices, period. Users should also have the freedom to stop all data collection by these devices. This applies to all electronics--video game consoles, TVs, printers, who knows what else in the future.<p>If we keep letting manufacturers create these "walled gardens", we're not only creating a ton of trash because they will stop supporting them eventually, we're also stopping innovation and integration across platforms. Give me government mandated open protocols, open firmware, and let me install linux on my printer if I want. As devices get smarter, we should all reap the benefits of it through our own ingenuity and hacking.
I'm surprised at all of the negativity here. The changes proposed would be great for developers, even if (most) of the companies involved are shady, their reasons are selfish, and the obvious "astroturfiness" of the website is laughably dissonant and reeks like a dirty think tank that hasn't been cleaned in months. Apple has no qualms about absolutely screwing developers historically. I'm happy to see some pushback.
Why should I read this website and take it seriously if I can't even read the cookie policy without accepting cookies, and when I actually do attempt to read the policy (thanks Reader Mode) I am told that to opt-out I have to disable cookies in my browser?<p>Looking further and reading their privacy policy in the section titled "Your European Rights", I see this:<p>> You have the right to ask us not to process your Personal Data for marketing purposes. We will usually inform you (before collecting your Personal Data) if we intend to use your Personal Data for such purposes or if we intend to disclose your information to any third party for such purposes. You can exercise your right to prevent such processing by checking certain boxes on the forms we use to collect your Personal Data.<p>This is backwards. It is my right to not have you process my personal data for marketing purposes unless I opt-in, not my right to opt-out. This is an important distinction, and the fact that they have a poorly worded privacy policy on this makes me feel like they didn't really do their due diligence on this very basic stuff.
From <a href="https://appfairness.org/our-vision/" rel="nofollow">https://appfairness.org/our-vision/</a><p>> No app store owner should prohibit third parties from offering competing app stores on the app store owner’s platform, or discourage developers or consumers from using them.<p>I don't disagree but does this mean Sony should allow, for example, Steam to be installed on the PS5? Or is the definition of "App Store" used here narrow and arbitrary?
The most underrated thing we might get with multiple app stores:<p>Devs do not need anymore XCode or a Mac to develop for iOS since Apple couldn't enforce any specific runtime or proprietary tool-chains anymore. I have an extra Macbook lying around here just for that reason.<p>Who knows if Google will then offer Android Studio for iOS or Facebook a real React Native. Good times ahead and I cross my fingers. You don't have to like Epic, Spotify or Tinder but if they're successful developers in particular will benefit due to a richer iOS dev ecosystem.
That's such an arbitrary delineation. What consoles or in-app markets? Should epic also be forced to allow arbitrary third party on fornite store for example and Nintendo the switch? And why limit it to digital markets?<p>I feel like this is like trying to legislate walmart into leasing floor space to set up their own shops just because they don't want to pay their own stocking fees. It just makes no sense as anything other than a blatant attempt at regulatory capture which I'd argue is far more anti-competitive and extractive in spirit than what Apple/Google are doing.<p>The pro competitive move for these companies should do is team up with each other and create their own ecosystem like what Google did with Chrome and Android when they were freaked out at the prospects of an Apple and Microsoft controlled mobile space.<p>If they truly think they can provide so much more value to both devs and users but for the 30% app store fee then please actually do so and we'll all be better off. It's not like they're short on capital collectively.
Apple built their controlled ecosystem and set their rules. And now others are insisting that Apple should not have that control (even when they themselves are doing the same thing).
The page is blocked by this message...<p>> <i>We use cookies to give you the best possible experience on our website. By continuing to browse this site, you give consent for cookies to be used. For more details, please read our Cookie Policy.</i><p>...with the only option being <i>“I accept”</i> (and by the way, you’re not allowed to read the cookie policy without <i>first</i> accepting it. Christ).<p>Honestly, this thoroughly undermines the message about “consumer freedom”.
Correct me if I am wrong but the advocacy group is essentially arguing that let me use your platform (marketplace) services and get a free ride doing so. Kind of like taking an Uber where at the end of the ride the driver just says: "you know what, lets ditch Uber, pull out your credit card and settle between the two of us. And I will charge you much lower!!" Aha.
Ah, okay. Now I begin to see their goals.<p>I've been trying to wrap my head around why Epic would shoulder-tackle Apple in the space of app stores, when they have their own app store. Naively, I've been thinking that any ruling adverse to Apple here also impacts Epic's business model---if the government caps app store revenue cuts at, say, 10%, that's a slice off the top of what Epic can charge developers going through its store, too.<p>But Epic is a game publisher first, app store owner second. A fair and regulated market is a win for them, because it decreases the barriers to competition in the app store space while, on average, probably diminishing store owner cuts, which benefits developers, of which Epic is one. So a more regulated market is a net positive for them.
If I build an operating system + hardware, should I be legally mandated to provide tooling to make it easy for users to find and install arbitrary software?
As a consumer, I really like how the AppStore works and I buy iPhones for me and for my family specifically because there is only one store and one way of subscribing and one way of using in-app purchases. I really, really hope Apple win this. I just don't want to have to deal with the possibility that every app is going to have its own in-app-purchase dark patterns.<p>If everyone that wants to be able to side-load alternate app-stores could move to Android land and leave iOS alone, that would be great.
Totally off-topic but worth mentioning. If you click on the "Cookie Policy" link in the footer, it takes you to the right page, but on that page it's still asking for consent before I can actually read the policy. So many websites gets something so simple wrong, even Epic, Spotify and Tinder. Where are we going really?
Don't want to pay 30%? Don't develop for the platform then. I really think all these guys trying to change a company's own ecosystem's rules that the company itself created, are paid actors. I haven't seen a more flawed argument then knowing the exact rules of the ecosystem, which is owned by a company, and trying to change it. It's their company, their platform, their rules. It's been the same way since the beginning. Get over it. Simple as that.
Inside the article:<p>> Other founding members include ProtonMail email service owner Proton Technologies AG, trade group News Media Europe and project-management software maker Basecamp LLC.<p>Link to the advocacy group page: <a href="https://appfairness.org/" rel="nofollow">https://appfairness.org/</a>
I think that some of points are valid - especially the direct contact with the consumers. But the grand prize that Epic wants, the ability for anyone to put App store on iPhone, I hope that will never happen.<p>I don't care about Epic, but the moment when that is allowed is the moment when three app stores into existence - Google's, Microsoft's and Facebook's. Most people can't avoid using software from these three companies, and right now, on iPhone, Google, FB and MS can track people only when their app is active. With always active app stores the ability for tracking and fingerprinting is much, much bigger, and would negate all recent privacy stuff from Apple.
I don't see why they would advocate Apple to change their app store. Is it possible for one corporate to meddle into the product of another? They are also unlikely to achieve anything on the legal side of things.<p>Instead they 'd better spend for things like :<p>- promote awareness of monopolistic tactics to apple device owners<p>- create a well advertised web payments gateway where users can buy subscriptions to any app, and invite developers to join<p>- syndicalize the hordes of developers to blackout their apps or sth<p>here, i made a mockup: <a href="https://i.imgur.com/P6j3jnd.png" rel="nofollow">https://i.imgur.com/P6j3jnd.png</a>
If they don't like the App Store rules, those companies are free to develop, sell, and promote their own cell phone hardware and ecosystem. Nobody is forcing them to use Apple.
To me this seems pretty straightforward. App Stores are directly tied and bundled with the operating system. Within the device universe there are basically 2 choices of operating systems. This is an extremely concentrated industry with an extremely high HHI. Apple and Google favor their own products and discriminate against competitors and have done for years. They also extract rent from other companies forced to use their App Stores far in excess of the services they provide.<p>MS vs European Commission found that the company illegally bundled Internet Explorer with their Operating System to the detriment of customer and at the expense of other businesses. Almost everything about current OS and App Store bundle seems essentially identical. To me this could not be more clear.
Competition is good for consumers. It's very brave of Tim Sweeney et al. to take up this cause, and I hope they succeed.<p>We shouldn't tolerate the monopolies, duopolies, and _opolies of our age. The early 20th century progressives understand how harmful they were to the common man.
Epic went about this all wrong. They should have started by making a public campaign touting their support of developers using Unreal Engine in the App Store.<p>Epic should have started by offering to cover half of Apple's App Store fee for Unreal Engine devs, and made the story about supporting their own developers AND about how Apple was charging too much.<p>Any coalition should have been with other companies doing the same thing with people building on their platforms. This would have gotten much more positive and sustainable publicity and would have allowed them to make the case that all developers should be paying less fees.<p>Instead they made it about Fortnite and themselves. Epic blew this.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. I do appreciate that in the Apple ecosystem, "I'm not the product". There is a level of trust with their products and services that I do feel thankful for and will continue to pay for it. I do not want a different app store. I do not want to have apps direct access to the fundamental iOS services.
Don't get me wrong, I really like a lot of the companies that have formed this coalition but I don't think their ask is right. I cannot honestly read about the impact to democracy, primarily because we are unable to define and protect what is private data and what is public, and then agree to what is being asked for by this coalition of partners.<p>However they promise to safeguard the data, I don't think they have a sound business model / sound business principles / a long enough pedigree of protecting user data for me to trust them.
I also see what all of this is about - just a redistribution of the pot of money. This is not about anti-competitiveness, this is not about an Apple Tax hurting consumers (<a href="https://www.theverge.com/21445923/platform-fees-apps-games-b" rel="nofollow">https://www.theverge.com/21445923/platform-fees-apps-games-b</a>...)<p>I honestly hope that if Apple does lose the anti-trust case, that they split the iPhone into one that allows these non-Apple stores and services and another that offers a Apple managed ecosystem.<p>I for sure will chose the one that is governed by Apple.
This is what Epic should have done first, before going all guns on Apple.<p>Perhaps Epic realised that passive approach to bring attention towards Apple's tax like Spotify isn't working and so decided to approach it legally. Then again, it's hard to believe that they thought they had a chance to get a verdict in their favour.<p>But I don't think the attention they are trying to invoke is that of consumer, if anything it's impossible to invoke a consumer sentiment against Apple which is a aspirational buy for many and even religious investment to some. Epic seems to be targeting other app developers and so far doing a very bad job at it.<p>IMO, It should have worked with Facebook silently even though it has more to loose with iOS 14's privacy settings than 30% cut[1] to get Facebook, instagram, WhatsApp banned on Appstore if necessary instead of depending upon a game played by children and adults who make money from children watching them play. Just ban WhatsApp in India and see what happens.<p>But if Apple decides to charge tax for advertisements as well, then it could blow back for everyone who has advertising as business model. I wonder what consumers who buy for <i>Apple's Privacy</i> think about Apple essentially subsidising large advertising business, where as a one man developer has to pay 30% cut.<p>[1]<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24297854" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24297854</a>
I just canceled Spotify membership I had for years for now.<p>I don't have anything for Spotify or their fight with Apple. It makes sense.<p>But on the other hand I refuse to help Epic in any initiative they take or to endorse companies that sides with them. Epic is in my eyes evil company and they done a lot of bad things in area I care about. I know that few of my friends do the same right now.<p>It probably doesn't matter, but the only thing one can do is to vote with their wallet.
It boggles my mind that there are people rooting for Apple to "win" here. Whatever you think of Epic, Spotify, etc, the changes they propose would be a win for customers to use the devices the way they want to. If you only want to download apps from Apple's approved app store, they are not taking that away from you.
Does Apple allow developers to just charge 30% more when users sign up through iOS, and just note in the app that access to the service though iOS costs more?<p>Seems fair to me, and let’s consumers know where the money is going (to Apple, presumably to pay for ecosystem things like app privacy and security reviews, billing, etc).<p>If users don’t like it, then the market will do it’s thing right?<p>It’s unclear to me what types of messaging Apple bans developers from adding though. Like is it ok with Apple for me to build an app available on web for a certain price, but block access via native iOS apps unless the user agrees to a 30% increase to cover the Apple tax?<p>I think this is what I would want to do if I operated a subscription service available via native app in the app store.
Oh <i>fuck</i> Tinder:<p>In addition to being riddled with scammers and "escort" services in some regions and choosing to do nothing about it, <i>older men are charged more for using Tinder's premium service:</i> <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24129986" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24129986</a><p>I do not respect Tinder at all. They have scummy practices and I actually got upset with Apple for giving them featured spots on the App Store so often. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!<p>On the other hand, Apple unconditionally refunded my Tinder in-app purchase when I fell to one of their scams.<p>Seeing Tinder in any group will just make me automatically align with that group's antipode.
Instead of complaining to one company, why not start supporting existing alternative platforms and products that support their vision? Why not support open devices where developers and consumers will have freedom from exorbitant pricing?
LMAO. Love the consumer friendly positioning of the group. If at least two of the founding members weren’t data over-reachers, this might be good theater. As things are, these folks cannot claim they represent my best interests.
OK, I get that most app publishers can't afford not to sell via the App Store and that iThings are ubiquitous, and I support freer options everywhere (even for Apple users)…<p>But, come on — this initiative sounds a lot like:<p><i>“Drat! We want people who, on their own volition, decided to go for an expensive, unaccountable, closed, locked system to be able to install and use our apps freely! Isn't that fair? I can has freedom?”.</i><p>Read that naïve section “our vision”. A vision is something novel. Free software is 35+ years old. And there are open distribution platforms already. Reinventing the wheel.
<a href="https://appfairness.org/our-vision/" rel="nofollow">https://appfairness.org/our-vision/</a><p>On this page I can't even scroll, both with iPad and Mac.
I mean Epic, Spotify, and Tinder are wrong here. Apple built the hardware, and the distribution mechanism for software on that hardware platform. Apple has been a closed ecosystem from day 1. It shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone and they all knew when they decided to create apps for iOS that they were party to a closed system where Apple are the gatekeepers. Don't like their rules? Then, don't do business on their App Store. Simple as that really.
Undismissable full-screen modal that forces me to get all cookies? Not gonna read it mate. You would expect an advocacy group to try and get their message out...
It is absolute insanity that they charge a 30% fee to buy some services like Fortnite, Tinder, etc, but then charge NOTHING if I buy from Amazon or Instacart.
Why is Microsoft not in on this? Apple didn't allow Xbox Game Pass, while Samsung was proudly showcasing gaming on their phones on it.<p>They seem to be the most hard done by unfair Apple practices. As far as I understand, they are not allowing the gaming service at all when it for all intents is nothing different from Netflix in principle.<p>I certainly hope Microsoft joins in on this and not cut a side deal, it will hurt other devs in the long run.
Ooh are we doing analogies? I’ve got one:<p>Epic and Tinder are like crocodiles asking for bridges to be torn down so more people will swim through river.<p>If any one thinks these guys are benign and not doing this for greed... then boy, I really hope you get what you want on Android or PC, but <i>please</i>, don’t loose those crocs into the <i>only platform</i> left in the world where they are not allowed free reign.
Corporations can do whatever they want with regards to limiting speech and throwing people out. Depending on or demanding fairness from corporations is the fundamental problem. If you want fairness, nonprofit hardware and software platforms are the only way out. Unions, petitions, and PACs aren't going to change the profit motives of FAANG/YT.
As an Android user, DAE wish we could see some similar collaboration across some of the vendors running downstream forks? The Apple tax comes up a lot, but there's a whole separate conversation to be had about Google Play APIs as a major choke point rendering other Android implementations "incompatible."
The root of this problem is that iPhones don't allow their owners to install software without jailbreaking their devices.<p>Any real solution must be pointed at fixing that problem, either convincing people to stop buying Apple devices or beating Apple in the trade war they started.
"The Coalition for App Fairness", I cannot not laugh.<p>On the stage you have:<p>Epic - Trying to be the next Valve/Steam.
Happy to rip off their customers via in-game transactions.<p>Spotify - Who rip off artists by either failing or paying very little in royalties.<p>Tinder - Sells sex.<p>None of these companies have any care for the actual developer; who are the folk trying to make a living from their creations.
Regardless what you think of Tik Tok, realize that if people controlled the installations on their phones they way they did on their desktops, I don't think the government would make the threat it is. The choke point of a single app store enables lots of things.
> For most purchases made within its App Store, Apple takes 30% of the purchase price. No other transaction fee — in any industry — comes close.<p>Isn't this blatantly false?<p>Android's Play Store takes the same 30%, as does Steam. I doubt most physical retailers get significantly less.
I think a solution to the App Store problem is to decentralize it, like the web. So I built a decentralized domain-based Android App Store: <a href="https://skydroid.app" rel="nofollow">https://skydroid.app</a>
I love how these companies are fighting the “good fight” but if I don’t accept their cookies with my Adblock on... oh well I can use the page.<p>Even tried to only accept necessary cookies but nope... not working<p>I just feel it’s a bit ironic. :D
Why don't they mention the company which started this 30% business? Why do they lie about Apple being the only company to charge 30% in any industry. What a load of rubbish.
I get that Epic and Spotify may want to create their own "stores". I don't understand what kind of store Tinder would want to create - or perhaps I do ;)
I like both sides of the argument. I would want the Steam store in Xbox or PS. But making that probably will increase the cost of console as they cannot subsidise it.
Maybe i’m oversimplifying the issue, but this can be solved by requiring Apple and Google to allow other app stores to operate on their operating systems.
"Apple takes 30% of the purchase price. No other transaction fee — in any industry — comes close."<p>Google's? All video game companies?
Simplest thing to do.<p>Get out of Apple App store and move onto a Google Play, Galaxy store and plenty of stores out there.<p>No need to stick to one.
from <a href="https://developer.apple.com/support/enrollment/" rel="nofollow">https://developer.apple.com/support/enrollment/</a><p>Do I need to enroll to install apps on a device?
No. You can install apps on a device for free with Xcode. You’ll only need to enroll if you’d like to distribute apps, access beta software, and integrate with capabilities such as Siri, Apple Pay, and iCloud.<p>So, Epic, Spotify and Tinder can make their stores, they just need to automate the process.
Spotify?<p>"The Coalition for", um, "App Fairness"?<p>Yeah. I guess maybe sometimes you have to make a deal with the devil. But as a musician, I can't bring myself to do this one.
Haha - this illustrates WHY the app store is so popular.<p>You've got Match.com (owns tinder). Repeat FTC offender (most scammmers never get the FTC slap on the wrist).<p>"Match Group also allegedly makes it too difficult to cancel a subscription through “confusing and cumbersome cancellation practices.” The FTC claims users must click through two pages of survey questions and cites a 2015 internal presentation that notes the cancellation flow as “hard to find, tedious and confusing.” “Members often think they’ve cancelled when they have not and end up with unwanted renewals,” More recently they were doing the fake match emails to generate signups. I'm not sure if that case has settled yet.<p>You've got Epic.<p>They are pretty famous for targeting kids and getting them to spend their parents money, auto-saving payment info parents may enter to allow a single purchase, microtransactions nightmare and using "v bucks" / bannanas etc to make it less transparent in terms of what things are actually costing. Refund / complaint procedures are horrible. "When Stecklare tried to request a refund from Epic Games, she says, it was like hitting a brick wall. She sent multiple emails over several days but says she received only boilerplate responses."....<p>Spotify<p>They find no name bands they don't have to pay to do covers of major musical acts or replace the "best of..." albums with these trash albums. They've also been sued repeatedly over their royalty practices. The lawsuit (below) alleges that Spotify has participated in "an egregious, continuous and ongoing campaign of deliberate copyright infringement" around the mechanical license for many of the songs on its platform.<p>Having these folks in charge of app subscriptions and setting standards inside the apple walled garden is going to be a TRAIN WRECK if they win this case. So much trust is going to be lost by users who are used to stuff in the apple world not having these and other scammers playing around in it.
Funny thing about a site that is about fairness that doesn't let me 'not accept' the cookie popup at the bottom. Is this even GDPR compatible?
Can users and developers who are in favor of keeping the App Store as is form an advocacy group too?<p>I’ve been collecting a list of arguments in favor of maintaining the status quo on iOS and I’ve yet to see anyone offer a good solution to these:<p>---- The problems with letting all apps advertise external payment systems:<p>• Someone may publish a free app to avoid paying anything to Apple, and then charge users [an asston of] money to ""unlock"" via an alternate payment system.<p>• Users may not be able to see a list of all in-app purchases (and their guaranteed prices) as they can on the App Store, without downloading the app.<p>• Sharing your payment details and other information with multiple entities, and having to continually trust each of them (e.g. to not abuse or leak).<p>• Confused users may clog up Apple's customer support with complaints related to third-party payment systems.<p>• Angry users may demand Apple to offer refunds for shit that was paid for via third-party payment systems.<p>---- The problems with allowing third-party app stores on iOS:<p>• How will iOS sandboxing be enforced for apps delivered via third-party stores? Will those apps still have to be submitted to and signed by Apple?<p>• Store apps would need the privilege to write binaries on your iPhone. How will that privilege be regulated to prevent abuse? e.g. what happens if a store starts writing malware?<p>• Users may sometimes have to wait longer for an app to update on one store than on others (as already happens on Steam vs GoG).<p>• Developers would no longer be assured that they will have access to literally all the users that iOS has, by publishing on just one store.<p>• You would have to submit to each store, wait for approval on each of them, update for each of them... to come close to the userbase that you can currently access by just publishing once on the App Store.<p>• Developers will no longer all play by the same rules. One store may allow some content while another may prohibit it.<p>• Controversial content like porn may still ultimately be bound by Apple's ruling on such matters, rendering moot the freedom of third-party stores in what kind of apps they may offer.<p>• iOS Parental Control and Screen Time restrictions may be ineffective on other stores (and browsers too if third-party rendering engines were allowed).<p>• If an app or game is exclusive to a store that a user isn't already using, they would have to create a new account and maintain an additional app just to access that one exclusive.<p>• Not all stores may be compatible with the iOS backup and restore system, or the APIs for app-thinning and on-demand resources.<p>----<p>To resolve many of those issues, Apple would have to ultimately step in anyway.<p>The need for third-party stores is really not that great to offset the advantages offered by the current system.
But, can we just say: f<i>ck Fortnite.
This is the wolf calling for homes to be built of straw. We hate “free to play”/“pay to win” and in-app purchases. We </i>HATE* them. Thank god that Apple is taking a stand.
I haven’t been so happy with a company since they refused to unlock that dude’s phone in California a few years back. (Which, I know, the lawsuit ended the same day an iOS “security” patch came out.)
Seriously. If you can’t make money by playing by the rules, GTFO.