[andysinclair]

This is not aimed at solving your problem, this is aimed at helping us small developers build a more sustainable business on the App Store.

We will ultimately build more apps and invest more time in supporting and improving our current apps.

[madeofpalk]

> this is aimed at helping us small developers

I doubt this was the aim. It suspect its aim was to fend off all this scrutiny on their App Store business.

Who knows whether it'll work in avoiding attention from law makers and regulators, but this will do nothing to address the developer's concerns and problem with the App Store.

[bottled_poe]

The cynic in me agrees. Perhaps Apple sees the writing on the wall and they can either make the change with good press or bad.

[madeofpalk]

I don't think its cynical to believe this.

[hajile]

It seems to hurt their argument. They don't need that big of a cut for expenses, they just want it and can do whatever they like.

It still doesn't solve the fundamental issue.

Let users have the option of using third-party stores, but losing Apple's safety net. They claim users want that net. If so, the third party stores will go bust. If not, they're simply being anti-consumer.

[Spivak]

It's a percentage cut and they cut it in half for a segment that brings in the smallest amount of revenue. I don't really think this affects their argument at all except that they now make enough from large players to pay for everyone else and the good PR is more valuable than the cash

[ChrisRR]

That was obviously the point of their comment. It doesn't matter what percentage apple take when they're still heavy handed about their apps and won't tell you why an app was rejected

[toyg]

No, this is aimed at divide-et-impera the front of critics, by dragging you to their side with a little bit of carrot. And it’s working - you’ve been hoodwinked.