The European Commission said the tech giant was in breach of its rules by charging high commission fees in its App Store.

Could this be the thin end of the wedge, and help the Microstock creative sector fight back against the likes of Shutterstock and Getty.

Would be nice.
I'm not really familiar with the App Store, but i think it's a different scenario than microstock sites.
AFAIK the App Store only provides a platform the distribute the apps, but the developer still have to do their own marketing to reach customers.
With microstock sites you just upload your material, and forget the rest, trusting the agency with finding buyers for your work.

Still it would be great to do something about abusive MS commission structures. Just wanted to say that comparing App Store commissions to microstock commissions directly could be misleading

The European Commission said the tech giant was in breach of its rules by charging high commission fees in its App Store.

Could this be the thin end of the wedge, and help the Microstock creative sector fight back against the likes of Shutterstock and Getty.

Yeah, fight while ignoring the law of unintended consequences, which is teaching us that a potential royalty increase, definitely passed on to end-consumers, will lead to a price increase, then to a reduction in sales, and very likely, to a global earning reduction.

So... as they say, be careful what you wish for... 

Quote from: Zero Talent on May 04, 2021, 19:04

Quote from: H2O on May 03, 2021, 05:31

The European Commission said the tech giant was in breach of its rules by charging high commission fees in its App Store.

Could this be the thin end of the wedge, and help the Microstock creative sector fight back against the likes of Shutterstock and Getty.

Yeah, fight while ignoring the law of unintended consequences, which is teaching us that a potential royalty increase, definitely passed on to end-consumers, will lead to a price increase, then to a reduction in sales, and very likely, to a global earning reduction.

So... as they say, be careful what you wish for... 

I know many owner and employees from graphic and web design companies, and even here east Europe, never ever one of them complained about how expensive photos/vectors are.

They do go for cheaper sites if they find out about them, but only if those are same or similar quality, and those people in marketing/web/graphic design companies do know the difference.

Maybe, but the bulk of buyers are the average blogger, the small company with a small website, etc. Common people, not big corporations. And these common people are price sensitive.
Remember that many newspapers fired their photographers to replace them with us. So don't tell me that they are not price sensitive.
All these people will buy less if the prices go up, and we will suffer more. That's how the market works.

Quote from: Zero Talent on May 05, 2021, 07:18

Quote from: panicAttack on May 05, 2021, 02:40

Quote from: Zero Talent on May 04, 2021, 19:04

Quote from: H2O on May 03, 2021, 05:31

The European Commission said the tech giant was in breach of its rules by charging high commission fees in its App Store.

Could this be the thin end of the wedge, and help the Microstock creative sector fight back against the likes of Shutterstock and Getty.

Yeah, fight while ignoring the law of unintended consequences, which is teaching us that a potential royalty increase, definitely passed on to end-consumers, will lead to a price increase, then to a reduction in sales, and very likely, to a global earning reduction.

So... as they say, be careful what you wish for... 

I know many owner and employees from graphic and web design companies, and even here east Europe, never ever one of them complained about how expensive photos/vectors are.

They do go for cheaper sites if they find out about them, but only if those are same or similar quality, and those people in marketing/web/graphic design companies do know the difference.

Maybe, but the bulk of buyers are the average blogger, the small company with a small website, etc. Common people, not big corporations. And these common people are price sensitive.
Remember that many newspapers fired their photographers to replace them with us. So don't tell me that they are not price sensitive.
All these people will buy less if the prices go up, and we will suffer more. That's how the market works.

So my question would be, who are our customers... really? SS they seem to be people with huge, multi-seat subscriptions. That's not the price sensitive little shops. And I'd argue that if someone can get the image they need and it's high quality, then they are willing to pay a little more. Who are our customers, really? Which group? And who pays the most for quality, so we can make some money.

Are we volume producers or quality content creators? I find the identity is mixed up and confusing. How can anyone be everything for anyone?

What's the market?

I know that personal examples are not representative, but when I google my own work, I find that the large majority of buyers are common folks. And it makes sense. I'm pretty certain that any blogger, who is publishing regularly and wants to stay fresh and relevant needs a subscription. I am pretty certain that a small company will not hire an expensive photographer to update its website, when it only costs a few dollars to get their photos from us.

When it comes to corporations, you would be surprised to know how price-sensitive some are, especially when the decision is left to the middle management managing small team budgets. I know for a fact that in many cases, subscriptions expenses are denied and the corporate employees are even using unlicensed materials for their internal presentations. 

So, the "call to arms" made by the OP is rather based on ideological wishful thinking and a superficial understanding of the real world market drivers.

Quote from: Zero Talent on May 04, 2021, 19:04

Quote from: H2O on May 03, 2021, 05:31

The European Commission said the tech giant was in breach of its rules by charging high commission fees in its App Store.

Could this be the thin end of the wedge, and help the Microstock creative sector fight back against the likes of Shutterstock and Getty.

Yeah, fight while ignoring the law of unintended consequences, which is teaching us that a potential royalty increase, definitely passed on to end-consumers, will lead to a price increase, then to a reduction in sales, and very likely, to a global earning reduction.

So... as they say, be careful what you wish for... 

Its not definite that Royalty increases will be passed on...many industries absorb cost increases and maintain prices to consumers to retain or grow market share....thats how the market you keep talking about works.

Nah. The new government rules are applicable to every competitor.
In a competitive market there are always competitors with very thin margins and no option left but to pass the extra costs to consumers, or else go bankrupt.

Even if some more efficient competitors could absorb those extra costs (as you suggest), when competitors go bankrupt, they will have no more incentives to keep the consumer prices down, in a less competitive market!
So they will pass those extra costs to consumers to recover or even increase their original margins, because their market share will not be under threat anymore.

That's how the market works! 

So, as they say, be careful what you wish for!

Quote from: Zero Talent on May 06, 2021, 07:31

Quote from: Pauws99 on May 06, 2021, 02:17

Quote from: Zero Talent on May 04, 2021, 19:04

Quote from: H2O on May 03, 2021, 05:31

The European Commission said the tech giant was in breach of its rules by charging high commission fees in its App Store.

Could this be the thin end of the wedge, and help the Microstock creative sector fight back against the likes of Shutterstock and Getty.

Yeah, fight while ignoring the law of unintended consequences, which is teaching us that a potential royalty increase, definitely passed on to end-consumers, will lead to a price increase, then to a reduction in sales, and very likely, to a global earning reduction.

So... as they say, be careful what you wish for... 

Its not definite that Royalty increases will be passed on...many industries absorb cost increases and maintain prices to consumers to retain or grow market share....thats how the market you keep talking about works.

Nah. The new government rules are applicable to every competitor.
In a competitive market there are always competitors with very thin margins and no option left but to pass the extra costs to consumers, or else go bankrupt.

Even if some more efficient competitors could absorb those extra costs (as you suggest), when competitors go bankrupt, they will have no more incentives to keep the consumer prices down, in a less competitive market!
So they will pass those extra costs to consumers to recover or even increase their original margins, because their market share will not be under threat anymore.

That's how the market works! 

So, as they say, be careful what you wish for!

  They can reduce costs in other areas and also cut dividends and other payments...not inevitable at all. The opposite to when many cut contributor payments without cutting customer charges. The industry is expecting profit margins comparable with emerging technologies in reality its a commodity industry which has much lower margins.

What you didn't get from my previous post, is that the absorption of the extra costs can only be afforded by the most efficient competitors.
In any market, there are always less efficient competitors, able to make a profit only when the government doesn't interfere, but unable to survive when additional expenses are imposed.

These less efficient competitors are critical because they can keep the market in check, by holding a certain market share, while making less profit than the market average, or even losing money for a while.

When those fringe competitors are forced to close their shops because of the new, unaffordable expenses, the survivors have no more incentives to keep their prices down, since the competition is weakened. They will not only want to recover the extra costs imposed by the government, but they might even go beyond that when the consumers have fewer choices.
Btw, this is how monopolies are created. 

The basic truth is that trade tariffs, taxes, price control laws, and all other artificial costs imposed by governments are ALWAYS paid by the consumers, one way or another.
That's simple economics. Everything else is wishful thinking or an ideological fallacy derived from Marxist class warfare.

Quote from: Zero Talent on May 06, 2021, 09:21

Quote from: Pauws99 on May 06, 2021, 08:24

Quote from: Zero Talent on May 06, 2021, 07:31

Quote from: Pauws99 on May 06, 2021, 02:17

Quote from: Zero Talent on May 04, 2021, 19:04

Quote from: H2O on May 03, 2021, 05:31

The European Commission said the tech giant was in breach of its rules by charging high commission fees in its App Store.

Could this be the thin end of the wedge, and help the Microstock creative sector fight back against the likes of Shutterstock and Getty.

Yeah, fight while ignoring the law of unintended consequences, which is teaching us that a potential royalty increase, definitely passed on to end-consumers, will lead to a price increase, then to a reduction in sales, and very likely, to a global earning reduction.

So... as they say, be careful what you wish for... 

Its not definite that Royalty increases will be passed on...many industries absorb cost increases and maintain prices to consumers to retain or grow market share....thats how the market you keep talking about works.

Nah. The new government rules are applicable to every competitor.
In a competitive market there are always competitors with very thin margins and no option left but to pass the extra costs to consumers, or else go bankrupt.

Even if some more efficient competitors could absorb those extra costs (as you suggest), when competitors go bankrupt, they will have no more incentives to keep the consumer prices down, in a less competitive market!
So they will pass those extra costs to consumers to recover or even increase their original margins, because their market share will not be under threat anymore.

That's how the market works! 

So, as they say, be careful what you wish for!

  They can reduce costs in other areas and also cut dividends and other payments...not inevitable at all. The opposite to when many cut contributor payments without cutting customer charges. The industry is expecting profit margins comparable with emerging technologies in reality its a commodity industry which has much lower margins.

Yes, they can reduce costs by further cutting our royalties, indeed.

What you didn't get from my previous post is that the cost cutting you are talking about can only be afforded by the most efficient competitors.
In any market, there are always, less efficient competitors, able to make a profit only when the government doesn't interfere, but unable to survive when additional expenses are imposed.

These less efficient competitors are critical, because they can keep the market in check, by holding to a certain market share.

When those fringe competitors are forced to close their shops because of the new, unaffordable expenses, the survivers have no more incentives to keep their prices down, because the competition is weakened. They will not only want to recover what the extra costs imposed by the government, but they might even go beyond that, since the consumwrs will have less choices.
Btw, this is how monopolies are created. 

The basic truth is that trade tariffs, taxes, price control laws, and all other artifical costs imposed by governments are ALWAYS paid by the consumers.
That's simple economics. Everything else is wishful thinking, or an ideological falacy derived from the marxist class warfare.

Costs can be more easily cut by the least efficent competitors. Everything is ultimately paid for by consumers its not Marxist to think that the Government should ensure certain standards through taxation and spending.

That's easier said than done. If cutting costs would be that easy, then everybody would be rich, and we will be living in a paradise where bankruptcies never happen. 

In the real world, there are not just winners, but many losers who tried to make a living but failed. And when extra costs are imposed, the number of failures goes up and the competition is weakened.

Marxists split the society into "greedy" capitalists, and "innocent" "exploited" workers, ignoring the fluidity, the overlap, and even the harmony between businesses and consumers, between offer and demand, in a competitive market.
The "fight" mentioned by the OP, sounds pretty much like Marxist class-warfare, between us, the "exploited", "innocent" workers, and the "greedy" agencies.

On the other hand, taxes are the most obvious ways the government makes the consumers pay,  I am not talking about that. Up to a certain extent, taxes are fine. I am talking about unintended consequences when actions meant to help a group of people, even when driven by good intentions, are in fact distorting the market, hurting those people, other people, or all the people.