In Defense of Apple’s 30% Markup

2020.06.18   prev     next

APPLE’S coming under a lot of fire lately for its App Store policies, and in particular its 30% cut of end-user sales (revenue). Here, I’m going to argue for the position that Apple isn’t doing anything wrong, and hopefully won’t be forced by courts, or other governmental bodies, to radically alter its policies. I know that if Apple wins this conflict, some people will be forever angry about it, and I’ll have a bit to say about that too, at the end.

Of course, I don’t speak for Apple. But here goes: my take on the whole argument over Apple’s 70-30 revenue split.

Markup

When an end-user buys a third-party product on Apple’s iOS App Store, Apple keeps 30% (sometimes 15%, but most often 30%). This is equivalent to a brick-and-mortar retail store’s markup.

It’s actually precisely equivalent to the developer choosing how much Apple will pay for each end-user license (wholesale), and Apple adding on 43% more to to get the end-user (retail) price. (That’s 43% because 100/70 = 1.4286, which is called a “30% markup” in the retail business.) But to keep end-user pricing simple (e.g. whole dollars in the USA), Apple says, “You (the developer) pick the end-user price in whole dollars — Apple will keep 30% of that, and you will get the other 70%.”

So, for example, if you’re a developer, and you think you should get about $5 per license for your app (wholesale) then you multiply $5 by 1.4286 and it becomes $7.14. So you set your app’s price at $7 — Apple will keep 30% ($2.10), and you will get the other 70% ($4.90).

The Store

30% is Apple’s fee to the third-party developer for all the platform/infrastructure things that Apple does, that the developer doesn’t have to, including:

  • the App Store
  • the development system (X­code etc.)
  • custom features like Metal that require special hardware co­op­er­a­tion
  • vetting of all apps; keeping the shopping environment free of junk/crap-ware
  • app hosting/serving
  • the OS itself including constant maintenance, bug fixes and enhancements
  • the hardware on which the OS runs, and its ongoing de­vel­op­ment
  • beautiful, super-friendly brick-and-mortar retail stores to strengthen the user base
  • securing the whole system (effectively) against piracy and malware
  • unparalleled user privacy, strongly enforced across third-party apps
  • lots of advertising, public presentations, etc. to bolster public awareness of the platform
  • convenient in-app purchase using already-set-up payment in­fo (not dealing with a third-party payment site)
  • securely handling all payments via credit, debit, or Apple Pay

In other words, Apple provides an unparalleled, long list of things to do with constructing a top-quality app shopping experience for the end user, and a hyper-positive environment for third-party app authors to focus on their apps, and flourish.

Store-Brand Products

Like most retailers, Apple sells some of its own apps (and services) in its own App Store. When it does so, naturally it gets all the money:

But how is that 100% spent? We know how much third party iOS developers spend on the platform (the above infrastructure bullet list) — exactly 30% — because Apple does all that stuff for them, and charges them 30% of sales for doing so. But what if the app is also from Apple? What percentage of that app’s revenue goes toward the development of the app, and what percentage goes to support the platform?

It’s hard to say. But one thing’s for sure: It’s not 100% and 0%, respectively! When you see people comparing an Apple app getting “100% of revenue” to a third party developer’s app getting “70% of revenue” — with the direct implication that this puts Apple at some sort of unfair competitive advantage — be aware that the comparison is bogus. Nobody provides the iOS platform for Apple: Apple has to provide it entirely itself. When Apple is providing both the app and the platform, why wouldn’t it get all the revenue?

Reader Apps

Apple has made a pseudo-exception to its 30% fee, for a category called “reader” apps. The basic idea is that if a service that provides a library of purchased or rented content, such as Kindle, Netflix, or Spotify, wants to create a strict “reader” app — a free app for the users of that service to consume their content on an iOS device — then Apple will allow it, and get no money at all from the use of that app. However, the app must meet strict conditions: spe­cif­i­cal­ly it may not in any way (not even sneakily) direct the user of the app to find the non-Apple store where the content may be purchased.

So, for example, if I have a collection of ten Kindle e-books that I purchased on my Kindle device, and I want to read those books on my iPad, I can download the Kindle reader app for iOS, log into my account, and there are my ten books, ready to read. (But if I didn’t already have an account, I wouldn’t know what to do at the app’s login screen.)

Criticism

From the get-go, there has been criticism of the App Store’s business model. One idea is that credit cards charge only 2 or 3% per transaction, so why should Apple be getting 30%? This argument was made three years ago by Epic Games founder and CEO Tim Sweeney:

The system is pretty unfair at the moment. These app stores take 30% of your revenue ... That’s strange because Mastercard, Visa and other companies that handle transactions take 2% or 3% of the revenue.

And again this year, by Basecamp co-founder David Hansson:

As I said in my testimony before congress, why is it that credit card processing fees hover in the 1.8-2.8% range, while Apple’s App Store have sat steady at 30% on the high end? Because there’s no competition! And they have a monopoly grip!

This argument pretends that the last bullet in the above platform bullet list — payment handling — is the only bullet in the list! All those other bullets are irrelevant and/or worthless, and can be ignored.

Another idea is that Apple should rightly let individual developers decide whether to force their users off to an outside payment method (from which Apple will get 0%), or let their users purchase the same items via in-app purchase (from which Apple will get 30%). In this theory, some developers might choose the latter, and 30% of those is the justifiable amount that Apple should be getting. John Gruber, an extremely successful blogger whose work I generally admire, advanced this argument just the other day:

The price that Basecamp pays for not supporting in-app purchase in their iOS app is that they lose whatever number of users would have signed up in-app but won’t sign up out-of-app. That’s competition.

His periodic podcast guest Ben Thompson made the same argument about a year-and-a-half ago (Exponent #156):

If you’re in the middle of a game, you wanna add some virtual money or you wanna buy a dance, or whatever it might be, you don’t wanna be kicked out to a web page, and buy something, and have to create a new account, and go through all that sort-of rigamarole. There’s tremendous benefit that come from those in-app purchase APIs. And Google and Apple have earned the right to have that superior user experience because of all the innovation they’ve put into the platform as a whole. And so I’ve no problem with them offering that, and I think they will continue to make a whole bunch o’ money doing that. However, I think they should win on the merits! They should win, and developers should use them, and should pay the 30% tax, because they’re better, not because they made a rule.

This argument pretends that the second-to-the-last bullet item (convenient in-app purchase) is the only one that matters, and all the other bullets can be reasonably assumed to be irrelevant/worthless.

Apple has built something fantastic here, and the 30% markup is simply their price of participation. If it’s just not socially tolerable that Apple, of all companies, could come roaring back from ’90s defeat to be the one to do this, then by all means, slap them down. But please, let’s not kid ourselves that forcing Apple to allow all developers to take Apple’s 30% markup for themselves has anything to do with protecting fair competition. In no other business would that be considered a remotely valid argument.

Basecamp’s Hansson tried to get a full-fledged e-mail app into the i­OS App Store under the “reader” rules, so Apple could get 0% of his app’s $8.25 monthly end-user fee. Apple mistakenly allowed it onto the App Store for a brief period, then realized what was going on and told Basecamp it won’t be allowed to continue. Hansson publicly made his displeasure crystal clear:

Apple just doubled down on their rejection of HEY’s ability to provide bug fixes and new features, unless we submit to their outrageous demand of 15-30% of our revenue. Even worse: We’re told that unless we comply, they’ll remove the app. On the day the EU announced their investigation into Apple’s abusive App Store practices, HEY is subject to those very same capricious, exploitive, and inconsistent policies of shakedown. It’s clear they feel embolden [sic] to tighten the screws with no fear of regulatory consequences. ... it’s hard to see what they have to fear. Who cares if Apple shakes down individual software developers for 30% of their revenue, by threatening to destroy their business? There has been zero consequences so far! Most such companies quietly cave or fail. We won’t. There is no chance in bloody hell that we’re going to pay Apple’s ransom. I will burn this house down myself, before I let gangsters like that spin it for spoils. This is profoundly, perversely abusive and unfair.

Baseless, misleading criticism of Apple’s 30% markup is hardly a recent pheneomenon. Seven years ago, Chris Dixon of Andreessen Horowitz commented:

App stores ... take 30% of revenue, which scares away most big companies (e.g. Microsoft) and also startups/venture capitalists. Not many businesses can survive an immediate 30% haircut.

Besides conjuring up disturbing images of slicing someone’s head off (whereupon the rest of their body collapses to the ground, instantly dead), the idea that the typical app developer can’t survive giving up 30% of revenue to Apple is based on the assumption that that developer’s competitors somehow do not have to pay 30% to Apple. But that’s never been true; Apple has always charged the same 30% to all third-party app developers. Figure out how much you need to get per sale, multiply by 1.4286, then pick the closest end-user price to that, and you’re done. It’s not rocket science. Retail markup has existed for centuries — usually much higher than 30% — and it doesn’t strike down most businesses dead.

The Fantasy of Free

What do these people want? Do they want 30% of Apple’s own apps’ revenues to go somewhere other than Apple? No, of course not. They want none of their apps’ revenue to go to Apple. They want Apple to provide its unprecedentedly secure, piracy-proof, malware-proof, junkware-proof, revenue-generating, vibrant platform to them for free. Apple’s not unaware of that, responding to the latest EU developer complaints:

It is disappointing the European Commission is advancing baseless complaints from a handful of companies who simply want a free ride, and don’t want to play by the same rules as everyone else.

What motivates the bitter complainers against Apple’s 30%? Maybe they’re just greedy. Or maybe they mentally vest themselves in the idea that they’ve figured out a really clever way to dodge Apple’s 30%, and then go into dashed-expectations rage when they discover that their clever trick won’t be allowed. Or maybe their anger is an act, designed to convince Apple to give them a special exception.

But I lean towards a more charitable interpretation: They simply remember when all computing platforms were total free-for-alls, with no platform fee, and no control over what kind of app can be installed, and they want it to stay that way forever, even on iOS — but somehow (magically) without all the bad stuff that plagued pre-iOS platforms: the mass casual piracy, the malware and the anti-malware, the poor distribution and massive distributor fees (80-90%!), the junkware that bred user cynicism, etc. They want to have it both ways, and they’re hoping, with feverishly utopian delusion, that the government can force Apple to give that to them.

Very bad news, guys. The government absolutely does have the power to ruin what Apple has built in iOS. But it does not have the power to rewrite the laws of economics. It can’t create the quixotic conditions in which you get to have the good things about iOS, and not have to pay for them. When the government forces Ap­ple to stop charging for them, all those good things will simply go away.

 

Update 2020.08.02 — Horace De­diu on The Critical Path #248 “Business as Usual”:

Roger Shepherd has a question that says, “Is there a danger that regulatory issues will distract Ap­ple’s management team from taking care of business?” Actually I don’t think so, and I think the reason they’re comfortable is that they realize that regulators haven’t a leg to stand on. I mean, you might go bend over backwards and contort yourself into thinking that Apple has some kind of unfair advantage — and the only thing that comes up is that, yes, Apple does put forward its own apps on the App Store, and is effectively acting as a monopolist on the App Store. But that is rather a minor point to be made. Stores are able to sell their own brands in the store; so you can have: Walmart has its own brand, Target has its own brand ... To suggest that just because you own the retail shop, you cannot put your own product on the shelf, or that you cannot dictate what is the margin, or markup, that you’re gonna charge ... This is entirely at the prerogative of the merchant, and it’s always been so, forever and ever, and it’s always been so everywhere. I think it’s such a red herring to me, that no one at Apple’s really losing sleep over this.

 

See also:
Judos vs. Pin Place
&
iBook Price-Fixing Lawsuit Redux — Apple Won
&
When Starting A Game of Chicken With Apple, Expect To Lose

 

prev     next

 

 

Hear, hear

prev     next

Best recent articles

Make Your Own FBI Backdoor, Right Now

Polygon Triangulation With Hole

The Legacy of Windows Phone

Palm Fan

Vivek Wadhwa, Scamster Bitcoin Doomsayer

Fanboy Features (regularly updated)

When Starting A Game of Chicken With Apple, Expect To Lose — hilarious history of people who thought they could bluff Apple into doing whatever they wanted.

A Memory of Gateway — news chronology of Apple’s ascendancy to the top of the technology mountain.

iPhone Party-Poopers Redux and Silly iPad Spoilsports — amusing litanies of industry pundits desperately hoping iPhone and iPad will go away and die.

Embittered Anti-Apple Belligerents — general anger at Apple’s gi-normous success.

RSS FEED

My books

Now available on Apple Books!

   

Links

Daring Fireball

The Loop

RoughlyDrafted

Macalope

Red Meat

Despair, Inc.

Real Solution #9 (Mambo Mania Mix) over stock nuke tests. (OK, somebody made them rip out the music — try this instead.)

Ernie & Bert In Casino

Great Explanation of Star Wars

Best commercials (IMO) from Super Bowl 41, 43, 45, 46, 47, 53 and 55

Kirk & Spock get Closer

American football explained.

TV: Succession; Better Call Saul; Homeland; Survivor; The Jinx; Breaking Bad; Inside Amy Schumer

God’s kitchen

Celebrity Death Beeper — news you can use.

Making things for the web.

RedQueenCoder.

My vote for best commercial ever. (But this one’s a close second, and I love this one too.)

Recent commercials I admire: KFC, Audi, Volvo

Best reggae song I’ve discovered in quite a while: Virgin Islands Nice

d120 dice: You too (like me) can be the ultimate dice nerd.

WiFi problems? I didn’t know just how bad my WiFi was until I got eero.

Favorite local pad thai: Pho Asian Noodle on Lane Ave. Yes, that place; blame Taco Bell for the amenities. Use the lime, chopsticks, and sriracha. Yummm.

Um, could there something wrong with me if I like this? Or this?

This entire site as a zip file — last updated 2023.10.06

Previous articles

Engström’s Motive

Google’s Decision

Warrening

The Two Envelopes Problem, Solved

The Practical Smartphone Buyer

Would Apple Actually Exit the EU Or UK?

See You Looked

Blackjack Strategy Card (Printable)

Swan Device 1956 — Probable Shape

Pu

RGB-To-Hue Conversion

Polygon Triangulation With Hole

One-Point Implosion: “Palm Fan”

Implosion: Were Those Two-Speed Lenses Really Necessary?

Apple Wants User/Developer Choice; Its Enemies Want Apple Ruin

Tim Sweeney Plays Dumb

The Jury of One

The Lesson of January 6

Amnesia Is Not A Good Plot

I Was Eating for 300 lbs, Not 220

Action Arcade Sounds and Reality

The Flea Market and the Retail Store

Squaring the Impossible

Yes, Crocodiles Are Dinosaurs — Duh

Broccoli and Apples Are Not the Antidote To Donuts and Potato Chips

Cydia and “Competition”

The Gift of Nukes

Prager University and the Anti-Socialists’ Big Blind Spot

In Defense of Apple’s 30% Markup, Part 2

In Defense of Apple’s 30% Markup

Make Your Own FBI Backdoor, Right Now

Storm

The Legacy of Windows Phone

Mindless Monsters

To the Bitter End

“Future Shock” Shock

Little Plutonium Boy

The iPhone Backdoor Already Exists

The Impulse To Be Lazy

HBO’s “Meth Storm” BS

Judos vs. Pin Place

Vizio M-Series 65" LCD (“LED”) TV — Best Settings (IMHO)

Tasting Vegemite (Bucket List)

The IHOP Coast

The Surprise Quiz Paradox, Solved

Apple, Amazon, Products, and Services — Not Even Close

Nader’s Open Blather

Health — All Or Nothing?

Vivek Wadhwa, Scamster Bitcoin Doomsayer

Backwards Eye Wiring — the Optical Focus Hypothesis

Apple’s Cash Is Not the Key

Nothing More Angry Than A Cornered Anti-Apple

Let ’Em Glow

The Ultimate, Simple, Fair Tax

Compassion and Vision

When Starting A Game of Chicken With Apple, Expect To Lose

The Caveat

Superb Owl

NavStar

Basic Reproduction Number

iBook Price-Fixing Lawsuit Redux — Apple Won

Delusion Made By Google

Religion Is A Wall

It’s Not A Criticism, It’s A Fact

Michigan Wolverines 2014 Football Season In Review

Sprinkler Shopping

Why There’s No MagSafe On the New MacBook

Sundar Pichai Says Devices Will Fade Away

The Question Every Apple Naysayer Must Answer

Apple’s Move To TSMC Is Fine For Apple, Bad For Samsung

Method of Implementing A Secure Backdoor In Mobile Devices

How I Clip My Cat’s Nails

Die Trying

Merger Hindsight

Human Life Decades

Fire and the Wheel — Not Good Examples of A Broken Patent System

Nobody Wants Public Transportation

Seasons By Temperature, Not Solstice

Ode To Coffee

Starting Over

FaceBook Messenger — Why I Don’t Use It

Happy Birthday, Anton Leeuwenhoek

Standard Deviation Defined

Not Hypocrisy

Simple Guide To Progress Bar Correctness

A Secure Backdoor Is Feasible

Don’t Blink

Predictive Value

Answering the Toughest Question About Disruption Theory

SSD TRIM Command In A Nutshell

The Enderle Grope

Aha! A New Way To Screw Apple

Champagne, By Any Other Maker

iOS Jailbreaking — A Perhaps-Biased Assessment

Embittered Anti-Apple Belligerents

Before 2001, After 2001

What A Difference Six Years Doesn’t Make

Stupefying New Year’s Stupidity

The Innovator’s Victory

The Cult of Free

Fitness — The Ultimate Transparency

Millions of Strange Devotees and Fanatics

Remember the iPod Killers?

Theory As Simulation

Four Analysts

What Was Christensen Thinking?

The Grass Is Always Greener — Viewing Angle

Is Using Your Own Patent Still Allowed?

The Upside-Down Tech Future

Motive of the Anti-Apple Pundit

Cheating Like A Human

Disremembering Microsoft

Security-Through-Obscurity Redux — The Best of Both Worlds

iPhone 2013 Score Card

Dominant and Recessive Traits, Demystified

Yes, You Do Have To Be the Best

The United States of Texas

Vertical Disintegration

He’s No Jobs — Fire Him

A Players

McEnroe, Not Borg, Had Class

Conflict Fades Away

Four-Color Theorem Analysis — Rules To Limit the Problem

The Unusual Monopolist

Reasonable Projection

Five Times What They Paid For It

Bypassable Security Certificates Are Useless

I’d Give My Right Arm To Go To Mars

Free Advice About Apple’s iOS App Store Guidelines

Inciting Violence

One Platform

Understanding IDC’s Tablet Market Share Graph

I Vote Socialist Because...

That Person

Product Naming — Google Is the Other Microsoft

Antecessor Hypotheticum

Apple Paves the Way For Apple

Why — A Poem

App Anger — the Supersized-Mastodon-In-the-Room That Marco Arment Doesn’t See

Apple’s Graphic Failure

Why Microsoft Copies Apple (and Google)

Coders Code, Bosses Boss

Droidfood For Thought

Investment Is Not A Sure Thing

Exercise is Two Thirds of Everything

Dan “Real Enderle” Lyons

Fairness

Ignoring the iPod touch

Manual Intervention Should Never Make A Computer Faster

Predictions ’13

Paperless

Zeroth — Why the Century Number Is One More Than the Year Number

Longer Than It Seems

Partners: Believe In Apple

Gun Control: Best Arguments

John C. Dvorak — Translation To English

Destructive Youth

Wiens’s Whine

Free Will — The Grand Equivocation

What Windows-vs.-Mac Actually Proved

A Tale of Two Logos

Microsoft’s Three Paths

Amazon Won’t Be A Big Winner In the DOJ’s Price-Fixing Suit

Infinite Sets, Infinite Authority

Strategy Analytics and Long Term Accountability

The Third Stage of Computing

Why 1 Isn’t Prime, 2 Is Prime, and 2 Is the Only Even Prime

Readability BS

Lie Detection and Psychos

Liking

Steps

Microsoft’s Dim Prospects

Humanity — Just Barely

Hanke-Henry Calendar Won’t Be Adopted

Collatz Conjecture Analysis (But No Proof; Sorry)

Rock-Solid iOS App Stability

Microsoft’s Uncreative Character

Microsoft’s Alternate Reality Bubble

Microsoft’s Three Ruts

Society’s Fascination With Mass Murder

PlaysForSure and Wikipedia — Revisionism At Its Finest

Procrastination

Patent Reform?

How Many Licks

Microsoft’s Incredible Run

Voting Socialist

Darwin Saves

The Size of Things In the Universe

The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy That Wasn’t

Fun

Nobody Was In Love With Windows

Apples To Apples — How Anti-Apple Pundits Shoot Themselves In the Foot

No Holds Barred

Betting Against Humanity

Apple’s Premium Features Are Free

Why So Many Computer Guys Hate Apple

3D TV With No Glasses and No Parallax/Focus Issues

Waves With Particle-Like Properties

Gridlock Is Just Fine

Sex Is A Fantasy

Major Player

Why the iPad Wannabes Will Definitely Flop

Predators and Parasites

Prison Is For Lotto Losers

The False Dichotomy

Wait and See — Windows-vs-Mac Will Repeat Itself

Dishonesty For the Greater Good

Barr Part 2

Enough Information

Zune Is For Apple Haters

Good Open, Bad Open

Beach Bodies — Who’s Really Shallow?

Upgrade? Maybe Not

Eliminating the Impossible

Selfish Desires

Farewell, Pirate Cachet

The Two Risk-Takers

Number of Companies — the Idiocy That Never Dies

Holding On To the Solution

Apple Religion

Long-Term Planning

What You Have To Give Up

The End of Elitism

Good and Evil

Life

How Religion Distorts Science

Laziness and Creativity

Sideloading and the Supersized-Mastodon-In-the-Room That Snell Doesn’t See

Long-Term Self-Delusion

App Store Success Won’t Translate To Books, Movies, and Shows

Silly iPad Spoilsports

I Disagree

Five Rational Counterarguments

Majority Report

Simply Unjust

Zooman Science

Reaganomics — Like A Diet — Works

Free R&D?

Apple’s On the Right Track

Mountains of Evidence

What We Do

Hope Conquers All

Humans Are Special — Just Not That Special

Life = Survival of the Fittest

Excuse Me, We’re Going To Build On Your Property

No Trademark iWorries

Knowing

Twisted Excuses

The Fall of Google

Real Painters

The Meaning of Kicking Ass

How To Really Stop Casual Movie Disc Ripping

The Solitary Path of the High-Talent Programmer

Fixing, Not Preaching

Why Blackmail Is Still Illegal

Designers Cannot Do Anything Imaginable

Wise Dr. Drew

Rats In A Too-Small Cage

Coming To Reason

Everything Isn’t Moving To the Web

Pragmatics, Not Rights

Grey Zone

Methodologically Dogmatic

The Purpose of Language

The Punishment Defines the Crime

Two Many Cooks

Pragmatism

One Last Splurge

Making Money

What Heaven and Hell Are Really About

America — The Last Suburb

Hoarding

What the Cloud Isn’t For

Diminishing Returns

What You’re Seeing

What My Life Needs To Be

Taking An Early Retirement

Office Buildings

A, B, C, D, Pointless Relativity

Stephen Meyer and Michael Medved — Where Is ID Going?

If You Didn’t Vote — Complain Away

iPhone Party-Poopers Redux

What Free Will Is Really About

Spectacularly Well

Pointless Wrappers

PTED — The P Is Silent

Out of Sync

Stupid Stickers

Security Through Normalcy

The Case For Corporate Bonuses

Movie Copyrights Are Forever

Permitted By Whom?

Quantum Cognition and Other Hogwash

The Problem With Message Theory

Bell’s Boring Inequality and the Insanity of the Gaps

Paying the Rent At the 6 Park Avenue Apartments

Primary + Reviewer — An Alternative IT Plan For Corporations

Yes Yes Yes

Feelings

Hey Hey Whine Whine

Microsoft About Microsoft Visual Microsoft Studio Microsoft

Hidden Purple Tiger

Forest Fair Mall and the Second Lamborghini

Intelligent Design — The Straight Dope

Maxwell’s Demon — Three Real-World Examples

Zealots

Entitlement BS

Agenderle

Mutations

Einstein’s Error — The Confusion of Laws With Their Effects

The Museum Is the Art

Polly Sooth the Air Rage

The Truth

The Darkness

Morality = STDs?

Fulfilling the Moral Duty To Disdain

MustWinForSure

Choice

Real Design

The Two Rules of Great Programming

Cynicism

The End of the Nerds

Poverty — Humanity’s Damage Control

Berners-Lee’s Rating System = Google

The Secret Anti-MP3 Trick In “Independent Women” and “You Sang To Me”

ID and the Large Hadron Collider Scare

Not A Bluff

The Fall of Microsoft

Life Sucks When You’re Not Winning

Aware

The Old-Fashioned Way

The Old People Who Pop Into Existence

Theodicy — A Big Stack of Papers

The Designed, Cause-and-Effect Brain

Mosaics

IC Counterarguments

The Capitalist’s Imaginary Line

Education Isn’t Everything

I Don’t Know

Funny iPhone Party-Poopers

Avoiding Conflict At All Costs

Behavior and Free Will, Unconfused

“Reduced To” Absurdum

Suzie and Bubba Redneck — the Carriers of Intelligence

Everything You Need To Know About Haldane’s Dilemma

Darwin + Hitler = Baloney

Meta-ware

Designed For Combat

Speed Racer R Us

Bold — Uh-huh

Conscious of Consciousness

Future Perfect

Where Real and Yahoo Went Wrong

The Purpose of Surface

Eradicating Religion Won’t Eradicate War

Documentation Overkill

A Tale of Two Movies

The Changing Face of Sam Adams

Dinesh D’Souza On ID

Why Quintic (and Higher) Polynomials Have No Algebraic Solution

Translation of Paul Graham’s Footnote To Plain English

What Happened To Moore’s Law?

Goldston On ID

The End of Martial Law

The Two Faces of Evolution

A Fine Recommendation

Free Will and Population Statistics

Dennett/D’Souza Debate — D’Souza

Dennett/D’Souza Debate — Dennett

The Non-Euclidean Geometry That Wasn’t There

Defective Attitude Towards Suburbia

The Twin Deficit Phantoms

Sleep Sync and Vertical Hold

More FUD In Your Eye

The Myth of Rubbernecking

Keeping Intelligent Design Honest

Failure of the Amiga — Not Just Mismanagement

Maxwell’s Silver Hammer = Be My Honey Do?

End Unsecured Debt

The Digits of Pi Cannot Be Sequentially Generated By A Computer Program

Faster Is Better

Goals Can’t Be Avoided

Propped-Up Products

Ignoring ID Won’t Work

The Crabs and the Bucket

Communism As A Side Effect of the Transition To Capitalism

Google and Wikipedia, Revisited

National Geographic’s Obesity BS

Cavemen

Theodicy Is For Losers

Seattle Redux

Quitting

Living Well

A Memory of Gateway

Is Apple’s Font Rendering Really Non-Pixel-Aware?

Humans Are Complexity, Not Choice

A Subtle Shift

Moralism — The Emperor’s New Success

Code Is Our Friend

The Edge of Religion

The Dark Side of Pixel-Aware Font Rendering

The Futility of DVD Encryption

ID Isn’t About Size or Speed

Blood-Curdling Screams

ID Venn Diagram

Rich and Good-Looking? Why Libertarianism Goes Nowhere

FUV — Fear, Uncertainty, and Vista

Malware Isn’t About Total Control

Howard = Second Coming?

Doomsday? Or Just Another Sunday

The Real Function of Wikipedia In A Google World

Objective-C Philosophy

Clarity From Cisco

2007 Macworld Keynote Prediction

FUZ — Fear, Uncertainty, and Zune

No Fear — The Most Important Thing About Intelligent Design

How About A Rational Theodicy

Napster and the Subscription Model

Intelligent Design — Introduction

The One Feature I Want To See In Apple’s Safari.