Yes

Alle europäischen Länder verfügen über eine Form der staatlichen Krankenversicherung, sodass die Regierungen (EU, Großbritannien und Schweiz) über eine enorme Verhandlungsmacht verfügen. Diese Regierungen verhandeln die Preise mit den Pharmaunternehmen und sorgen so für angemessene Preise.

Das US-Gesundheitssystem ist privat und die Preise basieren auf dem Kapitalismus. Pharmaunternehmen dürfen ihre Medikamente direkt bei den Verbrauchern bewerben, sodass die Preise in den USA deutlich höher sind als in Europa.

Trump hat der Schweiz einen Zollsatz von 39 % auferlegt, Pharmaunternehmen jedoch davon ausgenommen, unter der Bedingung, dass sie innerhalb von 60 Tagen ihre US-Preise auf den niedrigsten Preis senken, den sie in einem europäischen Land verlangen.

Dies ist in vielerlei Hinsicht lächerlich, insbesondere:

1. Trump möchte die finanziellen Vorteile einer regulierten Branche, ohne in die Verwaltungskosten für den Betrieb der erforderlichen Regierungsbehörde zu investieren.

2. Er ignoriert die Tatsache, dass das Pharmageschäft in den USA teurer (z. B. Werbekosten) und aufgrund von Rechtsstreitigkeiten in den USA viel riskanter ist. Pharmaunternehmen haben enorme Rechtskosten in den USA, die irgendwie finanziert werden müssen.

Daher drängen die Pharmaunternehmen auf eine Erhöhung der Preise in Europa und argumentieren, dass diese Preise zu niedrig sind. Den meisten europäischen Ländern ist das egal. Die Schweizer Regierung befindet sich jedoch in einer einzigartigen Zwickmühle, da die Pharmaunternehmen einen großen Anteil am BIP haben. Die Frage ist, welche Nachteile man in Kauf nehmen muss: hohe US-Zölle und Geschäftsverluste oder geringe Gewinne in den USA? Beides bedeutet den Verlust von Arbeitsplätzen. Eine Erhöhung der Arzneimittelpreise in der Schweiz könnte Arbeitsplätze retten, aber die Gesundheitskosten gehören bereits zu den höchsten weltweit, bei hoher Inflation.

Some relevant comments from the developer on another forum from about a year ago, when they only had 10 apps:

Developer of Accrescent here. Yes, there are only a handful of apps available right now. The reason for this is that the recent focus hasn’t been directed on getting more apps in the store, but instead on internal changes to allow Accrescent to include more features and scale to more users. It will be able to include more apps once more of those changes are implemented.

Yes, we may take on some additional apps over time. This depends on how much the project can handle maintenance-wise and how willing those app developers are to deal with the early and changing nature of Accrescent. We’re not directly reaching out to any developers at this time, however.

So apparently it’s been a deliberate choice so far.

My understanding is that the whole point to trying to hire a full time developer is to be able to finally scale their services.

Yes, that is a weakness with many FOSS projects. Developers with great ideas lacking business acumen.

That said, I expect that they can become financially self-sustaining from selling proprietary apps if they can get enough scale. I wouldn’t mind making a small monthly donation long-term but it needs to be less than what they are currently asking.

Here is a link to F-Droid’s Open Collective page. If this is accurate, they seem to be doing OK for funding right now. I’m sure they’d appreciate another sponsor though, if you’re not already donating.

Last I heard, the intention is that users will be able to filter for open-source apps if they want.

I haven’t seen anything warning against proprietary apps specifically. As a minimum, I would hope that they implement an agreement similar to the play store where the app developers are legally bound by the privacy terms in the app description (re data, advertising, etc.). This statement could maybe include an alternative wording for OS vs Proprietary apps? Definitely something to think about.

Edit to add: I can’t comment on 3rd party repositories. Too technical for me.

That’s an absolutely valid choice.

It’s not however the choice that the majority of people make. Weaning them off the play store needs an alternative with proprietary apps.

Yes. I assume that’s partly what this is about.

To date the majority of the coding has been done by one person after work. Their infrastructure was also too slow.

They released a progress update and roadmap a few days ago. They’ve already implemented some infrastructure upgrades and are prioritising back-end updates. Presumably this will make the store more attractive for app developers.

The funding push is to make it possible to have a developer working on the project fulltime.

Edit: a word

2nd edit to add: I found this thread from about a year ago, when they only had 10 apps. Relevant quotes from the developer:

Developer of Accrescent here. Yes, there are only a handful of apps available right now. The reason for this is that the recent focus hasn’t been directed on getting more apps in the store, but instead on internal changes to allow Accrescent to include more features and scale to more users. It will be able to include more apps once more of those changes are implemented.

Yes, we may take on some additional apps over time. This depends on how much the project can handle maintenance-wise and how willing those app developers are to deal with the early and changing nature of Accrescent. We’re not directly reaching out to any developers at this time, however.

So apparently it’s a deliberate choice.

Hello beautiful boy.

He’s growing so fast! A little trim around the eyes so he can see better might be appreciated.