5 ms·

Apple's 30%

36 points by milen 11y ago

hartator 11y ago
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tFnDscEEiwsJ:reinventedsoftware.com/blog/2015/08/10/30percent/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tFnDscE...
- t0mbstone 11y ago
  Thanks!
jasode 11y ago
>Feeder is over 10 years old now, long predating the Mac App Store, [...] , and while they should profit, should they really be taking so much that it risks putting independent developers like me out of business? I'm having trouble following the logic. How can a new distribution channel for potential customers that didn't exist until 2011 bankrupt you? If Feeder is 10 years old, what's significant about 2011-2015 of the Mac App Store existence that causes financial insolvency? For a niche app like Feeder, which typically only manages to cover the cost of supporting and maintaining it, doesn’t need any Mac App Store-only features like iCloud,..., it hardly makes sense for me to sell it there from a financial perspective… and yet if I don’t, many people might not even know it exists. How did people find out Feeder existed before 2011? Did Mac App Store remove that option of reaching the public?
- asadotzler 11y ago
  App stores indeed have dramatically obscured other distribution channels. Pretending that's not the case isn't helping anyone.
  - jasode 11y ago
    >dramatically obscured We're not talking about the iOS App Store. The authors complaint is about the Mac App Store. It's a software store that Mac desktop/laptop users don't even bother to click on.[1] I'm still having trouble connecting the dots here. How exactly has a distribution channel that has gained very little traction over the last 4 years "dramatically obscured" other distribution options for a 10-year old app? Has there been an explosion of demand for sandboxed apps? It doesn't look like it. [1]"An alarming number of customers who already have Macs have absolutely no idea that the Mac App Store exists, even though the blue icon sits in many an unchanged Dock." http://www.imore.com/nsfw-apples-benign-neglect-mac-app-store http://www.imore.com/nsfw-apples-benign-neglect-mac-app-stor...
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    Not really. Maybe on phones.
Retric 11y ago
Last I checked the App store was not a significant revenue source for Apple. My guess is the review process is expensive and most apps are a net negative from Apples perspective. One way around this would be if apple reserved a portion of sales, but with the number of 'free' apps out there this would probably not work. And for near breakeven apps it would probably result in similar numbers. (EX: 100% of the first 10k, 10% after that.)
- api 11y ago
  For Apple the review process is more about offering a clean user experience for their users to sell more phones/tablets/macs.
- heimatau 11y ago
  I'm not sure when the last time you checked but $10 billion [1] in revenue is significant. That's only 2013. [1] https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2014/01/07App-Store-Sales-Top-10-Billion-in-2013.html https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2014/01/07App-Store-Sales-T...
  - wise_young_man 11y ago
    Plus the fact that if there was no App store Apple wouldn't have as high of hardware sales so it has intrinsic value just being there.
  - jonknee 11y ago
    That's the 100% of revenue, Apple's take would be $3B. Still not insignificant...
  - plorkyeran 11y ago
    That's the iOS App Store, not the Mac App Store. The app store on iOS is significantly different in that you can't choose to just sell apps directly.
- vcarl 11y ago
  The Unreal development kit has an interesting pricing method. The first $50k you make is completely royalty free, and after that Unreal takes a 25% cut. Now that I think about it, Apple's approach seems incredibly lazy considering its size and the size of the market. I guess there's enough demand for apps that developers are willing to put up with shitty terms. I can't link directly to the answer, but it's the last FAQ, 'Can you explain the UDK commercial license terms'. https://www.unrealengine.com/previous-versions/udk-licensing-resources https://www.unrealengine.com/previous-versions/udk-licensing...
Kenji 11y ago
Apple take 30% because they can take 30%. You are paying it. You haven't switched to developing for another platform like Android or PC. They can do it because you, along with all the other app developers, are masochistic enough to put up with this walled garden. Somehow I cannot muster up sympathy.
- heimatau 11y ago
  Developers don't need to switch. They can just host and authenticate their software internally. Spotify passes on the savings to their consumers [1] with a model like that. [1] http://www.cultofmac.com/328554/spotify-wants-its-listeners-to-skip-apple-save-money/ http://www.cultofmac.com/328554/spotify-wants-its-listeners-...
- s73v3r 11y ago
  That doesn't make any sense, considering Android also has the same 30%, but makes less.
  - Kenji 11y ago
    You are right. I stand corrected. Still, he is free to chose other ways of distribution that cost him less.
chasing 11y ago
I feel the author's pain and 30% does seem ridiculously high given the service Apple provides. And given that it's these same developers that make Apple's hardware as popular as it is by providing awesome apps and services. And I do not like the monopolistic nature of the App Store -- that it's integrated into Mac OS X in a way that other software sales platforms could never compete with. But. If 30% is too expensive -- if the added benefits of promotion through the App Store and other services don't make up for the loss -- why is it even a question? Don't sell through the Mac App Store. The presumption is that it's more profitable not to. So don't.
- newobj 11y ago
  "given the service apple provides" - put your app or iap 1 click away from an already loaded credit card; seems highly valuable to me.
  - chasing 11y ago
    Then the App Store is for you! It may, nevertheless, be too expensive for many people. The article author, for example.
replicatorblog 11y ago
FWIW, I used to work in hardware and sold products to Walmart, Target, CVS, Kroger, the Apple Store and had stuff on the shelves of ~20,000 retail locations in the US. 30% is a bargain. In physical retail we'd pay 50% pretty consistently. We were also at the mercy of the retailer to send things back to us if they didn't sell, without paying. So they would buy 20,000 units, sell 5,000, and a few months later send us back the remainder and call it even. If we wanted promotion in their stores, circulars, or websites we had to pay for the privilege. Considering Apple puts you in the pocket of hundreds of millions of people, puts you a password or fingerprint away from their credit card, and provides the opportunity for massive exposure in their store, it feels like a super fair deal. I'm more troubled by the fact that they essentially have driven the price of discrete software to zero, but fortunately there are more and more ways to monetize via SaaS, IAP, Hardware, etc.
- jonknee 11y ago
  Your point makes more sense for the iOS App Store, but this was desktop software and the Mac App Store is a different animal. It's nowhere near as successful, even "top" apps are't selling many copies. The sandboxing also means your apps can do less than apps that aren't in the store. You also can't do demos or paid upgrades. Same 30% tax though. There have been many similar rants: http://www.panic.com/blog/coda-2-5-and-the-mac-app-store/ http://www.panic.com/blog/coda-2-5-and-the-mac-app-store/ http://sixcolors.com/post/2014/10/bbedit-at-max-q/ http://sixcolors.com/post/2014/10/bbedit-at-max-q/ http://blog.helftone.com/mac-app-store-the-subtle-exodus/ http://blog.helftone.com/mac-app-store-the-subtle-exodus/ http://www.macstories.net/news/textexpander-4-first-casualty-of-mac-app-store-sandboxing/ http://www.macstories.net/news/textexpander-4-first-casualty... https://www.omnigroup.com/blog/update-no-upgrade-pricing-for-mac-app-store-purchases https://www.omnigroup.com/blog/update-no-upgrade-pricing-for... Etc
- mikeash 11y ago
  In retail, you pay 50% because that's something like what it actually costs to sell stuff to people in a physical store. The cost of selling software is almost zero. Unlike retail's cut of your selling price, Apple's cut is completely arbitrary and rather unjustified. If you sell software directly to users, the cost can be something like 3%, depending on which payment processor you want to use. What additional service does Apple provide for that additional 27% cut? The buying experience is easier, but this doesn't seem to translate into additional sales. You mention "massive exposure," but there's pretty much universal agreement among developers in the Apple world that the App Store's "marketing" bump is pretty much zero unless you're extremely lucky and get featured. But hey, if it's worth it, then you should be able to let developers choose and they'll still go for it. On iOS, there is no choice. If you want to sell, it's either Apple's 30% or nothing. On the Mac, there is a choice (for now) and the trend now seems to be to choose not to use the App Store there.
exelius 11y ago
Look on the bright side; distributors like Apple used to take closer to 50%. The trend in the industry is towards shrinking payments, and when Apple started doing this, 30% was considered a small cut. But why would Apple cut their rev share take when they have no reason to do so? It's not like there's competitive pressure, and if app developers want to get more revenue, they can raise prices.
- mikeash 11y ago
  On the bright side, distributors like Apple used to take 50%. On the dim side, distributors like Apple used to not be the only option, and that 50% was at least vaguely justified because they were doing things like staffing call centers for taking orders, and shipping physical media to customers.
  - 7Z7 11y ago
    The Mac App Store is still not the only option. Buy your software wherever you like.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      Yes, which is why it seems to be falling out of favor among many third party developers. Over on iOS, it is the only option, and I'm pessimistic as to how long the optionality will last on the Mac end.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
kelukelugames 11y ago
Is there a mirror? Site looks down.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  https://web.archive.org/web/20150811061243/http://reinventedsoftware.com/blog/2015/08/10/30percent/ https://web.archive.org/web/20150811061243/http://reinvented...
pbreit 11y ago
30% is pretty much the going rate for digital goods (marginal cost $0), even without the distribution might of the Apple Stores.
bosdev 11y ago
The site is down for me. In the future, please consider making your blog a static site. It is generally more reliable, cheaper, and more tolerant of spikes of traffic like this.
scholia 11y ago
There was another Mac App Store article on here yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10056593 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10056593 The Mac App Store Still Needs Paid Upgrades http://dancounsell.com/articles/the-mac-app-store-still-needs-paid-upgrades http://dancounsell.com/articles/the-mac-app-store-still-need...

36 points by milen 11y ago

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tFnDscEEiwsJ:reinventedsoftware.com/blog/2015/08/10/30percent/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tFnDscE...

t0mbstone 11y ago
Thanks!

jasode 11y ago

>Feeder is over 10 years old now, long predating the Mac App Store, [...] , and while they should profit, should they really be taking so much that it risks putting independent developers like me out of business? I'm having trouble following the logic. How can a new distribution channel for potential customers that didn't exist until 2011 bankrupt you? If Feeder is 10 years old, what's significant about 2011-2015 of the Mac App Store existence that causes financial insolvency? For a niche app like Feeder, which typically only manages to cover the cost of supporting and maintaining it, doesn’t need any Mac App Store-only features like iCloud,..., it hardly makes sense for me to sell it there from a financial perspective… and yet if I don’t, many people might not even know it exists. How did people find out Feeder existed before 2011? Did Mac App Store remove that option of reaching the public?

asadotzler 11y ago
App stores indeed have dramatically obscured other distribution channels. Pretending that's not the case isn't helping anyone.
- jasode 11y ago
  >dramatically obscured We're not talking about the iOS App Store. The authors complaint is about the Mac App Store. It's a software store that Mac desktop/laptop users don't even bother to click on.[1] I'm still having trouble connecting the dots here. How exactly has a distribution channel that has gained very little traction over the last 4 years "dramatically obscured" other distribution options for a 10-year old app? Has there been an explosion of demand for sandboxed apps? It doesn't look like it. [1]"An alarming number of customers who already have Macs have absolutely no idea that the Mac App Store exists, even though the blue icon sits in many an unchanged Dock." http://www.imore.com/nsfw-apples-benign-neglect-mac-app-store http://www.imore.com/nsfw-apples-benign-neglect-mac-app-stor...
- s73v3r 11y ago
  Not really. Maybe on phones.

Retric 11y ago

Last I checked the App store was not a significant revenue source for Apple. My guess is the review process is expensive and most apps are a net negative from Apples perspective. One way around this would be if apple reserved a portion of sales, but with the number of 'free' apps out there this would probably not work. And for near breakeven apps it would probably result in similar numbers. (EX: 100% of the first 10k, 10% after that.)

api 11y ago
For Apple the review process is more about offering a clean user experience for their users to sell more phones/tablets/macs.
heimatau 11y ago
I'm not sure when the last time you checked but $10 billion [1] in revenue is significant. That's only 2013. [1] https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2014/01/07App-Store-Sales-Top-10-Billion-in-2013.html https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2014/01/07App-Store-Sales-T...
- wise_young_man 11y ago
  Plus the fact that if there was no App store Apple wouldn't have as high of hardware sales so it has intrinsic value just being there.
- jonknee 11y ago
  That's the 100% of revenue, Apple's take would be $3B. Still not insignificant...
- plorkyeran 11y ago
  That's the iOS App Store, not the Mac App Store. The app store on iOS is significantly different in that you can't choose to just sell apps directly.
vcarl 11y ago
The Unreal development kit has an interesting pricing method. The first $50k you make is completely royalty free, and after that Unreal takes a 25% cut. Now that I think about it, Apple's approach seems incredibly lazy considering its size and the size of the market. I guess there's enough demand for apps that developers are willing to put up with shitty terms. I can't link directly to the answer, but it's the last FAQ, 'Can you explain the UDK commercial license terms'. https://www.unrealengine.com/previous-versions/udk-licensing-resources https://www.unrealengine.com/previous-versions/udk-licensing...

Kenji 11y ago

Apple take 30% because they can take 30%. You are paying it. You haven't switched to developing for another platform like Android or PC. They can do it because you, along with all the other app developers, are masochistic enough to put up with this walled garden. Somehow I cannot muster up sympathy.

heimatau 11y ago
Developers don't need to switch. They can just host and authenticate their software internally. Spotify passes on the savings to their consumers [1] with a model like that. [1] http://www.cultofmac.com/328554/spotify-wants-its-listeners-to-skip-apple-save-money/ http://www.cultofmac.com/328554/spotify-wants-its-listeners-...
s73v3r 11y ago
That doesn't make any sense, considering Android also has the same 30%, but makes less.
- Kenji 11y ago
  You are right. I stand corrected. Still, he is free to chose other ways of distribution that cost him less.

chasing 11y ago

I feel the author's pain and 30% does seem ridiculously high given the service Apple provides. And given that it's these same developers that make Apple's hardware as popular as it is by providing awesome apps and services. And I do not like the monopolistic nature of the App Store -- that it's integrated into Mac OS X in a way that other software sales platforms could never compete with. But. If 30% is too expensive -- if the added benefits of promotion through the App Store and other services don't make up for the loss -- why is it even a question? Don't sell through the Mac App Store. The presumption is that it's more profitable not to. So don't.

newobj 11y ago
"given the service apple provides" - put your app or iap 1 click away from an already loaded credit card; seems highly valuable to me.
- chasing 11y ago
  Then the App Store is for you! It may, nevertheless, be too expensive for many people. The article author, for example.

replicatorblog 11y ago

FWIW, I used to work in hardware and sold products to Walmart, Target, CVS, Kroger, the Apple Store and had stuff on the shelves of ~20,000 retail locations in the US. 30% is a bargain. In physical retail we'd pay 50% pretty consistently. We were also at the mercy of the retailer to send things back to us if they didn't sell, without paying. So they would buy 20,000 units, sell 5,000, and a few months later send us back the remainder and call it even. If we wanted promotion in their stores, circulars, or websites we had to pay for the privilege. Considering Apple puts you in the pocket of hundreds of millions of people, puts you a password or fingerprint away from their credit card, and provides the opportunity for massive exposure in their store, it feels like a super fair deal. I'm more troubled by the fact that they essentially have driven the price of discrete software to zero, but fortunately there are more and more ways to monetize via SaaS, IAP, Hardware, etc.

jonknee 11y ago
Your point makes more sense for the iOS App Store, but this was desktop software and the Mac App Store is a different animal. It's nowhere near as successful, even "top" apps are't selling many copies. The sandboxing also means your apps can do less than apps that aren't in the store. You also can't do demos or paid upgrades. Same 30% tax though. There have been many similar rants: http://www.panic.com/blog/coda-2-5-and-the-mac-app-store/ http://www.panic.com/blog/coda-2-5-and-the-mac-app-store/ http://sixcolors.com/post/2014/10/bbedit-at-max-q/ http://sixcolors.com/post/2014/10/bbedit-at-max-q/ http://blog.helftone.com/mac-app-store-the-subtle-exodus/ http://blog.helftone.com/mac-app-store-the-subtle-exodus/ http://www.macstories.net/news/textexpander-4-first-casualty-of-mac-app-store-sandboxing/ http://www.macstories.net/news/textexpander-4-first-casualty... https://www.omnigroup.com/blog/update-no-upgrade-pricing-for-mac-app-store-purchases https://www.omnigroup.com/blog/update-no-upgrade-pricing-for... Etc
mikeash 11y ago
In retail, you pay 50% because that's something like what it actually costs to sell stuff to people in a physical store. The cost of selling software is almost zero. Unlike retail's cut of your selling price, Apple's cut is completely arbitrary and rather unjustified. If you sell software directly to users, the cost can be something like 3%, depending on which payment processor you want to use. What additional service does Apple provide for that additional 27% cut? The buying experience is easier, but this doesn't seem to translate into additional sales. You mention "massive exposure," but there's pretty much universal agreement among developers in the Apple world that the App Store's "marketing" bump is pretty much zero unless you're extremely lucky and get featured. But hey, if it's worth it, then you should be able to let developers choose and they'll still go for it. On iOS, there is no choice. If you want to sell, it's either Apple's 30% or nothing. On the Mac, there is a choice (for now) and the trend now seems to be to choose not to use the App Store there.

exelius 11y ago

Look on the bright side; distributors like Apple used to take closer to 50%. The trend in the industry is towards shrinking payments, and when Apple started doing this, 30% was considered a small cut. But why would Apple cut their rev share take when they have no reason to do so? It's not like there's competitive pressure, and if app developers want to get more revenue, they can raise prices.

mikeash 11y ago
On the bright side, distributors like Apple used to take 50%. On the dim side, distributors like Apple used to not be the only option, and that 50% was at least vaguely justified because they were doing things like staffing call centers for taking orders, and shipping physical media to customers.
- 7Z7 11y ago
  The Mac App Store is still not the only option. Buy your software wherever you like.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Yes, which is why it seems to be falling out of favor among many third party developers. Over on iOS, it is the only option, and I'm pessimistic as to how long the optionality will last on the Mac end.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

kelukelugames 11y ago

Is there a mirror? Site looks down.

ikeboy 11y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20150811061243/http://reinventedsoftware.com/blog/2015/08/10/30percent/ https://web.archive.org/web/20150811061243/http://reinvented...

pbreit 11y ago

30% is pretty much the going rate for digital goods (marginal cost $0), even without the distribution might of the Apple Stores.

bosdev 11y ago

The site is down for me. In the future, please consider making your blog a static site. It is generally more reliable, cheaper, and more tolerant of spikes of traffic like this.

scholia 11y ago

There was another Mac App Store article on here yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10056593 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10056593 The Mac App Store Still Needs Paid Upgrades http://dancounsell.com/articles/the-mac-app-store-still-needs-paid-upgrades http://dancounsell.com/articles/the-mac-app-store-still-need...