5 ms·

Hah. If you think 3% is bad, I'd love to know what you think about the 30% that Apple takes for in app purchases. You are forced to use their system (or your

Hah. If you think 3% is bad, I'd love to know what you think about the 30% that Apple takes for in app purchases. You are forced to use their system (or your app gets rejected), so you have no option but to use their payment methods. Highway robbery if you ask me.

GhostVII 9y ago
The difference is that Apple is providing you with tonnes of publicity and easy access through the app store, and is ensuring that your product works with all of their users. They are adding way more value than just convenient payments.
- rubicon33 9y ago
  This is true, and that is definitely a difference worth pointing out. I should have specified that even accounting for that difference 30% feels excessive considering your app, and the existence of it on their app store, also benefits their system (assuming your app is not completely pay locked). It wasn't that long ago that Apple was using as a marketing tool, the number of App's on the app store.
  - likelynew 9y ago
    > It wasn't that long ago that Apple was using as a marketing tool, the number of App's on the app store. They literally marketed number of apps downloaded just yesterday in WWDC.
- likelynew 9y ago
  Isn't $100/year enough for the access and making sure that product works fine. For publicity, it's two way and nowhere should take 30% if there is a free market for app store.
  - alwillis 9y ago
    For subscriptions, it drops to 15% after one year: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/subscriptions/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/subscriptions/
  - hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
    Back in the day when software was sold in boxes in retail stores, I guarantee those retail stores were taking well north of 30%.
    - _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
      Because they've stocked the products and paid for them, and threw away/discounted everything they did not sell. Vendors could only get <30% if taking back unsold merchandise. It always amazes me how people do not understand the fundamentals of retailing.

GhostVII 9y ago

The difference is that Apple is providing you with tonnes of publicity and easy access through the app store, and is ensuring that your product works with all of their users. They are adding way more value than just convenient payments.

rubicon33 9y ago
This is true, and that is definitely a difference worth pointing out. I should have specified that even accounting for that difference 30% feels excessive considering your app, and the existence of it on their app store, also benefits their system (assuming your app is not completely pay locked). It wasn't that long ago that Apple was using as a marketing tool, the number of App's on the app store.
- likelynew 9y ago
  > It wasn't that long ago that Apple was using as a marketing tool, the number of App's on the app store. They literally marketed number of apps downloaded just yesterday in WWDC.
likelynew 9y ago
Isn't $100/year enough for the access and making sure that product works fine. For publicity, it's two way and nowhere should take 30% if there is a free market for app store.
- alwillis 9y ago
  For subscriptions, it drops to 15% after one year: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/subscriptions/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/subscriptions/
- hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
  Back in the day when software was sold in boxes in retail stores, I guarantee those retail stores were taking well north of 30%.
  - _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
    Because they've stocked the products and paid for them, and threw away/discounted everything they did not sell. Vendors could only get <30% if taking back unsold merchandise. It always amazes me how people do not understand the fundamentals of retailing.