4 ms·

In-app payment policies are a major restriction. Apple and Google have unlimited access in offering digital goods and payment methods. Third-party apps are limi

by radley 8y ago

In-app payment policies are a major restriction. Apple and Google have unlimited access in offering digital goods and payment methods. Third-party apps are limited in scope and taxed 30%. If two songs are sold on an iPhone for $1 each, one by Apple and another by [insert music sales app], the small app makes 0.70, while Apple makes 1.30. Lets say each has to pay 0.50 to the label for the sale. The small app profits 0.20 while Apple profits 0.80. That's a 4x advantage for essentially the same purchase.

aitrean 8y ago
Although it doesn't relate to the acquisitions, I'd definitely agree, that's anti-competitive behaviour. Was not aware of that policy.
rimliu 8y ago
A different look may be like this: I made an app and I gladly give away 30% (it can be less, btw) for not having to care about setting up and supporting payment, distribution and updates infrastructure, dealing with PCI and chargebacks, etc.
- throwaway13337 8y ago
  You didn't get to make that choices. It was forced on you.
  - rimliu 8y ago
    Nobody forced me to program for iOS.
    - Scarblac 8y ago
      The fact that iOS and Android are the only smartphone OSes did force you to do that. Unless you mean that you could have made a competitor, but that's inane -- that's a completely different market, with huge barrier to entry. Apple is using its huge market position in one area (smartphone OSes) to give itself a huge advantage in another (music apps). That's the sort of thing companies have got huge fines for in the past, or were broken in parts for.
      - ttoinou 8y ago
        You can have alternative app store on Android there's no technical limitations, right ? And at some point you could jailbreak iPhone and iPod Touch and crack apps but no real alternative market rose up
- radley 8y ago
  Aside from setting up payment, all of those issue are still present with Apple / Google payments. The difference is 3% (MC, Stripe, Visa) vs 30% (Apple, Google). That 27% can easily cover those issues and far, far more. In fact, it's worse. Payment & fraud disputes are also bound to the marketplace. What are the chances that app devs will end up being the ones eating big losses just to continue to exist?

by radley 8y ago

aitrean 8y ago

Although it doesn't relate to the acquisitions, I'd definitely agree, that's anti-competitive behaviour. Was not aware of that policy.

rimliu 8y ago

A different look may be like this: I made an app and I gladly give away 30% (it can be less, btw) for not having to care about setting up and supporting payment, distribution and updates infrastructure, dealing with PCI and chargebacks, etc.

throwaway13337 8y ago
You didn't get to make that choices. It was forced on you.
- rimliu 8y ago
  Nobody forced me to program for iOS.
  - Scarblac 8y ago
    The fact that iOS and Android are the only smartphone OSes did force you to do that. Unless you mean that you could have made a competitor, but that's inane -- that's a completely different market, with huge barrier to entry. Apple is using its huge market position in one area (smartphone OSes) to give itself a huge advantage in another (music apps). That's the sort of thing companies have got huge fines for in the past, or were broken in parts for.
    - ttoinou 8y ago
      You can have alternative app store on Android there's no technical limitations, right ? And at some point you could jailbreak iPhone and iPod Touch and crack apps but no real alternative market rose up
radley 8y ago
Aside from setting up payment, all of those issue are still present with Apple / Google payments. The difference is 3% (MC, Stripe, Visa) vs 30% (Apple, Google). That 27% can easily cover those issues and far, far more. In fact, it's worse. Payment & fraud disputes are also bound to the marketplace. What are the chances that app devs will end up being the ones eating big losses just to continue to exist?