8 ms·

Apple and Google not only created the device and funded the R & D for the features, but also created the APIs, the tools, the infrastructure, and attracted the

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
pm90 8y ago
Nobody denies that they created an amazing ecosystem. But their ecosystem also has no competition: they’ve captured the market, just like Standard Oil did with the petroleum market in the beginning of the 20th century. And neither is good for consumers.
patmcc 8y ago
30% of a single app purchase might be reasonable, we can argue about that. 30% of a recurring monthly subscription (like netflix) is bonkers.
- Redoubts 8y ago
  It's half that after 1 year.
  - 99052882514569 8y ago
    15% of a recurring monthly subscription (like netflix) is bonkers.
    - eahman08 8y ago
      It's not.
      - sidr 8y ago
        It is.
danieldk 8y ago
Apple and Google not only created the device and funded the R & D for the features, but also created the APIs, the tools, the infrastructure, and attracted the (hundreds of millions of) users. The 30% cut they ask of developers is more than reasonable. Want to bypass that cut? Build a web app and make it play well on mobile. I can understand the argument that they should accept the 30% cut to be listed in and downloadable from the App Store. However, an iOS device is also the property of its owner and the owner should be allowed (morally) to install software outside the app store. Even if that comes with potential security problems. Android already permits this. A world where you can only install software accepted by a gatekeeper is a world that is similar to one where you can only read books that are accepted by a gatekeeper.
- gst 8y ago
  > However, an iOS device is also the property of its owner and the owner should be allowed (morally) to install software outside the app store. Even if that comes with potential security problems. Android already permits this. The owner has the choice between iOS and Android. Why should Apple change their policies (and lose revenue) if the majority of users appear to be sufficiently happy with those restrictions (otherwise they wouldn't buy iOS devices)?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - danieldk 8y ago
    I won't deny that there are many many users that do not care. However, I disagree that there is a real choice in the current duopoly. Android allows you to install applications outside the app store. However, you trade this possibility for continuous data harvesting by Google and only a limited window of updates. So, the choice is largely: some freedom ^ (privacy | long-term updates) Freedom, privacy, and long-term updates are all important to me, so there is no real choice.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      Just because you aren't having all your desires perfectly catered to does not mean that there is not real choice. It means that, like everything else in life, you have to make tradeoffs.
swsieber 8y ago
I guess they aren't thugs - they're just unreasonable rent seekers at this point.
godman_8 8y ago
I don't think the app owners should get a free ride but 30% is waaaay too much of a chunk. Even 15% is a lot of money after the first year. I'm almost positive 5% would cover costs and sprinkle some profit on top.
beaner 8y ago
Do you think this argument also applies to personal computers? If not, what's the difference?
- berbec 8y ago
  I am not 100% sure and able to provide a link, but I'm almost certain the Microsoft store does this too.
  - beaner 8y ago
    Even if it did, on a pc you can still install apps from outside of the store without root access.
autokad 8y ago
> "he 30% cut they ask of developers is more than reasonable." Not really, the fee's much of big tech often puts on people are draconian, and they are able to continue doing so because of the monopolies they hold. 30% is huge. Just try running a business when you loose 30% strait off the top line. > "Want to bypass that cut?" break the monopolies. The cuts big tech muscle on their constituents actually hurts them in the long run. Facebook's cuts are so deep, its nearly impossible to run a sustainable business and ultimately limits the apps and services people are providing through facebook to their users. I'd argue the same for mobile.
- naravara 8y ago
  >Just try running a business when you loose 30% strait off the top line. Brick and mortar retail does just that. Even online retail, once you factor in the costs of maintaining a secure payment system, managing fulfillment, customer service, etc. it winds up adding up to a lot.
- d1zzy 8y ago
  Because instead of having 2 players that ask for 30% cut, having 6 that do the same is going to make Netflix any happier. There's no reason to think other similar platforms wouldn't charge the same. Look at GOG vs Steam, both charge 30% too, even tho GOG is much smaller market and for devs it means spending resources making the GOG version in addition to the Steam version, GOG still charges as much as Steam and doesn't see a reason to lower the cut.
  - jjrh 8y ago
    Well in the case of games, you end up with the big players making their own store like EA did with Origin (or Epic, Blizzard....) Which kinda sucks since you now have a bunch of apps with different logins. I'm also not convinced you would end up with 6 players all taking the same %. Take a smaller cut, and offer a lower price to the consumer so people use your store.
- nickjj 8y ago
  > Just try running a business when you loose 30% strait off the top line. What's your take on taxes? Most business owners lose a lot more than 30% straight off the top from governments with no way to opt out (other than not to work at all which isn't really feasible in most countries if you want to enjoy your life).
8note 8y ago
But the webapp will still play through apples browser, and apple should still get a cut on all your sales for providing it
vorpalhex 8y ago
They uh, could charge for the operating system if they wanted to recoup their costs. Or, they could have their app store with their 30% cut, and allow other app stores to be available. Google does this, it solves 99% of the problems available, and seems to be an OK balance. Apple totally disallows this, has a draconian policy, and does everything in their power to make sideloading borderline impossible - oh, and prevents sales of anything through apps, which makes things like the Kindle app useless. By your logic, your ISP ran all the lines, runs the service, services your modem, and should be allowed to determine exactly what websites you can and can not visit, and if it wants to charge you $50/month to go to Netflix.com then it can.
- rootusrootus 8y ago
  1) My ISP got a hefty chunk of my tax dollars to run those lines. 2) They have a monopoly. Rules are different for monopolies.
maxsilver 8y ago
"Visa and Mastercard not only created the device used for payments, but funded the R&D for it, widely deployed all of the payment readers, created the entire ecosystem of businesses that use it, support all of this infrastructure (for hundreds of millions of users). So, a 30% cut of every purchase made using a Visa card is more than reasonable."
- jonathanyc 8y ago
  Yep. The difference is that even though your choice of payment network is still relatively limited, there at least is some genuine competition on price. The Android/iOS duopoly seems to have become stuck at a particularly bad Nash equilibrium. 30% would never survive in a competitive market.
  - Marsymars 8y ago
    I'm doubtful competition mechanics would work to reduce the app store cut even if it wasn't equal between Android and iOS. If Google were to cut its rate to 10%, then what? App publishers aren't going to stop publishing on iOS. Even if cross-platform apps changed their pricing schemes to be cheaper on Android than iOS, I doubt many iOS users would be particularly put off by the extra 20 points in the cost of their apps.
    - jonathanyc 8y ago
      The point is that the market is not competitive. Tweaking rates doesn’t suddenly make the market competitive. For just one tiny example, consider web browsers—iOS doesn’t even allow browser engines aside than WebKit. Now compare this situation with that of desktop operating systems, which are still not a super competitive market by any means, but where the fact that Windows users could install browsers other than IE meant that web browsers became a competitive market, leading directly to the increasing capabilities of web apps, leading in turn to the possibility of Google’s office products even existing, making office software more competitive, and that in turn making Chromebooks feasible, which leads all the way back to making desktop operating systems more competitive. You can’t consider the effects of tweaking one number and conclude that a market would be changed/unchanged by competition—these sorts of things are extremely interdependent.
markkanof 8y ago
But in a case like Netflix the whole ecosystem that Apple/Google have built aren’t providing any value for Netflix. No one discovers Netflix through the App Store. The iPhone is just one more device that Netflix will try to support because customers want to be able to access Netflix on as many different types of devices as possible. This is way different than for example an indie dev building a game that is best enjoyed on a mobile device.
- IMTDb 8y ago
  Netflix can choose to disable subscribing to it's services through the app. Maybe no one "discovers" netflix through an iOS device, but apparently a lot are starting their subscription through it.
  - true_religion 8y ago
    Netflix can't disable subscriptions and simply write "please go to Netflix.com to start your trial" or else Apple will reject that app.
- macintux 8y ago
  > But in a case like Netflix the whole ecosystem that Apple/Google have built aren’t providing any value for Netflix. There's some added value. I wouldn't have a Netflix subscription without an iPad, since I don't own a TV.
Karishmra1234 8y ago
I do not agree that 30% is a reasonable cut and do not agree that it should be flat. In most ad networks the revshare starts at 30/70 and you can always negotiate and get upto 10/90. Mind you this is where the adnetwork is supposed to actively provide infrastructure to serve ad impressions. Google and Apple are able to get away because of lack of competition and that is where I think the real imbalance lies
kodablah 8y ago
> Apple and Google not only created the device and funded the R & D for the features, but also created the APIs, the tools, the infrastructure, and attracted the (hundreds of millions of) users. The 30% cut they ask of developers is more than reasonable. Do you believe this with regards to laptops? Laptops masquerading as tablets? Tablets? If not, why? And if it was the case with laptops, i.e. near 100% of users are on only two OS's both (and especially one) of which effectively force native apps through their channel for discovery, would you change your stance or accept that as a reasonable development/computing model for native development?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
naravara 8y ago
>Build a web app and make it play well on mobile. I suspect most of the executives making these decisions not only don't even know such a thing is possible, but probably don't even understand wha the difference is. The vast VAST majority of apps in the iOS App Store would be better served by just being websites. If those services would just focus on making decent sites for the mobile web instead of expecting all mobile visitors to download a separate app they would be much better. The only thing that would make web apps better is ways to take advantage of the identity management and authorization stuff you can do by installing through the App Store. If Apple could just create a way to do that the mobile web would be 1000x better.
kryptiskt 8y ago
It's rent-seeking behavior and negative for society. If they don't want to open their platform for competition then the app stores should be regulated like the public utilities they are.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
As a counter point consider Microsoft Windows. It also represented a huge investment and R&D and for the most part, you can easily build and deploy and application to anybody without ever having to pay a fee. That was because Microsoft made money from selling Windows. With Android, Google gives it away free and has to extract money by either monetizing user data, or taking a cut from application developers.
- nijave 8y ago
  Android OS is free but manufacturers still pay for the Google ecosystem that sits on top https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/23/how-google-controls-androids-open-source https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/technology/...
ryanianian 8y ago
Not thugs, just deceptive and double-dipping (in a short-sighted, money-grabbing way). I'm the customer when I buy the phone, but then I'm the product when I buy software. This double-aligns the incentives and is the reason why it's such a terrible (non-existent) experience trying to buy digital media on an iPhone. Sure, Amazon & Netflix could pay the 30% cut and make it seamless for me, but this is similar to a trade tariff. Ultimately the cost will be paid by the users of the phones since companies have to charge those users more to make the same profit. This is "fair" from a "welcome to capitalism" stance, but it's outright counter to usual mantra of "we make money when people buy devices." (s/Apple/Google/ if you want)
erentz 8y ago
I don’t know how this came to be accepted as normal. I’m older so I remember when you used to buy a device or OS and software to run on it separately. What you paid for the device or OS was what funded those things. There is no reason why the same shouldn’t be true for Apple iOS/iPhone and Google Android/whatever-they’re-stopping-support-for-next. App Store takes a cut to use the App Store? Fine. But a reasonable cut simply for that convenience would be more like 10%. Wonder if we’ll ever see a government crack down on tech company monopolies again (or any monopoly).
- rootusrootus 8y ago
  They would have to have a monopoly first, yes? Otherwise you're just asking for tighter regulations across the board.
drb91 8y ago
> Apple and Google not only created the device and funded the R & D for the features, but also created the APIs, the tools, the infrastructure, and attracted the (hundreds of millions of) users. The 30% cut they ask of developers is more than reasonable. I follow you up until the 30% cut. Users are already paying for the hardware and software. Why is Apple taking a continual cut for value produced by other parties? If anything, they should be paying the writers of the software for selling their phones. Without the apps on the store, they're just a browser and a phone stuck together.
- rootusrootus 8y ago
  They made a bet that the platform was worth more than any individual app. Seems to be working out so far. Prove 'em wrong.
  - drb91 8y ago
    Of course that’s where the value is. Why are they charging me to use it twice, once on purchase of the phone and then on every app purchase? The value seems to be for app curation, which is atrocious. This is incredibly harmful to consumer choice.
dangjc 8y ago
They are thugs, using their market power to extract more than their fair share. In a competitive market, you may gain an advantage because you came up with the first fancy cafe chain, but then other coffee shops are built and keep the price of fancy coffee at cost plus some reasonable margin. Apple and Google have raked in tens of billions from their app stores, which has long since surpassed the cost of building them. If the market had fair competition, we would have many other viable app stores, not unlike the way we have so many apps. This is why EU antitrust is starting to scrutinize Google for forcing its app store to be bundled with Android.
alienreborn 8y ago
Straight out of r/HailCorporate
Neil44 8y ago
This is not an indie game that needs exposure and a platform from Apple, this is Netflix and I would argue they receive little to no value from Apple.
zahrc 8y ago
I personally find Netflix is being a little bit of a hypocrite there. Netflix is actively using the play store to identify old and unidentified devices and roms to stop them from downloading the app. Not judging them here, just saying.
ryneandal 8y ago
I think the number is too high, but a portion of proceeds to Google/Apple is certainly justified. At least Epic Games is practicing what they preach. UE4 is free to use, and here's their royalty breakdown: > UE4 is free to use, with a 5% royalty on gross product revenue after the first $3,000 per game per calendar quarter from commercial products.
- inawarminister 8y ago
  And after the runaway success of Fortnite, they repaid out excess cost to developers: >The increase (of rate paid to creators), from 70 percent of the sales price to a new 88 percent pay rate, will also apply retroactively, with additional payments doled out for all sales since the Unreal Marketplace's 2014 launch.[0] [0] https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/07/epic-ups-unreal-marketplace-creators-pay-well-above-industry-standard/ https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/07/epic-ups-unreal-marke...
hamandcheese 8y ago
Some might say the $600-$1000 price tag paid by consumers should reasonably cover everything.
smacktoward 8y ago
> The 30% cut they ask of developers is more than reasonable. When you're a platform vendor, what's reasonable is something you work out collaboratively with the people who use your platform. They will frequently have different ideas of what's reasonable than you do. You can disagree, but if you simply refuse to negotiate the users will eventually get fed up and go somewhere else. To succeed as a platform vendor you need users, so it's in your interest to be flexible enough to find a modus vivendi that both you and your users feel is reasonable -- or at least, close enough to reasonable for everyone to live with.
funwie 8y ago
>Apple and Google not only created the device and funded the R & D for the features, App developers have to pay for Apple’s and Google’s R&D and devices? Do consumers not pay for this when they buy their devices. >but also created the APIs, the tools, the infrastructure, and attracted the (hundreds of millions of) users. These were created for their consumers and not for developers. You think features are added to their devices to please developers? Why do developers have to pay for these things? >The 30% cut they ask of developers is more than reasonable. More than reasonable? Do a little experiment. Run a business and have 30% of your revenue taken from you.
asdkhadsj 8y ago
> The 30% cut they ask of developers is more than reasonable. If only we could prove this. Ie, is Apple honestly selling $1,200 phones for a loss such that they need to recoup money from the App Store to turn a profit? If they didn't take the %30 cut, would they still be profitable? I'm not proving a point, simply asking questions I'm curious about. Would be neat if we knew these answers.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  Neither one of those questions is relevant, though.
  - asdkhadsj 8y ago
    How so? The comment I was replying to was calling 30% unnecessary/unreasonable. However, that's quite the relative statement, no? If (with an obviously fake example) 30% allowed them to break even, who would call that unreasonable? I feel like the idea of what is reasonable or not is entirely dependent on how much profit they're making. For ease of discussion, I think it would be very reasonable if customer costs reflected operational costs. Ie, sell the phone for just a bit over phone costs (including R&D/etc), sell iCloud for a bit over operating costs, sell App Store usage for a bit over operating costs, etc. All of that would be very reasonable, no? So what is reasonable and what is not reasonable seems entirely to do with how much profit they're turning. Which of course, as my question asks, is nearly impossible to understand from the outside.
mping 8y ago
Following that logic, it should require the 30% until the costs of R&D are covered. This is monopolistic behaviour. I write an app, can't install on someone's device without paying apple? Want 30% fine but it's my device, I should be able to put whatever I want in there. Let's face it, the best price is when people complain but pay. This is just extracting more money, plain and simple.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
bostik 8y ago
30% percent cut is extortionate. Good agents with personal connections and an unearthly ability to land multi-million $currency_unit gigs get 15%. But back in the naughties Apple's 70/30 split was considered reasonable in contrast to what was available. In the dark ages when flash games were aggregated on sites such as Newgrounds that could demand more than 80% of any revenue. In that kind of situation the highway robbery of 30% sure looks like a bargain. But it's still highway robbery.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

pm90 8y ago

Nobody denies that they created an amazing ecosystem. But their ecosystem also has no competition: they’ve captured the market, just like Standard Oil did with the petroleum market in the beginning of the 20th century. And neither is good for consumers.

patmcc 8y ago

30% of a single app purchase might be reasonable, we can argue about that. 30% of a recurring monthly subscription (like netflix) is bonkers.

Redoubts 8y ago
It's half that after 1 year.
- 99052882514569 8y ago
  15% of a recurring monthly subscription (like netflix) is bonkers.
  - eahman08 8y ago
    It's not.
    - sidr 8y ago
      It is.

danieldk 8y ago

Apple and Google not only created the device and funded the R & D for the features, but also created the APIs, the tools, the infrastructure, and attracted the (hundreds of millions of) users. The 30% cut they ask of developers is more than reasonable. Want to bypass that cut? Build a web app and make it play well on mobile. I can understand the argument that they should accept the 30% cut to be listed in and downloadable from the App Store. However, an iOS device is also the property of its owner and the owner should be allowed (morally) to install software outside the app store. Even if that comes with potential security problems. Android already permits this. A world where you can only install software accepted by a gatekeeper is a world that is similar to one where you can only read books that are accepted by a gatekeeper.

gst 8y ago
> However, an iOS device is also the property of its owner and the owner should be allowed (morally) to install software outside the app store. Even if that comes with potential security problems. Android already permits this. The owner has the choice between iOS and Android. Why should Apple change their policies (and lose revenue) if the majority of users appear to be sufficiently happy with those restrictions (otherwise they wouldn't buy iOS devices)?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- danieldk 8y ago
  I won't deny that there are many many users that do not care. However, I disagree that there is a real choice in the current duopoly. Android allows you to install applications outside the app store. However, you trade this possibility for continuous data harvesting by Google and only a limited window of updates. So, the choice is largely: some freedom ^ (privacy | long-term updates) Freedom, privacy, and long-term updates are all important to me, so there is no real choice.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    Just because you aren't having all your desires perfectly catered to does not mean that there is not real choice. It means that, like everything else in life, you have to make tradeoffs.

swsieber 8y ago

I guess they aren't thugs - they're just unreasonable rent seekers at this point.

godman_8 8y ago

I don't think the app owners should get a free ride but 30% is waaaay too much of a chunk. Even 15% is a lot of money after the first year. I'm almost positive 5% would cover costs and sprinkle some profit on top.

beaner 8y ago

Do you think this argument also applies to personal computers? If not, what's the difference?

berbec 8y ago
I am not 100% sure and able to provide a link, but I'm almost certain the Microsoft store does this too.
- beaner 8y ago
  Even if it did, on a pc you can still install apps from outside of the store without root access.

autokad 8y ago

> "he 30% cut they ask of developers is more than reasonable." Not really, the fee's much of big tech often puts on people are draconian, and they are able to continue doing so because of the monopolies they hold. 30% is huge. Just try running a business when you loose 30% strait off the top line. > "Want to bypass that cut?" break the monopolies. The cuts big tech muscle on their constituents actually hurts them in the long run. Facebook's cuts are so deep, its nearly impossible to run a sustainable business and ultimately limits the apps and services people are providing through facebook to their users. I'd argue the same for mobile.

naravara 8y ago
>Just try running a business when you loose 30% strait off the top line. Brick and mortar retail does just that. Even online retail, once you factor in the costs of maintaining a secure payment system, managing fulfillment, customer service, etc. it winds up adding up to a lot.
d1zzy 8y ago
Because instead of having 2 players that ask for 30% cut, having 6 that do the same is going to make Netflix any happier. There's no reason to think other similar platforms wouldn't charge the same. Look at GOG vs Steam, both charge 30% too, even tho GOG is much smaller market and for devs it means spending resources making the GOG version in addition to the Steam version, GOG still charges as much as Steam and doesn't see a reason to lower the cut.
- jjrh 8y ago
  Well in the case of games, you end up with the big players making their own store like EA did with Origin (or Epic, Blizzard....) Which kinda sucks since you now have a bunch of apps with different logins. I'm also not convinced you would end up with 6 players all taking the same %. Take a smaller cut, and offer a lower price to the consumer so people use your store.
nickjj 8y ago
> Just try running a business when you loose 30% strait off the top line. What's your take on taxes? Most business owners lose a lot more than 30% straight off the top from governments with no way to opt out (other than not to work at all which isn't really feasible in most countries if you want to enjoy your life).

8note 8y ago

But the webapp will still play through apples browser, and apple should still get a cut on all your sales for providing it

vorpalhex 8y ago

They uh, could charge for the operating system if they wanted to recoup their costs. Or, they could have their app store with their 30% cut, and allow other app stores to be available. Google does this, it solves 99% of the problems available, and seems to be an OK balance. Apple totally disallows this, has a draconian policy, and does everything in their power to make sideloading borderline impossible - oh, and prevents sales of anything through apps, which makes things like the Kindle app useless. By your logic, your ISP ran all the lines, runs the service, services your modem, and should be allowed to determine exactly what websites you can and can not visit, and if it wants to charge you $50/month to go to Netflix.com then it can.

rootusrootus 8y ago
1) My ISP got a hefty chunk of my tax dollars to run those lines. 2) They have a monopoly. Rules are different for monopolies.

maxsilver 8y ago

"Visa and Mastercard not only created the device used for payments, but funded the R&D for it, widely deployed all of the payment readers, created the entire ecosystem of businesses that use it, support all of this infrastructure (for hundreds of millions of users). So, a 30% cut of every purchase made using a Visa card is more than reasonable."

jonathanyc 8y ago
Yep. The difference is that even though your choice of payment network is still relatively limited, there at least is some genuine competition on price. The Android/iOS duopoly seems to have become stuck at a particularly bad Nash equilibrium. 30% would never survive in a competitive market.
- Marsymars 8y ago
  I'm doubtful competition mechanics would work to reduce the app store cut even if it wasn't equal between Android and iOS. If Google were to cut its rate to 10%, then what? App publishers aren't going to stop publishing on iOS. Even if cross-platform apps changed their pricing schemes to be cheaper on Android than iOS, I doubt many iOS users would be particularly put off by the extra 20 points in the cost of their apps.
  - jonathanyc 8y ago
    The point is that the market is not competitive. Tweaking rates doesn’t suddenly make the market competitive. For just one tiny example, consider web browsers—iOS doesn’t even allow browser engines aside than WebKit. Now compare this situation with that of desktop operating systems, which are still not a super competitive market by any means, but where the fact that Windows users could install browsers other than IE meant that web browsers became a competitive market, leading directly to the increasing capabilities of web apps, leading in turn to the possibility of Google’s office products even existing, making office software more competitive, and that in turn making Chromebooks feasible, which leads all the way back to making desktop operating systems more competitive. You can’t consider the effects of tweaking one number and conclude that a market would be changed/unchanged by competition—these sorts of things are extremely interdependent.

markkanof 8y ago

But in a case like Netflix the whole ecosystem that Apple/Google have built aren’t providing any value for Netflix. No one discovers Netflix through the App Store. The iPhone is just one more device that Netflix will try to support because customers want to be able to access Netflix on as many different types of devices as possible. This is way different than for example an indie dev building a game that is best enjoyed on a mobile device.

IMTDb 8y ago
Netflix can choose to disable subscribing to it's services through the app. Maybe no one "discovers" netflix through an iOS device, but apparently a lot are starting their subscription through it.
- true_religion 8y ago
  Netflix can't disable subscriptions and simply write "please go to Netflix.com to start your trial" or else Apple will reject that app.
macintux 8y ago
> But in a case like Netflix the whole ecosystem that Apple/Google have built aren’t providing any value for Netflix. There's some added value. I wouldn't have a Netflix subscription without an iPad, since I don't own a TV.

Karishmra1234 8y ago

I do not agree that 30% is a reasonable cut and do not agree that it should be flat. In most ad networks the revshare starts at 30/70 and you can always negotiate and get upto 10/90. Mind you this is where the adnetwork is supposed to actively provide infrastructure to serve ad impressions. Google and Apple are able to get away because of lack of competition and that is where I think the real imbalance lies

kodablah 8y ago

> Apple and Google not only created the device and funded the R & D for the features, but also created the APIs, the tools, the infrastructure, and attracted the (hundreds of millions of) users. The 30% cut they ask of developers is more than reasonable. Do you believe this with regards to laptops? Laptops masquerading as tablets? Tablets? If not, why? And if it was the case with laptops, i.e. near 100% of users are on only two OS's both (and especially one) of which effectively force native apps through their channel for discovery, would you change your stance or accept that as a reasonable development/computing model for native development?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

naravara 8y ago

>Build a web app and make it play well on mobile. I suspect most of the executives making these decisions not only don't even know such a thing is possible, but probably don't even understand wha the difference is. The vast VAST majority of apps in the iOS App Store would be better served by just being websites. If those services would just focus on making decent sites for the mobile web instead of expecting all mobile visitors to download a separate app they would be much better. The only thing that would make web apps better is ways to take advantage of the identity management and authorization stuff you can do by installing through the App Store. If Apple could just create a way to do that the mobile web would be 1000x better.

kryptiskt 8y ago

It's rent-seeking behavior and negative for society. If they don't want to open their platform for competition then the app stores should be regulated like the public utilities they are.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago

As a counter point consider Microsoft Windows. It also represented a huge investment and R&D and for the most part, you can easily build and deploy and application to anybody without ever having to pay a fee. That was because Microsoft made money from selling Windows. With Android, Google gives it away free and has to extract money by either monetizing user data, or taking a cut from application developers.

nijave 8y ago
Android OS is free but manufacturers still pay for the Google ecosystem that sits on top https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/23/how-google-controls-androids-open-source https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/technology/...

ryanianian 8y ago

Not thugs, just deceptive and double-dipping (in a short-sighted, money-grabbing way). I'm the customer when I buy the phone, but then I'm the product when I buy software. This double-aligns the incentives and is the reason why it's such a terrible (non-existent) experience trying to buy digital media on an iPhone. Sure, Amazon & Netflix could pay the 30% cut and make it seamless for me, but this is similar to a trade tariff. Ultimately the cost will be paid by the users of the phones since companies have to charge those users more to make the same profit. This is "fair" from a "welcome to capitalism" stance, but it's outright counter to usual mantra of "we make money when people buy devices." (s/Apple/Google/ if you want)

erentz 8y ago

I don’t know how this came to be accepted as normal. I’m older so I remember when you used to buy a device or OS and software to run on it separately. What you paid for the device or OS was what funded those things. There is no reason why the same shouldn’t be true for Apple iOS/iPhone and Google Android/whatever-they’re-stopping-support-for-next. App Store takes a cut to use the App Store? Fine. But a reasonable cut simply for that convenience would be more like 10%. Wonder if we’ll ever see a government crack down on tech company monopolies again (or any monopoly).

rootusrootus 8y ago
They would have to have a monopoly first, yes? Otherwise you're just asking for tighter regulations across the board.

drb91 8y ago

> Apple and Google not only created the device and funded the R & D for the features, but also created the APIs, the tools, the infrastructure, and attracted the (hundreds of millions of) users. The 30% cut they ask of developers is more than reasonable. I follow you up until the 30% cut. Users are already paying for the hardware and software. Why is Apple taking a continual cut for value produced by other parties? If anything, they should be paying the writers of the software for selling their phones. Without the apps on the store, they're just a browser and a phone stuck together.

rootusrootus 8y ago
They made a bet that the platform was worth more than any individual app. Seems to be working out so far. Prove 'em wrong.
- drb91 8y ago
  Of course that’s where the value is. Why are they charging me to use it twice, once on purchase of the phone and then on every app purchase? The value seems to be for app curation, which is atrocious. This is incredibly harmful to consumer choice.

dangjc 8y ago

They are thugs, using their market power to extract more than their fair share. In a competitive market, you may gain an advantage because you came up with the first fancy cafe chain, but then other coffee shops are built and keep the price of fancy coffee at cost plus some reasonable margin. Apple and Google have raked in tens of billions from their app stores, which has long since surpassed the cost of building them. If the market had fair competition, we would have many other viable app stores, not unlike the way we have so many apps. This is why EU antitrust is starting to scrutinize Google for forcing its app store to be bundled with Android.

alienreborn 8y ago

Straight out of r/HailCorporate

Neil44 8y ago

This is not an indie game that needs exposure and a platform from Apple, this is Netflix and I would argue they receive little to no value from Apple.

zahrc 8y ago

I personally find Netflix is being a little bit of a hypocrite there. Netflix is actively using the play store to identify old and unidentified devices and roms to stop them from downloading the app. Not judging them here, just saying.

ryneandal 8y ago

I think the number is too high, but a portion of proceeds to Google/Apple is certainly justified. At least Epic Games is practicing what they preach. UE4 is free to use, and here's their royalty breakdown: > UE4 is free to use, with a 5% royalty on gross product revenue after the first $3,000 per game per calendar quarter from commercial products.

inawarminister 8y ago
And after the runaway success of Fortnite, they repaid out excess cost to developers: >The increase (of rate paid to creators), from 70 percent of the sales price to a new 88 percent pay rate, will also apply retroactively, with additional payments doled out for all sales since the Unreal Marketplace's 2014 launch.[0] [0] https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/07/epic-ups-unreal-marketplace-creators-pay-well-above-industry-standard/ https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/07/epic-ups-unreal-marke...

hamandcheese 8y ago

Some might say the $600-$1000 price tag paid by consumers should reasonably cover everything.

smacktoward 8y ago

> The 30% cut they ask of developers is more than reasonable. When you're a platform vendor, what's reasonable is something you work out collaboratively with the people who use your platform. They will frequently have different ideas of what's reasonable than you do. You can disagree, but if you simply refuse to negotiate the users will eventually get fed up and go somewhere else. To succeed as a platform vendor you need users, so it's in your interest to be flexible enough to find a modus vivendi that both you and your users feel is reasonable -- or at least, close enough to reasonable for everyone to live with.

funwie 8y ago

>Apple and Google not only created the device and funded the R & D for the features, App developers have to pay for Apple’s and Google’s R&D and devices? Do consumers not pay for this when they buy their devices. >but also created the APIs, the tools, the infrastructure, and attracted the (hundreds of millions of) users. These were created for their consumers and not for developers. You think features are added to their devices to please developers? Why do developers have to pay for these things? >The 30% cut they ask of developers is more than reasonable. More than reasonable? Do a little experiment. Run a business and have 30% of your revenue taken from you.

asdkhadsj 8y ago

> The 30% cut they ask of developers is more than reasonable. If only we could prove this. Ie, is Apple honestly selling $1,200 phones for a loss such that they need to recoup money from the App Store to turn a profit? If they didn't take the %30 cut, would they still be profitable? I'm not proving a point, simply asking questions I'm curious about. Would be neat if we knew these answers.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
s73v3r_ 8y ago
Neither one of those questions is relevant, though.
- asdkhadsj 8y ago
  How so? The comment I was replying to was calling 30% unnecessary/unreasonable. However, that's quite the relative statement, no? If (with an obviously fake example) 30% allowed them to break even, who would call that unreasonable? I feel like the idea of what is reasonable or not is entirely dependent on how much profit they're making. For ease of discussion, I think it would be very reasonable if customer costs reflected operational costs. Ie, sell the phone for just a bit over phone costs (including R&D/etc), sell iCloud for a bit over operating costs, sell App Store usage for a bit over operating costs, etc. All of that would be very reasonable, no? So what is reasonable and what is not reasonable seems entirely to do with how much profit they're turning. Which of course, as my question asks, is nearly impossible to understand from the outside.

mping 8y ago

Following that logic, it should require the 30% until the costs of R&D are covered. This is monopolistic behaviour. I write an app, can't install on someone's device without paying apple? Want 30% fine but it's my device, I should be able to put whatever I want in there. Let's face it, the best price is when people complain but pay. This is just extracting more money, plain and simple.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

bostik 8y ago

30% percent cut is extortionate. Good agents with personal connections and an unearthly ability to land multi-million $currency_unit gigs get 15%. But back in the naughties Apple's 70/30 split was considered reasonable in contrast to what was available. In the dark ages when flash games were aggregated on sites such as Newgrounds that could demand more than 80% of any revenue. In that kind of situation the highway robbery of 30% sure looks like a bargain. But it's still highway robbery.