13 ms·

I find it hard to blame anyone for leaving any store when there has been almost nothing of value added in years and things are even regressing. That 30% should

I find it hard to blame anyone for leaving any store when there has been almost nothing of value added in years and things are even regressing. That 30% should have gone a lot further; after 10 years, I can’t even use two different search-and-sort criteria at once to find new apps (and I refuse to sit there and scroll through offensively-bad lists of useless results, much less buy them). I am however not surprised by the slow rate of new features in stores because there still aren’t “tiers” for developers to willingly become early adopters of new store capabilities. When there are millions of apps, why does it make sense to delay any new feature until the infrastructure has grown to provide that feature to all million apps? Clearly there should be a way to roll out enhanced storefronts to a few apps at a time. For example, charge early adopters/beneficiaries for complex new features and don’t roll them out to all apps right away (if ever). And then, developers shouldn’t have to sacrifice 30% for features they don’t use, either. I’d rather have a tiny percentage as the base to provide only essential features, with infrastructure upgrade options! I should be able to give up some low X% for “basic payment processing and auto-installation on devices”, with an option of X+N% to provide “that, plus hosting of app preview videos and several dozen screenshot images”, a higher option of X+2N% for “all that, plus an increased chance of being featured”, etc.

username3 8y ago
No one gets 20% when retailers discount Apple iTunes gift cards 20%.
tanilama 8y ago
My thoughts as well. How could Apple's search so bad? If it indeed brings billions a year, why wouldn't they spend that money to improve the functionality of this revenue powerhouse? Apple tax should be stopped, people are paying penalty to use their sub par software, this is as ridiculous as it gets.
- IshKebab 8y ago
  Because they don't have to. It may not meet the legal definition of a monopoly but a monopoly it is.
  - c3534l 8y ago
    It's kinda like how you can charge obscene amounts of money for popcorn when you own movie theater.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - sjwright 8y ago
      Or an obscene amount of money for replacement car keys when you make the cars. Sony can decide who's games can be published on the PS4, and they get a cut of every single sale, physical or digital. Incredibly, Miele have a monopoly on the retail sale of their whitegoods. When someone buys from a retailer, the retailer act as mere agents; the actual sale is actually directly between Miele and the customer.
- prklmn 8y ago
  Have you ever thought about the situation as being analogous to a wholesale market like Costco? Consumers pay for a Costco membership card, similar to the iPhone as it grants access to the store, then sells products in the store at a marked up rate (Apple tax as you call it). Consumers actually choose to shop at Costco because it’s a great experience for them just as consumers choose to buy iPhones and use the App Store as it’s also a great user expiernce (judging by the sales...if the Apple tax was so repulsive to consumers they may not buy as many iPhones). It would be nice if Costco sold everything at cost with no markup, just as it would be nice if I could use my Costco card at Sam’s club, but they don’t, and I can’t, and yet I and millions of others still have Costco cards and quite enjoy the shopping experience.
  - tanilama 8y ago
    It is different. When I shop at Costco I know I shop at Costco and that is what I paid for. But when I buy Netflix subscription, I am paying to Netflix, not Apple. Does Apple making Netflix as a service any better? I didn't quite see that. And since this is a recurring fee, which makes it even funnier, that I am constantly paying Apple for to essentially ALLOW me watch Netflix. And don't forget this result in a higher price for customer, while Costco's model save customer money. I am however, see it as less of a problem if they charge fee over one-time purchase and make me aware of whether I am paying it.
    - kshacker 8y ago
      When you shop at Costco, you are buying Kirkland, Samsung, Apple, and 100 other brands. Think of it from the perspective of Danone yoghurt. They are paying Costco 5-10-15% right? Because they sell to Costco at a price cheaper than the sale price. How is it different here? There are other arguments to be made about the store fees, but Costco is pretty much like apple store and vendors don't even have the option of saying "hey they will not stock it but you can pick it there anyways", which is what Apple allows you to do by having an app that can be registered / paid for elsewhere.
      - tanilama 8y ago
stcredzero 8y ago
I find it hard to blame anyone for leaving any store when there has been almost nothing of value added in years and things are even regressing. That 30% should have gone a lot further It's not really a market if the seller thinks there's no alternatives, and the buyer has no choice but to put up with anything. Works the other way around, too.
- sjwright 8y ago
  It's not a market. It's like a shopping mall on a cruise ship—you chose to go on this cruise, and if you don't like dealing with the ship as a monopoly vendor, you can get off the ship and buy whatever you like from wherever. Just because this cruise happens to be the nicest, most comfortable vessel in the sea doesn't mean you have a right to expect space to be reserved on the ship for competitor's stores.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Sure, but in the case of the cruise ship, you can just wait until the cruise is over and buy things at your usual store at home. So the analogy falls down at a pretty fundamental level. It's more like you're living in a company town, and there's no openly advertised non-black market alternatives to the company shops.
    - sjwright 8y ago
      Yes, a company town is also a good analogy. Maybe even a better one, though it is a lot easier and cheaper to switch mobile platforms than it is to pick up your whole life. To expand your analogy, nothing stops you from owning homes in two different towns at the same time. (Nobody is forcing you to carry just one mobile phone, even though most people do.) And in this company town, yes they own all the stores and playgrounds, but you can still get stuff delivered from anywhere. (All these phones have web browsers that give you unencumbered access to the wider internet. No you can't play Fortnite through a web browser, but you can't play football by mail-order either, so the analogy holds.)
Abishek_Muthian 8y ago
There are several other big names bypassing Apple Tax such Slack, their bots have their own billing mechanisms mostly via Stripe. But I don't think it is going to last long, I got a message from Kik telling, their bot developers should be registered as an Apple Developer[1]! Meanwhile, Facebook mentions in their bot developer guidelines that no digital goods should be sold in their Messenger platform; likely to 'not' avoid Apple Tax. [1]:https://imgur.com/a/vOVGK2h https://imgur.com/a/vOVGK2h
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
ClassyJacket 8y ago
I think more to the point, the 30% cut for Apple isn't justified because the content isn't delivered via the App Store. 30% of in app purchases that are downloaded from the App Store is one thing, but 30% of Netflix fees is crazy when all Apple is doing is hosting the app itself. Apple isn't hosting Netflix's content, why should they get a cut of that?
- MattRix 8y ago
  The percentage has never really been for hosting, which would be worth a couple percent at most. It's been about access to the giant audience.
- w1nt3rmu4e 8y ago
  That 30% is unjustifiable. Period. If we're talking cost, the cost of hosting software and payment processor fees are closer to 7-8%, 99% of which are on the payment side. The cost of Apple's gatekeeping -- their review bureaucracy -- is entirely their own doing and benefits no one. Software can and should be sold directly. There is zero justification for a middleman with digital delivery. They say it's for consumers which is absolute nonsense when you look at what makes it into the store. Most of it is garbage. The effect on "real" developers is staggering: Discoverability is virtually non-existent, the review process is time wasting, opaque and capricious. There is constant downward pressure on pricing. Reviews have to be aggressively managed, either by begging users for positive reviews or buying them and risking a ban, since people tend to review when they're pissed off. And then, Apple takes 30% off the top for your trouble. The 2 million apps (or whatever it is now) boast is laughable. Apart from the expected stuff (browsers, social networks, etc) there is a dearth of worthwhile software. Which is a shame given the capabilities of the platform and its overall utility. I don't see the US regulating Apple (or any big tech) given the prestige and money coming into the country, so I'm sure status quo will remain. But Apple should really be forced to open up iOS as a platform. And I say that as someone opposed to government intervention. I will say this, if they ever close macOS as a platform, I'm changing careers and throwing away all of my Apple products. Which would be a shame, since they really are the best in a number of areas. It's simply a power and money grab. Anyone who says anything else is full of shit.

username3 8y ago

No one gets 20% when retailers discount Apple iTunes gift cards 20%.

tanilama 8y ago

My thoughts as well. How could Apple's search so bad? If it indeed brings billions a year, why wouldn't they spend that money to improve the functionality of this revenue powerhouse? Apple tax should be stopped, people are paying penalty to use their sub par software, this is as ridiculous as it gets.

IshKebab 8y ago
Because they don't have to. It may not meet the legal definition of a monopoly but a monopoly it is.
- c3534l 8y ago
  It's kinda like how you can charge obscene amounts of money for popcorn when you own movie theater.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - sjwright 8y ago
    Or an obscene amount of money for replacement car keys when you make the cars. Sony can decide who's games can be published on the PS4, and they get a cut of every single sale, physical or digital. Incredibly, Miele have a monopoly on the retail sale of their whitegoods. When someone buys from a retailer, the retailer act as mere agents; the actual sale is actually directly between Miele and the customer.
prklmn 8y ago
Have you ever thought about the situation as being analogous to a wholesale market like Costco? Consumers pay for a Costco membership card, similar to the iPhone as it grants access to the store, then sells products in the store at a marked up rate (Apple tax as you call it). Consumers actually choose to shop at Costco because it’s a great experience for them just as consumers choose to buy iPhones and use the App Store as it’s also a great user expiernce (judging by the sales...if the Apple tax was so repulsive to consumers they may not buy as many iPhones). It would be nice if Costco sold everything at cost with no markup, just as it would be nice if I could use my Costco card at Sam’s club, but they don’t, and I can’t, and yet I and millions of others still have Costco cards and quite enjoy the shopping experience.
- tanilama 8y ago
  It is different. When I shop at Costco I know I shop at Costco and that is what I paid for. But when I buy Netflix subscription, I am paying to Netflix, not Apple. Does Apple making Netflix as a service any better? I didn't quite see that. And since this is a recurring fee, which makes it even funnier, that I am constantly paying Apple for to essentially ALLOW me watch Netflix. And don't forget this result in a higher price for customer, while Costco's model save customer money. I am however, see it as less of a problem if they charge fee over one-time purchase and make me aware of whether I am paying it.
  - kshacker 8y ago
    When you shop at Costco, you are buying Kirkland, Samsung, Apple, and 100 other brands. Think of it from the perspective of Danone yoghurt. They are paying Costco 5-10-15% right? Because they sell to Costco at a price cheaper than the sale price. How is it different here? There are other arguments to be made about the store fees, but Costco is pretty much like apple store and vendors don't even have the option of saying "hey they will not stock it but you can pick it there anyways", which is what Apple allows you to do by having an app that can be registered / paid for elsewhere.
    - tanilama 8y ago

stcredzero 8y ago

I find it hard to blame anyone for leaving any store when there has been almost nothing of value added in years and things are even regressing. That 30% should have gone a lot further It's not really a market if the seller thinks there's no alternatives, and the buyer has no choice but to put up with anything. Works the other way around, too.

sjwright 8y ago
It's not a market. It's like a shopping mall on a cruise ship—you chose to go on this cruise, and if you don't like dealing with the ship as a monopoly vendor, you can get off the ship and buy whatever you like from wherever. Just because this cruise happens to be the nicest, most comfortable vessel in the sea doesn't mean you have a right to expect space to be reserved on the ship for competitor's stores.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Sure, but in the case of the cruise ship, you can just wait until the cruise is over and buy things at your usual store at home. So the analogy falls down at a pretty fundamental level. It's more like you're living in a company town, and there's no openly advertised non-black market alternatives to the company shops.
  - sjwright 8y ago
    Yes, a company town is also a good analogy. Maybe even a better one, though it is a lot easier and cheaper to switch mobile platforms than it is to pick up your whole life. To expand your analogy, nothing stops you from owning homes in two different towns at the same time. (Nobody is forcing you to carry just one mobile phone, even though most people do.) And in this company town, yes they own all the stores and playgrounds, but you can still get stuff delivered from anywhere. (All these phones have web browsers that give you unencumbered access to the wider internet. No you can't play Fortnite through a web browser, but you can't play football by mail-order either, so the analogy holds.)

Abishek_Muthian 8y ago

There are several other big names bypassing Apple Tax such Slack, their bots have their own billing mechanisms mostly via Stripe. But I don't think it is going to last long, I got a message from Kik telling, their bot developers should be registered as an Apple Developer[1]! Meanwhile, Facebook mentions in their bot developer guidelines that no digital goods should be sold in their Messenger platform; likely to 'not' avoid Apple Tax. [1]:https://imgur.com/a/vOVGK2h https://imgur.com/a/vOVGK2h

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

ClassyJacket 8y ago

I think more to the point, the 30% cut for Apple isn't justified because the content isn't delivered via the App Store. 30% of in app purchases that are downloaded from the App Store is one thing, but 30% of Netflix fees is crazy when all Apple is doing is hosting the app itself. Apple isn't hosting Netflix's content, why should they get a cut of that?

MattRix 8y ago
The percentage has never really been for hosting, which would be worth a couple percent at most. It's been about access to the giant audience.
w1nt3rmu4e 8y ago
That 30% is unjustifiable. Period. If we're talking cost, the cost of hosting software and payment processor fees are closer to 7-8%, 99% of which are on the payment side. The cost of Apple's gatekeeping -- their review bureaucracy -- is entirely their own doing and benefits no one. Software can and should be sold directly. There is zero justification for a middleman with digital delivery. They say it's for consumers which is absolute nonsense when you look at what makes it into the store. Most of it is garbage. The effect on "real" developers is staggering: Discoverability is virtually non-existent, the review process is time wasting, opaque and capricious. There is constant downward pressure on pricing. Reviews have to be aggressively managed, either by begging users for positive reviews or buying them and risking a ban, since people tend to review when they're pissed off. And then, Apple takes 30% off the top for your trouble. The 2 million apps (or whatever it is now) boast is laughable. Apart from the expected stuff (browsers, social networks, etc) there is a dearth of worthwhile software. Which is a shame given the capabilities of the platform and its overall utility. I don't see the US regulating Apple (or any big tech) given the prestige and money coming into the country, so I'm sure status quo will remain. But Apple should really be forced to open up iOS as a platform. And I say that as someone opposed to government intervention. I will say this, if they ever close macOS as a platform, I'm changing careers and throwing away all of my Apple products. Which would be a shame, since they really are the best in a number of areas. It's simply a power and money grab. Anyone who says anything else is full of shit.