6 ms·

The million (10 million? 100 Million) dollar question that I haven't seen addressed yet (but I'm sure will be, if it hasn't already) - is what % cut Apple is g

The million (10 million? 100 Million) dollar question that I haven't seen addressed yet (but I'm sure will be, if it hasn't already) - is what % cut Apple is getting from the subscription revenue.

freehunter 8y ago
Does Apple let developers negotiate their fee? I thought it was a flat 30% for the first year and 15% after that?
- andyfleming 8y ago
  I think large players have some room to negotiate even if Apple never states it publicly.
- scarface74 8y ago
  If you are large enough, anything is negotiable.
- pkamb 8y ago
  They don't let "developers" negotiate their fee, but Microsoft and Netflix certainly do.
  - zapzupnz 8y ago
    Netflix doesn't anymore. They stopped allowing new in-app purchases. Existing subscriptions done through iTunes, Apple still gets their cut; but from now on, Netflix subscriptions must be done through the website.
- r0fl 8y ago
  Microsoft isn’t just another developer
andyfleming 8y ago
More specifically, I wonder if this is an intentional move to try to regain back some market share by showing that this is where software publishers are and should be selling.
excalibur 8y ago
> Users can also purchase a subscription for Office 365 from within the apps, so they can get up and running instantly. This would tend to suggest that Apple isn't getting a cut. Normally when they take one, it's on the basis of funds being transferred via their store, which doesn't appear to be the case here. But this is a massive deal between two of the ecosystem's biggest fish, and I'm sure an arrangement has been made to give Apple a piece of the pie somehow.
- jclardy 8y ago
  They are listing in-app purchases directly through the app store. My guess is they did get some kind of deal though (Like the supposed 15% deal that Netflix had before they pulled their IAPs.)
- cpmsmith 8y ago
  They take a cut of in-app purchases/subscriptions as well, for apps distributed via the store. That's not to say there isn't likely a special deal in place, though.
- eridius 8y ago
  Apps distributed on the Mac App Store can use platform-provided APIs to do IAPs, including subscriptions, just like on iOS.
- r00fus 8y ago
  No, I think Apple will get a cut, but only a marginal one - probably a "better than Netflix" % deal, and definitely not the standard 30%. Favorability in negotiation terms usually tend to be proportional to the size of the parties involved.
- zapzupnz 8y ago
  Keyword in your quote is "also". An in-app subscription billed through iTunes is explicitly written in the document as supported, so Apple will be getting a cut.
paxys 8y ago
These apps have already been on the iOS App Store for a while, and you can purchase a subscription in-app, so I don't think this will be any different.
Scoundreller 8y ago
On this note, Apple's 30% flat tax is a poor decision. I wonder how much of a hit Apple would take if the first $5000 per year per app was rebated. There's a long tail of mild-moderately successful apps that provide value to some, but may not be economic to continue. With this system, devs could re-invest ~50% more funds into their early-stage product if they could. It may pay for itself in future success and better products. It's like a VC: You're small and a small amount of money means a lot to you. We'll give it to you in exchange for 30% of your future sales. The system works. Netflix does it. AWS does it. GCloud does it.
- dirtae 8y ago
  I agree. I wrote a proposal for how this could work: https://blog.anylist.com/2015/02/open-letter-to-tim-cook-regarding-app-store-revenue-split/ https://blog.anylist.com/2015/02/open-letter-to-tim-cook-reg...
- npunt 8y ago
  Agree, it doesn't adequately capture the full range of business models in the software market.
- jonathanstrange 8y ago
  If you include all the factors like market share, cost of hardware, flat tax, ecosystem tie-in, development costs, then it becomes doubtful whether it makes sense to support MacOS anyway. I'm pretty certain that for most smaller companies MacOS support is a money sink and they just don't calculate the development costs correctly or they want to support the platform for strategical or ideological reasons.
  - markonen 8y ago
    The Mac has an installed base of 100 million. If you think about the addressable market for a "smaller company", that's plenty. Saying that the Mac is too small for smaller companies to bother with is like saying that Germany is too small to run a small business in. It's demonstrably false. Or are you arguing that other platforms have a better developer ROI? That's intriguing. Which ones, and why?

The million (10 million? 100 Million) dollar question that I haven't seen addressed yet (but I'm sure will be, if it hasn't already) - is what % cut Apple is getting from the subscription revenue.

freehunter 8y ago

Does Apple let developers negotiate their fee? I thought it was a flat 30% for the first year and 15% after that?

andyfleming 8y ago
I think large players have some room to negotiate even if Apple never states it publicly.
scarface74 8y ago
If you are large enough, anything is negotiable.
pkamb 8y ago
They don't let "developers" negotiate their fee, but Microsoft and Netflix certainly do.
- zapzupnz 8y ago
  Netflix doesn't anymore. They stopped allowing new in-app purchases. Existing subscriptions done through iTunes, Apple still gets their cut; but from now on, Netflix subscriptions must be done through the website.
r0fl 8y ago
Microsoft isn’t just another developer

andyfleming 8y ago

More specifically, I wonder if this is an intentional move to try to regain back some market share by showing that this is where software publishers are and should be selling.

excalibur 8y ago

> Users can also purchase a subscription for Office 365 from within the apps, so they can get up and running instantly. This would tend to suggest that Apple isn't getting a cut. Normally when they take one, it's on the basis of funds being transferred via their store, which doesn't appear to be the case here. But this is a massive deal between two of the ecosystem's biggest fish, and I'm sure an arrangement has been made to give Apple a piece of the pie somehow.

jclardy 8y ago
They are listing in-app purchases directly through the app store. My guess is they did get some kind of deal though (Like the supposed 15% deal that Netflix had before they pulled their IAPs.)
cpmsmith 8y ago
They take a cut of in-app purchases/subscriptions as well, for apps distributed via the store. That's not to say there isn't likely a special deal in place, though.
eridius 8y ago
Apps distributed on the Mac App Store can use platform-provided APIs to do IAPs, including subscriptions, just like on iOS.
r00fus 8y ago
No, I think Apple will get a cut, but only a marginal one - probably a "better than Netflix" % deal, and definitely not the standard 30%. Favorability in negotiation terms usually tend to be proportional to the size of the parties involved.
zapzupnz 8y ago
Keyword in your quote is "also". An in-app subscription billed through iTunes is explicitly written in the document as supported, so Apple will be getting a cut.

paxys 8y ago

These apps have already been on the iOS App Store for a while, and you can purchase a subscription in-app, so I don't think this will be any different.

Scoundreller 8y ago

On this note, Apple's 30% flat tax is a poor decision. I wonder how much of a hit Apple would take if the first $5000 per year per app was rebated. There's a long tail of mild-moderately successful apps that provide value to some, but may not be economic to continue. With this system, devs could re-invest ~50% more funds into their early-stage product if they could. It may pay for itself in future success and better products. It's like a VC: You're small and a small amount of money means a lot to you. We'll give it to you in exchange for 30% of your future sales. The system works. Netflix does it. AWS does it. GCloud does it.

dirtae 8y ago
I agree. I wrote a proposal for how this could work: https://blog.anylist.com/2015/02/open-letter-to-tim-cook-regarding-app-store-revenue-split/ https://blog.anylist.com/2015/02/open-letter-to-tim-cook-reg...
npunt 8y ago
Agree, it doesn't adequately capture the full range of business models in the software market.
jonathanstrange 8y ago
If you include all the factors like market share, cost of hardware, flat tax, ecosystem tie-in, development costs, then it becomes doubtful whether it makes sense to support MacOS anyway. I'm pretty certain that for most smaller companies MacOS support is a money sink and they just don't calculate the development costs correctly or they want to support the platform for strategical or ideological reasons.
- markonen 8y ago
  The Mac has an installed base of 100 million. If you think about the addressable market for a "smaller company", that's plenty. Saying that the Mac is too small for smaller companies to bother with is like saying that Germany is too small to run a small business in. It's demonstrably false. Or are you arguing that other platforms have a better developer ROI? That's intriguing. Which ones, and why?