11 ms·

>On no other platform would we accept a scenario where the owner of that platform dictated not only the tools developers can use, but restricted the ways they t

>On no other platform would we accept a scenario where the owner of that platform dictated not only the tools developers can use, but restricted the ways they talk about their products and pricing. We would call it unfair, monopolistic, and overbearing. But on our smartphones, it’s just a fact of life. I am pretty sure game consoles have been doing this basically since their existence. None of them allow you to make 'A' rated games for example. (Considering the topic of the article, it should be obvious I am referring to "restricted the ways they talk about their products and pricing" here) Retail stores keep some amount of control over signage, I doubt Walmart would be particularly happy if a sign said you could buy X device cheaper directly from the manufacturer. In reality Apple is continuing a trend that is normal for store fronts, digital or physical. However, the "walled garden" of Apple is largely why I stick with iOS. I don't want to be forced to trust every company with my credit card information (a developer implementing their own payment system will be an immediate delete for me, with very few exception... like Amazon for obvious reasons). Also lets not forget that we keep seeing reports that iOS users are more likely to spend money than Android users. I would argue that the increased income from users makes up for the 30% cut.

vbezhenar 7y ago
> I don't want to be forced to trust every company with my credit card information This problem is solved with Paypal.
- TheRealPomax 7y ago
  And modern banks that offer their customers "one time use" credit card numbers that you load up with an exact amount, and expire after a few hours if not collected on by a third party.
  - PakG1 7y ago
    Stripe gets no love? :)
    - Operyl 7y ago
      Stripe doesn't offer this as a consumer service, does it? Stripe Issuing is offered as a US invite only program to businesses.
- greedo 7y ago
  Considering PayPal's numerous issues, I don't think that using it as a credit card substitute for online purchases is that great of an idea.
- zentiggr 7y ago
  And now you have two problems. But at least the worst is better than most everything else.
- 693471 7y ago
  Why would anyone trust PayPal? They still owe me $900 from 2005 when I was the victim of a reverse scam. (Buyer claimed i scammed and never sent it; they refused to investigate or accept my tracking info as proof)
  - pathartl 7y ago
    To me this just verifies that diversity is better than uniformity in these scenarios. That's fine if you don't trust PayPal because of your own experiences, but why should we be forced to use Apple Pay?
    - y_molodtsov 7y ago
      Nobody forces you to use Apple Pay.
  - vbezhenar 7y ago
    That's seller problems. As a buyer I never had any problems with Paypal and I don't store money there, so I don't see much risk for myself.
- briandear 7y ago
  Except who trusts PayPal? They can lock you out for no apparent reason with little recourse. I refuse to buy from sites that use PayPal exclusively.
- dwyerm 7y ago
  ...or Amazon. I have problems with PayPal, but I still trust Amazon to transfer money to vendors. In any event, even if you do trust a company, they may not trust you. Bed Bath and Beyond had done everything right to capture my purchase: They hosted the wedding registry, took care of the couple's address, and by not allowing me to select "I'm buying this somewhere else" kept me from leaving to where I could possibly get the item cheaper. But BB&B requires Verified By Visa, and I require my credit card provider to not be stupid about security, so my card was declined. I turned right around and bought the item on Amazon.
- scarface74 7y ago
  You haven’t heard about all of the issues with PayPal for over decade?
  - vbezhenar 7y ago
    Any payment system have issues. I've experienced good stories with Paypal, when they refunded me my money without much questions. Much better than my bank.
- sgjohnson 7y ago
  I don’t actually care. The cardmembers are never liable for fraud. I don’t use my debit card for online purchases at all however. If someone steals that and uses it, I’m out of pocket until the bank resolves it, which can take days. With credit cards, and Amex especially, they’ll simply reverse the fraudulent transactions and overnight you a new card. Someone skimmed my Amex when I was on a vacation in Japan, charged about ¥700k on it. One call to them, they froze the transactions and in roughly 16 hours I collected a new card in the hotel lobby.
banachtarski 7y ago
What? I'm a console developer. I can use any PC I want to deploy software to the console. I can use Intel, AMD, or any other x86 compatible chip (mainly because I don't want to deal with the headache of cross compiling). I can even choose the compiler I use and the IDE. Sure the debuggers they ship run on Windows, but that's just the tools they know how to write, and they are damn good tools. iOS in comparison is downright draconian.
- mikl 7y ago
  If you use a cross-platform tool like Xamarin or Unity, the only step of the development process that requires macOS is the publishing-to-app-store - and debugging on actual iOS hardware, if need be. So it's not that bad, you can do most of your everyday work on whatever OS you prefer.
  - banachtarski 7y ago
    It is bad. Macs are expensive relative to how much usable silicon you get, and supporting a studio that needs to support iOS is tens of thousands of dollars to Apple's pocket I'd rather not spend. Contrast to Android which lets you cross compile from any OS and platform. Also, if you think developing in Xamarin or Unity can be done off platform with some last minute debugging and ship... then you're in a reality many of us wish existed.
    - zentec 7y ago
      So develop for a cheaper platform. First it was complaints that Apple takes too much money from the app sales, now it is Apple's hardware requirements are just too expensive. I get it, Apple takes a 30% hit and it is a lot of money. But managing your own payment platform and sales is going to consume 15% already, so I don't want to hear about how outrageous this is. No one accounts for what they are getting for their 30% when they whine about how Apple is being unfair. Apple is a boutique brand that has a vast customer base of people who don't mind spending money. Want access to that? Pay! This is not a unique formula, look at an NFL franchise.
- 7y ago
dangus 7y ago
Right, the author just forgot about every game console existing.
- inopinatus 7y ago
  And that they were posting on Medium for maximum irony.
- jperry 7y ago
  But it's not true. There's absolutely no restriction on game development machines except that the provided tools (probably) only run on Windows.
  - leadingthenet 7y ago
    Well that by itself is a big restriction.
    - jperry 7y ago
      It's not an intentional one though, it's just what the tools happen to run on. Sony aren't going to come after you if you run their SDK in a VM or something. Apple intentionally restrict developers to only use Apple hardware and software to keep the ecosystem contained.
  - muststopmyths 7y ago
    And you can build Xamarin apps on Windows. I think the point is more about what you can put on a console, the content restrictions, marketing etc.
  - mikl 7y ago
    But you can only sell your Xbox, PS4 or Switch game through Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo (correspondingly), and you have to agree to their terms and pay whatever cut they want to take of your sales price.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
Crinus 7y ago
It is an issue on game consoles too, just because it has somehow become accepted it doesn't mean it isn't an issue that you cannot run whatever you want on your own hardware. "Others are doing <bad thing> too" isn't much of an excuse. Also note that it isn't all game consoles, there are various open game consoles, though since they are not made by huge companies with huge marketing budgets they are not as popular (perhaps Atari's new Linux powered console[1] will change that, but we'll see). However their existence means that games consoles are not synonymous with locked down walled gardens. [1] https://atarivcs.com/ https://atarivcs.com/
- pathartl 7y ago
  It's almost as if there is a very large hacking scene for game consoles because people want to run whatever they can on the hardware they bought. Let's also not forget the whole Other OS fiasco with the PS3. I'm sure if the next Xbox had the ability to run Windows 10 it would sell like crazy.
  - baud147258 7y ago
    > I'm sure if the next Xbox had the ability to run Windows 10 it would sell like crazy. Or even better if it was a true OS, like Windows 7.
    - baud147258 7y ago
      HN, aka No Fun Allowed
not_a_cop75 7y ago
You could label the same of almost any toolset. Look at rechargable tools in construction. Look at the IP protection around John Deere equipment. While none of this is especially good, it's hardly a unique problem.
- michaelbrave 7y ago
  I would like those examples fixed as well. There needs to be stronger rights to repair, and with that allowing for right to run software on devices. With an increasingly digital world it is becoming more and more equivalent with free speech.
Wowfunhappy 7y ago
I wish game consoles were open, but I don't care as much because they're single purpose. A PS4 is not designed to be your primary computer. An iPhone, by contrast, will be many people's primary or even they're only computer. What does it mean for our society if a single company has control over what that computer can display? I see this issue as broader than just competition—I think it's analogous to free speech.
- wheelerwj 7y ago
  > What does it mean for our society if a single company has control over what that computer can display? this is literally every major OS right now.... Mac, iOS, Android, Chromium, Windows.... > I think it's analogous to free speech. what? no it isn't. these are proprietary, private sector companies who fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders, not government entities.
  - felipelemos 7y ago
    It's a bit of stretching saying that Windows and even macOS, and I'm obviously not counting Linux in that, have the same walled garden than iPhone.
  - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    > this is literally every major OS right now.... Mac, iOS, Android, Chromium, Windows.... No it's not! I can run whatever software I want on Windows, Mac, Android and Chromium. > these are proprietary, private sector companies who fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders, not government entities. I am not accusing Apple of literally breaking the first amendment. I do, however, think their actions have consequences for our society and democracy. Imagine if side-loading books onto a Kindle was impossible, and Amazon implemented an App Store-style review process for everything sold on the Kindle store. Would you consider that a threat to free speech? Well, consider what happened when someone made an iOS game about Apple factory workers in Foxconn: Apple killed it [1]. Now, it is absolutely Apple's prerogative to determine what is allowed on their storefront, just as any retailer can decide what to stock on its shelves. However, by completely blocking any form of side-loading, Apple is making decisions about what type of content their users are allowed to see on their devices. That's a problem if the iPhone is someone's primary computer, and perhaps their only computer. [1] https://kotaku.com/there-was-an-iphone-game-about-foxconn-until-apple-kill-5839820 https://kotaku.com/there-was-an-iphone-game-about-foxconn-un...
lancesells 7y ago
Besides video games you could add movie rentals and sales, tv show rental and sales, music sales, PPV events, book sales, Steam... While I do think it's high for recurring revenue every retailer is in that 30% range or higher.
- dwild 7y ago
  > Besides video games you could add movie rentals and sales, tv show rental and sales, music sales, PPV events, book sales, Steam... Can you be more specific? I know plenty of places to rent 'A' movie for example. I also know plenty of alternative to Steam on PC, yet none on iOS device. If you talked about games on console that can't be 'A' rated. I would agree completely that it's wrong and I'm pretty sure that almost everybody would agree. We just don't care about not being to play 'A' game on console. If you do care, believe me, I would gladly say that what you are doing is positive. I won't say, well what about X other place that doesn't allow something else.
  - lancesells 7y ago
    Consider if you upload a book to Amazon to sell they are taking anywhere from 30% to 65% of the sale. Or if you rent a movie from YouTube i'm sure they are taking some percentage in that ballpark and sending the rest to the movie studio. My point is that all of these digital platforms are taking a percentage that is in that range. Apple probably gets called out the most because it's open to anyone, popular and it's fees are transparent but it's really the same across most digital platforms. I'm not saying the percentage isn't high but Apple isn't an outlier when it comes to the fees.
    - dwild 7y ago
      > Consider if you upload a book to Amazon to sell they are taking anywhere from 30% to 65% of the sale. What about Barnes & Nobles? What about your local library? The difference is competition/choice. I'm not even arguing about the 30% on the shop or even the existence of fees. Fees makes sense if they add something. They are well in their rights and it's fine that they do it in the app store. What I'm arguing about is forcing them to use that as payment gateway IN the app. That's not value added, VISA does it for 2.5% (and less) already, Paypal too. That means that they directly remove choice to gains from you. Buy a magazine over Amazon and see if inside there's an offer to subscribe using others means. Go on Uber on Android and check if you are forced to use Google Wallet. > Apple probably gets called out the most because it's open to anyone, popular and it's fees are transparent but it's really the same across most digital platforms. You are not calling out others, you didn't even named one in your comment. You are justifying their fees by the competition that does similar fees. You may want to change how you formulate your comment if your goal is really to call them out.
naravara 7y ago
>Also lets not forget that we keep seeing reports that iOS users are more likely to spend money than Android users. I would argue that the increased income from users makes up for the 30% cut. And arguably, a big reason for this is trust. Users feel more comfortable spending money in iOS specifically because it’s a walled garden and Apple vouches for the trustworthiness of the developers in it. It’s telling that stories about devs behaving badly within the App Store (like the weird VPNs and parental controls that are basically enterprise MDM tools) get way more traction than stories about this.
writepub 7y ago
It's interesting that you cited retail. In retail, there's an actual cost to stocking items, especially in areas visible to the customer. No such cost exists on the app store, in fact Apple makes you pay extra to advertise for what retailers offer for their 30%. App stores and retailers are different. There's almost no cost to list an app (for Apple, Google) and yet they charge a 30% fee. Apple, especially, is a text book anti competitive, monopoly in their terms and it's enforcement. Also, the app store would be just as successful if not for their draconian rules, Mac is proof that ecosystems can thrive without Apple's stranglehold. The app store choke hold is all about the money
- scarface74 7y ago
  So there is no cost to maintaining a digital store, payments, employing reviewers (who actually work for Apple and are not outside contractors), developing an SDK, etc.? The Mac software ecosystem isn’t exactly “thriving”. That’s most of the reason that Apple is trying to bring iOS developers to the Mac.
- nerdjon 7y ago
  Almost no cost except: - Credit card processing fees - Hosting the content (yes minimal but can't be ignored) - Approval process (the people) - "Editors" that create the curated lists every day - Developer support hours (technically you get with the yearly subscription but I doubt that actually covers the cost of those hours). - The engineers building the developer tools (Xcode, the developer portal, TestFlight, etc)
  - Nullabillity 7y ago
    > - Credit card processing fees Around 1.5%. Probably even cheaper for the big fish. > - Hosting the content (yes minimal but can't be ignored) S3 charges $0.0007/GB and $0.00000004/request for downloads as their baseline. Assuming a typical app size of ~50MB, each download would cost $0.00003504. Updates would be even cheaper, since they are usually tiny delta packages. > - Approval process (the people) A problem that they imposed in the first place. > - "Editors" that create the curated lists every day See above. > - Developer support hours (technically you get with the yearly subscription but I doubt that actually covers the cost of those hours). Then charge the actual cost for support, or improve the documentation? It doesn't exactly seem fair to make the competent developers subsidize the people who bog down the support department. (Or, if it's actually common to use these, to use their monopoly to force devs to use a platform so awful that they actually need to call the support.) > - The engineers building the developer tools (Xcode, the developer portal, TestFlight, etc) Which are self-imposed problems and/or inferior to free third-party tools.
mattigames 7y ago
Most console makers make NO money from selling the console itself, zero, nada, because they count on people buying enough games to make up for it, that's almost the opposite of how Apple works, where the extremely high margin they get for each iPhone is their main source of revenue and on top of that they do this thing of charging 30% for each transaction.
- bradknowles 7y ago
  That 30% is specifically designed to be a little bit above the cost of running the system as a whole, but not much. As you point out, they really don't make much in the way of profit on their software or services -- almost all their profit comes from selling the hardware. So, 30% is just the cost of doing business in the ecosystem. If you don't like that, you don't have to participate in that ecosystem. It is entirely your choice.
  - random314 7y ago
    > That 30% is specifically designed to be a little bit above the cost of running the system as a whole, but not much. Unless you work in the finance department at Apple, you have no way of knowing this. And if you do, disclosing this is a fireable offense.
michaelmrose 7y ago
On an android you have the option to pay individual developers but rarely would you find the opportunity let alone the need. On the web you can trust someone like paypal for what thats worth instead of a million websites.
dwild 7y ago
> None of them allow you to make 'A' rated games for example. The sad difference is that we don't care much about 'A' rated game, but we do care about useless 30% surcharge and more trouble on how to pay. If you do care about 'A' rated games, I will gladly push your campaign and not argue whether it's a legitimate concern or not. > I doubt Walmart would be particularly happy if a sign said you could buy X device cheaper directly from the manufacturer. I agree completely, which is why I wouldn't expect Apple to accept on the app store (the market) to let description or screenshot talk about how it can be cheaper somewhere else. Outside of the app store though, on the apps themselves, they shouldn't have any control over what the app say over where you can or cannot buy something. They don't own the device, it's mine. they may own their app store, that's fine, they are hosting it, but they don't own the device. > a developer implementing their own payment system will be an immediate delete for me Same goes for me and I'm on Android. The difference is the liberty to make that choice.

vbezhenar 7y ago

> I don't want to be forced to trust every company with my credit card information This problem is solved with Paypal.

TheRealPomax 7y ago
And modern banks that offer their customers "one time use" credit card numbers that you load up with an exact amount, and expire after a few hours if not collected on by a third party.
- PakG1 7y ago
  Stripe gets no love? :)
  - Operyl 7y ago
    Stripe doesn't offer this as a consumer service, does it? Stripe Issuing is offered as a US invite only program to businesses.
greedo 7y ago
Considering PayPal's numerous issues, I don't think that using it as a credit card substitute for online purchases is that great of an idea.
zentiggr 7y ago
And now you have two problems. But at least the worst is better than most everything else.
693471 7y ago
Why would anyone trust PayPal? They still owe me $900 from 2005 when I was the victim of a reverse scam. (Buyer claimed i scammed and never sent it; they refused to investigate or accept my tracking info as proof)
- pathartl 7y ago
  To me this just verifies that diversity is better than uniformity in these scenarios. That's fine if you don't trust PayPal because of your own experiences, but why should we be forced to use Apple Pay?
  - y_molodtsov 7y ago
    Nobody forces you to use Apple Pay.
- vbezhenar 7y ago
  That's seller problems. As a buyer I never had any problems with Paypal and I don't store money there, so I don't see much risk for myself.
briandear 7y ago
Except who trusts PayPal? They can lock you out for no apparent reason with little recourse. I refuse to buy from sites that use PayPal exclusively.
dwyerm 7y ago
...or Amazon. I have problems with PayPal, but I still trust Amazon to transfer money to vendors. In any event, even if you do trust a company, they may not trust you. Bed Bath and Beyond had done everything right to capture my purchase: They hosted the wedding registry, took care of the couple's address, and by not allowing me to select "I'm buying this somewhere else" kept me from leaving to where I could possibly get the item cheaper. But BB&B requires Verified By Visa, and I require my credit card provider to not be stupid about security, so my card was declined. I turned right around and bought the item on Amazon.
scarface74 7y ago
You haven’t heard about all of the issues with PayPal for over decade?
- vbezhenar 7y ago
  Any payment system have issues. I've experienced good stories with Paypal, when they refunded me my money without much questions. Much better than my bank.
sgjohnson 7y ago
I don’t actually care. The cardmembers are never liable for fraud. I don’t use my debit card for online purchases at all however. If someone steals that and uses it, I’m out of pocket until the bank resolves it, which can take days. With credit cards, and Amex especially, they’ll simply reverse the fraudulent transactions and overnight you a new card. Someone skimmed my Amex when I was on a vacation in Japan, charged about ¥700k on it. One call to them, they froze the transactions and in roughly 16 hours I collected a new card in the hotel lobby.

banachtarski 7y ago

What? I'm a console developer. I can use any PC I want to deploy software to the console. I can use Intel, AMD, or any other x86 compatible chip (mainly because I don't want to deal with the headache of cross compiling). I can even choose the compiler I use and the IDE. Sure the debuggers they ship run on Windows, but that's just the tools they know how to write, and they are damn good tools. iOS in comparison is downright draconian.

mikl 7y ago
If you use a cross-platform tool like Xamarin or Unity, the only step of the development process that requires macOS is the publishing-to-app-store - and debugging on actual iOS hardware, if need be. So it's not that bad, you can do most of your everyday work on whatever OS you prefer.
- banachtarski 7y ago
  It is bad. Macs are expensive relative to how much usable silicon you get, and supporting a studio that needs to support iOS is tens of thousands of dollars to Apple's pocket I'd rather not spend. Contrast to Android which lets you cross compile from any OS and platform. Also, if you think developing in Xamarin or Unity can be done off platform with some last minute debugging and ship... then you're in a reality many of us wish existed.
  - zentec 7y ago
    So develop for a cheaper platform. First it was complaints that Apple takes too much money from the app sales, now it is Apple's hardware requirements are just too expensive. I get it, Apple takes a 30% hit and it is a lot of money. But managing your own payment platform and sales is going to consume 15% already, so I don't want to hear about how outrageous this is. No one accounts for what they are getting for their 30% when they whine about how Apple is being unfair. Apple is a boutique brand that has a vast customer base of people who don't mind spending money. Want access to that? Pay! This is not a unique formula, look at an NFL franchise.
7y ago

dangus 7y ago

Right, the author just forgot about every game console existing.

inopinatus 7y ago
And that they were posting on Medium for maximum irony.
jperry 7y ago
But it's not true. There's absolutely no restriction on game development machines except that the provided tools (probably) only run on Windows.
- leadingthenet 7y ago
  Well that by itself is a big restriction.
  - jperry 7y ago
    It's not an intentional one though, it's just what the tools happen to run on. Sony aren't going to come after you if you run their SDK in a VM or something. Apple intentionally restrict developers to only use Apple hardware and software to keep the ecosystem contained.
- muststopmyths 7y ago
  And you can build Xamarin apps on Windows. I think the point is more about what you can put on a console, the content restrictions, marketing etc.
- mikl 7y ago
  But you can only sell your Xbox, PS4 or Switch game through Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo (correspondingly), and you have to agree to their terms and pay whatever cut they want to take of your sales price.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

Crinus 7y ago

It is an issue on game consoles too, just because it has somehow become accepted it doesn't mean it isn't an issue that you cannot run whatever you want on your own hardware. "Others are doing <bad thing> too" isn't much of an excuse. Also note that it isn't all game consoles, there are various open game consoles, though since they are not made by huge companies with huge marketing budgets they are not as popular (perhaps Atari's new Linux powered console[1] will change that, but we'll see). However their existence means that games consoles are not synonymous with locked down walled gardens. [1] https://atarivcs.com/ https://atarivcs.com/

pathartl 7y ago
It's almost as if there is a very large hacking scene for game consoles because people want to run whatever they can on the hardware they bought. Let's also not forget the whole Other OS fiasco with the PS3. I'm sure if the next Xbox had the ability to run Windows 10 it would sell like crazy.
- baud147258 7y ago
  > I'm sure if the next Xbox had the ability to run Windows 10 it would sell like crazy. Or even better if it was a true OS, like Windows 7.
  - baud147258 7y ago
    HN, aka No Fun Allowed

not_a_cop75 7y ago

You could label the same of almost any toolset. Look at rechargable tools in construction. Look at the IP protection around John Deere equipment. While none of this is especially good, it's hardly a unique problem.

michaelbrave 7y ago
I would like those examples fixed as well. There needs to be stronger rights to repair, and with that allowing for right to run software on devices. With an increasingly digital world it is becoming more and more equivalent with free speech.

Wowfunhappy 7y ago

I wish game consoles were open, but I don't care as much because they're single purpose. A PS4 is not designed to be your primary computer. An iPhone, by contrast, will be many people's primary or even they're only computer. What does it mean for our society if a single company has control over what that computer can display? I see this issue as broader than just competition—I think it's analogous to free speech.

wheelerwj 7y ago
> What does it mean for our society if a single company has control over what that computer can display? this is literally every major OS right now.... Mac, iOS, Android, Chromium, Windows.... > I think it's analogous to free speech. what? no it isn't. these are proprietary, private sector companies who fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders, not government entities.
- felipelemos 7y ago
  It's a bit of stretching saying that Windows and even macOS, and I'm obviously not counting Linux in that, have the same walled garden than iPhone.
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  > this is literally every major OS right now.... Mac, iOS, Android, Chromium, Windows.... No it's not! I can run whatever software I want on Windows, Mac, Android and Chromium. > these are proprietary, private sector companies who fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders, not government entities. I am not accusing Apple of literally breaking the first amendment. I do, however, think their actions have consequences for our society and democracy. Imagine if side-loading books onto a Kindle was impossible, and Amazon implemented an App Store-style review process for everything sold on the Kindle store. Would you consider that a threat to free speech? Well, consider what happened when someone made an iOS game about Apple factory workers in Foxconn: Apple killed it [1]. Now, it is absolutely Apple's prerogative to determine what is allowed on their storefront, just as any retailer can decide what to stock on its shelves. However, by completely blocking any form of side-loading, Apple is making decisions about what type of content their users are allowed to see on their devices. That's a problem if the iPhone is someone's primary computer, and perhaps their only computer. [1] https://kotaku.com/there-was-an-iphone-game-about-foxconn-until-apple-kill-5839820 https://kotaku.com/there-was-an-iphone-game-about-foxconn-un...

lancesells 7y ago

Besides video games you could add movie rentals and sales, tv show rental and sales, music sales, PPV events, book sales, Steam... While I do think it's high for recurring revenue every retailer is in that 30% range or higher.

dwild 7y ago
> Besides video games you could add movie rentals and sales, tv show rental and sales, music sales, PPV events, book sales, Steam... Can you be more specific? I know plenty of places to rent 'A' movie for example. I also know plenty of alternative to Steam on PC, yet none on iOS device. If you talked about games on console that can't be 'A' rated. I would agree completely that it's wrong and I'm pretty sure that almost everybody would agree. We just don't care about not being to play 'A' game on console. If you do care, believe me, I would gladly say that what you are doing is positive. I won't say, well what about X other place that doesn't allow something else.
- lancesells 7y ago
  Consider if you upload a book to Amazon to sell they are taking anywhere from 30% to 65% of the sale. Or if you rent a movie from YouTube i'm sure they are taking some percentage in that ballpark and sending the rest to the movie studio. My point is that all of these digital platforms are taking a percentage that is in that range. Apple probably gets called out the most because it's open to anyone, popular and it's fees are transparent but it's really the same across most digital platforms. I'm not saying the percentage isn't high but Apple isn't an outlier when it comes to the fees.
  - dwild 7y ago
    > Consider if you upload a book to Amazon to sell they are taking anywhere from 30% to 65% of the sale. What about Barnes & Nobles? What about your local library? The difference is competition/choice. I'm not even arguing about the 30% on the shop or even the existence of fees. Fees makes sense if they add something. They are well in their rights and it's fine that they do it in the app store. What I'm arguing about is forcing them to use that as payment gateway IN the app. That's not value added, VISA does it for 2.5% (and less) already, Paypal too. That means that they directly remove choice to gains from you. Buy a magazine over Amazon and see if inside there's an offer to subscribe using others means. Go on Uber on Android and check if you are forced to use Google Wallet. > Apple probably gets called out the most because it's open to anyone, popular and it's fees are transparent but it's really the same across most digital platforms. You are not calling out others, you didn't even named one in your comment. You are justifying their fees by the competition that does similar fees. You may want to change how you formulate your comment if your goal is really to call them out.

naravara 7y ago

>Also lets not forget that we keep seeing reports that iOS users are more likely to spend money than Android users. I would argue that the increased income from users makes up for the 30% cut. And arguably, a big reason for this is trust. Users feel more comfortable spending money in iOS specifically because it’s a walled garden and Apple vouches for the trustworthiness of the developers in it. It’s telling that stories about devs behaving badly within the App Store (like the weird VPNs and parental controls that are basically enterprise MDM tools) get way more traction than stories about this.

writepub 7y ago

It's interesting that you cited retail. In retail, there's an actual cost to stocking items, especially in areas visible to the customer. No such cost exists on the app store, in fact Apple makes you pay extra to advertise for what retailers offer for their 30%. App stores and retailers are different. There's almost no cost to list an app (for Apple, Google) and yet they charge a 30% fee. Apple, especially, is a text book anti competitive, monopoly in their terms and it's enforcement. Also, the app store would be just as successful if not for their draconian rules, Mac is proof that ecosystems can thrive without Apple's stranglehold. The app store choke hold is all about the money

scarface74 7y ago
So there is no cost to maintaining a digital store, payments, employing reviewers (who actually work for Apple and are not outside contractors), developing an SDK, etc.? The Mac software ecosystem isn’t exactly “thriving”. That’s most of the reason that Apple is trying to bring iOS developers to the Mac.
nerdjon 7y ago
Almost no cost except: - Credit card processing fees - Hosting the content (yes minimal but can't be ignored) - Approval process (the people) - "Editors" that create the curated lists every day - Developer support hours (technically you get with the yearly subscription but I doubt that actually covers the cost of those hours). - The engineers building the developer tools (Xcode, the developer portal, TestFlight, etc)
- Nullabillity 7y ago
  > - Credit card processing fees Around 1.5%. Probably even cheaper for the big fish. > - Hosting the content (yes minimal but can't be ignored) S3 charges $0.0007/GB and $0.00000004/request for downloads as their baseline. Assuming a typical app size of ~50MB, each download would cost $0.00003504. Updates would be even cheaper, since they are usually tiny delta packages. > - Approval process (the people) A problem that they imposed in the first place. > - "Editors" that create the curated lists every day See above. > - Developer support hours (technically you get with the yearly subscription but I doubt that actually covers the cost of those hours). Then charge the actual cost for support, or improve the documentation? It doesn't exactly seem fair to make the competent developers subsidize the people who bog down the support department. (Or, if it's actually common to use these, to use their monopoly to force devs to use a platform so awful that they actually need to call the support.) > - The engineers building the developer tools (Xcode, the developer portal, TestFlight, etc) Which are self-imposed problems and/or inferior to free third-party tools.

mattigames 7y ago

Most console makers make NO money from selling the console itself, zero, nada, because they count on people buying enough games to make up for it, that's almost the opposite of how Apple works, where the extremely high margin they get for each iPhone is their main source of revenue and on top of that they do this thing of charging 30% for each transaction.

bradknowles 7y ago
That 30% is specifically designed to be a little bit above the cost of running the system as a whole, but not much. As you point out, they really don't make much in the way of profit on their software or services -- almost all their profit comes from selling the hardware. So, 30% is just the cost of doing business in the ecosystem. If you don't like that, you don't have to participate in that ecosystem. It is entirely your choice.
- random314 7y ago
  > That 30% is specifically designed to be a little bit above the cost of running the system as a whole, but not much. Unless you work in the finance department at Apple, you have no way of knowing this. And if you do, disclosing this is a fireable offense.

michaelmrose 7y ago

On an android you have the option to pay individual developers but rarely would you find the opportunity let alone the need. On the web you can trust someone like paypal for what thats worth instead of a million websites.

dwild 7y ago

> None of them allow you to make 'A' rated games for example. The sad difference is that we don't care much about 'A' rated game, but we do care about useless 30% surcharge and more trouble on how to pay. If you do care about 'A' rated games, I will gladly push your campaign and not argue whether it's a legitimate concern or not. > I doubt Walmart would be particularly happy if a sign said you could buy X device cheaper directly from the manufacturer. I agree completely, which is why I wouldn't expect Apple to accept on the app store (the market) to let description or screenshot talk about how it can be cheaper somewhere else. Outside of the app store though, on the apps themselves, they shouldn't have any control over what the app say over where you can or cannot buy something. They don't own the device, it's mine. they may own their app store, that's fine, they are hosting it, but they don't own the device. > a developer implementing their own payment system will be an immediate delete for me Same goes for me and I'm on Android. The difference is the liberty to make that choice.