5 ms·

So, since Apple is the only company "buying" apps from developers, they could raise their cut as high as they want and developers can do nothing about it. Coul

So, since Apple is the only company "buying" apps from developers, they could raise their cut as high as they want and developers can do nothing about it. Could Apple then argue that they aren't the only game in town because of things like subscriptions and web apps? (e.g. I don't pay for Netflix or Spotify through Apple, but the apps work fine)

unlinked_dll 7y ago
They could if they didn't strong arm developers into giving them a cut of subscriptions. This is a major point in the Spotify antritrust suit against Apple.
- mifreewil 7y ago
  To clarify, Apple takes 30% of in-app subscriptions for customers < 1 year. If you retain a customer for a year, then they take 15% of the revenue after 1 year. If a customer signs up and setups payment for the service outside the app, then Apple doesn't take a cut. That's why you can't buy books in the Audible iOS app, or subscribe to Netflix via the iOS app. But you can login and watch/listen to content you've already bought or subscribed to.
  - teruakohatu 7y ago
    What is the justification for the 30% in year one, Apple's costs don't halve after one year? Sounds like they are simply hurting competitors profitability.
    - e_y_ 7y ago
      I think their argument is that they're providing you exposure through the App Store, so they deserve a referral fee for maintaining the App Store, reviewing apps, etc. Normally, user acquisition (getting a user to even think about installing your app the first time) is much more expensive than maintaining a subscription -- also why so many companies are pushing subscription models -- so Apple probably considers it to be worth more. There's also a higher risk of fraudulent purchases or refunds (and associated support costs) for the initial purchase than a subscription. In the past, developers were prohibited from telling users that they could sign up cheaper on your website, allegedly to avoid user confusion; I think it was relaxed somewhat so I don't know if it's still the case. Of course the main reason why they charge 30% for the first year is because they can, and the reason they charge 15% after that is because app/content developers have been starting to gripe about it (probably after realizing they need to make a profit and can't live entirely off VC money). It has little to no relation to how much it actually costs Apple. There's no justification for why it takes a year to get the reduced rate, instead of something like 2 months.
    - lotsofpulp 7y ago
      What is the justification for a doctor making $500k? For a programmer making $500k? For a hotel maid making $30k? Supply and demand. Same with the App Store.
    - monkin 7y ago
      Justification is the same as Google's: https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/112622?hl=en https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ... I really don't get why everyone is bashing Apple for this like everyone else is doing the same thing. Yes, we can argue about openness of Google Play Store, but it's also full of malware, crapware, shitware and other BADware. ;)
    - simonh 7y ago
      Apple makes no distinction between companies on it's platform that compete with it and those that do not, they are all treated the same, so it's hard to see an argument that this is mainly targeted at their competitors holding water. Furthermore e.g. Apple does compete with Amazon kindle store on the Apple platform, but Google doesn't compete with AMamzon yet imposes almost identical terms on the Amamzon kindle store on Android. So if it's ok for Google to apply those terms on Android, why is it not ok for Apple to apply those terms on iOS? This whole line of reasoning simply doesn't make a lick of sense. If it is reasonable for Apple to charge companies on their platform at all, then the evidence in the market is that their current charges are competitive and reasonable.
      - ajscanlan 7y ago
        > Apple makes no distinction between companies on it's platform that compete with it and those that do not, they are all treated the same, so it's hard to see an argument that this is mainly targeted at their competitors holding water. There was that story last year about them ranking their own apps above competing 3rd party apps when searching. https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-dominates-app-store-search-results-thwarting-competitors-11563897221 https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-dominates-app-store-searc...
        simonh 7y ago
        Yep that was pretty skeevey, I’m glad they were held to account and stopped that, but it’s actually nothing to do with the point about not treating individual third parties differently.
throwGuardian 7y ago
Also, please omit webapps on iOS Safari as an alternative. Apple gives no explanations on why it cripples Safari's W3C compatibility, especially features around PWA, but everyone knows it's to drive developers, users and hence revenue/profits to the app store. Someone needs to sue Apple for this, and the truth will be revealed when the case enters discovery mode, when Apple internal communications on this are laid bare
- anoncareer0212 7y ago
  Honestly, they just don't have headcount to pull it off/the manager doesn't care. (hi maciej!) He lionizes it on Twitter as not jumping on the latest fads and gets kudos from Apple fans who conflate "new web API" with "slapdash nonsense Google is rushing to try and make the web beat apps" as if it's 2008 still.
- BlueTemplar 7y ago
  Remember how the first iPhone released without an app store and the plan was for developers to use web apps?
- dwaite 7y ago
  Progressive Web Apps aren't a standard but a Google web strategy term. Different browsers just have different priorities. For example, Apple prioritized service workers over web app manifests (which BTW are not yet a W3C recommendation). I can only assume this is partly because there have been so many failed attempts at static web app manifests in the past. Them prioritizing other features for earlier release doesn't mean that Web App Manifest support isn't in active development ( https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=158205 https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=158205 ).
  - throwGuardian 7y ago
    Missing in iOS Safari: 1. Binary WebRtc data channel messages 2. Browser notifications that a PWA can use 3. Web App storage beyond 50MB, and guarantee that the OS won't whimsically delete storage, despite being below 50 MB 4. You've already cited Web App Manifest There's probably a ton of other W3C standards not in compliance, but the above list is pretty damning.
eru 7y ago
> So, since Apple is the only company "buying" apps from developers, they could raise their cut as high as they want and developers can do nothing about it. No. Monopsony and monopoly don't work like that. See eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_price https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_price Basically, when a monopolists or monopsonists tries to abuse their position, they will shift less volume. There's a finite optimal cut that maximizes profits. So: when Apple increases their cut, they'll get fewer apps developed. Marginal app developers will go work on Wall Street or flip burgers etc.

unlinked_dll 7y ago

They could if they didn't strong arm developers into giving them a cut of subscriptions. This is a major point in the Spotify antritrust suit against Apple.

mifreewil 7y ago
To clarify, Apple takes 30% of in-app subscriptions for customers < 1 year. If you retain a customer for a year, then they take 15% of the revenue after 1 year. If a customer signs up and setups payment for the service outside the app, then Apple doesn't take a cut. That's why you can't buy books in the Audible iOS app, or subscribe to Netflix via the iOS app. But you can login and watch/listen to content you've already bought or subscribed to.
- teruakohatu 7y ago
  What is the justification for the 30% in year one, Apple's costs don't halve after one year? Sounds like they are simply hurting competitors profitability.
  - e_y_ 7y ago
    I think their argument is that they're providing you exposure through the App Store, so they deserve a referral fee for maintaining the App Store, reviewing apps, etc. Normally, user acquisition (getting a user to even think about installing your app the first time) is much more expensive than maintaining a subscription -- also why so many companies are pushing subscription models -- so Apple probably considers it to be worth more. There's also a higher risk of fraudulent purchases or refunds (and associated support costs) for the initial purchase than a subscription. In the past, developers were prohibited from telling users that they could sign up cheaper on your website, allegedly to avoid user confusion; I think it was relaxed somewhat so I don't know if it's still the case. Of course the main reason why they charge 30% for the first year is because they can, and the reason they charge 15% after that is because app/content developers have been starting to gripe about it (probably after realizing they need to make a profit and can't live entirely off VC money). It has little to no relation to how much it actually costs Apple. There's no justification for why it takes a year to get the reduced rate, instead of something like 2 months.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    What is the justification for a doctor making $500k? For a programmer making $500k? For a hotel maid making $30k? Supply and demand. Same with the App Store.
  - monkin 7y ago
    Justification is the same as Google's: https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/112622?hl=en https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ... I really don't get why everyone is bashing Apple for this like everyone else is doing the same thing. Yes, we can argue about openness of Google Play Store, but it's also full of malware, crapware, shitware and other BADware. ;)
  - simonh 7y ago
    Apple makes no distinction between companies on it's platform that compete with it and those that do not, they are all treated the same, so it's hard to see an argument that this is mainly targeted at their competitors holding water. Furthermore e.g. Apple does compete with Amazon kindle store on the Apple platform, but Google doesn't compete with AMamzon yet imposes almost identical terms on the Amamzon kindle store on Android. So if it's ok for Google to apply those terms on Android, why is it not ok for Apple to apply those terms on iOS? This whole line of reasoning simply doesn't make a lick of sense. If it is reasonable for Apple to charge companies on their platform at all, then the evidence in the market is that their current charges are competitive and reasonable.
    - ajscanlan 7y ago
      > Apple makes no distinction between companies on it's platform that compete with it and those that do not, they are all treated the same, so it's hard to see an argument that this is mainly targeted at their competitors holding water. There was that story last year about them ranking their own apps above competing 3rd party apps when searching. https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-dominates-app-store-search-results-thwarting-competitors-11563897221 https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-dominates-app-store-searc...
      - simonh 7y ago
        Yep that was pretty skeevey, I’m glad they were held to account and stopped that, but it’s actually nothing to do with the point about not treating individual third parties differently.

throwGuardian 7y ago

Also, please omit webapps on iOS Safari as an alternative. Apple gives no explanations on why it cripples Safari's W3C compatibility, especially features around PWA, but everyone knows it's to drive developers, users and hence revenue/profits to the app store. Someone needs to sue Apple for this, and the truth will be revealed when the case enters discovery mode, when Apple internal communications on this are laid bare

anoncareer0212 7y ago
Honestly, they just don't have headcount to pull it off/the manager doesn't care. (hi maciej!) He lionizes it on Twitter as not jumping on the latest fads and gets kudos from Apple fans who conflate "new web API" with "slapdash nonsense Google is rushing to try and make the web beat apps" as if it's 2008 still.
BlueTemplar 7y ago
Remember how the first iPhone released without an app store and the plan was for developers to use web apps?
dwaite 7y ago
Progressive Web Apps aren't a standard but a Google web strategy term. Different browsers just have different priorities. For example, Apple prioritized service workers over web app manifests (which BTW are not yet a W3C recommendation). I can only assume this is partly because there have been so many failed attempts at static web app manifests in the past. Them prioritizing other features for earlier release doesn't mean that Web App Manifest support isn't in active development ( https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=158205 https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=158205 ).
- throwGuardian 7y ago
  Missing in iOS Safari: 1. Binary WebRtc data channel messages 2. Browser notifications that a PWA can use 3. Web App storage beyond 50MB, and guarantee that the OS won't whimsically delete storage, despite being below 50 MB 4. You've already cited Web App Manifest There's probably a ton of other W3C standards not in compliance, but the above list is pretty damning.

eru 7y ago

> So, since Apple is the only company "buying" apps from developers, they could raise their cut as high as they want and developers can do nothing about it. No. Monopsony and monopoly don't work like that. See eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_price https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_price Basically, when a monopolists or monopsonists tries to abuse their position, they will shift less volume. There's a finite optimal cut that maximizes profits. So: when Apple increases their cut, they'll get fewer apps developed. Marginal app developers will go work on Wall Street or flip burgers etc.