14 ms·

Apple is facing rage from developers over the commission on the App Store

128 points by afkqs 6y ago

Jeremy1026 6y ago
Apple has been facing rage from developers over the commission structure of the App Store for years.
- eesmith 6y ago
  How many of the earlier ones lead to EU antitrust investigations?
- mfer 6y ago
  I don't have it handy but DHH, when he went off on this on twitter yesterday, noted that in March Apple decided to be much more strict with enforcing this. Also, DHH is now using his megaphone on this issue.
  - res0nat0r 6y ago
    Here it is: https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1272968382329942017 https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1272968382329942017
seven4 6y ago
Echos of the anti-trust post that went to frontpage earlier today. Seems to be building to some sort of crecendo. Linking as i think the comments apply peripherally https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23548674 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23548674
ReticentVole 6y ago
The single best move Europe could make would be to limit any digital stores to maximum 12% commission. That would truly reign in the monopoly power of these platforms (typically American) and dramatically boost the revenues of content creators (many of whom are European). 12% covers the overhead costs of the stores and still allows a healthy profit for the monopoly owner. I hope that next on the target list is Valve, who charges a 30% regressive tax on Indie games but allows big-budget AAA games to get by with only 20% tax: https://variety.com/2018/gaming/news/valve-revenue-split-changes-1203078700/ https://variety.com/2018/gaming/news/valve-revenue-split-cha...
- noir_lord 6y ago
  The difference between steam and apples store is that if I want to install a game on Windows I can download a binary and run it or use a rival platform. On Apple you don't have that choice so the onerousness of the store policies effects consumers by proxy but the lack of freedom for users directly is far worse. Honestly the EU should threaten to force a requirement to allow third party applications to run, Android clears that bar already, Apple not so much. I like your idea of 12% but can we make it 12.5% (pieces of eight..).
  - nicoburns 6y ago
    > the EU should threaten to force a requirement to allow third party applications to run Threaten? They should go straight ahead and mandate it.
    - noir_lord 6y ago
      Not sure they could get away with it (but would be amazing if they could, the push back would be collosal) but it's a hell of a sword to dangle over Apple's head. And yes I agree that should be the case, having a side channel like that makes the App store behave better because if you piss users/developers off enough they will go around you so then you have to compete on ease of use, discovery.
      - braythwayt 6y ago
        We don't need to debate the tradeoffs, but we should acknowledge that there are tradeoffs. If a side-channel is available to all users, developers will spring into action making games, porn, and discount coupon apps that can only be installed via the side-channel... Bypassing security review. Next thing you know, a goodly number of the world's phones have become surveillance devices, bank account emptiers, DDOS zombies, and bitcoin miners. Whether the benefits of a side-channel for liberties outweigh the negatives of such a future is a worthy discussion, but we ought to at least acknowledge that the walled garden has some merits above and beyond Apple's stock price.
m3kw9 6y ago
Am I the only one here that thinks they deserve a cut for building such a platform?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jxub 6y ago
  A cut, yes. But a business-threatening third of the pie for essentially zero work on their part is extortionate and chokes the innovation in the whole app ecosystem. I'm sure that App Store creators can chime in and expand more on that with real numbers on their balance sheet and what they mean in terms of being able to afford rent on a monthly basis.
  - bearjaws 6y ago
    Not to mention them bullying out competing products like Spotify.
  - philjohn 6y ago
    They don't have to use in-app purchases, but they do because it's easier and quicker. They're paying for that convenience - don't want that? Fine - just like Prime Video - pay on the website, not the app. Edit - welp, ok, take it back, seems like that's what Hey was doing all along.
- Denvercoder9 6y ago
  They already get paid for building the platform when people buy their devices.
  - tosers4 6y ago
    A device is a one time buy
  - m3kw9 6y ago
    The device mainly cover hardware costs and margins. The AppStore is a service.
villgax 6y ago
Bigger concern is the consumer/business lines they draw on IAPs as listed by DaringFireball & DHH over Hey email client.
mistrial9 6y ago
the most careful, thorough, high-design value Apple iPhone app developer I know of, whose product was widely praised in the media with high-profile customers, went broke and now works for a local city government. Basically, even his living expenses in this part of the world, were not met with the income from the App Store.
- kshacker 6y ago
  Since the topic up top is Apple commissions, would an extra 10% or an extra 20% changed his life? Sometimes the Problem is the business model not as much the overhead costs.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Exactly - the 30% is a complete red herring, as is the desire to sell outside the App Store. What is not, is the inflexibility of then App store’s pricing models, and the single storefront for all kinds of App.
  - paulryanrogers 6y ago
    Depends on his costs. I imagine plenty of businesses would be wiped out or never reach profitability if their primary revenue stream was 10-20% lower. EDIT: meant 'lower' not 'higher'
- orasis 6y ago
  Successful app dev here - he didn’t go broke because of the commission. It’s just a very competitive endeavor.
pcdoodle 6y ago
I really hope this get's traction. Apples app store is modern day slavery.
- MobileVet 6y ago
  This is not an accurate analogy and extremely insensitive in any time, let alone right now.
jawns 6y ago
Couldn't the behemoth apps, some of which get a pass from the subscription rules -- Netflix, Slack, Spotify, and others that are too big for Apple to not support -- end this practice pretty easily by insisting they will leave the platform unless Apple agrees to a change in terms? Honestly, if it comes down to a game of chicken, who has more to lose? Netflix, Slack, Spotify, and other subscription apps who still get a ton of revenue from non-Apple sources? Or Apple, who now has to deal with a deluge of irate iPhone owners who want their popular apps? Almost seems like it would be appropriate to have a union of iPhone app developers and collectively bargain.
- conanbatt 6y ago
  It goes against their interest, why would they do something that helps competing apps?
  - jawns 6y ago
    Does it assuredly go against their long-term interests? My assumption is that the longer this goes on, the more emboldened Apple will be to start extracting a cut from even the larger apps. That is already the case with Spotify. Maybe down the road, Apple demands that Netflix give it a cut. I guess it depends on where you assume Apple's market share will be in a few years. If we expect Apple to be even more powerful then, it would be better for these apps to have that face-off now.
    - conanbatt 6y ago
      I think that if there is only 1 music app in the app store, it has its place solidified in stone.
- bagacrap 6y ago
  who gets a pass from subscription rules? And no, Spotify (market cap $36B) is not going to win a game of chicken against Apple (market cap $1533B). Apple users aren't going to switch to Samsung, they'll switch to apple music or w/e.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
samdung 6y ago
With Reference to this: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#multiplatform-services https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#mul... 3.1.3(b) Multiplatform Services: Apps that operate across multiple platforms may allow users to access content, subscriptions, or features they have acquired in your app on other platforms or your web site, including consumable items in multiplatform games, provided those items are also available as in-app purchases within the app. Can i offer a differential pricing choice within my app. In other words if user buys on my 'website' the price is $100 and if user decides to make an in-app purchase, the price is, say, $130 (100 + 30% Apple Tax)?
- kall 6y ago
  Youtube does
- jedieaston 6y ago
  Yes. Spotify did this for a while, as I recall.
  - w0utert 6y ago
    It would appear to me this is the perfect solution for Hey then. Put a purchase option in the app with a clear statement you can get 30% off the subscription price just by going to the website. It could even look like a great offer to prospective customers: 'hey I just needed to go to the website to get a 30% discount!'. Any reason why they wouldn't just do this instead of trying to fight Apple on their (in this case IMO pretty egregious) rules?
    - Jasper_ 6y ago
      Not allowed by Apple. Part of Rule 3.1.1: > Apps and their metadata may not include buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than in-app purchase. Yes, telling customers they can simply get a discount online is prohibited. Yes, they have rejected apps for this before.
    - 6y ago
quotha 6y ago
The real problem here is that the App Store is a monopsony. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopsony.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopsony.asp
- chrisshroba 6y ago
  How so? That link describes a Monopsony as a situation where there is only one buyer; are all iOS device users "buyers" from the App Store?
  - arvinsim 6y ago
    Developers are the sellers Apps are the goods App Store/Apple is the buyer
- dnh44 6y ago
  Yes, Apple is both a monopoly and a monopsony for Apple devices. Just like Marks & Spencer is for Marks & Spencer products. But M&S isn't the only supermarket and Apple isn't the only smartphone manufacturer. In fact both have pretty low marketshare.
crazygringo 6y ago
This is a genuinely hard problem that capitalism doesn't give any kind of easy answer to. Obviously Apple is allowed to charge a fee. The App Store costs serious money to run -- to develop, maintain, support. But when the App Store is the only place apps can be published for iOS, and more than half of worldwide mobile app revenue is made there, there's no competition. Nobody else can go and create their own separate iOS App Store with lower commissions. But the kicker is, there is a real consumer benefit to that -- the entire iOS world is built on a premise of security and privacy that only comes from having everything locked down and controlled by Apple, from a secure enclave to approved apps. There are really only two solutions here: 1) Legislation to define this as a special kind of monopoly situation (a new definition of monopoly, at least in the US) and create some kind of profit cap where Apple isn't allowed to charge more than x% over revenue. But which feels pretty icky -- the government stepping in to tell you you're not allowed to maximize profit like any other business. And what's the legal basis for deciding whether the "allowed profit" is 5% or 50%? 10% or 12%? 0% or 100%? You can invent an argument for any number you want, but ultimately it's entirely arbitrary. 2) Legislation to require Apple, Google, Microsoft, and all OS's generally to allow third-party fully-integrated app stores. But which will obviously do serious damage to the reputation of the iPhone (and mobile devices generally), when people start to associate them with buggy malware apps that drain your battery and use dark UX patterns to trick you into giving them all your location, microphone, etc. permissions. But both seem pretty gross, totally non-market, government-intervention. But Apple's 30% cut is also pretty gross at this point. It sucks there's just no obvious, elegant, good solution here.
- tosers4 6y ago
  Honest question, why is 30% cut gross? what makes 30% gross and 10% not gross?
  - crazygringo 6y ago
    Honest answer, it's the practical knowledge (from experience) that if there were competing app stores, it would be nowhere near that high, because there's no way the costs for Apple are anywhere close to that ($30 for a $100 app). Now that being said, a market-based solution would probably be structured very differently, something like $1 a year per thousand installs, plus $200 per any app update that changes features (isn't just bugfixes/performance), plus a 6% cut of sales. It's highly unlikely that paid apps would be able to subsidize free apps the way they do now. So while there would be winners (like Basecamp), there would also be big losers (hobbyist/independent free apps).
MobileVet 6y ago
Let's be honest, this is a publicity stunt by Hey. The terms of the App Store haven't changed (outside of the 1yr sub provision) in years. They knew this before making their app. The founders of Hey are seasoned professionals. They knew they could manufacture a scandal and it would put their new company in the news. There is no such thing as bad press... especially when it freely promotes your app launch. <slow clap>
- ElFitz 6y ago
  The terms haven't changed, but their enforcement has evolved recently. That's the merit of having vague enough rules; you change the interpretation over time without changing officially changing the terms. Also, said enforcement isn't equal across apps offering similar services (ie Basecamp vs Hey)
  - MobileVet 6y ago
    I didn't say the Apple wasn't in the wrong... my focus was on why Hey was bringing this to the forefront now. They went into this with eyes wide open.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
perryizgr8 6y ago
Can apps charge 30% extra if you subscribe within the IOS app? Can they show the breakup? If yes, this should be a non-issue.
- ballenf 6y ago
  Yes. No. Youtube Premium is one high profile example of this. They charge more on iOS but can't tell you that you're overpaying for convenience of using IAP. A breakdown or mention of Apple's cut is prohibited.
  - zwily 6y ago
    I’ve knowingly paid the premium in the past, just because I know can easily cancel. (Like NYTimes)
    - Terretta 6y ago
      Yes, and costs of churn also explains why it's 30% in the first year of your recurring subscription and only 15% after.
- JapArt 6y ago
  No, is against their Terms and conditions.
- Jyaif 6y ago
  If Spotify costs 30% more than apple music, showing customers the breakup won't be of much help.
rdez6173 6y ago
Agreed that Apple should be consistent in their enforcement of their rules. However, you can opt not to use the App Store. If you think that will impact your product, then this confirms that the App Store provides value - value you will need to pay for.
- adrianmsmith 6y ago
  > However, you can opt not to use the App Store. You cannot really opt not to use the App Store if you want to create apps for that platform. > If you think that will impact your product, then this confirms that the App Store provides value I'm not sure it necessarily confirms that. You might want to use it because it adds value. You might need to use it just because it's essentially a monopoly (if you want to reach iPhone users, that is). If users could directly download apps without going through the store _or_ they could use the store, and people chose to publish their apps on the store then, yes, I would agree, that demonstrates it provides value, and it's reasonable to Apple to charge for that.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
pembrook 6y ago
While I sympathize with the idea of losing 30% of your revenue just paying to play, I struggle to see Apple as being somehow "extortionate" as others have suggested. While they didn't invent the App Store as a concept, they did popularize it, and built the software platform (iOS) that allows the apps to run, as well as built the tools and frameworks (swift, Xcode, etc) for building said apps, as well as built the hardware that the software runs on (iPhone), and then spent billions in marketing to popularize the idea of using "mobile apps" in the first place (ie. Remember there's an app for that?). In addition, when you sell on the App Store, you get free distribution in front of the highest income, most desirable segment of smartphone buyers--because that's the customer base Apple has invested billions in building and cultivating over 40+ years. Given the above, how is 30% extortionate vs. 20%? It is their platform. Anybody can choose to only create apps for Android instead.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- LunaSea 6y ago
  > then spent billions in marketing to popularize the idea of using "mobile apps" in the first They didn't do it for charity though. > In addition, when you sell on the App Store, you get free distribution in front of the highest income, most desirable segment of smartphone buyers--because that's the customer base Apple has invested billions in building and cultivating over 40+ years. It's like saying that Google should get 30% of every website's revenue due to them indexing large chunks of the web. Also, Apple directly profits by having a large amount of apps available for their hardware customers. Maybe Apple should be paying developers to write apps?
  - pembrook 6y ago
    Of course they didn't do it for charity. That's my point. They spent billions on development and marketing to risk the idea people would want to use mobile apps from an "App Store." Spoiler alert, people liked it. Shouldn't they be rewarded for taking that risk? Or is the problem just that they became too popular? Also, the Google analogy would only work if websites were directly built on google's platform. Google did not create HTML, doesn't host your website, and doesn't provide the hardware and browser software for you to access it through.
somurzakov 6y ago
the obvious solution would be to breakup monopoly - force Apple to divest AppStore as a separate company and allow Apple to accept third-party appstores
- caogecym 6y ago
  why consider Apple/AppStore a monopoly given that consumers have the freedom to choose an Android device?
  - somurzakov 6y ago
    same logic as in MSFT+IE. MSFT lost that lawsuit as far as I remember, despite there being alternative desktop OSs based on linux. Apple+Appstore is actually a repeat of MSFT+IE monopoly and should be broken up as such
emsy 6y ago
Why even demand a percentual rate and not a flat fee per item? This discussion should go beyond the App Store and into payment processor and similar “platforms”. I’m aware that businesses use these platforms to conduct their business but at a certain point these platforms become inevitable and you’re basically at their whim.
- dkarras 6y ago
  If they were forced to a flat fee, that flat fee (that would give store owners similar margins) would be unaffordable to most little players.
swerling 6y ago
When people look at this issue they tend to fixate on the 30/15% 'tax'. Is it fair? Is it not? The commission is not nothing, obviously, but misses a larger point. Apple did to Hey what they did to our company. One day we submitted a minor upgrade for an app that had been on in the app store _for years_, a bugfix release, and they told us they would not publish it or any subsequent submission unless we add IAP to the app. We would be happy to pay apple some fair fee to place our app in their store. We all understand that it's not a charity. But that's just not what apple is doing here, or not the whole story. They took an app that was _already_ in their store for years, and froze updates on it. That approach forced much of our company to stop whatever it was they were working on and implement IAP _now_. Mobile devs, backend devs, accounting, marketing analytics/funnelling were all affected. There would be no bugfix releases until that feature was added. The implementation of recurring payments in Apple's IAP is quite different from that of other payment processors like Braintree or Stripe. As such it has added a lot of complexity to our backend services, and has sucked a huge amount of time from our developers, accounting, and from our analytics team. All so we can implement a feature we _already had in our products_ and were happy with, just their version of it. We incorporated IAP in the fall of last year, but we are _still_ trying to digest it into our company, still refining how we handle their subs, still mitigating some mistakes we made in the our initial implementation. And their remain some unresolved question for us on the how best to do accounting and market funneling. The media continue to fixate on the 30% commision, as do must of the comments in this thread. But the issue is that Apple does this by imposing the commission on apps that _already_ have huge sunk costs on there platform, going back years, that already have tens of thousands of users (at least in our case), and then one day send back a bugfix release with a letter that says 'if you want to put an update to this app on our platform, add IAP to it. Now.'
- cm277 6y ago
  Agreed. Apple is an oligopoly providing a service that has become more or less 'must have' So are Google/Facebook in their markets. Oligopolies that are 'must have' already exist. They are called utilities and they are regulated. A lot. And taxed, a lot. Silicon Valley succeeded, they billed an empire (multiple ones actually). They were amply compensated and justly so. It's time for regulators and the taxmen to step in (as with any new territory/market).
bsaul 6y ago
The only reasonable anti-trust regulation would be to allow competing app stores to be installed on ios devices. there is absolutely no reason why a device should be locked down to a single software purchase system.
stock_toaster 6y ago
How does it work for game consoles? Don’t developers have to pay for an sdk license _and_ a percentage of sales too?
sheeshkebab 6y ago
I think these Apple App Store review practices are the main reason why its filled now mostly with bullshit lifestyle and spammy garbage games. No serious developers that I know want to deal with this crap by their choice anymore, it’s all Apples little kingdom there cultivating nothing but spammers that pay to play in it.
- dnh44 6y ago
  Well that's the free market at work. If users are unhappy they can move to different platforms and Apple will have be forced to make things more attractive for developers and users.
LatteLazy 6y ago
I don't know whether 30% is fair or not. But I'd be very very hesitant to develop software where I'm reliant on a mega Corp with monopoly power AND that Corp view me the way whales view krill. That's what both the Android and Apple markers are. 30% would be a lot fairer if there were a guarantee that you wouldn't be dropped from the platform with no appeal by an algorithm...
zepto 6y ago
It’s worth noting that ‘force Apple to allow other stores’ is equivalent to ‘force indie developers to support other stores’. And also paradoxically allowing other stores with fewer restrictions actually means more restrictions for developers. This is because if you are forced to support all the stores, your app must comply with the superset of the restrictions. Apple must improve the store policies to support developers, otherwise the web will just win in the end. However requiring them to support multiple stores will just kill off indie development even more.
apple4ever 6y ago
Apple has been so customer hostile with these decisions on the App Store. Offering IAP isn't a problem. Heck forcing IAP isn't a problem, IF there is a way avoid it - and the best way is to force them to charge .99 but allow outside IAPs. But they choose the worst possible method: forcing a customer to go outside the App Store.

128 points by afkqs 6y ago

Jeremy1026 6y ago

Apple has been facing rage from developers over the commission structure of the App Store for years.

eesmith 6y ago
How many of the earlier ones lead to EU antitrust investigations?
mfer 6y ago
I don't have it handy but DHH, when he went off on this on twitter yesterday, noted that in March Apple decided to be much more strict with enforcing this. Also, DHH is now using his megaphone on this issue.
- res0nat0r 6y ago
  Here it is: https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1272968382329942017 https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1272968382329942017

seven4 6y ago

Echos of the anti-trust post that went to frontpage earlier today. Seems to be building to some sort of crecendo. Linking as i think the comments apply peripherally https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23548674 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23548674

ReticentVole 6y ago

The single best move Europe could make would be to limit any digital stores to maximum 12% commission. That would truly reign in the monopoly power of these platforms (typically American) and dramatically boost the revenues of content creators (many of whom are European). 12% covers the overhead costs of the stores and still allows a healthy profit for the monopoly owner. I hope that next on the target list is Valve, who charges a 30% regressive tax on Indie games but allows big-budget AAA games to get by with only 20% tax: https://variety.com/2018/gaming/news/valve-revenue-split-changes-1203078700/ https://variety.com/2018/gaming/news/valve-revenue-split-cha...

noir_lord 6y ago
The difference between steam and apples store is that if I want to install a game on Windows I can download a binary and run it or use a rival platform. On Apple you don't have that choice so the onerousness of the store policies effects consumers by proxy but the lack of freedom for users directly is far worse. Honestly the EU should threaten to force a requirement to allow third party applications to run, Android clears that bar already, Apple not so much. I like your idea of 12% but can we make it 12.5% (pieces of eight..).
- nicoburns 6y ago
  > the EU should threaten to force a requirement to allow third party applications to run Threaten? They should go straight ahead and mandate it.
  - noir_lord 6y ago
    Not sure they could get away with it (but would be amazing if they could, the push back would be collosal) but it's a hell of a sword to dangle over Apple's head. And yes I agree that should be the case, having a side channel like that makes the App store behave better because if you piss users/developers off enough they will go around you so then you have to compete on ease of use, discovery.
    - braythwayt 6y ago
      We don't need to debate the tradeoffs, but we should acknowledge that there are tradeoffs. If a side-channel is available to all users, developers will spring into action making games, porn, and discount coupon apps that can only be installed via the side-channel... Bypassing security review. Next thing you know, a goodly number of the world's phones have become surveillance devices, bank account emptiers, DDOS zombies, and bitcoin miners. Whether the benefits of a side-channel for liberties outweigh the negatives of such a future is a worthy discussion, but we ought to at least acknowledge that the walled garden has some merits above and beyond Apple's stock price.

m3kw9 6y ago

Am I the only one here that thinks they deserve a cut for building such a platform?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jxub 6y ago
A cut, yes. But a business-threatening third of the pie for essentially zero work on their part is extortionate and chokes the innovation in the whole app ecosystem. I'm sure that App Store creators can chime in and expand more on that with real numbers on their balance sheet and what they mean in terms of being able to afford rent on a monthly basis.
- bearjaws 6y ago
  Not to mention them bullying out competing products like Spotify.
- philjohn 6y ago
  They don't have to use in-app purchases, but they do because it's easier and quicker. They're paying for that convenience - don't want that? Fine - just like Prime Video - pay on the website, not the app. Edit - welp, ok, take it back, seems like that's what Hey was doing all along.
Denvercoder9 6y ago
They already get paid for building the platform when people buy their devices.
- tosers4 6y ago
  A device is a one time buy
- m3kw9 6y ago
  The device mainly cover hardware costs and margins. The AppStore is a service.

villgax 6y ago

Bigger concern is the consumer/business lines they draw on IAPs as listed by DaringFireball & DHH over Hey email client.

mistrial9 6y ago

the most careful, thorough, high-design value Apple iPhone app developer I know of, whose product was widely praised in the media with high-profile customers, went broke and now works for a local city government. Basically, even his living expenses in this part of the world, were not met with the income from the App Store.

kshacker 6y ago
Since the topic up top is Apple commissions, would an extra 10% or an extra 20% changed his life? Sometimes the Problem is the business model not as much the overhead costs.
- zepto 6y ago
  Exactly - the 30% is a complete red herring, as is the desire to sell outside the App Store. What is not, is the inflexibility of then App store’s pricing models, and the single storefront for all kinds of App.
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  Depends on his costs. I imagine plenty of businesses would be wiped out or never reach profitability if their primary revenue stream was 10-20% lower. EDIT: meant 'lower' not 'higher'
orasis 6y ago
Successful app dev here - he didn’t go broke because of the commission. It’s just a very competitive endeavor.

pcdoodle 6y ago

I really hope this get's traction. Apples app store is modern day slavery.

MobileVet 6y ago
This is not an accurate analogy and extremely insensitive in any time, let alone right now.

jawns 6y ago

Couldn't the behemoth apps, some of which get a pass from the subscription rules -- Netflix, Slack, Spotify, and others that are too big for Apple to not support -- end this practice pretty easily by insisting they will leave the platform unless Apple agrees to a change in terms? Honestly, if it comes down to a game of chicken, who has more to lose? Netflix, Slack, Spotify, and other subscription apps who still get a ton of revenue from non-Apple sources? Or Apple, who now has to deal with a deluge of irate iPhone owners who want their popular apps? Almost seems like it would be appropriate to have a union of iPhone app developers and collectively bargain.

conanbatt 6y ago
It goes against their interest, why would they do something that helps competing apps?
- jawns 6y ago
  Does it assuredly go against their long-term interests? My assumption is that the longer this goes on, the more emboldened Apple will be to start extracting a cut from even the larger apps. That is already the case with Spotify. Maybe down the road, Apple demands that Netflix give it a cut. I guess it depends on where you assume Apple's market share will be in a few years. If we expect Apple to be even more powerful then, it would be better for these apps to have that face-off now.
  - conanbatt 6y ago
    I think that if there is only 1 music app in the app store, it has its place solidified in stone.
bagacrap 6y ago
who gets a pass from subscription rules? And no, Spotify (market cap $36B) is not going to win a game of chicken against Apple (market cap $1533B). Apple users aren't going to switch to Samsung, they'll switch to apple music or w/e.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

samdung 6y ago

With Reference to this: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#multiplatform-services https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#mul... 3.1.3(b) Multiplatform Services: Apps that operate across multiple platforms may allow users to access content, subscriptions, or features they have acquired in your app on other platforms or your web site, including consumable items in multiplatform games, provided those items are also available as in-app purchases within the app. Can i offer a differential pricing choice within my app. In other words if user buys on my 'website' the price is $100 and if user decides to make an in-app purchase, the price is, say, $130 (100 + 30% Apple Tax)?

kall 6y ago
Youtube does
jedieaston 6y ago
Yes. Spotify did this for a while, as I recall.
- w0utert 6y ago
  It would appear to me this is the perfect solution for Hey then. Put a purchase option in the app with a clear statement you can get 30% off the subscription price just by going to the website. It could even look like a great offer to prospective customers: 'hey I just needed to go to the website to get a 30% discount!'. Any reason why they wouldn't just do this instead of trying to fight Apple on their (in this case IMO pretty egregious) rules?
  - Jasper_ 6y ago
    Not allowed by Apple. Part of Rule 3.1.1: > Apps and their metadata may not include buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than in-app purchase. Yes, telling customers they can simply get a discount online is prohibited. Yes, they have rejected apps for this before.
  - 6y ago

quotha 6y ago

The real problem here is that the App Store is a monopsony. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopsony.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopsony.asp

chrisshroba 6y ago
How so? That link describes a Monopsony as a situation where there is only one buyer; are all iOS device users "buyers" from the App Store?
- arvinsim 6y ago
  Developers are the sellers Apps are the goods App Store/Apple is the buyer
dnh44 6y ago
Yes, Apple is both a monopoly and a monopsony for Apple devices. Just like Marks & Spencer is for Marks & Spencer products. But M&S isn't the only supermarket and Apple isn't the only smartphone manufacturer. In fact both have pretty low marketshare.

crazygringo 6y ago

This is a genuinely hard problem that capitalism doesn't give any kind of easy answer to. Obviously Apple is allowed to charge a fee. The App Store costs serious money to run -- to develop, maintain, support. But when the App Store is the only place apps can be published for iOS, and more than half of worldwide mobile app revenue is made there, there's no competition. Nobody else can go and create their own separate iOS App Store with lower commissions. But the kicker is, there is a real consumer benefit to that -- the entire iOS world is built on a premise of security and privacy that only comes from having everything locked down and controlled by Apple, from a secure enclave to approved apps. There are really only two solutions here: 1) Legislation to define this as a special kind of monopoly situation (a new definition of monopoly, at least in the US) and create some kind of profit cap where Apple isn't allowed to charge more than x% over revenue. But which feels pretty icky -- the government stepping in to tell you you're not allowed to maximize profit like any other business. And what's the legal basis for deciding whether the "allowed profit" is 5% or 50%? 10% or 12%? 0% or 100%? You can invent an argument for any number you want, but ultimately it's entirely arbitrary. 2) Legislation to require Apple, Google, Microsoft, and all OS's generally to allow third-party fully-integrated app stores. But which will obviously do serious damage to the reputation of the iPhone (and mobile devices generally), when people start to associate them with buggy malware apps that drain your battery and use dark UX patterns to trick you into giving them all your location, microphone, etc. permissions. But both seem pretty gross, totally non-market, government-intervention. But Apple's 30% cut is also pretty gross at this point. It sucks there's just no obvious, elegant, good solution here.

tosers4 6y ago
Honest question, why is 30% cut gross? what makes 30% gross and 10% not gross?
- crazygringo 6y ago
  Honest answer, it's the practical knowledge (from experience) that if there were competing app stores, it would be nowhere near that high, because there's no way the costs for Apple are anywhere close to that ($30 for a $100 app). Now that being said, a market-based solution would probably be structured very differently, something like $1 a year per thousand installs, plus $200 per any app update that changes features (isn't just bugfixes/performance), plus a 6% cut of sales. It's highly unlikely that paid apps would be able to subsidize free apps the way they do now. So while there would be winners (like Basecamp), there would also be big losers (hobbyist/independent free apps).

MobileVet 6y ago

Let's be honest, this is a publicity stunt by Hey. The terms of the App Store haven't changed (outside of the 1yr sub provision) in years. They knew this before making their app. The founders of Hey are seasoned professionals. They knew they could manufacture a scandal and it would put their new company in the news. There is no such thing as bad press... especially when it freely promotes your app launch. <slow clap>

ElFitz 6y ago
The terms haven't changed, but their enforcement has evolved recently. That's the merit of having vague enough rules; you change the interpretation over time without changing officially changing the terms. Also, said enforcement isn't equal across apps offering similar services (ie Basecamp vs Hey)
- MobileVet 6y ago
  I didn't say the Apple wasn't in the wrong... my focus was on why Hey was bringing this to the forefront now. They went into this with eyes wide open.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

perryizgr8 6y ago

Can apps charge 30% extra if you subscribe within the IOS app? Can they show the breakup? If yes, this should be a non-issue.

ballenf 6y ago
Yes. No. Youtube Premium is one high profile example of this. They charge more on iOS but can't tell you that you're overpaying for convenience of using IAP. A breakdown or mention of Apple's cut is prohibited.
- zwily 6y ago
  I’ve knowingly paid the premium in the past, just because I know can easily cancel. (Like NYTimes)
  - Terretta 6y ago
    Yes, and costs of churn also explains why it's 30% in the first year of your recurring subscription and only 15% after.
JapArt 6y ago
No, is against their Terms and conditions.
Jyaif 6y ago
If Spotify costs 30% more than apple music, showing customers the breakup won't be of much help.

rdez6173 6y ago

Agreed that Apple should be consistent in their enforcement of their rules. However, you can opt not to use the App Store. If you think that will impact your product, then this confirms that the App Store provides value - value you will need to pay for.

adrianmsmith 6y ago
> However, you can opt not to use the App Store. You cannot really opt not to use the App Store if you want to create apps for that platform. > If you think that will impact your product, then this confirms that the App Store provides value I'm not sure it necessarily confirms that. You might want to use it because it adds value. You might need to use it just because it's essentially a monopoly (if you want to reach iPhone users, that is). If users could directly download apps without going through the store _or_ they could use the store, and people chose to publish their apps on the store then, yes, I would agree, that demonstrates it provides value, and it's reasonable to Apple to charge for that.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

pembrook 6y ago

While I sympathize with the idea of losing 30% of your revenue just paying to play, I struggle to see Apple as being somehow "extortionate" as others have suggested. While they didn't invent the App Store as a concept, they did popularize it, and built the software platform (iOS) that allows the apps to run, as well as built the tools and frameworks (swift, Xcode, etc) for building said apps, as well as built the hardware that the software runs on (iPhone), and then spent billions in marketing to popularize the idea of using "mobile apps" in the first place (ie. Remember there's an app for that?). In addition, when you sell on the App Store, you get free distribution in front of the highest income, most desirable segment of smartphone buyers--because that's the customer base Apple has invested billions in building and cultivating over 40+ years. Given the above, how is 30% extortionate vs. 20%? It is their platform. Anybody can choose to only create apps for Android instead.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
LunaSea 6y ago
> then spent billions in marketing to popularize the idea of using "mobile apps" in the first They didn't do it for charity though. > In addition, when you sell on the App Store, you get free distribution in front of the highest income, most desirable segment of smartphone buyers--because that's the customer base Apple has invested billions in building and cultivating over 40+ years. It's like saying that Google should get 30% of every website's revenue due to them indexing large chunks of the web. Also, Apple directly profits by having a large amount of apps available for their hardware customers. Maybe Apple should be paying developers to write apps?
- pembrook 6y ago
  Of course they didn't do it for charity. That's my point. They spent billions on development and marketing to risk the idea people would want to use mobile apps from an "App Store." Spoiler alert, people liked it. Shouldn't they be rewarded for taking that risk? Or is the problem just that they became too popular? Also, the Google analogy would only work if websites were directly built on google's platform. Google did not create HTML, doesn't host your website, and doesn't provide the hardware and browser software for you to access it through.

somurzakov 6y ago

the obvious solution would be to breakup monopoly - force Apple to divest AppStore as a separate company and allow Apple to accept third-party appstores

caogecym 6y ago
why consider Apple/AppStore a monopoly given that consumers have the freedom to choose an Android device?
- somurzakov 6y ago
  same logic as in MSFT+IE. MSFT lost that lawsuit as far as I remember, despite there being alternative desktop OSs based on linux. Apple+Appstore is actually a repeat of MSFT+IE monopoly and should be broken up as such

emsy 6y ago

Why even demand a percentual rate and not a flat fee per item? This discussion should go beyond the App Store and into payment processor and similar “platforms”. I’m aware that businesses use these platforms to conduct their business but at a certain point these platforms become inevitable and you’re basically at their whim.

dkarras 6y ago
If they were forced to a flat fee, that flat fee (that would give store owners similar margins) would be unaffordable to most little players.

swerling 6y ago

When people look at this issue they tend to fixate on the 30/15% 'tax'. Is it fair? Is it not? The commission is not nothing, obviously, but misses a larger point. Apple did to Hey what they did to our company. One day we submitted a minor upgrade for an app that had been on in the app store _for years_, a bugfix release, and they told us they would not publish it or any subsequent submission unless we add IAP to the app. We would be happy to pay apple some fair fee to place our app in their store. We all understand that it's not a charity. But that's just not what apple is doing here, or not the whole story. They took an app that was _already_ in their store for years, and froze updates on it. That approach forced much of our company to stop whatever it was they were working on and implement IAP _now_. Mobile devs, backend devs, accounting, marketing analytics/funnelling were all affected. There would be no bugfix releases until that feature was added. The implementation of recurring payments in Apple's IAP is quite different from that of other payment processors like Braintree or Stripe. As such it has added a lot of complexity to our backend services, and has sucked a huge amount of time from our developers, accounting, and from our analytics team. All so we can implement a feature we _already had in our products_ and were happy with, just their version of it. We incorporated IAP in the fall of last year, but we are _still_ trying to digest it into our company, still refining how we handle their subs, still mitigating some mistakes we made in the our initial implementation. And their remain some unresolved question for us on the how best to do accounting and market funneling. The media continue to fixate on the 30% commision, as do must of the comments in this thread. But the issue is that Apple does this by imposing the commission on apps that _already_ have huge sunk costs on there platform, going back years, that already have tens of thousands of users (at least in our case), and then one day send back a bugfix release with a letter that says 'if you want to put an update to this app on our platform, add IAP to it. Now.'

cm277 6y ago
Agreed. Apple is an oligopoly providing a service that has become more or less 'must have' So are Google/Facebook in their markets. Oligopolies that are 'must have' already exist. They are called utilities and they are regulated. A lot. And taxed, a lot. Silicon Valley succeeded, they billed an empire (multiple ones actually). They were amply compensated and justly so. It's time for regulators and the taxmen to step in (as with any new territory/market).

bsaul 6y ago

The only reasonable anti-trust regulation would be to allow competing app stores to be installed on ios devices. there is absolutely no reason why a device should be locked down to a single software purchase system.

stock_toaster 6y ago

How does it work for game consoles? Don’t developers have to pay for an sdk license _and_ a percentage of sales too?

sheeshkebab 6y ago

I think these Apple App Store review practices are the main reason why its filled now mostly with bullshit lifestyle and spammy garbage games. No serious developers that I know want to deal with this crap by their choice anymore, it’s all Apples little kingdom there cultivating nothing but spammers that pay to play in it.

dnh44 6y ago
Well that's the free market at work. If users are unhappy they can move to different platforms and Apple will have be forced to make things more attractive for developers and users.

LatteLazy 6y ago

I don't know whether 30% is fair or not. But I'd be very very hesitant to develop software where I'm reliant on a mega Corp with monopoly power AND that Corp view me the way whales view krill. That's what both the Android and Apple markers are. 30% would be a lot fairer if there were a guarantee that you wouldn't be dropped from the platform with no appeal by an algorithm...

zepto 6y ago

It’s worth noting that ‘force Apple to allow other stores’ is equivalent to ‘force indie developers to support other stores’. And also paradoxically allowing other stores with fewer restrictions actually means more restrictions for developers. This is because if you are forced to support all the stores, your app must comply with the superset of the restrictions. Apple must improve the store policies to support developers, otherwise the web will just win in the end. However requiring them to support multiple stores will just kill off indie development even more.

apple4ever 6y ago

Apple has been so customer hostile with these decisions on the App Store. Offering IAP isn't a problem. Heck forcing IAP isn't a problem, IF there is a way avoid it - and the best way is to force them to charge .99 but allow outside IAPs. But they choose the worst possible method: forcing a customer to go outside the App Store.