4 ms·

> plus a 30% cut for doing nothing It's not nothing. Maybe not worth 30% but it is worth something. They run the store, buy the servers and pay for the bandw

by oillio 6y ago

> plus a 30% cut for doing nothing It's not nothing. Maybe not worth 30% but it is worth something. They run the store, buy the servers and pay for the bandwidth. Pay the engineers to develop and manage the infrastructure. Run the app certification process. Maintain the security of the platform. etc. If they can't charge their 30% cut, they will need a different business plan. Possibly charging app developers directly for access to the app store. They are not going to just give up their 30% and do nothing.

mackey 6y ago
They already charge developers to access the App Store. And I think any iOS/Mac developer will tell you that the cut they are taking is not being re-invested into making the developer or the App Store experience better for developers or users.
markstos 6y ago
Apple would not need a different business plan. Apple currently has $192.8 billion cash on hand. If Apple took a smaller cut, they would simply have a few less billion dollars in the bank. Many, many individual developers and small business would have a little more money in their bank accounts. The small businesses are more likely to be actively put this money back into the economy then the idle billions in Apple's bank accounts.
basch 6y ago
There should be a difference between a 30% cut of an app (of which apple can say their toolkits and os development are part of the product offering) and a 30% cut of a subscription, especially a multiplatform subscription. if you could buy netflix with applepay, but then 90% of your netflix usage is not on apple devices, apple collects on that entire subscription. Subscriptions should be priced more like a credit card transaction fee. They could have marginal brackets that increase slightly at scales, to account for bigger apps possibly causing more backed development work.
- jimkleiber 6y ago
  I appreciate this comment, especially the end, because what I have sorely missed in most of the discussion on here and on Twitter are suggestions on what to do instead. If Apple is using monopoly power to bully iOS developers, what should Apple do? Charge subscriptions at 0%? Flat fee? Is 15% good? If they use Netflix on non-Apple hardware, should it be a revenue share? I'm not saying Apple isn't breaking the law, I just really wish there were more suggestions on solutions on what they should do instead. So for that, I appreciate you helping me to see it in a more nuanced way.
- tekknik 6y ago
  if you buy something with apple pay the business does not pay a cut. if you buy something with in app purchases or in app subscriptions then you pay the 30%
- screwycaboose 6y ago
  There is a difference. Subscriptions only pay 30% of the first year. Every year after drops to 15%.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
kelnos 6y ago
You're nitpicking a particularly irrelevant point the parent made in support of the overall argument, which doesn't work. I agree that running a payments platform is not nothing. The issue is that there is zero competition in the space of iOS payments (very convenient for Apple that they get to make the rules and also benefit from them). That harms consumers because sellers will often charge more to account for Apple's 30% cut (and if Apple bans charging more on only their platform, the seller has to raise prices for everyone, which hurts their non-iOS user base). An alternative payments processor might charge 20% or 10% or even less. Healthy competition in that space would benefit consumers, while forcing Apple to charge a fee more in line with the actual cost of what they provide. (There are certainly downsides; Apple has done a lot of work to ensure the security and privacy of their payments solution, and other processors may not do as good a job. And without restrictions, it's the seller who decides what processors to support, not the buyer, so the buyer doesn't get to -- for example -- choose to pay a little more to keep their information in Apple's care.) Perhaps a good compromise would be for Apple to require that apps support Apple's in-app payment system, but allow other payment methods in addition, and also allow sellers to charge more to users who use Apple's system. If customers don't value whatever Apple is providing for the extra fee, Apple will be incentivized to charge less. > Possibly charging app developers directly for access to the app store. They already do this, via the yearly developer fee.
jlbnjmn 6y ago
> Maybe not worth 30% but it is worth something. If Apple allowed the market to set the price, we would know what this activity is worth. They don't, that's the issue.
dpkonofa 6y ago
Yeah... I guarantee you that Apple customers appreciate the consistency of the App Store, especially the payment systems.
raydev 6y ago
> Possibly charging app developers directly for access to the app store. This is already the case. $100/year USD to get the privilege of being on the App Store. Actually, getting on the App Store is not even guaranteed after you pay the fee, since you still need to pass their review process.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
happymellon 6y ago
> Possibly charging app developers directly for access to the app store Err, Apple does charge to develop for their platform.
vsl 6y ago
They require you to use their store, servers and bandwidth. It’s not fair to claim that’s value provided to developers when they are forbidden to not use the infrastructure. My costs for direct distribution on Mac are ~8% and are absolutely dominated by payment processing - and that’s only because I choose to use a merchant of record instead of Stripe to save on VAT accounting costs. The rest of distribution costs are peanuts.
pja 6y ago
As a point of reference, HumbleBundle charges 5% for the Humble payment widget. They handle hosting your data, all the payment systems for taking payments from most of the world, handling chargebacks on your behalf etc etc. If you want to sell your game on the Humble Store on the other hand, well then they take a 25% cut. That’s the value in being able to deliver a customer. Apple’s fixed 30% cut is effectively saying: our brand is more important than yours in delivering customers to your App. The imprinteur of being in our App Store and bringing you a customer is worth 30% of your income. Your ability to deliver your own customers is irrelevant; we’re taking 30% either way. Unsurprisingly this sticks in the craw of some companies. The fact that Apple’s systems make it almost impossible to effectively communicate with your own customer is an even bigger problem for a customer-focused company who’s income & branding depend on a close relationship with their customers: those companies are completely stuffed by the Apple App model & are the reason the App Store has not lead to the explosion of innovation some of us expected - it’s just not possible for a company to sustain themselves outside a very narrow set of income generation patterns.

by oillio 6y ago

mackey 6y ago

They already charge developers to access the App Store. And I think any iOS/Mac developer will tell you that the cut they are taking is not being re-invested into making the developer or the App Store experience better for developers or users.

markstos 6y ago

Apple would not need a different business plan. Apple currently has $192.8 billion cash on hand. If Apple took a smaller cut, they would simply have a few less billion dollars in the bank. Many, many individual developers and small business would have a little more money in their bank accounts. The small businesses are more likely to be actively put this money back into the economy then the idle billions in Apple's bank accounts.

basch 6y ago

There should be a difference between a 30% cut of an app (of which apple can say their toolkits and os development are part of the product offering) and a 30% cut of a subscription, especially a multiplatform subscription. if you could buy netflix with applepay, but then 90% of your netflix usage is not on apple devices, apple collects on that entire subscription. Subscriptions should be priced more like a credit card transaction fee. They could have marginal brackets that increase slightly at scales, to account for bigger apps possibly causing more backed development work.

jimkleiber 6y ago
I appreciate this comment, especially the end, because what I have sorely missed in most of the discussion on here and on Twitter are suggestions on what to do instead. If Apple is using monopoly power to bully iOS developers, what should Apple do? Charge subscriptions at 0%? Flat fee? Is 15% good? If they use Netflix on non-Apple hardware, should it be a revenue share? I'm not saying Apple isn't breaking the law, I just really wish there were more suggestions on solutions on what they should do instead. So for that, I appreciate you helping me to see it in a more nuanced way.
tekknik 6y ago
if you buy something with apple pay the business does not pay a cut. if you buy something with in app purchases or in app subscriptions then you pay the 30%
screwycaboose 6y ago
There is a difference. Subscriptions only pay 30% of the first year. Every year after drops to 15%.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

kelnos 6y ago

You're nitpicking a particularly irrelevant point the parent made in support of the overall argument, which doesn't work. I agree that running a payments platform is not nothing. The issue is that there is zero competition in the space of iOS payments (very convenient for Apple that they get to make the rules and also benefit from them). That harms consumers because sellers will often charge more to account for Apple's 30% cut (and if Apple bans charging more on only their platform, the seller has to raise prices for everyone, which hurts their non-iOS user base). An alternative payments processor might charge 20% or 10% or even less. Healthy competition in that space would benefit consumers, while forcing Apple to charge a fee more in line with the actual cost of what they provide. (There are certainly downsides; Apple has done a lot of work to ensure the security and privacy of their payments solution, and other processors may not do as good a job. And without restrictions, it's the seller who decides what processors to support, not the buyer, so the buyer doesn't get to -- for example -- choose to pay a little more to keep their information in Apple's care.) Perhaps a good compromise would be for Apple to require that apps support Apple's in-app payment system, but allow other payment methods in addition, and also allow sellers to charge more to users who use Apple's system. If customers don't value whatever Apple is providing for the extra fee, Apple will be incentivized to charge less. > Possibly charging app developers directly for access to the app store. They already do this, via the yearly developer fee.

jlbnjmn 6y ago

> Maybe not worth 30% but it is worth something. If Apple allowed the market to set the price, we would know what this activity is worth. They don't, that's the issue.

dpkonofa 6y ago

Yeah... I guarantee you that Apple customers appreciate the consistency of the App Store, especially the payment systems.

raydev 6y ago

> Possibly charging app developers directly for access to the app store. This is already the case. $100/year USD to get the privilege of being on the App Store. Actually, getting on the App Store is not even guaranteed after you pay the fee, since you still need to pass their review process.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

happymellon 6y ago

> Possibly charging app developers directly for access to the app store Err, Apple does charge to develop for their platform.

vsl 6y ago

They require you to use their store, servers and bandwidth. It’s not fair to claim that’s value provided to developers when they are forbidden to not use the infrastructure. My costs for direct distribution on Mac are ~8% and are absolutely dominated by payment processing - and that’s only because I choose to use a merchant of record instead of Stripe to save on VAT accounting costs. The rest of distribution costs are peanuts.

pja 6y ago

As a point of reference, HumbleBundle charges 5% for the Humble payment widget. They handle hosting your data, all the payment systems for taking payments from most of the world, handling chargebacks on your behalf etc etc. If you want to sell your game on the Humble Store on the other hand, well then they take a 25% cut. That’s the value in being able to deliver a customer. Apple’s fixed 30% cut is effectively saying: our brand is more important than yours in delivering customers to your App. The imprinteur of being in our App Store and bringing you a customer is worth 30% of your income. Your ability to deliver your own customers is irrelevant; we’re taking 30% either way. Unsurprisingly this sticks in the craw of some companies. The fact that Apple’s systems make it almost impossible to effectively communicate with your own customer is an even bigger problem for a customer-focused company who’s income & branding depend on a close relationship with their customers: those companies are completely stuffed by the Apple App model & are the reason the App Store has not lead to the explosion of innovation some of us expected - it’s just not possible for a company to sustain themselves outside a very narrow set of income generation patterns.