9 ms·

I know YouTube premium just charges a 30% up charge if you sign up via IAP in iOS. I’m not sure if this is in violation of the rules or not. It is convenient

I know YouTube premium just charges a 30% up charge if you sign up via IAP in iOS. I’m not sure if this is in violation of the rules or not. It is convenient as a user to be able to manage subscriptions via iOS which makes it easy to track and cancel, but 30% seems way too high for this? Forcing IAP while taking a 30% cut seems like rent seeking when [edit: you control the only place users can get apps on your platform]. Extra problematic in the Spotify case where you compete directly and undercut them. I’d prefer a forced IAP requirement where Apple didn’t take a cut (or they just charged some up front fee or something). (Meta: McTossOut, your comments are dead - I’m not sure why)

sircastor 6y ago
Is it the dominate platform? It's certainly a very popular one, but dominate makes me think of Windows Vs Mac in the 90s. 90%+ market share type stuff. Android, while not managed by a single manufacturer, is a unified platform and competitor to iOS.
- fossuser 6y ago
  I edited my comment since being dominant or not is not really relevant to the App Store control point.
iphone_elegance 6y ago
A while ago the 30% upcharge for iOS users was against the rules, now it's allowed. It sounds nice but if you're a Spotify or Netflix it lets Apple undercut you very easily I do think 30% is a bit much these days when the store first opened it was a great deal vs the other options at the time
- Tostino 6y ago
  And you're not allowed to even point users to your website where they could sign up without the 30% tax due to Apple not allowing that. These anti-competitive practices are just over the top in my opinion, I really wish businesses like this would be broken up.
  - theturtletalks 6y ago
    Currently building a B2B SaaS and going the PWA way.
    - bduerst 6y ago
      What are the downsides of going PWA? Non-native support? Offline usage?
      - edoceo 6y ago
        No Bluetooth hardware either
        SahAssar 6y ago
        WebBluetooth exists on android, but not on iOS.
      - perryizgr8 6y ago
        No notifications on ios.
    - csmiller 6y ago
      My understanding is the rules for B2B are different, hence why Basecamp is allowed.
      - danieljacksonno 6y ago
        They did say so, but I haven't seen it documented anywhere on Apple.com
McTossOut 6y ago
It's a nice part of the modern ecosystems, but I'm not sure the slight convenience of centralizing my subscription options would save me that much. If the fee is for Apple to curate the ecosystem and verify apps are safe, this looks an awful lot like they're using it to drive up revenue instead. There's evidence too that these practices are done hastily too, when you use IAP, but the app expects you to create a secondary account as well. Sliding scale microtransaction growing pains, I suppose. Things were nicer when apps were inexpensive commodities. People aren't able to run business analysis like this and it makes the market opaque which is good... for Apple. (Meta: figures)
paxys 6y ago
I think it's fair TBH. If Apple thinks it's okay asking for (rather enforcing) a 30% cut to offer the user the convenience of paying via IAP rather than enter a credit card number, then it should be okay to charge the user 30% extra for that convenience as well.
- artursapek 6y ago
  It sounds like Apple is requiring IAP integration. I think that's what DHH is upset about.
  - paxys 6y ago
    Sure, but I don't see any major downsides in having to add IAP and getting the same subscription fees from people who use it as everyone else. I'd say giving users more options is always good.
    - bduerst 6y ago
      >Sure, but I don't see any major downsides in having to add IAP Technical debt, added complexity, additional user support, the overhead of having forked subscriptions in the userbase...
    - artursapek 6y ago
      I actually don't agree with DHH here, just pointing out the difference. I think Apple has every right to expect a cut of developer revenue given how much they invest in the iOS platform.
      - brandon272 6y ago
        The iOS platform would not be viable without developers. I think Apple has every right to expect developers to pay to be part of their platform, which they already charge for through an annual fee. Expecting a "cut" of every developer's "revenue", even when the product is a cross platform software product, seems extreme.
caf 6y ago
I believe you have to charge 43% extra if you want to be whole (70% of 143 is ~100)?
- toast0 6y ago
  You wouldn't have been getting $100 if you charged $100 without IAP though, because some of that is going to go to your card processing chain; you'd mostly probably get more than $91 on a $100 charge though.
  - caf 6y ago
    Ahh yes, that is a good point.
  - Hamuko 6y ago
    That's still quite a lot more than $70.
  - namibj 6y ago
    That depends a lot on how you get paid. Those high CC fees don't exist in Europe, at least not with Visa and MasterCard. There you also have the option to use direct debit, which is much more common for a User than a CC (CCs aren't nearly as wide-spread), with (typically) <50ct fees per transaction.
- fossuser 6y ago
  Yes, thank you for the correction.
brandon272 6y ago
I had no idea YouTube had a higher price through IAP until I saw it pointed out today. The price in the app always seemed too expensive so when I noticed the lower price available through the web today I actually signed up. Worth noting that YouTube appears to be violating Apple's guidelines (3.2.2) by forcing users to pay for functionality that is part of the built-in capabilities of the operating system. (Background play mode)
- aspenmayer 6y ago
  Does that part of the guidelines apply to video apps? I can’t think of other video apps offhand that allow background play on iOS.
  - brandon272 6y ago
    But are there other video apps that charge to enable background play on iOS?
    - aspenmayer 6y ago
      My point is that it may be a violation to allow background playback of video on iOS; my point was not respondent to whether or not other apps may also may be in similar violation by allowing background playback of video, whether or not they’re free or paid. To your point, there are alternate YouTube players which allow background video playback besides the website and iOS app on iOS, but you have to sideload them. There may be others which do not require sideloading, but none that I’m aware of. I’m not sure but it’s likely against some kind of TOS to use them, but interoperability exemptions for accessibility may apply.
      - brandon272 6y ago
        It is not a violation to allow background play of video. No guideline prohibits it. The Plex app allows background play, for example. Apple also provides documentation to developers on how to enable this functionality in their apps. (1) If it were against policy to enable play of video in the background, then it seems that would be an even more egregious violation by YouTube, as not only do they have the functionality in the app, but they charge users money to access it. 1. https://developer.apple.com/documentation/avfoundation/media_assets_playback_and_editing/creating_a_basic_video_player_ios_and_tvos/playing_audio_from_a_video_asset_in_the_background https://developer.apple.com/documentation/avfoundation/media...
Joeri 6y ago
30% is really a huge cut. It’s almost half of what the developer makes. Apple absolutely does not provide half as much in value as the app’s developer. They can only charge that because people literally have no alternative but to pay the piper or get out of the business entirely. There is no free market at work here.
- stephc_int13 6y ago
  Exactly. For many small/medium businesses, the Apple/Google tax is often much higher than the founders salaries.
- scarface74 6y ago
  The developer gets less than 50% of the retail cost of a game. https://www.quora.com/How-much-do-game-companies-make-from-each-game-they-sell-if-each-game-costs-60-dollars https://www.quora.com/How-much-do-game-companies-make-from-e...
  - SahAssar 6y ago
    That's including a publisher, retailer, physical distribution and the platform royalty (the platform is sorta like apple in this comparison) though. So a very different situation than IAP's in the app store. A more telling comparison would be a download-only game that was self-published by the developer since app store apps don't usually have separate publishers, physical distribution or retailers. Although I agree that the lack of open alternatives for app distribution in the game console world is pretty similar.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      And the game developer has to usually pay a license fee to the game engine maker.
      - SahAssar 6y ago
        That's the same for the app store though if you use libraries /frameworks that cost anything.
diebeforei485 6y ago
I will say this: I am very, very glad my New York Times subscription was through Apple's IAP - because I could end the subscription easily. Had I paid NYT directly, I would have had to be on the phone with them. This doesn't justify 30%. I actually think it's fine for Apple to take a cut. Just not 30%.
- electroly 6y ago
  If you pay with PayPal, you can save the 30% and also cancel (via PayPal) without talking to the NYT.

sircastor 6y ago

Is it the dominate platform? It's certainly a very popular one, but dominate makes me think of Windows Vs Mac in the 90s. 90%+ market share type stuff. Android, while not managed by a single manufacturer, is a unified platform and competitor to iOS.

fossuser 6y ago
I edited my comment since being dominant or not is not really relevant to the App Store control point.

iphone_elegance 6y ago

A while ago the 30% upcharge for iOS users was against the rules, now it's allowed. It sounds nice but if you're a Spotify or Netflix it lets Apple undercut you very easily I do think 30% is a bit much these days when the store first opened it was a great deal vs the other options at the time

Tostino 6y ago
And you're not allowed to even point users to your website where they could sign up without the 30% tax due to Apple not allowing that. These anti-competitive practices are just over the top in my opinion, I really wish businesses like this would be broken up.
- theturtletalks 6y ago
  Currently building a B2B SaaS and going the PWA way.
  - bduerst 6y ago
    What are the downsides of going PWA? Non-native support? Offline usage?
    - edoceo 6y ago
      No Bluetooth hardware either
      - SahAssar 6y ago
        WebBluetooth exists on android, but not on iOS.
    - perryizgr8 6y ago
      No notifications on ios.
  - csmiller 6y ago
    My understanding is the rules for B2B are different, hence why Basecamp is allowed.
    - danieljacksonno 6y ago
      They did say so, but I haven't seen it documented anywhere on Apple.com

McTossOut 6y ago

It's a nice part of the modern ecosystems, but I'm not sure the slight convenience of centralizing my subscription options would save me that much. If the fee is for Apple to curate the ecosystem and verify apps are safe, this looks an awful lot like they're using it to drive up revenue instead. There's evidence too that these practices are done hastily too, when you use IAP, but the app expects you to create a secondary account as well. Sliding scale microtransaction growing pains, I suppose. Things were nicer when apps were inexpensive commodities. People aren't able to run business analysis like this and it makes the market opaque which is good... for Apple. (Meta: figures)

paxys 6y ago

I think it's fair TBH. If Apple thinks it's okay asking for (rather enforcing) a 30% cut to offer the user the convenience of paying via IAP rather than enter a credit card number, then it should be okay to charge the user 30% extra for that convenience as well.

artursapek 6y ago
It sounds like Apple is requiring IAP integration. I think that's what DHH is upset about.
- paxys 6y ago
  Sure, but I don't see any major downsides in having to add IAP and getting the same subscription fees from people who use it as everyone else. I'd say giving users more options is always good.
  - bduerst 6y ago
    >Sure, but I don't see any major downsides in having to add IAP Technical debt, added complexity, additional user support, the overhead of having forked subscriptions in the userbase...
  - artursapek 6y ago
    I actually don't agree with DHH here, just pointing out the difference. I think Apple has every right to expect a cut of developer revenue given how much they invest in the iOS platform.
    - brandon272 6y ago
      The iOS platform would not be viable without developers. I think Apple has every right to expect developers to pay to be part of their platform, which they already charge for through an annual fee. Expecting a "cut" of every developer's "revenue", even when the product is a cross platform software product, seems extreme.

caf 6y ago

I believe you have to charge 43% extra if you want to be whole (70% of 143 is ~100)?

toast0 6y ago
You wouldn't have been getting $100 if you charged $100 without IAP though, because some of that is going to go to your card processing chain; you'd mostly probably get more than $91 on a $100 charge though.
- caf 6y ago
  Ahh yes, that is a good point.
- Hamuko 6y ago
  That's still quite a lot more than $70.
- namibj 6y ago
  That depends a lot on how you get paid. Those high CC fees don't exist in Europe, at least not with Visa and MasterCard. There you also have the option to use direct debit, which is much more common for a User than a CC (CCs aren't nearly as wide-spread), with (typically) <50ct fees per transaction.
fossuser 6y ago
Yes, thank you for the correction.

brandon272 6y ago

I had no idea YouTube had a higher price through IAP until I saw it pointed out today. The price in the app always seemed too expensive so when I noticed the lower price available through the web today I actually signed up. Worth noting that YouTube appears to be violating Apple's guidelines (3.2.2) by forcing users to pay for functionality that is part of the built-in capabilities of the operating system. (Background play mode)

aspenmayer 6y ago
Does that part of the guidelines apply to video apps? I can’t think of other video apps offhand that allow background play on iOS.
- brandon272 6y ago
  But are there other video apps that charge to enable background play on iOS?
  - aspenmayer 6y ago
    My point is that it may be a violation to allow background playback of video on iOS; my point was not respondent to whether or not other apps may also may be in similar violation by allowing background playback of video, whether or not they’re free or paid. To your point, there are alternate YouTube players which allow background video playback besides the website and iOS app on iOS, but you have to sideload them. There may be others which do not require sideloading, but none that I’m aware of. I’m not sure but it’s likely against some kind of TOS to use them, but interoperability exemptions for accessibility may apply.
    - brandon272 6y ago
      It is not a violation to allow background play of video. No guideline prohibits it. The Plex app allows background play, for example. Apple also provides documentation to developers on how to enable this functionality in their apps. (1) If it were against policy to enable play of video in the background, then it seems that would be an even more egregious violation by YouTube, as not only do they have the functionality in the app, but they charge users money to access it. 1. https://developer.apple.com/documentation/avfoundation/media_assets_playback_and_editing/creating_a_basic_video_player_ios_and_tvos/playing_audio_from_a_video_asset_in_the_background https://developer.apple.com/documentation/avfoundation/media...

Joeri 6y ago

30% is really a huge cut. It’s almost half of what the developer makes. Apple absolutely does not provide half as much in value as the app’s developer. They can only charge that because people literally have no alternative but to pay the piper or get out of the business entirely. There is no free market at work here.

stephc_int13 6y ago
Exactly. For many small/medium businesses, the Apple/Google tax is often much higher than the founders salaries.
scarface74 6y ago
The developer gets less than 50% of the retail cost of a game. https://www.quora.com/How-much-do-game-companies-make-from-each-game-they-sell-if-each-game-costs-60-dollars https://www.quora.com/How-much-do-game-companies-make-from-e...
- SahAssar 6y ago
  That's including a publisher, retailer, physical distribution and the platform royalty (the platform is sorta like apple in this comparison) though. So a very different situation than IAP's in the app store. A more telling comparison would be a download-only game that was self-published by the developer since app store apps don't usually have separate publishers, physical distribution or retailers. Although I agree that the lack of open alternatives for app distribution in the game console world is pretty similar.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    And the game developer has to usually pay a license fee to the game engine maker.
    - SahAssar 6y ago
      That's the same for the app store though if you use libraries /frameworks that cost anything.

diebeforei485 6y ago

I will say this: I am very, very glad my New York Times subscription was through Apple's IAP - because I could end the subscription easily. Had I paid NYT directly, I would have had to be on the phone with them. This doesn't justify 30%. I actually think it's fine for Apple to take a cut. Just not 30%.

electroly 6y ago
If you pay with PayPal, you can save the 30% and also cancel (via PayPal) without talking to the NYT.