4 ms·

Why should software makers share their revenue with Apple? We don’t do it on android, Windows, macOS, linux, or anything else. The only value added by Apple is

Why should software makers share their revenue with Apple? We don’t do it on android, Windows, macOS, linux, or anything else. The only value added by Apple is some kind of vetting (they don’t do code review, they just check that the app meets their recommendations... and they are called RECOMMENDATIONS not REQUIEMENTS). My app was recently rejected because i refused to sell in-app purchases and want to keep purchases only on my website.

pdonis 6y ago
> Why should software makers share their revenue with Apple? Why should Apple care what software makers want? I get that it's a pain to develop software for the iPhone and then have to pay rent to Apple to get it to users; but that's not Apple's problem unless enough users either complain or switch hardware to cut into Apple's revenue. That doesn't seem to be happening. Sure, there are plenty of users (I'm one of them) who refuse to buy an Apple device precisely because of limitations like this, but there are plenty more users who don't seem to care; whatever they are getting through Apple's curated app store appears to satisfy their needs. As long as that remains true, Apple has no incentive to change its policies, and that's just a business reality that any software developer contemplating making an app for the iPhone is going to have to deal with.
- TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
  Yeah, it’s a little like the Mafia used to do: give us a monthly payment or we’ll, ya know, make sure you’re of business. And you’re defending that?
  - kd913 6y ago
    I don't think he is defending it, I think he is correctly rationalising that this is the effect of devs and users buying into Apple's walled Garden. This is what devs and users caused by supporting the Google Apple duopoly. You bought in you play by their rules. Personally I think devs should just pass the 30% to consumers or withdraw their apps. That is how you get leverage.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > it’s a little like the Mafia The Mafia didn't build things. It just came in and took over things others had built. Apple built its app store. It built the iPhone. It got its users fair and square, by providing a product that users want. If you think that's the same as the Mafia, you have a very skewed view of business.
    - TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
      But they also prevent other stores from being built. And they prevent sideloading. It's their store or nothing. They created a marketplace and ban other marketplaces. wtf?
      - pdonis 6y ago
        > they also prevent other stores from being built They do no such thing. They just prevent other stores from providing apps for their own product. Which they are within their rights to do, since it's their product.
paulcole 6y ago
Why does the pet store down the street from my apartment have a storefront on Amazon? Because they want access to Amazon’s customer base and are willing to pay for it.
ratww 6y ago
> ...or anything else. I'll bring it up again: game consoles. Steam. And no, they don't deserve a pass.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  I do think game consoles kind of deserve a pass [1], but okay, I can see where you're coming from with that. Why Steam? No one ever has to use Steam--you can install whatever you want on your PC. Steam isn't even installed by default in 99% of cases. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23579943 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23579943
  - ratww 6y ago
    GP asked "why software makers should share their revenue with Apple" and said "nothing else" is like that. I was just pointing examples of things that were exactly like that. As for the why: I'm thinking from the point of view of a developer. For me it's all the same. Paying 30% to Apple is the same as paying 30% to Steam or x% to console makers. In practice it doesn't matter if the appliance the user runs my software is essential or not, or if the store is exclusive, or comes preinstalled or not. I'm still paying a percentage to someone. Sucks in all cases.
    - twicetwice 6y ago
      Well, I don't think paying 30% to Apple is the same as paying 30% to Steam. The former is mandatory, the latter is not. If you don't want to be on Steam, you can put your game in the Windows store/etc, or sell directly from your website. If you don't want to be on Apple's app store, well, too bad, it's the only way to reach 50+% of your potential customers (in the US).
      - ratww 6y ago
        In theory, yes. In practice, not publishing a game on Steam will also alienate you from a large amount of potential customers. We're only starting to see change recently. But I understand your point and agree in principle. What's your opinion on consoles, though?
jpttsn 6y ago
It’s totally optional; if you don’t want to participate, don’t. Sell your software any way you want outside their store. Take out ads in local papers or something.
- 5Qn8mNbc2FNCiVV 6y ago
  That's the issue, you can't. Simple as that, you cannot get your software onto an iPhone without paying the 30% (or offloading it to your customers)
  - jpttsn 6y ago
    So don’t sell iPhone versions. Sell software for platforms that support arbitrary software. Or pay Apple for distribution in their walled garden. It’s totally up to you. The parameters have been clear for over a decade, and it’s really time to stop whining that the iPhone is not an open platform. Apple is the only iPhone app distribution channel and they make the rules. If you don’t want that, don’t buy an iPhone/don’t make iPhone apps. If you make iPhone apps, own it.
    - TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
      And the other alternative is that governments get involved to force apple to allow other markets on their phones. Ones that charge 5% or ones that are even free. Instead of, you know, just accepting bad things because they've been bad for a decade. Slavery was around in the US for more than 100 years. Did that make it right? Maybe slave owners said similar things to Abolitionists, "but it's been this way for ages!!"
- scq 6y ago
  Apparently not: https://www.protocol.com/hey-email-app-store-rejection https://www.protocol.com/hey-email-app-store-rejection According to Apple, if your app is not a "reader" app it must allow subscribing in-app.
  - jpttsn 6y ago
ilikehurdles 6y ago
A store owner is not obligated to give you free placement on their shelves.
- brandon272 6y ago
  What stores take 30% lifetime subscription royalties for products sold on their shelves? Can you imagine if Best Buy required Apple to add "Best Buy Payments" to MacOS so that Best Buy could collect a 30% fee on top of any services subscription that Apple sells to that MacBook user? All for the privilege of selling their products through the BB stores. Apple isn't marking up a product for resale in it's retail environments. It is, in many cases, forcing its developers (who provide their valuable products to Apple for free, after paying Apple an annual fee) to completely rearrange their business models in order for Apple to collect a huge portion of their revenues, entirely on their terms.
  - ilikehurdles 6y ago
    It doesn’t matter. These are the terms of the store. If Walmart makes clear an expectation that you have to have an office in Arkansas in order to sell an item in their store, then you shouldn’t be surprised when your item is rejected from their store if you don’t build that office. There’s no expectation that you’d have free placement, certainly. As for your Best Buy example, Best Buy can make that demand, but Best Buy would lose more from not having Apple’s products than Apple would from not being placed on Best Buy’s shelves.
    - brandon272 6y ago
      I agree completely - Apple can have whatever terms it wants within the bounds of the law. And app developers have every right to complain about those terms, loudly and in a sustained fashion, if they wish. The second part there is what a lot of people seem to have difficulty accepting.
      - jpttsn 6y ago
        It’s easy to accept that you have a right to complain. But after ten years of perfect clarify about how Apple intends to play this, your supposed outrage that the iPhone is still a walled garden seems willfully thick. I’d be so impressed if one of you would just head over to Android and make a non-iPhone app that took the world by storm. Prove to us all that the 30% is a bad bargain, that Apple needs to change, that your software is valuable even without their store. I guess it’s disheartening to see instead just another set of entitled complaints and dubious concern over end users, most of whom have no idea your $10 app exists and never thought about it when buying their $1000 phone.

pdonis 6y ago

> Why should software makers share their revenue with Apple? Why should Apple care what software makers want? I get that it's a pain to develop software for the iPhone and then have to pay rent to Apple to get it to users; but that's not Apple's problem unless enough users either complain or switch hardware to cut into Apple's revenue. That doesn't seem to be happening. Sure, there are plenty of users (I'm one of them) who refuse to buy an Apple device precisely because of limitations like this, but there are plenty more users who don't seem to care; whatever they are getting through Apple's curated app store appears to satisfy their needs. As long as that remains true, Apple has no incentive to change its policies, and that's just a business reality that any software developer contemplating making an app for the iPhone is going to have to deal with.

TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
Yeah, it’s a little like the Mafia used to do: give us a monthly payment or we’ll, ya know, make sure you’re of business. And you’re defending that?
- kd913 6y ago
  I don't think he is defending it, I think he is correctly rationalising that this is the effect of devs and users buying into Apple's walled Garden. This is what devs and users caused by supporting the Google Apple duopoly. You bought in you play by their rules. Personally I think devs should just pass the 30% to consumers or withdraw their apps. That is how you get leverage.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > it’s a little like the Mafia The Mafia didn't build things. It just came in and took over things others had built. Apple built its app store. It built the iPhone. It got its users fair and square, by providing a product that users want. If you think that's the same as the Mafia, you have a very skewed view of business.
  - TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
    But they also prevent other stores from being built. And they prevent sideloading. It's their store or nothing. They created a marketplace and ban other marketplaces. wtf?
    - pdonis 6y ago
      > they also prevent other stores from being built They do no such thing. They just prevent other stores from providing apps for their own product. Which they are within their rights to do, since it's their product.

paulcole 6y ago

Why does the pet store down the street from my apartment have a storefront on Amazon? Because they want access to Amazon’s customer base and are willing to pay for it.

ratww 6y ago

> ...or anything else. I'll bring it up again: game consoles. Steam. And no, they don't deserve a pass.

Wowfunhappy 6y ago
I do think game consoles kind of deserve a pass [1], but okay, I can see where you're coming from with that. Why Steam? No one ever has to use Steam--you can install whatever you want on your PC. Steam isn't even installed by default in 99% of cases. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23579943 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23579943
- ratww 6y ago
  GP asked "why software makers should share their revenue with Apple" and said "nothing else" is like that. I was just pointing examples of things that were exactly like that. As for the why: I'm thinking from the point of view of a developer. For me it's all the same. Paying 30% to Apple is the same as paying 30% to Steam or x% to console makers. In practice it doesn't matter if the appliance the user runs my software is essential or not, or if the store is exclusive, or comes preinstalled or not. I'm still paying a percentage to someone. Sucks in all cases.
  - twicetwice 6y ago
    Well, I don't think paying 30% to Apple is the same as paying 30% to Steam. The former is mandatory, the latter is not. If you don't want to be on Steam, you can put your game in the Windows store/etc, or sell directly from your website. If you don't want to be on Apple's app store, well, too bad, it's the only way to reach 50+% of your potential customers (in the US).
    - ratww 6y ago
      In theory, yes. In practice, not publishing a game on Steam will also alienate you from a large amount of potential customers. We're only starting to see change recently. But I understand your point and agree in principle. What's your opinion on consoles, though?

jpttsn 6y ago

It’s totally optional; if you don’t want to participate, don’t. Sell your software any way you want outside their store. Take out ads in local papers or something.

5Qn8mNbc2FNCiVV 6y ago
That's the issue, you can't. Simple as that, you cannot get your software onto an iPhone without paying the 30% (or offloading it to your customers)
- jpttsn 6y ago
  So don’t sell iPhone versions. Sell software for platforms that support arbitrary software. Or pay Apple for distribution in their walled garden. It’s totally up to you. The parameters have been clear for over a decade, and it’s really time to stop whining that the iPhone is not an open platform. Apple is the only iPhone app distribution channel and they make the rules. If you don’t want that, don’t buy an iPhone/don’t make iPhone apps. If you make iPhone apps, own it.
  - TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
    And the other alternative is that governments get involved to force apple to allow other markets on their phones. Ones that charge 5% or ones that are even free. Instead of, you know, just accepting bad things because they've been bad for a decade. Slavery was around in the US for more than 100 years. Did that make it right? Maybe slave owners said similar things to Abolitionists, "but it's been this way for ages!!"
scq 6y ago
Apparently not: https://www.protocol.com/hey-email-app-store-rejection https://www.protocol.com/hey-email-app-store-rejection According to Apple, if your app is not a "reader" app it must allow subscribing in-app.
- jpttsn 6y ago

ilikehurdles 6y ago

A store owner is not obligated to give you free placement on their shelves.

brandon272 6y ago
What stores take 30% lifetime subscription royalties for products sold on their shelves? Can you imagine if Best Buy required Apple to add "Best Buy Payments" to MacOS so that Best Buy could collect a 30% fee on top of any services subscription that Apple sells to that MacBook user? All for the privilege of selling their products through the BB stores. Apple isn't marking up a product for resale in it's retail environments. It is, in many cases, forcing its developers (who provide their valuable products to Apple for free, after paying Apple an annual fee) to completely rearrange their business models in order for Apple to collect a huge portion of their revenues, entirely on their terms.
- ilikehurdles 6y ago
  It doesn’t matter. These are the terms of the store. If Walmart makes clear an expectation that you have to have an office in Arkansas in order to sell an item in their store, then you shouldn’t be surprised when your item is rejected from their store if you don’t build that office. There’s no expectation that you’d have free placement, certainly. As for your Best Buy example, Best Buy can make that demand, but Best Buy would lose more from not having Apple’s products than Apple would from not being placed on Best Buy’s shelves.
  - brandon272 6y ago
    I agree completely - Apple can have whatever terms it wants within the bounds of the law. And app developers have every right to complain about those terms, loudly and in a sustained fashion, if they wish. The second part there is what a lot of people seem to have difficulty accepting.
    - jpttsn 6y ago
      It’s easy to accept that you have a right to complain. But after ten years of perfect clarify about how Apple intends to play this, your supposed outrage that the iPhone is still a walled garden seems willfully thick. I’d be so impressed if one of you would just head over to Android and make a non-iPhone app that took the world by storm. Prove to us all that the 30% is a bad bargain, that Apple needs to change, that your software is valuable even without their store. I guess it’s disheartening to see instead just another set of entitled complaints and dubious concern over end users, most of whom have no idea your $10 app exists and never thought about it when buying their $1000 phone.