3 ms·

"Most app stores charge the same 30% cut on digital goods. Retailers, travel booking services and other marketplaces can charge more than 30% for their services

"Most app stores charge the same 30% cut on digital goods. Retailers, travel booking services and other marketplaces can charge more than 30% for their services. Distributing software through an app store is less expensive than distributing through brick-and-mortar retailers. Other app stores and digital marketplaces often require users to use their in-app payment mechanism and forbid sellers from redirecting buyers to finish the transaction in another venue." -- Apple's main findings. The test should be whether Apple is charging a rate that is higher than it would charge under perfect competition. Not whether it's higher than traditional brick and mortar stores that obviously have higher distribution costs. Indeed, the fact that both Apple and Google charge 30% could suggest collusion.

KMnO4 6y ago
I don't think the rates are based on competition. If I make an app, I can publish it on: - App Store, and get 70% cut of X users - Play Store, and get 70% cut of Y users - Both, and get 70% cut of (X+Y) users So as long as I can cover my development costs for both platforms, it makes sense to publish to both stores. Let's say Google charged only 10%. Would that change which platforms I publish to? I would say no: I would still want to get 0.7X + 0.9Y.
- mthoms 6y ago
  Theoretically at least, Google's App Store would have better pricing, thus giving Android a competitive advantage (unless Apple follows). Realistically, I'm sure the advantage would be so small so as to not amount to anything.
- hinkley 6y ago
  If your company had decided it wasn't worth the extra effort to port to Google, that extra 20% might potentially cover the cost of the extra employees and overhead, or at least lessen the sting.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    But most relevantly, it doesn't impact the decision of whether to port to iOS at all. If iOS was profitable before it still is, if it wasn't it still isn't. You can't use the Play Store instead of the App Store because the customer sets are completely disjoint.
    - hinkley 6y ago
      > if it wasn't it still isn't [citation needed] A 10% change is not a 10% increase in profits, it's a 10% increase in margins. I could be going from 20% to 30%. I'd be making 50% more by porting my code to iOS than we previously forecast. Which also means I might invest more resources in doing it well which will also increase my profits. Because there is less risk involved with starting the project. When you're trying to get a company to change directions, you need one really great reason or a lot of pretty good reasons. Sometimes one more reason is all you need.
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        You don't get any increase in margins for porting to iOS if the percentage changes for the Play Store because you can't sell to iOS customers via the Play Store.
        hinkley 6y ago
        You started with “most relevantly” and my initial reaction to this follow up is “how is that relevant at all”? The costs of porting are relevant to value of the new audience. The value to the old audience is negative (what are we losing while they are focused in something else). The value to the team is complicated, has to be weighed, and big changes like new APIs or new revenue structures tip that balance.
        AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        > You started with “most relevantly” and my initial reaction to this follow up is “how is that relevant at all”? It's relevant to whether the rates are based on competition, or to put it the other way, whether competition affects the rate they can charge. If Google charged a lower rate, would it change the calculation for porting to iOS, so that Apple might have to lower their rate too? No, because you can't reach iOS customers via Google Play, so if you want to sell to them you still have to pay whatever Apple demands: > If iOS was profitable before it still is, if it wasn't it still isn't.

KMnO4 6y ago

I don't think the rates are based on competition. If I make an app, I can publish it on: - App Store, and get 70% cut of X users - Play Store, and get 70% cut of Y users - Both, and get 70% cut of (X+Y) users So as long as I can cover my development costs for both platforms, it makes sense to publish to both stores. Let's say Google charged only 10%. Would that change which platforms I publish to? I would say no: I would still want to get 0.7X + 0.9Y.

mthoms 6y ago
Theoretically at least, Google's App Store would have better pricing, thus giving Android a competitive advantage (unless Apple follows). Realistically, I'm sure the advantage would be so small so as to not amount to anything.
hinkley 6y ago
If your company had decided it wasn't worth the extra effort to port to Google, that extra 20% might potentially cover the cost of the extra employees and overhead, or at least lessen the sting.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  But most relevantly, it doesn't impact the decision of whether to port to iOS at all. If iOS was profitable before it still is, if it wasn't it still isn't. You can't use the Play Store instead of the App Store because the customer sets are completely disjoint.
  - hinkley 6y ago
    > if it wasn't it still isn't [citation needed] A 10% change is not a 10% increase in profits, it's a 10% increase in margins. I could be going from 20% to 30%. I'd be making 50% more by porting my code to iOS than we previously forecast. Which also means I might invest more resources in doing it well which will also increase my profits. Because there is less risk involved with starting the project. When you're trying to get a company to change directions, you need one really great reason or a lot of pretty good reasons. Sometimes one more reason is all you need.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      You don't get any increase in margins for porting to iOS if the percentage changes for the Play Store because you can't sell to iOS customers via the Play Store.
      - hinkley 6y ago
        You started with “most relevantly” and my initial reaction to this follow up is “how is that relevant at all”? The costs of porting are relevant to value of the new audience. The value to the old audience is negative (what are we losing while they are focused in something else). The value to the team is complicated, has to be weighed, and big changes like new APIs or new revenue structures tip that balance.
        AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        > You started with “most relevantly” and my initial reaction to this follow up is “how is that relevant at all”? It's relevant to whether the rates are based on competition, or to put it the other way, whether competition affects the rate they can charge. If Google charged a lower rate, would it change the calculation for porting to iOS, so that Apple might have to lower their rate too? No, because you can't reach iOS customers via Google Play, so if you want to sell to them you still have to pay whatever Apple demands: > If iOS was profitable before it still is, if it wasn't it still isn't.