7 ms·

I think this is part of what is holding back iPad software. You can't charge $100 for Sketch and lose $30 when someone asks for a refund. Apple designed this ar

I think this is part of what is holding back iPad software. You can't charge $100 for Sketch and lose $30 when someone asks for a refund. Apple designed this around $1-$10 apps where losing $2 at volume is fine. What is worse, is that Apple doesn't remove the app from the user's device. When you get a refund of a paid app it is on the honor system for them to delete it. It is removed from their account, so they can no longer download/update, but the installed binary is not affected.

mywittyname 6y ago
> What is worse, is that Apple doesn't remove the app from the user's device. This. Is. Ridiculous. We all know this is an intentional design decision by Apple and that they would absolutely not have designed the workflow this way if they had to dogfood their own platform.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- nvahalik 6y ago
  > if they had to dogfood their own platform. But Apple does sell one app through the iTunes App Store (Dark Sky, which they recently acquired). They sell several through the Mac App Store. So, they do dogfood, but obviously they are not depending on revenue to survive here. Side note: there are a bunch of apps listed under their developer that I had not seen before: Music Memos, Indoor Survey, Texas Hold'em, and Reality Composer.
  - pier25 6y ago
    > So, they do dogfood, but obviously they are not depending on revenue to survive here. Their pro apps are almost given away for free. You could argue that $200 for Logic is not free, but similar DAW products costs 4-5 times more. Not only that, but competitors need to charge you for major updates every couple of years, like any developer. Since Apple released Logic Pro X in 2013 it has kept pushing updates without asking for money.
    - wlesieutre 6y ago
      There's also Apple's continued refusal to allow devleopers to have separate pricing for updates vs new purchases. It's either a free update to the existing app, or it's an entirely new app listing with the same price for new users and people who owned the previous one. I've seen this circumvented by creating a package deal of the old and new versions, which then gets discounted via the "you already own part of this set" mechanism, but it's a messy experience and not something that many developers have done.
    - dathinab 6y ago
      This apps also can use internal APIs without faring to be removed from the app store, they can also do UX practices which are not super compatible with the guid lines and they never need to fear an arbitrary ("accidental") review block/take down. So it's not at all feeding they own dogfood. Do do so Apple would need to run separate finances and make sure they don't get benefited in the review process.
- chrisshroba 6y ago
  Serious question: Is this refund problem as big an issue as commenters here are implying? Is there data that shows that app developers are losing significant money due to Apple's fees not being refunded? I would have guessed that very few people ever request a refund on an app they purchase, but I have no data to back this up.
  - wlesieutre 6y ago
    Original link includes this tweet estimating about $8000 cost from Codea: https://twitter.com/twolivesleft/status/1288491970248077314/photo/1 https://twitter.com/twolivesleft/status/1288491970248077314/... Here's another example from Wil Shipley where someone purchased 30 education copies and then refunded all of them. Total for the day nets out to -18 purchases and sales of $-360: https://twitter.com/wilshipley/status/768540129203855360 https://twitter.com/wilshipley/status/768540129203855360 If you made say a high profile game that a particularly whiny subset of gamers took notice of, I imagine it could be much worse, but I don't know that this has happened yet. I'd bet money that it will though, and you have to wonder what Apple will do about it.
- nomel 6y ago
  > We all know this is an intentional design decision by Apple I see this as a good thing, since it probably means that only the user is capable of removing apps, requiring intent, and that Apple can never remove an app from my device.
  - neymgm 6y ago
    I saw it the same way. I'd be a terrible idea to let Apple remove/install AppStore apps without the customer's permission. I don't know if it already does something similar but in the next OS update it could block the usage and force to delete refunded apps.
    - cma 6y ago
      Why couldn't the refund be conditional on granting removal permission? One issue would be they could still restore from a backup I suppose.
  - dathinab 6y ago
    Apple is fully controlling your device, they can always do so if they want to even if they currently have no mechanism for it build-in. (Except if your phone never connects to the internet or a cell-phone at all ;=) ) Also apple could just require the user to remove the app before requesting refund or at least putting it in a partially removed state from which apple then can remove if. I.e. there is 0 benefit for any serious acting person. Only people who try to rip of app publishing companies profit from it.
  - rzwitserloot 6y ago
    Leading to a _trivial_ solution. Want a refund? Awesome. Delete the software from your phone. Then, go to the appstore, find the app again, and click 'request refund'. If apple wants to improve the user experience, they can offer 'request refund' when someone uninstalls a recently bought app.
    - jkrems 6y ago
      That would still mean that Apple would need to have a remote way of scanning every device currently connected to your account (even it's offline..?) to see if you have the app installed anywhere. It's trivial if the app can only exist on a single device and that is the only device that can request the refund. But that's not the reality.
snazz 6y ago
I'm glad that Apple can't remotely delete apps from my device. It would be somewhat dystopic if they had that capability.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  But they could make the refund wait until you do! It wouldn't be foolproof in case of backups but it would be a lot better than an honor system.
  - snazz 6y ago
    That's true; that would be the better solution. Requesting a refund before deleting the app would give the user an error message telling them to delete it.
    - tadfisher 6y ago
      With the corner case that if the user no longer has access to a device with the app installed, they cannot get a refund.
      - dathinab 6y ago
        If you lose the product you bought you can generally not get an refound ;=) And doesn't apple have some form of remote logout/factory reset feature for lost devices? EDIT: (Sure requiring remote factory reset for lost devices would not work if it's a iPad which has not internet connection and never gets one again in it's live time, but that would be an acceptable corner case I thing).
      - rzwitserloot 6y ago
        Of course they can. If you no longer have access to a device you used to own, you should use findmy to remote wipe it. If you really didn't want that, then you should at the very least go through the trouble of filing, with apple, that the device is lost or stolen, so that any attempt to return that device to an apple store or reseller to fix it gets it flagged. It seems bizarre in the extreme that you'd want to somehow protect your privacy by not reporting your stolen stuff as stolen with apple, but that you opt in to a system where installing apps requires going through a single vendor.
KingOfCoders 6y ago
Wow, well they got their money and don't care about developers.
emtel 6y ago
Can you explain that point a bit more? It doesn't seem to make any sense to me. You revenue is going to be number of sales * price - (number of refunds * price * 0.3). Factor, and you get price * (sales - number of refunds * 0.3). Your unit cost is 0, so the only thing that matters is if your revenue exceeds your fixed costs. I don't see how this would explain a disincentive to charge higher prices.
- esrauch 6y ago
  Perhaps the refund-rate is higher on $100 apps than $1 ones? If you find out your kid made an unauthorized purchase of $2 you're not likely to refund it, if its $100 you definitely will.
- nkrebs13 6y ago
  I'm not the person you're asking, but I can probably try to explain. Take other payment processing platforms like Stripe as an example. Stripe charges $0.30 + 2.9% to process a purchase. To help build your (and my) mental model: Price of item -> Stripe revenue (rounded) $1 -> $0.33 $5 -> $0.45 $100 -> $3.20 Apple's 30% cut makes sense if they were expecting most apps to be roughly $0.99 (anecdotally, I remember this being true during the early days of the App Store) and the (presumed) few apps that cost more than $1 would be the "whale" developers that would subsidize Apple software development. But nowadays apps are a lot more powerful, feature-full, and development-intensive so higher prices are required for any hope of profit. So the math you have is right, it's just that the path to profit is a lot harder when the ONLY way to sell your product is to have >=30% cut out immediately upon sale. Some stores set a minimum (e.g. $5) sale amount for using a credit card and those payment processing platforms have fees orders of magnitude less than Apple's App store
- ivalm 6y ago
  Your profit (at 0 unit cost) will be (Sales not refunded * 0.7-refunds * 0.3) * price If Sales not refunded/refunds<0.3/0.7 ~ 43% Then profit can be negative (you lose money because more people refund than not). >57% refund rate literally makes you lose money from listing. But even if just quarter of people refund that eats almost half of profit.
- 6y ago
baldajan 6y ago
That’s the problem with paid apps... but I also believe now it’s a problem with devs not validating the app receipt to check for refunds and prevent access. For in-app purchases, up until a few years ago, users would always have access to them (even after a refund) then it followed the same rules as paid apps - access always maintain but one couldn’t restore. Subscriptions however are unique as a server would constantly check the receipt from Apple, which would show a refund flag, so you could block access. Now they even send you a push notification to your server to indicate a refund. With iOS 14, in-app purchases will get a “notification” when a user receives a refund on device (with IAP encompassing subscriptions). So it’s getting better. Not perfect. But better.
ChrisMarshallNY 6y ago
If you charge $100, you get $70 from Apple (I'm an Apple developer, so I know, but I don't sell anything that costs $100). Apple gets $30, and you never see it. I believe that the $70 is taxed; not the $100. I know that if a customer get a refund, the full Benjamin comes back to them (I have received refunds). So does that mean that Apple asks the developer to pay "back" $100, when they only paid the developer $70? I have never had to issue a refund, so I don't know.
- balls187 6y ago
  > So does that mean that Apple asks the developer to pay "back" $100, when they only paid the developer $70? Kind of, except Apple doesn't ask, instead Apple automatically reconciles the balance debiting the $100 from the payout balance Apple maintains.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 6y ago
    > Apple automatically reconciles the balance debiting the $100 from the payout balance Apple maintains. That's the part that puzzles me. If there's a refund, and they penalize me by charging $30 more than I was actually paid, I see that as being problematic. Also, I suspect that it would be illegal in some venues, unless clearly spelled out in the contract. I'll have to spend some quality time, reviewing my contract, to find that...
    - ChrisMarshallNY 6y ago
      Yeah, it looks like they can do exactly that. Here's the relevant part, from my agreement: > 6.3 In the event that Apple receives any notice or claim from any End-User that: (i) the End-User wishes to cancel its license to any of the Licensed Applications within ninety (90) days of the date of download of that Licensed Application by that End-User or the end of the auto-renewing subscription period offered pursuant to section 3.8, if such period is less than ninety (90) days; or (ii) a Licensed Application fails to conform to Your specifications or Your product warranty or the requirements of any applicable law, Apple may refund to the End-User the full amount of the price paid by the End-User for that Licensed Application. ...and here's the (literal) money shot: > In the event that Apple refunds any such price to an End-User, You shall reimburse, or grant Apple a credit for, an amount equal to the price for that Licensed Application. In the event that Apple receives any notice or claim from a payment provider that an End-User has obtained a refund for a Licensed Application, You shall reimburse, or grant Apple a credit for, an amount equal to the price for that Licensed Application. In such cases, Apple will have the right to retain its commission on the sale of that Licensed Application, notwithstanding the refund of the price to the End-User. So that answers the question as to whether or not it does happen; but not whether or not it should happen. I guess developers could ask their congresscritters to grill Tim about it...
gerdesj 6y ago
"where losing $2 at volume is fine." Sorry, when is this fine? A dev flogs an app at 10 and pays 3 to Apple. Then on a refund they lose 3 and the end user has no incentive to even delete the app. Nope, I won't entertain that nonsense. The only way that I can see for that model to play out is for the dev to factor in a lossrate x 1.3 uplift for their app. That means owners of shiny iStuff are paying Apple an additional unannounced "tax" based on their app churn. Use and discard more apps, then you pay more for the privilege. A dev would have to become a loss adjuster as well: "Hmm assume a 10% return rate" - so the upcharge on my app will have to be: * My app should cost 10, assuming a fair market. * I lose 3 on a refund, which happens on 1/10 sales (I was paid 10 on sale, I paid 3 to Apple, I refunded 10 and hence lost 3) So my price adjustment would be 10 + (0.1 x 3) = 10.30. Yes, it looks like a simple uplift will deal with this. Sales: x, churn rate: c, Apple tax: a. => s' = s + (c.a) That is anti-competitive behaviour on a gigantic scale. Apple are making the apps that are developed for their platform automatically more expensive by a process that looks suspiciously like stealing. I call that parasitic.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- waheoo 6y ago
  You're forgetting development and marketing costs. If there is a sunk cost component that number skyrockets. Try adding a $5 customer acquisition and $1 developer time. Thats a $1 profit, you need to sell 3 apps to cover the cost of apples fees. You also need to sell another 6 to cover the sunk costs you don't get back. So 1 refund costs you 9 sales. To cover the 1/10, you'll need to charge 10.90, or more likely 11 to cover the moving 30%. But this is just to break even with your original $1 profit margin.
  - jachee 6y ago
    I'd argue that if 10% of your paying customers are refunding your product, you have a product problem.
    - 6y ago
oliversisson 6y ago
This isn't logical. It's the same in percentage terms. Whether you sell 1000 copies at $100 or 100,000 copies at $1, assuming the percent of refunds is constant, then the effect is identical. Right?
- mantap 6y ago
  True in principle but there's more inventive for a user to ask for a refund on a $100 purchase than a $1 purchase.

mywittyname 6y ago

> What is worse, is that Apple doesn't remove the app from the user's device. This. Is. Ridiculous. We all know this is an intentional design decision by Apple and that they would absolutely not have designed the workflow this way if they had to dogfood their own platform.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
nvahalik 6y ago
> if they had to dogfood their own platform. But Apple does sell one app through the iTunes App Store (Dark Sky, which they recently acquired). They sell several through the Mac App Store. So, they do dogfood, but obviously they are not depending on revenue to survive here. Side note: there are a bunch of apps listed under their developer that I had not seen before: Music Memos, Indoor Survey, Texas Hold'em, and Reality Composer.
- pier25 6y ago
  > So, they do dogfood, but obviously they are not depending on revenue to survive here. Their pro apps are almost given away for free. You could argue that $200 for Logic is not free, but similar DAW products costs 4-5 times more. Not only that, but competitors need to charge you for major updates every couple of years, like any developer. Since Apple released Logic Pro X in 2013 it has kept pushing updates without asking for money.
  - wlesieutre 6y ago
    There's also Apple's continued refusal to allow devleopers to have separate pricing for updates vs new purchases. It's either a free update to the existing app, or it's an entirely new app listing with the same price for new users and people who owned the previous one. I've seen this circumvented by creating a package deal of the old and new versions, which then gets discounted via the "you already own part of this set" mechanism, but it's a messy experience and not something that many developers have done.
  - dathinab 6y ago
    This apps also can use internal APIs without faring to be removed from the app store, they can also do UX practices which are not super compatible with the guid lines and they never need to fear an arbitrary ("accidental") review block/take down. So it's not at all feeding they own dogfood. Do do so Apple would need to run separate finances and make sure they don't get benefited in the review process.
chrisshroba 6y ago
Serious question: Is this refund problem as big an issue as commenters here are implying? Is there data that shows that app developers are losing significant money due to Apple's fees not being refunded? I would have guessed that very few people ever request a refund on an app they purchase, but I have no data to back this up.
- wlesieutre 6y ago
  Original link includes this tweet estimating about $8000 cost from Codea: https://twitter.com/twolivesleft/status/1288491970248077314/photo/1 https://twitter.com/twolivesleft/status/1288491970248077314/... Here's another example from Wil Shipley where someone purchased 30 education copies and then refunded all of them. Total for the day nets out to -18 purchases and sales of $-360: https://twitter.com/wilshipley/status/768540129203855360 https://twitter.com/wilshipley/status/768540129203855360 If you made say a high profile game that a particularly whiny subset of gamers took notice of, I imagine it could be much worse, but I don't know that this has happened yet. I'd bet money that it will though, and you have to wonder what Apple will do about it.
nomel 6y ago
> We all know this is an intentional design decision by Apple I see this as a good thing, since it probably means that only the user is capable of removing apps, requiring intent, and that Apple can never remove an app from my device.
- neymgm 6y ago
  I saw it the same way. I'd be a terrible idea to let Apple remove/install AppStore apps without the customer's permission. I don't know if it already does something similar but in the next OS update it could block the usage and force to delete refunded apps.
  - cma 6y ago
    Why couldn't the refund be conditional on granting removal permission? One issue would be they could still restore from a backup I suppose.
- dathinab 6y ago
  Apple is fully controlling your device, they can always do so if they want to even if they currently have no mechanism for it build-in. (Except if your phone never connects to the internet or a cell-phone at all ;=) ) Also apple could just require the user to remove the app before requesting refund or at least putting it in a partially removed state from which apple then can remove if. I.e. there is 0 benefit for any serious acting person. Only people who try to rip of app publishing companies profit from it.
- rzwitserloot 6y ago
  Leading to a _trivial_ solution. Want a refund? Awesome. Delete the software from your phone. Then, go to the appstore, find the app again, and click 'request refund'. If apple wants to improve the user experience, they can offer 'request refund' when someone uninstalls a recently bought app.
  - jkrems 6y ago
    That would still mean that Apple would need to have a remote way of scanning every device currently connected to your account (even it's offline..?) to see if you have the app installed anywhere. It's trivial if the app can only exist on a single device and that is the only device that can request the refund. But that's not the reality.

snazz 6y ago

I'm glad that Apple can't remotely delete apps from my device. It would be somewhat dystopic if they had that capability.

Dylan16807 6y ago
But they could make the refund wait until you do! It wouldn't be foolproof in case of backups but it would be a lot better than an honor system.
- snazz 6y ago
  That's true; that would be the better solution. Requesting a refund before deleting the app would give the user an error message telling them to delete it.
  - tadfisher 6y ago
    With the corner case that if the user no longer has access to a device with the app installed, they cannot get a refund.
    - dathinab 6y ago
      If you lose the product you bought you can generally not get an refound ;=) And doesn't apple have some form of remote logout/factory reset feature for lost devices? EDIT: (Sure requiring remote factory reset for lost devices would not work if it's a iPad which has not internet connection and never gets one again in it's live time, but that would be an acceptable corner case I thing).
    - rzwitserloot 6y ago
      Of course they can. If you no longer have access to a device you used to own, you should use findmy to remote wipe it. If you really didn't want that, then you should at the very least go through the trouble of filing, with apple, that the device is lost or stolen, so that any attempt to return that device to an apple store or reseller to fix it gets it flagged. It seems bizarre in the extreme that you'd want to somehow protect your privacy by not reporting your stolen stuff as stolen with apple, but that you opt in to a system where installing apps requires going through a single vendor.

KingOfCoders 6y ago

Wow, well they got their money and don't care about developers.

emtel 6y ago

Can you explain that point a bit more? It doesn't seem to make any sense to me. You revenue is going to be number of sales * price - (number of refunds * price * 0.3). Factor, and you get price * (sales - number of refunds * 0.3). Your unit cost is 0, so the only thing that matters is if your revenue exceeds your fixed costs. I don't see how this would explain a disincentive to charge higher prices.

esrauch 6y ago
Perhaps the refund-rate is higher on $100 apps than $1 ones? If you find out your kid made an unauthorized purchase of $2 you're not likely to refund it, if its $100 you definitely will.
nkrebs13 6y ago
I'm not the person you're asking, but I can probably try to explain. Take other payment processing platforms like Stripe as an example. Stripe charges $0.30 + 2.9% to process a purchase. To help build your (and my) mental model: Price of item -> Stripe revenue (rounded) $1 -> $0.33 $5 -> $0.45 $100 -> $3.20 Apple's 30% cut makes sense if they were expecting most apps to be roughly $0.99 (anecdotally, I remember this being true during the early days of the App Store) and the (presumed) few apps that cost more than $1 would be the "whale" developers that would subsidize Apple software development. But nowadays apps are a lot more powerful, feature-full, and development-intensive so higher prices are required for any hope of profit. So the math you have is right, it's just that the path to profit is a lot harder when the ONLY way to sell your product is to have >=30% cut out immediately upon sale. Some stores set a minimum (e.g. $5) sale amount for using a credit card and those payment processing platforms have fees orders of magnitude less than Apple's App store
ivalm 6y ago
Your profit (at 0 unit cost) will be (Sales not refunded * 0.7-refunds * 0.3) * price If Sales not refunded/refunds<0.3/0.7 ~ 43% Then profit can be negative (you lose money because more people refund than not). >57% refund rate literally makes you lose money from listing. But even if just quarter of people refund that eats almost half of profit.
6y ago

baldajan 6y ago

That’s the problem with paid apps... but I also believe now it’s a problem with devs not validating the app receipt to check for refunds and prevent access. For in-app purchases, up until a few years ago, users would always have access to them (even after a refund) then it followed the same rules as paid apps - access always maintain but one couldn’t restore. Subscriptions however are unique as a server would constantly check the receipt from Apple, which would show a refund flag, so you could block access. Now they even send you a push notification to your server to indicate a refund. With iOS 14, in-app purchases will get a “notification” when a user receives a refund on device (with IAP encompassing subscriptions). So it’s getting better. Not perfect. But better.

ChrisMarshallNY 6y ago

If you charge $100, you get $70 from Apple (I'm an Apple developer, so I know, but I don't sell anything that costs $100). Apple gets $30, and you never see it. I believe that the $70 is taxed; not the $100. I know that if a customer get a refund, the full Benjamin comes back to them (I have received refunds). So does that mean that Apple asks the developer to pay "back" $100, when they only paid the developer $70? I have never had to issue a refund, so I don't know.

balls187 6y ago
> So does that mean that Apple asks the developer to pay "back" $100, when they only paid the developer $70? Kind of, except Apple doesn't ask, instead Apple automatically reconciles the balance debiting the $100 from the payout balance Apple maintains.
- ChrisMarshallNY 6y ago
  > Apple automatically reconciles the balance debiting the $100 from the payout balance Apple maintains. That's the part that puzzles me. If there's a refund, and they penalize me by charging $30 more than I was actually paid, I see that as being problematic. Also, I suspect that it would be illegal in some venues, unless clearly spelled out in the contract. I'll have to spend some quality time, reviewing my contract, to find that...
  - ChrisMarshallNY 6y ago
    Yeah, it looks like they can do exactly that. Here's the relevant part, from my agreement: > 6.3 In the event that Apple receives any notice or claim from any End-User that: (i) the End-User wishes to cancel its license to any of the Licensed Applications within ninety (90) days of the date of download of that Licensed Application by that End-User or the end of the auto-renewing subscription period offered pursuant to section 3.8, if such period is less than ninety (90) days; or (ii) a Licensed Application fails to conform to Your specifications or Your product warranty or the requirements of any applicable law, Apple may refund to the End-User the full amount of the price paid by the End-User for that Licensed Application. ...and here's the (literal) money shot: > In the event that Apple refunds any such price to an End-User, You shall reimburse, or grant Apple a credit for, an amount equal to the price for that Licensed Application. In the event that Apple receives any notice or claim from a payment provider that an End-User has obtained a refund for a Licensed Application, You shall reimburse, or grant Apple a credit for, an amount equal to the price for that Licensed Application. In such cases, Apple will have the right to retain its commission on the sale of that Licensed Application, notwithstanding the refund of the price to the End-User. So that answers the question as to whether or not it does happen; but not whether or not it should happen. I guess developers could ask their congresscritters to grill Tim about it...

gerdesj 6y ago

"where losing $2 at volume is fine." Sorry, when is this fine? A dev flogs an app at 10 and pays 3 to Apple. Then on a refund they lose 3 and the end user has no incentive to even delete the app. Nope, I won't entertain that nonsense. The only way that I can see for that model to play out is for the dev to factor in a lossrate x 1.3 uplift for their app. That means owners of shiny iStuff are paying Apple an additional unannounced "tax" based on their app churn. Use and discard more apps, then you pay more for the privilege. A dev would have to become a loss adjuster as well: "Hmm assume a 10% return rate" - so the upcharge on my app will have to be: * My app should cost 10, assuming a fair market. * I lose 3 on a refund, which happens on 1/10 sales (I was paid 10 on sale, I paid 3 to Apple, I refunded 10 and hence lost 3) So my price adjustment would be 10 + (0.1 x 3) = 10.30. Yes, it looks like a simple uplift will deal with this. Sales: x, churn rate: c, Apple tax: a. => s' = s + (c.a) That is anti-competitive behaviour on a gigantic scale. Apple are making the apps that are developed for their platform automatically more expensive by a process that looks suspiciously like stealing. I call that parasitic.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
waheoo 6y ago
You're forgetting development and marketing costs. If there is a sunk cost component that number skyrockets. Try adding a $5 customer acquisition and $1 developer time. Thats a $1 profit, you need to sell 3 apps to cover the cost of apples fees. You also need to sell another 6 to cover the sunk costs you don't get back. So 1 refund costs you 9 sales. To cover the 1/10, you'll need to charge 10.90, or more likely 11 to cover the moving 30%. But this is just to break even with your original $1 profit margin.
- jachee 6y ago
  I'd argue that if 10% of your paying customers are refunding your product, you have a product problem.
  - 6y ago

oliversisson 6y ago

This isn't logical. It's the same in percentage terms. Whether you sell 1000 copies at $100 or 100,000 copies at $1, assuming the percent of refunds is constant, then the effect is identical. Right?

mantap 6y ago
True in principle but there's more inventive for a user to ask for a refund on a $100 purchase than a $1 purchase.