4 ms·

> Which is it, does the 30% discourage companies from participating, or does the App Store 30% and all enable too much competition for premium apps. It can’t be

> Which is it, does the 30% discourage companies from participating, or does the App Store 30% and all enable too much competition for premium apps. It can’t be both. Why are you phrasing this like a gotcha? "Too much competition" is your argument here, not mine. I think it's the former: the 30% discourages people (not necessarily companies) from participating.

Spivak 6y ago
But simultaneously the App Store is overflowing with apps made by solo devs and small teams. I'm sure you can find someone it discourages but en masse sharecropping on Apple's farm for most people seems to be good business.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  It's all different markets. There are some apps which cost only $10,000 to develop but there is demand from a billion users at a price of $1. Those markets would still be saturated with apps even if Apple kept 99% of the money. Then there are apps which cost more to develop but have demand from a smaller number of users. There the 30% can easily be the difference between viability and not. More than that, it takes 30% of the revenue away from the developer, so even if the app exists, the developer has fewer resources to improve it, so it's not as good. Or then that market can't support as many developers and the customer is deprived of the benefits of competition.
  - wolco 6y ago
    Perhaps that app doesn't deserve to live. If the 30% forces you out you were pretty close to losing money regardless.
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      If you can't afford to lose basically a third of your income, you were pretty close to losing money?
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Developers do like anyone else - they are free to charge 43% more to make up the difference. If you can’t get someone to pay $1.49 instead of $0.99 was your app that innovative?
    - oarsinsync 6y ago
      Or more realistically for that category of app, ask them to pay $14.99 instead of $9.99.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      And then 60% as many people pay $1.49 instead of $0.99 just to get you back what Apple took, so now you're down 40% of your original revenue instead of 30%. Not really an improvement, is it? If developers could actually increase overall revenue by raising prices this way they'd have done it regardless. > If you can’t get someone to pay $1.49 instead of $0.99 was your app that innovative? Well yes, because you had a large number of people -- enough to keep you in business -- willing to pay $0.99, or to pay $99 but not $149, and now all of the value of your entire business to both you and the customer is destroyed.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        So if you had a large number of people, you could support a lower cost. The software and game market survived selling games at retail only getting a 40% cut. Apple customers are by definition not price sensitive. If they were they wouldn’t be Apple customers.
        AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        > So if you had a large number of people, you could support a lower cost. Everybody already knows that which is why the original price was the expected profit-maximizing price. There is a price which is optimal because above it you lose more customers than you make in unit margins and below it you lose more unit margins than you gain in additional customers. If Apple then takes 30% of that, you can't get any more by changing the price up or down or you'd have already done that from the start. > The software and game market survived selling games at retail only getting a 40% cut. Only the ones that did. Others didn't. > Apple customers are by definition not price sensitive. If they were they wouldn’t be Apple customers. Then why do any apps in Apple's store cost $1 and not $100 or $100,000? If the customers were actually totally insensitive to price that would surely be more profitable.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  "Overflowing" is a relative term. There are something like a billion websites in the world; compared to that, a million iOS apps seems downright paltry.

Spivak 6y ago

But simultaneously the App Store is overflowing with apps made by solo devs and small teams. I'm sure you can find someone it discourages but en masse sharecropping on Apple's farm for most people seems to be good business.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
It's all different markets. There are some apps which cost only $10,000 to develop but there is demand from a billion users at a price of $1. Those markets would still be saturated with apps even if Apple kept 99% of the money. Then there are apps which cost more to develop but have demand from a smaller number of users. There the 30% can easily be the difference between viability and not. More than that, it takes 30% of the revenue away from the developer, so even if the app exists, the developer has fewer resources to improve it, so it's not as good. Or then that market can't support as many developers and the customer is deprived of the benefits of competition.
- wolco 6y ago
  Perhaps that app doesn't deserve to live. If the 30% forces you out you were pretty close to losing money regardless.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    If you can't afford to lose basically a third of your income, you were pretty close to losing money?
- scarface74 6y ago
  Developers do like anyone else - they are free to charge 43% more to make up the difference. If you can’t get someone to pay $1.49 instead of $0.99 was your app that innovative?
  - oarsinsync 6y ago
    Or more realistically for that category of app, ask them to pay $14.99 instead of $9.99.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    And then 60% as many people pay $1.49 instead of $0.99 just to get you back what Apple took, so now you're down 40% of your original revenue instead of 30%. Not really an improvement, is it? If developers could actually increase overall revenue by raising prices this way they'd have done it regardless. > If you can’t get someone to pay $1.49 instead of $0.99 was your app that innovative? Well yes, because you had a large number of people -- enough to keep you in business -- willing to pay $0.99, or to pay $99 but not $149, and now all of the value of your entire business to both you and the customer is destroyed.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      So if you had a large number of people, you could support a lower cost. The software and game market survived selling games at retail only getting a 40% cut. Apple customers are by definition not price sensitive. If they were they wouldn’t be Apple customers.
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        > So if you had a large number of people, you could support a lower cost. Everybody already knows that which is why the original price was the expected profit-maximizing price. There is a price which is optimal because above it you lose more customers than you make in unit margins and below it you lose more unit margins than you gain in additional customers. If Apple then takes 30% of that, you can't get any more by changing the price up or down or you'd have already done that from the start. > The software and game market survived selling games at retail only getting a 40% cut. Only the ones that did. Others didn't. > Apple customers are by definition not price sensitive. If they were they wouldn’t be Apple customers. Then why do any apps in Apple's store cost $1 and not $100 or $100,000? If the customers were actually totally insensitive to price that would surely be more profitable.
jakelazaroff 6y ago
"Overflowing" is a relative term. There are something like a billion websites in the world; compared to that, a million iOS apps seems downright paltry.