7 ms·

Maybe the Apple cut is too high, but I don't think it's unreasonable for them to take some cut. They are providing the distribution platform to get your app to

Maybe the Apple cut is too high, but I don't think it's unreasonable for them to take some cut. They are providing the distribution platform to get your app to millions of users, it's not free for them to provide that service. They have their own server, bandwidth and employee costs too.

lacker 6y ago
They forbid you from using any other distribution mechanism on their device, though. The only reason Apple has to pay for App Store overhead for every single app is because Apple mandated it that way.
- jaegerpicker 6y ago
  It's THEIR platform, they built it, they own it, and there are more popular alternatives. Don't like Apples App Store buy an Android. Don't like Apple's App Store build an app for Android, Web, Console, or PC. No one is forced to make games for Apple. If I build a store and sell goods out of it, I set the terms, no one has the right to walk into that store and tell me I can't take a cut of the profits. Just because the platform is successful doesn't mean you HAVE to have access to it at all or especially on the terms you want. I don't like that I can't just submit a game to the switch store or that they get a cut, no one is claiming it's a monopoly. There is literally no difference other then Apple has been very successful at it.
  - ardit33 6y ago
    You seem young and naive.... For many, their iOS device (iPad or iPhone) is their primary computing device.... it is not like a PS4, which is mainly for games. Back in the 90's If Microsoft didn't get 'checked' with a threat to be broken up, we would have ended up with Pay MSFT 30% tax on every software you installed and purchased. It it time to 'check' both Apple and Google on their practices... In this case, Google at least allows some sideloading, while apple doesn't at all... So, I expect Apple is going to be the losing end of the history... but as long as they can keep doing it, and make profits out of it, they will be doing.
    - jaegerpicker 6y ago
      You seem condescending and annoying.... I was alive and working during the 90's and a massive linux/freebsd user then. What Microsoft was doing, forcing the hardware manufacturers to install windows or lose their business - forcing the bundling of internet explorer, is absolutely and completely different than what Apple is doing. It's their platform, the are not forcing any one to do anything.
      - UhDev 6y ago
        The way you describe it here actually makes them sound pretty similar. Isn't Windows Microsoft's platform?
      - 8note 6y ago
        Isnt that the same argument from Windows? Windows is their platform, their choice for what's installed with it and who can sell computers with windows on it
  - leafmeal 6y ago
    It's a monopoly because, for iPhone users, it's the only store in town.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > It's THEIR platform, they built it, they own it, and there are more popular alternatives. A monopoly is a monopoly, friend. > No one is forced to make games for Apple. Monopoly laws supersede this argument. > no one has the right to walk into that store and tell me I can't take a cut of the profits Actually, if a business has a monopoly on a certain market, then there absolutely are things that a person can demand that they do.
  - lacker 6y ago
    I'm just glad that Microsoft couldn't use this tactic back when the web first became popular. "Want to connect to other computers and don't like how Microsoft does it? Don't buy a Windows PC then!" Imagine if they had simply banned Netscape because it violated the rules of the Microsoft App Store.
speedgoose 6y ago
What about billing this cost plus some margin to the app developers instead of taking a cut on everything?
- ziddoap 6y ago
  That adds quite a bit of overhead (administration, accounting, etc.), which in turn would increase the costs even more. It is much easier to wrap it into the transaction itself instead of having to track, invoice, and collect the cost in a separate transaction.
  - speedgoose 6y ago
    They already bill all developers yearly.
    - ziddoap 6y ago
      My mistake, I assumed the "take a cut" meant from each transaction, processed at the time of transaction. If they already have the tracking, invoicing, accounting, etc. infrastructure than my point is invalid.
dawnerd 6y ago
They're also processing payments / dealing with fraud checks / chargebacks. But I also don't think it's reasonable for Apple for force their payment option, especially when other apps can directly take payment. This idea that "in-app purchases" can only be paid for through apple is insane.
asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
Considering the discount provided on console stores is 20% and not 30%, I think Epic probably agrees. It looks like the consoles are probably taking ~10-15% cuts compared to Apple's 30%, and Epic doesn't see this as worth challenging at the current time.
- askafriend 6y ago
  Consoles and marketplaces like Steam take 30% of digital game sales.
  - kevingadd 6y ago
    Valve changed their policies to provide a volume discount for big titles: https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/30/18120577/valve-steam-game-marketplace-revenue-split-new-rules-competition https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/30/18120577/valve-steam-gam...
    - askafriend 6y ago
      Yes, a little over a year ago for some successful titles. It just goes to show 30% is far from unusual - especially in the gaming industry. In fact 30% seems to be the benchmark. Retailers like Best Buy take 30% of video game sales too. Here's an article with a useful graphic that shows the cut through common gaming distribution channels: https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut-is-actually-the-industry-standard https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut...
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    If that is true, how do you explain that they are not implementing this new payment option on those platforms?
    - askafriend 6y ago
      https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut-is-actually-the-industry-standard https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut... For games, 30% is not unusual for distribution.
jamil7 6y ago
It does provide value thats the thing, it's relatively easy to setup IAP and subscriptions, IMO they can keep the 30% but they should just allow apps to offer other payment methods.
- balfirevic 6y ago
  > IMO they can keep the 30% but they should just allow apps to offer other payment methods. Would this just result in every app being free, but using (non-apple) IAP to gain access to any content beyond the opening screen?
  - jamil7 6y ago
    I think it'd have to have to caveats, e.g if offering payment you have to also offer apple payment at the same rate to the user.
    - smnrchrds 6y ago
      Not at the same rate. That would defeat the purpose from the consumer's point of view. They should be able to set a higher price for Apple Pay to cover the extra 30%.
      - jamil7 6y ago
        I think we're in agreement? I just worded it weirdly.
  - mattmaroon 6y ago
    Other than the non-Apple part, that's how it pretty much works now. Only 3% and 8% of apps in the stores are paid on Android and iOS respectively, and counted by downloads it's probably much lower. IAPs might be over 99% of revenue. If I were Apple, I'd make my payments optional. They're so seamless that as a customer, I'd probably still use them unless I were getting a substantial discount to do otherwise, and sometimes even then. They could do something like give developers the option to sign up to use it exclusively for a reduced rate. It'd be one less bullet for the anti-trust regulators, and app store revenues are only about 4% of Apple's revenue anyway.
infairverona 6y ago
Apple sells the iPhone though. You can think of this as a simple transaction where Apple is profiting off of the device sales and the app developers are providing a reason for customers to buy those devices.
smnrchrds 6y ago
There are screenshots about how this feature works in the linked article. I would super OK with this. It gives an option to use Apple Pay or their internal pay system, and it shows how much each costs so you can make an informed decision. If you value Apple Pay's security and privacy features enough, you can pay the higher price and use that option. If you don't, you can choose to use the publisher's payment option and pay a lower price. The problem with Apple Pay is a) it is forced as the only option, and b) it is hidden from the user; you may never realize that all these years you have been paying for a service on your iPhone, you could have instead gone to the publisher's website and saved a lot of money.
Jellyd 6y ago
by this logic the ISP should also get a cut, which is ridic
- guitarbill 6y ago
  you're already paying ISPs effectively a monthly subscription for the bandwidth, employees, and Apple is no doubt also paying ISPs for their outbound traffic. so absolutely not.
  - recursive 6y ago
    iPhone users already pay for hardware.
    - jaegerpicker 6y ago
      Which has absolutely nothing to do with paying for the App Store or games on it. What's your point? Apple should be forced to give up control of their work?
      - recursive 6y ago
        My point is definitely not that Apple should be forced to give up control of their work, since I'm not sure which work you're referring to. As far as I know, you can't use Apple's store without Apple's hardware. So my point is that Apple is getting paid.
Sargos 6y ago
"providing the distribution platform" is an extremely charitable way of saying "forcing developers to relinquish control of their software to Apple and pay a tax for the privilege". Apple is not the good guy here. They are using their monopoly to impose unfair rules and extract rent from all of the software half of the people in the world want to use.
zamadatix 6y ago
If it's a reasonable cut for the service then they should have no fear of competition from other payment services.
binthere 6y ago
If this was Microsoft Windows I am sure you would have your pitchforks ready. Just rephrase your statement with Windows and you'd see the absurd of your statement.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

lacker 6y ago

They forbid you from using any other distribution mechanism on their device, though. The only reason Apple has to pay for App Store overhead for every single app is because Apple mandated it that way.

jaegerpicker 6y ago
It's THEIR platform, they built it, they own it, and there are more popular alternatives. Don't like Apples App Store buy an Android. Don't like Apple's App Store build an app for Android, Web, Console, or PC. No one is forced to make games for Apple. If I build a store and sell goods out of it, I set the terms, no one has the right to walk into that store and tell me I can't take a cut of the profits. Just because the platform is successful doesn't mean you HAVE to have access to it at all or especially on the terms you want. I don't like that I can't just submit a game to the switch store or that they get a cut, no one is claiming it's a monopoly. There is literally no difference other then Apple has been very successful at it.
- ardit33 6y ago
  You seem young and naive.... For many, their iOS device (iPad or iPhone) is their primary computing device.... it is not like a PS4, which is mainly for games. Back in the 90's If Microsoft didn't get 'checked' with a threat to be broken up, we would have ended up with Pay MSFT 30% tax on every software you installed and purchased. It it time to 'check' both Apple and Google on their practices... In this case, Google at least allows some sideloading, while apple doesn't at all... So, I expect Apple is going to be the losing end of the history... but as long as they can keep doing it, and make profits out of it, they will be doing.
  - jaegerpicker 6y ago
    You seem condescending and annoying.... I was alive and working during the 90's and a massive linux/freebsd user then. What Microsoft was doing, forcing the hardware manufacturers to install windows or lose their business - forcing the bundling of internet explorer, is absolutely and completely different than what Apple is doing. It's their platform, the are not forcing any one to do anything.
    - UhDev 6y ago
      The way you describe it here actually makes them sound pretty similar. Isn't Windows Microsoft's platform?
    - 8note 6y ago
      Isnt that the same argument from Windows? Windows is their platform, their choice for what's installed with it and who can sell computers with windows on it
- leafmeal 6y ago
  It's a monopoly because, for iPhone users, it's the only store in town.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > It's THEIR platform, they built it, they own it, and there are more popular alternatives. A monopoly is a monopoly, friend. > No one is forced to make games for Apple. Monopoly laws supersede this argument. > no one has the right to walk into that store and tell me I can't take a cut of the profits Actually, if a business has a monopoly on a certain market, then there absolutely are things that a person can demand that they do.
- lacker 6y ago
  I'm just glad that Microsoft couldn't use this tactic back when the web first became popular. "Want to connect to other computers and don't like how Microsoft does it? Don't buy a Windows PC then!" Imagine if they had simply banned Netscape because it violated the rules of the Microsoft App Store.

speedgoose 6y ago

What about billing this cost plus some margin to the app developers instead of taking a cut on everything?

ziddoap 6y ago
That adds quite a bit of overhead (administration, accounting, etc.), which in turn would increase the costs even more. It is much easier to wrap it into the transaction itself instead of having to track, invoice, and collect the cost in a separate transaction.
- speedgoose 6y ago
  They already bill all developers yearly.
  - ziddoap 6y ago
    My mistake, I assumed the "take a cut" meant from each transaction, processed at the time of transaction. If they already have the tracking, invoicing, accounting, etc. infrastructure than my point is invalid.

dawnerd 6y ago

They're also processing payments / dealing with fraud checks / chargebacks. But I also don't think it's reasonable for Apple for force their payment option, especially when other apps can directly take payment. This idea that "in-app purchases" can only be paid for through apple is insane.

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago

Considering the discount provided on console stores is 20% and not 30%, I think Epic probably agrees. It looks like the consoles are probably taking ~10-15% cuts compared to Apple's 30%, and Epic doesn't see this as worth challenging at the current time.

askafriend 6y ago
Consoles and marketplaces like Steam take 30% of digital game sales.
- kevingadd 6y ago
  Valve changed their policies to provide a volume discount for big titles: https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/30/18120577/valve-steam-game-marketplace-revenue-split-new-rules-competition https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/30/18120577/valve-steam-gam...
  - askafriend 6y ago
    Yes, a little over a year ago for some successful titles. It just goes to show 30% is far from unusual - especially in the gaming industry. In fact 30% seems to be the benchmark. Retailers like Best Buy take 30% of video game sales too. Here's an article with a useful graphic that shows the cut through common gaming distribution channels: https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut-is-actually-the-industry-standard https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut...
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  If that is true, how do you explain that they are not implementing this new payment option on those platforms?
  - askafriend 6y ago
    https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut-is-actually-the-industry-standard https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut... For games, 30% is not unusual for distribution.

jamil7 6y ago

It does provide value thats the thing, it's relatively easy to setup IAP and subscriptions, IMO they can keep the 30% but they should just allow apps to offer other payment methods.

balfirevic 6y ago
> IMO they can keep the 30% but they should just allow apps to offer other payment methods. Would this just result in every app being free, but using (non-apple) IAP to gain access to any content beyond the opening screen?
- jamil7 6y ago
  I think it'd have to have to caveats, e.g if offering payment you have to also offer apple payment at the same rate to the user.
  - smnrchrds 6y ago
    Not at the same rate. That would defeat the purpose from the consumer's point of view. They should be able to set a higher price for Apple Pay to cover the extra 30%.
    - jamil7 6y ago
      I think we're in agreement? I just worded it weirdly.
- mattmaroon 6y ago
  Other than the non-Apple part, that's how it pretty much works now. Only 3% and 8% of apps in the stores are paid on Android and iOS respectively, and counted by downloads it's probably much lower. IAPs might be over 99% of revenue. If I were Apple, I'd make my payments optional. They're so seamless that as a customer, I'd probably still use them unless I were getting a substantial discount to do otherwise, and sometimes even then. They could do something like give developers the option to sign up to use it exclusively for a reduced rate. It'd be one less bullet for the anti-trust regulators, and app store revenues are only about 4% of Apple's revenue anyway.

infairverona 6y ago

Apple sells the iPhone though. You can think of this as a simple transaction where Apple is profiting off of the device sales and the app developers are providing a reason for customers to buy those devices.

smnrchrds 6y ago

There are screenshots about how this feature works in the linked article. I would super OK with this. It gives an option to use Apple Pay or their internal pay system, and it shows how much each costs so you can make an informed decision. If you value Apple Pay's security and privacy features enough, you can pay the higher price and use that option. If you don't, you can choose to use the publisher's payment option and pay a lower price. The problem with Apple Pay is a) it is forced as the only option, and b) it is hidden from the user; you may never realize that all these years you have been paying for a service on your iPhone, you could have instead gone to the publisher's website and saved a lot of money.

Jellyd 6y ago

by this logic the ISP should also get a cut, which is ridic

guitarbill 6y ago
you're already paying ISPs effectively a monthly subscription for the bandwidth, employees, and Apple is no doubt also paying ISPs for their outbound traffic. so absolutely not.
- recursive 6y ago
  iPhone users already pay for hardware.
  - jaegerpicker 6y ago
    Which has absolutely nothing to do with paying for the App Store or games on it. What's your point? Apple should be forced to give up control of their work?
    - recursive 6y ago
      My point is definitely not that Apple should be forced to give up control of their work, since I'm not sure which work you're referring to. As far as I know, you can't use Apple's store without Apple's hardware. So my point is that Apple is getting paid.

Sargos 6y ago

"providing the distribution platform" is an extremely charitable way of saying "forcing developers to relinquish control of their software to Apple and pay a tax for the privilege". Apple is not the good guy here. They are using their monopoly to impose unfair rules and extract rent from all of the software half of the people in the world want to use.

zamadatix 6y ago

If it's a reasonable cut for the service then they should have no fear of competition from other payment services.

binthere 6y ago

If this was Microsoft Windows I am sure you would have your pitchforks ready. Just rephrase your statement with Windows and you'd see the absurd of your statement.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]