4 ms·

Consumers have the choice, but developers don't. Its been proven countless times over the years that Android users are much less likely to pay for applications

Consumers have the choice, but developers don't. Its been proven countless times over the years that Android users are much less likely to pay for applications than iOS users. As a developer, if you want to survive and make money from your application, you need to be on iOS, as Android is worthless in this regard. And so, Apple gets 30% of your in app purchase revenue, while providing little value other than being a payment processor, for which the normal charge is less than 2.5%.

spideymans 6y ago
>Consumers have the choice, but developers don't. Its been proven countless times over the years that Android users are much less likely to pay for applications than iOS users. Why should it be Apple's problem that Google can't monetize their dominant market share?
- echelon 6y ago
  It's not Google. It's me. Apple values my blood sweat and tears at $0.99/user/lifetime - 30% Apple tax - government taxes. I don't mean to compare it to a sweat shop, because I live in the first world and have opportunities, but this is a demeaning shakedown and devaluation of my pride, product, and work. Apple: 1. Shifted where generic computing happens 2. Downplayed the web as the end-all, be-all of application delivery. (It could have been amazing with WASM and sandboxing back in the 00's!) 3. Prevents generic apps from gaining distribution outside of Apple's control and tax They took advantage of open source, the web, and the Internet. Then they shit on it and offered up the App Store protection racket as salvation. It's only one of several themes where the giants of today crush the little guy. Computing is less free today than it was a decade ago. Before Apple I had reach and distribution. Now I have less than 50% of that. And I don't have liberty and control over my own narrative anymore.
  - orangecat 6y ago
    Apple values my blood sweat and tears at $0.99/user/lifetime While I oppose Apple's mandatory walled garden, this isn't their fault. The low price point is a signal that the mobile app market is oversaturated and that you should consider looking elsewhere for revenue.
alextheparrot 6y ago
Couldn’t you make a similar argument against your employer, Playstation? It seems like they charge the same 30% for roughly the same product — a locked platform to run applications where they take a cut of everything including micro-transactions?
- nathankunicki 6y ago
  And if this thread were about my employer and their policies, I may choose to weigh in on them also. Saying that, console games are more often than not the size of a Blu-ray disc, with triple-A games exceeding 40-60Gb in size, sometimes larger. Some popular games come on multiple discs. An order of magnitude larger than the less than 100Mb size of most iOS and Android apps, which are downloadable over a mobile connection. The hosting, bandwidth, CDN, and sales costs for the digital versions of those games and their patches can't be cheap, and are often subject to flash traffic surges, particularly when million of players decide to download them (and their updates) the second they're released. This is to say nothing of the myriad of hosted services that are provided that are unique to consoles. I don't know what business deals are in place, nor can I make a statement on the perceived value that the publishers who publish on consoles place on what's provided, however its worth noting that even before Fortnite was removed from the app stores, the target of Epic's complaint did not include Playstation, Xbox, or Nintendo.
  - alextheparrot 6y ago
    Entirely fair, the comment was a bit of a snipe and for that I apologize. There is definitely more of a "community" aspect around gaming, wherein everyone wants to get the midnight release or download the DLC the moment it is ready -- I can see how that creates technical differences in terms of the value console platforms may deliver to a developer. I would be unkind, though, if I didn't say there does seem to be a rough equivalence. The value provided might be different, but we can clearly see the lines get more blurry with hybrid devices like the Nintendo Switch. I would assume Epic is targeting Google and Apple because they have much higher gross margins on services (I think 60-70%, which is pretty normal for SaaS, vs around 30% for something like Xbox Live), plus the additional scrutiny mobile phones are under in general. Probably makes the case much easier. The cut does seem pretty hefty when considering most of that money is just going straight into profit margin. Irrespective, I wouldn't be surprised if decisions in the mobile realm find there way as precedent in other, similar cases.
sosborn 6y ago
> while providing little value other than being a payment processor, for which the normal charge is less than 2.5%. Would you consider providing a large number of paying customers "of little value?"
- nathankunicki 6y ago
  No, of course not, but Apple is essentially triple dipping in this regard. Lets break down the costs. 1. A $100 annual developer subscription. It could be argued that this goes towards SDK development, developer tooling, and App Store publishing systems. 2. The 30% fee when selling your app. Similarly, it could be argued that this fee covers application hosting and distribution, as well as advertising, and I guess as a "general fee" for selling your app through the App Store. 3. 30% on all in-app purchases. Given that Apple has no part to play in this (the application was already advertised and distributed, no additional hosting fees as developers are responsible for implementing/unlocking whatever happens once the purchase goes through, etc), what does this cover other than payment processing, which is normally charged at 2.5%~?
baddox 6y ago
I don't get that argument. You're saying developers don't have a choice because smartphone customers do have a choice. If you only care about customers who choose iPhone then shouldn't you respect the clear wishes of those customers and make software that is compatible with the rules of the platform they've chosen?
dwighttk 6y ago
If you are making money why are you complaining? If you can’t make money on Android, how will you make money on iOS when the “monopoly” is broken?

spideymans 6y ago

>Consumers have the choice, but developers don't. Its been proven countless times over the years that Android users are much less likely to pay for applications than iOS users. Why should it be Apple's problem that Google can't monetize their dominant market share?

echelon 6y ago
It's not Google. It's me. Apple values my blood sweat and tears at $0.99/user/lifetime - 30% Apple tax - government taxes. I don't mean to compare it to a sweat shop, because I live in the first world and have opportunities, but this is a demeaning shakedown and devaluation of my pride, product, and work. Apple: 1. Shifted where generic computing happens 2. Downplayed the web as the end-all, be-all of application delivery. (It could have been amazing with WASM and sandboxing back in the 00's!) 3. Prevents generic apps from gaining distribution outside of Apple's control and tax They took advantage of open source, the web, and the Internet. Then they shit on it and offered up the App Store protection racket as salvation. It's only one of several themes where the giants of today crush the little guy. Computing is less free today than it was a decade ago. Before Apple I had reach and distribution. Now I have less than 50% of that. And I don't have liberty and control over my own narrative anymore.
- orangecat 6y ago
  Apple values my blood sweat and tears at $0.99/user/lifetime While I oppose Apple's mandatory walled garden, this isn't their fault. The low price point is a signal that the mobile app market is oversaturated and that you should consider looking elsewhere for revenue.

alextheparrot 6y ago

Couldn’t you make a similar argument against your employer, Playstation? It seems like they charge the same 30% for roughly the same product — a locked platform to run applications where they take a cut of everything including micro-transactions?

nathankunicki 6y ago
And if this thread were about my employer and their policies, I may choose to weigh in on them also. Saying that, console games are more often than not the size of a Blu-ray disc, with triple-A games exceeding 40-60Gb in size, sometimes larger. Some popular games come on multiple discs. An order of magnitude larger than the less than 100Mb size of most iOS and Android apps, which are downloadable over a mobile connection. The hosting, bandwidth, CDN, and sales costs for the digital versions of those games and their patches can't be cheap, and are often subject to flash traffic surges, particularly when million of players decide to download them (and their updates) the second they're released. This is to say nothing of the myriad of hosted services that are provided that are unique to consoles. I don't know what business deals are in place, nor can I make a statement on the perceived value that the publishers who publish on consoles place on what's provided, however its worth noting that even before Fortnite was removed from the app stores, the target of Epic's complaint did not include Playstation, Xbox, or Nintendo.
- alextheparrot 6y ago
  Entirely fair, the comment was a bit of a snipe and for that I apologize. There is definitely more of a "community" aspect around gaming, wherein everyone wants to get the midnight release or download the DLC the moment it is ready -- I can see how that creates technical differences in terms of the value console platforms may deliver to a developer. I would be unkind, though, if I didn't say there does seem to be a rough equivalence. The value provided might be different, but we can clearly see the lines get more blurry with hybrid devices like the Nintendo Switch. I would assume Epic is targeting Google and Apple because they have much higher gross margins on services (I think 60-70%, which is pretty normal for SaaS, vs around 30% for something like Xbox Live), plus the additional scrutiny mobile phones are under in general. Probably makes the case much easier. The cut does seem pretty hefty when considering most of that money is just going straight into profit margin. Irrespective, I wouldn't be surprised if decisions in the mobile realm find there way as precedent in other, similar cases.

sosborn 6y ago

> while providing little value other than being a payment processor, for which the normal charge is less than 2.5%. Would you consider providing a large number of paying customers "of little value?"

nathankunicki 6y ago
No, of course not, but Apple is essentially triple dipping in this regard. Lets break down the costs. 1. A $100 annual developer subscription. It could be argued that this goes towards SDK development, developer tooling, and App Store publishing systems. 2. The 30% fee when selling your app. Similarly, it could be argued that this fee covers application hosting and distribution, as well as advertising, and I guess as a "general fee" for selling your app through the App Store. 3. 30% on all in-app purchases. Given that Apple has no part to play in this (the application was already advertised and distributed, no additional hosting fees as developers are responsible for implementing/unlocking whatever happens once the purchase goes through, etc), what does this cover other than payment processing, which is normally charged at 2.5%~?

baddox 6y ago

I don't get that argument. You're saying developers don't have a choice because smartphone customers do have a choice. If you only care about customers who choose iPhone then shouldn't you respect the clear wishes of those customers and make software that is compatible with the rules of the platform they've chosen?

dwighttk 6y ago

If you are making money why are you complaining? If you can’t make money on Android, how will you make money on iOS when the “monopoly” is broken?