4 ms·

Ah this is it right here. I had been very confused as to why Apple made this move. This is at least consistent with their past actions. But yeah the lack of ab

by graeme 6y ago

Ah this is it right here. I had been very confused as to why Apple made this move. This is at least consistent with their past actions. But yeah the lack of ability to link to web based payment for subscription plans or even mention it will probably be something that has to go from the app store’s terms. It’s bad for both users and developers. The situation is confusing for users. Not all apps have margins that can support 30%, but this policy makes it non obvious how to even subscribe. I think if Apple had a flat 15% for subscriptions they’d still get a fair bit of usage, as there are big conversion advantages to using the IAP system. They might even get more revenue by attracting dev’s with reasonable terms, growing the amount of subscription apps using. This seems much more clear cut to me than Epic’s demands. Epic wants to dismantle the whole phone system as we know it.

dwaite 6y ago
It is antithetical for apple to create a for-profit store which allows for all avenues for profit to be skipped. Apple's take is typically one of a referral/marketing relationship, such as how they charge different rates for acquiring a new customer subscription (30% for the first year) vs maintaining a customer subscription (15% for additional years) or having a customer come in through another subscription channel (0%). To prevent abuse (from Apple's perspective), they mandate that the in-app subscription and purchasing be available and 'encouraged' (as in, not actively discouraged through referring to any price difference from other channels as a 'tax', or linking to other channels rather than offering in-app options). A lot of the recent news (such as the Hey email app fiasco) unfortunately come from developers trying to interpolate what is acceptable through other examples in the App Store, rather than reading the terms they have with Apple. IMHO different handling of different apps is actually due to the various business models producing a very 'jaggy' line around in-app purchasing and subscription requirements. For instance, Hey decided rather than supporting in-app subscriptions as an option, they would provide a 'free' service tier - but this does mean their app is restricted from pushing the user to a paid subscription tier, including indirectly via links to the hey.com website. Developers often look at very popular apps which have the ability to publish with no functionality without an out-of-app account with external purchases and/or subscriptions. However, these apps are actually limited to a few types of products, so called 'reader' apps where presumably the user equates the products with consumption of already purchased/rented physical goods (music, movies, television episodes, books, magazines, etc). Presumably this exemption both came from the popularity of large apps published before in-app purchasing was added to the system, that Apple themselves had spent a lot of time implying their various media stores were for "purchasing" media just like in the physical world, and that limitations that would effectively prohibit the use of systems such as Kindle and Amazon Music would create antitrust issues. Apple obviously is not willing to voluntarily give up any territory along this line of exemptions, which is why other services (such as email accounts or blog hosting) are not considered part of this "reader" exemption. Also obviously, it is also really unfortunate that this complicates what business models are acceptable when publishing on the App Store.
dwaite 6y ago
> I think if Apple had a flat 15% for subscriptions they’d still get a fair bit of usage, as there are big conversion advantages to using the IAP system. They might even get more revenue by attracting dev’s with reasonable terms, growing the amount of subscription apps using. As a personal aside, the 15% rate is a bit odd in the App Store, as someone loses money on my subscriptions there. My personal App Store account is funded heavily by gift cards bought at 15-20% off, and I strongly suspect based on deals I've seen over the years that merchants have historically gotten a 15% cut on gift cards sold. I also have been trying to figure out whether this has changed recently, as Apple has consolidated their "App Store" gift card with the retail "Apple Store" gift card - the same gift card can be used for movies, subscriptions, or toward new headphones. Coinciding with this, all of my channels for purchasing gift cards at discounted rates removed their card displays. This could very well be part of a coordinated effort to reduce the average cost of IAP to be capable of offering a lower rate around in-app purchases. It could also be Apple realizing they are now giving up significant profit on people applying these gift cards toward Apple-run services, like Apple Music or Arcade.
- graeme 6y ago
  Oh right I forgot about that. People ignore this with the 15%-30%: Apple has done a lot of work to get money into the app store ecosystem. The larger margin allowed them to spread this sort of currency. They can make a different solution, but it may not be better for the app ecosystem. Those gift cards got a lot of people into buying apps. I personally started when I got a $100 itunes gift card while buying a laptop as a student.
gls2ro 6y ago
Seems to me that Apple has 15% for subscriptions for apps free with IAP after first year: > After the first year, the developer earns 85% for all successive years that the user remains a subscriber, and Apple collects a 15% commission. Source: https://www.apple.com/ios/app-store/principles-practices/ https://www.apple.com/ios/app-store/principles-practices/
- rewq4321 6y ago
  I wonder how long people stay subscribed to apps on average? As an example, I'd guess that most people don't stay subscribed to games for much longer than a year, on average. So I'd bet that their effective tax is closer to 30% than 15%.

by graeme 6y ago

dwaite 6y ago

It is antithetical for apple to create a for-profit store which allows for all avenues for profit to be skipped. Apple's take is typically one of a referral/marketing relationship, such as how they charge different rates for acquiring a new customer subscription (30% for the first year) vs maintaining a customer subscription (15% for additional years) or having a customer come in through another subscription channel (0%). To prevent abuse (from Apple's perspective), they mandate that the in-app subscription and purchasing be available and 'encouraged' (as in, not actively discouraged through referring to any price difference from other channels as a 'tax', or linking to other channels rather than offering in-app options). A lot of the recent news (such as the Hey email app fiasco) unfortunately come from developers trying to interpolate what is acceptable through other examples in the App Store, rather than reading the terms they have with Apple. IMHO different handling of different apps is actually due to the various business models producing a very 'jaggy' line around in-app purchasing and subscription requirements. For instance, Hey decided rather than supporting in-app subscriptions as an option, they would provide a 'free' service tier - but this does mean their app is restricted from pushing the user to a paid subscription tier, including indirectly via links to the hey.com website. Developers often look at very popular apps which have the ability to publish with no functionality without an out-of-app account with external purchases and/or subscriptions. However, these apps are actually limited to a few types of products, so called 'reader' apps where presumably the user equates the products with consumption of already purchased/rented physical goods (music, movies, television episodes, books, magazines, etc). Presumably this exemption both came from the popularity of large apps published before in-app purchasing was added to the system, that Apple themselves had spent a lot of time implying their various media stores were for "purchasing" media just like in the physical world, and that limitations that would effectively prohibit the use of systems such as Kindle and Amazon Music would create antitrust issues. Apple obviously is not willing to voluntarily give up any territory along this line of exemptions, which is why other services (such as email accounts or blog hosting) are not considered part of this "reader" exemption. Also obviously, it is also really unfortunate that this complicates what business models are acceptable when publishing on the App Store.

dwaite 6y ago

> I think if Apple had a flat 15% for subscriptions they’d still get a fair bit of usage, as there are big conversion advantages to using the IAP system. They might even get more revenue by attracting dev’s with reasonable terms, growing the amount of subscription apps using. As a personal aside, the 15% rate is a bit odd in the App Store, as someone loses money on my subscriptions there. My personal App Store account is funded heavily by gift cards bought at 15-20% off, and I strongly suspect based on deals I've seen over the years that merchants have historically gotten a 15% cut on gift cards sold. I also have been trying to figure out whether this has changed recently, as Apple has consolidated their "App Store" gift card with the retail "Apple Store" gift card - the same gift card can be used for movies, subscriptions, or toward new headphones. Coinciding with this, all of my channels for purchasing gift cards at discounted rates removed their card displays. This could very well be part of a coordinated effort to reduce the average cost of IAP to be capable of offering a lower rate around in-app purchases. It could also be Apple realizing they are now giving up significant profit on people applying these gift cards toward Apple-run services, like Apple Music or Arcade.

graeme 6y ago
Oh right I forgot about that. People ignore this with the 15%-30%: Apple has done a lot of work to get money into the app store ecosystem. The larger margin allowed them to spread this sort of currency. They can make a different solution, but it may not be better for the app ecosystem. Those gift cards got a lot of people into buying apps. I personally started when I got a $100 itunes gift card while buying a laptop as a student.

gls2ro 6y ago

Seems to me that Apple has 15% for subscriptions for apps free with IAP after first year: > After the first year, the developer earns 85% for all successive years that the user remains a subscriber, and Apple collects a 15% commission. Source: https://www.apple.com/ios/app-store/principles-practices/ https://www.apple.com/ios/app-store/principles-practices/

rewq4321 6y ago
I wonder how long people stay subscribed to apps on average? As an example, I'd guess that most people don't stay subscribed to games for much longer than a year, on average. So I'd bet that their effective tax is closer to 30% than 15%.