9 ms·

The most important changes Apple needs to make would not cost them a single line of code- they just get rid of their policy to require consistent pricing across

The most important changes Apple needs to make would not cost them a single line of code- they just get rid of their policy to require consistent pricing across all platforms, and allow promotion/linking of external (i.e. not on iOS) payment sources. If Spotify could charge +30% for a subscription purchased through the App store, and include a link to their main sign up page where subscriptions are regular price, everyone is happy. No security is changed and developers pass along the price of being in the App store to only those consumers who wish it. Only loser is Apple, who does not get to use their gatekeeper status on iOS to enforce monopoly-style pricing controls across all platforms.

zacwest 6y ago
The consistent pricing requirement was removed years ago. This is an article from 2011 about it: https://appleinsider.com/articles/11/06/09/apple_backs_down_on_in_app_purchasing_rules_allows_lower_prices_for_out_of_app_purchases https://appleinsider.com/articles/11/06/09/apple_backs_down_...
- judge2020 6y ago
  For reference, YT Premium is $16 on iOS[0] but $12 directly[1]. 0: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ACtC-3dznQemACWzb2tbYfdbIsfinczTPJSLJaLKTVKLWG3_UxpfFIpmBx8S5ClHwiurFHBmZM2tuh0iqdAR3ch_OOvtgrr6Iq3FK3QDg4B9fzywSgdrIciI0TtamxupQCV3AJXx3Dr-Kw1l--xUny28FoQy2w=w553-h970-no https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ACtC-3dznQemACWzb2tbYfd... 1: https://youtube.com/premium https://youtube.com/premium
  - csunbird 6y ago
    The developer chooses if the price should be different or not. In that case, Youtube decided that the users should pay the 30 percent Apple tax.
    - judge2020 6y ago
      Yes - and YT is still losing money on that transaction. $16 will become $11.20 after apple takes their cut.
      - csunbird 6y ago
        After payment processor fees on other platforms, I assume the resulting profit should be really close.
      - robterrell 6y ago
        Unless Google has a sweetheart deal like Amazon.
        judge2020 6y ago
        YT likely doesn't have the 15% deal that is available for tv/movie streaming platforms, and they don't do annual subscriptions so they don't get 15% on second year subscriptions either.
        realityking 6y ago
        YouTube still gets the 15% deal. You don't have to offer annual subscriptions to get it. The only requirement is, that it's auto-renewing. > During a subscriber’s first year of service, you receive 70% of the subscription price at each billing cycle, minus applicable taxes. After a subscriber accumulates one year of paid service, your net revenue increases to 85% of the subscription price, minus applicable taxes. Source: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/subscriptions/#revenue-after-one-year https://developer.apple.com/app-store/subscriptions/#revenue...
- panzagl 6y ago
  Did not realize that, thanks. Though if you're forced to add in-app purchases and cannot advertise the other method it seems somewhat moot.
georgeecollins 6y ago
That is exactly what Epic was doing. They were allowing people to make purchases at a 20% discount through a web app of digital content that could appear in iPhone App. And Apple took their app down. It's not the pricing that Apple opposed, its that you could buy it through another method. How can you have the pricing changes you propose if Apple forbids selling interactive content for their platform through any other channel? The point is that Apple has too much power over the device, in the way that Microsoft has at times had too much power over the desktop. If Apple was forced to let other people offer app stores on Apple devices, everything they do in the app store would be fine. I don't have a problem with Steam or Microsoft App store, because they can co-exist with other app stores. If Apple is the only one you trust, you can only use that one. That is what makes sense to me.
- Spivak 6y ago
  This is where the situation gets complicated. Apple's position is that you can't use their devices to sell digital goods not via them. It would be as if a bottle of shampoo at Target had on the label "Buy it online instead of Target for 30% off." If you can get your customers to buy your stuff on your own with your own marketing not using Apple's devices then you win and get to keep the 30% but if you use your app to sell to a customer then Apple gets a cut. > Apple forbids selling interactive content for their platform This isn't entirely true. If you make a game that sells in-game currency then you can get around the 30% by having users buy your currency packs on your website. But you can't use your app to direct them there. And if you're like "that would be a death-knell for any game" then you understand why Apple charges and premium for it.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - jonny_eh 6y ago
    Except when you're in Fortnite, you're not in the Apple Store, you're in the Fortnite Store.
ArkVark 6y ago
This just penalises the little guy who can't setup alternative infrastructure. Digital stores above a certain size (eg. above $1b in annual global sales) simply need to be regulated by Governments, with a maximum % commission for developers registered in that country. 15% seems reasonable.
saagarjha 6y ago
This doesn't solve the problem of "what if Apple says you shouldn't be on the App Store at all".
whakim 6y ago
I agree, but Apple will never go for this unless forced to for obvious reasons. As a cross-platform developer, the degree to which Apple has scrutinized our app and made sure there's not so much as a hint of the fact that you can buy the product on the web is totally nuts.
- Spivak 6y ago
  I mean it's not exactly crazy, if Apple gave any ground in this department you would see every app desperately trying to push their users off-app for a sale.
  - whakim 6y ago
    In our particular case we had features that didn't exist in the app (for various reasons, including some that just didn't make sense on a phone). We weren't allowed to mention that those features existed, god forbid link to them on the web, because someone might subscribe that way instead.

zacwest 6y ago

The consistent pricing requirement was removed years ago. This is an article from 2011 about it: https://appleinsider.com/articles/11/06/09/apple_backs_down_on_in_app_purchasing_rules_allows_lower_prices_for_out_of_app_purchases https://appleinsider.com/articles/11/06/09/apple_backs_down_...

judge2020 6y ago
For reference, YT Premium is $16 on iOS[0] but $12 directly[1]. 0: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ACtC-3dznQemACWzb2tbYfdbIsfinczTPJSLJaLKTVKLWG3_UxpfFIpmBx8S5ClHwiurFHBmZM2tuh0iqdAR3ch_OOvtgrr6Iq3FK3QDg4B9fzywSgdrIciI0TtamxupQCV3AJXx3Dr-Kw1l--xUny28FoQy2w=w553-h970-no https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ACtC-3dznQemACWzb2tbYfd... 1: https://youtube.com/premium https://youtube.com/premium
- csunbird 6y ago
  The developer chooses if the price should be different or not. In that case, Youtube decided that the users should pay the 30 percent Apple tax.
  - judge2020 6y ago
    Yes - and YT is still losing money on that transaction. $16 will become $11.20 after apple takes their cut.
    - csunbird 6y ago
      After payment processor fees on other platforms, I assume the resulting profit should be really close.
    - robterrell 6y ago
      Unless Google has a sweetheart deal like Amazon.
      - judge2020 6y ago
        YT likely doesn't have the 15% deal that is available for tv/movie streaming platforms, and they don't do annual subscriptions so they don't get 15% on second year subscriptions either.
        realityking 6y ago
        YouTube still gets the 15% deal. You don't have to offer annual subscriptions to get it. The only requirement is, that it's auto-renewing. > During a subscriber’s first year of service, you receive 70% of the subscription price at each billing cycle, minus applicable taxes. After a subscriber accumulates one year of paid service, your net revenue increases to 85% of the subscription price, minus applicable taxes. Source: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/subscriptions/#revenue-after-one-year https://developer.apple.com/app-store/subscriptions/#revenue...
panzagl 6y ago
Did not realize that, thanks. Though if you're forced to add in-app purchases and cannot advertise the other method it seems somewhat moot.

georgeecollins 6y ago

That is exactly what Epic was doing. They were allowing people to make purchases at a 20% discount through a web app of digital content that could appear in iPhone App. And Apple took their app down. It's not the pricing that Apple opposed, its that you could buy it through another method. How can you have the pricing changes you propose if Apple forbids selling interactive content for their platform through any other channel? The point is that Apple has too much power over the device, in the way that Microsoft has at times had too much power over the desktop. If Apple was forced to let other people offer app stores on Apple devices, everything they do in the app store would be fine. I don't have a problem with Steam or Microsoft App store, because they can co-exist with other app stores. If Apple is the only one you trust, you can only use that one. That is what makes sense to me.

Spivak 6y ago
This is where the situation gets complicated. Apple's position is that you can't use their devices to sell digital goods not via them. It would be as if a bottle of shampoo at Target had on the label "Buy it online instead of Target for 30% off." If you can get your customers to buy your stuff on your own with your own marketing not using Apple's devices then you win and get to keep the 30% but if you use your app to sell to a customer then Apple gets a cut. > Apple forbids selling interactive content for their platform This isn't entirely true. If you make a game that sells in-game currency then you can get around the 30% by having users buy your currency packs on your website. But you can't use your app to direct them there. And if you're like "that would be a death-knell for any game" then you understand why Apple charges and premium for it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jonny_eh 6y ago
  Except when you're in Fortnite, you're not in the Apple Store, you're in the Fortnite Store.

ArkVark 6y ago

This just penalises the little guy who can't setup alternative infrastructure. Digital stores above a certain size (eg. above $1b in annual global sales) simply need to be regulated by Governments, with a maximum % commission for developers registered in that country. 15% seems reasonable.

saagarjha 6y ago

This doesn't solve the problem of "what if Apple says you shouldn't be on the App Store at all".

whakim 6y ago

I agree, but Apple will never go for this unless forced to for obvious reasons. As a cross-platform developer, the degree to which Apple has scrutinized our app and made sure there's not so much as a hint of the fact that you can buy the product on the web is totally nuts.

Spivak 6y ago
I mean it's not exactly crazy, if Apple gave any ground in this department you would see every app desperately trying to push their users off-app for a sale.
- whakim 6y ago
  In our particular case we had features that didn't exist in the app (for various reasons, including some that just didn't make sense on a phone). We weren't allowed to mention that those features existed, god forbid link to them on the web, because someone might subscribe that way instead.