6 ms·

It’s ridiculous that Apple takes 30% of a transaction between two independent third parties, one of which may have no idea their virtual attendees are even usin

It’s ridiculous that Apple takes 30% of a transaction between two independent third parties, one of which may have no idea their virtual attendees are even using iPhones.

oneplane 6y ago
It’s ridiculous that people point to Apple when 5 other big platforms are doing the exact same thing and form much longer too. People just like to pile on. If it's a general issue, make it a general quest for a general solution.
- nojokes 6y ago
  Apple started it.
  - monkin 6y ago
    Nice joke.
  - oneplane 6y ago
    I don't think Apple had such a model with the Pipin game console, or a successful or global one at that. Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo do as an example. Stating that they are the first is just incorrect. One could perhaps state that they are making the most profit out of it. But unless we take a stance on profit being bad I'm wondering why this needs to be a hot topic at all.
    - forrestthewoods 6y ago
      I think Apple did start the 30% cut? Or at least standardized it. iTunes 0.99 songs is the first place I remember 30% digital cut being a thing. That actually made sense because credit card processing fees were 0.25 + ~3%. So hey, yeah, 30% seems fair as processing fees will be 28 cents. However when digital goods sell for $10 or $60 a 30% tax on top of a 60 cent or $2 processing fee is all of a sudden not so reasonable.
      - ratww 6y ago
        I believe their point is that Game consoles have been doing the same thing for decades, which you might or might not see as being the same thing as the AppStore does. There's also Steam and some other game stores too (although I'm not sure if he's referring to that).
        forrestthewoods 6y ago
        His point is wrong. iTunes store came out April 2003. Steam came out September 2003. Xbox launched Nov 2001, but Xbox Live Arcade didn't launch until Nov 2004. Digital sales of game console games didn't become a major thing until after 2010. I shipped a $15 digital-only XBLA game on X360 in 2010. People thought we were crazy to go digital-only. The historical economics of video game physical distribution is very very different. A 30% digital cut was a massive improvement. Physical manufacturing, storage, distribution, brick and mortar middle men, platform fee added up to well over 50%. So a 30% digital cut was much better. Digital is now the majority of sales, but that is a very recent development. Reasonable minds can debate and disagree over what digital cut would be considered "fair". In a healthy, competitive market we wouldn't have to debate "fair". The market would decide. The cost of digital distribution has massively shrunk as technologies have progressed from specialty to commodity. The fact that the digital tax has been the exact same for 20 years is clear evidence that it is not subject to market forces. Whether it should or shouldn't be is yet another question.
        ratww 6y ago
        Sorry, their whole point was not about digital sales or the 30% number, but more about the fact that console manufacturers have been making virtually all their money by charging a markup from game makers since the eighties (remember that consoles themselves normally sell at a loss). Once again, you might see it as being the same or not as what Apple does.
  - nojokes 6y ago
    You can hate me as much you like but there was nothing there before Apple that created this kind of control over arbitrary applications that you can run on computers. Let this settle.
    - oneplane 6y ago
      Sure there was. Remember cartridges for the game consoles? Or the clipper chip? (mostly about data but still a central form of control) Or HDCP. Or CSME which has PAVP. AGESA has a similar thing. Or the ACM validated by the ROM in all Intel CPUs. You can't even load an OS before you get it allowed by them. I think you meant to say: not directly visible by the user at the scale in terms of single-vendor profits. But that's a different thing which needs different treatment. Either antitrust laws or new laws will have something to say about that, because it boils down to 'power' that is currently legal as-is. You can be emotional about it, but that doesn't help the discussion.
- cm2187 6y ago
  I count only one other big platform (android). What are the other ones?
  - jsnell 6y ago
    Android doesn't do this. By the Play Store guidelines. this kind of app would be permitted to use its own payment processing instead of in-app purchases.
- forrestthewoods 6y ago
  The fact that every major digital platform just so happens to have the exact same fee and that it hasn’t decreased in 20 years is a clear indicator that this number is not subject to market forces. A general solution would be great. The mobile operating system is the most important platform to discuss this issue. There are only two players in this space. And the anti-trust case against Apple is much much stronger than against Google. Therefore they rightfully get more attention.
eplanit 6y ago
True. IMHO, it's ridiculous to have walled garden platforms with vendor-controlled "App Stores" in the first place.
- bad_user 6y ago
  App stores, and their restrictions, aren't ridiculous. They are a consequence of an Internet filled with viruses, malware, and spam. The only thing I blame Apple for is not allowing installing apps from third-party sources, after you tick a checkbox in settings, like Android does. I would even accept a loss of warranty on doing that, because I'm a big boy, I understand the consequences, and I want to take that risk. Otherwise let's be honest, people actually love a curated app store, and you're in a tiny minority.
  - kd913 6y ago
    I would put a correction that Apple users specifically like walled gardens the app stores. Things like the windows store, snap store appear to be significantly hated for reasons of taking away control and auto-updating. Same thing I guess with steam, origin, uplay, and epic's equivalent too.
    - ratww 6y ago
      > I would put a correction that Apple users specifically like walled gardens the app stores. I don't disagree with you, but I don't think it's specifically liking walled gardens: it's rather about hating fragmentation. It's the same thing with gamers who complain about Epic exclusives that want their entire game library on Steam, or people who complain about Disney/Hulu/Prime licensing titles that were previously on Netflix. People just don't want to have multiple accounts.
      - pineaux 6y ago
        See a ove
    - pineaux 6y ago
hammock 6y ago
You're paying it..
raverbashing 6y ago
It's just absurd that's any transaction For the app? Sure. Hosting, vetoing, version control, etc. (Even if we forget that developers already have to pay $99 a year). I'm fine with that. I would be more than fine if that $99 got more expensive the more app downloads you had. For just processing an IAP? With no volume discounts? It's ridiculous. Sure, they don't want the "free app + unlocking IAP" but they could think this better.
- dathinab 6y ago
  It gets even more ridiculous if you consider that there are cases with price bindings (e.g. books) or small not very flexible margins (per song buying of music) and apple is them self competing in this area without this cuts. Similar ridiculous is that they effective prevent apps which just provide the service for existing member without any payment/sign-up services in the apple app. This is a active intrusion on the free marked undermining the fundamental concepts of it (choice and transparency). At least in my opinion.
- vchak1 6y ago
  Even for the app - if its a cost argument, then allow others to compete on a cost basis. Of course, apple will not let you set up your own app store with the same guarantees that apple provides around privacy security etc. If its a discovery and cost of marketing argument than I dont understand the perpetuity of payments, you can pay a first time purchase fee but subscriptions afterwards should not have any fees tacked on.
- richardwhiuk 6y ago
  If they don't do IAPs, then the former charge will just be subverted by "Free App with one time IAP". That's already the case for most games - the game is free but most of the stuff is hidden by IAPs
  - raverbashing 6y ago
    But you could differentiate one-off IAPs from subscription IAPs and from "added value/purchase" IAPs

It’s ridiculous that Apple takes 30% of a transaction between two independent third parties, one of which may have no idea their virtual attendees are even using iPhones.

oneplane 6y ago

It’s ridiculous that people point to Apple when 5 other big platforms are doing the exact same thing and form much longer too. People just like to pile on. If it's a general issue, make it a general quest for a general solution.

nojokes 6y ago
Apple started it.
- monkin 6y ago
  Nice joke.
- oneplane 6y ago
  I don't think Apple had such a model with the Pipin game console, or a successful or global one at that. Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo do as an example. Stating that they are the first is just incorrect. One could perhaps state that they are making the most profit out of it. But unless we take a stance on profit being bad I'm wondering why this needs to be a hot topic at all.
  - forrestthewoods 6y ago
    I think Apple did start the 30% cut? Or at least standardized it. iTunes 0.99 songs is the first place I remember 30% digital cut being a thing. That actually made sense because credit card processing fees were 0.25 + ~3%. So hey, yeah, 30% seems fair as processing fees will be 28 cents. However when digital goods sell for $10 or $60 a 30% tax on top of a 60 cent or $2 processing fee is all of a sudden not so reasonable.
    - ratww 6y ago
      I believe their point is that Game consoles have been doing the same thing for decades, which you might or might not see as being the same thing as the AppStore does. There's also Steam and some other game stores too (although I'm not sure if he's referring to that).
      - forrestthewoods 6y ago
        His point is wrong. iTunes store came out April 2003. Steam came out September 2003. Xbox launched Nov 2001, but Xbox Live Arcade didn't launch until Nov 2004. Digital sales of game console games didn't become a major thing until after 2010. I shipped a $15 digital-only XBLA game on X360 in 2010. People thought we were crazy to go digital-only. The historical economics of video game physical distribution is very very different. A 30% digital cut was a massive improvement. Physical manufacturing, storage, distribution, brick and mortar middle men, platform fee added up to well over 50%. So a 30% digital cut was much better. Digital is now the majority of sales, but that is a very recent development. Reasonable minds can debate and disagree over what digital cut would be considered "fair". In a healthy, competitive market we wouldn't have to debate "fair". The market would decide. The cost of digital distribution has massively shrunk as technologies have progressed from specialty to commodity. The fact that the digital tax has been the exact same for 20 years is clear evidence that it is not subject to market forces. Whether it should or shouldn't be is yet another question.
        ratww 6y ago
        Sorry, their whole point was not about digital sales or the 30% number, but more about the fact that console manufacturers have been making virtually all their money by charging a markup from game makers since the eighties (remember that consoles themselves normally sell at a loss). Once again, you might see it as being the same or not as what Apple does.
- nojokes 6y ago
  You can hate me as much you like but there was nothing there before Apple that created this kind of control over arbitrary applications that you can run on computers. Let this settle.
  - oneplane 6y ago
    Sure there was. Remember cartridges for the game consoles? Or the clipper chip? (mostly about data but still a central form of control) Or HDCP. Or CSME which has PAVP. AGESA has a similar thing. Or the ACM validated by the ROM in all Intel CPUs. You can't even load an OS before you get it allowed by them. I think you meant to say: not directly visible by the user at the scale in terms of single-vendor profits. But that's a different thing which needs different treatment. Either antitrust laws or new laws will have something to say about that, because it boils down to 'power' that is currently legal as-is. You can be emotional about it, but that doesn't help the discussion.
cm2187 6y ago
I count only one other big platform (android). What are the other ones?
- jsnell 6y ago
  Android doesn't do this. By the Play Store guidelines. this kind of app would be permitted to use its own payment processing instead of in-app purchases.
forrestthewoods 6y ago
The fact that every major digital platform just so happens to have the exact same fee and that it hasn’t decreased in 20 years is a clear indicator that this number is not subject to market forces. A general solution would be great. The mobile operating system is the most important platform to discuss this issue. There are only two players in this space. And the anti-trust case against Apple is much much stronger than against Google. Therefore they rightfully get more attention.

eplanit 6y ago

True. IMHO, it's ridiculous to have walled garden platforms with vendor-controlled "App Stores" in the first place.

bad_user 6y ago
App stores, and their restrictions, aren't ridiculous. They are a consequence of an Internet filled with viruses, malware, and spam. The only thing I blame Apple for is not allowing installing apps from third-party sources, after you tick a checkbox in settings, like Android does. I would even accept a loss of warranty on doing that, because I'm a big boy, I understand the consequences, and I want to take that risk. Otherwise let's be honest, people actually love a curated app store, and you're in a tiny minority.
- kd913 6y ago
  I would put a correction that Apple users specifically like walled gardens the app stores. Things like the windows store, snap store appear to be significantly hated for reasons of taking away control and auto-updating. Same thing I guess with steam, origin, uplay, and epic's equivalent too.
  - ratww 6y ago
    > I would put a correction that Apple users specifically like walled gardens the app stores. I don't disagree with you, but I don't think it's specifically liking walled gardens: it's rather about hating fragmentation. It's the same thing with gamers who complain about Epic exclusives that want their entire game library on Steam, or people who complain about Disney/Hulu/Prime licensing titles that were previously on Netflix. People just don't want to have multiple accounts.
    - pineaux 6y ago
      See a ove
  - pineaux 6y ago

hammock 6y ago

You're paying it..

raverbashing 6y ago

It's just absurd that's any transaction For the app? Sure. Hosting, vetoing, version control, etc. (Even if we forget that developers already have to pay $99 a year). I'm fine with that. I would be more than fine if that $99 got more expensive the more app downloads you had. For just processing an IAP? With no volume discounts? It's ridiculous. Sure, they don't want the "free app + unlocking IAP" but they could think this better.

dathinab 6y ago
It gets even more ridiculous if you consider that there are cases with price bindings (e.g. books) or small not very flexible margins (per song buying of music) and apple is them self competing in this area without this cuts. Similar ridiculous is that they effective prevent apps which just provide the service for existing member without any payment/sign-up services in the apple app. This is a active intrusion on the free marked undermining the fundamental concepts of it (choice and transparency). At least in my opinion.
vchak1 6y ago
Even for the app - if its a cost argument, then allow others to compete on a cost basis. Of course, apple will not let you set up your own app store with the same guarantees that apple provides around privacy security etc. If its a discovery and cost of marketing argument than I dont understand the perpetuity of payments, you can pay a first time purchase fee but subscriptions afterwards should not have any fees tacked on.
richardwhiuk 6y ago
If they don't do IAPs, then the former charge will just be subverted by "Free App with one time IAP". That's already the case for most games - the game is free but most of the stuff is hidden by IAPs
- raverbashing 6y ago
  But you could differentiate one-off IAPs from subscription IAPs and from "added value/purchase" IAPs