3 ms·

10% seems reasonable. I don't think people would scream about 20%, even. (Well, if Apple had made that change a few years ago, they wouldn't; now that they're i

10% seems reasonable. I don't think people would scream about 20%, even. (Well, if Apple had made that change a few years ago, they wouldn't; now that they're in an ever-expanding PR disaster of their own making, people might be less amenable to that.) And they could probably have also staved off a fair amount of complaints about in-app purchases with just a different structure. Off the top of my head: - Non-free apps sold on the app store take a 20% cut, up to a max of a $5 fee. (This would be a bit of encouragement for developers to price productivity apps higher than $25; the "race to the bottom" in app pricing has been a deterrent for some classes of apps, in my understanding.) - In-app purchases and subscriptions take a 15% cut, with a drop to 10% for subscriptions in their second year and beyond. - Links to external web payment forms are allowed (with no Apple cut or penalty) in apps that are clients for cross-platform services, e.g., Netflix, Kindle, and so on. There'd be a lot of details and nuance to work out with respect to those last two, but it doesn't seem like it'd be an impossible hurdle to figure out where to draw those lines.

danilocesar 6y ago
10% is not reasonable, 1% is not reasonable. The problem is not how much Apple charges, that's up to them. The problem is Apple's heavy hand saying what a user can see, what they can install, and what the developer can say to their users. This is the problem. If they decide to charge zero, it won't fix anything. And don't get me wrong, I think Apple is a great company. But they are sitting in a monopoly today. Maybe some folks here are too young to remember but companies like microsoft got punished in the past for having too much control over people' choices and, in my opinion, it was way softer comparing to what Apple is doing today.
- mdoms 6y ago
  Yep, the correct amount is the fee that the market dictates. That is, when other app stores and other payment processes are available and developers can be open about the fees on each purchase (eg, "Visa/Mastercard +3%, Apple payment +30%") then the market will soon determine what a fair fee is.
- sebastien_b 6y ago
  > The problem is Apple's heavy hand saying what a user can see, what they can install, and what the developer can say to their users. I remember Steve Jobs saying (about not allowing adult-themed apps) that iOS was "freedom from porn!"[1], which to me sounded more like "freedom from choice!" 1 (yeah, ok, like Safari does't do pornsites?)
cnst 6y ago
> Links to external web payment forms are allowed (with no Apple cut or penalty) The whole selling point of the App Store payments was supposed to have been convenience, so, however much they charge, is supposed to be worth it on its own for the indie players. What do we get instead? Instead, Apple doesn't allow their useds to buy books from Amazon. --- My personal opinion is that it must be required that Apple payments are accepted within the app, and that the app makers aren't allowed to pump and dump promotions for tricking users into adding credit card details by providing temporary benefits (e.g., Apple price cannot be more than however much Apple charges in commissions), otherwise, there should not be any restrictions about two consenting parties from making a transaction however they feel like. (Cannot sell to the end users the idea that a 30% "convenience" fee is reasonable? Well, maybe it's not that reasonable, after all?!) Likewise, there should be an advanced-user setting (similar to Android) for installing any app from any source. This setting isn't used very often in Android at all, but it's something very basic to ensure the competition on the platform, and that the manufacturer would never be able to preclude me from consenting to a transaction that I'd like to consent to.

danilocesar 6y ago

10% is not reasonable, 1% is not reasonable. The problem is not how much Apple charges, that's up to them. The problem is Apple's heavy hand saying what a user can see, what they can install, and what the developer can say to their users. This is the problem. If they decide to charge zero, it won't fix anything. And don't get me wrong, I think Apple is a great company. But they are sitting in a monopoly today. Maybe some folks here are too young to remember but companies like microsoft got punished in the past for having too much control over people' choices and, in my opinion, it was way softer comparing to what Apple is doing today.

mdoms 6y ago
Yep, the correct amount is the fee that the market dictates. That is, when other app stores and other payment processes are available and developers can be open about the fees on each purchase (eg, "Visa/Mastercard +3%, Apple payment +30%") then the market will soon determine what a fair fee is.
sebastien_b 6y ago
> The problem is Apple's heavy hand saying what a user can see, what they can install, and what the developer can say to their users. I remember Steve Jobs saying (about not allowing adult-themed apps) that iOS was "freedom from porn!"[1], which to me sounded more like "freedom from choice!" 1 (yeah, ok, like Safari does't do pornsites?)

cnst 6y ago

> Links to external web payment forms are allowed (with no Apple cut or penalty) The whole selling point of the App Store payments was supposed to have been convenience, so, however much they charge, is supposed to be worth it on its own for the indie players. What do we get instead? Instead, Apple doesn't allow their useds to buy books from Amazon. --- My personal opinion is that it must be required that Apple payments are accepted within the app, and that the app makers aren't allowed to pump and dump promotions for tricking users into adding credit card details by providing temporary benefits (e.g., Apple price cannot be more than however much Apple charges in commissions), otherwise, there should not be any restrictions about two consenting parties from making a transaction however they feel like. (Cannot sell to the end users the idea that a 30% "convenience" fee is reasonable? Well, maybe it's not that reasonable, after all?!) Likewise, there should be an advanced-user setting (similar to Android) for installing any app from any source. This setting isn't used very often in Android at all, but it's something very basic to ensure the competition on the platform, and that the manufacturer would never be able to preclude me from consenting to a transaction that I'd like to consent to.