5 ms·

> 30% is a case for antitrust given how big Apple App Store today is. 15% seems reasonable, 10% would be ideal. Not it isn't a case for anti-trust. 70/30 split

> 30% is a case for antitrust given how big Apple App Store today is. 15% seems reasonable, 10% would be ideal. Not it isn't a case for anti-trust. 70/30 split whether people on here like it or not is a standard agreement for these types of business relationship. https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut-is-actually-the-industry-standard https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut... The judge in the case agreed. > Judge says the 30% rate is the industry rate— references Steam, Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo have the same rate. https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/09/28/judge-so-far-not-convinced-on-epics-antitrust-stance-in-fortnite-battle https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/09/28/judge-so-far-not-... Apple are effectively an affialite for your app i.e. they drive traffic to your app through their store. Most affiliate style relationships the affiliate will receive 30% of whatever is made. It not only these companies it in almost every industry. e.g. Gambling Affiliate deals typically have 30% of whatever the customer loses on the site. I really do not like Apple. I don't like the app store policies. But 30% is not a case for anything.

Dylan16807 6y ago
>> 30% is a case for antitrust given how big Apple App Store today is. 15% seems reasonable, 10% would be ideal. > Not it isn't. 70/30 split whether people on here like it or not is a standard agreement for these types of business relationship. Huh? They didn't say "standard", they said "reasonable" and "ideal". > Apple are effectively an affialite for your app i.e. they drive traffic to your app through their store. The problem is that they charge that fee no matter where the customers come from, and you can't opt out either.
- forest_dweller 6y ago
  > Huh? They didn't say "standard", they said "reasonable" and "ideal". I should have clarified. They was saying it (the 30%) was a case for antitrust. > The problem is that they charge that fee no matter where the customers come from, and you can't opt out either. Can they come from anywhere other than the actual store? In any event that is a different issue.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    > Can they come from anywhere other than the actual store? If I have a link on my site that takes a customer directly to the store page, and they buy it, then Apple did nothing at all to earn an "affiliate" level payout. They didn't drive any traffic. Or if the customer puts in the exact app name and buys it. > In any event that is a different issue. It's very relevant to whether 30% is reasonable. Apple acts as a legitimate affiliate some of the time, but they forcibly take that fee all of the time.
    - forest_dweller 6y ago
      > If I have a link on my site that takes a customer directly to the store page, and they buy it, then Apple did nothing at all to earn an "affiliate" level payout. They didn't drive any traffic. The store provides you visibility through promotion on the store page, being listed in search and taking payment for the purchase. This would be no different than if a boxed piece of software was in a brick and mortar retailer and you told your customers you could by it at those stores. In a brick and mortar retailer they display your product in your store and people come in, take the box and go to the checkout. Conceptually the process is exactly the same. The only difference is that it is happening over the internet. > Or if the customer puts in the exact app name and buys it. The user is still using the store to buy the app. It would be no different than a boxed piece of software being on display in brick and mortar retailer. The customer may only go in there to pick up the game and nothing else. They are still buying through apple. > It's very relevant to whether 30% is reasonable. Apple acts as a legitimate affiliate some of the time, but they forcibly take that fee all of the time. No it isn't. You are conflating the issues of them having absolute control over the app store and whether 30% is reasonable. 30% is reasonable because that is the standard rate in most of these relationships. If it wasn't reasonable people wouldn't publish with Steam, Gog, Nintendo (nintendo lowered the rate if you look at the IGN link to 30% to match other stores). Also if it wasn't financially viable with the 30% fee (which has been there since 2011) then people wouldn't publish apps there.
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
        > The store provides you visibility through promotion on the store page, being listed in search and taking payment for the purchase. Only the first two are affiliate behavior, and they don't apply to every purchase, and you can't opt out. > They are still buying through apple. Right. But that's just facilitating a transaction, which is usually not a 30% cut. > 30% is reasonable because that is the standard rate in most of these relationships. Again, standard and reasonable are different things. And again, the problem is you can't choose the type of relationship. > If it wasn't reasonable people wouldn't publish with Steam, Gog, Nintendo (nintendo lowered the rate if you look at the IGN link to 30% to match other stores). People get pressured into unreasonable rates all the time... > Also if it wasn't financially viable with the 30% fee (which has been there since 2011) then people wouldn't publish apps there. It's always going to be viable for someone to publish. Even with a 90% fee. But surely we can agree that 90% would not be reasonable, even if it was standard?
mathnmusic 6y ago
Apple is not affiliate, it's a gatekeeper. Affiliate increase discovery to something that was already reachable through other means. If you already know me and trust me, you still can't install my app without paying the gatekeeping fee. Apple does play the role of a payment gateway where the standard fee is around 3%, so they definitely are entitled to that much. This may also be applicable to Steam, Sony and others.
zmk_ 6y ago
It's only standard as Apple was first through the gate with this scheme for online marketplaces. They got to copy the split from brick-and-mortar (without the accompanying costs like restocking) and everyone else followed suit.
- aikinai 6y ago
  Apple was not first through the gate. This fee structure has been in place at least since Nintendo in the 80s.
whywhywhywhy 6y ago
> whether people on here like it or not is a standard agreement for these types of business relationship. Not seeking a cut of almost every transaction going through your OS just because you built the foundations and gatekeep the door was standard too.
- forest_dweller 6y ago
  You can make transactions through the web browser. So that isn't technically true.
  - whywhywhywhy 6y ago
    I said almost, not every and we both know they try their best to make it obtuse as possible to pay in a browser because your app isn't even allowed to allude to it.

Dylan16807 6y ago

>> 30% is a case for antitrust given how big Apple App Store today is. 15% seems reasonable, 10% would be ideal. > Not it isn't. 70/30 split whether people on here like it or not is a standard agreement for these types of business relationship. Huh? They didn't say "standard", they said "reasonable" and "ideal". > Apple are effectively an affialite for your app i.e. they drive traffic to your app through their store. The problem is that they charge that fee no matter where the customers come from, and you can't opt out either.

forest_dweller 6y ago
> Huh? They didn't say "standard", they said "reasonable" and "ideal". I should have clarified. They was saying it (the 30%) was a case for antitrust. > The problem is that they charge that fee no matter where the customers come from, and you can't opt out either. Can they come from anywhere other than the actual store? In any event that is a different issue.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  > Can they come from anywhere other than the actual store? If I have a link on my site that takes a customer directly to the store page, and they buy it, then Apple did nothing at all to earn an "affiliate" level payout. They didn't drive any traffic. Or if the customer puts in the exact app name and buys it. > In any event that is a different issue. It's very relevant to whether 30% is reasonable. Apple acts as a legitimate affiliate some of the time, but they forcibly take that fee all of the time.
  - forest_dweller 6y ago
    > If I have a link on my site that takes a customer directly to the store page, and they buy it, then Apple did nothing at all to earn an "affiliate" level payout. They didn't drive any traffic. The store provides you visibility through promotion on the store page, being listed in search and taking payment for the purchase. This would be no different than if a boxed piece of software was in a brick and mortar retailer and you told your customers you could by it at those stores. In a brick and mortar retailer they display your product in your store and people come in, take the box and go to the checkout. Conceptually the process is exactly the same. The only difference is that it is happening over the internet. > Or if the customer puts in the exact app name and buys it. The user is still using the store to buy the app. It would be no different than a boxed piece of software being on display in brick and mortar retailer. The customer may only go in there to pick up the game and nothing else. They are still buying through apple. > It's very relevant to whether 30% is reasonable. Apple acts as a legitimate affiliate some of the time, but they forcibly take that fee all of the time. No it isn't. You are conflating the issues of them having absolute control over the app store and whether 30% is reasonable. 30% is reasonable because that is the standard rate in most of these relationships. If it wasn't reasonable people wouldn't publish with Steam, Gog, Nintendo (nintendo lowered the rate if you look at the IGN link to 30% to match other stores). Also if it wasn't financially viable with the 30% fee (which has been there since 2011) then people wouldn't publish apps there.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      > The store provides you visibility through promotion on the store page, being listed in search and taking payment for the purchase. Only the first two are affiliate behavior, and they don't apply to every purchase, and you can't opt out. > They are still buying through apple. Right. But that's just facilitating a transaction, which is usually not a 30% cut. > 30% is reasonable because that is the standard rate in most of these relationships. Again, standard and reasonable are different things. And again, the problem is you can't choose the type of relationship. > If it wasn't reasonable people wouldn't publish with Steam, Gog, Nintendo (nintendo lowered the rate if you look at the IGN link to 30% to match other stores). People get pressured into unreasonable rates all the time... > Also if it wasn't financially viable with the 30% fee (which has been there since 2011) then people wouldn't publish apps there. It's always going to be viable for someone to publish. Even with a 90% fee. But surely we can agree that 90% would not be reasonable, even if it was standard?

mathnmusic 6y ago

Apple is not affiliate, it's a gatekeeper. Affiliate increase discovery to something that was already reachable through other means. If you already know me and trust me, you still can't install my app without paying the gatekeeping fee. Apple does play the role of a payment gateway where the standard fee is around 3%, so they definitely are entitled to that much. This may also be applicable to Steam, Sony and others.

zmk_ 6y ago

It's only standard as Apple was first through the gate with this scheme for online marketplaces. They got to copy the split from brick-and-mortar (without the accompanying costs like restocking) and everyone else followed suit.

aikinai 6y ago
Apple was not first through the gate. This fee structure has been in place at least since Nintendo in the 80s.

whywhywhywhy 6y ago

> whether people on here like it or not is a standard agreement for these types of business relationship. Not seeking a cut of almost every transaction going through your OS just because you built the foundations and gatekeep the door was standard too.

forest_dweller 6y ago
You can make transactions through the web browser. So that isn't technically true.
- whywhywhywhy 6y ago
  I said almost, not every and we both know they try their best to make it obtuse as possible to pay in a browser because your app isn't even allowed to allude to it.