12 ms·

> 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 p

> 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?
    - forest_dweller 6y ago
      > Only the first two are affiliate behavior, and they don't apply to every purchase, and you can't opt out. What is and isn't affiliate behaviour isn't important. They are acting like an affiliate I said. It is close enough. > Right. But that's just facilitating a transaction, which is usually not a 30% cut. Yes it is a 30% cut. We have already established it is on other stores. > Again, standard and reasonable are different things. And again, the problem is you can't choose the type of relationship. You can choose not to do business with Apple. > People get pressured into unreasonable rates all the time... These aren't unreasonable rates though. If they were unreasonable people would not publish there. End of. I don't understand how people can say something is unreasonable when there are lots of people using it and making money just fine. So for a lot of people they obviously think it is reasonable. > Again, standard and reasonable are different things. And again, the problem is you can't choose the type of relationship. You can. You can not deal with the app store. > 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? No we cannot agree. Firstly 90% is not viable to anyone, nobody would agree to that and people wouldn't publish on the app store. So to start your premise is completely absurd. Pretend for a moment Apple did raise it tomorrow to 90% cut to them. The vast majority of would just pull their apps and Apple would have to lower the rate again. Every company chooses 30% because it is what everyone else does because it is more or less fair to both parties. Now if another player releases a new phone with a store and they have a better market rate and a decent market share then Apple will lower their rates (like Nintendo did).

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?
  - forest_dweller 6y ago
    > Only the first two are affiliate behavior, and they don't apply to every purchase, and you can't opt out. What is and isn't affiliate behaviour isn't important. They are acting like an affiliate I said. It is close enough. > Right. But that's just facilitating a transaction, which is usually not a 30% cut. Yes it is a 30% cut. We have already established it is on other stores. > Again, standard and reasonable are different things. And again, the problem is you can't choose the type of relationship. You can choose not to do business with Apple. > People get pressured into unreasonable rates all the time... These aren't unreasonable rates though. If they were unreasonable people would not publish there. End of. I don't understand how people can say something is unreasonable when there are lots of people using it and making money just fine. So for a lot of people they obviously think it is reasonable. > Again, standard and reasonable are different things. And again, the problem is you can't choose the type of relationship. You can. You can not deal with the app store. > 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? No we cannot agree. Firstly 90% is not viable to anyone, nobody would agree to that and people wouldn't publish on the app store. So to start your premise is completely absurd. Pretend for a moment Apple did raise it tomorrow to 90% cut to them. The vast majority of would just pull their apps and Apple would have to lower the rate again. Every company chooses 30% because it is what everyone else does because it is more or less fair to both parties. Now if another player releases a new phone with a store and they have a better market rate and a decent market share then Apple will lower their rates (like Nintendo did).