4 ms·

> 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 payo

> 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
    > It is close enough. It's really not. The difference is the part that actually motivates you to pay an affiliate. > We have already established it is on other stores. When you look at other services that are just doing payment/download, it's far cheaper than 30%. > You can choose not to do business with Apple. That doesn't disagree with what I said, which is that you can't choose the type of relationship with Apple. > You can. You can not deal with the app store. "Take it or leave it" is the opposite of choosing the type of relationship. I'm so confused by your response here. > 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. It's not absurd. People still made apps when the market was a lot smaller. People make apps for android. If revenue is greater than cost, then apps will get made. And a cut like that would remove a lot of competition, so the actual drop in pay wouldn't be as extreme. But okay, what if I said 75% instead? If you get 3x the market share while getting paid 25% of gross revenue, you actually make more money than if you were paid 70% on 1x market share. So there would absolutely be viable apps for some developers. But at the same time, if Apple took a 75% cut that would be unreasonable. > The vast majority of would just pull their apps and Apple would have to lower the rate again. They wouldn't if Apple was really committed. The app already exists, removing it would mean less money. > 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). Even with a better rate, Android's app payment market is smaller. It wouldn't do enough to make the apps there significantly better, and the number of people willing to switch off iphone for the marginal difference wouldn't do anything.
stale2002 6y ago
The anti-competitive and illegal behavior that Apple is doing is preventing alternative app stores from being on the IPhone. This actions prevents other app stores from undercutting apple's prices. Epic's app store, for example, would take 12%, instead of 30%. This would help consumers if they were allowed to use it.
- forest_dweller 6y ago
  > The anti-competitive and illegal behavior that Apple is doing is preventing alternative app stores from being on the IPhone. And that has nothing to do with the revenue share. > This actions prevents other app stores from undercutting apple's prices. Sure. But it doesn't mean the revenue share they currently have is unfair. Other companies have a similar revenue share on their platforms on open platforms. So that suggests to me that it is fair. > Epic's app store, for example, would take 12%, instead of 30%. This would help consumers if they were allowed to use it. Would it? It will help developers but it wouldn't necessarily reduce the prices for the games because the market price for a AAA game is still what £50? The devs would make more money per unit sold I would suspect.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > doesn't mean the revenue share they currently have is unfair. Sure it does. That is because competition is being prevented. > Other companies have a similar revenue share Except for epic! They charge 12%. So that is one specific example right there, that would reduce the fee below the current fee that Apple charges. All I need is a singular example to prove my point. And we have that example. Epic's app store is being prevented, and they charge less money. > It will help developers but it wouldn't necessarily reduce the prices Even if you are willing to ignore basic economic theory completely by saying it would have no effect on price, giving more money to developers indirectly helps consumers even if prices stay exactly the same. It helps them because more resources can be spent on the game to make it better. And to go even further, even if such benefits don't exist, it is still better to give the money to the people who made the game, who I think deserve that money more than Apple.

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
  > It is close enough. It's really not. The difference is the part that actually motivates you to pay an affiliate. > We have already established it is on other stores. When you look at other services that are just doing payment/download, it's far cheaper than 30%. > You can choose not to do business with Apple. That doesn't disagree with what I said, which is that you can't choose the type of relationship with Apple. > You can. You can not deal with the app store. "Take it or leave it" is the opposite of choosing the type of relationship. I'm so confused by your response here. > 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. It's not absurd. People still made apps when the market was a lot smaller. People make apps for android. If revenue is greater than cost, then apps will get made. And a cut like that would remove a lot of competition, so the actual drop in pay wouldn't be as extreme. But okay, what if I said 75% instead? If you get 3x the market share while getting paid 25% of gross revenue, you actually make more money than if you were paid 70% on 1x market share. So there would absolutely be viable apps for some developers. But at the same time, if Apple took a 75% cut that would be unreasonable. > The vast majority of would just pull their apps and Apple would have to lower the rate again. They wouldn't if Apple was really committed. The app already exists, removing it would mean less money. > 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). Even with a better rate, Android's app payment market is smaller. It wouldn't do enough to make the apps there significantly better, and the number of people willing to switch off iphone for the marginal difference wouldn't do anything.

stale2002 6y ago

The anti-competitive and illegal behavior that Apple is doing is preventing alternative app stores from being on the IPhone. This actions prevents other app stores from undercutting apple's prices. Epic's app store, for example, would take 12%, instead of 30%. This would help consumers if they were allowed to use it.

forest_dweller 6y ago
> The anti-competitive and illegal behavior that Apple is doing is preventing alternative app stores from being on the IPhone. And that has nothing to do with the revenue share. > This actions prevents other app stores from undercutting apple's prices. Sure. But it doesn't mean the revenue share they currently have is unfair. Other companies have a similar revenue share on their platforms on open platforms. So that suggests to me that it is fair. > Epic's app store, for example, would take 12%, instead of 30%. This would help consumers if they were allowed to use it. Would it? It will help developers but it wouldn't necessarily reduce the prices for the games because the market price for a AAA game is still what £50? The devs would make more money per unit sold I would suspect.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > doesn't mean the revenue share they currently have is unfair. Sure it does. That is because competition is being prevented. > Other companies have a similar revenue share Except for epic! They charge 12%. So that is one specific example right there, that would reduce the fee below the current fee that Apple charges. All I need is a singular example to prove my point. And we have that example. Epic's app store is being prevented, and they charge less money. > It will help developers but it wouldn't necessarily reduce the prices Even if you are willing to ignore basic economic theory completely by saying it would have no effect on price, giving more money to developers indirectly helps consumers even if prices stay exactly the same. It helps them because more resources can be spent on the game to make it better. And to go even further, even if such benefits don't exist, it is still better to give the money to the people who made the game, who I think deserve that money more than Apple.