7 ms·

>to it seems to be purely a cynical piece of PR on Apple’s part. Oh please. Has it ever occurred in the history of the world that the selfish motives of two d

>to it seems to be purely a cynical piece of PR on Apple’s part. Oh please. Has it ever occurred in the history of the world that the selfish motives of two different parties aligned? i.e. Apple gets good press for helping smaller developers and the smaller developers get increased revenues. It happens all the times, and it's called "good business". You can keep waiting for Apple's App Store executives to cover themselves with sackcloth and ashes and repent of their terrible policies. Let me know how that works out.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
If Apple didn't fear either Epic's lawsuit or Congressional action, or both, they'd never reduce their app store cut, for anyone, ever. This announcement means Apple knows that neither public opinion nor the law is on their side and they're about to lose really, really big. And they're hoping if they can flip this around a bit and get control of the narrative, they can convince regulators they will self-regulate... while continuing to get a third of the revenue from all the most lucrative developers. Google's new Gmail privacy settings fall in the same boat: They'd rather lose data from a small portion of their users if it might deter the government from taking away all of it.
- kbutler 6y ago
  > they'd never reduce their app store cut, for anyone, ever. Why not 50%? 75%? 100%? 150%? It could also be that they are seeking the optimal rate of return, balancing developer incentives, bringing in new developers, etc. I think many factors play into the decision, including lawsuits and public scrutiny. I think it will be really interesting to watch and see if google mirrors the pricing.
- wokwokwok 6y ago
  > they can convince regulators they will self-regulate... while continuing to get a third of the revenue from all the most lucrative developers. So what? Seriously, who cares if Epic earns 14 bzillionty dollars this month, or 20 bzillionty dollars? At that scale, the 30% is such a terrible thorn in your side? Come on. Cry me a damn river. The 'narrative' here is Epic pretending they care about anyone except themselves and that this ridiculous song and dance is about it being 'good for everyone'. Let's try something positive instead: What should they have done then to make you happy? Seriously; if this is such a cynical, terrible move, what should they have done?
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    > Seriously, who cares if Epic earns 14 bzillionty dollars this month, or 20 bzillionty dollars? The narrative here is amazing, because you're not sympathizing with Epic because they're so big and have so much money... but they're still the little guy compared to Apple. The scale of Apple's monopoly profit makes Epic look like a corner pharmacy in Montana.
    - wokwokwok 6y ago
      "Little guy"? Epic is fore casting earning something like 5 billion dollars this financial year. You'll have to try a bit harder to get a bit of sympathy for them than 'they're smaller than apple'. ... 5 billion dollars. ... And you want me to care that another company is shaking you down for a couple of million? Boo hoo. Poor epic. I wonder how they pay the bills. Oh, I know! They use some that 5 billion dollars they made to do it. -- I think maybe there are some, you know, real people, who will get some tangible benefits from these rate cuts. If Epic loses out.. or... you know, if they get them too? Really, it makes no difference to them at all. So.. I really. Do. Not. Care.
      - psahgal 6y ago
        You are correct that Epic Games made 5 billion dollars in revenue in 2019, according to Venturebeat [1]. However, Apple Insider reports that Apple made 59.7 billion dollars in revenue in their third fiscal quarter (March, April, and May) of 2020 [2]. Epic's definitely not a little guy, but compared to Apple, it looks more like a respectable medium-sized company. I find Apple's revenue numbers and market value truly staggering. Few companies seem to be able to compare. [1] https://venturebeat.com/2020/06/15/epic-games-shareholders-seeking-to-sell-stake-for-750-million-at-17-billion-valuation https://venturebeat.com/2020/06/15/epic-games-shareholders-s... [2] https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/10/26/what-to-expect-from-apples-q4-2020-earnings-report-on-oct-29 https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/10/26/what-to-expect-fr...
        zepto 6y ago
        Apple is the largest company in the world and sells the most successful product in human history. Of course nobody ‘compares’. But compared to almost any other iOS developer Epic is a giant.
- zaroth 6y ago
  > If Apple didn't fear either Epic's lawsuit or Congressional action, or both, they'd never reduce their app store cut, for anyone, ever. Except they have done exactly that in the past. In June 2016 Apple introduced a subscription billing model which reduces the fee to 15% after the first year a customer is subscribed.
  - calcifer 6y ago
    I'm sure the developers of all 15 apps that sell multi-year subscriptions were very happy about that.
    - zaroth 6y ago
      Interestingly the top benefactor is Google, as YouTube is #1 for subscription revenue in 2019 according to TechCrunch. Subscription revenue on Apple's store was $3.6B of ~$50B in 2019, so 7.2% of app store revenue overall. It's absolutely true that Apple doesn't have a lot of pricing pressure on their 30% fee, since their platform is so compelling and especially since most competitor App Stores charge the same amount. But it's also absolutely false that they have never lowered their rate.
- ecf 6y ago
  Apple doesn’t fear Epic’s lawsuit for the merits of the lawsuit itself. Apple fears how Epic can use their devoted base of video game players to create a PR frenzy that turns the lawsuit into a popularity contest.
  - kinkrtyavimoodh 6y ago
    That is true for all lawsuits. The more damning implication is that Apple, one of the world's most highly valued brands, a brand name that has historically commanded 50%+ gross profit margins on commodity goods sold as luxury goods, is losing a 'popularity' contest to a video game company. Talk of changing times!
ginko 6y ago
I'm not waiting for Apple to repent. I'm waiting for the company to be broken up.
fbelzile 6y ago
I agree that this is good news. But let's keep "selfish motives of two different parties" in perspective to the size and power of one side over the other. This program came in after more than decade after the app store was created and when Apple is finally under increased public scrutiny for anti-competitive behaviour. Apple made an estimated $20 billion from the app store last year alone with estimated profits from that revenue being around 90% [1]. Being able to afford to half the commission over night speaks to how disconnected the commission is to the costs in running the store. Why were they able to take 30% and continue to take 15% commission off of all sales? Because the value of the app store is only created via continued practices of anti-competitive behaviour. Ex: 1) Banning competing app stores (restricting customers choice) 2) Banning the mention of alternate methods of payment (restricted customers harmed by paying higher fees) The argument that the app store charged "market rate" is also not a fair comparison. Your comparing one completely closed market to other open markets that Microsoft and Google produced. Both main competitors allow for competing app stores from their own for example. [1] https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/01/10/the-app-store-is-still-a-growth-story-for-apple.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/01/10/the-app-store-is-s...
- samatman 6y ago
  > Why were they able to take 30% and continue to take 15% commission off of all sales? Because the value of the app store is only created via continued practices of anti-competitive behaviour. Also, because Apple created the most valuable mobile software market in the world, by creating the iPhone, continuing to release top-notch phones year after year, and by creating the App Store itself. It remains true that iPhone users buy software at a rate that totally dwarfs Android. This could be traced to a number of reasons, but I wouldn't dismiss the App Store monopoly as one of them. You can describe this as anti-competitive, just keep in mind that you're assuming your own conclusion. You could make the same argument for Apple's refusal to license their OSes for hardware they don't manufacture, I would be similarly unimpressed. As a user, I would like a stress-free way to sideload apps which don't meet Apple's standards for inclusion on the App Store. Don't see why Apple would want to give away their competitive advantage by letting other stores sell software for their phones, but I could imagine them making side-loading less onerous, that would be nice.
ksec 6y ago
>It happens all the times, and it's called "good business". I would have agreed with you if Apple had, Paused and in any sort of PR, Marketing, or answer direct from the executive team that they are at least thinking about the issue. Except they double down on thinking they deserved that 30% if not more. ( Perfectly Fine ) Did not take hard stand against developers and thinking themselves as so righteous. ( Also Fine ) But then suddenly turn around and act like Santa to Help SME or smaller developers, when Apple are under pressure in multiple countries for their App Store policy. May be Tim Cook did not realise, Apple has turned into hypocrite just like Google did in their Do No Evil era.
travmatt 6y ago
It’d be a lot easier to believe if the change didn’t coincide with an incoming administration who has already signaled they’d be looking at anti-competitive practices. Those aligning incentives have an exquisite sense of timing, as it happened exactly as those talked of enforcements started becoming real.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago

If Apple didn't fear either Epic's lawsuit or Congressional action, or both, they'd never reduce their app store cut, for anyone, ever. This announcement means Apple knows that neither public opinion nor the law is on their side and they're about to lose really, really big. And they're hoping if they can flip this around a bit and get control of the narrative, they can convince regulators they will self-regulate... while continuing to get a third of the revenue from all the most lucrative developers. Google's new Gmail privacy settings fall in the same boat: They'd rather lose data from a small portion of their users if it might deter the government from taking away all of it.

kbutler 6y ago
> they'd never reduce their app store cut, for anyone, ever. Why not 50%? 75%? 100%? 150%? It could also be that they are seeking the optimal rate of return, balancing developer incentives, bringing in new developers, etc. I think many factors play into the decision, including lawsuits and public scrutiny. I think it will be really interesting to watch and see if google mirrors the pricing.
wokwokwok 6y ago
> they can convince regulators they will self-regulate... while continuing to get a third of the revenue from all the most lucrative developers. So what? Seriously, who cares if Epic earns 14 bzillionty dollars this month, or 20 bzillionty dollars? At that scale, the 30% is such a terrible thorn in your side? Come on. Cry me a damn river. The 'narrative' here is Epic pretending they care about anyone except themselves and that this ridiculous song and dance is about it being 'good for everyone'. Let's try something positive instead: What should they have done then to make you happy? Seriously; if this is such a cynical, terrible move, what should they have done?
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  > Seriously, who cares if Epic earns 14 bzillionty dollars this month, or 20 bzillionty dollars? The narrative here is amazing, because you're not sympathizing with Epic because they're so big and have so much money... but they're still the little guy compared to Apple. The scale of Apple's monopoly profit makes Epic look like a corner pharmacy in Montana.
  - wokwokwok 6y ago
    "Little guy"? Epic is fore casting earning something like 5 billion dollars this financial year. You'll have to try a bit harder to get a bit of sympathy for them than 'they're smaller than apple'. ... 5 billion dollars. ... And you want me to care that another company is shaking you down for a couple of million? Boo hoo. Poor epic. I wonder how they pay the bills. Oh, I know! They use some that 5 billion dollars they made to do it. -- I think maybe there are some, you know, real people, who will get some tangible benefits from these rate cuts. If Epic loses out.. or... you know, if they get them too? Really, it makes no difference to them at all. So.. I really. Do. Not. Care.
    - psahgal 6y ago
      You are correct that Epic Games made 5 billion dollars in revenue in 2019, according to Venturebeat [1]. However, Apple Insider reports that Apple made 59.7 billion dollars in revenue in their third fiscal quarter (March, April, and May) of 2020 [2]. Epic's definitely not a little guy, but compared to Apple, it looks more like a respectable medium-sized company. I find Apple's revenue numbers and market value truly staggering. Few companies seem to be able to compare. [1] https://venturebeat.com/2020/06/15/epic-games-shareholders-seeking-to-sell-stake-for-750-million-at-17-billion-valuation https://venturebeat.com/2020/06/15/epic-games-shareholders-s... [2] https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/10/26/what-to-expect-from-apples-q4-2020-earnings-report-on-oct-29 https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/10/26/what-to-expect-fr...
      - zepto 6y ago
        Apple is the largest company in the world and sells the most successful product in human history. Of course nobody ‘compares’. But compared to almost any other iOS developer Epic is a giant.
zaroth 6y ago
> If Apple didn't fear either Epic's lawsuit or Congressional action, or both, they'd never reduce their app store cut, for anyone, ever. Except they have done exactly that in the past. In June 2016 Apple introduced a subscription billing model which reduces the fee to 15% after the first year a customer is subscribed.
- calcifer 6y ago
  I'm sure the developers of all 15 apps that sell multi-year subscriptions were very happy about that.
  - zaroth 6y ago
    Interestingly the top benefactor is Google, as YouTube is #1 for subscription revenue in 2019 according to TechCrunch. Subscription revenue on Apple's store was $3.6B of ~$50B in 2019, so 7.2% of app store revenue overall. It's absolutely true that Apple doesn't have a lot of pricing pressure on their 30% fee, since their platform is so compelling and especially since most competitor App Stores charge the same amount. But it's also absolutely false that they have never lowered their rate.
ecf 6y ago
Apple doesn’t fear Epic’s lawsuit for the merits of the lawsuit itself. Apple fears how Epic can use their devoted base of video game players to create a PR frenzy that turns the lawsuit into a popularity contest.
- kinkrtyavimoodh 6y ago
  That is true for all lawsuits. The more damning implication is that Apple, one of the world's most highly valued brands, a brand name that has historically commanded 50%+ gross profit margins on commodity goods sold as luxury goods, is losing a 'popularity' contest to a video game company. Talk of changing times!

ginko 6y ago

I'm not waiting for Apple to repent. I'm waiting for the company to be broken up.

fbelzile 6y ago

I agree that this is good news. But let's keep "selfish motives of two different parties" in perspective to the size and power of one side over the other. This program came in after more than decade after the app store was created and when Apple is finally under increased public scrutiny for anti-competitive behaviour. Apple made an estimated $20 billion from the app store last year alone with estimated profits from that revenue being around 90% [1]. Being able to afford to half the commission over night speaks to how disconnected the commission is to the costs in running the store. Why were they able to take 30% and continue to take 15% commission off of all sales? Because the value of the app store is only created via continued practices of anti-competitive behaviour. Ex: 1) Banning competing app stores (restricting customers choice) 2) Banning the mention of alternate methods of payment (restricted customers harmed by paying higher fees) The argument that the app store charged "market rate" is also not a fair comparison. Your comparing one completely closed market to other open markets that Microsoft and Google produced. Both main competitors allow for competing app stores from their own for example. [1] https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/01/10/the-app-store-is-still-a-growth-story-for-apple.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/01/10/the-app-store-is-s...

samatman 6y ago
> Why were they able to take 30% and continue to take 15% commission off of all sales? Because the value of the app store is only created via continued practices of anti-competitive behaviour. Also, because Apple created the most valuable mobile software market in the world, by creating the iPhone, continuing to release top-notch phones year after year, and by creating the App Store itself. It remains true that iPhone users buy software at a rate that totally dwarfs Android. This could be traced to a number of reasons, but I wouldn't dismiss the App Store monopoly as one of them. You can describe this as anti-competitive, just keep in mind that you're assuming your own conclusion. You could make the same argument for Apple's refusal to license their OSes for hardware they don't manufacture, I would be similarly unimpressed. As a user, I would like a stress-free way to sideload apps which don't meet Apple's standards for inclusion on the App Store. Don't see why Apple would want to give away their competitive advantage by letting other stores sell software for their phones, but I could imagine them making side-loading less onerous, that would be nice.

ksec 6y ago

>It happens all the times, and it's called "good business". I would have agreed with you if Apple had, Paused and in any sort of PR, Marketing, or answer direct from the executive team that they are at least thinking about the issue. Except they double down on thinking they deserved that 30% if not more. ( Perfectly Fine ) Did not take hard stand against developers and thinking themselves as so righteous. ( Also Fine ) But then suddenly turn around and act like Santa to Help SME or smaller developers, when Apple are under pressure in multiple countries for their App Store policy. May be Tim Cook did not realise, Apple has turned into hypocrite just like Google did in their Do No Evil era.

travmatt 6y ago

It’d be a lot easier to believe if the change didn’t coincide with an incoming administration who has already signaled they’d be looking at anti-competitive practices. Those aligning incentives have an exquisite sense of timing, as it happened exactly as those talked of enforcements started becoming real.