5 ms·

Seriously curious, what percentage is “fair”? Or is the issue you can’t side load this app without going through the App Store?

salamandersauce 5y ago
If Apple wants to play gatekeeper, no percentage IMO unless they're using Apple's payment network which should be competitive with others like stripe at 3% or so. In this case they actually are willing to pay Apple, just 30% of their revenue which is 10% of the transaction price but Apple wants 30% of the transaction price.
- valparaiso 5y ago
  They planned their business after reading App Store rules and now want to bypass it. That’s not how the business work. They will fail in court very badly because they accepted the rules and know all consequences.
cblconfederate 5y ago
an 10% profit margin is considered average
WWLink 5y ago
I think none. Apple is clearly nickel and diming their own customers at this point. Now you're not only paying Apple for your iPhone, and Apple services, but you're also stuck paying them extra every time you buy a service from your iPhone. It's stupid and greedy. Like where do we draw the line?
- distribot 5y ago
  I think the current system is too much in Apple's favor, but I imagine they do have to spend a decent chunk of change curating the app store, validating submissions, hosting the apps for download, and maintaining the security infrastructure for developers to sign their apps and users to have confidence in them. This is all value added for developers.
  - cromwellian 5y ago
    The emails from the testimony indicate they wanted only a $1 billion run rate. They have a $4+ billion run rate. Do we really think it costs them $1-4 billion to run the apps store? I'd be shocked it cost even $100 million a year to run it. The excuse that the 30% cut exists to pay for the costs of running the store seem absurd.
  - protomyth 5y ago
    That is all in service of getting people to buy their phones. Those are no value added to the developer, they are restrictions on the developer so Apple can make statements about its ecosystem.
- Aerroon 5y ago
  If a grocery store allows you to order groceries online, but they make it into an app instead of a website, will Apple take a 30% cut on the groceries too?
  - salamandersauce 5y ago
    Nope. Retail goods are excempt already and can use their own payment processors too. Big obvious example is the Amazon app where you can buy anything so long as it isn't digital content using Amazon's payment system.
carabiner 5y ago
I've never thought "fairness" to be a material concept in anything with money. I mean how could it be? Is it fair to tax people different amounts, or should everyone be taxed the same percentage? Or the same dollar amount? How can "fairness" as a concept ever be nailed down to be useful?
falcolas 5y ago
Well, Google charges 30%. Microsoft (for the XBox, not sure about their store) 30%. Sony (PS4) 30%. Steam was 30%, but this is dropping. Nintendo's is well protected by NDAs, but reportedly 15-30%. 30% is pretty close to a standard when you're providing the storefront and control the hardware.
- smnrchrds 5y ago
  In Canada, Bell charges 80$ for a smartphone plan with 30GiB of data; and TELUS charges 80$ for a smartphone plan with 30GiB of data; and Rogers charges 80$ for a smartphone plan with 30GiB of data. If you don't want to spend as much, you can go with their discount brands. Virgin Mobile Canada (Bell subsidiary) charges 45$ for 3GiB of data; and Koodo (TELUS subsidiary) charges 45$ for 3GiB of data; and Fido (Rogers subsidiary) charges 45$ for 3GiB of data. One one to look at it is that the market rate for the smartphone plan with 30GiB of data is 80$ and the market rate for 3GiB of data is 45$. Another way is that it is an oligopoly situation. Having lived in Canada for a long time, I know it's the latter. Apple/Google/etc store markup situation seems similar enough that I am inclined to believe it is a case of oligopoly too.
  - falcolas 5y ago
    The front runners here aren't Apple and Google, but Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo. They set the standard that Steam, Apple, Google, and others have followed.
    - smnrchrds 5y ago
      Bell existed long before Rogers and TELUS, but nowadays, they are equal partners and beneficiaries of an oligopoly. Bell does not have more power because it was there first, nor TELUS less in the wrong because it entered it last. Whatever differences their time of entry to the market made has long since dissipated. I don't see how the situation is different for app stores.
    - salamandersauce 5y ago
      They really didn't. Physical video game software royalties were not 30% take. Closer to 10%, although it varied depending on manufacturer and publisher agreements. By the time Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo got established selling digital video games Apple had already been doing a 30% take of iTunes songs for years.
smoldesu 5y ago
The issue is that Apple continues to inroad services and tools through their own proprietary systems, which gives them a better excuse to mark up their products. Giving users the choice of marketplaces gives Apple incentive to stay competitive in an otherwise monopolistic software segment.
- valparaiso 5y ago
  They built their closed platform from scratch on mature market with Nokia and Blackberry and made the lowest fee (in 2008) that’s why developers started making apps for iPhones. You think 30% is high while it was best choice in 2008. Now zoomers don’t want to pay fees and want everything for free.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
protomyth 5y ago
This whole notion that Apple, by virtue of creating a platform, needs to cash in on every use of the platform really needs to go. Even IBM in the mainframe era knew not to charge transaction fees on what runs on the platform. The reason you create great APIs is to get developers to support your platform is so people will buy your platform. Without app developers, Apple is only what it can provide and probably not as popular. Those court released e-mails are going to keep showing people how wrong Apple's thinking is. If Apple is the payment processor than so be it, but if they have nothing to do with the transaction, they deserve no money. Even saying that its an app in the App Store is lame because there is no other way to get apps on the platform. Even free apps help Apple to sell their wares.
- xbar 5y ago
  Compiler royalties, anyone?
  - protomyth 5y ago
    Ah, I remember the runtime fees for Smalltalks. I was hoping that whole thing was confined to niche markets these days.
JamesSwift 5y ago
The issue isn't really if 30% is "fair", its that the market has no way to find out if it is because apple have forced devs into their app ecosystem by deliberately keeping iOS browsers slightly worse than native apps (no push messaging or background processing). So there is no viable way for an alternate store, with an alternate fee structure, to run on iOS devices.
- valparaiso 5y ago
  How Apple forced anyone when they launched App Store in mature mobile market in 2008 where everyone was telling iPhone is “failed product”.

salamandersauce 5y ago

If Apple wants to play gatekeeper, no percentage IMO unless they're using Apple's payment network which should be competitive with others like stripe at 3% or so. In this case they actually are willing to pay Apple, just 30% of their revenue which is 10% of the transaction price but Apple wants 30% of the transaction price.

valparaiso 5y ago
They planned their business after reading App Store rules and now want to bypass it. That’s not how the business work. They will fail in court very badly because they accepted the rules and know all consequences.

cblconfederate 5y ago

an 10% profit margin is considered average

WWLink 5y ago

I think none. Apple is clearly nickel and diming their own customers at this point. Now you're not only paying Apple for your iPhone, and Apple services, but you're also stuck paying them extra every time you buy a service from your iPhone. It's stupid and greedy. Like where do we draw the line?

distribot 5y ago
I think the current system is too much in Apple's favor, but I imagine they do have to spend a decent chunk of change curating the app store, validating submissions, hosting the apps for download, and maintaining the security infrastructure for developers to sign their apps and users to have confidence in them. This is all value added for developers.
- cromwellian 5y ago
  The emails from the testimony indicate they wanted only a $1 billion run rate. They have a $4+ billion run rate. Do we really think it costs them $1-4 billion to run the apps store? I'd be shocked it cost even $100 million a year to run it. The excuse that the 30% cut exists to pay for the costs of running the store seem absurd.
- protomyth 5y ago
  That is all in service of getting people to buy their phones. Those are no value added to the developer, they are restrictions on the developer so Apple can make statements about its ecosystem.
Aerroon 5y ago
If a grocery store allows you to order groceries online, but they make it into an app instead of a website, will Apple take a 30% cut on the groceries too?
- salamandersauce 5y ago
  Nope. Retail goods are excempt already and can use their own payment processors too. Big obvious example is the Amazon app where you can buy anything so long as it isn't digital content using Amazon's payment system.

carabiner 5y ago

I've never thought "fairness" to be a material concept in anything with money. I mean how could it be? Is it fair to tax people different amounts, or should everyone be taxed the same percentage? Or the same dollar amount? How can "fairness" as a concept ever be nailed down to be useful?

falcolas 5y ago

Well, Google charges 30%. Microsoft (for the XBox, not sure about their store) 30%. Sony (PS4) 30%. Steam was 30%, but this is dropping. Nintendo's is well protected by NDAs, but reportedly 15-30%. 30% is pretty close to a standard when you're providing the storefront and control the hardware.

smnrchrds 5y ago
In Canada, Bell charges 80$ for a smartphone plan with 30GiB of data; and TELUS charges 80$ for a smartphone plan with 30GiB of data; and Rogers charges 80$ for a smartphone plan with 30GiB of data. If you don't want to spend as much, you can go with their discount brands. Virgin Mobile Canada (Bell subsidiary) charges 45$ for 3GiB of data; and Koodo (TELUS subsidiary) charges 45$ for 3GiB of data; and Fido (Rogers subsidiary) charges 45$ for 3GiB of data. One one to look at it is that the market rate for the smartphone plan with 30GiB of data is 80$ and the market rate for 3GiB of data is 45$. Another way is that it is an oligopoly situation. Having lived in Canada for a long time, I know it's the latter. Apple/Google/etc store markup situation seems similar enough that I am inclined to believe it is a case of oligopoly too.
- falcolas 5y ago
  The front runners here aren't Apple and Google, but Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo. They set the standard that Steam, Apple, Google, and others have followed.
  - smnrchrds 5y ago
    Bell existed long before Rogers and TELUS, but nowadays, they are equal partners and beneficiaries of an oligopoly. Bell does not have more power because it was there first, nor TELUS less in the wrong because it entered it last. Whatever differences their time of entry to the market made has long since dissipated. I don't see how the situation is different for app stores.
  - salamandersauce 5y ago
    They really didn't. Physical video game software royalties were not 30% take. Closer to 10%, although it varied depending on manufacturer and publisher agreements. By the time Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo got established selling digital video games Apple had already been doing a 30% take of iTunes songs for years.

smoldesu 5y ago

The issue is that Apple continues to inroad services and tools through their own proprietary systems, which gives them a better excuse to mark up their products. Giving users the choice of marketplaces gives Apple incentive to stay competitive in an otherwise monopolistic software segment.

valparaiso 5y ago
They built their closed platform from scratch on mature market with Nokia and Blackberry and made the lowest fee (in 2008) that’s why developers started making apps for iPhones. You think 30% is high while it was best choice in 2008. Now zoomers don’t want to pay fees and want everything for free.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

protomyth 5y ago

This whole notion that Apple, by virtue of creating a platform, needs to cash in on every use of the platform really needs to go. Even IBM in the mainframe era knew not to charge transaction fees on what runs on the platform. The reason you create great APIs is to get developers to support your platform is so people will buy your platform. Without app developers, Apple is only what it can provide and probably not as popular. Those court released e-mails are going to keep showing people how wrong Apple's thinking is. If Apple is the payment processor than so be it, but if they have nothing to do with the transaction, they deserve no money. Even saying that its an app in the App Store is lame because there is no other way to get apps on the platform. Even free apps help Apple to sell their wares.

xbar 5y ago
Compiler royalties, anyone?
- protomyth 5y ago
  Ah, I remember the runtime fees for Smalltalks. I was hoping that whole thing was confined to niche markets these days.

JamesSwift 5y ago

The issue isn't really if 30% is "fair", its that the market has no way to find out if it is because apple have forced devs into their app ecosystem by deliberately keeping iOS browsers slightly worse than native apps (no push messaging or background processing). So there is no viable way for an alternate store, with an alternate fee structure, to run on iOS devices.

valparaiso 5y ago
How Apple forced anyone when they launched App Store in mature mobile market in 2008 where everyone was telling iPhone is “failed product”.