4 ms·

Isn't the point here What they get 30% of? Do they get 30% of what the end user pays or 30% of the revenue the app maker keeps (30% of Fanhouses 10% is 3%)?

otterley 5y ago
Apple gets 30% of what the end user pays. IaP has always worked this way. It's a high tax to be sure, but it's not like Apple gets half, or more than half. If you can't run a self-sustaining business with the remaining 70%, then you have two choices at the moment: (1) find a new business to be in, or (2) do what similarly situated businesses do, and use a different mechanism for collecting revenue than IaP.
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  Saying "That's just how it is" is basically admitting admitting it's wrong but refusing to support fixing it. I get where you're coming from. I think Fanhouse is a bad example case. I won't die on this hill. But if that's the best reason for something, we are admitting there is no good reason for it.
  - otterley 5y ago
    The thing is, we can argue ad infinitum as to what an acceptable commission should be. There’s no “correct” value. No matter what it is, someone will always complain that it’s too high. (Case in point: brick-and-mortar merchants who complain about 3-5% merchant fees for accepting credit cards.) But the fact that it’s been this way for over 10 years and the app ecosystem has been very healthy is a pretty good existence proof that it’s not as big a deal as some vociferous people (who, in the end, usually just want more money for themselves) make it out to be.
    - arvinsim 5y ago
      10 years is a pretty short time for "this has been always been this way".
    - LatteLazy 5y ago
      Is the app ecosystem very healthy or could it be healthier? Why does the rate from 10 years ago make sense today? In a free market, the rates would be set by market forces and we generally think those are right. But Apple set 30% and has never even reviewed it as far as we know. I won't pretend there is a sure fire way of defining exactly the correct rate. There isn't. But that doesn't mean letting Apple set it is correct either. This is why we have utility boards: someone who isn't bias should set rates to make them fair and efficient and make sure the system is working as well as possible. Your electricity price needs to be low enough you're not being fleeced, but high enough to allow investment in improved infrastructure. If you set the price it might be too low, if the local monopoly set the price it would be too high. The app store is no different. Someone disinterested should be setting a price that maximises benefit for consumers. That price might actually be higher? I don't know. I'm just saying that Apple shouldn't be permitted to set it alone and that "30%" was never carved I to stone by god as the right number. If anything, the fact it has stayed at 30% proves its wrong. What other price has remained exactly the same for over a decade?
      - dizzant 5y ago
        Apple isn't alone is setting this price -- at the very least, Apple competes with Android for roughly half the smartphone market share. Making your app available in both ecosystems is not a requirement to run a successful business. As an example, consider the myriad apps that are available exclusively on iPhone, with no Android support. The 30% in-app purchase tax can't be compared to a utility price because it isn't mandatory. As a business, if you don't want to pay it, you are free to target a different platform with a similar user base. If high-quality apps stopped supporting iOS because of the high IaP fees, eventually Apple will be incentivized to reduce those fees. If apps elect to stay, the platform is clearly worth the cost.
        LatteLazy 5y ago
        The debate over whether app stores are a monopoly/oligopoly etc is pretty well gone over here isn't it? I won't waste your time repeating those points. Interestingly, last time I checked 80% of iPhone users would not consider switching when surveyed (well done Apple). I wonder if forcing an open market and even cross compatability would be a better semi-solution...
jws 5y ago
The only reasonable way to structure the payment is on the gross value. If Apple tried to define it on some net or retained value then Apple would be auditing the developers of 337030 paid apps each pulling their own shenanigans to hide their revenue.
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  Maybe, but that defacto bans anyone acting as a middle man doesn't it?
  - otterley 5y ago
    I’m not sure the world wants or needs an App Store full of arbitrageurs. It wouldn’t be a very good experience for customers and it would lead even more questionable businesses to leverage it.
    - LatteLazy 5y ago
      Careful, writing off "arbitrageurs" means you can't have Spotify or Amazon or eBay apps. Those seem like things people do want...

otterley 5y ago

Apple gets 30% of what the end user pays. IaP has always worked this way. It's a high tax to be sure, but it's not like Apple gets half, or more than half. If you can't run a self-sustaining business with the remaining 70%, then you have two choices at the moment: (1) find a new business to be in, or (2) do what similarly situated businesses do, and use a different mechanism for collecting revenue than IaP.

LatteLazy 5y ago
Saying "That's just how it is" is basically admitting admitting it's wrong but refusing to support fixing it. I get where you're coming from. I think Fanhouse is a bad example case. I won't die on this hill. But if that's the best reason for something, we are admitting there is no good reason for it.
- otterley 5y ago
  The thing is, we can argue ad infinitum as to what an acceptable commission should be. There’s no “correct” value. No matter what it is, someone will always complain that it’s too high. (Case in point: brick-and-mortar merchants who complain about 3-5% merchant fees for accepting credit cards.) But the fact that it’s been this way for over 10 years and the app ecosystem has been very healthy is a pretty good existence proof that it’s not as big a deal as some vociferous people (who, in the end, usually just want more money for themselves) make it out to be.
  - arvinsim 5y ago
    10 years is a pretty short time for "this has been always been this way".
  - LatteLazy 5y ago
    Is the app ecosystem very healthy or could it be healthier? Why does the rate from 10 years ago make sense today? In a free market, the rates would be set by market forces and we generally think those are right. But Apple set 30% and has never even reviewed it as far as we know. I won't pretend there is a sure fire way of defining exactly the correct rate. There isn't. But that doesn't mean letting Apple set it is correct either. This is why we have utility boards: someone who isn't bias should set rates to make them fair and efficient and make sure the system is working as well as possible. Your electricity price needs to be low enough you're not being fleeced, but high enough to allow investment in improved infrastructure. If you set the price it might be too low, if the local monopoly set the price it would be too high. The app store is no different. Someone disinterested should be setting a price that maximises benefit for consumers. That price might actually be higher? I don't know. I'm just saying that Apple shouldn't be permitted to set it alone and that "30%" was never carved I to stone by god as the right number. If anything, the fact it has stayed at 30% proves its wrong. What other price has remained exactly the same for over a decade?
    - dizzant 5y ago
      Apple isn't alone is setting this price -- at the very least, Apple competes with Android for roughly half the smartphone market share. Making your app available in both ecosystems is not a requirement to run a successful business. As an example, consider the myriad apps that are available exclusively on iPhone, with no Android support. The 30% in-app purchase tax can't be compared to a utility price because it isn't mandatory. As a business, if you don't want to pay it, you are free to target a different platform with a similar user base. If high-quality apps stopped supporting iOS because of the high IaP fees, eventually Apple will be incentivized to reduce those fees. If apps elect to stay, the platform is clearly worth the cost.
      - LatteLazy 5y ago
        The debate over whether app stores are a monopoly/oligopoly etc is pretty well gone over here isn't it? I won't waste your time repeating those points. Interestingly, last time I checked 80% of iPhone users would not consider switching when surveyed (well done Apple). I wonder if forcing an open market and even cross compatability would be a better semi-solution...

jws 5y ago

The only reasonable way to structure the payment is on the gross value. If Apple tried to define it on some net or retained value then Apple would be auditing the developers of 337030 paid apps each pulling their own shenanigans to hide their revenue.

LatteLazy 5y ago
Maybe, but that defacto bans anyone acting as a middle man doesn't it?
- otterley 5y ago
  I’m not sure the world wants or needs an App Store full of arbitrageurs. It wouldn’t be a very good experience for customers and it would lead even more questionable businesses to leverage it.
  - LatteLazy 5y ago
    Careful, writing off "arbitrageurs" means you can't have Spotify or Amazon or eBay apps. Those seem like things people do want...