4 ms·

A publishing fee would also be regressive compared to the payment tax. Right now, people don't pay until they are successful, at which point they may pay a LOT.

A publishing fee would also be regressive compared to the payment tax. Right now, people don't pay until they are successful, at which point they may pay a LOT. But it keeps the app marketplace much more of a free marketplace.

r3trohack3r 5y ago
It’s not exactly a publishing fee, but today you have to pay Apple $99/year to distribute software into Apple’s ecosystem; otherwise they’ll hide your application behind a non-obvious ctrl+click+run flow. To my knowledge, this fee is collected regardless of your distribution channel. I wouldn’t call $99/year “not paying.”
- simondotau 5y ago
  The $99/year gives you additional developer tools and access to the App Store storefront. It's up to Apple what constitutes a sufficient license fee for the commercial use of Apple's proprietary software libraries. Apple's libraries are licensed to developers under whatever license Apple chooses. They could require a certain revenue share regardless of which payment gateway is used. Heck, they could license it under the GPL and require all developers who build programs against their libraries to release their source code. It's their code, it's up to them. Similarly, Epic Games can decide when developers might have to pay Epic for software they distribute with Unreal Engine. Whether it's a flat fee, a revenue share, a profit share, if there are discounts or incentives—all of that is entirely for Epic to decide.
  - Hamuko 5y ago
    >It's their code, it's up to them. Well, until the regulators step in (again).
    - simondotau 5y ago
      Are you suggesting that regulators can force Apple to give away their stuff for free if they want to participate in that market? That doesn't sound right to me.
      - Hamuko 5y ago
        Why yes, regulators can force Apple to do what they want in their country. And they can very easily dictate how much Apple is allowed to charge for licensing. Fair licensing agreements already exist in the patent space.
      - mathnmusic 5y ago
        No, Apple is free to stop operating in countries with such regulators. No business activity => No violation of competition-related regulations.
      - howinteresting 5y ago
        Yes, regulators can do that, and they would have pretty clear antitrust grounds to do it as well. The difference between random people using the GPL and Apple is that Apple is worth a trillion dollars. That matters quite a bit.
        simondotau 5y ago
        It matters if you're making an emotional argument, but I'm not sure it's relevant to any legal argument.
        howinteresting 5y ago
        Antitrust regulators don't care about the size of the trusts they're meant to regulate? Interesting.
        simondotau 5y ago
        I am genuinely confused what your point is. Are you saying that "the difference between random people using the GPL and Apple is" nobody is making billions of dollars from GPL code? That it's an anti-trust violation which is ignored because nobody is making any money?
  - oarsinsync 5y ago
    > The $99/year is predominantly for access to the App Store. It's up to Apple what constitutes a license fee for developers to have commercial use of Apple's proprietary software libraries. Interestingly, the $99/year fee is to access the app store, but there's a a $299/year fee to bypass the appstore. https://developer.apple.com/support/enrollment/ https://developer.apple.com/support/enrollment/ notes: The Apple Developer Program annual fee is 99 USD and the Apple Developer Enterprise Program annual fee is 299 USD
    - simondotau 5y ago
      It is hypothesised that the main reason Apple persists with the $99/year fee is as a glorified CAPTCHA, to stop developers from mechanically creating account after account in order to upload scummy app after scummy app. If that's the reason, I wouldn't entirely blame them. The $299 enterprise program probably costs Apple substantially more than $299 per customer/enterprise in order to run. While I have no idea about the numbers, I wouldn't be surprised that it is a substantial loss-maker for Apple, justified only because it's necessary to keep the iPhone/iPad relevant in some enterprises.
  - r3trohack3r 5y ago
    I’m not sure I agree. In order to distribute my Electron app to Mac users via a direct download from my website, I must pay Apple $99. Otherwise Apple will present my users with a scare dialogue that gives the impression the software can’t be run.

r3trohack3r 5y ago

It’s not exactly a publishing fee, but today you have to pay Apple $99/year to distribute software into Apple’s ecosystem; otherwise they’ll hide your application behind a non-obvious ctrl+click+run flow. To my knowledge, this fee is collected regardless of your distribution channel. I wouldn’t call $99/year “not paying.”

simondotau 5y ago
The $99/year gives you additional developer tools and access to the App Store storefront. It's up to Apple what constitutes a sufficient license fee for the commercial use of Apple's proprietary software libraries. Apple's libraries are licensed to developers under whatever license Apple chooses. They could require a certain revenue share regardless of which payment gateway is used. Heck, they could license it under the GPL and require all developers who build programs against their libraries to release their source code. It's their code, it's up to them. Similarly, Epic Games can decide when developers might have to pay Epic for software they distribute with Unreal Engine. Whether it's a flat fee, a revenue share, a profit share, if there are discounts or incentives—all of that is entirely for Epic to decide.
- Hamuko 5y ago
  >It's their code, it's up to them. Well, until the regulators step in (again).
  - simondotau 5y ago
    Are you suggesting that regulators can force Apple to give away their stuff for free if they want to participate in that market? That doesn't sound right to me.
    - Hamuko 5y ago
      Why yes, regulators can force Apple to do what they want in their country. And they can very easily dictate how much Apple is allowed to charge for licensing. Fair licensing agreements already exist in the patent space.
    - mathnmusic 5y ago
      No, Apple is free to stop operating in countries with such regulators. No business activity => No violation of competition-related regulations.
    - howinteresting 5y ago
      Yes, regulators can do that, and they would have pretty clear antitrust grounds to do it as well. The difference between random people using the GPL and Apple is that Apple is worth a trillion dollars. That matters quite a bit.
      - simondotau 5y ago
        It matters if you're making an emotional argument, but I'm not sure it's relevant to any legal argument.
        howinteresting 5y ago
        Antitrust regulators don't care about the size of the trusts they're meant to regulate? Interesting.
        simondotau 5y ago
        I am genuinely confused what your point is. Are you saying that "the difference between random people using the GPL and Apple is" nobody is making billions of dollars from GPL code? That it's an anti-trust violation which is ignored because nobody is making any money?
- oarsinsync 5y ago
  > The $99/year is predominantly for access to the App Store. It's up to Apple what constitutes a license fee for developers to have commercial use of Apple's proprietary software libraries. Interestingly, the $99/year fee is to access the app store, but there's a a $299/year fee to bypass the appstore. https://developer.apple.com/support/enrollment/ https://developer.apple.com/support/enrollment/ notes: The Apple Developer Program annual fee is 99 USD and the Apple Developer Enterprise Program annual fee is 299 USD
  - simondotau 5y ago
    It is hypothesised that the main reason Apple persists with the $99/year fee is as a glorified CAPTCHA, to stop developers from mechanically creating account after account in order to upload scummy app after scummy app. If that's the reason, I wouldn't entirely blame them. The $299 enterprise program probably costs Apple substantially more than $299 per customer/enterprise in order to run. While I have no idea about the numbers, I wouldn't be surprised that it is a substantial loss-maker for Apple, justified only because it's necessary to keep the iPhone/iPad relevant in some enterprises.
- r3trohack3r 5y ago
  I’m not sure I agree. In order to distribute my Electron app to Mac users via a direct download from my website, I must pay Apple $99. Otherwise Apple will present my users with a scare dialogue that gives the impression the software can’t be run.