4 ms·

Your app might only be targeted at a single country or a single market with "easy" taxation rules across borders like the EU. Companies do that all the time an

Your app might only be targeted at a single country or a single market with "easy" taxation rules across borders like the EU. Companies do that all the time and if they see the value of being available globally by paying apple 30% that's fine as well. However right now we don't know whether such a service is in fact worth 30% percent because Google and Apple effectively prevent a competitor from offering lower prices

mrtksn 5y ago
Obviously everyone can do whatever they like, I am pointing out the burden this puts on smaller developers. Suddenly, creating and distributing apps can get prohibitive for smaller developers.
- commoner 5y ago
  > Suddenly, creating and distributing apps can get prohibitive for smaller developers. That's not true, because the law does not prohibit developers from using Apple's or Google's current payment systems. It enables more payment processing options (with lower fees) without removing existing ones. Developers can also choose different payment processors for different regions.
  - mrtksn 5y ago
    It means that if those payment processors gain market share from Apple I will need to support them to reach the exact same userbase because if the users adopt using the alternatives it is very likely that they will stop bothering to upkeep their Apple payment methods. It happens all the time and there's even API for it to offer the users a grace period until they fix their payment.
    - commoner 5y ago
      If your customers prefer to use a payment processor that costs you 3% instead of Apple's 15%/30%, then why wouldn't you support that payment processor? You gain more revenue and honor your customers' preferences at the same time.
      - mrtksn 5y ago
        Because supporting payment processors is extra work(which is requires technical and non technical skills) that can go into development, that's why. It is something that I would prefer to delegate, pay the due and forget about it. What's so hard to understand that? Have you ever created a product and made money from it?
        commoner 5y ago
        By migrating from Apple's 30% fee to a payment processor that charges only 3%, your revenue would increase by 38.6%. The only way that additional revenue would not make up for your development cost is if your revenue were low in the first place. There are plenty of developers who would gladly integrate another payment API for the additional revenue.
        mrtksn 5y ago
        My revenue wouldn't necessarily increase(unless maybe price reduction drives the sales enough), my costs due to Apple's commission will decrees and my development and legal costs will increase.
        commoner 5y ago
        Just to be clear, by "revenue", I'm referring to revenue after Apple's or the payment processor's cut.
        mrtksn 5y ago
        My landlord doesn't care. From his perspective, all that matters is that if I make enough money to pay the rent. He is not interested if my revenue after Apple's cut has increased. If my net income decreases(because my costs increase more that the revenue after Apple's cut increase), I am screwed.
- mbesto 5y ago
  > I am pointing out the burden this puts on smaller developers. This already existed. You're saying that the 30% was to cover this burden, but what other people are pointing out is that this 30% isn't necessarily a true market cost of doing business since there was never another option. There is nothing stopping another entity (Stripe or otherwise) from providing a service that covers this burden similar to Apple. If it happens to cost 30% then so be it, but we don't truly know the cost because its effectively a monopolistic economic arrangement provided by Apple. > Suddenly, creating and distributing apps can get prohibitive for smaller developers. How so? It's not effected distribution. Apple will still provide an option for a 30% cut. If more devs go to another option then Apple may compete and this 30% may even go down. This is a good thing for the consumer and the developer.

mrtksn 5y ago

Obviously everyone can do whatever they like, I am pointing out the burden this puts on smaller developers. Suddenly, creating and distributing apps can get prohibitive for smaller developers.

commoner 5y ago
> Suddenly, creating and distributing apps can get prohibitive for smaller developers. That's not true, because the law does not prohibit developers from using Apple's or Google's current payment systems. It enables more payment processing options (with lower fees) without removing existing ones. Developers can also choose different payment processors for different regions.
- mrtksn 5y ago
  It means that if those payment processors gain market share from Apple I will need to support them to reach the exact same userbase because if the users adopt using the alternatives it is very likely that they will stop bothering to upkeep their Apple payment methods. It happens all the time and there's even API for it to offer the users a grace period until they fix their payment.
  - commoner 5y ago
    If your customers prefer to use a payment processor that costs you 3% instead of Apple's 15%/30%, then why wouldn't you support that payment processor? You gain more revenue and honor your customers' preferences at the same time.
    - mrtksn 5y ago
      Because supporting payment processors is extra work(which is requires technical and non technical skills) that can go into development, that's why. It is something that I would prefer to delegate, pay the due and forget about it. What's so hard to understand that? Have you ever created a product and made money from it?
      - commoner 5y ago
        By migrating from Apple's 30% fee to a payment processor that charges only 3%, your revenue would increase by 38.6%. The only way that additional revenue would not make up for your development cost is if your revenue were low in the first place. There are plenty of developers who would gladly integrate another payment API for the additional revenue.
        mrtksn 5y ago
        My revenue wouldn't necessarily increase(unless maybe price reduction drives the sales enough), my costs due to Apple's commission will decrees and my development and legal costs will increase.
        commoner 5y ago
        Just to be clear, by "revenue", I'm referring to revenue after Apple's or the payment processor's cut.
        mrtksn 5y ago
        My landlord doesn't care. From his perspective, all that matters is that if I make enough money to pay the rent. He is not interested if my revenue after Apple's cut has increased. If my net income decreases(because my costs increase more that the revenue after Apple's cut increase), I am screwed.
mbesto 5y ago
> I am pointing out the burden this puts on smaller developers. This already existed. You're saying that the 30% was to cover this burden, but what other people are pointing out is that this 30% isn't necessarily a true market cost of doing business since there was never another option. There is nothing stopping another entity (Stripe or otherwise) from providing a service that covers this burden similar to Apple. If it happens to cost 30% then so be it, but we don't truly know the cost because its effectively a monopolistic economic arrangement provided by Apple. > Suddenly, creating and distributing apps can get prohibitive for smaller developers. How so? It's not effected distribution. Apple will still provide an option for a 30% cut. If more devs go to another option then Apple may compete and this 30% may even go down. This is a good thing for the consumer and the developer.