6 ms·

I very much agree that this app stores market abuse thing needs to end, and I am also really glad to see that at least one country is responding like this. > a

I very much agree that this app stores market abuse thing needs to end, and I am also really glad to see that at least one country is responding like this. > a reasonable (single percentage) fee for facilitating payments. I want to point out, though, that the service Apple provides is not merely payment processing. They offer total customer management. Which, when integrated with their entire developer offering (TestFlight, App Store, etc) is pretty neat. I’ve integrated my app with Apple for iOS and then had to do it all over again with Braintree of web. You might say that entire exercise speaks to the inanity of the App Store monopoly, but the experience illustrated for me how much more Apple provides than just mere payment processing. You won’t find the words “chargeback” or “dispute” in Apple’s docs, because they take care of all that for you. With Apple, you don’t have to program UIs for changing subscription tiers or viewing transaction histories. And many other things. Is it worth 30%? No. 15%? I don’t think so. Should I have to maintain and juggle different integrations for every app store? Definitely not. But Apple’s offering is decent and comprehensive. It would be made much better if it wasn’t a racket that held developers hostage. Think App Store competing with Play Store on Android devices. And vice versa. Now that would be cool! I really hope similar legislation is passed in the United States and EU.

mafuy 5y ago
I agree that Apple's system adds a lot of value. And that's why I believe it can and should compete with other systems. There should be no problem with informing users about other payment options both in- and outside of an app. But Apple chose to forbid this. And that's not ok.
ehsankia 5y ago
Sure but the point is that developers should have the option of rolling out their own solution if they don't need all the features Apple provides or agree with the fee. This in turn creates competition which may reduce rates all around.
- judge2020 5y ago
  The common argument against that is that the 30% also goes to actually developing iOS - you could envision the margin Apple makes on every iPhone as one that goes towards the R&D costs of developing the hardware, while the post-sale revenue goes towards the post-sale costs of developing iOS (and all the updates they test/push out for 5+ years after the device is released).
  - danieldisu 5y ago
    iPhone users pay the development of iOS, iphone users want to use an iPhone in part because all these third party apps. This is just them wanting more money, and according to latest earnings they already make a lot.
  - wvenable 5y ago
    > The common argument against that is that the 30% also goes to actually developing iOS How were operating systems funded before vendors could take a cut of every transaction?
    - judge2020 5y ago
      They didn’t receive updates. Now Windows pushes ads in the OS as a mechanism of recouping the cost of developing and testing updates for old hardware.
      - wvenable 5y ago
        Operating systems have been getting automatic updates for over 20 years. And what 3rd party ads are in Windows? I don't have any.
        threeseed 5y ago
        Here is how to disable the many forms of advertising on Windows 10: https://www.howtogeek.com/269331/how-to-disable-all-of-windows-10s-built-in-advertising/ https://www.howtogeek.com/269331/how-to-disable-all-of-windo... Also don't forget that there is a ridiculous amount of user behaviour telemetry and metadata that Microsoft has permission to use for any reason.
- orangepanda 5y ago
  > if [developers] don't need all the features Some “features” are seen only by customers, e.g., managing all your subscriptions in one place. I can think of some services that would LOVE making cancelling a subscription more difficult. I don’t care about apple’s cut. Allowing sideloading instead would have been a win win for everyone
no_wizard 5y ago
I wonder if raising fees in the developer program would recoup some of the cost of doing at least some of these things. 99 dollars for an individual and 299 for a business if I recall correctly, that’s peanuts and hasn’t been raised in a very long time. I don’t think asking for more is bad, since it’s a yearly fixed cost
- MR4D 5y ago
  Asking for more will start to limit the number of developers who develop for their platform. Probably not the Microsoft's of the world, but tons of smaller ones. For instance, if you raised the individual's fee to $500, then a bunch of people would opt out, either not developing iOS apps, or just make a web app. Neither of those are good solutions from Apple's point of view.
howinteresting 5y ago
If the app/play stores allowed alternative payment mechanisms, then third parties would have an incentive to build out an end-to-end flow as well, possibly even better than Apple or Google do (eg upgrade pricing, better cross-platform support).
Analemma_ 5y ago
Apple very pointedly does _not_ offer total customer management. As an iOS developer, I don’t know who my customers are; I can’t contact them; I can’t offer them a refund, demo, or promo code; I can’t have any kind of relationship with them whatsoever. It’s infuriatingly archaic and useless. Whatever that system is, it certainly isn’t “total customer management”.
- simonh 5y ago
  I suppose it’s customer management in the sense that they are not your customers, they are Apple’s customers. Apple is providing you access to sell your app to Apple’s customers through Apple’s store.
- horsawlarway 5y ago
  It's pretty clearly "Total customer control" not management. Apple has pulled off a really nifty trick of convincing (cough abusively forcing... cough) companies to concede full control of the customer/business relationship to Apple. From my point of view, you're not really selling anything on the Apple App store - you're giving Apple the right to resell your digital products. In exchange they keep all analytics data. They keep full control of customer contact and communication. They dictate the terms of the sale, including place and payment method. They control everything. Your customer is Apple, and they are just as abusive to their "vendors" (app developers) as Walmart is. Calling it a "Marketplace" is a sham - The core definition of a "Marketplace" is --- arena of competitive or commercial dealings --- And the Apple store is no more a "marketplace" than Walmart.
  - dmitryminkovsky 5y ago
    > From my point of view, you're not really selling anything on the Apple App store - you're giving Apple the right to resell your digital products. In my understanding that that’s the contractual relationship the developer and user enter into with Apple. Personally I think this isn’t all bad considering it provides a uniform experience for the user, which lowers cognitive load for the user and might makes the user more willing to purchase. Once they know what app purchasing is like, they can confidently purchase more apps. And they know that no matter who develops an app, in the event of a dispute they will deal directly with Apple.
diebeforei485 5y ago
Stripe Billing[1] only charges 0.5% for this. Apple's offerings may have been good when the alternative was software sold on physical CD's in a store, but compared to the alternatives today there is no way 30% is by any means fair or reasonable. The 30% commission is essentially monopoly rents. 1. https://stripe.com/billing https://stripe.com/billing
- eigen 5y ago
  Looks like its a bit more complicated than that according to the webpage. Stripe Payments [1]: 2.9% + $0.30 Stripe Billing [2]: 0.5% Stripe Invoicing [3]: 0.4% [1] https://stripe.com/pricing https://stripe.com/pricing [2] https://stripe.com/billing/pricing https://stripe.com/billing/pricing [3] https://stripe.com/invoicing/pricing https://stripe.com/invoicing/pricing
  - diebeforei485 5y ago
    You don't need both Billing and Invoicing. Invoicing is for one-time payments (typically after a service has been delivered), and Billing is for recurring payments. All in all, we're looking at $0.30 + 3.4% (or 3.3%). This is clearly lower than 30%, except for very inexpensive apps (~$1.29 or less).
skrtskrt 5y ago
> total customer management you mean end-to-end locked-in ownership of your customers You can offer total customer and management and compete on its merits and price point, not by forced monopoly.
mdoms 5y ago
> They offer total customer management. No, they FORCE total customer management.
- dmitryminkovsky 5y ago
  Yes, offer was the wrong word.

mafuy 5y ago

I agree that Apple's system adds a lot of value. And that's why I believe it can and should compete with other systems. There should be no problem with informing users about other payment options both in- and outside of an app. But Apple chose to forbid this. And that's not ok.

ehsankia 5y ago

Sure but the point is that developers should have the option of rolling out their own solution if they don't need all the features Apple provides or agree with the fee. This in turn creates competition which may reduce rates all around.

judge2020 5y ago
The common argument against that is that the 30% also goes to actually developing iOS - you could envision the margin Apple makes on every iPhone as one that goes towards the R&D costs of developing the hardware, while the post-sale revenue goes towards the post-sale costs of developing iOS (and all the updates they test/push out for 5+ years after the device is released).
- danieldisu 5y ago
  iPhone users pay the development of iOS, iphone users want to use an iPhone in part because all these third party apps. This is just them wanting more money, and according to latest earnings they already make a lot.
- wvenable 5y ago
  > The common argument against that is that the 30% also goes to actually developing iOS How were operating systems funded before vendors could take a cut of every transaction?
  - judge2020 5y ago
    They didn’t receive updates. Now Windows pushes ads in the OS as a mechanism of recouping the cost of developing and testing updates for old hardware.
    - wvenable 5y ago
      Operating systems have been getting automatic updates for over 20 years. And what 3rd party ads are in Windows? I don't have any.
      - threeseed 5y ago
        Here is how to disable the many forms of advertising on Windows 10: https://www.howtogeek.com/269331/how-to-disable-all-of-windows-10s-built-in-advertising/ https://www.howtogeek.com/269331/how-to-disable-all-of-windo... Also don't forget that there is a ridiculous amount of user behaviour telemetry and metadata that Microsoft has permission to use for any reason.
orangepanda 5y ago
> if [developers] don't need all the features Some “features” are seen only by customers, e.g., managing all your subscriptions in one place. I can think of some services that would LOVE making cancelling a subscription more difficult. I don’t care about apple’s cut. Allowing sideloading instead would have been a win win for everyone

no_wizard 5y ago

I wonder if raising fees in the developer program would recoup some of the cost of doing at least some of these things. 99 dollars for an individual and 299 for a business if I recall correctly, that’s peanuts and hasn’t been raised in a very long time. I don’t think asking for more is bad, since it’s a yearly fixed cost

MR4D 5y ago
Asking for more will start to limit the number of developers who develop for their platform. Probably not the Microsoft's of the world, but tons of smaller ones. For instance, if you raised the individual's fee to $500, then a bunch of people would opt out, either not developing iOS apps, or just make a web app. Neither of those are good solutions from Apple's point of view.

howinteresting 5y ago

If the app/play stores allowed alternative payment mechanisms, then third parties would have an incentive to build out an end-to-end flow as well, possibly even better than Apple or Google do (eg upgrade pricing, better cross-platform support).

Analemma_ 5y ago

Apple very pointedly does _not_ offer total customer management. As an iOS developer, I don’t know who my customers are; I can’t contact them; I can’t offer them a refund, demo, or promo code; I can’t have any kind of relationship with them whatsoever. It’s infuriatingly archaic and useless. Whatever that system is, it certainly isn’t “total customer management”.

simonh 5y ago
I suppose it’s customer management in the sense that they are not your customers, they are Apple’s customers. Apple is providing you access to sell your app to Apple’s customers through Apple’s store.
horsawlarway 5y ago
It's pretty clearly "Total customer control" not management. Apple has pulled off a really nifty trick of convincing (cough abusively forcing... cough) companies to concede full control of the customer/business relationship to Apple. From my point of view, you're not really selling anything on the Apple App store - you're giving Apple the right to resell your digital products. In exchange they keep all analytics data. They keep full control of customer contact and communication. They dictate the terms of the sale, including place and payment method. They control everything. Your customer is Apple, and they are just as abusive to their "vendors" (app developers) as Walmart is. Calling it a "Marketplace" is a sham - The core definition of a "Marketplace" is --- arena of competitive or commercial dealings --- And the Apple store is no more a "marketplace" than Walmart.
- dmitryminkovsky 5y ago
  > From my point of view, you're not really selling anything on the Apple App store - you're giving Apple the right to resell your digital products. In my understanding that that’s the contractual relationship the developer and user enter into with Apple. Personally I think this isn’t all bad considering it provides a uniform experience for the user, which lowers cognitive load for the user and might makes the user more willing to purchase. Once they know what app purchasing is like, they can confidently purchase more apps. And they know that no matter who develops an app, in the event of a dispute they will deal directly with Apple.

diebeforei485 5y ago

Stripe Billing[1] only charges 0.5% for this. Apple's offerings may have been good when the alternative was software sold on physical CD's in a store, but compared to the alternatives today there is no way 30% is by any means fair or reasonable. The 30% commission is essentially monopoly rents. 1. https://stripe.com/billing https://stripe.com/billing

eigen 5y ago
Looks like its a bit more complicated than that according to the webpage. Stripe Payments [1]: 2.9% + $0.30 Stripe Billing [2]: 0.5% Stripe Invoicing [3]: 0.4% [1] https://stripe.com/pricing https://stripe.com/pricing [2] https://stripe.com/billing/pricing https://stripe.com/billing/pricing [3] https://stripe.com/invoicing/pricing https://stripe.com/invoicing/pricing
- diebeforei485 5y ago
  You don't need both Billing and Invoicing. Invoicing is for one-time payments (typically after a service has been delivered), and Billing is for recurring payments. All in all, we're looking at $0.30 + 3.4% (or 3.3%). This is clearly lower than 30%, except for very inexpensive apps (~$1.29 or less).

skrtskrt 5y ago

> total customer management you mean end-to-end locked-in ownership of your customers You can offer total customer and management and compete on its merits and price point, not by forced monopoly.

mdoms 5y ago

> They offer total customer management. No, they FORCE total customer management.

dmitryminkovsky 5y ago
Yes, offer was the wrong word.