6 ms·

> The problem is them preventing you (the developer) from allowing the user to use other forms of payment processing within the app itself. One major kink in t

> The problem is them preventing you (the developer) from allowing the user to use other forms of payment processing within the app itself. One major kink in this idea is that it breaks the free tier model, since paid apps are essentially subsidizing free ones. If you can use any payment processor in-app, then developers will make their apps nominally "free" for App Store purposes, and then use the payment processor of their choice in-app, circumventing Apple's ability to collect any fee whatsoever. So how do you address this problem without charging every developer, even if they were otherwise willing to give away their app?

lern_too_spel 5y ago
They would still be required to report that they have in-app purchases, just like they are currently required to report they have ads, even if they aren't using Apple's or Google's ad APIs.
- willseth 5y ago
  This is the only reasonable suggestion I've heard, but it's still very messy because it would not only require even more careful policing of app code, but mostly because Apple would have to invent an entirely new fee structure for apps under this umbrella. I think to do it fairly it would just end up looking like an AWS bill.
fyzix 5y ago
An Apple developer account costs $100 per year and with 20Million registered developers. $2B a year is more than enough to host an appstore. Or they can compete in the free market and offer their payment gateway for a competitive fee, or they can do what google is doing and allow third party app installs.
bww 5y ago
If Apple allowed developers to keep 100% of revenue from App Store transactions while Apple continued to pay for all the operating costs it would still, undoubtedly, work out greatly to Apple's advantage. They derive enormous value from having apps in their store creating value for their platforms. Of course, they would not be satisfied with that arrangement because no company has ever been satisfied with making a ton of money if it is possible for them to make some more. But that certainly doesn't mean the model can't work or that if there were regulation to this effect that it wouldn't still be in Apple's enormous interest to continue to operate the App Store.
bialpio 5y ago
I think this could be defendable if they were selling the devices at a loss ("cheap printer, expensive ink" model, or gaming consoles model), but providing something that is effectively a general purpose device on which they already earn money, and that is locked down like this makes me annoyed with them ("we know better what you should do with your device, trust us"). That's the primary reason why I don't even look at what devices they are offering, which is a shame (I'd like to have more options). > So how do you address this problem without charging every developer, even if they were otherwise willing to give away their app? Aren't they already requiring developers to pay a fee to have a developer account? I'm sure there are ways they could recoup the costs of providing a service to the publishers of free apps (normally, a free market would converge on the actual price of providing this service). But they will only look for a solution when forced to, why give away a stable source of income?
kevingadd 5y ago
There's no way the model would actually break when Apple pulls in tens of billions USD every year off the App Store, a lot of it provided by whales in gacha games and online gambling services. A single one of those would be enough to keep the store humming (there are a few specific ones that bring in a billion usd a year by themselves) They could also just require developers to pay them a set % of gross even when using third-party payment processors. There is precedent for this, for example Sony requires this in order to approve cross-play between Playstation and other platforms. It could also be treated as a royalty model where you give them say 5% of your gross revenue to use the iOS platform and the 5% is baked into the normal 30% store cut (Unreal Engine works this way.)

lern_too_spel 5y ago

They would still be required to report that they have in-app purchases, just like they are currently required to report they have ads, even if they aren't using Apple's or Google's ad APIs.

willseth 5y ago
This is the only reasonable suggestion I've heard, but it's still very messy because it would not only require even more careful policing of app code, but mostly because Apple would have to invent an entirely new fee structure for apps under this umbrella. I think to do it fairly it would just end up looking like an AWS bill.

fyzix 5y ago

An Apple developer account costs $100 per year and with 20Million registered developers. $2B a year is more than enough to host an appstore. Or they can compete in the free market and offer their payment gateway for a competitive fee, or they can do what google is doing and allow third party app installs.

bww 5y ago

If Apple allowed developers to keep 100% of revenue from App Store transactions while Apple continued to pay for all the operating costs it would still, undoubtedly, work out greatly to Apple's advantage. They derive enormous value from having apps in their store creating value for their platforms. Of course, they would not be satisfied with that arrangement because no company has ever been satisfied with making a ton of money if it is possible for them to make some more. But that certainly doesn't mean the model can't work or that if there were regulation to this effect that it wouldn't still be in Apple's enormous interest to continue to operate the App Store.

bialpio 5y ago

I think this could be defendable if they were selling the devices at a loss ("cheap printer, expensive ink" model, or gaming consoles model), but providing something that is effectively a general purpose device on which they already earn money, and that is locked down like this makes me annoyed with them ("we know better what you should do with your device, trust us"). That's the primary reason why I don't even look at what devices they are offering, which is a shame (I'd like to have more options). > So how do you address this problem without charging every developer, even if they were otherwise willing to give away their app? Aren't they already requiring developers to pay a fee to have a developer account? I'm sure there are ways they could recoup the costs of providing a service to the publishers of free apps (normally, a free market would converge on the actual price of providing this service). But they will only look for a solution when forced to, why give away a stable source of income?

kevingadd 5y ago

There's no way the model would actually break when Apple pulls in tens of billions USD every year off the App Store, a lot of it provided by whales in gacha games and online gambling services. A single one of those would be enough to keep the store humming (there are a few specific ones that bring in a billion usd a year by themselves) They could also just require developers to pay them a set % of gross even when using third-party payment processors. There is precedent for this, for example Sony requires this in order to approve cross-play between Playstation and other platforms. It could also be treated as a royalty model where you give them say 5% of your gross revenue to use the iOS platform and the 5% is baked into the normal 30% store cut (Unreal Engine works this way.)