21 ms·

I feel like these marketplaces could maybe justify 30% on the purchase of an app up front, where there are clear benefits to the exposure and platform offered b

I feel like these marketplaces could maybe justify 30% on the purchase of an app up front, where there are clear benefits to the exposure and platform offered by them. But ongoing revenue is really attributable to the app itself and feels to me much harder to justify. At this point I’d be happy if Apple just let me install apps outside their ecosystem, then they could at least defend themselves by saying if the developers aren’t happy with the terms of the App Store they can offer alternative methods.

zndr 5y ago
It's more than that: it's the fact that all of the payment info is there. Every step, field entry, hurdle you put infront of a consumer is usually associated a significant increase in "cart abandonment". By apple allowing you to just apple pay straight in and avoid CC, and billing address etc, they are decreasing the hurdles and increasing the conversion. Is it worth 30%? In 2013? Maybe In 2021? Definitely not. It should be closer to 5%. That being said I do like using Apple subscriptions because they make it REALLY easy to cancel them, all in one place, something that can't be said for a lot of other services.
- Drew_ 5y ago
  Apple Pay isn't the only payment processor that's convenient like this. But of course, Apple has created a market where their processor is the only one allowed.
  - Spivak 5y ago
    I mean I pay for shit on my iPhone with PayPal, "Shop Pay", "Amazon Pay", or direct CC entry -- not digital goods obviously but still it's a frame of reference. None are half as good as Apple Pay's "hit button, double click, FaceID, done" flow. Like I will actually switch to using my phone to make purchases because I don't want to enter my CC info on some random site.
    - lwansbrough 5y ago
      If Apple wasn’t user-hostile this would all be an API that any payment provider could use.
    - Drew_ 5y ago
      Your experience with other payment processors on an iPhone are indeed not as good simply because they aren't allowed to be as good. Every single one of your experiences with these alternative payment processors was forced through a Safari browser.
      - judge2020 5y ago
        Nothing is stopping the 'Shop' app or Amazon app from being used for any and all third-party (or fourth party, in this case) payments, as long as they're not selling purely digital goods.
    - vatueil 5y ago
      I still prefer "hit button, tap TouchID, done". I also wish Apple would make it easier to switch to a different credit card for a one-off purchase. And stop forcing everyone in a Family Sharing group to use the same credit card for all purchases
      - thom 5y ago
        Argh, every day I consider going back to my iPhone 8 Plus purely because FaceID is so terrible. The point about switching cards easily is also absolutely right, plenty of places don’t accept American Express which is my default card.
- pcthrowaway 5y ago
  If it's anything like Google Subscriptions, there's the danger of disputing charges leading to your Apple account being banned, so it's probably in the users' interests to avoid it. But of course, when you've just come off of a plane at 2 AM and want to get a ride to your hotel so you can get a few hours of sleep before checkout time, this is probably not something users will think about.
  - syspec 5y ago
    It's not like google subscriptions
- onphonenow 5y ago
  Yeah, one MAJOR issue I have with the folks complaining about apple. Many of them have HORRIBLE cancellation policies. I had to fight NY Times like crazy (it was sign up online, call to cancel kind of thing). Match is also in the "alliance" fighting apple with Facebook. They also have scummy practices (either tracking you or again duping you). The other thing I like with Apple, the trial periods are REALLY clear. When you sign up with comcast it's like $29/month (and then in tiny tiny print 10 pages later you find out that after 6 months it's $69/month or whatever). So until these folks clean things up where they ALREADY have full control (on the web) I'm willing to cut apple a ton of slack. Apple will remind you to cancel a subscription when you delete a related app. It reminds you if a subscription will renew and you can cancel then. I willing spend money through the app store I'd not spend ANYWHERE else. For folks willing to spend money but who don't want to f'ed around with constantly apple is the place to be. And it is super easy these days. Double tap or touch and done.
  - jmknoll 5y ago
    Do virtualized credit card numbers address this problem? I have a free browser extension from my credit card company that generates virtual account numbers and when I pay for a service I create a new number for it. If it’s difficult to cancel the service I just delete the number instead.
    - cachvico 5y ago
      It doesn't. That's for fraud protection, not just-on-the-right-side-of-the-law subscription sketchiness.
      - paulgb 5y ago
        Legally it doesn't, but for practical purposes most recurring subscriptions probably won't pursue you over a declined payment and will just suspend your account. I don't advocate this, but I've heard that it works.
      - MiddleEndian 5y ago
        This shouldn't be on-the-right-side-of-the-law. You should be able to have your credit card send a "cancel" signal and that should be it. Further charges are theft.
- Gigachad 5y ago
  Apple should be forced to allow other payment processors store a platform wide login like you can with a Google account. So none of the payments run through Apples infrastructure, but there is no extra friction over their provider.
  - sfifs 5y ago
    Eventually they will be in every sizeable market outside the US starting with Korea. With all that 30% cut money leaving the domestic economy and multi trillion valuation, Apple has made itself too juicy a target
- viscanti 5y ago
  > It's more than that: it's the fact that all of the payment info is there. Haven't Lyft and Uber already collected that payment information to charge per ride today? Is there even any friction savings here? What justifies the 30% cut when these companies seem to have done just fine not using the Apple Payment infrastructure?
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > What justifies the 30% cut Power. Prices in capitalism don't reflect moral justifications, they reflect power.
- funstuff007 5y ago
  > Every step, field entry, hurdle you put infront of a consumer is usually associated a significant increase in "cart abandonment". Yeah, that's annoying, but for new vendors I just use Paypal.
- threatofrain 5y ago
  Apple Pay is different from App Store fees. Apple Pay is a payment process where the store doesn’t get your credit card number. Apple Store fees are a matter of business agreements between software companies and Apple. Using PayPal won’t help an app company escape its agreements with Apple.
V__ 5y ago
I wholeheartedly agree. 30% ongoing is criminal in my opinion.
- rekoil 5y ago
  Even 15% ongoing is criminal in my opinion. Other payment processors take <5%.
jiggawatts 5y ago
Not charging 30% for ongoing revenue would immediately result in all apps being “free” with an in—app subscription. Like… within months. Why do people not get this? Apple wants their cut. This is the only way for them to get any cut at all. It’s either this rule or $0 revenue.
- bitexploder 5y ago
  No possible percentages in between 0 and 30%?
  - jiggawatts 5y ago
    It's the industry standard. Most similar marketplaces (e.g.: Steam store, etc...) charge 30%.
    - bwilli123 5y ago
      It's reasonable to assume that Apple chose 30% because that was the prevailing standard in the physical retail world. That markup has been competed away in some circumstances (eg Costco) but otherwise still holds generally (Walmart 32%) It reflects unavoidable costs to all retailers, like local rents, staffing, transport etc Given that tech does not have a retail's fixed costs why has that markup not been competed away to establish a markup based on tech's unavoidable fixed costs?
      - jiggawatts 5y ago
        What is your argument here? That Apple's services cost literally nothing to provide? Apple provides developers access to an enormous marketplace that they run. A marketplace with hundreds of millions of "high value" customers pre-configured for payments. All sorts of related services are included, such as fraud detection, currency conversion, etc... What do you think Apple does? Just skim 30% off the top without doing anything else? Seriously, some people live in this fantasy world where all products should be worth 100% of their raw material cost, and services should cost only what the showroom rent+aircon costs to provide.
judge2020 5y ago
Maybe Apple forces Uber and Lyft to cost $3 upfront then.
amelius 5y ago
There is a mutual benefit. More apps means that Apple benefits from a stronger platform (and can sell more copies of iDevices/iOS). That's why Microsoft never charged 30% for the privilege of selling an app on MSWindows, back in the old days. A platform is largely "made" by external developers who contribute to the platform. It is unfair to start charging them (or anyone who comes later) for being on the platform. Of course, Apple execs, who have no pride in making things but only in extracting money out of things, will have a different opinion on this.
- ASalazarMX 5y ago
  > A platform is largely "made" by external developers who contribute to the platform. It is unfair to start charging them (or anyone who comes later) for being on the platform. > Of course, Apple execs, who have no pride in making things but only in extracting money out of things, will have a different opinion on this. I think they've always known, that's why they created an artificial ecosystem where this equation is backwards. No developer can harm Apple, but Apple can harm the biggest of developers on a whim.
  - rekoil 5y ago
    And this is the issue as I see it. Apple have made a device they know will be used a certain way, a general purpose computing device, but they are the only ones who can decide what software is allowed on it. I believe this should be illegal, either you've made a purpose-specific device and can impose a lot of restrictions on usage, or you've made a general purpose computing device, and once you've done that I believe there needs to be laws that say an owner of such a device must be allowed to personally decide what software runs on it. That means: - Ability to unlock bootloader if I want to - Ability to load software on the device unrestricted Computers always worked like this, so we never had to regulate it, but now that corporations have discovered the loophole we really need to impose regulations. If we don't then markets like the App Store will never be fair.
    - amelius 5y ago
      I think governments are slowly addressing "platforms". Not just computing platforms, but platforms in general. E.g. shopping platforms, gig-platforms. Platforms are like an economy inside an economy, with the platform-company being the regulator, and this can be a bad thing (much worse than if the government was the regulator).
zmmmmm 5y ago
Even with the 30% up front - if it is such a great deal, why don't they allow alternatives? It's clear as day they know the minute they allowed alternatives, a giant fraction of the App Store would depart because they can get a better deal either elsewhere.
- lwkl 5y ago
  > It's clear as day they know the minute they allowed alternatives, a giant fraction of the App Store would depart because they can get a better deal either elsewhere. As an user of an iPhone I don't want this. I bought an iPhone because I deal with enough technology in my day to day job and I want a phone that's straightforward to use and doesn't need any attention. So no I don't want to install three app stores on my iPhone and have to deal with 20 different payment providers. In the end it's important to make the distinction between consumer interests and the interest of businesses that want to sell their product on the iOS platform. I get that this sucks for developers because iOS is from what I've heard much more profitable than Android. In my opinion consumers interests should be weighed higher here and Apple's policies for the App store are mostly pro consumer, at least compared with the situation on different platforms. Consumers that want a more open platform can always choose Android or Linux phones.
  - zmmmmm 5y ago
    It's a totally false dichotomy that you have to choose between consumer friendly and business friendly outcome. The idea those things are linked is a convenient fiction Apple has come up with to maintain its position of control. Apple can put however many constraints it wants on external app stores. It can make them present a uniform interface for payment, delivery etc etc. Just like it puts those constraints already on the apps. Pretending it's powerless and all these terrible outcomes will ensue when it literally already controls every detail of every single app on the existing store is one of Apple's "big lies" (but one clearly a lot of people have fallen for).
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      > Apple can put however many constraints it wants on external app stores. I doubt you mean that. All apps must be served from server farms in the Oort Cloud and be in Esperanto would be acceptable constraints? But it's actually not a false dichotomy. Things I want are vendors who make iOS apps forced to use other parts of the Apple ecosystem. Forced to use Safari. Forced to offer Apple Single Sign On (if they use anyone's). Forced to offer Apple's payment methods. Those are the very things they are trying to get out of by having alternate app stores.
chaosbutters314 5y ago
maybe stop supporting apple's exploitive practices then and not buy their products. At this point, they're second tier on phones and laptops and dead last in desktop PC. I guess they're still first in watch and earbuds but that isn't saying much.
- rekoil 5y ago
  If you're talking about hardware capabilities you are so wrong. They are only in the market position that they are in because their stuff is expensive, and people think they need to buy new stuff so often that Apples stuff becomes prohibitively expensive for them. Their tech is solid. M1 completely obliterates the competition for laptops, and is getting there for desktop. Their desktop positioning is mostly self-made to be honest, they haven't really focused on it. Phones are so overpowered these days that the only thing that really matters is battery life, and Apples chips accomplish so much more than the competition with a lot less battery.
  - okamiueru 5y ago
    > M1 completely obliterates the competition for laptops IMO, you are both wrong. The M1 is fine as a laptop CPU, because what it needs to do well, it does very well - which is power efficiency. However, if what you need is computational power, and you don't particularly prioritize power consumption, then the M1 not only does not obliterate the competition, it significantly under-performs. And this is before you add in a dedicated GPU that solves some of those tasks much, much faster. Take Cinebench R23, where M1 Pro (10+16) has about the same performance as the top contenders that do not have dedicated GPU cores, e.g. Ryzen 9 5900HX and Core i9-11980HK. Throw in a dedicated GPU for a work task that can properly utilize it, and the performance difference is at least 3x that of the M1. Now, I'm not saying that the M1 is bad. It's just that.... "Completely obliterates the competition for laptops" is a strange way to describe "yeah, if both systems do very little, the M1 will use much less power!". For many, this results in it being the best laptop CPU for the tradeoffs they want, especially if the MacOS is an added positive. However, that the M1 competes and outperforms in terms of computation performance, would be just wrong.
newsclues 5y ago
Apple wants 30% Developers want less Customer don’t care, and want what Apple is selling. Developers feel it’s not fair because they think they are losing money but customers seem happy to pay for Apple’s premium service.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Yes, the premium does not matter to me because it saves so much time and convenience in being able to cancel subscriptions. If I want it cheaper in exchange for having to deal with onerous cancellation methods, I can just go direct to the developer’s website and buy it.
- asvitkine 5y ago
  I think you meant "Customers don't know". I suspect if the UI offered customers to pay now using Apple's thing, or have a button to get 30% off by going to some more convoluted flow, a lot of people would choose the rebate.
  - newsclues 5y ago
    If people want a cheaper but more complicated experience, they have the Android option
    - asvitkine 5y ago
      I think at the point they're making the transaction, they're already locked in. It's not like someone is going to buy a new phone and replace all their apps when they're purchasing an Uber subscription. Plus, I think another commenter pointed out that the end user is still getting the same price on Android - I don't know if that's because Apple mandates something or a business decision on the company's side?
eru 5y ago
> At this point I’d be happy if Apple just let me install apps outside their ecosystem, then they could at least defend themselves by saying if the developers aren’t happy with the terms of the App Store they can offer alternative methods. And, of course, you can also use a different smart phone ecosystem. Android makes it comparatively easier to sideload apps and mess with stuff.
JimDabell 5y ago
> I feel like these marketplaces could maybe justify 30% on the purchase of an app up front, where there are clear benefits to the exposure and platform offered by them. But ongoing revenue is really attributable to the app itself and feels to me much harder to justify. It’s not 30% of ongoing revenue though. You only have to pay 30% in one situation: you are already earning millions of dollars in the App Store AND it’s the first year of the subscription. If you earn less than a million dollars, you qualify for the small business program and the rate is 15%: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/11/apple-announces-app-store-small-business-program/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/11/apple-announces-app-s... If your subscriber has been subscribed for a year or more, the rate is 15%: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/subscriptions/#revenue-after-one-year https://developer.apple.com/app-store/subscriptions/#revenue...
majani 5y ago
The overwhelming majority of apps can be turned into websites instead, unshackled by store regulations. Devs should vote with their feet if app store costs outweigh the benefits
- rekoil 5y ago
  But a lot of app classes can't. Browsers being the obvious one, but generally anything that requires optimised code, heavy computation, multi-threadedness, or access to certain sensors. Anything that fits any of those requirements has to be a real app and must then adhere to Apples rules.
charles_f 5y ago
> I’d be happy if Apple just let me install apps outside their ecosystem Android allows it, usage of alt stores is marginal.

zndr 5y ago

It's more than that: it's the fact that all of the payment info is there. Every step, field entry, hurdle you put infront of a consumer is usually associated a significant increase in "cart abandonment". By apple allowing you to just apple pay straight in and avoid CC, and billing address etc, they are decreasing the hurdles and increasing the conversion. Is it worth 30%? In 2013? Maybe In 2021? Definitely not. It should be closer to 5%. That being said I do like using Apple subscriptions because they make it REALLY easy to cancel them, all in one place, something that can't be said for a lot of other services.

Drew_ 5y ago
Apple Pay isn't the only payment processor that's convenient like this. But of course, Apple has created a market where their processor is the only one allowed.
- Spivak 5y ago
  I mean I pay for shit on my iPhone with PayPal, "Shop Pay", "Amazon Pay", or direct CC entry -- not digital goods obviously but still it's a frame of reference. None are half as good as Apple Pay's "hit button, double click, FaceID, done" flow. Like I will actually switch to using my phone to make purchases because I don't want to enter my CC info on some random site.
  - lwansbrough 5y ago
    If Apple wasn’t user-hostile this would all be an API that any payment provider could use.
  - Drew_ 5y ago
    Your experience with other payment processors on an iPhone are indeed not as good simply because they aren't allowed to be as good. Every single one of your experiences with these alternative payment processors was forced through a Safari browser.
    - judge2020 5y ago
      Nothing is stopping the 'Shop' app or Amazon app from being used for any and all third-party (or fourth party, in this case) payments, as long as they're not selling purely digital goods.
  - vatueil 5y ago
    I still prefer "hit button, tap TouchID, done". I also wish Apple would make it easier to switch to a different credit card for a one-off purchase. And stop forcing everyone in a Family Sharing group to use the same credit card for all purchases
    - thom 5y ago
      Argh, every day I consider going back to my iPhone 8 Plus purely because FaceID is so terrible. The point about switching cards easily is also absolutely right, plenty of places don’t accept American Express which is my default card.
pcthrowaway 5y ago
If it's anything like Google Subscriptions, there's the danger of disputing charges leading to your Apple account being banned, so it's probably in the users' interests to avoid it. But of course, when you've just come off of a plane at 2 AM and want to get a ride to your hotel so you can get a few hours of sleep before checkout time, this is probably not something users will think about.
- syspec 5y ago
  It's not like google subscriptions
onphonenow 5y ago
Yeah, one MAJOR issue I have with the folks complaining about apple. Many of them have HORRIBLE cancellation policies. I had to fight NY Times like crazy (it was sign up online, call to cancel kind of thing). Match is also in the "alliance" fighting apple with Facebook. They also have scummy practices (either tracking you or again duping you). The other thing I like with Apple, the trial periods are REALLY clear. When you sign up with comcast it's like $29/month (and then in tiny tiny print 10 pages later you find out that after 6 months it's $69/month or whatever). So until these folks clean things up where they ALREADY have full control (on the web) I'm willing to cut apple a ton of slack. Apple will remind you to cancel a subscription when you delete a related app. It reminds you if a subscription will renew and you can cancel then. I willing spend money through the app store I'd not spend ANYWHERE else. For folks willing to spend money but who don't want to f'ed around with constantly apple is the place to be. And it is super easy these days. Double tap or touch and done.
- jmknoll 5y ago
  Do virtualized credit card numbers address this problem? I have a free browser extension from my credit card company that generates virtual account numbers and when I pay for a service I create a new number for it. If it’s difficult to cancel the service I just delete the number instead.
  - cachvico 5y ago
    It doesn't. That's for fraud protection, not just-on-the-right-side-of-the-law subscription sketchiness.
    - paulgb 5y ago
      Legally it doesn't, but for practical purposes most recurring subscriptions probably won't pursue you over a declined payment and will just suspend your account. I don't advocate this, but I've heard that it works.
    - MiddleEndian 5y ago
      This shouldn't be on-the-right-side-of-the-law. You should be able to have your credit card send a "cancel" signal and that should be it. Further charges are theft.
Gigachad 5y ago
Apple should be forced to allow other payment processors store a platform wide login like you can with a Google account. So none of the payments run through Apples infrastructure, but there is no extra friction over their provider.
- sfifs 5y ago
  Eventually they will be in every sizeable market outside the US starting with Korea. With all that 30% cut money leaving the domestic economy and multi trillion valuation, Apple has made itself too juicy a target
viscanti 5y ago
> It's more than that: it's the fact that all of the payment info is there. Haven't Lyft and Uber already collected that payment information to charge per ride today? Is there even any friction savings here? What justifies the 30% cut when these companies seem to have done just fine not using the Apple Payment infrastructure?
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > What justifies the 30% cut Power. Prices in capitalism don't reflect moral justifications, they reflect power.
funstuff007 5y ago
> Every step, field entry, hurdle you put infront of a consumer is usually associated a significant increase in "cart abandonment". Yeah, that's annoying, but for new vendors I just use Paypal.
threatofrain 5y ago
Apple Pay is different from App Store fees. Apple Pay is a payment process where the store doesn’t get your credit card number. Apple Store fees are a matter of business agreements between software companies and Apple. Using PayPal won’t help an app company escape its agreements with Apple.

V__ 5y ago

I wholeheartedly agree. 30% ongoing is criminal in my opinion.

rekoil 5y ago
Even 15% ongoing is criminal in my opinion. Other payment processors take <5%.

jiggawatts 5y ago

Not charging 30% for ongoing revenue would immediately result in all apps being “free” with an in—app subscription. Like… within months. Why do people not get this? Apple wants their cut. This is the only way for them to get any cut at all. It’s either this rule or $0 revenue.

bitexploder 5y ago
No possible percentages in between 0 and 30%?
- jiggawatts 5y ago
  It's the industry standard. Most similar marketplaces (e.g.: Steam store, etc...) charge 30%.
  - bwilli123 5y ago
    It's reasonable to assume that Apple chose 30% because that was the prevailing standard in the physical retail world. That markup has been competed away in some circumstances (eg Costco) but otherwise still holds generally (Walmart 32%) It reflects unavoidable costs to all retailers, like local rents, staffing, transport etc Given that tech does not have a retail's fixed costs why has that markup not been competed away to establish a markup based on tech's unavoidable fixed costs?
    - jiggawatts 5y ago
      What is your argument here? That Apple's services cost literally nothing to provide? Apple provides developers access to an enormous marketplace that they run. A marketplace with hundreds of millions of "high value" customers pre-configured for payments. All sorts of related services are included, such as fraud detection, currency conversion, etc... What do you think Apple does? Just skim 30% off the top without doing anything else? Seriously, some people live in this fantasy world where all products should be worth 100% of their raw material cost, and services should cost only what the showroom rent+aircon costs to provide.

judge2020 5y ago

Maybe Apple forces Uber and Lyft to cost $3 upfront then.

amelius 5y ago

There is a mutual benefit. More apps means that Apple benefits from a stronger platform (and can sell more copies of iDevices/iOS). That's why Microsoft never charged 30% for the privilege of selling an app on MSWindows, back in the old days. A platform is largely "made" by external developers who contribute to the platform. It is unfair to start charging them (or anyone who comes later) for being on the platform. Of course, Apple execs, who have no pride in making things but only in extracting money out of things, will have a different opinion on this.

ASalazarMX 5y ago
> A platform is largely "made" by external developers who contribute to the platform. It is unfair to start charging them (or anyone who comes later) for being on the platform. > Of course, Apple execs, who have no pride in making things but only in extracting money out of things, will have a different opinion on this. I think they've always known, that's why they created an artificial ecosystem where this equation is backwards. No developer can harm Apple, but Apple can harm the biggest of developers on a whim.
- rekoil 5y ago
  And this is the issue as I see it. Apple have made a device they know will be used a certain way, a general purpose computing device, but they are the only ones who can decide what software is allowed on it. I believe this should be illegal, either you've made a purpose-specific device and can impose a lot of restrictions on usage, or you've made a general purpose computing device, and once you've done that I believe there needs to be laws that say an owner of such a device must be allowed to personally decide what software runs on it. That means: - Ability to unlock bootloader if I want to - Ability to load software on the device unrestricted Computers always worked like this, so we never had to regulate it, but now that corporations have discovered the loophole we really need to impose regulations. If we don't then markets like the App Store will never be fair.
  - amelius 5y ago
    I think governments are slowly addressing "platforms". Not just computing platforms, but platforms in general. E.g. shopping platforms, gig-platforms. Platforms are like an economy inside an economy, with the platform-company being the regulator, and this can be a bad thing (much worse than if the government was the regulator).

zmmmmm 5y ago

Even with the 30% up front - if it is such a great deal, why don't they allow alternatives? It's clear as day they know the minute they allowed alternatives, a giant fraction of the App Store would depart because they can get a better deal either elsewhere.

lwkl 5y ago
> It's clear as day they know the minute they allowed alternatives, a giant fraction of the App Store would depart because they can get a better deal either elsewhere. As an user of an iPhone I don't want this. I bought an iPhone because I deal with enough technology in my day to day job and I want a phone that's straightforward to use and doesn't need any attention. So no I don't want to install three app stores on my iPhone and have to deal with 20 different payment providers. In the end it's important to make the distinction between consumer interests and the interest of businesses that want to sell their product on the iOS platform. I get that this sucks for developers because iOS is from what I've heard much more profitable than Android. In my opinion consumers interests should be weighed higher here and Apple's policies for the App store are mostly pro consumer, at least compared with the situation on different platforms. Consumers that want a more open platform can always choose Android or Linux phones.
- zmmmmm 5y ago
  It's a totally false dichotomy that you have to choose between consumer friendly and business friendly outcome. The idea those things are linked is a convenient fiction Apple has come up with to maintain its position of control. Apple can put however many constraints it wants on external app stores. It can make them present a uniform interface for payment, delivery etc etc. Just like it puts those constraints already on the apps. Pretending it's powerless and all these terrible outcomes will ensue when it literally already controls every detail of every single app on the existing store is one of Apple's "big lies" (but one clearly a lot of people have fallen for).
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    > Apple can put however many constraints it wants on external app stores. I doubt you mean that. All apps must be served from server farms in the Oort Cloud and be in Esperanto would be acceptable constraints? But it's actually not a false dichotomy. Things I want are vendors who make iOS apps forced to use other parts of the Apple ecosystem. Forced to use Safari. Forced to offer Apple Single Sign On (if they use anyone's). Forced to offer Apple's payment methods. Those are the very things they are trying to get out of by having alternate app stores.

chaosbutters314 5y ago

maybe stop supporting apple's exploitive practices then and not buy their products. At this point, they're second tier on phones and laptops and dead last in desktop PC. I guess they're still first in watch and earbuds but that isn't saying much.

rekoil 5y ago
If you're talking about hardware capabilities you are so wrong. They are only in the market position that they are in because their stuff is expensive, and people think they need to buy new stuff so often that Apples stuff becomes prohibitively expensive for them. Their tech is solid. M1 completely obliterates the competition for laptops, and is getting there for desktop. Their desktop positioning is mostly self-made to be honest, they haven't really focused on it. Phones are so overpowered these days that the only thing that really matters is battery life, and Apples chips accomplish so much more than the competition with a lot less battery.
- okamiueru 5y ago
  > M1 completely obliterates the competition for laptops IMO, you are both wrong. The M1 is fine as a laptop CPU, because what it needs to do well, it does very well - which is power efficiency. However, if what you need is computational power, and you don't particularly prioritize power consumption, then the M1 not only does not obliterate the competition, it significantly under-performs. And this is before you add in a dedicated GPU that solves some of those tasks much, much faster. Take Cinebench R23, where M1 Pro (10+16) has about the same performance as the top contenders that do not have dedicated GPU cores, e.g. Ryzen 9 5900HX and Core i9-11980HK. Throw in a dedicated GPU for a work task that can properly utilize it, and the performance difference is at least 3x that of the M1. Now, I'm not saying that the M1 is bad. It's just that.... "Completely obliterates the competition for laptops" is a strange way to describe "yeah, if both systems do very little, the M1 will use much less power!". For many, this results in it being the best laptop CPU for the tradeoffs they want, especially if the MacOS is an added positive. However, that the M1 competes and outperforms in terms of computation performance, would be just wrong.

newsclues 5y ago

Apple wants 30% Developers want less Customer don’t care, and want what Apple is selling. Developers feel it’s not fair because they think they are losing money but customers seem happy to pay for Apple’s premium service.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lotsofpulp 5y ago
Yes, the premium does not matter to me because it saves so much time and convenience in being able to cancel subscriptions. If I want it cheaper in exchange for having to deal with onerous cancellation methods, I can just go direct to the developer’s website and buy it.
asvitkine 5y ago
I think you meant "Customers don't know". I suspect if the UI offered customers to pay now using Apple's thing, or have a button to get 30% off by going to some more convoluted flow, a lot of people would choose the rebate.
- newsclues 5y ago
  If people want a cheaper but more complicated experience, they have the Android option
  - asvitkine 5y ago
    I think at the point they're making the transaction, they're already locked in. It's not like someone is going to buy a new phone and replace all their apps when they're purchasing an Uber subscription. Plus, I think another commenter pointed out that the end user is still getting the same price on Android - I don't know if that's because Apple mandates something or a business decision on the company's side?

eru 5y ago

> At this point I’d be happy if Apple just let me install apps outside their ecosystem, then they could at least defend themselves by saying if the developers aren’t happy with the terms of the App Store they can offer alternative methods. And, of course, you can also use a different smart phone ecosystem. Android makes it comparatively easier to sideload apps and mess with stuff.

JimDabell 5y ago

> I feel like these marketplaces could maybe justify 30% on the purchase of an app up front, where there are clear benefits to the exposure and platform offered by them. But ongoing revenue is really attributable to the app itself and feels to me much harder to justify. It’s not 30% of ongoing revenue though. You only have to pay 30% in one situation: you are already earning millions of dollars in the App Store AND it’s the first year of the subscription. If you earn less than a million dollars, you qualify for the small business program and the rate is 15%: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/11/apple-announces-app-store-small-business-program/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/11/apple-announces-app-s... If your subscriber has been subscribed for a year or more, the rate is 15%: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/subscriptions/#revenue-after-one-year https://developer.apple.com/app-store/subscriptions/#revenue...

majani 5y ago

The overwhelming majority of apps can be turned into websites instead, unshackled by store regulations. Devs should vote with their feet if app store costs outweigh the benefits

rekoil 5y ago
But a lot of app classes can't. Browsers being the obvious one, but generally anything that requires optimised code, heavy computation, multi-threadedness, or access to certain sensors. Anything that fits any of those requirements has to be a real app and must then adhere to Apples rules.

charles_f 5y ago

> I’d be happy if Apple just let me install apps outside their ecosystem Android allows it, usage of alt stores is marginal.