9 ms·

Someone give me a good argument for why Apple deserves a THIRD of revenue generated from apps on their platform? Apple's app store is pure rent seeking. Even th

Someone give me a good argument for why Apple deserves a THIRD of revenue generated from apps on their platform? Apple's app store is pure rent seeking. Even the supposed curation everyone is paying for is lackluster. People are scammed left and right. Funnily enough, this applies to Uber and Lyft too. These middlemen companies have too much power to unilaterally dictate what cut they get from their service.

ApolloFortyNine 5y ago
If Apple allowed installing other apps or appstores from outside sources it'd be one thing. That they've managed to go on this long without an antitrust is incredible. Microsoft got an antitrust case against them for simply installing a default browser. What Apple does is magnitudes worse.
- gorbypark 5y ago
  It really comes down to the definition of monopoly and how a market is defined. If Microsoft wasn't found to have a monopoly in desktop operating systems, what they did wouldn't be illegal. Microsoft had north of 90% desktop OS market share at the time of the anti-trust suits. Does Apple have a monopoly? It depends on how you look at it. If the market is defined as iOS market share, then they definitely do (obviously). If it's defined as mobile operating systems, then maybe not. Currently iOS has a 59% market share in the US and only about 16% worldwide.
  - cokeandpepsi 5y ago
    all is know is that apple asks folks to bend over and this crowd smiles then crows about it endlessly dumb
prepend 5y ago
I think it’s similar to why Walmart deserves a third (or more) from manufacturers selling stuff in their store. Or Amazon. Or any store. Physical goods have about a 100% markup between manufacturer and what a customer pays. I think it should be less for digital goods, but you wanted a good argument. Apple charges because they are between you and the app makers, like Walmart and target and stuff.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  If I buy a bread maker from Walmart, they aren't entitled to a cut of my revenue should I sell the bread I make. Similarly, if I buy a tablet at Walmart, that doesn't mean they're entitled to a cut of all the purchases I make using it.
  - supreme_berry 5y ago
- austinheap 5y ago
  Great example! In retail it’s bad if there isn’t a 300%+ markup. The fascination with making Apple a boogey man on this is bizarre. Your local corner store — which you should very much support! — has a markup that makes Apple look lazy.
  - Daishiman 5y ago
    Local corners stores have profit margins below 5%. Most supermarkets make barely more than 1% profit.
    - austinheap 5y ago
      I can’t speak for every corner store, of course. The two SF owners I know very well and have helped with their books aim for 300%. They routinely hit this. Edit: for context the one in Noe did 2m last year.
      - greedo 5y ago
        Markup is not profit.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        5y ago
lovich 5y ago
> … deserves … That’s your problem right there. We don’t allocate resources or make business deals based on how deserving a group or person is. They can charge it right now so they are
pilate 5y ago
Both apps still exist on the App Store. That’s really all you need to know. If this was untenable for Uber and Lyft they could pull the apps any time.
- Gigachad 5y ago
  We can choose to have a legal system where this is OK. Or we can chose to have a legal system which busts anti competitive practices like this. Both are possible and I know which one I would vote for.
- passivate 5y ago
  The situation is untenable, and as you can see, businesses who aren't scared of Apple are fighting back. Unfortunately, the smaller ones will easily get crushed by Apple and can't finance this sort of push-back without some grass-roots pressure.
mikl 5y ago
They might have a point when it comes upfront sales of apps and games. Steam also charges 30%, and the Xbox, Playstation and Nintendo Switch stores also charge similar if not higher premiums, as does other comparable app stores. Where it get’s ugly is when Apple wants a cut of everything that happens after the sale of the app, too, like wanting a cut when I buy a new book in the Kindle app (and Amazon refusing, instead making it impossible to buy books in the app).
- Gigachad 5y ago
  Yeah % cuts for products sold in stores is nothing new or unreasonable. But once the user has the app on their device, the "store" is now the app and there should be no cut of fees for things sold inside the apps own store.
  - darkwizard42 5y ago
    With software can't you just hack this by selling a free "Epic Store app" and allowing all games and software to be purchased there. If the "store" is now the app then how does Steam get their cut? Do they just disallow any product that has a "store" inside of it? What constitutes a "store"? This is the hard question. Apple has already reduced subscription cut to 15% after 1 year, but do they deserve even that?
    - Gigachad 5y ago
      This isn't bad. There _should_ be able to be an Epic Store app which sells products without the Apple cut. Since Epic has done all of the work setting up the store and processing payments. Steam gets their cut by developers listing their games there directly. Epic already has a store app and yet Valve still makes money because the steam store and ecosystem provide value that justifies the cost even when alternatives exist.
    - meribold 5y ago
      IMO what cut Apple deserves is the wrong question. A democratic society can in principle decide that the public would be better served if Apple had to allow alternative app stores, and enact legislation accordingly. Whether Apple deserves to establish itself as the sole gatekeeper and take a cut whenever they can manage isn't really a concern. I think using anthropomorphic language like "deserves" for a company isn't even conducive to thinking about this. I'd ask this instead. Would it be beneficial for society as a whole if iOS had to allow alternative app stores?
kmonsen 5y ago
Someone once told me this joke, why does the dog suck his genitals? Because he can. Same with Apple, of course they will do this as long as they can. There is no moral or ethical reason why they are doing this, simply they can get away with it. I mean if you found a hack where you could get 1% of all the world's transactions, would you really say no to that, or try to find out why you deserve it?
lhorie 5y ago
> from apps on their platform More like apps that also happen to use iOS as a frontend in addition to other funnels/marketplaces. Costco is one of the examples cited, and I frankly didn't even know that they had an app even though I have a membership. How exactly Apple is planning on justifying taking a cut of this membership fee is completely beyond me.
908B64B197 5y ago
Because they provide the ecosystem? If you look at demographics, iOS devices are the gateway to the most affluent and lucrative market segment. That's the value proposition of Apple, and also why app always ship first on iOS then get ported to Android.
- wvenable 5y ago
  I say let them do it. But we need some anti-competitive regulations in place to prevent Apple for penalizing companies that want to offer a cheaper alternative elsewhere.
- xpressvideoz 5y ago
  That's just the characteristics of your region. In my country, apps go to Android first and then to iOS. It all depends on the market.
burrows 5y ago
> Someone give me a good argument for why Apple deserves a THIRD of revenue generated from apps on their platform? If you say “X doesn’t deserve Y”, then roughly I hear, “I don’t like that X is getting Y”. It’s like you’re asking, “Why should I like Apple’s revenue streams?” I don’t think I can answer that, but can you tell me why I should care about whether you like Apple’s revenue streams or not?
charcircuit 5y ago
because if they didn't make iphones, ipod touches, and ipads you would get 0% revenue instead of 70%
- AlexandrB 5y ago
  That's facile. If no one made apps for these platforms then they would not be nearly as popular. Remember the "There's an App For That" marketing campaign? That's not mentioning the fact that other phone/computing platforms exist where an app could capture some percentage of revenue you get from the App Store. There's an element of symbiosis between Apple and app developers.
  - charcircuit 5y ago
    >There's an element of symbiosis between Apple and app developers. Which is why they take a 30% cut.
    - passivate 5y ago
      30% is insane, but lets keep the number aside for a moment. If the user chose app A over app B then specifically what help has Apple provided to the App creator of A to justify the 30%? Apple's argument is they're bringing customers. But even if they do nothing one App is going to get the customer anyway. Also, Apple gets paid for advertising Apps and services to end users, so again, what are they doing to bring in customers to specific apps?
      - charcircuit 5y ago
        >what are they doing to bring in customers to specific apps? They are making all the devices your app runs on. They are putting your app in their app store. They could remove your app from the app store and 0 customers would come to your app.
        passivate 5y ago
rvz 5y ago
> Someone give me a good argument for why Apple deserves a THIRD of revenue generated from apps on their platform? You are using their intellectual property? As in the App Store? Thus, as long as you are using that to distribute your app, they are entitled to collect the commission from where-ever they want and it doesn't matter if it is IAP, Web, etc. From [0] of page 66 > Under all models, Apple would be entitled to a commission or licensing fee, even if IAP was optional. From [0] of page 112 (b) > The Court agrees with the general proposition that Apple is entitled to be paid for its intellectual property. The inquiry though does not end with the bald conclusion. Apple provides evidence that it invests enormous sums into developing new tools and features for iOS. If you don't like it, There's always PWAs. [0] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17442392/812/epic-games-inc-v-apple-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17442392/812/epic-games...
supreme_berry 5y ago
[dead]
dylan604 5y ago
>Apple's app store is pure rent seeking. If you don't like the landlord, don't move into the building. It's not the only building in town, but just the one with the most lucrative customers. If you want them to be your customers, you gotta pay to play.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  I bought an iPhone before I knew about the fee. This is like the landlord telling me there's a 30% convenience fee on paying rent after I've signed the contract.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    As the iPhone user, you are not the one paying rent. You're the lucrative customer. You're fighting the wrong fight in this thread.
    - colinmhayes 5y ago
      Apps charge more because apple takes a 30% commission. The app market has strong competition forcing prices down.
      - dylan604 5y ago
        You're now complaining that a BMW costs more than a Toyota. Shop where you can afford. You know how the prices are not too high? People are buying apps left, right, and center.
        colinmhayes 5y ago
        Except a sideloaded app would be exactly the same other than costing less. I'd love to shop at a sideloading store. It doesn't exist for my phone.
derriz 5y ago
The cost is mostly being passed on to the purchasers. The same app is nearly always more expensive in Apple's store than in Google's. But the funny thing is that even with the premium, Apple users spend far more on app purchases than Android users. And in turn developers make more money on IOS app sales - which is why they flock to the platform. To sum up: developers make more money on the platform, Apple makes lots of money from running the platform, and customers are indicating they are getting value on the platform (even if you personally don't see why) by spending more on the platform. I don't see grounds for outrage here.
ksec 5y ago
It is not one THIRD, you have it wrong. [1] It is Apple sharing more than TWO THIRD of those revenue back to you. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29914525 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29914525
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
hffftz 5y ago
Apple deserves a third of revenue generated from apps on their platform as much as credit card companies deserve a third of all credit card transactions...
passivate 5y ago
Imagine paying Apple to show ads for your app/service to the end user, and then once it converts to a sale, Apple comes in and does a 30% money grab from all future sales to that customer. To me, that is super unethical.

ApolloFortyNine 5y ago

If Apple allowed installing other apps or appstores from outside sources it'd be one thing. That they've managed to go on this long without an antitrust is incredible. Microsoft got an antitrust case against them for simply installing a default browser. What Apple does is magnitudes worse.

gorbypark 5y ago
It really comes down to the definition of monopoly and how a market is defined. If Microsoft wasn't found to have a monopoly in desktop operating systems, what they did wouldn't be illegal. Microsoft had north of 90% desktop OS market share at the time of the anti-trust suits. Does Apple have a monopoly? It depends on how you look at it. If the market is defined as iOS market share, then they definitely do (obviously). If it's defined as mobile operating systems, then maybe not. Currently iOS has a 59% market share in the US and only about 16% worldwide.
- cokeandpepsi 5y ago
  all is know is that apple asks folks to bend over and this crowd smiles then crows about it endlessly dumb

prepend 5y ago

I think it’s similar to why Walmart deserves a third (or more) from manufacturers selling stuff in their store. Or Amazon. Or any store. Physical goods have about a 100% markup between manufacturer and what a customer pays. I think it should be less for digital goods, but you wanted a good argument. Apple charges because they are between you and the app makers, like Walmart and target and stuff.

heavyset_go 5y ago
If I buy a bread maker from Walmart, they aren't entitled to a cut of my revenue should I sell the bread I make. Similarly, if I buy a tablet at Walmart, that doesn't mean they're entitled to a cut of all the purchases I make using it.
- supreme_berry 5y ago
austinheap 5y ago
Great example! In retail it’s bad if there isn’t a 300%+ markup. The fascination with making Apple a boogey man on this is bizarre. Your local corner store — which you should very much support! — has a markup that makes Apple look lazy.
- Daishiman 5y ago
  Local corners stores have profit margins below 5%. Most supermarkets make barely more than 1% profit.
  - austinheap 5y ago
    I can’t speak for every corner store, of course. The two SF owners I know very well and have helped with their books aim for 300%. They routinely hit this. Edit: for context the one in Noe did 2m last year.
    - greedo 5y ago
      Markup is not profit.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - 5y ago

lovich 5y ago

> … deserves … That’s your problem right there. We don’t allocate resources or make business deals based on how deserving a group or person is. They can charge it right now so they are

pilate 5y ago

Both apps still exist on the App Store. That’s really all you need to know. If this was untenable for Uber and Lyft they could pull the apps any time.

Gigachad 5y ago
We can choose to have a legal system where this is OK. Or we can chose to have a legal system which busts anti competitive practices like this. Both are possible and I know which one I would vote for.
passivate 5y ago
The situation is untenable, and as you can see, businesses who aren't scared of Apple are fighting back. Unfortunately, the smaller ones will easily get crushed by Apple and can't finance this sort of push-back without some grass-roots pressure.

mikl 5y ago

They might have a point when it comes upfront sales of apps and games. Steam also charges 30%, and the Xbox, Playstation and Nintendo Switch stores also charge similar if not higher premiums, as does other comparable app stores. Where it get’s ugly is when Apple wants a cut of everything that happens after the sale of the app, too, like wanting a cut when I buy a new book in the Kindle app (and Amazon refusing, instead making it impossible to buy books in the app).

Gigachad 5y ago
Yeah % cuts for products sold in stores is nothing new or unreasonable. But once the user has the app on their device, the "store" is now the app and there should be no cut of fees for things sold inside the apps own store.
- darkwizard42 5y ago
  With software can't you just hack this by selling a free "Epic Store app" and allowing all games and software to be purchased there. If the "store" is now the app then how does Steam get their cut? Do they just disallow any product that has a "store" inside of it? What constitutes a "store"? This is the hard question. Apple has already reduced subscription cut to 15% after 1 year, but do they deserve even that?
  - Gigachad 5y ago
    This isn't bad. There _should_ be able to be an Epic Store app which sells products without the Apple cut. Since Epic has done all of the work setting up the store and processing payments. Steam gets their cut by developers listing their games there directly. Epic already has a store app and yet Valve still makes money because the steam store and ecosystem provide value that justifies the cost even when alternatives exist.
  - meribold 5y ago
    IMO what cut Apple deserves is the wrong question. A democratic society can in principle decide that the public would be better served if Apple had to allow alternative app stores, and enact legislation accordingly. Whether Apple deserves to establish itself as the sole gatekeeper and take a cut whenever they can manage isn't really a concern. I think using anthropomorphic language like "deserves" for a company isn't even conducive to thinking about this. I'd ask this instead. Would it be beneficial for society as a whole if iOS had to allow alternative app stores?

kmonsen 5y ago

Someone once told me this joke, why does the dog suck his genitals? Because he can. Same with Apple, of course they will do this as long as they can. There is no moral or ethical reason why they are doing this, simply they can get away with it. I mean if you found a hack where you could get 1% of all the world's transactions, would you really say no to that, or try to find out why you deserve it?

lhorie 5y ago

> from apps on their platform More like apps that also happen to use iOS as a frontend in addition to other funnels/marketplaces. Costco is one of the examples cited, and I frankly didn't even know that they had an app even though I have a membership. How exactly Apple is planning on justifying taking a cut of this membership fee is completely beyond me.

908B64B197 5y ago

Because they provide the ecosystem? If you look at demographics, iOS devices are the gateway to the most affluent and lucrative market segment. That's the value proposition of Apple, and also why app always ship first on iOS then get ported to Android.

wvenable 5y ago
I say let them do it. But we need some anti-competitive regulations in place to prevent Apple for penalizing companies that want to offer a cheaper alternative elsewhere.
xpressvideoz 5y ago
That's just the characteristics of your region. In my country, apps go to Android first and then to iOS. It all depends on the market.

burrows 5y ago

> Someone give me a good argument for why Apple deserves a THIRD of revenue generated from apps on their platform? If you say “X doesn’t deserve Y”, then roughly I hear, “I don’t like that X is getting Y”. It’s like you’re asking, “Why should I like Apple’s revenue streams?” I don’t think I can answer that, but can you tell me why I should care about whether you like Apple’s revenue streams or not?

charcircuit 5y ago

because if they didn't make iphones, ipod touches, and ipads you would get 0% revenue instead of 70%

AlexandrB 5y ago
That's facile. If no one made apps for these platforms then they would not be nearly as popular. Remember the "There's an App For That" marketing campaign? That's not mentioning the fact that other phone/computing platforms exist where an app could capture some percentage of revenue you get from the App Store. There's an element of symbiosis between Apple and app developers.
- charcircuit 5y ago
  >There's an element of symbiosis between Apple and app developers. Which is why they take a 30% cut.
  - passivate 5y ago
    30% is insane, but lets keep the number aside for a moment. If the user chose app A over app B then specifically what help has Apple provided to the App creator of A to justify the 30%? Apple's argument is they're bringing customers. But even if they do nothing one App is going to get the customer anyway. Also, Apple gets paid for advertising Apps and services to end users, so again, what are they doing to bring in customers to specific apps?
    - charcircuit 5y ago
      >what are they doing to bring in customers to specific apps? They are making all the devices your app runs on. They are putting your app in their app store. They could remove your app from the app store and 0 customers would come to your app.
      - passivate 5y ago

rvz 5y ago

> Someone give me a good argument for why Apple deserves a THIRD of revenue generated from apps on their platform? You are using their intellectual property? As in the App Store? Thus, as long as you are using that to distribute your app, they are entitled to collect the commission from where-ever they want and it doesn't matter if it is IAP, Web, etc. From [0] of page 66 > Under all models, Apple would be entitled to a commission or licensing fee, even if IAP was optional. From [0] of page 112 (b) > The Court agrees with the general proposition that Apple is entitled to be paid for its intellectual property. The inquiry though does not end with the bald conclusion. Apple provides evidence that it invests enormous sums into developing new tools and features for iOS. If you don't like it, There's always PWAs. [0] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17442392/812/epic-games-inc-v-apple-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17442392/812/epic-games...

supreme_berry 5y ago

[dead]

dylan604 5y ago

>Apple's app store is pure rent seeking. If you don't like the landlord, don't move into the building. It's not the only building in town, but just the one with the most lucrative customers. If you want them to be your customers, you gotta pay to play.

colinmhayes 5y ago
I bought an iPhone before I knew about the fee. This is like the landlord telling me there's a 30% convenience fee on paying rent after I've signed the contract.
- dylan604 5y ago
  As the iPhone user, you are not the one paying rent. You're the lucrative customer. You're fighting the wrong fight in this thread.
  - colinmhayes 5y ago
    Apps charge more because apple takes a 30% commission. The app market has strong competition forcing prices down.
    - dylan604 5y ago
      You're now complaining that a BMW costs more than a Toyota. Shop where you can afford. You know how the prices are not too high? People are buying apps left, right, and center.
      - colinmhayes 5y ago
        Except a sideloaded app would be exactly the same other than costing less. I'd love to shop at a sideloading store. It doesn't exist for my phone.

derriz 5y ago

The cost is mostly being passed on to the purchasers. The same app is nearly always more expensive in Apple's store than in Google's. But the funny thing is that even with the premium, Apple users spend far more on app purchases than Android users. And in turn developers make more money on IOS app sales - which is why they flock to the platform. To sum up: developers make more money on the platform, Apple makes lots of money from running the platform, and customers are indicating they are getting value on the platform (even if you personally don't see why) by spending more on the platform. I don't see grounds for outrage here.

ksec 5y ago

It is not one THIRD, you have it wrong. [1] It is Apple sharing more than TWO THIRD of those revenue back to you. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29914525 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29914525

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

hffftz 5y ago

Apple deserves a third of revenue generated from apps on their platform as much as credit card companies deserve a third of all credit card transactions...

passivate 5y ago

Imagine paying Apple to show ads for your app/service to the end user, and then once it converts to a sale, Apple comes in and does a 30% money grab from all future sales to that customer. To me, that is super unethical.