4 ms·

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

by 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?
    - darkwizard42 5y ago
      Why should Apple be forced to include an app store on THEIR operating system? If they want to be the gatekeeper of all their software, it is on them as a private company to do so. It is likely beneficial for society as a whole for iOS to allow alternative app stores, but that doesn't make it right for the government to force them to do so.
      - meribold 5y ago
        If the citizens of a particular country want to force Apple to allow alternative app stores, they can. It's their country. Apple can ignore their market if they don't like the rules.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
cma 5y ago
Steam charges 20% to games that sell over $50 million, and 25% over $10 million. Even though those games tend to be bigger and use more bandwidth, they were running into the problem that some of those companies were managing to get bargaining power (Valve announced the change around two days before the launch of the Epic Games store with a 12% cut). Bandwidth isn't actually much of a significant cost.
freediver 5y ago
What makes it fair is not that that other companies as you list have similar practices. What makes it fair is that Apple is a private company, entitled to these kind of business decisions. As such, free market forces should then determine if the true cost of distribution (which is basically what App store provides) is more or less than what Apple charges for it. It does seem that this is still one of the most efficient ways to distribute an app to the end user, as witnessed by the sheer number of developers (silent majority) willing to take the 30% cut vs a loud minority (usually big companies on their own) that isn't.
- ImprobableTruth 5y ago
  Is this a joke? Of course it's the 'most efficient' way to distribute an app on iOS - it's literally the only one. 30% wasn't determined by market forces, because it's a monopoly and there is no competition. Your only other choice is to forsake >50% of total smartphone users.
  - freediver 5y ago
    I was not talking about distributing the app on iOS, but distributing an app. If you want to leverage iOS to distribute your app, then 30% is the price for that distribution and vast majority of developers accept it as a good deal as witnessed by enormous volume.
    - ImprobableTruth 5y ago
      No, volume does not indicate that something is a 'good deal'. When market failure occurs (e.g. due to lacking competition), prices are distorted. How much this impacts volume depends on elasticity. A good with relatively inelastic demand will have high volume whether there is a good deal or not. And you can frame it however you want, the price for iOS distribution is not determined by market forces because there is no competition for it. Distributing an application on android is not an alternative, but complimentary. It's like if there were two delivery services in the US, each covering one part of the country. It doesn't matter that there isn't only one delivery service, both of them still have a monopoly because they're not competing in regards to what they actually sell.

by mikl 5y ago

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?
  - darkwizard42 5y ago
    Why should Apple be forced to include an app store on THEIR operating system? If they want to be the gatekeeper of all their software, it is on them as a private company to do so. It is likely beneficial for society as a whole for iOS to allow alternative app stores, but that doesn't make it right for the government to force them to do so.
    - meribold 5y ago
      If the citizens of a particular country want to force Apple to allow alternative app stores, they can. It's their country. Apple can ignore their market if they don't like the rules.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

cma 5y ago

Steam charges 20% to games that sell over $50 million, and 25% over $10 million. Even though those games tend to be bigger and use more bandwidth, they were running into the problem that some of those companies were managing to get bargaining power (Valve announced the change around two days before the launch of the Epic Games store with a 12% cut). Bandwidth isn't actually much of a significant cost.

freediver 5y ago

What makes it fair is not that that other companies as you list have similar practices. What makes it fair is that Apple is a private company, entitled to these kind of business decisions. As such, free market forces should then determine if the true cost of distribution (which is basically what App store provides) is more or less than what Apple charges for it. It does seem that this is still one of the most efficient ways to distribute an app to the end user, as witnessed by the sheer number of developers (silent majority) willing to take the 30% cut vs a loud minority (usually big companies on their own) that isn't.

ImprobableTruth 5y ago
Is this a joke? Of course it's the 'most efficient' way to distribute an app on iOS - it's literally the only one. 30% wasn't determined by market forces, because it's a monopoly and there is no competition. Your only other choice is to forsake >50% of total smartphone users.
- freediver 5y ago
  I was not talking about distributing the app on iOS, but distributing an app. If you want to leverage iOS to distribute your app, then 30% is the price for that distribution and vast majority of developers accept it as a good deal as witnessed by enormous volume.
  - ImprobableTruth 5y ago
    No, volume does not indicate that something is a 'good deal'. When market failure occurs (e.g. due to lacking competition), prices are distorted. How much this impacts volume depends on elasticity. A good with relatively inelastic demand will have high volume whether there is a good deal or not. And you can frame it however you want, the price for iOS distribution is not determined by market forces because there is no competition for it. Distributing an application on android is not an alternative, but complimentary. It's like if there were two delivery services in the US, each covering one part of the country. It doesn't matter that there isn't only one delivery service, both of them still have a monopoly because they're not competing in regards to what they actually sell.