4 ms·

But when you use the store, you need to pay for using and maintaining the store, which is the other 27%. Why would you expect to upload apps in the store and le

by myspy 5y ago

But when you use the store, you need to pay for using and maintaining the store, which is the other 27%. Why would you expect to upload apps in the store and let them be downloaded for free?

Hamuko 5y ago
No developer can upload anything to the App Store for free. You need to pay $99/year for access.
jacquesm 5y ago
Because that is the model that Apple has chosen for. If the downloads can be priced or can be free that is Apple's choice. Then they should raise the minimum price for distribution. Distribution is a one-time expense, and it does not entitle you to a 30% cut of services that use Apps as endpoints. It's a mob move, taxation because you are powerful enough to harm another business, not because you have contributed to the business.
- maccard 5y ago
  > Distribution is a one-time expense No, it's not. Distribution requires ongoing storage and bandwidth costs. > It's a mob move, taxation because you are powerful enough to harm another business, not because you have contributed to the business. This is just flaming. Apple absolutely have contributed to the business. They provide hosting, storage, versioning, a marketplace, storefront reviews, developer tools, various high-availability services (auth being one of them). We can argue all day how much that is worth, but it is definitely worth some number greater than 0, otherwise people would just ignore the platforms.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Explain please how distribution is tied in to the unknown price point at which the other company proceeds to do business? Or are you arguing that the 30% cut is used to subsidize the remainder of the free apps? You really should bone up on anti-competitive behavior before accusing people of flaming. People are forced into this model, the alternatives have been degraded to the point that they no longer function for all intents and purposes you have to distribute your app through Apple.
    - maccard 5y ago
      This is a much more reasonable comment than your original coment. > Explain please how distribution is tied in to the unknown price point at which the other company proceeds to do business? This is not what you said, you said it was a one time expense. Those two statements are not the same. > Or are you arguing that the 30% cut is used to subsidize the remainder of the free apps? You're putting words in my mouth here. I'm not arguing the 30% cut is used to subsidise the remainder of the apps, I'm arguing that free apps still have distribution costs. > You really should bone up on anti-competitive behavior before accusing people of flaming. I stand by my accusation of flaming - just becasue you have a point doesn't mean it couldn't be made in a better way. > People are forced into this model, the alternatives have been degraded to the point that they no longer function for all intents and purposes you have to distribute your app through Apple. That I don't disagree with one bit, and if your initial comment had said that rather than " It's a mob move, taxation because you are powerful enough to harm another business, not because you have contributed to the business." I wouldn't have commented on it.
7steps2much 5y ago
You need to pay 99$/Year for a developer account though. That's very much not "for free" I would argue that 99.9% of apps on the app store ever get to the point where 99$ a year is even remotely the cost incurred by Apple.
- Spivak 5y ago
  This makes no sense, say apple drops the $99 developer fee. The 30% commission is suddenly justified?
sofixa 5y ago
You pay for it via the developer account. Isn't that what it is for?

by myspy 5y ago

But when you use the store, you need to pay for using and maintaining the store, which is the other 27%. Why would you expect to upload apps in the store and let them be downloaded for free?

Hamuko 5y ago

No developer can upload anything to the App Store for free. You need to pay $99/year for access.

jacquesm 5y ago

Because that is the model that Apple has chosen for. If the downloads can be priced or can be free that is Apple's choice. Then they should raise the minimum price for distribution. Distribution is a one-time expense, and it does not entitle you to a 30% cut of services that use Apps as endpoints. It's a mob move, taxation because you are powerful enough to harm another business, not because you have contributed to the business.

maccard 5y ago
> Distribution is a one-time expense No, it's not. Distribution requires ongoing storage and bandwidth costs. > It's a mob move, taxation because you are powerful enough to harm another business, not because you have contributed to the business. This is just flaming. Apple absolutely have contributed to the business. They provide hosting, storage, versioning, a marketplace, storefront reviews, developer tools, various high-availability services (auth being one of them). We can argue all day how much that is worth, but it is definitely worth some number greater than 0, otherwise people would just ignore the platforms.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Explain please how distribution is tied in to the unknown price point at which the other company proceeds to do business? Or are you arguing that the 30% cut is used to subsidize the remainder of the free apps? You really should bone up on anti-competitive behavior before accusing people of flaming. People are forced into this model, the alternatives have been degraded to the point that they no longer function for all intents and purposes you have to distribute your app through Apple.
  - maccard 5y ago
    This is a much more reasonable comment than your original coment. > Explain please how distribution is tied in to the unknown price point at which the other company proceeds to do business? This is not what you said, you said it was a one time expense. Those two statements are not the same. > Or are you arguing that the 30% cut is used to subsidize the remainder of the free apps? You're putting words in my mouth here. I'm not arguing the 30% cut is used to subsidise the remainder of the apps, I'm arguing that free apps still have distribution costs. > You really should bone up on anti-competitive behavior before accusing people of flaming. I stand by my accusation of flaming - just becasue you have a point doesn't mean it couldn't be made in a better way. > People are forced into this model, the alternatives have been degraded to the point that they no longer function for all intents and purposes you have to distribute your app through Apple. That I don't disagree with one bit, and if your initial comment had said that rather than " It's a mob move, taxation because you are powerful enough to harm another business, not because you have contributed to the business." I wouldn't have commented on it.

7steps2much 5y ago

You need to pay 99$/Year for a developer account though. That's very much not "for free" I would argue that 99.9% of apps on the app store ever get to the point where 99$ a year is even remotely the cost incurred by Apple.

Spivak 5y ago
This makes no sense, say apple drops the $99 developer fee. The 30% commission is suddenly justified?

sofixa 5y ago

You pay for it via the developer account. Isn't that what it is for?