4 ms·

It's a mindset I'll never fully comprehend myself. Supposedly I did work to earn a profit, but clearly not so much work that I shouldn't thank whatever system

It's a mindset I'll never fully comprehend myself. Supposedly I did work to earn a profit, but clearly not so much work that I shouldn't thank whatever system I'm subject to for the privilege of... making a transaction that barely involved said system, if at all. 5% or even 10% would be more acceptable. But 30%? lol For what? There's no way the vast majority of that cut is necessary for Apple's financial operations or for them to make a reasonable profit. How some people can't see this as greed is mind blowing. Where do they draw the line?

dageshi 5y ago
I'll tell you honestly why. It's because if they charged 5% or 10% it wouldn't be worth Apples time. If they can't make 30% on the app store they'll go do something else which will make them 30%+ and leave it to rot. Because 5% or 10% is a commodity business and they can do better than that.
- MisterBastahrd 5y ago
  If there was something else that they could be making that kind of money for that little work, they'd already be doing it. Apple got lucky with a lock-in ecosystem and they obviously design great hardware, but I don't see them just up and deciding to dominate another market to make similar profits just because they're Apple.
- kybernetyk 5y ago
  Well, the Mac software landscape flourished before Apple had an app store. I wouldn't mind if they just gave up and let people distribute software how God intended.
  - threeseed 5y ago
    Yes the Mac flourished with it's 5-10% market share.
- temac 5y ago
  Above something that is probably quite marginal this is basically free money for Apple. What are you comparing 30% to? Profit vs gross income? That's not what the 30% are here. That's 30% of an amount which depends on: * a market that is so large that in a bunch of area it is basically not limiting - Apple has an influence on that but capturing so much value on 3rd party apps should not be warranted IMO, otherwise it would be warranted for them to also capture a big part on most of software for MacOs sales (esp. since the configuration by default is now quite secure so the argument that the App Store for iPhone is so valuable because it is curated is getting weaker) and for MS to capture a big part on most of software sales for Windows (and maybe give some crumbs to PC hardware manufacturers) * the success of 3rd party apps, most of which has not much to do with Apple
NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
Yours is a mindset that I'll never understand. You appear to believe that the price of a thing should be related to the marginal cost of the seller. Whereas, in reality, it's only a question of what a buyer will pay and what a seller will accept. When you look at an airline that's about to fly a plane with twenty empty seats, do you say "sheesh, it's totally unreasonable that seat is selling for anything more than zero, it costs the airline nothing to have someone sit in it, the greed is mind-blowing"? Maybe you do?
- virgilp 5y ago
  > Whereas, in reality, it's only a question of what a buyer will pay and what a seller will accept. Which is why you don't have to let a monopoly/oligopoly set the price at will, they need to be regulated. Smartphones are becoming essential tools in many people's lives, and there are only 2 main providers; they need to be regulated. You can argue at the exact regulation but this Apple move has proved beyond doubt that we (as a society) need to impose tough regulations on them; because by themselves, they're not going to be reasonable, they're looking to extract maximum feasible rent.
  - kybernetyk 5y ago
    This. And before some libertarian starts rambling about how not to regulate stuff: I'm an libertarian myself and the current tech monopolies are only possible because of the state's intervention in the free market. Without ridiculous copyright and patent laws we wouldn't have those monopolies we see right now. So yeah, as long as there's state intervention in the free market let the state regulate bad actors. I would be glad if it all went away but reality is that we have to live with this system.
  - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
    >Which is why you don't have to let a monopoly/oligopoly set the price at will Even monopolies are generally allowed to set their own prices; it's only the point at which there's abuse that there's a regulatory concern. The argument that Apple is looking to "extract maximum feasible" rent is undermined a bit by some facts I discuss in one of my comments elsewhere in this thread.
threeseed 5y ago
It's 15% for developers making up to $1m a year. And you are paying for the cost of the channel i.e. customer acquisition.
- passivate 5y ago
  You can show an online ad on any platform to acquire a customer. Apple is greedy grabbing 30% of sales.
  - threeseed 5y ago
    I take it you have never been responsible for a marketing campaign before. You can't just "show an online ad" and expect to be successful.
    - passivate 5y ago
      Why did you add "just"? Please don't put words in my mouth.
- newaccount74 5y ago
  It would be nice if they only charged for customers that discovered the app on the App Store. I would assume that the fraction of users who install apps after discovering them on the app store is miniscule compared to how many people learn of new apps through other channels.

dageshi 5y ago

I'll tell you honestly why. It's because if they charged 5% or 10% it wouldn't be worth Apples time. If they can't make 30% on the app store they'll go do something else which will make them 30%+ and leave it to rot. Because 5% or 10% is a commodity business and they can do better than that.

MisterBastahrd 5y ago
If there was something else that they could be making that kind of money for that little work, they'd already be doing it. Apple got lucky with a lock-in ecosystem and they obviously design great hardware, but I don't see them just up and deciding to dominate another market to make similar profits just because they're Apple.
kybernetyk 5y ago
Well, the Mac software landscape flourished before Apple had an app store. I wouldn't mind if they just gave up and let people distribute software how God intended.
- threeseed 5y ago
  Yes the Mac flourished with it's 5-10% market share.
temac 5y ago
Above something that is probably quite marginal this is basically free money for Apple. What are you comparing 30% to? Profit vs gross income? That's not what the 30% are here. That's 30% of an amount which depends on: * a market that is so large that in a bunch of area it is basically not limiting - Apple has an influence on that but capturing so much value on 3rd party apps should not be warranted IMO, otherwise it would be warranted for them to also capture a big part on most of software for MacOs sales (esp. since the configuration by default is now quite secure so the argument that the App Store for iPhone is so valuable because it is curated is getting weaker) and for MS to capture a big part on most of software sales for Windows (and maybe give some crumbs to PC hardware manufacturers) * the success of 3rd party apps, most of which has not much to do with Apple

NovemberWhiskey 5y ago

Yours is a mindset that I'll never understand. You appear to believe that the price of a thing should be related to the marginal cost of the seller. Whereas, in reality, it's only a question of what a buyer will pay and what a seller will accept. When you look at an airline that's about to fly a plane with twenty empty seats, do you say "sheesh, it's totally unreasonable that seat is selling for anything more than zero, it costs the airline nothing to have someone sit in it, the greed is mind-blowing"? Maybe you do?

virgilp 5y ago
> Whereas, in reality, it's only a question of what a buyer will pay and what a seller will accept. Which is why you don't have to let a monopoly/oligopoly set the price at will, they need to be regulated. Smartphones are becoming essential tools in many people's lives, and there are only 2 main providers; they need to be regulated. You can argue at the exact regulation but this Apple move has proved beyond doubt that we (as a society) need to impose tough regulations on them; because by themselves, they're not going to be reasonable, they're looking to extract maximum feasible rent.
- kybernetyk 5y ago
  This. And before some libertarian starts rambling about how not to regulate stuff: I'm an libertarian myself and the current tech monopolies are only possible because of the state's intervention in the free market. Without ridiculous copyright and patent laws we wouldn't have those monopolies we see right now. So yeah, as long as there's state intervention in the free market let the state regulate bad actors. I would be glad if it all went away but reality is that we have to live with this system.
- NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
  >Which is why you don't have to let a monopoly/oligopoly set the price at will Even monopolies are generally allowed to set their own prices; it's only the point at which there's abuse that there's a regulatory concern. The argument that Apple is looking to "extract maximum feasible" rent is undermined a bit by some facts I discuss in one of my comments elsewhere in this thread.

threeseed 5y ago

It's 15% for developers making up to $1m a year. And you are paying for the cost of the channel i.e. customer acquisition.

passivate 5y ago
You can show an online ad on any platform to acquire a customer. Apple is greedy grabbing 30% of sales.
- threeseed 5y ago
  I take it you have never been responsible for a marketing campaign before. You can't just "show an online ad" and expect to be successful.
  - passivate 5y ago
    Why did you add "just"? Please don't put words in my mouth.
newaccount74 5y ago
It would be nice if they only charged for customers that discovered the app on the App Store. I would assume that the fraction of users who install apps after discovering them on the app store is miniscule compared to how many people learn of new apps through other channels.