11 ms·

> One bill opposed by the App Association is the Open App Markets Act, which aimed to help app developers use alternative in-app payment systems and avoid Apple

> One bill opposed by the App Association is the Open App Markets Act, which aimed to help app developers use alternative in-app payment systems and avoid Apple's standard cuts of 15 to 30 percent. The cut is a platform fee, and collecting it via the in-app payment system is mechanism, not policy. The core issue is Apple's rate: although it is usually comparable to rates on other game platforms (eShop, Google Play, Steam...), (some) game and app developers want it reduced so that they receive a higher percentage of an app's retail price. The largely unfounded expectation that some developers seem to have is that changing IAP payment methods will cause Apple's platform fee to drop to zero, rather than causing Apple to simply collect it by other means. Edit: for some reason people are responding to me with complaints about Apple's policies and downvoting me because they don't like Apple's platform fees. I'm trying to shed some light on what is actually going on: a dispute over platform fee rates. This is something that much of the media coverage doesn't seem to be getting right.

ronsor 4y ago
Game console systems are insanely closed and locked down platforms. I consider anything console manufacturers do to be an antipattern, so the fact that their fees are comparable to Apple's only shows that Apple needs to loosen the purse strings a little.
- Hellion 4y ago
  It’s easier to run your own binaries on an Xbox than it is an iPhone.
- musicale 4y ago
  > I consider anything console manufacturers do to be an antipattern Perhaps. On the other hand, Nintendo is a beloved company and the Switch is an incredibly successful system with fantastic games. So the walled garden seems to have worked out reasonably well. I'm not sure why you're responding to my parent comment though, as it was descriptive and not prescriptive.
  - userbinator 4y ago
    Gaming is different because you normally don't expect much freedom on the platform nor use it for anything other than entertainment.
    - dkonofalski 4y ago
      This assumes all users have the same expectation. That would never hold water in a legal sense.
    - ItsMonkk 4y ago
      But this is why the Steam Deck is such a breath of fresh air. Do whatever you want with it.
vorpalhex 4y ago
Apple didn't help deliver my ebook or podcast. They don't deserve 30% of that.
- musicale 4y ago
  > Apple didn't help deliver my ebook or podcast How true. Well, except for: - designing and manufacturing the hardware - marketing and selling the hardware - creating and promoting the Books app - popularizing podcasts with the iPod - creating and promoting the Podcasts app etc. > They don't deserve 30% of that. This illustrates my point: the core dispute is over platform fees charged by the App Store.
  - imoverclocked 4y ago
    Agreed. I think people commonly mistake simplicity for ease. Apple spends a lot of engineering budget making products simple enough for the masses.
    - grapescheesee 4y ago
      Isn’t this part of the problem? I enjoy when things are able to change in life based on effort, or choice, not the ease of sedation or being pacified from convenience.
  - fastball 4y ago
    I think you're misunderstanding the GP. They're talking about services provided entirely by other people, e.g. buying ebooks from Amazon. In that light, here are the responses to your bullets: - the hardware I already paid for - this should be included in the price of the hardware (and certainly is in the case of Apple) - I don't use the Books app, I use the Amazon Kindle app - I never listened to a podcast on my iPod - I don't use the Podcasts app, I use the Spotify app So in the case of Amazon/Spotify, what value is Apple delivering beyond paying for download bandwidth in order for me to download the app (which is like, $0.000001 of bw costs)?
    - 4y ago
shaboinkin 4y ago
I feel an unintended fallout of an eventual mandate to allow 3rd party stores on iOS would be Apple charging a license for the frameworks and tooling they provide. Something like, "Want to use CoreML? Well, each API call will cost you. Or would you rather take our 30% flat rate?"
- Bilal_io 4y ago
  I am just being pedantic, but 30% is the opposite of what a flat rate is. CoreML being a phone feature, then restricting it behind a paywall sounds like something customers would sue apple for. CoreML is already bundled in the price you pay when you purchase an iPhone. It will only work as a cloud service.
  - shaboinkin 4y ago
    As I understand it, 30% pays for all of the frameworks Apple develops that is available to you when you fire up Xcode, as well as everything involved with running the store, and they take their cut when you post on their store and sell stuff. If a law comes by and says Sorry Apple, you need to provide a way for other stores to exist in your ecosystem, well, something is going to have to pay for the development of these frameworks they provide. >then restricting it behind a paywall sounds like something customers would sue apple for Slightly difference scenario here but I feel it's similar. In my last job my company bought a system from Oracle that did a bunch of number crunching for processing images to be printed. As I understood it, Oracle charged for utilizing more cores, even though it was an on premise system and everything was already in the box ready to go. If Apple, or anyone, makes hardware and wants to charge a license to use said hardware, isn't that legal? This sounds like BMW charging a license for their heated seats. The hardware is already there and ready to go, but is behind a paywall.
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      In a different world, Apple would embrace alternate app stores- by having them operate on their own terms. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32170848 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32170848 Many walled gardens, growing different plants, landscaped in different styles, with different admission fees, but ultimately conforming to basic principles and paying their dues to the Apple botanical society. Apple Authorized App Merchants.
smoldesu 4y ago
The "core problem" isn't Apple's rate - they're free to charge whatever they want. The real issue is that the App Store has no competition, so Apple could charge 90% and developers would have no choice but to abide or abandon the platform.
- musicale 4y ago
  The evidence on the Android side doesn't seem to support this line of reasoning. There are multiple app stores on Android (including Amazon's), and sideloading is permitted, yet there is still a dispute over the platform fee rate that Google is charging for Google Play. At the end of the day, it's a dispute over money, and specifically the platform commission rate: developers want a bigger cut of the retail app price on Google Play.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    My comment doesn't detract from that demand. What I'm pointing out is that Apple will suffer from this at a much larger scale, therefore it makes sense that they will fight tooth-and-nail to stop it. The 'platform fee' shpiel is a distraction from the real problem: iOS must allow alternative storefronts if it wants to survive long-term antitrust scrutiny. There is no other logical outcome.
    - musicale 4y ago
      That may indeed be true. However, the core dispute over App Store fees will likely remain, irrespective of additional app stores or sideloading, just as it has on Google Play. Solving the single app store antitrust issue doesn't solve the platform fee dispute.
      - smoldesu 4y ago
        Do you truly think antitrust scrutiny will stop if Apple lowers their rates again? I don't think that's all developers hate about the App Store...
jackmott 4y ago
realusername 4y ago
Personally, I just don't want to deal with the app store at all, it's not about the fee, iOS is a similar platform to desktop
pjc50 4y ago
The platform fee for the IBM PC is zero. The platform fee for notorious quasi-monopolist Microsoft Windows is still zero. That is the standard to which all other platforms should be held. There is talk about the cost of designing and manufacturing the phone, which is irrelevant, especially in a world where users frequently buy new phones every two years. That cost should be borne by the purchaser of the phone. Now, the ongoing costs of running payment systems and app stores are more significant, and I think it's reasonable to argue that they cannot be zero, but we should have a go at determining them in the market.
- Cthulhu_ 4y ago
  > The platform fee for notorious quasi-monopolist Microsoft Windows is still zero. While true, paid-for apps from the MS store - the option that should be recommended to laypeople, instead of the dodgy websites that have download button styled ads - charge a registration fee [0] and Microsoft takes a cut of 5 - 30% [1] [0] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/publish/account-types-locations-and-fees https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/publish/accoun... [1] "Microsoft takes 5–15% of the sale price for apps and 30% on Xbox games"; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Store https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Store
  - agentdrtran 4y ago
    You aren't forced to use the MS Store if you buy a Windows PC. You have the choice to use the "safe" store or the web.
  - pjc50 4y ago
    The Windows app store is .. extremely poorly used. I couldn't find any stats with a brief search, but it's not popular with either users or developers. And of course the existence of a free disintermediated alternative helps this.

ronsor 4y ago

Game console systems are insanely closed and locked down platforms. I consider anything console manufacturers do to be an antipattern, so the fact that their fees are comparable to Apple's only shows that Apple needs to loosen the purse strings a little.

Hellion 4y ago
It’s easier to run your own binaries on an Xbox than it is an iPhone.
musicale 4y ago
> I consider anything console manufacturers do to be an antipattern Perhaps. On the other hand, Nintendo is a beloved company and the Switch is an incredibly successful system with fantastic games. So the walled garden seems to have worked out reasonably well. I'm not sure why you're responding to my parent comment though, as it was descriptive and not prescriptive.
- userbinator 4y ago
  Gaming is different because you normally don't expect much freedom on the platform nor use it for anything other than entertainment.
  - dkonofalski 4y ago
    This assumes all users have the same expectation. That would never hold water in a legal sense.
  - ItsMonkk 4y ago
    But this is why the Steam Deck is such a breath of fresh air. Do whatever you want with it.

vorpalhex 4y ago

Apple didn't help deliver my ebook or podcast. They don't deserve 30% of that.

musicale 4y ago
> Apple didn't help deliver my ebook or podcast How true. Well, except for: - designing and manufacturing the hardware - marketing and selling the hardware - creating and promoting the Books app - popularizing podcasts with the iPod - creating and promoting the Podcasts app etc. > They don't deserve 30% of that. This illustrates my point: the core dispute is over platform fees charged by the App Store.
- imoverclocked 4y ago
  Agreed. I think people commonly mistake simplicity for ease. Apple spends a lot of engineering budget making products simple enough for the masses.
  - grapescheesee 4y ago
    Isn’t this part of the problem? I enjoy when things are able to change in life based on effort, or choice, not the ease of sedation or being pacified from convenience.
- fastball 4y ago
  I think you're misunderstanding the GP. They're talking about services provided entirely by other people, e.g. buying ebooks from Amazon. In that light, here are the responses to your bullets: - the hardware I already paid for - this should be included in the price of the hardware (and certainly is in the case of Apple) - I don't use the Books app, I use the Amazon Kindle app - I never listened to a podcast on my iPod - I don't use the Podcasts app, I use the Spotify app So in the case of Amazon/Spotify, what value is Apple delivering beyond paying for download bandwidth in order for me to download the app (which is like, $0.000001 of bw costs)?
  - 4y ago

shaboinkin 4y ago

I feel an unintended fallout of an eventual mandate to allow 3rd party stores on iOS would be Apple charging a license for the frameworks and tooling they provide. Something like, "Want to use CoreML? Well, each API call will cost you. Or would you rather take our 30% flat rate?"

Bilal_io 4y ago
I am just being pedantic, but 30% is the opposite of what a flat rate is. CoreML being a phone feature, then restricting it behind a paywall sounds like something customers would sue apple for. CoreML is already bundled in the price you pay when you purchase an iPhone. It will only work as a cloud service.
- shaboinkin 4y ago
  As I understand it, 30% pays for all of the frameworks Apple develops that is available to you when you fire up Xcode, as well as everything involved with running the store, and they take their cut when you post on their store and sell stuff. If a law comes by and says Sorry Apple, you need to provide a way for other stores to exist in your ecosystem, well, something is going to have to pay for the development of these frameworks they provide. >then restricting it behind a paywall sounds like something customers would sue apple for Slightly difference scenario here but I feel it's similar. In my last job my company bought a system from Oracle that did a bunch of number crunching for processing images to be printed. As I understood it, Oracle charged for utilizing more cores, even though it was an on premise system and everything was already in the box ready to go. If Apple, or anyone, makes hardware and wants to charge a license to use said hardware, isn't that legal? This sounds like BMW charging a license for their heated seats. The hardware is already there and ready to go, but is behind a paywall.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    In a different world, Apple would embrace alternate app stores- by having them operate on their own terms. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32170848 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32170848 Many walled gardens, growing different plants, landscaped in different styles, with different admission fees, but ultimately conforming to basic principles and paying their dues to the Apple botanical society. Apple Authorized App Merchants.

smoldesu 4y ago

The "core problem" isn't Apple's rate - they're free to charge whatever they want. The real issue is that the App Store has no competition, so Apple could charge 90% and developers would have no choice but to abide or abandon the platform.

musicale 4y ago
The evidence on the Android side doesn't seem to support this line of reasoning. There are multiple app stores on Android (including Amazon's), and sideloading is permitted, yet there is still a dispute over the platform fee rate that Google is charging for Google Play. At the end of the day, it's a dispute over money, and specifically the platform commission rate: developers want a bigger cut of the retail app price on Google Play.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- smoldesu 4y ago
  My comment doesn't detract from that demand. What I'm pointing out is that Apple will suffer from this at a much larger scale, therefore it makes sense that they will fight tooth-and-nail to stop it. The 'platform fee' shpiel is a distraction from the real problem: iOS must allow alternative storefronts if it wants to survive long-term antitrust scrutiny. There is no other logical outcome.
  - musicale 4y ago
    That may indeed be true. However, the core dispute over App Store fees will likely remain, irrespective of additional app stores or sideloading, just as it has on Google Play. Solving the single app store antitrust issue doesn't solve the platform fee dispute.
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      Do you truly think antitrust scrutiny will stop if Apple lowers their rates again? I don't think that's all developers hate about the App Store...

jackmott 4y ago

realusername 4y ago

Personally, I just don't want to deal with the app store at all, it's not about the fee, iOS is a similar platform to desktop

pjc50 4y ago

The platform fee for the IBM PC is zero. The platform fee for notorious quasi-monopolist Microsoft Windows is still zero. That is the standard to which all other platforms should be held. There is talk about the cost of designing and manufacturing the phone, which is irrelevant, especially in a world where users frequently buy new phones every two years. That cost should be borne by the purchaser of the phone. Now, the ongoing costs of running payment systems and app stores are more significant, and I think it's reasonable to argue that they cannot be zero, but we should have a go at determining them in the market.

Cthulhu_ 4y ago
> The platform fee for notorious quasi-monopolist Microsoft Windows is still zero. While true, paid-for apps from the MS store - the option that should be recommended to laypeople, instead of the dodgy websites that have download button styled ads - charge a registration fee [0] and Microsoft takes a cut of 5 - 30% [1] [0] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/publish/account-types-locations-and-fees https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/publish/accoun... [1] "Microsoft takes 5–15% of the sale price for apps and 30% on Xbox games"; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Store https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Store
- agentdrtran 4y ago
  You aren't forced to use the MS Store if you buy a Windows PC. You have the choice to use the "safe" store or the web.
- pjc50 4y ago
  The Windows app store is .. extremely poorly used. I couldn't find any stats with a brief search, but it's not popular with either users or developers. And of course the existence of a free disintermediated alternative helps this.