6 ms·

What then would be a fair commission? Credit card processing starts around 2-3% (though I'm sure Apple has negotiated a rate well below that, but it's not free)

What then would be a fair commission? Credit card processing starts around 2-3% (though I'm sure Apple has negotiated a rate well below that, but it's not free). Hosting has value, as does marketing/discoverability (though apps like Telegram are big enough that it's diminished)

philjohn 4y ago
Telegram are the ones hosting the posts in this case.
- bdcravens 4y ago
  Most apps have an API they use. Apple hosts the binaries to be installed, and hosts the payment APIs if they are use IAP. Perhaps it could be argued that each service that Apple provides should be billed separately.
  - saghm 4y ago
    This ignores the point that companies are required to use the App store to host the app and do payments though; I think plenty of companies would prefer to distribute the app and process payments externally to avoid the fee, but it's not feasible to provide apps to users any other way, and any external payment options are both not allowed to be communicated to users within the apps and not allowed to cost less than they do from within the app (making it impossible to pass the 30% on to users). Taking a cut of payments facilitated by your platform is a business model; forcing people to use your platform and then insisting on payment for your work is a protection racket.
    - bdcravens 4y ago
      So open platform, and Apple can charge whatever they want?
      - redeeman 4y ago
        yes, allow installs outside of appstores, and allow people to make their own appstores, and yes, apple can charge what they want?
cas8 4y ago
It’s not entirely about the %. The problem is that there’s no alternative. I have no real problem with someone like Google with the Play Store or Valve with Steam giving developers the option of shipping on their platforms for a commission like 30%, because you don’t need the Play Store to install apps nor Steam to install video games. In those cases it can actually be a decision about whether or not the hosting/visibility/platform is _worth_ the cut. But in Apple’s case there is no decision to be made. You can’t opt out. That’s why you see so much more flak thrown at Apple for this commission than you do other platform providers.
- bdcravens 4y ago
  The question I've asked others is if they open it up, then 30% is fair? It seems to me that is what you're suggesting.
  - nanidin 4y ago
    If they open it up, market forces (via competition) will determine what is fair. That equilibrium would probably be below 30% if serious competition occurs. But yes, it would be fair for Apple to ask for 30% because others are free to offer the same service for less, and you as a consumer of that service have a choice between them - which will eventually force Apple to bring its commission down.
    - bdcravens 4y ago
      That hasn't been the case with Android. Of course, I think most money comes from IAPs, not app downloads. The issue then is whether Apple would be forced to open the payment APIs, or if apps would need to implement a separate solution.
      - aaomidi 4y ago
        An alternative would be to open up the payment provider api to different processors. For example if my bank implements the payment provider API, then let me use that. All the other apps need to care about is a payment request method which can be satisfied with whatever payment provider I have picked. Apps would be able to ask the provider how much they’re gonna get after the payment processes etc, and decide if they want to reject it or not.
grishka 4y ago
Zero. Apple tries really hard to pretend they own the relationship between the user and the app developer, when in reality they do nothing to deserve it. Most app developers, Telegram included, treat the app store as a nuisance, pain-in-the-butt of an obstacle they have to clear to have presence on iOS devices. It provides negative value to them. All the discovery features are irrelevant to them. They do their own marketing and could as well have done their own distribution if Apple allowed sideloading.
- hammock 4y ago
  Apple created the platform in which the apps run, and without which (or an alternative platform, which can and do exist) the apps could not exist. That has to count for something. A similar example would be gaming consoles. The console makers definitely take a cut of all the games that are released on their platform
  - grishka 4y ago
    iPhones already cost money. That certainly covers all the R&D that went into them. Then there's also the $99/year for the developer account.
    - gwd 4y ago
      > That certainly covers all the R&D that went into them. Ref? On the contrary, it's likely that getting rid of the Apple Tax would mean needing to significantly reduce development and maintenance of the software. Think also of how the incentives work: If Apple is paid only when people buy a new phone, that adds pressure to shorten the lifespan of the software on the phone. If Apple is paid on an ongoing basis as the phone is used, this pressure is reduced, leading to longer-life phones.
      - grishka 4y ago
        iOS is already feature-complete and has been for quite some time. No one would be especially sad if it stopped updating except for security patches, new hardware features, and bug fixes.
kybernetyk 4y ago
>Hosting has value Roughly $10 a month. >as does marketing/discoverability None of which the app store provides for you.
modeless 4y ago
A fair commission is what the market decides after users are allowed to install whatever app store they want.
ferrocarraiges 4y ago
We don't know, but the Market would figure out if it were possible for other app-hosting platforms to compete. Some would try to woo developers by taking less of a cut, and unprofitable ones would go out of business. Eventually, an equilibrium would be reached.
somenewaccount1 4y ago
You think they deserve 30% of all content creators income because once upon a time a user downloaded the 125mb file? Seems a bit much.
- dannyw 4y ago
  For a $2.99 app? 90c to cover payment processing fees, hosting, and distribution sounds reasonable. For a $29.99/month subscription? No way.
s1k3 4y ago
Hosting a 200mb executable has negligible cost. They don’t advertise anything. Nor do they make things discoverable. You can pay them separately to advertise your app, and increased discoverability comes from your own marketing efforts. They offer nothing except a walled garden.

philjohn 4y ago

Telegram are the ones hosting the posts in this case.

bdcravens 4y ago
Most apps have an API they use. Apple hosts the binaries to be installed, and hosts the payment APIs if they are use IAP. Perhaps it could be argued that each service that Apple provides should be billed separately.
- saghm 4y ago
  This ignores the point that companies are required to use the App store to host the app and do payments though; I think plenty of companies would prefer to distribute the app and process payments externally to avoid the fee, but it's not feasible to provide apps to users any other way, and any external payment options are both not allowed to be communicated to users within the apps and not allowed to cost less than they do from within the app (making it impossible to pass the 30% on to users). Taking a cut of payments facilitated by your platform is a business model; forcing people to use your platform and then insisting on payment for your work is a protection racket.
  - bdcravens 4y ago
    So open platform, and Apple can charge whatever they want?
    - redeeman 4y ago
      yes, allow installs outside of appstores, and allow people to make their own appstores, and yes, apple can charge what they want?

cas8 4y ago

It’s not entirely about the %. The problem is that there’s no alternative. I have no real problem with someone like Google with the Play Store or Valve with Steam giving developers the option of shipping on their platforms for a commission like 30%, because you don’t need the Play Store to install apps nor Steam to install video games. In those cases it can actually be a decision about whether or not the hosting/visibility/platform is _worth_ the cut. But in Apple’s case there is no decision to be made. You can’t opt out. That’s why you see so much more flak thrown at Apple for this commission than you do other platform providers.

bdcravens 4y ago
The question I've asked others is if they open it up, then 30% is fair? It seems to me that is what you're suggesting.
- nanidin 4y ago
  If they open it up, market forces (via competition) will determine what is fair. That equilibrium would probably be below 30% if serious competition occurs. But yes, it would be fair for Apple to ask for 30% because others are free to offer the same service for less, and you as a consumer of that service have a choice between them - which will eventually force Apple to bring its commission down.
  - bdcravens 4y ago
    That hasn't been the case with Android. Of course, I think most money comes from IAPs, not app downloads. The issue then is whether Apple would be forced to open the payment APIs, or if apps would need to implement a separate solution.
    - aaomidi 4y ago
      An alternative would be to open up the payment provider api to different processors. For example if my bank implements the payment provider API, then let me use that. All the other apps need to care about is a payment request method which can be satisfied with whatever payment provider I have picked. Apps would be able to ask the provider how much they’re gonna get after the payment processes etc, and decide if they want to reject it or not.

grishka 4y ago

Zero. Apple tries really hard to pretend they own the relationship between the user and the app developer, when in reality they do nothing to deserve it. Most app developers, Telegram included, treat the app store as a nuisance, pain-in-the-butt of an obstacle they have to clear to have presence on iOS devices. It provides negative value to them. All the discovery features are irrelevant to them. They do their own marketing and could as well have done their own distribution if Apple allowed sideloading.

hammock 4y ago
Apple created the platform in which the apps run, and without which (or an alternative platform, which can and do exist) the apps could not exist. That has to count for something. A similar example would be gaming consoles. The console makers definitely take a cut of all the games that are released on their platform
- grishka 4y ago
  iPhones already cost money. That certainly covers all the R&D that went into them. Then there's also the $99/year for the developer account.
  - gwd 4y ago
    > That certainly covers all the R&D that went into them. Ref? On the contrary, it's likely that getting rid of the Apple Tax would mean needing to significantly reduce development and maintenance of the software. Think also of how the incentives work: If Apple is paid only when people buy a new phone, that adds pressure to shorten the lifespan of the software on the phone. If Apple is paid on an ongoing basis as the phone is used, this pressure is reduced, leading to longer-life phones.
    - grishka 4y ago
      iOS is already feature-complete and has been for quite some time. No one would be especially sad if it stopped updating except for security patches, new hardware features, and bug fixes.

kybernetyk 4y ago

>Hosting has value Roughly $10 a month. >as does marketing/discoverability None of which the app store provides for you.

modeless 4y ago

A fair commission is what the market decides after users are allowed to install whatever app store they want.

ferrocarraiges 4y ago

We don't know, but the Market would figure out if it were possible for other app-hosting platforms to compete. Some would try to woo developers by taking less of a cut, and unprofitable ones would go out of business. Eventually, an equilibrium would be reached.

somenewaccount1 4y ago

You think they deserve 30% of all content creators income because once upon a time a user downloaded the 125mb file? Seems a bit much.

dannyw 4y ago
For a $2.99 app? 90c to cover payment processing fees, hosting, and distribution sounds reasonable. For a $29.99/month subscription? No way.

s1k3 4y ago

Hosting a 200mb executable has negligible cost. They don’t advertise anything. Nor do they make things discoverable. You can pay them separately to advertise your app, and increased discoverability comes from your own marketing efforts. They offer nothing except a walled garden.