3 ms·

People are digressing into all kinds of matters unrelated to the article and issue. The heart of the matter is not control of the device, it's about the Apple

by fleddr 4y ago

People are digressing into all kinds of matters unrelated to the article and issue. The heart of the matter is not control of the device, it's about the Apple tax, and how it makes no sense in particular scenarios, such as subscriptions. Sure enough, the app store services are worth something. Real labor, infra and costs go into it. Although Apple could very well subsidize it, it's not 100% unfair to ask for some kind of fee, such as the fee to set up a developer account. This fairness argument goes completely out the window in the case of Spotify or Twitter subscriptions, it no longer is related to any real costs made. When you pay 10$ to stream from Spotify, it's absurd to have to pay $3 to Apple for this "privilege". Nothing about the streaming or value delivered is in any way related to the App store. They leech enormous sums of money from creators, companies and consumers. The argument that they're a private company that can do whatever they want is moot. They're an unavoidable ecosystem middleman that affects the entire digital industry. It is insanely hostile to every player except Apple. The fact that you can't even MENTION an alternative payment in your app should tell you how draconian and power hungry Apple is. You shouldn't cloud your judgement by liking Apple in general or disliking Spotify.

perceptronas 4y ago
I think your point is valid. However, I am wondering what is the alternative? Other paid apps developers will make their apps free and charge subscription fee instead to avoid paying any Apple tax.
cmelbye 4y ago
The fee to set up a developer account is $99/year. The biggest apps on the store and the smallest pay the same fee. A fixed fee helps to equalize the barrier to entry, and everyone likes that. On the other hand, App Store's cost structure is not fixed. Spotify costs Apple vastly more than an app with 1000 installs. This needs to be accounted for. > Nothing about the streaming or value delivered is in any way related to the App Store. Entirely incorrect. By taking a percentage of transactions, App Store is incentivized to help apps grow. From day one, getting featured on App Store has driven serious business outcomes for developers. This has only grown over the years, especially after Apple started to focus on marketing apps more deliberately with the "For You" tab. That's a service that they provide "for free". You get an email from Apple saying that they'd like to feature your app, send over some creative assets, they write an article, and suddenly you're getting a lot of "free" installs. This is only one example of the value that apps get "for free" from Apple and the App Store. And again, this levels the playing field between big and small developers. Of course, nothing is actually free. Apple is a business and not only needs to be compensated for the value that they provide, but they also need to make a profit. That's why they take a cut of transactions. An alternative model would be to charge for all of this à la carte. All promotion would be paid for directly. Bandwidth would be metered and invoiced. WWDC sessions locked behind a paywall. Maybe that would even add up to be less than 30% of revenue. Certainly big developers would like it -- up and coming competitors would have a much tougher time competing than today.
- dlubarov 4y ago
  > App Store's cost structure is not fixed Looks like Apple's taxes generate around $85b/year. I'm not sure what it costs them to develop the App Store software and host some downloads, but surely it couldn't be even 1% of that?

by fleddr 4y ago

perceptronas 4y ago

I think your point is valid. However, I am wondering what is the alternative? Other paid apps developers will make their apps free and charge subscription fee instead to avoid paying any Apple tax.

cmelbye 4y ago

The fee to set up a developer account is $99/year. The biggest apps on the store and the smallest pay the same fee. A fixed fee helps to equalize the barrier to entry, and everyone likes that. On the other hand, App Store's cost structure is not fixed. Spotify costs Apple vastly more than an app with 1000 installs. This needs to be accounted for. > Nothing about the streaming or value delivered is in any way related to the App Store. Entirely incorrect. By taking a percentage of transactions, App Store is incentivized to help apps grow. From day one, getting featured on App Store has driven serious business outcomes for developers. This has only grown over the years, especially after Apple started to focus on marketing apps more deliberately with the "For You" tab. That's a service that they provide "for free". You get an email from Apple saying that they'd like to feature your app, send over some creative assets, they write an article, and suddenly you're getting a lot of "free" installs. This is only one example of the value that apps get "for free" from Apple and the App Store. And again, this levels the playing field between big and small developers. Of course, nothing is actually free. Apple is a business and not only needs to be compensated for the value that they provide, but they also need to make a profit. That's why they take a cut of transactions. An alternative model would be to charge for all of this à la carte. All promotion would be paid for directly. Bandwidth would be metered and invoiced. WWDC sessions locked behind a paywall. Maybe that would even add up to be less than 30% of revenue. Certainly big developers would like it -- up and coming competitors would have a much tougher time competing than today.

dlubarov 4y ago
> App Store's cost structure is not fixed Looks like Apple's taxes generate around $85b/year. I'm not sure what it costs them to develop the App Store software and host some downloads, but surely it couldn't be even 1% of that?