3 ms·

> So if you could use their payment processing by itself, that would put you at $485k before server costs, not $419k. So you can have very nice servers and over

> So if you could use their payment processing by itself, that would put you at $485k before server costs, not $419k. So you can have very nice servers and over a third more revenue. Most companies don't do their own payment processing. They have accounts with companies that provide merchant services (e.g. WorldPay, Ayden, various investment banks) under specially negotiated contracts. These contracts would cover contingencies that wouldn't apply to "normal" customers and there's obviously a premium to pay for that. What you're demanding is the financial equivalent of adding millions of people to an individual's credit card account. Why would you think a for-profit company (or for that matter, any financially sensible individual) would should share the financial benefits its negotiated for itself with millions of others? Not only would Apple be introduced to additional legal and financial liability, but so would the payment processor.

Dylan16807 4y ago
You're ignoring my point almost entirely. I'm sorry for not adding "the equivalent of their payment processing". If Apple can do it for 3%, I'm sure other companies could do it for 4.5%, and the rest of my argument doesn't change at all. Though I do have an answer to "why"! It's because Apple claims they want to be in charge of payments to protect their users. Even if we ignore the "charge slightly more and make tons of money" plan.
- Dracophoenix 4y ago
  > Though I do have an answer to "why"! It's because Apple claims they want to be in charge of payments to protect their users. Even if we ignore the "charge slightly more and make tons of money" plan. There's a difference between being charging payments as a service and acting as a financial fiduciary on behalf millions of developers. I don't think you understand the legal gravity of the latter.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    I'm merely suggesting they do the same thing they already do with payments, but skip the "downloadable in the app store" part. Since the app store is apparently nine tenths of their fee.

Dylan16807 4y ago

You're ignoring my point almost entirely. I'm sorry for not adding "the equivalent of their payment processing". If Apple can do it for 3%, I'm sure other companies could do it for 4.5%, and the rest of my argument doesn't change at all. Though I do have an answer to "why"! It's because Apple claims they want to be in charge of payments to protect their users. Even if we ignore the "charge slightly more and make tons of money" plan.

Dracophoenix 4y ago
> Though I do have an answer to "why"! It's because Apple claims they want to be in charge of payments to protect their users. Even if we ignore the "charge slightly more and make tons of money" plan. There's a difference between being charging payments as a service and acting as a financial fiduciary on behalf millions of developers. I don't think you understand the legal gravity of the latter.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  I'm merely suggesting they do the same thing they already do with payments, but skip the "downloadable in the app store" part. Since the app store is apparently nine tenths of their fee.