5 ms·

From the article > In addition, developers may have to pay extra if they want their apps to be available outside of the iOS App Store, Gurman says. The statem

by vivegi 3y ago

From the article > In addition, developers may have to pay extra if they want their apps to be available outside of the iOS App Store, Gurman says. The statement is a bit ambiguous. Is it pay Apple extra or pay extra to the 3rd party to have their app listed in the 3rd party app store? The former doesn't sound right; It is probably FUD. Logically, a 3rd party app store could compete on significantly reduced fees relative to Apple (as one of the strategies). Those conscious of the quantum of current fees then have options of listing their app on both the Apple app store and the 3rd party store as part of their distribution strategy. Customers who trust the Apple appstore would get their app from there and those who like a 3rd party app store would get it from there. The app developer would have reduced their total fees (for distribution). Even if there are signup fees, the share of revenues that Apple is today taking away from the developer would go down in absolute terms with a 3rd party store. As far as the consumer is concerned, this becomes an OS setting like 'default browser/default text editor etc.,'. Apple sticking to only the Apple App Store stance is only raising the cost for consumers. Consumers in other geographies will also wake up. Eventually.

thesuitonym 3y ago
If I were being extremely charitable on the phrasing, I think they might mean, for example, if you pay Apple 30% (or whatever the going rate is) you might have to pay an external app store an additional number. Or, it might mean Apple will charge higher rates for apps that are also available on other app stores? Not sure if that's entirely legal, but since when have pesky things like the law stopped companies as big as Apple?
- vivegi 3y ago
  I agree. As a dev, if I list my $3/mo subscription app on the Apple App store and they take 30% and I have 100k customers and I double-list the app in the 3rd party store + the Apple app store and gain 20k customers from the 3rd party store and the 3rd party store charges 10%, I have saved (30% - 10%) x 20k x $3/mo = $12k/mo on the new customers. If I release my next version update and post it to just the 3rd party app store, I could then theoretically move the 120k customers to download the update from the 3rd party store and then save $72k/mo. That is what Apple is afraid of. I think.
  - xlii 3y ago
    I don't think that's a problem for Apple: - For figurative developer moving 120k customers saves $72k/mo - For figurative customers on $3/mo subscription it means ~$0.65/mo savings - Such scenario doesn't take into account amount of work required for switch (5 minutes of form filling on $15/h is $2.5 - gain starts at 6th month) - Neither it does UX around subscription management (right now it's very comfortable to manage Apple's subscriptions) As a counter, anecdotal, point - I, myself, pay >$5/mo overhead on subscriptions and I'm completely aware that I can save money. My reasons: - I'm too lazy to set up full account on provider's website - Apple is VERY verbose about subscriptions, even if I forget about one, they e-mail me about it - It easy to manage all my subscriptions and thus I only have subscription for things I use
    - vivegi 3y ago
      Just extending the hypothetical, the developer can drop the price to $2.49/mo passing on the savings to customers and perhaps capture a few more customers at that price point. While it is true that inertia might stop many customers from changing the default, it does give an additional degree of freedom for devs. Also, in price conscious geographies like India (where Apple just launched their first two retail stores this past week), we have alternate payment mechanisms like UPI (Unified Payment Interface) that are zero cost. So, why should a dev be forced to use only the payment mechanisms offered by Apple?
  - counttheforks 3y ago
    And? Sounds perfectly legal to do, and something that should 100% be possible.
xenonite 3y ago
No, my interpretation is that Apple either increases their fees or decreases prices for an app that is also distributed elsewhere. I don't see a problem with that. If a producer grants exclusive distribution rights to a seller, the typical consequence is that the seller gives the producer a greater profit share in return. On ending those terms, the seller may rightfully reduce the profit share, in my opinion.
- ko27 3y ago
  The problem is that EU law requires Apple to not restrict sideloading for selected apps. It doesn't matter if they pay or don't pay Apple. You have to be able to sideload them.
  - xenonite 3y ago
    There’s a misunderstanding: I meant that Apple may increase the fees in their own store for non-exclusive apps.
- vivegi 3y ago
  > ... Apple either increases their fees or decreases prices for an app that is also distributed elsewhere I don't get why anyone should be paying Apple a rent for using a 3rd party app store (lets say exclusively). As a hypothetical, lets say Epic Games or Steam launches an Alt App Store for games that can be installed on ios. Why does any gamedev using those stores have to pay Apple any transaction fee? Just doesn't make any sense and would just be rent-seeking on Apple's part.
  - xenonite 3y ago
    I don’t think developers should be paying a rent for using a third-party App Store. I meant it like that: if a developer wants to sell both in a third-party store and in the Apple apps store then Apple is not sole distributor. Losing exclusive selling rights, Apple has every right to cash in a higher fee.
    - 3y ago
madeofpalk 3y ago
> Even if there are signup fees, the share of revenues that Apple is today taking away from the developer would go down in absolute terms with a 3rd party store. I guarantee you Apple will find a way to still make the same money. Just like how in the Netherlands dating apps don't have to use IAP, but the apps need to pay Apple a 28% royalty on all in app purchases that don't go through them.
- gregsadetsky 3y ago
  https://techcrunch.com/2022/02/04/apple-to-charge-27-fee-for-dutch-dating-apps-using-alternative-payment-options/ https://techcrunch.com/2022/02/04/apple-to-charge-27-fee-for... Thanks, really interesting
_fat_santa 3y ago
> In addition, developers may have to pay extra if they want their apps to be available outside of the iOS App Store, Gurman says. How I read this is that they are basically creating a 3rd category of apps. Up until now you could sideload apps on an iPhone via an enterprise cert (though it carries some major restrictions that would make it unsuitable for general distribution). With this they are likely creating something like that enterprise cert but for all app developers.

by vivegi 3y ago

thesuitonym 3y ago

If I were being extremely charitable on the phrasing, I think they might mean, for example, if you pay Apple 30% (or whatever the going rate is) you might have to pay an external app store an additional number. Or, it might mean Apple will charge higher rates for apps that are also available on other app stores? Not sure if that's entirely legal, but since when have pesky things like the law stopped companies as big as Apple?

vivegi 3y ago
I agree. As a dev, if I list my $3/mo subscription app on the Apple App store and they take 30% and I have 100k customers and I double-list the app in the 3rd party store + the Apple app store and gain 20k customers from the 3rd party store and the 3rd party store charges 10%, I have saved (30% - 10%) x 20k x $3/mo = $12k/mo on the new customers. If I release my next version update and post it to just the 3rd party app store, I could then theoretically move the 120k customers to download the update from the 3rd party store and then save $72k/mo. That is what Apple is afraid of. I think.
- xlii 3y ago
  I don't think that's a problem for Apple: - For figurative developer moving 120k customers saves $72k/mo - For figurative customers on $3/mo subscription it means ~$0.65/mo savings - Such scenario doesn't take into account amount of work required for switch (5 minutes of form filling on $15/h is $2.5 - gain starts at 6th month) - Neither it does UX around subscription management (right now it's very comfortable to manage Apple's subscriptions) As a counter, anecdotal, point - I, myself, pay >$5/mo overhead on subscriptions and I'm completely aware that I can save money. My reasons: - I'm too lazy to set up full account on provider's website - Apple is VERY verbose about subscriptions, even if I forget about one, they e-mail me about it - It easy to manage all my subscriptions and thus I only have subscription for things I use
  - vivegi 3y ago
    Just extending the hypothetical, the developer can drop the price to $2.49/mo passing on the savings to customers and perhaps capture a few more customers at that price point. While it is true that inertia might stop many customers from changing the default, it does give an additional degree of freedom for devs. Also, in price conscious geographies like India (where Apple just launched their first two retail stores this past week), we have alternate payment mechanisms like UPI (Unified Payment Interface) that are zero cost. So, why should a dev be forced to use only the payment mechanisms offered by Apple?
- counttheforks 3y ago
  And? Sounds perfectly legal to do, and something that should 100% be possible.

xenonite 3y ago

No, my interpretation is that Apple either increases their fees or decreases prices for an app that is also distributed elsewhere. I don't see a problem with that. If a producer grants exclusive distribution rights to a seller, the typical consequence is that the seller gives the producer a greater profit share in return. On ending those terms, the seller may rightfully reduce the profit share, in my opinion.

ko27 3y ago
The problem is that EU law requires Apple to not restrict sideloading for selected apps. It doesn't matter if they pay or don't pay Apple. You have to be able to sideload them.
- xenonite 3y ago
  There’s a misunderstanding: I meant that Apple may increase the fees in their own store for non-exclusive apps.
vivegi 3y ago
> ... Apple either increases their fees or decreases prices for an app that is also distributed elsewhere I don't get why anyone should be paying Apple a rent for using a 3rd party app store (lets say exclusively). As a hypothetical, lets say Epic Games or Steam launches an Alt App Store for games that can be installed on ios. Why does any gamedev using those stores have to pay Apple any transaction fee? Just doesn't make any sense and would just be rent-seeking on Apple's part.
- xenonite 3y ago
  I don’t think developers should be paying a rent for using a third-party App Store. I meant it like that: if a developer wants to sell both in a third-party store and in the Apple apps store then Apple is not sole distributor. Losing exclusive selling rights, Apple has every right to cash in a higher fee.
  - 3y ago

madeofpalk 3y ago

> Even if there are signup fees, the share of revenues that Apple is today taking away from the developer would go down in absolute terms with a 3rd party store. I guarantee you Apple will find a way to still make the same money. Just like how in the Netherlands dating apps don't have to use IAP, but the apps need to pay Apple a 28% royalty on all in app purchases that don't go through them.

gregsadetsky 3y ago
https://techcrunch.com/2022/02/04/apple-to-charge-27-fee-for-dutch-dating-apps-using-alternative-payment-options/ https://techcrunch.com/2022/02/04/apple-to-charge-27-fee-for... Thanks, really interesting

_fat_santa 3y ago

> In addition, developers may have to pay extra if they want their apps to be available outside of the iOS App Store, Gurman says. How I read this is that they are basically creating a 3rd category of apps. Up until now you could sideload apps on an iPhone via an enterprise cert (though it carries some major restrictions that would make it unsuitable for general distribution). With this they are likely creating something like that enterprise cert but for all app developers.