4 ms·

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 p

by 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.

by vivegi 3y ago

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.