3 ms·

As a developer with more than a handful of apps on the AppStore, I can understand as one grows, desiring to move away from the 70-30 split, get better data arou

As a developer with more than a handful of apps on the AppStore, I can understand as one grows, desiring to move away from the 70-30 split, get better data around users and conversions, etc. This will become an interesting test if I flip. I'm not exactly thrilled about figuring out Paddle/Stripe/BrainTree/Paypal again, subscriptions and verifications, but there are a couple of struggling Apps in the portfolio that I need better data on the lack of conversion to standard price that it may be worth it. All this said, I think everyone forgets after the first year of continuous billing per customer on subscriptions the percentage drops down to 15%, from the 70-30 to 85-15, which gets pretty close to operational profit parity for small shops.

jjtheblunt 3y ago
Ignorant question: what percentage?
- throwaway-blaze 3y ago
  the percentage Apple takes off the top. If your app or subscription costs $1, you receive $0.70 for each sale. As mentioned, for subscriptions, the second year Apple only takes 15%, so you receive $0.85 per subscription dollar. It's even more complicated, if your company makes less than $1mm in revenue, Apple discounts their first year take to 15% also. This makes work for the MBAs at startups to make somewhat complicated revenue forecast spreadsheets.
  - jjtheblunt 3y ago
    thank you
tzs 3y ago
Also sometimes forgotten is that although doing your own handling of payments through someplace like Stripe has a much lower percentage fee than Apple, it also has a per transaction fee that is typically around $0.25-$0.30. If the app is selling inexpensive things, such as things at the popular $0.99 price, 30% to Apple is going to be less than 2-3% + $0.30 to a third party payment processor.
- simfree 3y ago
  Micropayment rates are usually much lower, think 4 to 5 cents plus 5% for small dollar transactions with a normal merchant processor that actually underwrites your account upfront unlike Stripe. The Visa/MasterCard auth fee can be below 10 cents for larger payments as well, and depending on card type and brand program the percentage can be below 1%
rhaway84773 3y ago
All of which is completely irrelevant to Apple’s highly anti-competitive effort to try and ban links to outside payment providers.
- Maursault 3y ago
  If I agree to sell your product, in the exchange I can obligate you to agree not to direct customers away from my store. Walmart doesn't display advertisements for Target. A grocer that sells Joe's fruit would no longer sell it if it had stickers directing customers to Joe's Fruit Stand. Apple has no obligation to promote competitors. And any competitors are free to create their own package managers and sell their own software, they just can't expect Apple to market them. In commerce contracts, noncompete clauses are legal and ubiquitous. Is Android anti-competitive because I can't run Apple software on it? Apple has not cornered a market through anti-competitive practices. They became successful by selling superior product that is massively popular, and Apple is not the only hardware manufacturer, mobile or otherwise, nor the only software developer. The hardware and software markets have a myriad of vigorous competition on which Apple protecting its IP has negligible or no effect whatsoever. What software developers have AppStore policies run out of business? Developers are making more money than ever thanks to Apple.
  - stale2002 3y ago
    > Apple has no obligation Did you read the article? The judges literally just said that yes they are obligated to allow this. Literally, yes, there is now a legal obligation, by the court system, to allow links to outside of app store payment options. > they just can't expect Apple to market them Yes they can (if thats what you are calling allowing outside links). Because thats what the judges just said Apple is forced to allow, by law. > through anti-competitive practices Actually, yes they did have an illegal, and anti-competitive practice. That's what the judges just affirmed.
    - Maursault 3y ago
      The article never once mentions "anti-competitive practice," nor, dare I say, does the judgment. While Epic's allegations of anti-trust were dismissed, the court found "Apple violated California's unfair competition laws by barring developers from telling users about other ways to pay." Your interpretation of this finding that Apple "did have an illegal, and anti-competitive practice" is absurd, and you are merely attempting to couch terms in the same allegations that were dismissed. Neither Apple, nor any storefront, is required to do their competition's marketing for them. The judgement merely states that Apple can't ban links to other forms of payments, without any of the specifics that you are falsly claiming. And there is a pretty good chance Apple will appeal the ruling, so even if your allegations are correct, which they are not, this likely isn't the final ruling. And it stands to reason that if developers agree to Apple's terms, they should abide by them and not claim anti-competitive practices when in fact the issue is whether they should be allowed to ignore their contractual oblication. Why would Apple be required to sell software for a developer if that developer undermines Apple's fee for doing so? Apple's appeal will likely drive this home. Or they will extract a fee for selling a developer's product for them in some other mannor. So maybe cool your jets a little, because not only are you not right, in fact, you are wrong.

jjtheblunt 3y ago

Ignorant question: what percentage?

throwaway-blaze 3y ago
the percentage Apple takes off the top. If your app or subscription costs $1, you receive $0.70 for each sale. As mentioned, for subscriptions, the second year Apple only takes 15%, so you receive $0.85 per subscription dollar. It's even more complicated, if your company makes less than $1mm in revenue, Apple discounts their first year take to 15% also. This makes work for the MBAs at startups to make somewhat complicated revenue forecast spreadsheets.
- jjtheblunt 3y ago
  thank you

tzs 3y ago

Also sometimes forgotten is that although doing your own handling of payments through someplace like Stripe has a much lower percentage fee than Apple, it also has a per transaction fee that is typically around $0.25-$0.30. If the app is selling inexpensive things, such as things at the popular $0.99 price, 30% to Apple is going to be less than 2-3% + $0.30 to a third party payment processor.

simfree 3y ago
Micropayment rates are usually much lower, think 4 to 5 cents plus 5% for small dollar transactions with a normal merchant processor that actually underwrites your account upfront unlike Stripe. The Visa/MasterCard auth fee can be below 10 cents for larger payments as well, and depending on card type and brand program the percentage can be below 1%

rhaway84773 3y ago

All of which is completely irrelevant to Apple’s highly anti-competitive effort to try and ban links to outside payment providers.

Maursault 3y ago
If I agree to sell your product, in the exchange I can obligate you to agree not to direct customers away from my store. Walmart doesn't display advertisements for Target. A grocer that sells Joe's fruit would no longer sell it if it had stickers directing customers to Joe's Fruit Stand. Apple has no obligation to promote competitors. And any competitors are free to create their own package managers and sell their own software, they just can't expect Apple to market them. In commerce contracts, noncompete clauses are legal and ubiquitous. Is Android anti-competitive because I can't run Apple software on it? Apple has not cornered a market through anti-competitive practices. They became successful by selling superior product that is massively popular, and Apple is not the only hardware manufacturer, mobile or otherwise, nor the only software developer. The hardware and software markets have a myriad of vigorous competition on which Apple protecting its IP has negligible or no effect whatsoever. What software developers have AppStore policies run out of business? Developers are making more money than ever thanks to Apple.
- stale2002 3y ago
  > Apple has no obligation Did you read the article? The judges literally just said that yes they are obligated to allow this. Literally, yes, there is now a legal obligation, by the court system, to allow links to outside of app store payment options. > they just can't expect Apple to market them Yes they can (if thats what you are calling allowing outside links). Because thats what the judges just said Apple is forced to allow, by law. > through anti-competitive practices Actually, yes they did have an illegal, and anti-competitive practice. That's what the judges just affirmed.
  - Maursault 3y ago
    The article never once mentions "anti-competitive practice," nor, dare I say, does the judgment. While Epic's allegations of anti-trust were dismissed, the court found "Apple violated California's unfair competition laws by barring developers from telling users about other ways to pay." Your interpretation of this finding that Apple "did have an illegal, and anti-competitive practice" is absurd, and you are merely attempting to couch terms in the same allegations that were dismissed. Neither Apple, nor any storefront, is required to do their competition's marketing for them. The judgement merely states that Apple can't ban links to other forms of payments, without any of the specifics that you are falsly claiming. And there is a pretty good chance Apple will appeal the ruling, so even if your allegations are correct, which they are not, this likely isn't the final ruling. And it stands to reason that if developers agree to Apple's terms, they should abide by them and not claim anti-competitive practices when in fact the issue is whether they should be allowed to ignore their contractual oblication. Why would Apple be required to sell software for a developer if that developer undermines Apple's fee for doing so? Apple's appeal will likely drive this home. Or they will extract a fee for selling a developer's product for them in some other mannor. So maybe cool your jets a little, because not only are you not right, in fact, you are wrong.