11 ms·

Am I getting this right? Say I use Stripe as my payment processor. Stripe takes 2.9% + $0.30, then Apple takes 27% so I'm at 29.9% + $0.30 being taken out of ho

Am I getting this right? Say I use Stripe as my payment processor. Stripe takes 2.9% + $0.30, then Apple takes 27% so I'm at 29.9% + $0.30 being taken out of however much I charge for my app? For a $10 app, $0.30 is 3% putting the fee at 32.9%. For the privilege of paying 2.9% more, my users get to see a scary privacy message and when I bill the customer a year later for a subscription, there's a 20-30% chance that their credit card will have expired. If this isn't a monopoly abusing its dominate market position, then what is?

jacquesm 3y ago
Oh absolutely it is. But all app store developers are complicit in enabling that monopoly. What should happen is that all app store developers withdraw their apps until Apple sees the light. But that won't happen because every app store developer will be pitted against their competition in a race to the bottom who will accept the highest fees that Apple is going to impose and sooner or later you'll be back at that 30% or you'll go without income. Solidarity is what drives change, without solidarity you're without a chance.
- aaomidi 3y ago
  Victim blaming and expects a mass market behavior change is not good, or realistic.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Victims don't normally collaborate with their abuser. edit: here's one of the 'victims': https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39022303 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39022303
    - mindwok 3y ago
      Actually yes, they do. That's what makes it abusive - the victim doesn't have the power, control, or will, to simply walk away.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        I think this does a disservice to actual victims of actual crimes. This is at most a business dispute over fees. The app store developers were cautioned that throwing their lot in with Apple (and let's not forget Google) would eventually lead to a situation where Apple controlled their business and could charge whatever they wanted. But the money was good and so the walled garden App stores became entrenched. But in principle they were always broken. This is why unions are a thing. They create collective bargaining power. If all of the app store vendors would unite they'd have a formidable position vis-a-vis Apple, Google etc. And there is no reason why app store developers could not form such a collective to increase their bargaining power. You must have seen it mentioned on HN before: don't build your house in someone else's garden or something to that effect, in other words: if you make all of your income in someone else's eco system you are giving them a lot of power over your business. That's a bad move, but if you have to do it make sure you have a lot of friends, just in case.
        SllX 3y ago
        To be fair, Apple doesn’t actually charge more than they did on Day 1. In some cases they charge less. > And there is no reason why app store developers could not form such a collective to increase their bargaining power. This is also where you lose me entirely. You’re basically talking about unionizing independent businesses. Just call it a cartel. That’s the word you’re looking for.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        > Just call it a cartel. That’s the word you’re looking for. No, a cartel is something different entirely. A cartel is a bunch of businesses that set the price for a market, not a collective that serves to increase the bargaining position of individual entities that are too weak to do so on their own power. Cartels are all about price fixing while keeping the competition out.
        SllX 3y ago
        That’s a nice spin and I see why you’re determined to use nicer terminology, but in this case it’s a cartel, so own it since it’s your idea here. The aim is to fix a price, and the price you are trying to set is the price at which another business buys units of your software or services for resell. The price is 30% of purchase, 30% of in-app purchases, 30% of in-app subscriptions for the first year of an individual unit’s subscription term and then 15% for subsequent terms[1]. If you use a separate payment processor, you can reduce these figures by 3 percentage points. That’s the price, and their right to charge it has been upheld, but your proposal is to band together the small, medium and large businesses that virtually fill the App Store and have them War Doctor around going “No more!” or dictate a lower price. That’s collusion, that’s price fixing, that’s a cartel. [1]: through some silly chicanery requiring an application process, and only if your business earns $1M or less a year. Apple may be within their rights but damn do they make themselves look bad when it comes to this shit.
    - aaomidi 3y ago
      > Victims don't normally collaborate with their abuser. Lmao, except, they literally do. This is why leaving an abusive relationship is so fucking hard. Android and iOS have an abusive relationship with developers.
  - __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
    If you can legitimately blame the middle of a pyramid scheme for tolerating the top, you can blame app developers for tolerating apple. Both do so at the expense of those at the bottom.
- nicoburns 3y ago
  What should happen is that governments regulate these policies out of existence (or into sensibility). We already do this for things like credit card processing fees (in Europe) and it works well.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Yes, that would be good. This goes for all predatory businessmodels, especially the ones where bait-and-switch is used to gain market share and then to change the model (looking at you, Youtube).
- jamil7 3y ago
  This is a weird take. It’s similar to saying workers pre unionisation and labour movements were complicit in enabling poor working conditions.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    App store developers are suppliers, they don't work for Apple nor do they have to work for Apple. Technically Apple re-sells their product. But they could and should unite in order to increase their bargaining power. You see the same with every supermarket chain. But what I think would happen is that there would be enough hold-outs from such an effort that Apple would come out on top because the players in the eco -system are more in competition with each other than that they really mind Apple. They want to pay Apple less but they want to put their competition out of business even more...
    - threeseed 3y ago
      There are tens of millions [1] of App Store developers you will need to coordinate. Where you think of organising a rally or just an email campaign ? [1] https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/19/23730302/apple-app-store-transparency-report-2022# https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/19/23730302/apple-app-store-...
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        In the age of the internet I think reaching tens of millions of individuals is not as hard as it used to be. A Reddit post announcing a boycott of the App store by a few hundred or a few thousand initial App developers with enough lead time for the message to spread would be a fine starting point. I'm sure it would be all over the globe by morning. I just posited the idea here in NL at 2:30 in the morning and you, somewhere else entirely have already heard of it. That mechanism could be vastly improved upon but I think the principle is sound as your average cat meme has proven thousands of times by now.
        BadHumans 3y ago
- threeseed 3y ago
  I suspect that after 15 years of the App Store existing most developers know the score. And so by all means withdraw your app but the rest of us will simply continue to pay the 15/30% as we have always done.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Yes, this is exactly what enables Apple to do what they do and proves my suspicion: that there are enough developers that do not see this as a problem that things would likely remain as they are. Let's be happy that dockworkers had more spine than that.
    - HatchedLake721 3y ago
      There was side-loading on Symbian and Windows Mobile phones before iPhone and the App Store existed. You know what the experience was in one word? Shit. For both developers and consumers. Then comes Apple with amazing hardware, software and APIs with focus on developer experience. Developers decide to ditch side-loading & stuff like xda-developers in favor of 30% fees to develop for iOS (and then Android) because it’s so amazing for them and the consumers. It got to the stage where developers were so happy with the 30% fee and Apple/Google duopoly, many even didn’t even try to develop anything for other mobile OS’s including the Windows Phone store. Microsoft tried to fund app developers and spent millions, without much luck. No modern apps, no consumers, no sales. Microsoft then had no other option than to admit defeat, write off billions and shut down the era of Windows on mobile phone devices. Even Epic never released Unreal Engine on Windows Phone, and cries the loudest today about the duopoly they helped to build. So now you’re saying after abandoning side-loading, agreeing to 30% fees for an access to a worldwide billion people marketplace, suddenly after 15 years it’s terrible and we should go back to side-loading again, because greedy Apple?
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        Yes, RMS warned about that. Convenience comes at a price. The question is whether or not it is worth it. Apple seems to have convinced enough developers and enough consumers that it is. I disagree which is why all of my stuff is 100% web based (and it even works off-line), but I don't begrudge others their income. At the same time I do think that Apple is abusing its position, but since it was obvious they were gearing up to do just that from day #1 you can only blame them for about half of it with the remainder divided between the devs and the consumers.
- lapcat 3y ago
  There are so many problems with this take. Here are a few: 1) Many App Store apps are completely free, paying nothing to Apple except the $99 per year fee, so they have no stake in this issue. 2) My understanding is that more than 90% of developers in the App Store make less than $1 million per year and thus are covered by the Small Business Program, which charges only 15% rather than 30%. Revenue in the App Store is extremely top-heavy, with most going to a relatively small number of the top developers (such as Epic, previously). How much are developers willing to risk just to lower the 15% cut somewhat? 3) Let's be clear, you're talking about a strike. Many developers derive their entire income from the App Store, so withdrawing their apps means no income. A wealthy corporation such as Epic can survive, but what about little indie developers? 4) An individual developer uniterally striking would be futile and self-destructive. Developers would need to be organized and all strike simultaneously. 5) Strikes are very difficult to organize. Forming a union almost always has to come first. And union members typically work together in the same building, which greatly facilitates organization. Whereas there are a huge number of App Store developers scattered all around the world, and they speak different languages. How would you even communicate with all of them to organize? (EDIT: I see in another comment that you think it's easy as spreading cat memes. That's not a serious suggestion.)
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    > 1) Many App Store apps are completely free, paying nothing to Apple except the $99 per year fee, so they have no stake in this issue. I don't see that as a problem. > 2) My understanding is that more than 90% of developers in the App Store make less than $1 million per year and thus are covered by the Small Business Program, which charges only 15% rather than 30%. Revenue in the App Store is extremely top-heavy, with most going to a relatively small number of the top developers (such as Epic, previously). How much are developers willing to risk just to lower the 15% cut somewhat? I can't answer that question for any particular developer. But if my PSP charged me 15% I'd be looking for another one and if my PSP arranged for things in such a way that I'd owe them anyway by virtue of developing for a particular piece of hardware that they already sold and made their profits on I'd go and do something else with my time. Which is why pianojacq.com is on the web and free instead of an App in the App store because that way Apple/Google don't get to increase their grip on the market regardless of whether or not it is free. I disagree with their business model to the point that I'm not partaking in it at all. > 3) Let's be clear, you're talking about a strike. Many developers derive their entire income from the App Store, so withdrawing their apps means no income. A wealthy corporation such as Epic can survive, but what about little indie developers? What about those poor dockworkers? Any kind of battle with the likes of Apple (or your merchant marine overlord) comes at a price. In some cases people died to fight for their rights. 'little indie developers' are still business owners who will either stand up for their rights or they will have to live with the consequences of not doing so. More likely: those that do stand up for their rights will find themselves kicked out of the App store (monopoly power abuse...) and their competition will thrive. > 4) An individual developer uniterally striking would be futile and self-destructive. Developers would need to be organized and all strike simultaneously. Yes, you got it. That's exactly what they should do. > 5) Strikes are very difficult to organize. Forming a union almost always has to come first. And union members typically work together in the same building, which greatly facilitates organization. Whereas there are a huge number of App Store developers scattered all around the world, and they speak different languages. How would you even communicate with all of them to organize? I would start with looking for places where App developers congregate and start spreading the message (SO / HN / Reddit / whatever remains of /. / any other forum), write a bunch of press releases and build a movement, then, when the numbers are there for the GADA (the Global Appstore Developer Association) I'd announce the first collective action and take it from there. It will be work, but so what, if you think it is worth it then it's worth doing well. As for language barriers and such: there's an app for that...
- dylan604 3y ago
  How is this any different from brick&mortar big box retailers beating on their suppliers to lower their wholesale prices to the point they can only make a profit with large volume in sales? I guarantee you that 70% of your MSRP is way more than selling in a store.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    It is no different, which is why suppliers to such stores routinely collaborate if they feel that they are being squeezed too much. It is also why house brands are a thing.
    - dylan604 3y ago
      and yet this has been happening long before Apple and App Stores were a thing, and nobody has been sued to stop it. Also, as some other comment has pointed out, the % Apple takes is from their role as one manager. Ask an actor or sports ball player what happens if they don't pay their manager the % owed. I just haven't figured out why software devs think they are so special that they don't have to pay to play. I have seen no honest answers to this other than Apple === BAD. Devs are pretty much "all monies are belong to us"
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        Whether it is fair or not is for the App store developers to work out, I'm not one of them and as long as these are walled gardens I never will be.
  - ralmidani 3y ago
    One difference: physical goods suppliers can theoretically choose to sell and deliver direct any of their goods to any consumer willing to pay for them. With the app store, at least in the US, the captive audience can’t side-load, and now Apple is introducing even more absurdity with its bad faith “revision” to the policy.
    - dylan604 3y ago
- newsclues 3y ago
  “Solidarity is what drives change” Sounds like commie bullshit.
  - nirvdrum 3y ago
    Organized labor has effected plenty of change, both directly and indirectly. Safer working conditions, 40 hour work weeks, sick time, pay raises, etc.. Companies without unionized employees are incentivized to offer reasonable work conditions and benefits to stave off unionization. This has all happened under capitalism.
- NoPicklez 3y ago
  That is a ridiculous statement. Just because developers have fallen victim does not mean they should all pull their apps. How would you suggest that all impacted developers go about coordinating such a strike? Solidarity is very difficult to achieve in a large enough consensus to a point where people would pull their apps.
thedangler 3y ago
[flagged]
- threeseed 3y ago
  And how about the chargeback fees ? Apple covers those on behalf of the developer.
xuki 3y ago
Apple need the 30% to keep the services revenue up to keep the stock price up. I have no doubt many people at Apple know this is wrong, including the people at the very top, but stock must not go down.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  What is the right amount of profit margin? Would this apply to households too?
  - stefan_ 3y ago
    It's obviously not 30%, because on top of this you better pay for ads on your app name or have your competitor show up on searches for your app. I always had a mild smile for the tales of the "secure refined Apple store" but seeing the reality has been a bigger shock than I expected. It's a scam haven.
  - lxgr 3y ago
    Whatever the market is willing to pay. We don’t know what that is, since there currently is no market.
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      The market obviously exists. Apple is the seller, numerous other businesses are buyers, and they are buying, hence the current amount is an amount "the market" is willing to pay.
      - lxgr 3y ago
        And how do we call a market with only one seller and no chance of competitors entering the market? Sure, technically it's still a market, but I wouldn't consider it a remotely efficient one to do price discovery.
  - zamadatix 3y ago
    I would say there isn't such a thing as "the right amount of profit margin" as much as there is "the right way to secure a profit margin". The more your margin is able to exist because competition isn't allowed the less right it is, be it 1% or 99% in absolute terms.
onethought 3y ago
How can the “second most popular phone” have a monopoly?
- earthling8118 3y ago
  You don't have to be the most popular to be a monopoly. Not even close.
  - onethought 3y ago
    I think I misunderstand what mono implies in monopoly then. If there is another - more popular provider. Isn’t it at the very least a duopoly? Or are we redefining words now?
    - lxgr 3y ago
      Can I use the Google Play store on my iPhone? If not, there is no other provider competing with Apple in the market that is “selling apps to iPhone users”. Whether that’s a market considered relevant from an antitrust point of view is the big question.
      - old_hat 3y ago
        I can't use another company's GPS system in my car, so in the market of, "Using GPS navigation / menus / etc in my 10 year old Mini's dashboard" there's no meaningful competitor. They charge for map updates and everything. At some point a company is just building a feature, and they're not required to make every single feature accomodate every other manufacturer's competing version of the feature. I knew I was buying the Mini system when I bought the car, and I accepted it. Same is true for iPhone users.
        lxgr 3y ago
        > I knew I was buying the Mini system when I bought the car, and I accepted it. "Knowing that you're buying into a monopoly" is generally not a valid defense for a monopolist. The idea is that there can be a disadvantage/harmful impact to market participants even despite their full knowledge of the market structure (which isn't even a given for retail consumers). But generally, I agree: There are definitely many closed ecosystems/non-competitive "markets" like the ones you describe, and more often than not, regulators don't step in. Who knows, maybe regulators will address that market at some point! The EU DMA doesn't seem to obviously not apply in this scenario, for example. Several factors for why I'd consider that case to be a bit different though: - Many car entertainment systems now offer you to connect an iPhone or Android phone and use CarPlay or Android Auto for navigation. You can reasonably use the car's navigation functionality (GPS antenna, voice output, built-in screen that won't hit your head in an accident) without paying the car manufacturer! - If your car doesn't allow that, or you don't want to use Apple's or Google's solutions, you can stick a physical aftermarket navigation system to your windshield/ventilation grill. - There isn't a single car maker that controls roughly half of the US market.
lolinder 3y ago
This was always what the outcome was going to look like. People have been talking ever since the ruling as though dodging Apple as a payment processor was going to magically exempt developers from the full 30% fee, but that was never going to happen and it was never the intention of the ruling. Apple argued from the very beginning that the 30% was its fee for running the App Store, marketing the apps, and storing and delivering the app bundles. The in-app payment system was a convenient way for Apple to collect its commission and a way for Apple to create a unified payment experience for its customers, but it was never the Achilles heel for Apple's business model. The best case scenario here is that Apple is forced to walk back some of the more onerous requirements they've imposed for whether and how links may be shown. Them putting a price on the payment processor portion of the fee and discounting developers for that portion was inevitable and isn't even malicious compliance, the judge explicitly called this out as a likely outcome in the original ruling: > First, and most significant, as discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple’s intellectual property. Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission. > In such a hypothetical world, developers could potentially avoid the commission while benefitting from Apple's innovation and intellectual property free of charge. The Court presumes that in such circumstances that Apple may rely on imposing and utilizing a contractual right to audit developers annual accounting to ensure compliance with its commissions, among other methods. Of course, any alternatives to IAP (including the foregoing) would seemingly impose both increased monetary and time costs to both Apple and the developers. https://casetext.com/case/epic-games-inc-v-apple-inc-2 https://casetext.com/case/epic-games-inc-v-apple-inc-2
- enragedcacti 3y ago
  > Apple argued from the very beginning that the 30% was its fee for running the App Store, marketing the apps, and storing and delivering the app bundles. The in-app payment system was a convenient way for Apple to collect its commission and a way for Apple to create a unified payment experience for its customers, but it was never the Achilles heel for Apple's business model. Is it just me or does this argument seem insanely flimsy? If Apple were serious about it then why aren't they charging free apps for downloads and approvals? Why doesn't the developer policy require Netflix to pay 30% of subscriptions for anyone who signs in on an Apple device? Why are the prices lower for "reader" apps who presumably cause Apple to incur similar costs? Its like a toll road arguing "no, driving on the road is free of course, we just charge at the entrance and exit for the privilege of looking at the toll road". What does it take for the legal system to be able to call BS on a claim like that?
babypuncher 3y ago
As a user, if I go to buy something in an app and it asks me to punch in my credit card number or sign in to some payment processor instead of just the usual "double click to apple pay", there is a very high chance i will just change my mind.
- wraptile 3y ago
  What if you got 30% discount? 2 minutes of work. If that didn't work Apple wouldn't spend so much effort fighting this.
  - babypuncher 3y ago
    A 30% discount changes things, though for most developers it would be closer to a 10% discount, since they normally only pay Apple 15% and still need to cover the 2-5% their alternative payment processor charges. If it's a recurring payment (i.e. subscription), I would still be inclined to pay the full Apple price simply because they make subscription management much easier than anybody else.
hyuuu 3y ago
apple just has really good marketing and massive support from its fanboys, compared to the olden days of Microsoft monopolistic behavior, Microsoft is less shiny with less loyal foot soldiers.
epistasis 3y ago
Just wait until you see what you have to do to get your food product onto super market shelves... And grocery stores are not even considered a monopoly! Edit: which is not say that there should be an "is" vs. "ought" conflation. Just that it's unlikely that this situation is going to be changed through courts. Other routes: legislation and regulation to establish a new social norm, or as Jacquesm has been advocating here, collective bargaining. But as an App Store consumer, and a developer of other sorts of tools, I don't really care at all about the developer-Apple split and am not the least bit excited by whatever might happen should that switch to, say, 99% going to the developer. Even if developers dropped prices 30%, I would have a hard time caring!
- maximus-decimus 3y ago
  But imagine buying your food directly from a farm and having to pay a 27% cut to the grocery store anyway.
  - epistasis 3y ago
    My experience at farmers markets tells me that I would be paying more than 100% more for the privilege of interacting with somebody that gets employed by the farmer instead of somebody employed by the store. The analogy would work better if the grocery store sold me some sort of platform for cooking food, that only worked with certain types of food... I don't know, it's hard to find the analogy compelling at all. People develop for the App Store because they get access to a particular customer base. I could definitely support some sort of customer protection that forces side loading options (but they must be options and easy to disable and hard to enable, otherwise it destroys one of the best aspects of the phone.) But as far as caring for slight changes in percentages for app developers, well, I don't care about that one bit at all, anymore than I care about Apple getting a "fair" deal from the other businesses it interacts with.
chii 3y ago
> a monopoly abusing its dominate market position this is what happens when the company controls their platform. In the technical sense, it's not monopoly, but surely if you squint a bit, it looks like it. This is why i am only ever going to produce web based apps. I will not buy into a platform - even android has the same issue, albeit less severe (only because google does not completely control the android ecosystem).
awinter-py 3y ago
baller move for stripe would be to discount the 30%, get all IAP traffic, and then stop paying
alephnan 3y ago
If you don't like making $6.71, the alternative is to make $0 by not selling it on the Apple app store.
- saintfire 3y ago
  Isn't that a defining trait of a monopoly position? "If you don't like it then alternative is your target market is cut by over 50%" Not a great argument. When you essentially have the say as to whether a company can afford to exist then you have serious control over a "free" market.
  - alephnan 3y ago
    What is the target market? IPhone users? What's preventing the developer from shipping their app as a web app? The developer can still reach their target market.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

jacquesm 3y ago

Oh absolutely it is. But all app store developers are complicit in enabling that monopoly. What should happen is that all app store developers withdraw their apps until Apple sees the light. But that won't happen because every app store developer will be pitted against their competition in a race to the bottom who will accept the highest fees that Apple is going to impose and sooner or later you'll be back at that 30% or you'll go without income. Solidarity is what drives change, without solidarity you're without a chance.

aaomidi 3y ago
Victim blaming and expects a mass market behavior change is not good, or realistic.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Victims don't normally collaborate with their abuser. edit: here's one of the 'victims': https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39022303 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39022303
  - mindwok 3y ago
    Actually yes, they do. That's what makes it abusive - the victim doesn't have the power, control, or will, to simply walk away.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      I think this does a disservice to actual victims of actual crimes. This is at most a business dispute over fees. The app store developers were cautioned that throwing their lot in with Apple (and let's not forget Google) would eventually lead to a situation where Apple controlled their business and could charge whatever they wanted. But the money was good and so the walled garden App stores became entrenched. But in principle they were always broken. This is why unions are a thing. They create collective bargaining power. If all of the app store vendors would unite they'd have a formidable position vis-a-vis Apple, Google etc. And there is no reason why app store developers could not form such a collective to increase their bargaining power. You must have seen it mentioned on HN before: don't build your house in someone else's garden or something to that effect, in other words: if you make all of your income in someone else's eco system you are giving them a lot of power over your business. That's a bad move, but if you have to do it make sure you have a lot of friends, just in case.
      - SllX 3y ago
        To be fair, Apple doesn’t actually charge more than they did on Day 1. In some cases they charge less. > And there is no reason why app store developers could not form such a collective to increase their bargaining power. This is also where you lose me entirely. You’re basically talking about unionizing independent businesses. Just call it a cartel. That’s the word you’re looking for.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        > Just call it a cartel. That’s the word you’re looking for. No, a cartel is something different entirely. A cartel is a bunch of businesses that set the price for a market, not a collective that serves to increase the bargaining position of individual entities that are too weak to do so on their own power. Cartels are all about price fixing while keeping the competition out.
        SllX 3y ago
        That’s a nice spin and I see why you’re determined to use nicer terminology, but in this case it’s a cartel, so own it since it’s your idea here. The aim is to fix a price, and the price you are trying to set is the price at which another business buys units of your software or services for resell. The price is 30% of purchase, 30% of in-app purchases, 30% of in-app subscriptions for the first year of an individual unit’s subscription term and then 15% for subsequent terms[1]. If you use a separate payment processor, you can reduce these figures by 3 percentage points. That’s the price, and their right to charge it has been upheld, but your proposal is to band together the small, medium and large businesses that virtually fill the App Store and have them War Doctor around going “No more!” or dictate a lower price. That’s collusion, that’s price fixing, that’s a cartel. [1]: through some silly chicanery requiring an application process, and only if your business earns $1M or less a year. Apple may be within their rights but damn do they make themselves look bad when it comes to this shit.
  - aaomidi 3y ago
    > Victims don't normally collaborate with their abuser. Lmao, except, they literally do. This is why leaving an abusive relationship is so fucking hard. Android and iOS have an abusive relationship with developers.
- __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
  If you can legitimately blame the middle of a pyramid scheme for tolerating the top, you can blame app developers for tolerating apple. Both do so at the expense of those at the bottom.
nicoburns 3y ago
What should happen is that governments regulate these policies out of existence (or into sensibility). We already do this for things like credit card processing fees (in Europe) and it works well.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Yes, that would be good. This goes for all predatory businessmodels, especially the ones where bait-and-switch is used to gain market share and then to change the model (looking at you, Youtube).
jamil7 3y ago
This is a weird take. It’s similar to saying workers pre unionisation and labour movements were complicit in enabling poor working conditions.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  App store developers are suppliers, they don't work for Apple nor do they have to work for Apple. Technically Apple re-sells their product. But they could and should unite in order to increase their bargaining power. You see the same with every supermarket chain. But what I think would happen is that there would be enough hold-outs from such an effort that Apple would come out on top because the players in the eco -system are more in competition with each other than that they really mind Apple. They want to pay Apple less but they want to put their competition out of business even more...
  - threeseed 3y ago
    There are tens of millions [1] of App Store developers you will need to coordinate. Where you think of organising a rally or just an email campaign ? [1] https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/19/23730302/apple-app-store-transparency-report-2022# https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/19/23730302/apple-app-store-...
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      In the age of the internet I think reaching tens of millions of individuals is not as hard as it used to be. A Reddit post announcing a boycott of the App store by a few hundred or a few thousand initial App developers with enough lead time for the message to spread would be a fine starting point. I'm sure it would be all over the globe by morning. I just posited the idea here in NL at 2:30 in the morning and you, somewhere else entirely have already heard of it. That mechanism could be vastly improved upon but I think the principle is sound as your average cat meme has proven thousands of times by now.
      - BadHumans 3y ago
threeseed 3y ago
I suspect that after 15 years of the App Store existing most developers know the score. And so by all means withdraw your app but the rest of us will simply continue to pay the 15/30% as we have always done.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Yes, this is exactly what enables Apple to do what they do and proves my suspicion: that there are enough developers that do not see this as a problem that things would likely remain as they are. Let's be happy that dockworkers had more spine than that.
  - HatchedLake721 3y ago
    There was side-loading on Symbian and Windows Mobile phones before iPhone and the App Store existed. You know what the experience was in one word? Shit. For both developers and consumers. Then comes Apple with amazing hardware, software and APIs with focus on developer experience. Developers decide to ditch side-loading & stuff like xda-developers in favor of 30% fees to develop for iOS (and then Android) because it’s so amazing for them and the consumers. It got to the stage where developers were so happy with the 30% fee and Apple/Google duopoly, many even didn’t even try to develop anything for other mobile OS’s including the Windows Phone store. Microsoft tried to fund app developers and spent millions, without much luck. No modern apps, no consumers, no sales. Microsoft then had no other option than to admit defeat, write off billions and shut down the era of Windows on mobile phone devices. Even Epic never released Unreal Engine on Windows Phone, and cries the loudest today about the duopoly they helped to build. So now you’re saying after abandoning side-loading, agreeing to 30% fees for an access to a worldwide billion people marketplace, suddenly after 15 years it’s terrible and we should go back to side-loading again, because greedy Apple?
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      Yes, RMS warned about that. Convenience comes at a price. The question is whether or not it is worth it. Apple seems to have convinced enough developers and enough consumers that it is. I disagree which is why all of my stuff is 100% web based (and it even works off-line), but I don't begrudge others their income. At the same time I do think that Apple is abusing its position, but since it was obvious they were gearing up to do just that from day #1 you can only blame them for about half of it with the remainder divided between the devs and the consumers.
lapcat 3y ago
There are so many problems with this take. Here are a few: 1) Many App Store apps are completely free, paying nothing to Apple except the $99 per year fee, so they have no stake in this issue. 2) My understanding is that more than 90% of developers in the App Store make less than $1 million per year and thus are covered by the Small Business Program, which charges only 15% rather than 30%. Revenue in the App Store is extremely top-heavy, with most going to a relatively small number of the top developers (such as Epic, previously). How much are developers willing to risk just to lower the 15% cut somewhat? 3) Let's be clear, you're talking about a strike. Many developers derive their entire income from the App Store, so withdrawing their apps means no income. A wealthy corporation such as Epic can survive, but what about little indie developers? 4) An individual developer uniterally striking would be futile and self-destructive. Developers would need to be organized and all strike simultaneously. 5) Strikes are very difficult to organize. Forming a union almost always has to come first. And union members typically work together in the same building, which greatly facilitates organization. Whereas there are a huge number of App Store developers scattered all around the world, and they speak different languages. How would you even communicate with all of them to organize? (EDIT: I see in another comment that you think it's easy as spreading cat memes. That's not a serious suggestion.)
- jacquesm 3y ago
  > 1) Many App Store apps are completely free, paying nothing to Apple except the $99 per year fee, so they have no stake in this issue. I don't see that as a problem. > 2) My understanding is that more than 90% of developers in the App Store make less than $1 million per year and thus are covered by the Small Business Program, which charges only 15% rather than 30%. Revenue in the App Store is extremely top-heavy, with most going to a relatively small number of the top developers (such as Epic, previously). How much are developers willing to risk just to lower the 15% cut somewhat? I can't answer that question for any particular developer. But if my PSP charged me 15% I'd be looking for another one and if my PSP arranged for things in such a way that I'd owe them anyway by virtue of developing for a particular piece of hardware that they already sold and made their profits on I'd go and do something else with my time. Which is why pianojacq.com is on the web and free instead of an App in the App store because that way Apple/Google don't get to increase their grip on the market regardless of whether or not it is free. I disagree with their business model to the point that I'm not partaking in it at all. > 3) Let's be clear, you're talking about a strike. Many developers derive their entire income from the App Store, so withdrawing their apps means no income. A wealthy corporation such as Epic can survive, but what about little indie developers? What about those poor dockworkers? Any kind of battle with the likes of Apple (or your merchant marine overlord) comes at a price. In some cases people died to fight for their rights. 'little indie developers' are still business owners who will either stand up for their rights or they will have to live with the consequences of not doing so. More likely: those that do stand up for their rights will find themselves kicked out of the App store (monopoly power abuse...) and their competition will thrive. > 4) An individual developer uniterally striking would be futile and self-destructive. Developers would need to be organized and all strike simultaneously. Yes, you got it. That's exactly what they should do. > 5) Strikes are very difficult to organize. Forming a union almost always has to come first. And union members typically work together in the same building, which greatly facilitates organization. Whereas there are a huge number of App Store developers scattered all around the world, and they speak different languages. How would you even communicate with all of them to organize? I would start with looking for places where App developers congregate and start spreading the message (SO / HN / Reddit / whatever remains of /. / any other forum), write a bunch of press releases and build a movement, then, when the numbers are there for the GADA (the Global Appstore Developer Association) I'd announce the first collective action and take it from there. It will be work, but so what, if you think it is worth it then it's worth doing well. As for language barriers and such: there's an app for that...
dylan604 3y ago
How is this any different from brick&mortar big box retailers beating on their suppliers to lower their wholesale prices to the point they can only make a profit with large volume in sales? I guarantee you that 70% of your MSRP is way more than selling in a store.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  It is no different, which is why suppliers to such stores routinely collaborate if they feel that they are being squeezed too much. It is also why house brands are a thing.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    and yet this has been happening long before Apple and App Stores were a thing, and nobody has been sued to stop it. Also, as some other comment has pointed out, the % Apple takes is from their role as one manager. Ask an actor or sports ball player what happens if they don't pay their manager the % owed. I just haven't figured out why software devs think they are so special that they don't have to pay to play. I have seen no honest answers to this other than Apple === BAD. Devs are pretty much "all monies are belong to us"
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      Whether it is fair or not is for the App store developers to work out, I'm not one of them and as long as these are walled gardens I never will be.
- ralmidani 3y ago
  One difference: physical goods suppliers can theoretically choose to sell and deliver direct any of their goods to any consumer willing to pay for them. With the app store, at least in the US, the captive audience can’t side-load, and now Apple is introducing even more absurdity with its bad faith “revision” to the policy.
  - dylan604 3y ago
newsclues 3y ago
“Solidarity is what drives change” Sounds like commie bullshit.
- nirvdrum 3y ago
  Organized labor has effected plenty of change, both directly and indirectly. Safer working conditions, 40 hour work weeks, sick time, pay raises, etc.. Companies without unionized employees are incentivized to offer reasonable work conditions and benefits to stave off unionization. This has all happened under capitalism.
NoPicklez 3y ago
That is a ridiculous statement. Just because developers have fallen victim does not mean they should all pull their apps. How would you suggest that all impacted developers go about coordinating such a strike? Solidarity is very difficult to achieve in a large enough consensus to a point where people would pull their apps.

thedangler 3y ago

[flagged]

threeseed 3y ago
And how about the chargeback fees ? Apple covers those on behalf of the developer.

xuki 3y ago

Apple need the 30% to keep the services revenue up to keep the stock price up. I have no doubt many people at Apple know this is wrong, including the people at the very top, but stock must not go down.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
What is the right amount of profit margin? Would this apply to households too?
- stefan_ 3y ago
  It's obviously not 30%, because on top of this you better pay for ads on your app name or have your competitor show up on searches for your app. I always had a mild smile for the tales of the "secure refined Apple store" but seeing the reality has been a bigger shock than I expected. It's a scam haven.
- lxgr 3y ago
  Whatever the market is willing to pay. We don’t know what that is, since there currently is no market.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    The market obviously exists. Apple is the seller, numerous other businesses are buyers, and they are buying, hence the current amount is an amount "the market" is willing to pay.
    - lxgr 3y ago
      And how do we call a market with only one seller and no chance of competitors entering the market? Sure, technically it's still a market, but I wouldn't consider it a remotely efficient one to do price discovery.
- zamadatix 3y ago
  I would say there isn't such a thing as "the right amount of profit margin" as much as there is "the right way to secure a profit margin". The more your margin is able to exist because competition isn't allowed the less right it is, be it 1% or 99% in absolute terms.

onethought 3y ago

How can the “second most popular phone” have a monopoly?

earthling8118 3y ago
You don't have to be the most popular to be a monopoly. Not even close.
- onethought 3y ago
  I think I misunderstand what mono implies in monopoly then. If there is another - more popular provider. Isn’t it at the very least a duopoly? Or are we redefining words now?
  - lxgr 3y ago
    Can I use the Google Play store on my iPhone? If not, there is no other provider competing with Apple in the market that is “selling apps to iPhone users”. Whether that’s a market considered relevant from an antitrust point of view is the big question.
    - old_hat 3y ago
      I can't use another company's GPS system in my car, so in the market of, "Using GPS navigation / menus / etc in my 10 year old Mini's dashboard" there's no meaningful competitor. They charge for map updates and everything. At some point a company is just building a feature, and they're not required to make every single feature accomodate every other manufacturer's competing version of the feature. I knew I was buying the Mini system when I bought the car, and I accepted it. Same is true for iPhone users.
      - lxgr 3y ago
        > I knew I was buying the Mini system when I bought the car, and I accepted it. "Knowing that you're buying into a monopoly" is generally not a valid defense for a monopolist. The idea is that there can be a disadvantage/harmful impact to market participants even despite their full knowledge of the market structure (which isn't even a given for retail consumers). But generally, I agree: There are definitely many closed ecosystems/non-competitive "markets" like the ones you describe, and more often than not, regulators don't step in. Who knows, maybe regulators will address that market at some point! The EU DMA doesn't seem to obviously not apply in this scenario, for example. Several factors for why I'd consider that case to be a bit different though: - Many car entertainment systems now offer you to connect an iPhone or Android phone and use CarPlay or Android Auto for navigation. You can reasonably use the car's navigation functionality (GPS antenna, voice output, built-in screen that won't hit your head in an accident) without paying the car manufacturer! - If your car doesn't allow that, or you don't want to use Apple's or Google's solutions, you can stick a physical aftermarket navigation system to your windshield/ventilation grill. - There isn't a single car maker that controls roughly half of the US market.

lolinder 3y ago

This was always what the outcome was going to look like. People have been talking ever since the ruling as though dodging Apple as a payment processor was going to magically exempt developers from the full 30% fee, but that was never going to happen and it was never the intention of the ruling. Apple argued from the very beginning that the 30% was its fee for running the App Store, marketing the apps, and storing and delivering the app bundles. The in-app payment system was a convenient way for Apple to collect its commission and a way for Apple to create a unified payment experience for its customers, but it was never the Achilles heel for Apple's business model. The best case scenario here is that Apple is forced to walk back some of the more onerous requirements they've imposed for whether and how links may be shown. Them putting a price on the payment processor portion of the fee and discounting developers for that portion was inevitable and isn't even malicious compliance, the judge explicitly called this out as a likely outcome in the original ruling: > First, and most significant, as discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple’s intellectual property. Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission. > In such a hypothetical world, developers could potentially avoid the commission while benefitting from Apple's innovation and intellectual property free of charge. The Court presumes that in such circumstances that Apple may rely on imposing and utilizing a contractual right to audit developers annual accounting to ensure compliance with its commissions, among other methods. Of course, any alternatives to IAP (including the foregoing) would seemingly impose both increased monetary and time costs to both Apple and the developers. https://casetext.com/case/epic-games-inc-v-apple-inc-2 https://casetext.com/case/epic-games-inc-v-apple-inc-2

enragedcacti 3y ago
> Apple argued from the very beginning that the 30% was its fee for running the App Store, marketing the apps, and storing and delivering the app bundles. The in-app payment system was a convenient way for Apple to collect its commission and a way for Apple to create a unified payment experience for its customers, but it was never the Achilles heel for Apple's business model. Is it just me or does this argument seem insanely flimsy? If Apple were serious about it then why aren't they charging free apps for downloads and approvals? Why doesn't the developer policy require Netflix to pay 30% of subscriptions for anyone who signs in on an Apple device? Why are the prices lower for "reader" apps who presumably cause Apple to incur similar costs? Its like a toll road arguing "no, driving on the road is free of course, we just charge at the entrance and exit for the privilege of looking at the toll road". What does it take for the legal system to be able to call BS on a claim like that?

babypuncher 3y ago

As a user, if I go to buy something in an app and it asks me to punch in my credit card number or sign in to some payment processor instead of just the usual "double click to apple pay", there is a very high chance i will just change my mind.

wraptile 3y ago
What if you got 30% discount? 2 minutes of work. If that didn't work Apple wouldn't spend so much effort fighting this.
- babypuncher 3y ago
  A 30% discount changes things, though for most developers it would be closer to a 10% discount, since they normally only pay Apple 15% and still need to cover the 2-5% their alternative payment processor charges. If it's a recurring payment (i.e. subscription), I would still be inclined to pay the full Apple price simply because they make subscription management much easier than anybody else.

hyuuu 3y ago

apple just has really good marketing and massive support from its fanboys, compared to the olden days of Microsoft monopolistic behavior, Microsoft is less shiny with less loyal foot soldiers.

epistasis 3y ago

Just wait until you see what you have to do to get your food product onto super market shelves... And grocery stores are not even considered a monopoly! Edit: which is not say that there should be an "is" vs. "ought" conflation. Just that it's unlikely that this situation is going to be changed through courts. Other routes: legislation and regulation to establish a new social norm, or as Jacquesm has been advocating here, collective bargaining. But as an App Store consumer, and a developer of other sorts of tools, I don't really care at all about the developer-Apple split and am not the least bit excited by whatever might happen should that switch to, say, 99% going to the developer. Even if developers dropped prices 30%, I would have a hard time caring!

maximus-decimus 3y ago
But imagine buying your food directly from a farm and having to pay a 27% cut to the grocery store anyway.
- epistasis 3y ago
  My experience at farmers markets tells me that I would be paying more than 100% more for the privilege of interacting with somebody that gets employed by the farmer instead of somebody employed by the store. The analogy would work better if the grocery store sold me some sort of platform for cooking food, that only worked with certain types of food... I don't know, it's hard to find the analogy compelling at all. People develop for the App Store because they get access to a particular customer base. I could definitely support some sort of customer protection that forces side loading options (but they must be options and easy to disable and hard to enable, otherwise it destroys one of the best aspects of the phone.) But as far as caring for slight changes in percentages for app developers, well, I don't care about that one bit at all, anymore than I care about Apple getting a "fair" deal from the other businesses it interacts with.

chii 3y ago

> a monopoly abusing its dominate market position this is what happens when the company controls their platform. In the technical sense, it's not monopoly, but surely if you squint a bit, it looks like it. This is why i am only ever going to produce web based apps. I will not buy into a platform - even android has the same issue, albeit less severe (only because google does not completely control the android ecosystem).

awinter-py 3y ago

baller move for stripe would be to discount the 30%, get all IAP traffic, and then stop paying

alephnan 3y ago

If you don't like making $6.71, the alternative is to make $0 by not selling it on the Apple app store.

saintfire 3y ago
Isn't that a defining trait of a monopoly position? "If you don't like it then alternative is your target market is cut by over 50%" Not a great argument. When you essentially have the say as to whether a company can afford to exist then you have serious control over a "free" market.
- alephnan 3y ago
  What is the target market? IPhone users? What's preventing the developer from shipping their app as a web app? The developer can still reach their target market.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]