3 ms·

＞ the idea that simply using a different payment processor would remove the entirety of the 30% commission was always a pipe dream The idea wasn't to use third

＞ the idea that simply using a different payment processor would remove the entirety of the 30% commission was always a pipe dream The idea wasn't to use third party processors as an argument to evade the fee, it was the other way round. Front and center Epic wanted to get rid of or strongly lower the fee, and as a consequence developers would probably have had to use other processors. The judge shut this down by legitimizing Apple's 30%, which as a consequent allows Apple to collect that money however the dev processes their customers, third party PSP or not.

lolinder 3y ago
Right, it wasn't Epic's pipe dream, but somehow that's the idea that got popularized on HN and elsewhere. For example, just a few hours ago the comments on the thread about the Supreme Court's declining to hear the case [0] were mostly operating on the assumption that developers would now be able to offer a substantial discount for people selling off the App Store. That only works if developers actually could save significant money by selling through alternate storefronts, which was never going to be possible because Apple was always going to pick something approximately market rate as their valuation for the payment processor portion of the fee. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39014642 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39014642 For example: > It seems easy to kind of shrug at this, but this does seem quite significant because of many mobile apps are 'free to play.' Apple pocketing 30% of all of these transactions, and forcing users/devs to go through Apple, is a major part of its revenue. And all of those apps now have the option to direct users to alternative payment methods, where they can both charge users substantially less and make more profit doing so.

3 ms·

＞ the idea that simply using a different payment processor would remove the entirety of the 30% commission was always a pipe dream The idea wasn't to use third

by makeitdouble 3y ago

lolinder 3y ago
Right, it wasn't Epic's pipe dream, but somehow that's the idea that got popularized on HN and elsewhere. For example, just a few hours ago the comments on the thread about the Supreme Court's declining to hear the case [0] were mostly operating on the assumption that developers would now be able to offer a substantial discount for people selling off the App Store. That only works if developers actually could save significant money by selling through alternate storefronts, which was never going to be possible because Apple was always going to pick something approximately market rate as their valuation for the payment processor portion of the fee. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39014642 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39014642 For example: > It seems easy to kind of shrug at this, but this does seem quite significant because of many mobile apps are 'free to play.' Apple pocketing 30% of all of these transactions, and forcing users/devs to go through Apple, is a major part of its revenue. And all of those apps now have the option to direct users to alternative payment methods, where they can both charge users substantially less and make more profit doing so.