7 ms·

I have difficulty following this argument, especially the "stealing" part. App Store does not just randomly take money from the devs. App Store also provides a

by ribit 3y ago

I have difficulty following this argument, especially the "stealing" part. App Store does not just randomly take money from the devs. App Store also provides a service. They do world-wide payment and VAT processing, refund processing, discovery, distribution, user login management, APIs, distributed cloud storage, etc. It costs money to run these things. As a small-time developer, I think this is a great deal for 15%. At the price levels of most small apps it would cost more to use a payment processor + hiring an accountant, not to mention the extra work involved in setting up and maintaining these things. For behemoth like Epic — sure, the "Apple tax" hurts, they'd rather gouge their customers without Apple's involvement. But frankly, I don't see any reason to punish one multi-billion corporation just so other multi-billion corporation can make more money. I care primarily about the interest of the small-time developers. And this is the point that should be made more often IMO — App Stores (and Apple bing one of the first ones) have democratized software development by making the barrier of entry extremely low. Anyone with some talent or idea can go and write an app, without any additional financial risk. App Store is based around sharing your success. The relatively few successful devs carry the costs to keep that barrier of entry low to everyone. And I really don't want that to change. On a serious notes, what are the alternatives? What exactly is your argument? That Apple should be charging nothing? Ok, then they also shouldn't be providing any services. You want to do distribution or payment processing? Take care of it yourself. Epic would love this of course, Joe the indie developer instead is dead in the water. Or are you arguing that Apple is charging too much? Well, there are solutions to that as well. They could charge for services individually for example, but that again hurts the small developer, because trying out things starts costing them money. Frankly, my idea would be to split the App Store into a separate commercial entity and make it nonprofit. I am sympathetic to the argument that the Store itself is not a product but is used to support and create value for Apple's ecosystem. I do think that the devs should pay for running the store, and I like the current success-based model and it's low barrier of entry for new devs, so basing the fees on actual operating costs seems like a good compromise. Of course, similar considerations should apply to other stores as well.

Aerbil313 3y ago
Well written. It can be argued that Apple also develops the OS and UI libraries which the apps run on/with, which is also providing something.
jdkoeck 3y ago
Again, it’s crazy people defend Apple on this. Apple is not just providing a payment platform, it’s forcing you to use it. As a developer, you should be free to use any payment platform you want in your app, like on the web. Let the user decide. End of story.
- maccard 3y ago
  > Let the user decide. End of story. The value proposition of iOS is that the app store is the place to go, and that my experience will be seamless. I want a centralised place to manage my subscriptions. Here's an example: I subscribed to NYT Cooking in the web a few years back. I went to cancel only to find out that I have to phone them. If I subscribed on an app store it would have been one click and done. I'm actually still subscribed to it. Why is your choice more important than my choice?
  - nprateem 3y ago
    Yeah that's perfectly reasonable. Of course it makes everything easier. It's also practically impossible to compete against which is what gives apple this unfair advantage, making their 30% cut obscene. They're making it due to being first, technical issues aside.
  - ric2b 3y ago
    Right, so you'd use the app store by choice, so why should Apple force you to?
    - maccard 3y ago
      The first move that will come out of this will be a Meta store for "all your meta products". You won't have the choice of Instagram on the App store or Instagram on the Meta store, you'll have Instagram on the Meta store. This won't be a choice for users, this will be a choice for large developers.
      - ric2b 3y ago
pcnix 3y ago
The problem is that we place a responsibility on competition in the market to favor consumers by reducing prices and preventing companies from having excessive margins. Allowing a single marketplace means there's no competition, and we're not sure if 15% is a fair rate at all. I could make the assertion that I'd be able to provide everything that Apple does, but with a much lower cut, but this can't be put to the test because there's no way for me to start another app store that iPhone users can access. I suspect a lot of the arguments for the 15% cut will change once we have alternate app stores offering the same things Apple does, but with a much lower cut. You'll then see app developers with skin in the game, and we'll know if everyone actually really thinks Apple does this better or if they'd rather have the extra money from other app stores.
- ribit 3y ago
  Do you really think that there will be more competition? I fear what will happen is that the big corps will set their own stores to distribute their own apps, and that's pretty much it. The user won't see any difference in pricing. The small dev will be hurt because each store will make less money and will likely implement price increases to compensate.
  - ryanbrunner 3y ago
    We don't have to speculate - the desktop OS world has exactly this structure - an open ecosystem with a first party app store that ships with the OS, but the ability for other app stores to exist or even for developers to ship their products independently. In practice you still see a decent amount of activity on the official app store, along with some other major app stores, and a relatively small amount of independent distribution. There's still a good amount of small independent developers shipping apps (both on the stores and independently), and there's not a ton of evidence of price increases - in fact there's a very large amount of free software being distributed.
    - ribit 3y ago
      Desktop marker and smartphone software markets are very different. There are many more small utility apps for the smartphones for example, while desktop is more open. Discoverability in particular is a huge issue for a small desktop app developer. I don't think comparing to desktop is a good example. On the other hand, desktop app market does illustrate the point I am making — big corporations running their own "stores" to the user disadvantage. And don't let me start about horrible installers that companies like Adobe or Microsoft ship which will change your system configuration and litter your filesystem with random crap.
commandersaki 3y ago
The alternative is Apple allows side loading so that you can buy software independently of the App Store , and sellers can distribute independently of the App Store.
- ribit 3y ago
  I am ok with side loading. Of course, side loaded apps would need to be sandboxes for security reasons and should not be allowed to access basic services like calendar, contacts or iCloud.
CogitoCogito 3y ago
> On a serious notes, what are the alternatives? What exactly is your argument? That Apple should be charging nothing? The alternative is “competition”. In any case, I don’t see how any of this affects you since you’re happy paying Apple the fees. You can keep doing so as others pursue other options once they’re available.
dns_snek 3y ago
> You want to do distribution or payment processing? Take care of it yourself. Yes! That's exactly what everyone wants. > Joe the indie developer instead is dead in the water. No, Joe the indie developer will happily use one of the most popular alternative app stores that fits their needs and doesn't rip them off with fees.
- ribit 3y ago
  > No, Joe the indie developer will happily use one of the most popular alternative app stores that fits their needs and doesn't rip them off with fees. What would these be? Last time I checked, the "champion of the people" Epyc charges 12% and pushes the charges for some payment methods onto the buyer. And it seems like they still haven't turned profitable, even with their bare-bones store model. Stripe (one of the most popular payment processors) will take 9% from a 5$ purchase just for payment processing. This doesn't include tax processing or any other stuff, all that you have to pay extra. A customer wants a refund? You are eating the cost. I just don't understand how any of this stuff people are talking about is realistic. I am not aware of a single commercial payment processing solution that will end up under 12-15% for small charges, while offering much less value to both the developer and the user compared to App Store. And I don't understand why people expect that this solution will suddenly magically pop up if Apple allows alternative stores.
  - dns_snek 3y ago
    The lack of competition and alternative options is the core issue here. Free market competition will figure it out, that's the simple answer. One developer might be operating on effectively infinite margins and opt to stay in the Apple app store for visibility and most familiar experience. Another might participate in an alternative app store that charges a review fee, a distribution fee but doesn't charge anything for in-app purchases except baseline payment processing fees. Yet another might be operating on razor-thin margins and/or doesn't need to participate in an app store for visibility, they might sell their app directly through their website and roll their own payments and distribution. > Stripe (one of the most popular payment processors) will take 9% from a 5$ purchase just for payment processing. We might as well treat this as 0 when discussing alternative options since it's an inescapable fact of selling things anywhere (cash and crypto aside)
wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
It's actually annoying that the refunds and VAT are handled. For small international developers, under 500K per year spread out over several states & countries, often they don't have to pay VAT in most international places, so they lose an extra 20-22%. For instance most US states won't require you to pay VAT under 100K revenue if you are from another country. Same for refunds & subscription management, often clients will ask you, but you have zero control with Apple. Let alone 60 days before being paid, where stripe does it in a few days.
- ribit 3y ago
  This is a great point and I think it illustrates the drawbacks of centralized store. I think an argument can be made that App Store is an important part of the developer experience and as such they are entitled to have a voice in what features it should prioritize. The thing is, I fully agree that the model has to change and adapt. There has to be more transparency, more accountability, and these stores have to improve in a way that best fits the interests of the developers and the users. I just don't think that third-party stores or unrestricted side loading will do anything like that — in fact, I fear that they will make things considerably worse.
- jim180 3y ago
  The threshold is 10k€ in the EU. So, way less than 500k
  - wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
    Yeah EU is stricter, but for lot of my clients US is a large market, without they themselves being in the US. If you are EU based then it's cheaper to pay EU tax and not US tax.

by ribit 3y ago

Aerbil313 3y ago

Well written. It can be argued that Apple also develops the OS and UI libraries which the apps run on/with, which is also providing something.

jdkoeck 3y ago

Again, it’s crazy people defend Apple on this. Apple is not just providing a payment platform, it’s forcing you to use it. As a developer, you should be free to use any payment platform you want in your app, like on the web. Let the user decide. End of story.

maccard 3y ago
> Let the user decide. End of story. The value proposition of iOS is that the app store is the place to go, and that my experience will be seamless. I want a centralised place to manage my subscriptions. Here's an example: I subscribed to NYT Cooking in the web a few years back. I went to cancel only to find out that I have to phone them. If I subscribed on an app store it would have been one click and done. I'm actually still subscribed to it. Why is your choice more important than my choice?
- nprateem 3y ago
  Yeah that's perfectly reasonable. Of course it makes everything easier. It's also practically impossible to compete against which is what gives apple this unfair advantage, making their 30% cut obscene. They're making it due to being first, technical issues aside.
- ric2b 3y ago
  Right, so you'd use the app store by choice, so why should Apple force you to?
  - maccard 3y ago
    The first move that will come out of this will be a Meta store for "all your meta products". You won't have the choice of Instagram on the App store or Instagram on the Meta store, you'll have Instagram on the Meta store. This won't be a choice for users, this will be a choice for large developers.
    - ric2b 3y ago

pcnix 3y ago

The problem is that we place a responsibility on competition in the market to favor consumers by reducing prices and preventing companies from having excessive margins. Allowing a single marketplace means there's no competition, and we're not sure if 15% is a fair rate at all. I could make the assertion that I'd be able to provide everything that Apple does, but with a much lower cut, but this can't be put to the test because there's no way for me to start another app store that iPhone users can access. I suspect a lot of the arguments for the 15% cut will change once we have alternate app stores offering the same things Apple does, but with a much lower cut. You'll then see app developers with skin in the game, and we'll know if everyone actually really thinks Apple does this better or if they'd rather have the extra money from other app stores.

ribit 3y ago
Do you really think that there will be more competition? I fear what will happen is that the big corps will set their own stores to distribute their own apps, and that's pretty much it. The user won't see any difference in pricing. The small dev will be hurt because each store will make less money and will likely implement price increases to compensate.
- ryanbrunner 3y ago
  We don't have to speculate - the desktop OS world has exactly this structure - an open ecosystem with a first party app store that ships with the OS, but the ability for other app stores to exist or even for developers to ship their products independently. In practice you still see a decent amount of activity on the official app store, along with some other major app stores, and a relatively small amount of independent distribution. There's still a good amount of small independent developers shipping apps (both on the stores and independently), and there's not a ton of evidence of price increases - in fact there's a very large amount of free software being distributed.
  - ribit 3y ago
    Desktop marker and smartphone software markets are very different. There are many more small utility apps for the smartphones for example, while desktop is more open. Discoverability in particular is a huge issue for a small desktop app developer. I don't think comparing to desktop is a good example. On the other hand, desktop app market does illustrate the point I am making — big corporations running their own "stores" to the user disadvantage. And don't let me start about horrible installers that companies like Adobe or Microsoft ship which will change your system configuration and litter your filesystem with random crap.

commandersaki 3y ago

The alternative is Apple allows side loading so that you can buy software independently of the App Store , and sellers can distribute independently of the App Store.

ribit 3y ago
I am ok with side loading. Of course, side loaded apps would need to be sandboxes for security reasons and should not be allowed to access basic services like calendar, contacts or iCloud.

CogitoCogito 3y ago

> On a serious notes, what are the alternatives? What exactly is your argument? That Apple should be charging nothing? The alternative is “competition”. In any case, I don’t see how any of this affects you since you’re happy paying Apple the fees. You can keep doing so as others pursue other options once they’re available.

dns_snek 3y ago

> You want to do distribution or payment processing? Take care of it yourself. Yes! That's exactly what everyone wants. > Joe the indie developer instead is dead in the water. No, Joe the indie developer will happily use one of the most popular alternative app stores that fits their needs and doesn't rip them off with fees.

ribit 3y ago
> No, Joe the indie developer will happily use one of the most popular alternative app stores that fits their needs and doesn't rip them off with fees. What would these be? Last time I checked, the "champion of the people" Epyc charges 12% and pushes the charges for some payment methods onto the buyer. And it seems like they still haven't turned profitable, even with their bare-bones store model. Stripe (one of the most popular payment processors) will take 9% from a 5$ purchase just for payment processing. This doesn't include tax processing or any other stuff, all that you have to pay extra. A customer wants a refund? You are eating the cost. I just don't understand how any of this stuff people are talking about is realistic. I am not aware of a single commercial payment processing solution that will end up under 12-15% for small charges, while offering much less value to both the developer and the user compared to App Store. And I don't understand why people expect that this solution will suddenly magically pop up if Apple allows alternative stores.
- dns_snek 3y ago
  The lack of competition and alternative options is the core issue here. Free market competition will figure it out, that's the simple answer. One developer might be operating on effectively infinite margins and opt to stay in the Apple app store for visibility and most familiar experience. Another might participate in an alternative app store that charges a review fee, a distribution fee but doesn't charge anything for in-app purchases except baseline payment processing fees. Yet another might be operating on razor-thin margins and/or doesn't need to participate in an app store for visibility, they might sell their app directly through their website and roll their own payments and distribution. > Stripe (one of the most popular payment processors) will take 9% from a 5$ purchase just for payment processing. We might as well treat this as 0 when discussing alternative options since it's an inescapable fact of selling things anywhere (cash and crypto aside)

wouldbecouldbe 3y ago

It's actually annoying that the refunds and VAT are handled. For small international developers, under 500K per year spread out over several states & countries, often they don't have to pay VAT in most international places, so they lose an extra 20-22%. For instance most US states won't require you to pay VAT under 100K revenue if you are from another country. Same for refunds & subscription management, often clients will ask you, but you have zero control with Apple. Let alone 60 days before being paid, where stripe does it in a few days.

ribit 3y ago
This is a great point and I think it illustrates the drawbacks of centralized store. I think an argument can be made that App Store is an important part of the developer experience and as such they are entitled to have a voice in what features it should prioritize. The thing is, I fully agree that the model has to change and adapt. There has to be more transparency, more accountability, and these stores have to improve in a way that best fits the interests of the developers and the users. I just don't think that third-party stores or unrestricted side loading will do anything like that — in fact, I fear that they will make things considerably worse.
jim180 3y ago
The threshold is 10k€ in the EU. So, way less than 500k
- wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
  Yeah EU is stricter, but for lot of my clients US is a large market, without they themselves being in the US. If you are EU based then it's cheaper to pay EU tax and not US tax.