7 ms·

The problem is not that 30% is too high or too low, the problem is that it shouldn't be a % but a flat fee structure, like every other services ever. If you ha

by nolok 3y ago

The problem is not that 30% is too high or too low, the problem is that it shouldn't be a % but a flat fee structure, like every other services ever. If you have an app tomorrow that sells for $10 to 10k people you owe Apple $30k, now you manage to up your price to $30, same work same size same everything, but suddenly you now owe Apple $90k ? That's called a tax, not a fee. Doing so wouldn't stop apple from having a separate, "pay 30% all inclusive" fee, and it wouldn't stop them from "if your app is free you have no fee" (beside the xcode sub fee).

HatchedLake721 3y ago
> like every other services ever Apple didn’t invent a marketplace. Please have a look how other online and offline marketplaces work and how they monetize access. You can look at anything from Salesforce, Shopify, to Microsoft, Epic Store, PlayStation and your local Target store. Hint - it’s not a flat fee structure.
- nolok 3y ago
  What makes you think I agree any more with any of these ? But as a user I'm able to buy my pc games, my groceries or my music from another store. Apple prohibits me from doing that.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    While true, I think these examples are sufficient to dispute calling it a "tax". "Excessive" or "monopolistic", if you like, but not really a tax.
  - qwytw 3y ago
    Yeah but technically nobody is forcing anyone to use Steam. Yet pretty much all the games are published there and the market has decided that the 30% fee is "fair" (AFAIK they can get away charging even more than Apple on average because there is no 15% tier?)
    - criley2 3y ago
      There is competition for Steam and stores like Epic offer at 12% tier. Developers make substantially more money per sale on Epic than Steam. And the thing is, 30% cut is pointless for Steam. They have more money than they could ever spend. There is no budget at Valve. They just spend whatever they want and do what they want. They rob hardworking small developers of real money that they need to support themselves all so billionaire Gabe N can enjoy the extreme excess of his valve palace
      - HatchedLake721 3y ago
        And Epic admitted that 12% is unsustainable. The rest of your comment is baffling to me. I assume you're neither a shareholder or employee of Steam. But you count their money, you decide for them that their own money is pointless to them, you somehow know how much money they earn, and based on that make assumption it's more than they could ever spend (even though you admit yourself there is no budget at Valve). And how long is "ever" in "than they could ever spend"? 1 year? 5 years? 20 years? 100 years? I very much dislike people who count other people's money, I don't know if it's their own jealousy or greediness. But you on top of that also somehow came to the conclusion that their own money is pointless to them, and then accuse them of robbing people. And this is about marketplace for PC games, a wild west of side-loading and land of free for all. But somehow Steam is robbing developers. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
        criley2 3y ago
        Epic has not admitted that 12% is unsustainable, and the suggestion that it has is so detached from reality that it colors the rest of your comment as being extremely unreliable. You should double check your sources because you fell for low-effort low-intelligence fake journalism. What Sweeney said was that 12% was not viable in developing countries due to high finance costs. https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1091025939109199879 https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/109102593910919987... You dislike people who count private profit margins? I dislike low-information consumers who simp for corporations based on literal fake news. Be better, shame on you.
  - HatchedLake721 3y ago
    It doesn't matter if you personally agree or not how marketplaces monetize. It's up to the people who created these marketplaces to charge what they feel is fair and/or financially sustainable for the value they provide. If it wasn't worth it for the sellers, these marketplaces wouldn't exist today. But they do, and they thrive. If you have a secret sauce how to build a sustainable billion people marketplace after spending billions on it without charging sellers access to your customers, please do it and show the world how it should be done. > Apple prohibits me from doing that Yes, because that's their product, their philosophy and the experience they want their customers to have. And they do that for 15 years already. You knew that and still bought the iPhone. As have hundreds of millions of others. And it still is one of the most popular, highest rated consumer devices in the world for over a decade. So it's not a deal breaker for consumers, is it?
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  Flat fee services are starting to seriously attack percentage based services in the marketplace right now. Sirvoy for hotel bookings, Ticket Tailor for event ticketing, not to mention buy-and-sell marketplaces everywhere. I expect percentage based services to be murdered during this economic recession, as businesses do what they can to survive – including cutting completely useless costs.
- flutas 3y ago
  > Shopify Is a flat fee structure? Basic: $39/mo Shopify: $105/mo Advanced: $399/mo
  - HatchedLake721 3y ago
    I mean the sellers side of the marketplace, not buyers. https://shopify.dev/docs/apps/store/revenue-share https://shopify.dev/docs/apps/store/revenue-share
- fennecfoxy 3y ago
  B-b-but- We can take them all down. We should. Doesn't matter if it's Valve or Steam or Google or whoever. It's only better for consumers and clearly we've let it slide to the point where even us usually cynical HN peeps are apparently willing to defend this predatory and anti-consumer behaviour.
  - dnissley 3y ago
    Apple can do what they want. I want them to be able to do what they want because I'm from America dammit and companies in non-critical segments of the economy like video games and phones should be able to do what works for them. Ain't called the land of the free for nothing. Personally I don't like these practices -- it's all cuz of the walled garden, locked down aspect of it all. But luckily I'm also free to continue avoiding the heck out of Apple devices. They make nice hardware so that sucks that I miss out on that, but I'll take the trade off that I get to install whatever apps I want on this here Android phone of mine.
amelius 3y ago
> The problem is not that 30% is too high or too low, the problem is that it shouldn't be a % but a flat fee structure, like every other services ever. I hate Apple like the next enlightened guy, but then banks and credit card companies should also charge a flat fee for their services. This isn't the case and probably never will be, however. But their fee is much more reasonable than Apple's fee.
- klabb3 3y ago
  There is a lot wrong with banks. In many cases people try to dip in a % when it should be flat. However, with credit the risk is proportional to the loan.

by nolok 3y ago

HatchedLake721 3y ago

> like every other services ever Apple didn’t invent a marketplace. Please have a look how other online and offline marketplaces work and how they monetize access. You can look at anything from Salesforce, Shopify, to Microsoft, Epic Store, PlayStation and your local Target store. Hint - it’s not a flat fee structure.

nolok 3y ago
What makes you think I agree any more with any of these ? But as a user I'm able to buy my pc games, my groceries or my music from another store. Apple prohibits me from doing that.
- ben_w 3y ago
  While true, I think these examples are sufficient to dispute calling it a "tax". "Excessive" or "monopolistic", if you like, but not really a tax.
- qwytw 3y ago
  Yeah but technically nobody is forcing anyone to use Steam. Yet pretty much all the games are published there and the market has decided that the 30% fee is "fair" (AFAIK they can get away charging even more than Apple on average because there is no 15% tier?)
  - criley2 3y ago
    There is competition for Steam and stores like Epic offer at 12% tier. Developers make substantially more money per sale on Epic than Steam. And the thing is, 30% cut is pointless for Steam. They have more money than they could ever spend. There is no budget at Valve. They just spend whatever they want and do what they want. They rob hardworking small developers of real money that they need to support themselves all so billionaire Gabe N can enjoy the extreme excess of his valve palace
    - HatchedLake721 3y ago
      And Epic admitted that 12% is unsustainable. The rest of your comment is baffling to me. I assume you're neither a shareholder or employee of Steam. But you count their money, you decide for them that their own money is pointless to them, you somehow know how much money they earn, and based on that make assumption it's more than they could ever spend (even though you admit yourself there is no budget at Valve). And how long is "ever" in "than they could ever spend"? 1 year? 5 years? 20 years? 100 years? I very much dislike people who count other people's money, I don't know if it's their own jealousy or greediness. But you on top of that also somehow came to the conclusion that their own money is pointless to them, and then accuse them of robbing people. And this is about marketplace for PC games, a wild west of side-loading and land of free for all. But somehow Steam is robbing developers. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
      - criley2 3y ago
        Epic has not admitted that 12% is unsustainable, and the suggestion that it has is so detached from reality that it colors the rest of your comment as being extremely unreliable. You should double check your sources because you fell for low-effort low-intelligence fake journalism. What Sweeney said was that 12% was not viable in developing countries due to high finance costs. https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1091025939109199879 https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/109102593910919987... You dislike people who count private profit margins? I dislike low-information consumers who simp for corporations based on literal fake news. Be better, shame on you.
- HatchedLake721 3y ago
  It doesn't matter if you personally agree or not how marketplaces monetize. It's up to the people who created these marketplaces to charge what they feel is fair and/or financially sustainable for the value they provide. If it wasn't worth it for the sellers, these marketplaces wouldn't exist today. But they do, and they thrive. If you have a secret sauce how to build a sustainable billion people marketplace after spending billions on it without charging sellers access to your customers, please do it and show the world how it should be done. > Apple prohibits me from doing that Yes, because that's their product, their philosophy and the experience they want their customers to have. And they do that for 15 years already. You knew that and still bought the iPhone. As have hundreds of millions of others. And it still is one of the most popular, highest rated consumer devices in the world for over a decade. So it's not a deal breaker for consumers, is it?
carlosjobim 3y ago
Flat fee services are starting to seriously attack percentage based services in the marketplace right now. Sirvoy for hotel bookings, Ticket Tailor for event ticketing, not to mention buy-and-sell marketplaces everywhere. I expect percentage based services to be murdered during this economic recession, as businesses do what they can to survive – including cutting completely useless costs.
flutas 3y ago
> Shopify Is a flat fee structure? Basic: $39/mo Shopify: $105/mo Advanced: $399/mo
- HatchedLake721 3y ago
  I mean the sellers side of the marketplace, not buyers. https://shopify.dev/docs/apps/store/revenue-share https://shopify.dev/docs/apps/store/revenue-share
fennecfoxy 3y ago
B-b-but- We can take them all down. We should. Doesn't matter if it's Valve or Steam or Google or whoever. It's only better for consumers and clearly we've let it slide to the point where even us usually cynical HN peeps are apparently willing to defend this predatory and anti-consumer behaviour.
- dnissley 3y ago
  Apple can do what they want. I want them to be able to do what they want because I'm from America dammit and companies in non-critical segments of the economy like video games and phones should be able to do what works for them. Ain't called the land of the free for nothing. Personally I don't like these practices -- it's all cuz of the walled garden, locked down aspect of it all. But luckily I'm also free to continue avoiding the heck out of Apple devices. They make nice hardware so that sucks that I miss out on that, but I'll take the trade off that I get to install whatever apps I want on this here Android phone of mine.

amelius 3y ago

> The problem is not that 30% is too high or too low, the problem is that it shouldn't be a % but a flat fee structure, like every other services ever. I hate Apple like the next enlightened guy, but then banks and credit card companies should also charge a flat fee for their services. This isn't the case and probably never will be, however. But their fee is much more reasonable than Apple's fee.

klabb3 3y ago
There is a lot wrong with banks. In many cases people try to dip in a % when it should be flat. However, with credit the risk is proportional to the loan.