26 ms·

Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases

• PaulHoule 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • jannyfer 3y ago
    No but he has a wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Sweeney_(game_developer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Sweeney_(game_developer)
• jrochkind1 3y ago
  Can anyone provide a link to context on what OP is talking about, for those who don't know it? I don't understand what Apple is actually doing from this tweet/thread. Are they are somehow managing to force even payment links from ordinary web sites in an ordinary web browser (Safari?) to go through them as payment processor? (How?) Or is this a new rule for app store apps (what is the new rule?) Or a new payment structure for in-app purchases? (what was the change?) Or no change, but pointing out how awful the status quo is? Other?
  • somenameforme 3y ago
    As it seems many are not clear, here is a quick and abbreviated background: The case is primarily about Epic's Fortnite game. Fortnite is free to play, but makes billions of dollars based on in-game microtransactions for things like in-game cosmetics. Apple charges developers 30% on each of these transactions. Epic didn't like this and so started offering users a way to pay on their own site instead of going through Apple, with a large discount. Apple responded by kicking Fortnite off their app store, and so Epic sued them for anticompetitive behavior. The gist of the trial and appeals (to date) is that the judge ruled that Apple must allow developers to advertise non-apple means of payment. So Apple responded to this by allowing developers to include exactly one reference (in the entire program), in plain text (non-hyperlink), to an an outside payment site, and has changed their terms to require that developers must now also pay them 27% off all revenue from these outside transactions as well. Epic is now claiming that this was a bad-faith compliance of the court's ruling, and this will 100% end up in court again. And that's where we are for now.
    • jrochkind1 3y ago
      Thank you! That was a clear easy explanation.
  • PaulHoule 3y ago
    [flagged]
  • lattalayta 3y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39020365 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39020365
  • annoyingnoob 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • dvt 3y ago
      > This is two big corporations arguing over which one makes more profit from you. This slightly oversimplifies the situation, as Apple's policy is pretty clearly anti-competitive and, more importantly, anti-developer. As a developer, you have to bump your prices because of the Apple tax. (And even as a consumer, prices are pushed up. Let's say you want to sell X for $10; too bad: you now have to sell it for $12 if you sell it in your Apple app to make up the difference. The consumer obviously eats that premium.)
      • annoyingnoob 3y ago
        As a developer, if Apple's fees went away, would you drop your price or just make more profit? Prices may have been pushed up but there is little incentive for them to ever come down.
        • djfdat 3y ago
          There would be more room to drop your prices, not saying that people necessarily will. And if they don't, the extra profit goes to developers of the app you are purchasing, rather than the (second?) largest company in the world.
        • atdrummond 3y ago
          That leaves an opening for someone to exploit with a market clearing price.
        • rootusrootus 3y ago
          As I recall, there are examples of things you can purchase both on and off the App Store, and the prices are indeed different. Though that may have more to do with the off-store purchase going directly to the seller and not another app store equivalent.
        • satvikpendem 3y ago
  • threeseed 3y ago
    https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitlement-us/ https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitl... And there is more to this issue than people realise. Apple has had major lawsuits over the years [1] due to kids racking up large credit card bills via in-app purchases. And similar concerns exist for gambling apps. So this explains why they need to show such a large warning because they don't want to be held responsible for actions of a third party. Which is fine because most companies do this. It will also likely be their argument (whether it's true or not) about why they won't allow developers like Epic to offer a third party, one-click, in-app purchasing system and instead force users to go to the home page and take deliberate actions to buy the product. [1] https://appleinsider.com/articles/14/01/15/apple-settles-app-store-in-app-purchase-lawsuit-with-us-government https://appleinsider.com/articles/14/01/15/apple-settles-app...
    • extheat 3y ago
      This sounds even worse for Apple. If it’s too easy to make an in-app purchase, why don’t they make it harder to complete one by adding password requirement for payments through their App Store? Of course they won’t do that because it hurts /their/ bottom line. Following this logic, letting people complete payments outside of Apples control should absolve Apple of the legal liabilities between payments made between the user and a third party. If this is not the case, can you sue Apple for unauthorized payments made over Safari?
      • NoPedantsThanks 3y ago
        I think they did this. I'm pretty sure you can activate a password-entry requirement for in-app purchases, if it's not enabled by default.
      • threeseed 3y ago
        a) They always require your password for in-app purchases unless you disable it. b) People have been conditioned over 15 years to treat all app purchases as being managed by Apple. So they expect refunds, disputes etc to be done in the App Store. This is changing. And so it's completely reasonable to clearly inform users about this. Because we have a long history of IAP being a major addiction vector.
  • mkl 3y ago
    Huge thread a day ago: "US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39020365 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39020365
  • skygazer 3y ago
    No. They’re allowing alternate payment processing with a link from an an iOS app to a webpage, and reducing their commission to either 12 or 27% representing a 3% discount for not doing the payment processing themselves. They’re basically following the ruling based on some California law being applied nationally that the Supreme Court declined to hear on appeal. The judge said Apple would have to allow links out to alternate payment and would be required to collect their commission, which she suggested might be a bit high, but didn’t order any changes because everyone else also charges 30%, too. They are basically trying to act as an affiliate or partner with commission, which is pretty much the way it was before, but accounting gets more complicated now. (The judge was okay with Apple continuing to collect commission on sales.) Apple is still requiring they also make Apple in-app purchases available for the same digital goods. And also being pretty restrictive on how to link out. I have no idea if that is in the spirit of the ruling, but I think so, because the law that was cited had to do with allowing links to app publisher’s site for alternate payment, and that Apple couldn’t deny apps including such links.
    • NoPedantsThanks 3y ago
      I wonder how Apple thinks they're going to measure the transactions that take place. Simply clicking on the link and visiting the third-party-payment site doesn't prove anything, because the user could bail out before paying.
      • threeseed 3y ago
        Because iOS apps talk to the Notarisation Service on launch. So they know total app installs as well as the installs purchased from the App Store.
        • sunnybeetroot 3y ago
          App installs does not equal transactions.
        • bongobingo1 3y ago
          But how does it know I bought 13 tokens for $20, or 100 tokens for $149 (best value!)? If the account balance is on the application server side.
  • Despegar 3y ago
    Tim Sweeney is mad about having to pay Apple's App Store commission. Developers for many years believed that by having their own "payment processing" they could pay nothing to Apple. However the district court ruled that Apple is entitled to collect a commission because it wasn't just for "payment processing," it was for its intellectual property. They are just doing it in a convoluted and less efficient way as a result of the one claim Epic won in Epic v. Apple.
    • JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Tim Sweeney is mad about having to pay Apple's App Store commission Tim Sweeney should also be mad about having to pay a quarter of a billion dollar fine “for tricking users into making unwanted charges” [1]. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/12/fortnite-video-game-maker-epic-games-pay-more-half-billion-dollars-over-ftc-allegations https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/12/...
  • etchalon 3y ago
    1. If you want to include a link to an website for payment of digital goods, you have to request an entitlement from Apple. 2. As part of that entitlement, you agree to pay Apple a 27% commission on any purchases made when users click those links, for up to 7 days after the link is clicked. 3. You agree to send Apple monthly sales reports. 4. You agreed to give Apple a right to audit your books at anytime. That's the meat of it. It's a self-reported cost-per-conversion, which isn't exactly unheard of. Developers are in arms because they don't believe Apple deserves any money for distributing their app on their App Store. That's the heart of the disagreement. Apple believes they have a right to charge developers a fee for access to the users who shop through the App Store. There are developers who believe that the App Store should exist as a free-thing Apple provides to developers, to encourage them to write software for the iPhone. They're willing to accept a nominal processing fee, but anything more is "anti-competitive".
    • NoPedantsThanks 3y ago
      "you agree to pay Apple a 27% commission on any purchases made when users click those links, for up to 7 days after the link is clicked." So if the publisher says, "Click here for a renewal reminder and a 10% discount" and then sends a renewal E-mail on the 8th day, they're in the clear.
      • etchalon 3y ago
        RAW, yes.
    • arrosenberg 3y ago
      > Developers are in arms because they don't believe Apple deserves any money for distributing their app on their App Store. Rephrased - Developers are up in arms because the cost of distribution on iOS is artificially high. It's artificially high because the cost is not subject to market forces. It's not subject to market forces because Apple has a vertical monopoly on hardware and software distribution. Vertical integration is illegal.
      • 3y ago
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• dvt 3y ago
  Feels like Apple is really tempting fate at this point. They essentially won v. Epic (as of yesterday, SCOTUS rejected the appeal). I'm not sure why they feel so emboldened to add a 27% tax on web purchases as well. Completely wild, but I guess shareholder value must always go up.
  • grishka 3y ago
    > I'm not sure why they feel so emboldened Because they feel like they own the relationship between the user and the developer by virtue of it happening on a device they made, regardless of how much their contribution, if any, was to the formation of that relationship in the first place.
    • insane_dreamer 3y ago
      the same could be said of any game developed on Unreal and required to pay an (admittedly lower) percent to Epic
      • jchook 3y ago
        That's not an apt comparison because Apple banned alternative app stores from their devices.
      • grishka 3y ago
        You have a choice to use a different engine to build your game (including rolling your own). You don't have a choice to not use the app store to distribute your iOS app.
        • dkonofalski 3y ago
          Yes, you do. You have the choice to put your App on Google Play or host it yourself and make it available for Android.
          • grishka 3y ago
• ado__dev 3y ago
  Honestly if forcing everything through Apple's walled garden wasn't anti-competitive enough, this move certainly makes it so. What's next - pay 30% Apple tax for purchases made through Safari? I'm deeply embedded in the Apple ecosystem. From phone, to computer, to home automation stuff. I have no desire to use a secondary app store. But I want that option to be be available. And there is no good reason for Apple to be charging anything extra for infrastructure they do not provide, and in fact actively discourage and fear-monger about. Come on.
  • ribosometronome 3y ago
    If that option is important to you, why deeply embed yourself in an ecosystem that doesn't have it when others exist?
    • ado__dev 3y ago
      Apple's hardware is unmatched unfortunately.
      • teki_one 3y ago
        My user experience on a Pixel 6 Pro was better than on the iPhone 15 Pro Max (had to switch for family reasons). I do not take away from Apple that their customer service is top notch and for many users that matters as much as how good the SW is.
      • massysett 3y ago
        Perhaps Apple’s hardware is unmatched in part because they profit from it by using the very mechanisms you don’t like. The engineering resources to focus on perfect hardware aren’t cheap. There is plenty of junk hardware out there that gives you more freedom.
        • kibwen 3y ago
          If having good hardware means spending a lot on hardware development, then the price of the hardware can reflect that, rather than being subsidized by unrelated business segments.
• PedroBatista 3y ago
  [flagged]
• etchalon 3y ago
  [flagged]
• ectospheno 3y ago
  [flagged]
• pvg 3y ago
  Ongoing big discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39020365 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39020365
  • dang 3y ago
    Thanks! Macroexpanded: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39020365 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39020365 - Jan 2024 (1204 comments) US Supreme Court declines to hear appeals in Apple-Epic Games legal battle - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39014642 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39014642 - Jan 2024 (199 comments)
• bilalq 3y ago
  If it was just a tax, it'd be bad enough. But Apple's in-app payments solution is severely lacking in terms of features and capabilities. Just some of the problems: * You cannot issue a partial refund. * Actually, you can't refund a customer at all. Customers have to contact Apple to request a refund and it's entirely at their mercy of their whims. * If Apple declines the refund for whatever reason, you and the customer are just screwed. Literally had to buy a gift card to give a customer so we could make them whole. * You cannot offer a discount and free trial at the same time. * When trying to create a different subscription group to A/B test our pricing, we somehow got cursed with a reviewer who did not understand the concept long after it was released. New app builds with bug fixes completely unrelated were getting rejected. It took weeks of escalations before they finally relented. * Promotional pricing is so frustrating to setup between Introductory Offers, Promotional Offers, and Offer Codes. * You cannot generate ad-hoc pricing for anything.
  • turquoisevar 3y ago
    > If it was just a tax, it'd be bad enough. But Apple's in-app payments solution is severely lacking in terms of features and capabilities. You’re approaching this from the premise that you pay a commission for payment processing, when in actuality the primary purpose of the commission is to collect payment for the use of Apple’s IP. All the rest is secondary to that. Nevertheless, even from the payment processing premise there are some questions that come up when reading your comment. > You cannot issue a partial refund. True. It’s either all or nothing. Closest thing to a partial refund would be pushing the renewal data back on subscriptions, either individual or for all subscribers of a specific product e.g. if you had a widespread issue > Actually, you can't refund a customer at all. Nope you can’t directly refund a customer. You can have a say in refunds for consumables by informing Apple if the consumables have been consumed and you can offer a refund sheet in your app so that the customer doesn’t have to contact Apple themselves, but ultimately Apple’s decision mechanism is the final arbiter. In my experience both by keeping tabs on users reached out to CS to ask for a a refund, tracking refund requests via the refund sheet in apps, analyzing refund history and notifications and personal experience of me as a user and that of others in my circles, refunds are issued generously, close to 100%. It seems they have a “Yes, unless” policy, where the unless is mainly tied to having a history of requesting refunds. A decent amount of developers actually complain about how easily Apple gives refunds going by posts I see on different forums, but I prefer it this way. > If Apple declines the refund for whatever reason, you and the customer are just screwed. Literally had to buy a gift card to give a customer so we could make them whole. This seems like a rather extreme solution. Was there a big issue with your app that compelled you to do this? > You cannot offer a discount and free trial at the same time. Depends on what you mean by this. If you mean a free trial and after that a discounted rate you can just create a new product at that discounted rate and enabled the free trial. If you mean a trial and then a temporary discount then no, there’s no direct native way of doing this. Presumably because you can just calculate the discount into the introductory offer instead of confusing the user with having to track two time periods, the period of the free trial and the period the discounted rate is in effect. But close to native is using offer codes and enabling eligibility for introductory offers. Then your users will get the introductory offer first (i.e., free trial) and renew at the offer tied to your offer code (i.e., discounted rate). You can also use this to give longer free trials during certain periods, the introductory trial will stack with the trial set on the offer code. Nevertheless, I was partial to utilizing the DeviceCheck framework before all of this was possible. Check if this device is new, if so, enable free trial and after that trial offer discounted introductory offer. Benefit of this was that users appreciated not having to initiate a purchase flow to get access to the free trial, risking a charge at the end if they forgot. Downside is that it’s tied to device and not Apple ID, so technically users can get a free trial on multiple times, if that’s something you’re concerned about. > When trying to create a different subscription group to A/B test our pricing, we somehow got cursed with a reviewer who did not understand the concept long after it was released. New app builds with bug fixes completely unrelated were getting rejected. It took weeks of escalations before they finally relented. That’s a shame. What did they get hung up on? Not being able to see certain products in the app? > Promotional pricing is so frustrating to setup between Introductory Offers, Promotional Offers, and Offer Codes. What did you find frustrating about it? > You cannot generate ad-hoc pricing for anything Depending on how “ad-hoc” you’re talking about, wouldn’t offer codes fulfill this desire?
• xivzgrev 3y ago
  I mean I gotta give respect to Apple. They seem to have done the minimal technical compliance with the order. Users can make a purchase for their app outside of the App Store. But at the same time they put in as much friction as they could, including reframing the charge to developer as a lead commission - and the net cost to developer is HIGHER than using Apple. Of course epic is going to challenge the spirit of the implementation but this definitely makes it murkier - can you still claim a monopoly if developers can technically allow purchase outside and have a choice? In any case it buys Apple more years of high rents, and possible indefinite victory (forever rents). Ultimately not great for users (as any monopoly isn’t) but I don’t expect a large business to act any different. I can respect though how they approached a potentially large setback for their business.
  • blibble 3y ago
    > I mean I gotta give respect to Apple. They seem to have done the minimal technical compliance with the order. it's borderline contempt of court > I can respect though how they approached a potentially large setback for their business. I'd be pretty mad if I was the judge, they might like my 2nd ruling even less
    • robertlagrant 3y ago
      Hopefully the judge isn't like that. Bit of a silly character trait for a judge.
      • blibble 3y ago
        turns out courts don't like people treating them with contempt
        • robertlagrant 3y ago
          Doesn't mean you get angry, though. Just judge and move on.
    • s1artibartfast 3y ago
• peterallport 3y ago
  Apple must allow alternate payment modes without imposing a gatekeeper tax. It must be consistent without exceptions (i.e. not just Amazon). The issue is not the gratuitous fee, it is the lack of choice. iOS is more ubiquitous than macOS yet more restrictive--it cannot last. This entitlement is so restrictive -- it just seems vindictive. Apple's market share and success means additional responsibility. The argument that it's their App Store and therefore they can do whatever they want is a dubious defence. They owe their loyal developers more than this.
  • huytersd 3y ago
    They have loyal devs and a monetizable ecosystem for devs exactly because they have their policies in place. Apple doesn’t cut corners with short term thinking like your comment.
    • 0xfaded 3y ago
      Their long term thinking includes leveraging bullying over their iMessage lock-in to ensure market capture of children. I believe there are leaked emails floating around which pretty much irrefutablly confirm this.
    • satvikpendem 3y ago
      By that logic, we should have let Standard Oil or AT&T do as they pleased, since they too had loyal customers.
    • postalrat 3y ago
      What corners are being cut?
  • nostromo 3y ago
    I will risk an avalanche of downvotes and steel man Apple's argument. :) Have you ever gotten stuck with a monthly fee for something that's hard to cancel? It's a real pain the butt, no? But that never really happens on Apple devices, because Apple makes it incredibly easy to cancel subscriptions. You don't have to call anyone, you don't have to struggle with a bad website -- you just click cancel on your phone and it's done. And it's all in one place too -- no bank statement required. They are also a check on other dark patterns, like silently increasing charges without a clear notification to customers. I don't even get spammed because Apple proxies my emails from app developers. One of the main reasons I buy things from Apple (on my device) and Amazon (if it's a physical good) is so that I have a company I sorta trust to do the right thing if things go sideways (cancelations, returns, fraud, etc.). Once every app developer is pushing me to enter my credit card on their website, that all goes out the window. Dark patterns common on the web and on Android will take over the iOS ecosystem too. I also am going to take an unpopular opinion and say that Apple probably earns that fee. The fact that Android isn't that valuable to app developers proves that Apple's reputation and standards are what drives a lot of their app store revenue. App devs feel like they're providing all the value, but I suspect it's often not truly the case. I know this is an unpopular opinion amongst us devs. I don't even know if I truly buy these arguments, but I thought it'd be more interesting here if there was at least one comment defending Apple.
• amelius 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • prepend 3y ago
    This is how many shopping malls work. They take a portion of revenue of the stores. Alternately they charge rent. I guess Apple could charge app developers rent to be in the App Store and then not charge 30%.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  • lolinder 3y ago
    Genuinely curious: why should Apple be forced to host apps that don't pay them while Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft continue to extract 30% of all sales on their consoles?
    • usea 3y ago
      Apple isn't forced to host anything. Console manufacturers shouldn't be allowed to extract those fees either.
      • robertlagrant 3y ago
        No one is forced to sell on Apple either, if that's your logic.
        • NetOpWibby 3y ago
          Especially since they aren't the biggest mobile OS as Android fans like to point out. It's only a problem because iOS has most of the mobile profits.
          • robertlagrant 3y ago
            But that's the odd thing - it has most of the profits, despite the alternatives having the ability to add alternative app stores. Why is that? My guess is because the experience that produces is valuable to people, so they buy it if they can afford it.
• jmole 3y ago
  I think what’s missing here is sideloading. The new terms apple set are ridiculous, but it’s their App Store, so whatever. However, this iPhone is my device and I should be able to install whatever app I’d like on it. Without that freedom, Apple has no competition and can set their fees as high as they please.
  • robertlagrant 3y ago
    They do have competition. Most phones aren't iPhones.
    • jmole 3y ago
      Considering this case is in the USA, iPhones have a >53% market share and iPads >55%. But regardless of that, they have no competition in iOS app distribution. Keeping my fingers crossed that the EU will help solve that problem.
      • robertlagrant 3y ago
        I doubt the EU has the mindset or ability to cultivate companies that are able to compete with Apple.
        • Jyaif 3y ago
          The companies that offer alternative (and likely cheaper) appstores could be american or asian for all the EU cares. The point is to allow competition.
          • robertlagrant 3y ago
            What I mean is that this is regulating at the wrong level, or perhaps that regulation is a poor substitute for what might be more useful. If there were more competitors in the phone side of things, then mono app stores would matter less, and if people cared about them, eventually get competed out. The problem I'm highlighting is that the EU itself hasn't created any phone OSes that have survived to this point. If it were more conducive to that, then regulation, which is a very poor substitute for actual competition, wouldn't be needed.
• aeturnum 3y ago
  Apple's fees are too high, and I also don't find this particularly persuasive. - Apple charges a ~30% fee to publish on their store. It's a high fee! I also understand people make money there (more than on stores with lower fees). - Apple also has a pretty sophisticated set of financial products you can use through your account with them. It makes sense you wouldn't be able to use those in the same with with another payment processor. - Apple also doesn't want this to be an avenue for leaking personal details. My read of the support link[1] are that you owe apple 0% of any purchased that are not made "...after a link out (i.e., they tap “Continue” on the system disclosure sheet)...". Presumably, if your app is on multiple platforms, users can use another platform to buy things. It doesn't appear that you would owe apple money for those purchases[2] though of course you must still charge the same price to every platform. Fundamentally I disagree with how apple runs their iOS platform so I don't own any devices that on it. Choosing not to own iOS devices is occasionally annoying but it doesn't seem like a real disadvantage to me. However I also think that the concerns Apple has about their user experience (information leaks, compromises, etc) are real and that they genuinely do better than most other players. I think the case that Apple must allow side-loading is much stronger than the case that all of this behavior is somehow wrong in essence. As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, Epic takes 5% of all revenue (over $1m). Would they drop all their objections if Apple just dropped their fees? [1] https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitlement-us/ https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitl... [2] I am not a lawyer
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  • jbverschoor 3y ago
    For most it’s only 15% which includes payment processing and tax handling. If anything is expensive, is creditcard fees
  • dr_kiszonka 3y ago
• lykahb 3y ago
  Apple collects the rent from the apps that exist withn their walled garden. Epic employs behavioural specialists tasked in making their games addictive and coerce user into spending with micro-transactions. I do not want to take a side in this fight.
  • CivBase 3y ago
    Bad entities can point out when other entities behave badly. You don't have to like either of them.
    • Muromec 3y ago
      See: bin Laden's letter to America doing rounds in the internet in 2023.
      • edgyquant 3y ago
        False equivalency. Most people like living in America and tons of people want to move there, while only religious fanatics would be okay living in a country built and controlled by Al-qaeda
        • decremental 3y ago
          [dead]
        • plagiarist 3y ago
          Our religious fanatics have put an insurrectionist who stole classified documents as their top choice for leader. Hopefully the trend of being a desirable place to live continues, but I don't know if it's yet safe to point fingers at the awful governments built by other sets of religious fanatics.
          • tekknik 3y ago
            the assumption is that Trump was only elected by Christians? I honestly feel bad for the left. Given everything their news media tells them is under threat they seem legitimately scared about a nonissue. The power of the news cycle.
• justinclift 3y ago
  https://nitter.net/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1747408148799881390 https://nitter.net/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1747408148799881390
• m3kw9 3y ago
  Go no further than to know who is tweeting it, Tim Sweeney, sue-er of Apple for taking 30% for App sales
• jbverschoor 3y ago
  If it was about the commission, they should’ve sued for that, and not for the fact that they want the commission the be gone. They’re only one party who was acting and sueing in bad faith and that’s epic
• danbruc 3y ago
  The economy primarily exists to benefit the consumers, not the producers. With that in mind, I should be able to run any operating system on an iPhone I bought. Apple should not be required to actively support this, put in extra work to document things or whatnot, but they should not be allowed to actively make things harder. If I got an iOS license, I should be able to install and run any application and be able to get it from where ever I want. If I use the App Store to distribute apps, then Apple should charge a reasonable amount reflecting the cost of distributing that app. If I use their payment services, then they should charge a reasonable amount reflecting the cost of that service.
  • paulddraper 3y ago
    Is 30% reasonable?
    • tstrimple 3y ago
      They are the terms the developers on the platform agreed to.
      • paulddraper 3y ago
        That is the correct answer to a different question
    • cesarvarela 3y ago
      Would the iPhone be as successful if it wasn't reasonable?
      • danbruc 3y ago
        There are always two limits, what producing something costs and how much people value the thing and are therefore willing to pay for it. The actual prize must be somewhere in that range. A thing is a success because the prize is less than what people are willing to pay but they might still be overpaying if a lack of competition does not drive the prize down towards the costs of production.
• mentos 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• hanniabu 3y ago
  Can Google claim a percentage share for any sales made on iOS through Chrome?
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• readyplayernull 3y ago
  The infamous 30% goes back to the time when there where no app stores and we, mainly game developers, had to publish our games thru publishers who used to take a large percent of income, 50% or higher, up to 70% I heard; in order for app stores to become competitive they set the fee to 30% which was an incredibly great deal for us! It seemed to me that the democratization of game publishing finally arrived at that point. Not trying to defend them, just telling that times change.
  • aurareturn 3y ago
    I'm on Apple's side for this one but weren't game publishers also funding the development, marketing, and distribution?
    • gjsman-1000 3y ago
      Typically, no, actually. Take dumb phones before iOS came along, like on Symbian or Windows Mobile. Every carrier had their own App Store, their own awful SDK, their own rules and approval processes, and 50% was the minimum share. It wasn’t just the apps either. It was the OS itself requiring carrier approval - something Apple managed to dodge through sheer clout, but that hereditary disease still plagues Android to this day.
    • spookie 3y ago
      While one could argue that a some money had to be spent in the old days to get those boxes in the shelf and off them, these days what does Apple do? Besides being one of the two players in the market? Clearly someone is being abused. I'm aware they do bring customers, I guess. Not to _you_, specifically, to someone... Maybe you.
      • aurareturn 3y ago
        Probably designing ever more power SoCs, OS, accumulating wealthy users for app developers, etc.
  • incrudible 3y ago
• FreeTrade 3y ago
  A law requiring hardware manufacturers to allow owners to run any software on their device would solve a lot of these Apple problems over time. Thats the root of the problem. Apple has a monopoly on the social status associated with their devices, and leverages the monopoly in many unscrupulous and toxic ways. I consider Apple the most cynical and toxic of all the tech giants.
  • CydeWeys 3y ago
    Oh I wouldn't put it past Apple to take away your blue bubbles (or whichever one is the "good" one) if you do install non-Apple, non-Apple-app-store software on your phone.
  • s1artibartfast 3y ago
    you would also have to require them to ship software tools and actively support development by those that want to use their devices.
    • jojobas 3y ago
      Yes, break them up and require hardware-apple to treat software-apple on the same terms as any other software vendor. Mandated unlockable bootloader, of course.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • wilsonnb3 3y ago
    It is already legal to run whatever software on whatever device you want, what you actually want is to force Apple to make it easy for you.
  • lolinder 3y ago
    > Apple has a monopoly on the social status associated with their devices, and leverages the monopoly in many unscrupulous and toxic ways. Status-signaling consumer products are always overpriced. It's what makes them useful as status signals. You used to buy expensive impractical clothes to show you could afford to buy expensive impractical clothes. Now you buy Apple devices to show that you can afford to buy overpriced tech. If you bring the price of the status symbol down to a more natural level it ceases to be a status symbol. Apple's defense of their control over the platform (and the higher-than-necessary prices they charge) isn't destructive to consumer welfare, it's the very thing consumers are paying for.
• ChrisArchitect 3y ago
  [dupe] / Related: Epic plans to contest Apple's 'bad-faith' compliance with ruling over App Store https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39033686 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39033686 US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39020365 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39020365
• dostick 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • gruez 3y ago
    >If this was during Steve Jobs, he wouldn’t allow this. The app store for ios was launched in 2008. He resigned as apple's ceo in 2011.
  • iAMkenough 3y ago
    For me to have an informed opinion on this: How much does Walmart or Target "tax" a product developer to distribute and sell their product in their stores?
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• 1000100_1000101 3y ago
  Epic says this is about protecting small developers... which, frankly, is BS. Epic charges $100 per game in their store, vs. Apple's $99/yr for access to the store, and the latest tools. This is pretty much a wash, unless you're not regularly releasing games. Epic charges 12% for their game store. For most developers, those earning less than $1M, Apple charges 15%. So again, pretty much a wash. Epic doesn't take a fee for DLC if games use their own payment system, but presumably takes the same 12% if you use them (it's not at all clear)... but one of the benefits Apple gives customers is that you don't give your payment details to everyone, decreasing the odds it gets mishandled. Again, smaller devs aren't going to have a lot of DLC, or DLC revenue, and would have to pay someone to handle all the transactions. Epic also uses its market power to direct large customers to use their store. It waives Unreal Engine fees for anyone using Epic as a payment processor, which would normally be 5% if you go over $1M in sales.... for those large customers: $1M+ Using unreal: Apple would be 30%, plus 5% to Epic. + 30% DLC PC/Steam would be 30% to steam, plus 5% to Epic. + 30% DLC PC/Epic 12% to Epic for Epic store+Unreal. + 12% DLC $1M+ Not Unreal: Apple would be 30%. + 30% DLC PC/Steam would be 30% to steam. + 30% DLC PC/Epic 12% to Epic for Epic store. + 12% DLC The fight, most likely, is over these numbers. Instead of being an extra 3% for a small developer, it's an extra 18-23% for the larger developers. A large enough percent of a large enough pie to fight for. Does that make Apple evil? Epic would have you think so. But Epic also just needed to layoff a bunch of people, despite Fortnite being a money printing machine, despite their Engine royalties, and despite their own store's fees. Sure, Apple has cash to spare, but should we really be legally forcing Apple to adopt a business model that is failing Epic itself? I'm not so keen on forcing successful businesses to ruin themselves. Especially when the claimed reasons for doing so don't seem to make any sense, and don't benefit who they claim to benefit. This isn't about helping all the small devs... it's all about Epic wanting a bigger slice from the big devs. They're just trying to get enough small devs riled up that lawmakers think this is a change they need to make.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • zhyder 3y ago
    Doesn't matter to most people what Epic does. There's a duopoly in ecosystems for the most important general-purpose computing device for most people on the planet, and we should demand that people have more free control over devices they own. On iOS, I think that's ability to sideload apps and run other web engines.
• andrewmutz 3y ago
  Apple and Google are extracting so much wealth from the people who use and develop smartphone software it is insane. I am continuously shocked at how supportive the HN community is of Apple collecting these tolls.
  • geodel 3y ago
    Maybe its time to leave the community then.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • chii 3y ago
    These platforms were created to be tolled. What should be surprising is that developers willingly submit themselves to be tolled. Of course, the web platform is "worse" since it cannot utilize native capabilities until the mobile OS's support it via the browser, but it's toll free. As a user, that would've been my preference, not native apps.
    • andrewmutz 3y ago
      Surprising, isn't it, that Apple has been dragging their feet on PWA support for 10 years? Meanwhile they get a fat cut of every new smartphone product because "users just prefer mobile apps to mobile web'
• ferongr 3y ago
  If there was a concept of corporate death penalty, Apple would be one of my top picks for its application.
• MR4D 3y ago
  Does anyone here work in the back office of a grocery chain? What’s the typical markup on a gallon of milk or a frozen dinner? I’d bet that Apple’s 27% isn’t as egregious as it sounds.
  • post_below 3y ago
    The grocery chain has to spend money to buy the products. A better comparison might be a flea market or fair where the organizers take 27% of gross receipts from each vendor, even if the customer went to the vendors store outside of the fair to buy. Which sounds egregious to me, moreso if it was the only fair that existed for a large demographic.
  • HappyRobot 3y ago
    I can't speak to food, but 50% markup is a good rule of thumb for manufactured goods in department stores. It's a big markup, but that markup pays for distribution to individual stores, storage costs, payment processing, and all the labor to stock and provide retail assistance. In addition, the stores also need to make a profit with whatever is left over. The question with Apple is how much of that markup actually goes to labor and distribution and how much is just for profit.
  • Terretta 3y ago
    And brands pay for shelf space. Why would a brand pay extra to be on a shelf in a supermarket? Isn't the store already making a markup? Does the store have a monopoly on food sales? Everyone carries on about "monopoly" and thinks Apple pricing will plummet. OK, explain Valve and Steam. With many stores, shouldn't the price be a fraction? Here's a comment from July '23: It's outrageous that Valve takes a 30% cut from every game sale on Steam without providing much in return. We don't get marketing, PR, or advertising unless our game is already popular. If you're an unknown developer, you'll never get discovered. Support? Hardly. Their mandatory return policy, while beneficial for customers, can actually harm shorter games. Aside from facilitating product returns, they provide minimal assistance in other areas. Valve doesn't offer funding or act as a traditional publisher, providing guidance or support during development. Steam is the sole platform for distribution, limiting our reach and revenue potential. They offer no help with QA or testing. Even with their new alpha/beta system, the burden of reviewing any data falls on developers. Valve's main contribution is distribution, but the process is frustratingly outdated. We need to demand better from Valve: more value for their cut or a reduction in percentage. https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/1408ng4/valves_30_cut_on_steam_what_are_we_getting_in/ https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/1408ng4/valves_30_... Or, there's some value people aren't thinking about, and "the market [of developers] will bear it"... “The value of a large network like Steam has many benefits that are contributed to and shared by all the participants. Finding the right balance to reflect those contributions is a tricky but important factor in a well-functioning network,” the company wrote in a statement on the Steam Community page. “It’s always been apparent that successful games and their large audiences have a material impact on those network effects so making sure Steam recognizes and continues to be an attractive platform for those games is an important goal for all participants in the network.” https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/30/18120577/valve-steam-game-marketplace-revenue-split-new-rules-competition https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/30/18120577/valve-steam-gam...
• freetanga 3y ago
  For those who see a perpetual take of 30% of your revenues (pre costs, pre taxes) as a reasonable ask: I cannot wait to see you on the other end of the pointy stick… Imagine in a future not far away that car ownership has been replaced by car subscription, and all remaining 6 car manufactures decide to tell you that since you ride their fabulous IP, you must now pay a 30% surcharge on gasoline you use. What happens when you have low income and cannot afford a car? Then your ISPs, then your health services, then your grocery stores, etc… I think the crowd at HN is very smart for some things, but incredibly self-centered and out of touch with the broader reality on many topics. Not everyone makes hundreds on thousands of dollars on Tech jobs, not all devs sell millions of copies, and neither you will make that for the rest of your life. As I said somewhere on the page, Apple owes large part of what it is today to the dev environment (Things,Devonthink, etc) which created attractive products only available on Mac. IOS or MacOs without third party apps is pretty boring. Apple now has divorced developers and screaming for their share of alimony every month.
  • turquoisevar 3y ago
    Your comment is weird for a number of reasons, but i think the analogies might be the worst I’ve ever seen. > For those who see a perpetual take of 30% of your revenues (pre costs, pre taxes) as a reasonable ask I think 30% is barely reasonable, 15% is very reasonable however and if you’ve gained enough success that you pierce through the $1M revenue ceiling, then 30% becomes more reasonable. > I cannot wait to see you on the other end of the pointy stick… Let’s examine your pointy stick. > Imagine in a future not far away that car ownership has been replaced by car subscription I need clarification on your stick. Am I already paying to use these cars through a subscription? What kind of subscription is it? Is it a flat fee of $99 a year? Or is it a higher and/or monthly fee? These things matter for me to understand your pointy stick. > and all remaining 6 car manufactures decide to tell you that since you ride their fabulous IP, you must now pay a 30% surcharge on gasoline you use In lieu of that subscription fee? In addition to an annual $99 subscription fee? I need more information. Also, surely the smaller consumers of this service get a 15% rate, right? It’s only the big corporate users of this car service that pay 30%, no? Otherwise this analogy is already diverting a lot from what it aims to mirror. As for the gasoline, am I earning a revenue on this gasoline consumption? What exactly is the analogy for the 85% (or 70%) in earnings as a developer? > What happens when you have low income and cannot afford a car? You tell me. The situation you’re trying to capture in this analogy provides for this. If I have low income as an app developer I pay my 15% over a lower amount, so the absolute amount I owe is also lower. I don’t see a similar mechanic in your analogy. > Then your ISPs, then your health services, then your grocery stores, etc… The same questions I asked above come up in those situations as well. The real answer to your faulty analogy is that people wouldn’t use a service that charges a monthly subscription and a percentage based on consumption without any revenue that is inexplicably tied to said consumption and competitors would be tripping over themselves to offer an alternative to such a ridiculous product offering. “Aha!” I can hear you say. “But there wouldn’t be a possibility to alternative options and this is simply the status quo as it has developed”. But that’s just fantasy. Antitrust actions would’ve been triggered long before that, because in those case market power has been explicitly abused to attempt to create such abysmal conditions. Which makes it entirely different than Apple’s case. The reason why Apple didn’t slapped around with antitrust remedies is because everything that you and others hate about Apple, Apple did before they gained their market power. When they were a nobody in the relevant markets. They are merely maintaining what they then did, and in some cases even loosening the reigns. So there was no market power to speak of to be abused, which is why it doesn’t rise to the levels of antitrust. In fact, they rose in market power despite (and in actuality because) of the rules they imposed and commission they charged, which to the courts signifies that the market didn’t actually mind it so much at the time and could withstand those elements. If tomorrow Apple would introduce draconian measures and insist on taking 30% of every deal made on Apple devices and 30% of every purchase, physical or otherwise, on Apple devices and heck, for good measure, take 30% of everyone user’s paycheck, two things would happen. 1) the courts would rule that to be an antitrust violation because Apple, now that people are dependent on their devices and after they’ve gained market dominance, is imposing these restrictions 2) people would drop their Apple devices in a heartbeat and switch over to Windows and Android The ramifications of 1 will be directly tied to the possibility of 2 If however Apple did this back in the early 2000s, number 1 would never happen but number 2 would, because Apple wouldn’t have enough market power to warrant #1 and the “natural balance” would be restored by #2 The more #2 is less feasible because of the market power, the more Apple is constrained in taking wild actions like that for fear of #1, but it will never be applied retroactively because the logic is that people wouldn’t have signed up in the first place if the “offender” doesn’t have market power because people would’ve chosen a different option. > I think the crowd at HN is very smart for some things, but incredibly self-centered and out of touch with the broader reality on many topics. Not everyone makes hundreds on thousands of dollars on Tech jobs, not all devs sell millions of copies, and neither you will make that for the rest of your life. All of this is completely irrelevant because we’re talking about a commission rate that is directly tied to the revenue of a dev. So if a dev doesn’t make any sales or or only a handful of sales, then they won’t be paying any commission or a minor amount in absolute numbers, especially when you consider that those devs would pay 15% instead of 30%. You’re talking about this as if people owe 30% over something that isn’t directly correlated to their revenue and you analogy where gasoline usage is the main driver of what is owed, reflects this as well. > As I said somewhere on the page, Apple owes large part of what it is today to the dev environment (Things,Devonthink, etc) which created attractive products only available on Mac. IOS or MacOs without third party apps is pretty boring. True, but the inverse is true as well. It’s a symbiotic relationship, literally a rising tide that lifts both developers and Apple. If developers aren’t doing well, Apple isn’t doing well, if Apple isn’t doing well developers aren’t doing well. Which is why it’s a commission that’s tied to revenue. Apple gets more when I get more and Apple gets less when I get less. I literally couldn’t do my work as a developer if Apple hadn’t provided me with the frameworks and tools I use on a daily basis. We can argue if the value of what they’ve offered me is worth the 15% I pay or even 30%, but that’s a personal value judgement. > Apple now has divorced developers and screaming for their share of alimony every month. Another analogy. You might overestimate how most developers, especially the small guys you seem so concerned about, care about the commission. But since you like analogies so much, I think it’s more akin to Apple chartering a plane, providing a pilot, and renting out a hotel for us developers to get to a trade conference hosted by Apple to sell our stuff in exchange for a cut of the proceeds. Now all of a sudden there are few people on the plane who have been making bank at prior conventions and they want to get off mid flight, because they prefer using their own private jet and mansions and host their own trade show. All the while the people on the ground a yelling “Yeah! Let all those poor people get off the plane!” and I just want to get where I’m heading.