3 ms·

They already do bill for the developer program with the $100/year developer fee. Tying it to installs also makes no sense if the fee is for the dev tools.

by km3r 3y ago

Spivak 3y ago
Why? Unity seemingly legally though not popularly tied the licensing fee for use of the engine to number of installs.
- lozenge 3y ago
  Because Unity isn't legally a gatekeeper under the DMA.
SllX 3y ago
Well, no, it’s $100/year for the developer fee plus the 15-30% you paid to Apple if you charged money anywhere, which in the US is now 12-27% if you subtract Apple’s payment processing portion and soon in the EU this new complex scheme which I don’t even want to summarize, but amounts to a price drop in some circumstances and a price increase in other circumstances. There can be 3rd party app stores now but nobody who develops for the platform is taking advantage of the features and APIs Apple invested their own money and developer time into building out without paying Apple something above a certain threshold. I mean whether it’s the EU or Epic, Apple isn’t interested in letting anybody just co-opt their baby.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  >plus the 15-30% you paid to Apple if you charged money anywhere, well yes. That's part of the rub. You'll pay $100/year even if you never launch an app so that makes sense. That's the cost of using Apple's SDK. But you may now pay $.50 per install even for a free app if you don't/can't host outside of the App store, unless you declare your company/business a non-profit or educational instituion. This was previously $0. So the price hike can become absurd, to say the least. >Apple isn’t interested in letting anybody just co-opt their baby. Well tough luck. you made more money off your "baby" than many country's GDP. Microsoft got co-opted for much less decades ago. Governments' interest is in making sure companies do not in fact hoard all the money in the world, and when your product becomes a centerpiece of society something's got to give.
  - SllX 3y ago
    > well yes. That's part of the rub. You'll pay $100/year even if you never launch an app so that makes sense. That's the cost of using Apple's SDK. You don’t need to pay Apple $100/year if all you want is Xcode and the documentation, but if you want to actually launch an app, that’s when you pay Apple. > But you may now pay $.50 per install even for a free app if you don't/can't host outside of the App store, unless you declare your company/business a non-profit or educational instituion. This was previously $0. So the price hike can become absurd, to say the least. Yeah, due to *checks notes* changes in the regulatory environment making their previous model untenable in the EU. It is now not worth the cost or business risks to Apple to let all free apps free-ride, just most of them. > Well tough luck. you made more money off your "baby" than many country's GDP. Two things: not my baby, and it is absurd to compare annual corporate revenue to GDP. GDP is a measure of economic activity within a nation, not a revenue figure, and revenue measures money earned before costs are accounted for. > Governments' interest is in making sure companies do not in fact hoard all the money in the world This statement is meaningless. A government that sees its role in society to cap profits is one that will assuredly wreck that society. > and when your product becomes a centerpiece of society something's got to give. Except that it’s not. Apple’s customers are customers who voluntarily spent money to purchase iPhones when other choices were available to them, and an iPhone is a luxury good, not a necessity. It is lucrative to invest in developing software for iPhones, but there are other businesses to go into.

They already do bill for the developer program with the $100/year developer fee. Tying it to installs also makes no sense if the fee is for the dev tools.

by km3r 3y ago

They already do bill for the developer program with the $100/year developer fee. Tying it to installs also makes no sense if the fee is for the dev tools.

Spivak 3y ago

Why? Unity seemingly legally though not popularly tied the licensing fee for use of the engine to number of installs.

lozenge 3y ago
Because Unity isn't legally a gatekeeper under the DMA.

SllX 3y ago

Well, no, it’s $100/year for the developer fee plus the 15-30% you paid to Apple if you charged money anywhere, which in the US is now 12-27% if you subtract Apple’s payment processing portion and soon in the EU this new complex scheme which I don’t even want to summarize, but amounts to a price drop in some circumstances and a price increase in other circumstances. There can be 3rd party app stores now but nobody who develops for the platform is taking advantage of the features and APIs Apple invested their own money and developer time into building out without paying Apple something above a certain threshold. I mean whether it’s the EU or Epic, Apple isn’t interested in letting anybody just co-opt their baby.

johnnyanmac 3y ago
>plus the 15-30% you paid to Apple if you charged money anywhere, well yes. That's part of the rub. You'll pay $100/year even if you never launch an app so that makes sense. That's the cost of using Apple's SDK. But you may now pay $.50 per install even for a free app if you don't/can't host outside of the App store, unless you declare your company/business a non-profit or educational instituion. This was previously $0. So the price hike can become absurd, to say the least. >Apple isn’t interested in letting anybody just co-opt their baby. Well tough luck. you made more money off your "baby" than many country's GDP. Microsoft got co-opted for much less decades ago. Governments' interest is in making sure companies do not in fact hoard all the money in the world, and when your product becomes a centerpiece of society something's got to give.
- SllX 3y ago
  > well yes. That's part of the rub. You'll pay $100/year even if you never launch an app so that makes sense. That's the cost of using Apple's SDK. You don’t need to pay Apple $100/year if all you want is Xcode and the documentation, but if you want to actually launch an app, that’s when you pay Apple. > But you may now pay $.50 per install even for a free app if you don't/can't host outside of the App store, unless you declare your company/business a non-profit or educational instituion. This was previously $0. So the price hike can become absurd, to say the least. Yeah, due to *checks notes* changes in the regulatory environment making their previous model untenable in the EU. It is now not worth the cost or business risks to Apple to let all free apps free-ride, just most of them. > Well tough luck. you made more money off your "baby" than many country's GDP. Two things: not my baby, and it is absurd to compare annual corporate revenue to GDP. GDP is a measure of economic activity within a nation, not a revenue figure, and revenue measures money earned before costs are accounted for. > Governments' interest is in making sure companies do not in fact hoard all the money in the world This statement is meaningless. A government that sees its role in society to cap profits is one that will assuredly wreck that society. > and when your product becomes a centerpiece of society something's got to give. Except that it’s not. Apple’s customers are customers who voluntarily spent money to purchase iPhones when other choices were available to them, and an iPhone is a luxury good, not a necessity. It is lucrative to invest in developing software for iPhones, but there are other businesses to go into.