5 ms·

Things to note: 1) The new terms are opt-in 2) The new terms have not been approved by the EU 3) The reason for the disparity is 10 million installs, which e

by ezfe 3y ago

Things to note: 1) The new terms are opt-in 2) The new terms have not been approved by the EU 3) The reason for the disparity is 10 million installs, which exceeds the 1 million threshold to pay €0.50/install. If you charge €1/install then you're paying 50% to Apple for that fee. If you charge €2/install then you'd be paying 25% to Apple because the fee is flat.

kj99 3y ago
Yup - this example is deliberately cooked to create a misleading impression.
- DannyBee 3y ago
  Uh, given the number of $1 apps on the app store, how is it cooked in any way? It represents a good bit of current reality.
  - kj99 3y ago
    $1 apps that make more than $10,000,000 in annual revenue?
    - ezfe 3y ago
      The annual revenue does not affect the €0.50/install fee. 10 million installs would cost €500,000 for a free app under the new terms.
      - kj99 3y ago
        That's true but it doesn't contradict my point about a $1 app with 10 million installs. In any case, a free app can always be released under the current terms. I think the obvious point is that free to consumer apps still cost something in terms of the platform. It has been a common complaint in the past that apps like Uber or Facebook have a huge number of installs but don't pay anything. This simply brings transparency to that.
        jsnell 3y ago
        Except it can't "always" be released under the current terms. If the developer has ever released an app under the new terms, they're forced into them for all their future apps, forever. Likewise if they ever intend to release a different app under the new terms, all their old apps would be retroactively moved to the new terms. The irrevocable and all-or-nothing aspect will make it pretty much impossible for any serious developer to ever choose the new terms. Just as Apple intended.
        kj99 3y ago
        Perhaps expecting Apple to subsidize their apps was always unreasonable.
      - layer8 3y ago
        1 million installs already, not 10 million. And updates count as installs, so it is practically a yearly per-user fee.
    - DannyBee 3y ago
      I mean, the top paid games on the store right now are: 6.99, 1.99, 4.99, 0.99, 0.99, 0.99 That 1.99 (geometry dash) grosses 250k a month in the US alone.
      - kj99 3y ago
        And that 1.99 app would pay 25% to Apple, which is lower than the current 30%.
- thrtythreeforty 3y ago
  It's a valid criticism of the new terms. A developer-friendly (and dare I say, user-friendly) fee structure would not have any cases where Apple takes 62% of revenue. Any fee structure so maliciously structured that this edge case exists, deserves such criticism.
  - kj99 3y ago
    If it's an edge case then we can agree that it's misleading not to point that out. The statement in the tweet is actually false in every case of making $10M in sales except this precise edge case.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - leereeves 3y ago
      It's not an edge case. Roughly 99% of paid App Store apps cost $1 or less. The expensive apps that would pay less than 50% to Apple are the edge case.
      - kj99 3y ago
        99% of paid iPhone apps don’t have a million installs.
        leereeves 3y ago
        > If it's an edge case then we can agree that it's misleading not to point that out. If the "edge case" you're talking about is the number of sales, then the tweet very clearly pointed that out. "If you make $10M in sales..." So can we agree that nothing here is misleading?
        kj99 3y ago
        It’s absolutely misleading to the point of bordering on a lie. There are an arbitrary number of ways to reach $10M in sales and only one of them gives Apple a cut of $6.2M. Every other possible way gives Apple a lot less. Not qualifying it makes it seem like this is the rule not the exception.
Keyframe 3y ago
4) This atrocity was written and mandated by Apple Of course people will still not boycott them. They're no better than Microsoft was in the 90's. Not sure if it comes at that high level of a company or they're not all that different to begin with.
- EA-3167 3y ago
  They won't boycott them because 99.999% of people aren't mobile devs, and none of this impacts them in the slightest. It didn't impact them when the price was 30% of anything over $1 mil, it doesn't impact them now. The average consumer of Apple products doesn't even care about side-loading, although I'm sure a significant minority is very pleased that it's an option going forward. I really like this site, but people do sometimes lose sight of the world they live in vs the world most people inhabit.
  - layer8 3y ago
    The pricing model very much impacts users, because it incentivizes higher app prices, as well as subscriptions over one-time purchases. Users certainly don’t like subscriptions (but Apple loves those).
    - foogazi 3y ago
      As a user I don’t like subscriptions but I love Apple Pay - then only other payment provider I’d consider is PayPal I don’t think I’d click on an external link to go to the app website to pay for anything
      - layer8 3y ago
        Whether third parties support Apple Pay or not is completely orthogonal to that pricing model. I use Apple Pay on web sites that have nothing to do with apps or app stores.
  - aaomidi 3y ago
    And this is why government exists, so it can battle these things without everything being a direct action from the consumer.
ncallaway 3y ago
Does this apply to free apps too?
- layer8 3y ago
  Yes, unless you are a registered nonprofit, an educational institution, or similar.
layer8 3y ago
Re 3: This means that Apple incentivizes developers against low app prices, in order for them to not lose more than half of the revenue to Apple once the million is reached. In addition, since the fee is yearly recurring, this incentivizes subscriptions over one-time purchases. The pricing model is not in consumers’ interests.
lxgr 3y ago
> The new terms are opt-in It's unclear whether the old terms will be around forever or will be available to new developers. They're also all-or-nothing for a given organization, as far as I understand; not sure if there's a way to form an "old terms subsidiary" entity.
tivert 3y ago
> 1) The new terms are opt-in > 2) The new terms have not been approved by the EU I can't imagine how these terms won't eventually swatted down as malicious compliance. I'd really like to see Apple fined something like 20% of global revenue, or something like that. Teach them a lesson, seems like they need one.

by ezfe 3y ago

kj99 3y ago

Yup - this example is deliberately cooked to create a misleading impression.

DannyBee 3y ago
Uh, given the number of $1 apps on the app store, how is it cooked in any way? It represents a good bit of current reality.
- kj99 3y ago
  $1 apps that make more than $10,000,000 in annual revenue?
  - ezfe 3y ago
    The annual revenue does not affect the €0.50/install fee. 10 million installs would cost €500,000 for a free app under the new terms.
    - kj99 3y ago
      That's true but it doesn't contradict my point about a $1 app with 10 million installs. In any case, a free app can always be released under the current terms. I think the obvious point is that free to consumer apps still cost something in terms of the platform. It has been a common complaint in the past that apps like Uber or Facebook have a huge number of installs but don't pay anything. This simply brings transparency to that.
      - jsnell 3y ago
        Except it can't "always" be released under the current terms. If the developer has ever released an app under the new terms, they're forced into them for all their future apps, forever. Likewise if they ever intend to release a different app under the new terms, all their old apps would be retroactively moved to the new terms. The irrevocable and all-or-nothing aspect will make it pretty much impossible for any serious developer to ever choose the new terms. Just as Apple intended.
        kj99 3y ago
        Perhaps expecting Apple to subsidize their apps was always unreasonable.
    - layer8 3y ago
      1 million installs already, not 10 million. And updates count as installs, so it is practically a yearly per-user fee.
  - DannyBee 3y ago
    I mean, the top paid games on the store right now are: 6.99, 1.99, 4.99, 0.99, 0.99, 0.99 That 1.99 (geometry dash) grosses 250k a month in the US alone.
    - kj99 3y ago
      And that 1.99 app would pay 25% to Apple, which is lower than the current 30%.
thrtythreeforty 3y ago
It's a valid criticism of the new terms. A developer-friendly (and dare I say, user-friendly) fee structure would not have any cases where Apple takes 62% of revenue. Any fee structure so maliciously structured that this edge case exists, deserves such criticism.
- kj99 3y ago
  If it's an edge case then we can agree that it's misleading not to point that out. The statement in the tweet is actually false in every case of making $10M in sales except this precise edge case.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - leereeves 3y ago
    It's not an edge case. Roughly 99% of paid App Store apps cost $1 or less. The expensive apps that would pay less than 50% to Apple are the edge case.
    - kj99 3y ago
      99% of paid iPhone apps don’t have a million installs.
      - leereeves 3y ago
        > If it's an edge case then we can agree that it's misleading not to point that out. If the "edge case" you're talking about is the number of sales, then the tweet very clearly pointed that out. "If you make $10M in sales..." So can we agree that nothing here is misleading?
        kj99 3y ago
        It’s absolutely misleading to the point of bordering on a lie. There are an arbitrary number of ways to reach $10M in sales and only one of them gives Apple a cut of $6.2M. Every other possible way gives Apple a lot less. Not qualifying it makes it seem like this is the rule not the exception.

Keyframe 3y ago

4) This atrocity was written and mandated by Apple Of course people will still not boycott them. They're no better than Microsoft was in the 90's. Not sure if it comes at that high level of a company or they're not all that different to begin with.

EA-3167 3y ago
They won't boycott them because 99.999% of people aren't mobile devs, and none of this impacts them in the slightest. It didn't impact them when the price was 30% of anything over $1 mil, it doesn't impact them now. The average consumer of Apple products doesn't even care about side-loading, although I'm sure a significant minority is very pleased that it's an option going forward. I really like this site, but people do sometimes lose sight of the world they live in vs the world most people inhabit.
- layer8 3y ago
  The pricing model very much impacts users, because it incentivizes higher app prices, as well as subscriptions over one-time purchases. Users certainly don’t like subscriptions (but Apple loves those).
  - foogazi 3y ago
    As a user I don’t like subscriptions but I love Apple Pay - then only other payment provider I’d consider is PayPal I don’t think I’d click on an external link to go to the app website to pay for anything
    - layer8 3y ago
      Whether third parties support Apple Pay or not is completely orthogonal to that pricing model. I use Apple Pay on web sites that have nothing to do with apps or app stores.
- aaomidi 3y ago
  And this is why government exists, so it can battle these things without everything being a direct action from the consumer.

ncallaway 3y ago

Does this apply to free apps too?

layer8 3y ago
Yes, unless you are a registered nonprofit, an educational institution, or similar.

layer8 3y ago

Re 3: This means that Apple incentivizes developers against low app prices, in order for them to not lose more than half of the revenue to Apple once the million is reached. In addition, since the fee is yearly recurring, this incentivizes subscriptions over one-time purchases. The pricing model is not in consumers’ interests.

lxgr 3y ago

> The new terms are opt-in It's unclear whether the old terms will be around forever or will be available to new developers. They're also all-or-nothing for a given organization, as far as I understand; not sure if there's a way to form an "old terms subsidiary" entity.

tivert 3y ago

> 1) The new terms are opt-in > 2) The new terms have not been approved by the EU I can't imagine how these terms won't eventually swatted down as malicious compliance. I'd really like to see Apple fined something like 20% of global revenue, or something like that. Teach them a lesson, seems like they need one.