4 ms·

>so it would get more apps, and the platform would outsell Apple's iPad with its constraints. Apple has that covered. You cannot make your services cheaper on

>so it would get more apps, and the platform would outsell Apple's iPad with its constraints. Apple has that covered. You cannot make your services cheaper on other platforms. You have to charge atleast what you charge iOS users for the same service. This is to prevent the success of alternative app stores that will take only 20% or 5% cut. The new ecosystem won't take off because the existing developers cannot afford to completely drop the App Store to jump to a new platform.

parlane 15y ago
I think the comment was more about the developers making more money and selling at the same price.
shurane 15y ago
Wow, that's rather messed up -- and they're allowed to do something like that?
creamyhorror 15y ago
So I can't charge less for an Android app equivalent to one that I'm selling for iOS? That boggles the mind, and it seems pretty anticompetitive to me. It's almost a means of strongarming their way to prime network dominance. Surely in a world where the network effect rules and the stakes (the global marketplace) are so high, we shouldn't allow networks to entrench themselves too easily? Else we'd just have a behemoth in each sector, probably the same few companies even.
- wanion 15y ago
  I believe the pricing restriction only applies to In App Purchases. The iOS edition of your app is unique to iOS so it stands to reason to price it independently. Sell a subscription to your service in the app? Then it needs to be the same price as on your website. It's protecting customers, not Apple.
  - untog 15y ago
    It's protecting customers, not Apple. That's one way of looking at it. Another is that it protects Apple from having their users find out that 30% of what they're paying gets nowhere near the person they think is getting all the money.
    - tomkr 15y ago
      The 30% margin may be high, but the fact that the store keeps some of the money is not that surprising, is it? I do not believe keeping the price equal to other helps the consumer, it's simply Apple keeping developers from charging the 30% straight to the consumer. I believe it would be interesting if they let this restriction slide. Perhaps the advantage of simple purchasing makes up for an increase in price. Convenience is also worth something, as supermarkets have found out.
  - recoiledsnake 15y ago
    >It's protecting customers, not Apple. What? It's specifically set up to protect Apple's cut of 30% and to prevent other app stores from charging less. Lets say you price a service at $14/mo. Apple takes 30% so you price it at $20/mo. Apple takes $6/mo. Windows 8 ap store takes zero if you roll your own in app mechanism, but you can't charge Windows 8 users only $14/mo. You have to charge them $20/mo if you want to stay in the iOS App store. How is Windows 8 users being forced to pay $20/mo instead of receiving a benefit from their platform competing, protect Apple customers?
wanion 15y ago
It's nothing so sinister as that. It's actually more simple: they're protecting their own users from being ripped off, by being charged a premium because they're iOS users. It has some negative effects but as a user it makes you feel safer buying something through an app if you know you're not being charged more than you would if you did it through the same supplier's website.
- recoiledsnake 15y ago
  >It's actually more simple: they're protecting their own users from being ripped off, by being charged a premium because they're iOS users Apple is trying to protect their own users from being ripped off by Apple? That's some _really_ twisted logic there. That rule is in place to safeguard their 30% cut. I don't see how the user benefits from having to pay 30% extra instead of getting a 30% discount on the same supplier's website instead of paying Apple the tax.
  - sans-serif 15y ago
    It prevents suppliers from price discriminating (changing iOS users a premium) based on the fact that iOS users are more willing to pay up.
    - hahainternet 15y ago
      No. It prevents suppliers from price discriminating based on the fact that iOS has an associated 30% cost that the other platforms do not. That cost goes directly to Apple. It protects Apple, not their consumers. Their consumers see no benefit from 30% of their cost, whether larger or smaller than the alternatives.

parlane 15y ago

I think the comment was more about the developers making more money and selling at the same price.

shurane 15y ago

Wow, that's rather messed up -- and they're allowed to do something like that?

creamyhorror 15y ago

So I can't charge less for an Android app equivalent to one that I'm selling for iOS? That boggles the mind, and it seems pretty anticompetitive to me. It's almost a means of strongarming their way to prime network dominance. Surely in a world where the network effect rules and the stakes (the global marketplace) are so high, we shouldn't allow networks to entrench themselves too easily? Else we'd just have a behemoth in each sector, probably the same few companies even.

wanion 15y ago
I believe the pricing restriction only applies to In App Purchases. The iOS edition of your app is unique to iOS so it stands to reason to price it independently. Sell a subscription to your service in the app? Then it needs to be the same price as on your website. It's protecting customers, not Apple.
- untog 15y ago
  It's protecting customers, not Apple. That's one way of looking at it. Another is that it protects Apple from having their users find out that 30% of what they're paying gets nowhere near the person they think is getting all the money.
  - tomkr 15y ago
    The 30% margin may be high, but the fact that the store keeps some of the money is not that surprising, is it? I do not believe keeping the price equal to other helps the consumer, it's simply Apple keeping developers from charging the 30% straight to the consumer. I believe it would be interesting if they let this restriction slide. Perhaps the advantage of simple purchasing makes up for an increase in price. Convenience is also worth something, as supermarkets have found out.
- recoiledsnake 15y ago
  >It's protecting customers, not Apple. What? It's specifically set up to protect Apple's cut of 30% and to prevent other app stores from charging less. Lets say you price a service at $14/mo. Apple takes 30% so you price it at $20/mo. Apple takes $6/mo. Windows 8 ap store takes zero if you roll your own in app mechanism, but you can't charge Windows 8 users only $14/mo. You have to charge them $20/mo if you want to stay in the iOS App store. How is Windows 8 users being forced to pay $20/mo instead of receiving a benefit from their platform competing, protect Apple customers?

wanion 15y ago

It's nothing so sinister as that. It's actually more simple: they're protecting their own users from being ripped off, by being charged a premium because they're iOS users. It has some negative effects but as a user it makes you feel safer buying something through an app if you know you're not being charged more than you would if you did it through the same supplier's website.

recoiledsnake 15y ago
>It's actually more simple: they're protecting their own users from being ripped off, by being charged a premium because they're iOS users Apple is trying to protect their own users from being ripped off by Apple? That's some _really_ twisted logic there. That rule is in place to safeguard their 30% cut. I don't see how the user benefits from having to pay 30% extra instead of getting a 30% discount on the same supplier's website instead of paying Apple the tax.
- sans-serif 15y ago
  It prevents suppliers from price discriminating (changing iOS users a premium) based on the fact that iOS users are more willing to pay up.
  - hahainternet 15y ago
    No. It prevents suppliers from price discriminating based on the fact that iOS has an associated 30% cost that the other platforms do not. That cost goes directly to Apple. It protects Apple, not their consumers. Their consumers see no benefit from 30% of their cost, whether larger or smaller than the alternatives.