3 ms·
30% is arguably justified for some tangible goods, depending on the value add of the channel(s) for sales & distribution. But digital goods? Thievery.
by euroderf 2y ago
30% is arguably justified for some tangible goods, depending on the value add of the channel(s) for sales & distribution.
But digital goods? Thievery.
- lolinder 2y agoTell that to Steam, which is generally well liked by developers and users alike. There's clearly something else going on than just the 30% number, and it's worth investigating what that is rather than fixating on the wrong thing.
- madeofpalk 2y agoIt's never actually been about the 30%, it's just that that's the easiest manifestation. It's Apple's insistance to insert themselves into the relationship between developers and their users. The fee could be next-to-free and many would still be upset if they're not able to use their own payments infrastructure. Developers are not able to offer customers refunds on IAP or discounts or credits. Steam demonstrates that it's not about the 30%. It shows how 30% is viable in a competetive market if it's what consumers (and developers) prefer.
- andersa 2y agoThe difference here is that you don't have to use Steam. For example, Epic Games is doing just fine providing downloads for Fortnite themselves.
- lolinder 2y agoYep, so the problem isn't how much they're charging at all, it's the tight lock down. I like your sibling comment's summation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40776710 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40776710