7 ms·

It still is absolute insanity to me that Apple charges 30% for distribution. Real life disti of physical goods is 1-5% in the business I’ve dealt with. Transpor

by tw04 2y ago

It still is absolute insanity to me that Apple charges 30% for distribution. Real life disti of physical goods is 1-5% in the business I’ve dealt with. Transportation is generally a rounding error on an order of any significance. 30% is considered a healthy margin for the entire product sale.

gtvwill 2y ago
It's price gouging. When you have a monopoly (your the only source of apps for an iphone and no the existence of android doesnt make apple not a monopoly) and your a hardware company. You've just hit the jackpot and literally charge whatever you want. Fingers crossed ACCC or the euros slap the company with some anti monopoly laws and force the monopoly to be split up. Separate hardware from software. Make hardware software agnostic. Fine the hell out of then for their anticompetitive actions and their just straight up negligent wasteful hardware design.
- golergka 2y ago
  > the existence of android doesnt make apple not a monopoly How come? User doesn't have to buy an iPhone. Many buy Androids exactly because Android has some apps that they want, so not only it is a competitive market, but it's also a market where this exact issue (whether certain apps are available) drives (in part) user decisions.
  - ivan_gammel 2y ago
    You are looking at the wrong market. Apple effectively sells places in their marketplace to the developers. Because of the market share[1] of that marketplace on B2C, developers don’t have other choice but to buy from Apple (i.e. pay the cut), so it is indeed a monopoly - on the B2B market. [1] it is not just the number of iPhone users: if you don’t go to iOS marketplace, your sales on Android may also be impacted.
    - golergka 2y ago
      > Because of the market share of that marketplace on B2C, developers don’t have other choice but to buy from Apple (i.e. pay the cut) I've been making mobile apps and games for a long time, and this is completely untrue. Developers choose a platform, Google play, iOS or both, very consciously. Other, smaller app stores (based on Android, mostly) also exist. If Google Play radically decreased it's fees, it would actually make a lot of developers to choose Android first. The fact that it's rational for developers to release their apps on iOS doesn't mean they have no alternative or Apple has a monopoly. It just means it's still better for them to release on iOS than not, even with these fees. Microsoft it's not worth it for them is exactly how free market works. If some users want this cloud gaming enough, it will influence their Android/iOS buy decisions.
      - Jensson 2y ago
        > If some users want this cloud gaming enough, it will influence their Android/iOS buy decisions. This would be true if not for bundling. Lets say users care about A, B, C .. all the way to Z. Apple makes G really suck, but do the others well and bundles everything so you have to purchase all of them together, now a competitor can't just go in and make a batter G they have to make a better A, B, C and everything else. This is typical anti competitive behavior and result in companies just seeking rent rather than working hard to compete and innovate. Apple stores sucks because of this, it is really really bad compared to competitors on other platforms like PC, steam is a massively better product since users choose steam it isn't forced upon them by the computer creator.
      - ivan_gammel 2y ago
        > I've been making mobile apps and games for a long time, and this is completely untrue. This may not be true for your business model because your product seems to be an app, but it is not „completely untrue“. Many businesses build apps merely as an interface to their product, but the product is something else. They cannot afford losing significant part of their target audience by being picky. They have to eat the costs and terms of all major stores and pretend to be happy about it. The main complaint about Apple is this one: you have to go mobile to support your sales, but you pay incredibly high tax on that.
  - EMIRELADERO 2y ago
    I think the main issue is: should the iOS app market be considered a "top-level", government-regulatable market by itself (just like the entire standard market for goods and services of all kinds in the world)?
    - golergka 2y ago
      I think it's unreasonable to see iOS apps as a market. It's part of mobile games market. Otherwise, you would have to arrest executives from any car company, because their car company usually has a monopoly grasp of "spare parts for cars of this company" market.
      - j_maffe 2y ago
        But spare parts and maintenance is something that many regulators pressure suppliers about, and for good reason. I feel like a lot of people (especially on HN) don't understand the role of regulation and how it can help the end user.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
- scarface_74 2y ago
  While even if I agree, is Microsoft the right company to complain as far as XBox? And making hardware “software agnostic” you end up with the crap like Android and Windows. There is a reason that consoles exists - where the hardware and software are integrated
dijit 2y ago
I think the elephant in the room is that Apple is just doing what other closed platform distributors do, in an area where we aren't quite as used to it. I make AAA video games, so 30% for me is basically standard. * Valve: 30% * Playstation: 30% * Xbox: 30% * Nintendo eShop: 30% It's only the competitors that give better rates in the open-ish platforms, but people *openly* hate them; (I legitimately still have people denigrating uPlay and EPIC to my face, aggressively, when they find out what games I make). * Microsoft Store: 15% (12% for games) * EPIC: 12% I'm sure there's not much sympathy for AAA here, and it's the nature of consoles to sell the hardware at a loss (something not true for iPhones), but for me when I see the outrage I'm always incredulous.. as this already existing and accepted ecosystem is what Apple are modelling. I find it ironic that Xbox of all people would complain.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 2y ago
  I am especially curious what games you make to have such experiences and strong opinions. Interesting that you left that part out.
  - dijit 2y ago
    It wasn't very important to the point I was making, but in case you're curious; * The Division and it's sequel The Division 2 (ubisoft games, so- uplay): https://steamcommunity.com/app/2221490/discussions/0/3768983445362214712/#c5371139102163593699 https://steamcommunity.com/app/2221490/discussions/0/3768983... * VtM Bloodhunt; which launched on Steam despite being a Tencent property, due to fan backlash. * RENNSPORT; Where we also bent to pressure from the community and will release early-access on Steam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1dl0v6mevg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1dl0v6mevg First comment on that YT video: > Good. I refuse to use the Epic Store and I really wanted to check Rennsport out. Glad it's gonna be on Steam. for context.
    - ahartmetz 2y ago
      Well. Valve is a pretty customer-friendly company, and their customers like them for that. The same does not seem to be true for Epic. That's all.
golergka 2y ago
> Real life disti of physical goods is 1-5% in the business I’ve dealt with. Back when we bought games and software as physical goods, retailers used to get around ~30% too. In fact, they still do: https://www.serkantoto.com/2020/12/30/price-video-console-game-digital-physical/ https://www.serkantoto.com/2020/12/30/price-video-console-ga...
scarface_74 2y ago
You realize that Microsoft does the same thing? Even with physical media sold for XBox, you still have to pay a per unit fee.
hajile 2y ago
Real-life distributors ship your product ONE time. Imagine if they had to ship another every time they were asked forever. Those real-life distributors also don't advertise and sell your product for you either while providing an entire platform for you and your users to interact. I'm not saying that 30% is where it should be, but expecting higher costs for all the extra services provided isn't unexpected either.
- tw04 2y ago
  > Imagine if they had to ship another every time they were asked forever. The bandwidth and storage is an absolute rounding error at apple’s scale. If they want to use that as an excuse, then charge app makers cost for downloads. I can promise you it’ll never come close to 30%.
cogman10 2y ago
I don't think that's really terrible. The worse problem is that above distribution apple wants 30% on all transactions for an app on their platform, which is insanity. It's a major problem that just hit Patreon, all the creators are taking a 30% hit for anyone that signed up using apple for the payments. I get it, they are trying to circumvent a "the app is free, but you activate it by paying us $5" sorts of things... but like it's just pure greed that any and all payments are subject to that sort of fee.
jauntywundrkind 2y ago
300%. Apple is a particularly obstinate egregious offender. But these other tech fiefs also keep up the same shit: Google's App Store, Valve's Steam. It's insane and absurd but the market being able to define itself & how it operates is the change. We used to have property law which offered people who owned things rights. But today the world is entirely built by contract law, by mega corps getting to offer only terms of use highly slanted towards them. The idea of personal computing bespeaks an empowerment, a possibility-ization. I adore the internet, but by far the mass trend of the internet and business has been to subvert control & dominate possibility, to intermediate every step of the way to computational thinking & it's open possibility with restraint, guards, and checks. I truly believe we are emerging amazing potential to do better, to create much broader scopes of more. But getting past what a single piece of software or single site enables & scoping systems larger, with a pretense of perhaps maybe if we are lucky intertwingularity is the gateway to heaven, that which the dirtiest shittiest scum have bent computing diametrically away from & towards their rotten bought sold & paying for core. It's been hell.

by tw04 2y ago

gtvwill 2y ago

It's price gouging. When you have a monopoly (your the only source of apps for an iphone and no the existence of android doesnt make apple not a monopoly) and your a hardware company. You've just hit the jackpot and literally charge whatever you want. Fingers crossed ACCC or the euros slap the company with some anti monopoly laws and force the monopoly to be split up. Separate hardware from software. Make hardware software agnostic. Fine the hell out of then for their anticompetitive actions and their just straight up negligent wasteful hardware design.

golergka 2y ago
> the existence of android doesnt make apple not a monopoly How come? User doesn't have to buy an iPhone. Many buy Androids exactly because Android has some apps that they want, so not only it is a competitive market, but it's also a market where this exact issue (whether certain apps are available) drives (in part) user decisions.
- ivan_gammel 2y ago
  You are looking at the wrong market. Apple effectively sells places in their marketplace to the developers. Because of the market share[1] of that marketplace on B2C, developers don’t have other choice but to buy from Apple (i.e. pay the cut), so it is indeed a monopoly - on the B2B market. [1] it is not just the number of iPhone users: if you don’t go to iOS marketplace, your sales on Android may also be impacted.
  - golergka 2y ago
    > Because of the market share of that marketplace on B2C, developers don’t have other choice but to buy from Apple (i.e. pay the cut) I've been making mobile apps and games for a long time, and this is completely untrue. Developers choose a platform, Google play, iOS or both, very consciously. Other, smaller app stores (based on Android, mostly) also exist. If Google Play radically decreased it's fees, it would actually make a lot of developers to choose Android first. The fact that it's rational for developers to release their apps on iOS doesn't mean they have no alternative or Apple has a monopoly. It just means it's still better for them to release on iOS than not, even with these fees. Microsoft it's not worth it for them is exactly how free market works. If some users want this cloud gaming enough, it will influence their Android/iOS buy decisions.
    - Jensson 2y ago
      > If some users want this cloud gaming enough, it will influence their Android/iOS buy decisions. This would be true if not for bundling. Lets say users care about A, B, C .. all the way to Z. Apple makes G really suck, but do the others well and bundles everything so you have to purchase all of them together, now a competitor can't just go in and make a batter G they have to make a better A, B, C and everything else. This is typical anti competitive behavior and result in companies just seeking rent rather than working hard to compete and innovate. Apple stores sucks because of this, it is really really bad compared to competitors on other platforms like PC, steam is a massively better product since users choose steam it isn't forced upon them by the computer creator.
    - ivan_gammel 2y ago
      > I've been making mobile apps and games for a long time, and this is completely untrue. This may not be true for your business model because your product seems to be an app, but it is not „completely untrue“. Many businesses build apps merely as an interface to their product, but the product is something else. They cannot afford losing significant part of their target audience by being picky. They have to eat the costs and terms of all major stores and pretend to be happy about it. The main complaint about Apple is this one: you have to go mobile to support your sales, but you pay incredibly high tax on that.
- EMIRELADERO 2y ago
  I think the main issue is: should the iOS app market be considered a "top-level", government-regulatable market by itself (just like the entire standard market for goods and services of all kinds in the world)?
  - golergka 2y ago
    I think it's unreasonable to see iOS apps as a market. It's part of mobile games market. Otherwise, you would have to arrest executives from any car company, because their car company usually has a monopoly grasp of "spare parts for cars of this company" market.
    - j_maffe 2y ago
      But spare parts and maintenance is something that many regulators pressure suppliers about, and for good reason. I feel like a lot of people (especially on HN) don't understand the role of regulation and how it can help the end user.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
scarface_74 2y ago
While even if I agree, is Microsoft the right company to complain as far as XBox? And making hardware “software agnostic” you end up with the crap like Android and Windows. There is a reason that consoles exists - where the hardware and software are integrated

dijit 2y ago

I think the elephant in the room is that Apple is just doing what other closed platform distributors do, in an area where we aren't quite as used to it. I make AAA video games, so 30% for me is basically standard. * Valve: 30% * Playstation: 30% * Xbox: 30% * Nintendo eShop: 30% It's only the competitors that give better rates in the open-ish platforms, but people *openly* hate them; (I legitimately still have people denigrating uPlay and EPIC to my face, aggressively, when they find out what games I make). * Microsoft Store: 15% (12% for games) * EPIC: 12% I'm sure there's not much sympathy for AAA here, and it's the nature of consoles to sell the hardware at a loss (something not true for iPhones), but for me when I see the outrage I'm always incredulous.. as this already existing and accepted ecosystem is what Apple are modelling. I find it ironic that Xbox of all people would complain.

Red_Leaves_Flyy 2y ago
I am especially curious what games you make to have such experiences and strong opinions. Interesting that you left that part out.
- dijit 2y ago
  It wasn't very important to the point I was making, but in case you're curious; * The Division and it's sequel The Division 2 (ubisoft games, so- uplay): https://steamcommunity.com/app/2221490/discussions/0/3768983445362214712/#c5371139102163593699 https://steamcommunity.com/app/2221490/discussions/0/3768983... * VtM Bloodhunt; which launched on Steam despite being a Tencent property, due to fan backlash. * RENNSPORT; Where we also bent to pressure from the community and will release early-access on Steam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1dl0v6mevg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1dl0v6mevg First comment on that YT video: > Good. I refuse to use the Epic Store and I really wanted to check Rennsport out. Glad it's gonna be on Steam. for context.
  - ahartmetz 2y ago
    Well. Valve is a pretty customer-friendly company, and their customers like them for that. The same does not seem to be true for Epic. That's all.

golergka 2y ago

> Real life disti of physical goods is 1-5% in the business I’ve dealt with. Back when we bought games and software as physical goods, retailers used to get around ~30% too. In fact, they still do: https://www.serkantoto.com/2020/12/30/price-video-console-game-digital-physical/ https://www.serkantoto.com/2020/12/30/price-video-console-ga...

scarface_74 2y ago

You realize that Microsoft does the same thing? Even with physical media sold for XBox, you still have to pay a per unit fee.

hajile 2y ago

Real-life distributors ship your product ONE time. Imagine if they had to ship another every time they were asked forever. Those real-life distributors also don't advertise and sell your product for you either while providing an entire platform for you and your users to interact. I'm not saying that 30% is where it should be, but expecting higher costs for all the extra services provided isn't unexpected either.

tw04 2y ago
> Imagine if they had to ship another every time they were asked forever. The bandwidth and storage is an absolute rounding error at apple’s scale. If they want to use that as an excuse, then charge app makers cost for downloads. I can promise you it’ll never come close to 30%.

cogman10 2y ago

I don't think that's really terrible. The worse problem is that above distribution apple wants 30% on all transactions for an app on their platform, which is insanity. It's a major problem that just hit Patreon, all the creators are taking a 30% hit for anyone that signed up using apple for the payments. I get it, they are trying to circumvent a "the app is free, but you activate it by paying us $5" sorts of things... but like it's just pure greed that any and all payments are subject to that sort of fee.

jauntywundrkind 2y ago

300%. Apple is a particularly obstinate egregious offender. But these other tech fiefs also keep up the same shit: Google's App Store, Valve's Steam. It's insane and absurd but the market being able to define itself & how it operates is the change. We used to have property law which offered people who owned things rights. But today the world is entirely built by contract law, by mega corps getting to offer only terms of use highly slanted towards them. The idea of personal computing bespeaks an empowerment, a possibility-ization. I adore the internet, but by far the mass trend of the internet and business has been to subvert control & dominate possibility, to intermediate every step of the way to computational thinking & it's open possibility with restraint, guards, and checks. I truly believe we are emerging amazing potential to do better, to create much broader scopes of more. But getting past what a single piece of software or single site enables & scoping systems larger, with a pretense of perhaps maybe if we are lucky intertwingularity is the gateway to heaven, that which the dirtiest shittiest scum have bent computing diametrically away from & towards their rotten bought sold & paying for core. It's been hell.