5 ms·

I'm still stuck on the whole 30% tax. How is that considered even remotely reasonable?

illiac786 1y ago
I don’t think any developer considers it reasonable. I mean, apart from apple and the really brainless section of their fanboys, who thinks this is reasonable?
stahtops 1y ago
How do you think Target and Walmart work? They pay someone $10 for a widget and mark it up 100% and sell it for $20. App fees have basically been the same amount for all time. Literally every single developer looked at the numbers and decided to go into business.
swat535 1y ago
How is the 30% tax different than other platforms? Further, how much do you think should this be (20%? 10%? 5%?) and if zero, why? Finally, do you believe Apple should be compensated for the services and marketplace that they are offering, if so, what other strategies do you recommend that they deploy to make everyone happy?
- reedlaw 1y ago
  Amazon charges 15% for physical media, including software [1]. Since Apple is not shipping physical media, it seems something less than 15% would be more reasonable. 1. https://sellercentral.amazon.com/help/hub/reference/external/GTG4BAWSY39Z98Z3?locale=en-US#wjz_cjc_jcb-3 https://sellercentral.amazon.com/help/hub/reference/external...
  - gruez 1y ago
    >Since Apple is not shipping physical media, it seems something less than 15% would be more reasonable. The link you provided is only for "Referral fee", not whatever fee charges to fulfill the order (ie. warehousing and shipping), which is separate: https://sellercentral.amazon.com/help/hub/reference/external/GPDC3KPYAGDTVDJP?locale=en-US https://sellercentral.amazon.com/help/hub/reference/external...
    - reedlaw 1y ago
      App store software should have minimal warehousing and shipping costs compared with physical software. I was just trying to come up with a ball-park comparable figure.
- bigyabai 1y ago
  > How is the 30% tax different than other platforms? Because it doesn't have to compete with third-party distributors like MacOS? The App Store on MacOS is almost entirely empty, every real developer abandoned it years ago. It's almost impossible to buy professional Mac software on the App Store, because real developers like Avid or Adobe or Affinity don't think Apple's deal is fair either. > Finally, do you believe Apple should be compensated for the services and marketplace that they are offering They already are, through their developer fees. If Apple can't compensate themselves without forcing people to use their services, then they need to redesign their business model. Installing software is not a service, arguably Apple has no right to demand compensation for it in the first place.
  - gruez 1y ago
    >Because it doesn't have to compete with third-party distributors like MacOS? Who are the third party distributors for the playstation or xbox? >They already are, through their developer fees. It's $100/developer. Considering Microsoft used to charge thousands for Visual Studio, it doesn't seem too unreasonable to claim that $100/year is too low. >If Apple can't compensate themselves without forcing people to use their services, then they need to redesign their business model. What's wrong with royalty fee based business models? >Installing software is not a service, arguably Apple has no right to demand compensation for it in the first place. Right, which is why Apple characterizes the fee as "core technology fee", ie. for access to its tools and SDKs, not for access to the store.
    - bigyabai 1y ago
      > Who are the third party distributors for the playstation or xbox? Plenty. The retail Xbox has supported sideloading for almost a decade now: https://www.howtogeek.com/703443/how-to-put-your-xbox-series-x-or-s-into-developer-mode/ https://www.howtogeek.com/703443/how-to-put-your-xbox-series... Nintendo Switch has fully distributed homebrew stores too. > It's $100/developer. They can charge more if they don't think they're milking developers enough. They only have, what, a few million of them worldwide. > What's wrong with royalty fee based business models? Nothing, if they are forced to compete with other royalty-based services that set a fair baseline price. Otherwise everything is wrong with it. MacOS did this right, although admittedly the App Store didn't quite survive the gauntlet of competition. Imagine if your favorite band could only make money by signing to a single record label. Do you think their talent would be valued fairly? Do you think they would be respected for who they are, or do you think their likeness would be molested in whichever way was the most profitable for the label?
- Validark 1y ago
  Of course I think Apple should be compensated for their services. But the idea that software businesses should have to pay 30% of their income to Apple is insanity. How are they meaningfully contributing to every sale? Should I have to pay 30% of my income to my landlord? Should online retail businesses have to pay 30% to UPS or FedEx? Software distribution is the lowest-cost distribution business imaginable. I'm not saying bandwidth is free, but if it would make more economic sense for Fortnite to ship you a USB drive with their software on it rather than go through the App store, then there might be some extortion going on.
karel-3d 1y ago
Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft have similar taxes for their game stores where they have monopoly. Nintendo for example has NDA where you cannot even share online how much they take.
- bloppe 1y ago
  If that's true, sounds like a slam dunk lawsuit waiting to happen for Nintendo
someperson 1y ago
Why can't Apple set whatever pricing they want? Unless you're arguing that Apple has a monopoly. Also it's not a tax, though arguably it can be termed an "economic rent" (a technical term) that can be considered excessive, but I'm not sure about that.
- s_dev 1y ago
  >Why can't Apple set whatever pricing they want? Same reason any company can't set whatever they want. Vast majority of companies aren't deemed monopolies so this doesn't apply to them but this restriction holds over them once they grow to a certain size nonetheless. Even the most ardent capitalists/free market advocates agree that monopolies have to be regulated by the government. The real questions are what makes company a monopoly. You can always argue you aren't a monopoly but it's what convinces people that makes most sense and many people are beginning to be convinced that Apple/Google etc are monopolies in certain markets.
  - stahtops 1y ago
    I don't see an answer to the question you quoted in your post? It sounds like you are implying that a monopoly classification would somehow be relevant to fee/pricing strategy? The reality is that every company that has a hardware/software ecosystem has some form of AppStore. Sony, Nintendo, Valve, etc. Should we consider them all to be monopolies of their store? For fun, let's say they all are. In order for that monopoly classification to have some impact, it would have to be used in an anti competitive way. Let's say Nintendo wants 20%, Valve wants 30%, and Sony wants 40% of an apps sales price. You adjust your price for each platform, the software costs more on Steam Deck and PlayStation. Are Valve and Sony using their stores in an anti competitive way by charging more than Nintendo? I don't see how. It is not anti competitive for Sony to charge developers more. An example of something anti competitive would be Sony telling you that you can only put things up in their shop if it's exclusive to Sony.
  - bloppe 1y ago
    This is a misunderstanding of free market advocacy. The status quo for mobile apps is not a free market. Free markets are defined by meaningful choice. If there are undue restrictions on switching providers for any service -- it doesn't matter whether the restrictions come from the government or from private companies -- it's not a free market.
lowbloodsugar 1y ago
Feel like you’ve never tried to sell anything in a retail store.

I don’t think any developer considers it reasonable. I mean, apart from apple and the really brainless section of their fanboys, who thinks this is reasonable?

stahtops 1y ago

How do you think Target and Walmart work? They pay someone $10 for a widget and mark it up 100% and sell it for $20. App fees have basically been the same amount for all time. Literally every single developer looked at the numbers and decided to go into business.

swat535 1y ago

How is the 30% tax different than other platforms? Further, how much do you think should this be (20%? 10%? 5%?) and if zero, why? Finally, do you believe Apple should be compensated for the services and marketplace that they are offering, if so, what other strategies do you recommend that they deploy to make everyone happy?

reedlaw 1y ago
Amazon charges 15% for physical media, including software [1]. Since Apple is not shipping physical media, it seems something less than 15% would be more reasonable. 1. https://sellercentral.amazon.com/help/hub/reference/external/GTG4BAWSY39Z98Z3?locale=en-US#wjz_cjc_jcb-3 https://sellercentral.amazon.com/help/hub/reference/external...
- gruez 1y ago
  >Since Apple is not shipping physical media, it seems something less than 15% would be more reasonable. The link you provided is only for "Referral fee", not whatever fee charges to fulfill the order (ie. warehousing and shipping), which is separate: https://sellercentral.amazon.com/help/hub/reference/external/GPDC3KPYAGDTVDJP?locale=en-US https://sellercentral.amazon.com/help/hub/reference/external...
  - reedlaw 1y ago
    App store software should have minimal warehousing and shipping costs compared with physical software. I was just trying to come up with a ball-park comparable figure.
bigyabai 1y ago
> How is the 30% tax different than other platforms? Because it doesn't have to compete with third-party distributors like MacOS? The App Store on MacOS is almost entirely empty, every real developer abandoned it years ago. It's almost impossible to buy professional Mac software on the App Store, because real developers like Avid or Adobe or Affinity don't think Apple's deal is fair either. > Finally, do you believe Apple should be compensated for the services and marketplace that they are offering They already are, through their developer fees. If Apple can't compensate themselves without forcing people to use their services, then they need to redesign their business model. Installing software is not a service, arguably Apple has no right to demand compensation for it in the first place.
- gruez 1y ago
  >Because it doesn't have to compete with third-party distributors like MacOS? Who are the third party distributors for the playstation or xbox? >They already are, through their developer fees. It's $100/developer. Considering Microsoft used to charge thousands for Visual Studio, it doesn't seem too unreasonable to claim that $100/year is too low. >If Apple can't compensate themselves without forcing people to use their services, then they need to redesign their business model. What's wrong with royalty fee based business models? >Installing software is not a service, arguably Apple has no right to demand compensation for it in the first place. Right, which is why Apple characterizes the fee as "core technology fee", ie. for access to its tools and SDKs, not for access to the store.
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    > Who are the third party distributors for the playstation or xbox? Plenty. The retail Xbox has supported sideloading for almost a decade now: https://www.howtogeek.com/703443/how-to-put-your-xbox-series-x-or-s-into-developer-mode/ https://www.howtogeek.com/703443/how-to-put-your-xbox-series... Nintendo Switch has fully distributed homebrew stores too. > It's $100/developer. They can charge more if they don't think they're milking developers enough. They only have, what, a few million of them worldwide. > What's wrong with royalty fee based business models? Nothing, if they are forced to compete with other royalty-based services that set a fair baseline price. Otherwise everything is wrong with it. MacOS did this right, although admittedly the App Store didn't quite survive the gauntlet of competition. Imagine if your favorite band could only make money by signing to a single record label. Do you think their talent would be valued fairly? Do you think they would be respected for who they are, or do you think their likeness would be molested in whichever way was the most profitable for the label?
Validark 1y ago
Of course I think Apple should be compensated for their services. But the idea that software businesses should have to pay 30% of their income to Apple is insanity. How are they meaningfully contributing to every sale? Should I have to pay 30% of my income to my landlord? Should online retail businesses have to pay 30% to UPS or FedEx? Software distribution is the lowest-cost distribution business imaginable. I'm not saying bandwidth is free, but if it would make more economic sense for Fortnite to ship you a USB drive with their software on it rather than go through the App store, then there might be some extortion going on.

karel-3d 1y ago

Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft have similar taxes for their game stores where they have monopoly. Nintendo for example has NDA where you cannot even share online how much they take.

bloppe 1y ago
If that's true, sounds like a slam dunk lawsuit waiting to happen for Nintendo

someperson 1y ago

Why can't Apple set whatever pricing they want? Unless you're arguing that Apple has a monopoly. Also it's not a tax, though arguably it can be termed an "economic rent" (a technical term) that can be considered excessive, but I'm not sure about that.

s_dev 1y ago
>Why can't Apple set whatever pricing they want? Same reason any company can't set whatever they want. Vast majority of companies aren't deemed monopolies so this doesn't apply to them but this restriction holds over them once they grow to a certain size nonetheless. Even the most ardent capitalists/free market advocates agree that monopolies have to be regulated by the government. The real questions are what makes company a monopoly. You can always argue you aren't a monopoly but it's what convinces people that makes most sense and many people are beginning to be convinced that Apple/Google etc are monopolies in certain markets.
- stahtops 1y ago
  I don't see an answer to the question you quoted in your post? It sounds like you are implying that a monopoly classification would somehow be relevant to fee/pricing strategy? The reality is that every company that has a hardware/software ecosystem has some form of AppStore. Sony, Nintendo, Valve, etc. Should we consider them all to be monopolies of their store? For fun, let's say they all are. In order for that monopoly classification to have some impact, it would have to be used in an anti competitive way. Let's say Nintendo wants 20%, Valve wants 30%, and Sony wants 40% of an apps sales price. You adjust your price for each platform, the software costs more on Steam Deck and PlayStation. Are Valve and Sony using their stores in an anti competitive way by charging more than Nintendo? I don't see how. It is not anti competitive for Sony to charge developers more. An example of something anti competitive would be Sony telling you that you can only put things up in their shop if it's exclusive to Sony.
- bloppe 1y ago
  This is a misunderstanding of free market advocacy. The status quo for mobile apps is not a free market. Free markets are defined by meaningful choice. If there are undue restrictions on switching providers for any service -- it doesn't matter whether the restrictions come from the government or from private companies -- it's not a free market.

lowbloodsugar 1y ago

Feel like you’ve never tried to sell anything in a retail store.