5 ms·

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 App

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?
    - gruez 1y ago
      >Plenty. The retail Xbox has supported sideloading for almost a decade now: https://www.howtogeek.com/703443/how-to-put-your-xbox-series https://www.howtogeek.com/703443/how-to-put-your-xbox-series... If that counts as "sideloading", you might as well count the free 7 day signing option that iOS offers (used by alt store) "sideloading". >Nintendo Switch has fully distributed homebrew stores too. Officially? >Nothing, if they are forced to compete with other royalty-based services that set a fair baseline price. See my previous comments. Apple's claim is that the fee isn't for distribution, it's for access to the SDKs. It's unclear how "if they are forced to compete with other royalty-based services that set a fair baseline price" would work in this case. Epic offers Unreal Engine for free, with the expectation that they'll recoup the money via royalties. That sounds like a lot like Apple's SDKs. >Imagine if your favorite band could only make money by signing to a single record label. That's what happens for most bands though? There's typically a exclusivity period, and some artists might stick with a given label their entire lives.
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.

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?
  - gruez 1y ago
    >Plenty. The retail Xbox has supported sideloading for almost a decade now: https://www.howtogeek.com/703443/how-to-put-your-xbox-series https://www.howtogeek.com/703443/how-to-put-your-xbox-series... If that counts as "sideloading", you might as well count the free 7 day signing option that iOS offers (used by alt store) "sideloading". >Nintendo Switch has fully distributed homebrew stores too. Officially? >Nothing, if they are forced to compete with other royalty-based services that set a fair baseline price. See my previous comments. Apple's claim is that the fee isn't for distribution, it's for access to the SDKs. It's unclear how "if they are forced to compete with other royalty-based services that set a fair baseline price" would work in this case. Epic offers Unreal Engine for free, with the expectation that they'll recoup the money via royalties. That sounds like a lot like Apple's SDKs. >Imagine if your favorite band could only make money by signing to a single record label. That's what happens for most bands though? There's typically a exclusivity period, and some artists might stick with a given label their entire lives.

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.