10 ms·

Honest question, what do people think is a fair percentage? The platform development, app hosting, payment processing, and quality control is surely worth somet

Honest question, what do people think is a fair percentage? The platform development, app hosting, payment processing, and quality control is surely worth something.

thunky 1y ago
5% tops.
bigyabai 1y ago
Whatever Apple needs in order to compete with third-party distributors. They can set it to a 105% tax for all I care, just let me use third-party alternatives.
kelthuzad 1y ago
That's what the market will determine once Apple is forced to compete.
bitpush 1y ago
This question is valid only if Apple lets apps host their own apps, bring their own payment system. Apple bans all such activities, has held the entire app ecosystem and seeks rent. If they think their offering is superior, then they should be OK competing. The fact that they have not opened it up says that they are happy to overcharge. Remember, competition is always good. Let Stripe and Apple duke it out on payment processing, and let the best one win. Let games me hosted both on Epic Store and App Store, and let users decide where to download it from. That will be fair.
- thewebguyd 1y ago
  > Apple lets apps host their own apps, bring their own payment system. And also not require those apps to be also approved by Apple, which they are trying to do with AltStore and the DMA. Users should be able to go to a dev's website, pay them directly, and download the ipa and install it with a click from the website. Having to go through any kind of "app store" at all should be optional.
- crims0n 1y ago
  So in this scenario would Epic then need to develop and maintain their own toolchain and SDK for their app store? The development tools and education are also worth something, Epic shouldn’t get that for free.
  - lukeschlather 1y ago
    Epic has a toolchain and SDK for their own app store. So does Valve, and many other competitors, and Apple won't let them install their toolchain on iOS.
  - jen729w 1y ago
    Dystopian story plot: Apple completely opens up the iOS platform. Do whatever you like. Also, an XCode license is now $20,000/year. Don’t like it? Build your own.
    - bitpush 1y ago
      > Also, an XCode license is now $20,000/year. Don’t like it? Build your own. And people will. That's how competition works. If someone thinks they can make a profit by offering a) better product b) same product at a cheaper price, you'll see investment. VCs will be pouring money to capture that market.
      - surgical_fire 1y ago
        > And people will. And it will likely be much better too.
    - rescbr 1y ago
      That would be the best outcome! We would be back to the real days of computing.
    - Aloisius 1y ago
      Why stop at xcode? Add a licensing fee for UIKit, Core Data, Core Text, Core Audio, Core Graphics, Metal, Network, SwiftUI, Quartz and all the other libraries apps use constantly. Heck, why not for the OS itself? If you don't want to pay, they could conceivably dump you into an isolated VM and force you to write your own OS and userspace device drivers.
- Devasta 1y ago
  Hardly always good. The mobile app ecosystem on both iOS and Android is a morass of freemium games and ad slop, because the market has determined that hooking one whale is more important than creating a quality product. The competition will find the most profitable process, not the one that serves customers best necessarily. The biggest change the iPhone users are going to see an increase in spyware. They'll also notice in a few years a bunch of websites go Chrome only.
  - bitpush 1y ago
    On Macs, users can download and install apps freely from the internet, and that platform isnt "a morass of freemium games and ad slop". Why is that for one platform, everything needs to go through AppStore while the other it is OK - and both are equally secure? Are you sure you're not falling for Apple's reality distortion field?
    - rkomorn 1y ago
      Not OP, and not that I buy that the App Store serves its purpose given what's currently on it, but I just don't think the two platforms are comparable. iPhones outnumber Macs something like 10:1. The user base tech literacy is lower on average. The usage habits are different. The payoff for creating freemium and ad slop stuff on iOS is way higher.
bdangubic 1y ago
50-75%
chris_wot 1y ago
Well, the market will decide I guess. If this is the case, then competitors won't be an issue. If not, then Apple's goose is cooked.
raincole 1y ago
The honest answer is that Apple shouldn't own iOS and its main app store at the same time. But there is not legal / regulation framework to prevent that. Case in point: Steam is taking 30% too. But you've heard much less fuss over it, right? Why? Is it because of players' cult-like behavior around Steam? (probably partially) But more importantly it's because Valve doesn't own Windows and Steam Deck is a far smaller fry.
- npinsker 1y ago
  Steam's cut decreases to 20% after a certain amount of money. Also Steam does a lot more to earn their cut than any other platform, by far -- for example, they do a lot of promotion for you, both algorithmic and through things like Daily Deals, for free, whereas on iOS it is very difficult for ad spend to not be a significant part of your budget. The rule of thumb I've heard is, for every organic sale you make, Steam's algorithm will get you one more sale. So their cut feels quite worth it. A closer example is game consoles, whose associated stores also take 30%, and nobody seems to complain about.
  - raincole 1y ago
    > for every organic sale you make, Steam's algorithm will get you one more sale I'm not sure what you mean. Every game dev now refers what Steam algorithm gives you "organic sale."
    - npinsker 1y ago
      Maybe my wording wasn't good -- I meant a sale driven primarily through a channel other than Steam (streamer, Reddit, ads, friend recommendation). It's difficult for me to really trust this stat though because purchasing decisions are complicated.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
- bsimpson 1y ago
  You can also mod your Steam Deck to your heart's content. There's a plugin called Junk Store that will let you use other stores.
someotherperson 1y ago
How much of a fee do you think you should pay to install applications on your computer? The same amount as that. Or provide alternative ways to install software. This is a problem of their own creation.
- chongli 1y ago
  As soon as you open the door to side-loading, you'll have scammers and data-siphoners force all their users to side-load so that they can completely bypass Apple's privacy controls and security features. The entire iOS ecosystem is built on the App Store review process as a gatekeeper for entitlements and the capabilities they grant (through API access). How do you solve that problem for side-loaded apps?
  - monkmartinez 1y ago
    Does Apple have an explicit guarantee that apps can not scam or data siphon from an iPhone or iPad app?
    - chongli 1y ago
      Yes, assuming that iOS's entitlement security has not been broken.
      - Deathmax 1y ago
        As if the App Store had any sort of those guarantees. I know of people have been scammed via WebView wrappers that purported to be some benign app to pass app store review, which were then pointed at fake exchange websites afterwards. GitLab which was hosting their C&C mechanism took action faster than Apple or Google did to take down multiple scam apps across multiple different developer identities, but the scammers spun up new apps the next day.
        chongli 1y ago
        WebView wrappers don't have any more ability to siphon data out of the phone than any other app. Scammers can always scam users if they can trick them into entering data into a website. There's nothing anyone can do about that (besides blocking web access).
doctorpangloss 1y ago
Your list is missing, "concentrating rich payers into one channel," which is why developers pay 30%, even if they don't like it.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
gpm 1y ago
As long as Apple requires they make use of those services for me to install software on the computer I bought, and they prevent others from producing equivalent competing devices via patents (i.e. government granted monopolies), zero. It's not that it's not worth something, it's that they're abusing their patents and monopoly to extract further compensation after I already bought the device.
- cedws 1y ago
  You had the choice to buy another phone.
  - gpm 1y ago
    I did not have a choice to buy another equivalent phone because patents legally forbid other companies from producing equivalent phones. If Apple wants to take that defence, they should be required to have abandoned every patent they own on iPhones prior to my purchase of the device.
    - cedws 1y ago
      Equivalent in what way? A Samsung, a Xiaomi, a Google phone have all of the necessary capabilities to live a modern life.
      - gpm 1y ago
        Equivalent in the way of having the numerous features small and large that Apple has patents on. Whether that's being a rectangle with rounded corners (yes they have a patent on that, or at least did, and successfully defended it in court. Not sure what's happened in the meantime), or whatever random patents Apple has on making blood oxygen sensor technology just that little bit better. If Apple believes their portfolio of patents protecting the iPhone is worthless, they should abandon them. That they haven't precludes the argument that they are.
        cedws 1y ago
gortok 1y ago
“Quality Control”? Outside of the absolute bare minimum to check this box for a plurality of observers, I can’t imagine anyone actually saying the App Store has a quality control process with a straight face, especially not one that would be championed as acceptable as a market practice.
- Rohansi 1y ago
  The App Store "quality control" does its job (or tries to) to make sure developers aren't breaking their arbitrary rules. They would never actually do quality control because they benefit from all the junk being pushed to the App Store through their cut, search ads, etc.
glitchc 1y ago
10%. A finder's fee, like everything else irl. It should be regulated as such for all platforms.
- ASalazarMX 1y ago
  Wholeheartedly agree. 30% fee feels like medicare in USA, an excessive amount because it's as high as developers will pay without giving up and leaving. The Apple App Store sold more than one trillion USD in 2024, how much of their 30% cut (300+ billion) covers operational costs? ¿10%?
- xboxnolifes 1y ago
  I was unaware finders fee were universally 10%, or even regulated to be so.
brazukadev 1y ago
Whatever they want, but let me use MY phone to install whatever app I want outside of the app store.
- what 1y ago
  You bought the phone knowing you can only install from the App Store. Buy a different phone.
  - brazukadev 1y ago
    That's not how the justice system works, kiddo.
gt0 1y ago
For me it's not about the percentage, it's that it is a monopoly. If I make an iPad app, my only route to market is Apple. That is before I get into my personal objection to having to ask permission to put software on a computer I bought. I own an iPad but I can't just install anything I want on it, Apple needs to approve the software first. For me that's just anti-creative and anti-everying-I-love-about-computers. All I really want as a software developer is to be able to write software and have people use it if they choose to. I don't want Apple or any other company inserted as a middle-man.
dreamcompiler 1y ago
So you believe quality control is part of the App Store review process?
827a 1y ago
IMO: Any number, as long as it is not expressed as a percentage.
yupyupyups 1y ago
Allow developers to distribute their apps outside of the app store, the cost apart for firmware maintenance and development will be 0. Apple is not bringing its users value by prohibiting sideloading of arbitrary apps. Rather, this is an extreme example of rent-seeking which has affected almost all countries around the world. It needs to be regulated away.
radley 1y ago
They can charge whatever they want. But they can't force exclusivity. Without that, terms and benefits would be equitable.
stevage 1y ago
Payment processors like Stripe, Wise etc are typically taking around 1-2% so that's a good anchor.
Sophistifunk 1y ago
Thing is that's a question for the market to decide. Which is why we have anti-trust / anti-monopoly laws in the first place. We don't want the state setting "fair" prices for anything, it always backfires. We want them ensuring the market is free to set prices. Monopolies granted by the state (trademarks, copyright, patents) are specific and limited, and ideally we want monopolies that arise naturally to be similarly limited, or broken up if they are being weaponised against the public.
bloppe 1y ago
Someone asks this every time, and the answer is always the same. Fair pricing can only be discovered in a competitive market. The problem is that Apple moves heaven and earth to prevent competitive markets from doing their thing. That being said, this is the UK, where even in a reasonably competitive job market people can still sue their employer for "unfair pay" [1], so maybe the thinking here is a bit different than my silly classical liberal brain [1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj0817jd9dqo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj0817jd9dqo
StopDisinfo910 1y ago
If only there was a mechanism which would allow companies to offer similar services then maybe as they try to get customers they would fix prices so as to make money but gain market shares and the price would emerge. That would be truly efficient. Surely we would then fine companies which do their best to avoid that and not try to find excuses for their practices.
nradov 1y ago
There is no way to define a "fair" percentage. Fairness is entirely subjective. Require Apple to allow alternative third-party app stores and let the free market sort it out.
Reason077 1y ago
> ”Honest question, what do people think is a fair percentage?” The UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) believes it is 17.5%. One issue, IMO, with this determination is the existence of Steam, which reportedly also takes 30% yet operates in a competitive market on open platforms. So there is a case to force Apple to open the platform to other app stores, but the argument to regulate Apple’s pricing is much weaker.
ApolloFortyNine 1y ago
They can do whatever they want imo, if I'm allowed to install a third party apps and app stores.
someNameIG 1y ago
What's Apples profit margins on their hardware? Just from that they're already getting what all that is worth. The 30% app store cut is just rent seeking.
musicale 1y ago
> platform development It's almost 100% platform development. The iPhone is a walled-garden game platform and Apple treats it like one. To answer your question, it probably isn't sensible to expect Apple to charge a drastically different platform fee in its game store compared to what is charged for other walled-garden game platforms and stores like the Nintendo eShop. It may be worth noting that Amazon's Luna game service can work on the iPhone in a web browser, so game streaming isn't exactly an Apple-enforced monopoly.
hansvm 1y ago
Even framing it as a percentage is a category error. If they're providing services, we should be able to pay for the cost of those services. Beyond that, the app store is worth something in aggregate to app developers, but it's worth _more_ to Apple. Without the app store the iOS ecosystem doesn't exist. Without Apple, developers work on the next best platform. Under that framing, shouldn't Apple be paying developers to not leave the platform? The fact that neither of those things is happening (total rent is disproportionately larger than the services provided, and the net flow of cash is toward the beneficiary of value rather than away from it) points to a monopoly worth breaking down. Those aren't hard rules, but they're suggestive facts. Actually answering your question: Payment processors charge up to 5% and do more due diligence and have more overhead than Apple, so if I had to name a percentage on every transaction (a viewpoint I already disagree with), 5% would be a hard upper bound. IME, the value Apple provides from their "services" in that space is usually negative aside from the fact that you have to do business with them, so I think the actual price should be much less.
cyberax 1y ago
Payment processor fees plus a couple of percentage points. At most. Apple _already_ gets its money from users of their overpriced devices. They even get at least $300-$400 a year from developers in hardware depreciation because you have to use pretty expensive Apple devices to write software for iOS.
lmm 1y ago
If Apple thinks what they're offering is worth the price they're charging, why are they so scared of having to compete in the market? Their service is worth what people choose to pay for it, and currently that's 0 since no-one is choosing it.
mrheosuper 1y ago
A Fair percentage is whatever the market decides, not Apple. That is why they are monopoly
wmf 1y ago
In the EU Apple is now charging ~12% just to be in the App Store or 20% for additional discoverability. Payment processing is on top of that. These fees seem somewhat fair to me.
heavyset_go 1y ago
How much should we be paying Microsoft when we buy Steam games on Windows? 30%? I'd be okay giving Microsoft whatever they wanted on the Windows app store as long as they loosened their grip on being able to run what you want, from where you want, without their explicit blessing. Same applies to Apple. If their App Store is really that good, it can compete on a fair playing field with other options (and no, 3rd party app stores that still require Apple's blessing and taxes don't count).
- nandomrumber 1y ago
  What software can’t run on Windows without Microsoft’s blessing?
  - heavyset_go 1y ago
    Anything that isn't signed with certs from Microsoft-blessed CAs, anything that is signed with certs that were revoked either by Microsoft or their blessed CAs, and anything newly signed with old certs that weren't renewed for a $100+/yr fee. That, or you upload your app to Azure for cloud signing where Microsoft decides to bless it or not, and you might pay less than going with a full code signing cert from a CA. Ran into this fun issue a while back[1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40815488 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40815488
    - Dylan16807 1y ago
      Sorry you hit that bug but you can definitely run unsigned code on windows.
      - heavyset_go 1y ago
        Never claimed you couldn't, try distributing that unsigned code and see if your users can figure out how to run it, or if their OS will gaslight them into thinking they just downloaded a virus, or if they get past that, if they can get past the additional warning window that purposely doesn't show[1] the "Run anyway" button that lets you run what you want. Running signed apps doesn't require you to know a cursed arcane ritual to run the apps you want to run, you just double click them. Having to travel through several circles of hell, each time being urged to turn around immediately, just to run unsigned code means the vast majority of users are shit out of luck when it comes to running something they want if it's not in good standing with Microsoft. [1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/4270245/no-option-to-run-anyways-on-uac-prompt https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/4270245/...
orasis 1y ago
As a professional iOS app publisher, I feel 15% is fair.
- nandomrumber 1y ago
  Genuine question, is the App Store fee a tax deductible business expense in your country?
  - orasis 1y ago
    Of course. Apple removes their cut first before paying out. I’m in the US.
troupo 1y ago
> The platform development, app hosting, payment processing, and quality control is surely worth something. 1. I didn't know iPhones are free. Or iPads. Or Macs. Or Apple developer program 2. Apple could just... not host apps or provide payment services, and allow people to install apps from alternatives and let devs use other payment systems
- imron 1y ago
  > and allow people to install apps from alternatives and let devs use other payment systems Pre iPhone this is how all software was sold. Not defending Apple, but independent developers ended up with far smaller piece of the pie. That’s one of the reasons devs flocked to the AppStore. At the time 70% was exceedingly generous compared to other distributors.
  - troupo 1y ago
    > That’s one of the reasons devs flocked to the AppStore. At the time 70% was exceedingly generous compared to other distributors. It's quite ironic how the company that disrupted the frankly predatory pricing model standard at the time is now itself predatory. Somewhat tangential: It's also complicated by the markets changing: PCs used to be the ubiquitous platform (where you could distribute whatever you wanted however you wanted [1]), and the mobile phone was a luxury-ish product (tightly controlled by distributors). Now mobile phones are the ubiquitous platform everyone depends on... and they are extremely tightly locked down and controlled. [1] Has anyone paid for their WinRaR license yet? :)
mirzap 1y ago
The real issue isn’t Apple’s commission, it’s the lack of choice. Allowing app installations outside the App Store, as on macOS, would immediately subject Apple’s pricing to market pressure. The fee would drop on its own, without regulation. Macs have allowed apps from "untrusted" sources for decades - and they’re doing just fine. So no, this isn’t about security. It’s about control and monopoly.
- isodev 1y ago
  Exactly this. There is no way not to choose the App Store, regardless of the price. Apple goes further by making users believe alternatives are "less secure" and what not (which is not true) so it's not just about distribution, it's also a battle of perception. Even if Apple's App Store tax is 0.00, it would still be unfair and have negative impact on consumers due to the limited choice of apps and experiences they can get.
  - timeon 1y ago
    > making users believe alternatives are "less secure" Meanwhile searching on Apple's App Store gives you unrelated crypto scam app as first hit. Apple looks so off-brand these days.
eviks 1y ago
That's way y to find out - stop blocking the competition
daveoc64 1y ago
Free apps pay nothing, so Apple has already shown that everything other than payments can be done for free.
realusername 1y ago
The platform development is seriously one of the worst in the market, most apps would be fine with Stripe and what QC?
nake89 1y ago
If apple made it easy to install other stores. E.g. when you open the iPhone for the first time it would not prioritize the app store (like I think it does with browsers, at least android does). This would create a more fair market. This would allow for competition. Which would allow prices to even out and be more fair. Long winded way of saying, I don't know what the fair percentage would be. But I know as it stands now, we cannot even begin to know it.
victorbjorklund 1y ago
I think the best thing would be if Apple just allowed other payment providers so like Stripe and I'm not sure I haven't followed it totally if they now kind of have been forced to do that but I think then you have a free market where developers can choose whether they want to use apples in app payments which are easier and probably results in better conversion rates or they want to use an external like Stripe or something like that. I don't think it's reasonable to pay for the app hosting or development other than the $100 fee per year that should certainly cover the cost of storing a few megabytes of an app.

Honest question, what do people think is a fair percentage? The platform development, app hosting, payment processing, and quality control is surely worth something.

thunky 1y ago

5% tops.

bigyabai 1y ago

Whatever Apple needs in order to compete with third-party distributors. They can set it to a 105% tax for all I care, just let me use third-party alternatives.

kelthuzad 1y ago

That's what the market will determine once Apple is forced to compete.

bitpush 1y ago

This question is valid only if Apple lets apps host their own apps, bring their own payment system. Apple bans all such activities, has held the entire app ecosystem and seeks rent. If they think their offering is superior, then they should be OK competing. The fact that they have not opened it up says that they are happy to overcharge. Remember, competition is always good. Let Stripe and Apple duke it out on payment processing, and let the best one win. Let games me hosted both on Epic Store and App Store, and let users decide where to download it from. That will be fair.

thewebguyd 1y ago
> Apple lets apps host their own apps, bring their own payment system. And also not require those apps to be also approved by Apple, which they are trying to do with AltStore and the DMA. Users should be able to go to a dev's website, pay them directly, and download the ipa and install it with a click from the website. Having to go through any kind of "app store" at all should be optional.
crims0n 1y ago
So in this scenario would Epic then need to develop and maintain their own toolchain and SDK for their app store? The development tools and education are also worth something, Epic shouldn’t get that for free.
- lukeschlather 1y ago
  Epic has a toolchain and SDK for their own app store. So does Valve, and many other competitors, and Apple won't let them install their toolchain on iOS.
- jen729w 1y ago
  Dystopian story plot: Apple completely opens up the iOS platform. Do whatever you like. Also, an XCode license is now $20,000/year. Don’t like it? Build your own.
  - bitpush 1y ago
    > Also, an XCode license is now $20,000/year. Don’t like it? Build your own. And people will. That's how competition works. If someone thinks they can make a profit by offering a) better product b) same product at a cheaper price, you'll see investment. VCs will be pouring money to capture that market.
    - surgical_fire 1y ago
      > And people will. And it will likely be much better too.
  - rescbr 1y ago
    That would be the best outcome! We would be back to the real days of computing.
  - Aloisius 1y ago
    Why stop at xcode? Add a licensing fee for UIKit, Core Data, Core Text, Core Audio, Core Graphics, Metal, Network, SwiftUI, Quartz and all the other libraries apps use constantly. Heck, why not for the OS itself? If you don't want to pay, they could conceivably dump you into an isolated VM and force you to write your own OS and userspace device drivers.
Devasta 1y ago
Hardly always good. The mobile app ecosystem on both iOS and Android is a morass of freemium games and ad slop, because the market has determined that hooking one whale is more important than creating a quality product. The competition will find the most profitable process, not the one that serves customers best necessarily. The biggest change the iPhone users are going to see an increase in spyware. They'll also notice in a few years a bunch of websites go Chrome only.
- bitpush 1y ago
  On Macs, users can download and install apps freely from the internet, and that platform isnt "a morass of freemium games and ad slop". Why is that for one platform, everything needs to go through AppStore while the other it is OK - and both are equally secure? Are you sure you're not falling for Apple's reality distortion field?
  - rkomorn 1y ago
    Not OP, and not that I buy that the App Store serves its purpose given what's currently on it, but I just don't think the two platforms are comparable. iPhones outnumber Macs something like 10:1. The user base tech literacy is lower on average. The usage habits are different. The payoff for creating freemium and ad slop stuff on iOS is way higher.

bdangubic 1y ago

50-75%

chris_wot 1y ago

Well, the market will decide I guess. If this is the case, then competitors won't be an issue. If not, then Apple's goose is cooked.

raincole 1y ago

The honest answer is that Apple shouldn't own iOS and its main app store at the same time. But there is not legal / regulation framework to prevent that. Case in point: Steam is taking 30% too. But you've heard much less fuss over it, right? Why? Is it because of players' cult-like behavior around Steam? (probably partially) But more importantly it's because Valve doesn't own Windows and Steam Deck is a far smaller fry.

npinsker 1y ago
Steam's cut decreases to 20% after a certain amount of money. Also Steam does a lot more to earn their cut than any other platform, by far -- for example, they do a lot of promotion for you, both algorithmic and through things like Daily Deals, for free, whereas on iOS it is very difficult for ad spend to not be a significant part of your budget. The rule of thumb I've heard is, for every organic sale you make, Steam's algorithm will get you one more sale. So their cut feels quite worth it. A closer example is game consoles, whose associated stores also take 30%, and nobody seems to complain about.
- raincole 1y ago
  > for every organic sale you make, Steam's algorithm will get you one more sale I'm not sure what you mean. Every game dev now refers what Steam algorithm gives you "organic sale."
  - npinsker 1y ago
    Maybe my wording wasn't good -- I meant a sale driven primarily through a channel other than Steam (streamer, Reddit, ads, friend recommendation). It's difficult for me to really trust this stat though because purchasing decisions are complicated.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
bsimpson 1y ago
You can also mod your Steam Deck to your heart's content. There's a plugin called Junk Store that will let you use other stores.

someotherperson 1y ago

How much of a fee do you think you should pay to install applications on your computer? The same amount as that. Or provide alternative ways to install software. This is a problem of their own creation.

chongli 1y ago
As soon as you open the door to side-loading, you'll have scammers and data-siphoners force all their users to side-load so that they can completely bypass Apple's privacy controls and security features. The entire iOS ecosystem is built on the App Store review process as a gatekeeper for entitlements and the capabilities they grant (through API access). How do you solve that problem for side-loaded apps?
- monkmartinez 1y ago
  Does Apple have an explicit guarantee that apps can not scam or data siphon from an iPhone or iPad app?
  - chongli 1y ago
    Yes, assuming that iOS's entitlement security has not been broken.
    - Deathmax 1y ago
      As if the App Store had any sort of those guarantees. I know of people have been scammed via WebView wrappers that purported to be some benign app to pass app store review, which were then pointed at fake exchange websites afterwards. GitLab which was hosting their C&C mechanism took action faster than Apple or Google did to take down multiple scam apps across multiple different developer identities, but the scammers spun up new apps the next day.
      - chongli 1y ago
        WebView wrappers don't have any more ability to siphon data out of the phone than any other app. Scammers can always scam users if they can trick them into entering data into a website. There's nothing anyone can do about that (besides blocking web access).

doctorpangloss 1y ago

Your list is missing, "concentrating rich payers into one channel," which is why developers pay 30%, even if they don't like it.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

gpm 1y ago

As long as Apple requires they make use of those services for me to install software on the computer I bought, and they prevent others from producing equivalent competing devices via patents (i.e. government granted monopolies), zero. It's not that it's not worth something, it's that they're abusing their patents and monopoly to extract further compensation after I already bought the device.

cedws 1y ago
You had the choice to buy another phone.
- gpm 1y ago
  I did not have a choice to buy another equivalent phone because patents legally forbid other companies from producing equivalent phones. If Apple wants to take that defence, they should be required to have abandoned every patent they own on iPhones prior to my purchase of the device.
  - cedws 1y ago
    Equivalent in what way? A Samsung, a Xiaomi, a Google phone have all of the necessary capabilities to live a modern life.
    - gpm 1y ago
      Equivalent in the way of having the numerous features small and large that Apple has patents on. Whether that's being a rectangle with rounded corners (yes they have a patent on that, or at least did, and successfully defended it in court. Not sure what's happened in the meantime), or whatever random patents Apple has on making blood oxygen sensor technology just that little bit better. If Apple believes their portfolio of patents protecting the iPhone is worthless, they should abandon them. That they haven't precludes the argument that they are.
      - cedws 1y ago

gortok 1y ago

“Quality Control”? Outside of the absolute bare minimum to check this box for a plurality of observers, I can’t imagine anyone actually saying the App Store has a quality control process with a straight face, especially not one that would be championed as acceptable as a market practice.

Rohansi 1y ago
The App Store "quality control" does its job (or tries to) to make sure developers aren't breaking their arbitrary rules. They would never actually do quality control because they benefit from all the junk being pushed to the App Store through their cut, search ads, etc.

glitchc 1y ago

10%. A finder's fee, like everything else irl. It should be regulated as such for all platforms.

ASalazarMX 1y ago
Wholeheartedly agree. 30% fee feels like medicare in USA, an excessive amount because it's as high as developers will pay without giving up and leaving. The Apple App Store sold more than one trillion USD in 2024, how much of their 30% cut (300+ billion) covers operational costs? ¿10%?
xboxnolifes 1y ago
I was unaware finders fee were universally 10%, or even regulated to be so.

brazukadev 1y ago

Whatever they want, but let me use MY phone to install whatever app I want outside of the app store.

what 1y ago
You bought the phone knowing you can only install from the App Store. Buy a different phone.
- brazukadev 1y ago
  That's not how the justice system works, kiddo.

gt0 1y ago

For me it's not about the percentage, it's that it is a monopoly. If I make an iPad app, my only route to market is Apple. That is before I get into my personal objection to having to ask permission to put software on a computer I bought. I own an iPad but I can't just install anything I want on it, Apple needs to approve the software first. For me that's just anti-creative and anti-everying-I-love-about-computers. All I really want as a software developer is to be able to write software and have people use it if they choose to. I don't want Apple or any other company inserted as a middle-man.

dreamcompiler 1y ago

So you believe quality control is part of the App Store review process?

827a 1y ago

IMO: Any number, as long as it is not expressed as a percentage.

yupyupyups 1y ago

Allow developers to distribute their apps outside of the app store, the cost apart for firmware maintenance and development will be 0. Apple is not bringing its users value by prohibiting sideloading of arbitrary apps. Rather, this is an extreme example of rent-seeking which has affected almost all countries around the world. It needs to be regulated away.

radley 1y ago

They can charge whatever they want. But they can't force exclusivity. Without that, terms and benefits would be equitable.

stevage 1y ago

Payment processors like Stripe, Wise etc are typically taking around 1-2% so that's a good anchor.

Sophistifunk 1y ago

Thing is that's a question for the market to decide. Which is why we have anti-trust / anti-monopoly laws in the first place. We don't want the state setting "fair" prices for anything, it always backfires. We want them ensuring the market is free to set prices. Monopolies granted by the state (trademarks, copyright, patents) are specific and limited, and ideally we want monopolies that arise naturally to be similarly limited, or broken up if they are being weaponised against the public.

bloppe 1y ago

Someone asks this every time, and the answer is always the same. Fair pricing can only be discovered in a competitive market. The problem is that Apple moves heaven and earth to prevent competitive markets from doing their thing. That being said, this is the UK, where even in a reasonably competitive job market people can still sue their employer for "unfair pay" [1], so maybe the thinking here is a bit different than my silly classical liberal brain [1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj0817jd9dqo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj0817jd9dqo

StopDisinfo910 1y ago

If only there was a mechanism which would allow companies to offer similar services then maybe as they try to get customers they would fix prices so as to make money but gain market shares and the price would emerge. That would be truly efficient. Surely we would then fine companies which do their best to avoid that and not try to find excuses for their practices.

nradov 1y ago

There is no way to define a "fair" percentage. Fairness is entirely subjective. Require Apple to allow alternative third-party app stores and let the free market sort it out.

Reason077 1y ago

> ”Honest question, what do people think is a fair percentage?” The UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) believes it is 17.5%. One issue, IMO, with this determination is the existence of Steam, which reportedly also takes 30% yet operates in a competitive market on open platforms. So there is a case to force Apple to open the platform to other app stores, but the argument to regulate Apple’s pricing is much weaker.

ApolloFortyNine 1y ago

They can do whatever they want imo, if I'm allowed to install a third party apps and app stores.

someNameIG 1y ago

What's Apples profit margins on their hardware? Just from that they're already getting what all that is worth. The 30% app store cut is just rent seeking.

musicale 1y ago

> platform development It's almost 100% platform development. The iPhone is a walled-garden game platform and Apple treats it like one. To answer your question, it probably isn't sensible to expect Apple to charge a drastically different platform fee in its game store compared to what is charged for other walled-garden game platforms and stores like the Nintendo eShop. It may be worth noting that Amazon's Luna game service can work on the iPhone in a web browser, so game streaming isn't exactly an Apple-enforced monopoly.

hansvm 1y ago

Even framing it as a percentage is a category error. If they're providing services, we should be able to pay for the cost of those services. Beyond that, the app store is worth something in aggregate to app developers, but it's worth _more_ to Apple. Without the app store the iOS ecosystem doesn't exist. Without Apple, developers work on the next best platform. Under that framing, shouldn't Apple be paying developers to not leave the platform? The fact that neither of those things is happening (total rent is disproportionately larger than the services provided, and the net flow of cash is toward the beneficiary of value rather than away from it) points to a monopoly worth breaking down. Those aren't hard rules, but they're suggestive facts. Actually answering your question: Payment processors charge up to 5% and do more due diligence and have more overhead than Apple, so if I had to name a percentage on every transaction (a viewpoint I already disagree with), 5% would be a hard upper bound. IME, the value Apple provides from their "services" in that space is usually negative aside from the fact that you have to do business with them, so I think the actual price should be much less.

cyberax 1y ago

Payment processor fees plus a couple of percentage points. At most. Apple _already_ gets its money from users of their overpriced devices. They even get at least $300-$400 a year from developers in hardware depreciation because you have to use pretty expensive Apple devices to write software for iOS.

lmm 1y ago

If Apple thinks what they're offering is worth the price they're charging, why are they so scared of having to compete in the market? Their service is worth what people choose to pay for it, and currently that's 0 since no-one is choosing it.

mrheosuper 1y ago

A Fair percentage is whatever the market decides, not Apple. That is why they are monopoly

wmf 1y ago

In the EU Apple is now charging ~12% just to be in the App Store or 20% for additional discoverability. Payment processing is on top of that. These fees seem somewhat fair to me.

heavyset_go 1y ago

How much should we be paying Microsoft when we buy Steam games on Windows? 30%? I'd be okay giving Microsoft whatever they wanted on the Windows app store as long as they loosened their grip on being able to run what you want, from where you want, without their explicit blessing. Same applies to Apple. If their App Store is really that good, it can compete on a fair playing field with other options (and no, 3rd party app stores that still require Apple's blessing and taxes don't count).

nandomrumber 1y ago
What software can’t run on Windows without Microsoft’s blessing?
- heavyset_go 1y ago
  Anything that isn't signed with certs from Microsoft-blessed CAs, anything that is signed with certs that were revoked either by Microsoft or their blessed CAs, and anything newly signed with old certs that weren't renewed for a $100+/yr fee. That, or you upload your app to Azure for cloud signing where Microsoft decides to bless it or not, and you might pay less than going with a full code signing cert from a CA. Ran into this fun issue a while back[1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40815488 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40815488
  - Dylan16807 1y ago
    Sorry you hit that bug but you can definitely run unsigned code on windows.
    - heavyset_go 1y ago
      Never claimed you couldn't, try distributing that unsigned code and see if your users can figure out how to run it, or if their OS will gaslight them into thinking they just downloaded a virus, or if they get past that, if they can get past the additional warning window that purposely doesn't show[1] the "Run anyway" button that lets you run what you want. Running signed apps doesn't require you to know a cursed arcane ritual to run the apps you want to run, you just double click them. Having to travel through several circles of hell, each time being urged to turn around immediately, just to run unsigned code means the vast majority of users are shit out of luck when it comes to running something they want if it's not in good standing with Microsoft. [1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/4270245/no-option-to-run-anyways-on-uac-prompt https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/4270245/...

orasis 1y ago

As a professional iOS app publisher, I feel 15% is fair.

nandomrumber 1y ago
Genuine question, is the App Store fee a tax deductible business expense in your country?
- orasis 1y ago
  Of course. Apple removes their cut first before paying out. I’m in the US.

troupo 1y ago

> The platform development, app hosting, payment processing, and quality control is surely worth something. 1. I didn't know iPhones are free. Or iPads. Or Macs. Or Apple developer program 2. Apple could just... not host apps or provide payment services, and allow people to install apps from alternatives and let devs use other payment systems

imron 1y ago
> and allow people to install apps from alternatives and let devs use other payment systems Pre iPhone this is how all software was sold. Not defending Apple, but independent developers ended up with far smaller piece of the pie. That’s one of the reasons devs flocked to the AppStore. At the time 70% was exceedingly generous compared to other distributors.
- troupo 1y ago
  > That’s one of the reasons devs flocked to the AppStore. At the time 70% was exceedingly generous compared to other distributors. It's quite ironic how the company that disrupted the frankly predatory pricing model standard at the time is now itself predatory. Somewhat tangential: It's also complicated by the markets changing: PCs used to be the ubiquitous platform (where you could distribute whatever you wanted however you wanted [1]), and the mobile phone was a luxury-ish product (tightly controlled by distributors). Now mobile phones are the ubiquitous platform everyone depends on... and they are extremely tightly locked down and controlled. [1] Has anyone paid for their WinRaR license yet? :)

mirzap 1y ago

The real issue isn’t Apple’s commission, it’s the lack of choice. Allowing app installations outside the App Store, as on macOS, would immediately subject Apple’s pricing to market pressure. The fee would drop on its own, without regulation. Macs have allowed apps from "untrusted" sources for decades - and they’re doing just fine. So no, this isn’t about security. It’s about control and monopoly.

isodev 1y ago
Exactly this. There is no way not to choose the App Store, regardless of the price. Apple goes further by making users believe alternatives are "less secure" and what not (which is not true) so it's not just about distribution, it's also a battle of perception. Even if Apple's App Store tax is 0.00, it would still be unfair and have negative impact on consumers due to the limited choice of apps and experiences they can get.
- timeon 1y ago
  > making users believe alternatives are "less secure" Meanwhile searching on Apple's App Store gives you unrelated crypto scam app as first hit. Apple looks so off-brand these days.

eviks 1y ago

That's way y to find out - stop blocking the competition

daveoc64 1y ago

Free apps pay nothing, so Apple has already shown that everything other than payments can be done for free.

realusername 1y ago

The platform development is seriously one of the worst in the market, most apps would be fine with Stripe and what QC?

nake89 1y ago

If apple made it easy to install other stores. E.g. when you open the iPhone for the first time it would not prioritize the app store (like I think it does with browsers, at least android does). This would create a more fair market. This would allow for competition. Which would allow prices to even out and be more fair. Long winded way of saying, I don't know what the fair percentage would be. But I know as it stands now, we cannot even begin to know it.

victorbjorklund 1y ago

I think the best thing would be if Apple just allowed other payment providers so like Stripe and I'm not sure I haven't followed it totally if they now kind of have been forced to do that but I think then you have a free market where developers can choose whether they want to use apples in app payments which are easier and probably results in better conversion rates or they want to use an external like Stripe or something like that. I don't think it's reasonable to pay for the app hosting or development other than the $100 fee per year that should certainly cover the cost of storing a few megabytes of an app.