3 ms·

Looking where Apple is now, that decision helped them, but I don't think you are making a case that it helped consumers. There are countless ways that Apple sti

Looking where Apple is now, that decision helped them, but I don't think you are making a case that it helped consumers. There are countless ways that Apple stifled competition when 3rd party applications compete directly with the applications Apple ships OOTB. The unified in-app purchase has benefits, but it also comes with strings attached. The 30% rake means that either users pay for the markup or developers must eat that overhead. By locking application developers out of rolling their own in-house solutions, consumers suffer. That decision may benefit consumers by presenting a unified interface, but it has everything to do with making Apple more money. If Apple really had it's users in mind, they could have simply created an API that provides the unified interface but allows developers to hook in their own back end processing. Better yet, allow in-app purchases that don't have the 30% markup. This will never happen because at the end of the day Apple is looking out for themselves, not the users of their devices.

interpol_p 13y ago
Your argument does not take into account the fact that a unified interface boosts consumer confidence and trust, which increases spending. It directly influences the quality of the end product — compromising on that is failing your users. Who cares if developers have to give up a cut? It's a level playing field: every developer gives up 30%, so prices standardise with that in mind. If developers rolled their own and there was a proliferation of mis-matched payment methods throughout the App Store (based on whatever each developer thought got them the most money), then I doubt consumers would be spending as much as they do today. Even Google Play requires developers selling digital goods to use Google's in-app purchase API (of which they get a 30% cut). The decision helped Apple as much as it helped customers — happy customers pay more money and pay again. So it is in Apple's interest to be as pro-consumer as possible in order to make the most money. The 30% fee is the same as what Google takes. At the time it was introduced, it was substantially less than other publishers (I heard numbers in the 50-70% range). Even then, Apple does a lot of work for their 30%. For example, they handle your international tax contributions (Google Play does not), they handle customer returns (Google Play does not). As a developer that has sold directly and through in-app purchase, I have never felt that the 30% was much of an ask. If you sell on Steam you'll pay around the same cut, almost all other App Stores have standardised on 30% since the App Store.
- fpgeek 13y ago
  No one here is arguing that Apple shouldn't offer a standard in-app purchase option. As you describe, there are substantial benefits. The issue is with the way they mandate it, even in situations where it is actively harmful. Amazon (to take the most notorious of many examples) doesn't need Apple's help to build consumer confidence and trust. In fact, including Apple in Amazon's transactions makes them more complicated and less trustworthy (consider what could happen if there's a hiccup in associating your Kindle account and your Apple ID). And the 30% cut isn't anywhere near a level playing field for them, since they compete with the one company that doesn't pay it (and have similar costs for acquiring the digital content they sell). You also misunderstand Google Play's policy on digital in-app purchases. Google doesn't require all in-app purchases to go through their IAP system, just the ones that unlock application functionality (so you can't evade the 30% cut of app purchases by rolling your own IAP). This is qualitatively different from Apple's policies as a simple glance at the iOS vs Android Kindle, Nook, Kobo, Amazon MP3 (and on and on) apps will demonstrate. Finally, I'll add that Apple handling returns isn't necessarily a benefit. It means iOS developers can't offer more generous return policies than the standard one, something many have used to good effect on Android.
  - interpol_p 13y ago
    You are correct, of course. I agree and think Apple should change their policy regarding non-app specific digital content. However, I believe Apple should simply lower their payment split down to 5-10% and behave more like a standard payment processor attached to your Apple ID. Amazon should then be allowed to increase their prices on iOS to compensate for the difference. I would happily pay a little extra per-purchase to keep all my purchases under one account, using one interface, and would be happy to take advantage of Touch ID authenticated purchases across stores. I still do not like the idea of purchasing on iOS outside my Apple ID. It is quite outside my comfort zone to purchase within an app using a different UI, trusting my details with a different provider, and so on. Regarding handling returns: one of the main complaints I have heard from Android developers is the influx of emails they have from customers asking for refunds, and having to process those refunds. While I agree that it could be used as a promotional opportunity, many developers view it as an unnecessary burden.

interpol_p 13y ago

Your argument does not take into account the fact that a unified interface boosts consumer confidence and trust, which increases spending. It directly influences the quality of the end product — compromising on that is failing your users. Who cares if developers have to give up a cut? It's a level playing field: every developer gives up 30%, so prices standardise with that in mind. If developers rolled their own and there was a proliferation of mis-matched payment methods throughout the App Store (based on whatever each developer thought got them the most money), then I doubt consumers would be spending as much as they do today. Even Google Play requires developers selling digital goods to use Google's in-app purchase API (of which they get a 30% cut). The decision helped Apple as much as it helped customers — happy customers pay more money and pay again. So it is in Apple's interest to be as pro-consumer as possible in order to make the most money. The 30% fee is the same as what Google takes. At the time it was introduced, it was substantially less than other publishers (I heard numbers in the 50-70% range). Even then, Apple does a lot of work for their 30%. For example, they handle your international tax contributions (Google Play does not), they handle customer returns (Google Play does not). As a developer that has sold directly and through in-app purchase, I have never felt that the 30% was much of an ask. If you sell on Steam you'll pay around the same cut, almost all other App Stores have standardised on 30% since the App Store.

fpgeek 13y ago
No one here is arguing that Apple shouldn't offer a standard in-app purchase option. As you describe, there are substantial benefits. The issue is with the way they mandate it, even in situations where it is actively harmful. Amazon (to take the most notorious of many examples) doesn't need Apple's help to build consumer confidence and trust. In fact, including Apple in Amazon's transactions makes them more complicated and less trustworthy (consider what could happen if there's a hiccup in associating your Kindle account and your Apple ID). And the 30% cut isn't anywhere near a level playing field for them, since they compete with the one company that doesn't pay it (and have similar costs for acquiring the digital content they sell). You also misunderstand Google Play's policy on digital in-app purchases. Google doesn't require all in-app purchases to go through their IAP system, just the ones that unlock application functionality (so you can't evade the 30% cut of app purchases by rolling your own IAP). This is qualitatively different from Apple's policies as a simple glance at the iOS vs Android Kindle, Nook, Kobo, Amazon MP3 (and on and on) apps will demonstrate. Finally, I'll add that Apple handling returns isn't necessarily a benefit. It means iOS developers can't offer more generous return policies than the standard one, something many have used to good effect on Android.
- interpol_p 13y ago
  You are correct, of course. I agree and think Apple should change their policy regarding non-app specific digital content. However, I believe Apple should simply lower their payment split down to 5-10% and behave more like a standard payment processor attached to your Apple ID. Amazon should then be allowed to increase their prices on iOS to compensate for the difference. I would happily pay a little extra per-purchase to keep all my purchases under one account, using one interface, and would be happy to take advantage of Touch ID authenticated purchases across stores. I still do not like the idea of purchasing on iOS outside my Apple ID. It is quite outside my comfort zone to purchase within an app using a different UI, trusting my details with a different provider, and so on. Regarding handling returns: one of the main complaints I have heard from Android developers is the influx of emails they have from customers asking for refunds, and having to process those refunds. While I agree that it could be used as a promotional opportunity, many developers view it as an unnecessary burden.