6 ms·

I kind of have the opposite opinion. It should start at 30% and go down with success. Apple is providing a service (yea there's no alternatives on iOS but stil

I kind of have the opposite opinion. It should start at 30% and go down with success. Apple is providing a service (yea there's no alternatives on iOS but still)... for 30% they take care off all your payments from all countries, they take care of refunds, dealing with credit card companies, and for the most part dealing with customers in general. They also provide the market, the installation system, the update/upgrade system. Having tried to write some of those myself and the servers to maintain them I can tell you I don't personally want to run them. Compare to Steam. Steam is also 30% on a platform you can do it all yourself if you want. Sure they provide the most exposure but similarly they also provide most of the other services that make it worthwhile. Assuming you could do that do you really want to do all that yourself? Think about it. If you did it yourself you'd need to run a server to put your software on. Keep it secure, updating it constantly with security patches. Make a relationship with a payment processor. Handle refunds yourself. Figure out an upgrade system. Figure out how to deal with failed installations. I'm sure others could name many more things you'd have to do. 30% doesn't seem unreasonable to me given it would take more more than 30% of my time (and therefore money) to do this myself. At least that's my perspective.

tomp 12y ago
All the services they provide don't justify the cost (30% of sales!) in any way. The only reason Apple is able to charge a fee so high is because they are the monopoly provider of apps for the most popular (or the richest) mobile platform.
- sokoloff 12y ago
  Why should Apple justify the cost? They only need to provide the benefit (access to the overwhelming majority of iOS users) and let developers opt in or not.
  - enjo 12y ago
    and let developers opt in or not. Your option is to leave a massive mobile phone platform or opt-in. It's really not much of a choice. As long as people keep giving Apple their money, developers will suffer. The situation is better (but not great) on Android where third party app stores are at least possible.
- rdsnsca 12y ago
  High fee ??? You should do some research, before Apples App store the split was often 30 % / 70 %. With the store taking the 70 %.
  - notsony 12y ago
    Prior to the App Store, indie software developers using turnkey online solutions from eSellerate, Kagi and others were typically only paying around 10% - and this included all the VAT/TAX handling for the EU and different US states.
    - tjl 12y ago
      The 30%/70% was for other digital storefronts, not direct sales through your own store. Kagi and the like are more akin to payment processors.
      - jussij 12y ago
        In other words comparing apples with oranges.
- alexqgb 12y ago
  I'd be willing to bet you've never built a successful business that handles everything done by Apple in-house. If you had, you'd already be doing everything yourself (and doing it better that Apple) and happily collecting more than 70%. Alternately, you'd have realized that beating this price is a major accomplishment and probably not the best use of your time, making the 30% is a pretty fair trade. In either case, you would not be complaining.
- greggman 12y ago
  Stea
- greggman 12y ago
  Steam is charging the same price and is not a monopoly. They're doing just fine. Devs are signing up. While I don't like that Apple is the only way to get your app on iOS it not like 30% is unreasonable given it's the same price in non-monopoly markets
- athenot 12y ago
  Admittedly, Apple probably has an excellent rate negotiated with the Credit Card Processors. But if you were to sell something for $0.99 yourself, it'd be hard to beat what Apple offers. Taking Stripe as an example, you'd be charged 2.9% of 99¢ PLUS a fixed 30¢ per transaction. That's about 32.9% you lose to the payment processor.
  - alexirobbins 12y ago
    Apple bundles payments together to avoid this. It's complicated af.
  - tomp 12y ago
    I never claimed I could get such a rate myself, I'm just saying that if there was competition when it comes to app stores, the fee would likely be lower. I'm absolutely certain that big companies can get amazing rates for transactions, with no fixed fees. For instance, I can pay 1 penny (or whatever the minimum cost of an item would be, maybe 20 pence) with my credit card in Tesco or Sainsbury's, I'm pretty sure they're not loosing money by selling stuff to me.
    - thaumasiotes 12y ago
      I wouldn't be at all surprised if Tesco lost money selling you a 20 pence item by credit card. So few people make purchases like that that it will be easy to absorb the losses rather than taking the PR hit that comes with rejecting someone's attempt to pay you. Think of it this way: for every 20p purchase, how many 100 pound+ purchases are there? Can the one cover the other?
    - s73v3r 12y ago
      There are competing app stores. Windows Phone is one, and Android has several. There isn't much difference in the fee.
- megablast 12y ago
  Do you know how much it cost before Apple came in? It was about 70 to 80% that you gave the publishers. And that was if you were lucky to get accepted to develop apps. Which happened to only a few big companies.
- simonh 12y ago
  Funny. When they launched, everyone was expecting it to be 50/50, and in fact Intel and Microsoft had announced or launched stores with that as the split but changed to 70/30 as soon as the App store came out. Some rivals even complained that Apple was using it's financial muscle to undercut them at below-market rates as a loss-leader, yet even then at the same time others were making the same complaint you are. Bear in mind the App Store was losing money or barely breaking even for most of it's existence. It's only in the last few years it's begun to make significant profits. They've sunk billions into it. That hardly seems like the business plan of a gouger. As for being a monopoly. That's like complaining that the shop down the road is a monopoly provider of products in their own store. There is no monoploy, you can always buy an Android, Symbian, Tizen, or even Windows Mobile phone.
  - TorKlingberg 12y ago
    Yes mobile app publishing was even worse before Apple, when you had to go through carriers etc. It was also largely irrelevant. The modern smartphone ecosystem has very little relation to that of Symbian and others.
vacri 12y ago
Ever since the start of the 30% take, people who have complained about it always sound like they have no experience on the business side of things. For that 30%, you get a canned marketplace, with all the financials and fiddly bits done for you (as you say). A 70% take as a producer of goods is very high for a manufacturer that doesn't own the distribution channel. Also FTA: At $70K in net revenues per year, your spouse could be telling you to get a day job. "Don't you want me to be happy, doing what I love?". I mean, if we're manufacturing convenient numbers to make an argument, let's also look at all the reasons why someone would want to be self-employed as a developer. :)
- qzervaas 12y ago
  As an Australian developer, any sales to Australian customers include 10% GST (Goods and Services Tax). Apple send a monthly GST report containing the amount of tax we need to pay for our Australian sales, which makes reporting super-easy. Side note: Apple don't charge the tax on top of the price, so earning a 99c sale from a US customer (net revenue ~$0.70) is far more valuable than a 99c sale from an Australian customer ($0.63)
- jsprogrammer 12y ago
  >A 70% take as a producer of goods is very high for a manufacturer that doesn't own the distribution channel. Is there a competing distribution channel that iOS users are allowed to access? Or does the distributor lock producers into its channel? If the later, the distributor's take is completely arbitrary and can only be assumed to be selected so as to maximize the distributor's take of the producer's generated value.
  - s73v3r 12y ago
    Your argument falls apart given that the Play Store has the same split, and there are plenty of competing distribution channels on Android.
    - blumkvist 12y ago
      I don't see a coherent argument.
mattmanser 12y ago
Your comment shows a lack of understanding of what he's saying. You're not paying for software or payment systems, or anything, it's more like a tax. I'd get all of that if I just paid $100 and sold nothing. That stuff is provided for Apple's benefit as well as your benefit. But there is benefit to be gained by not taxing the "poor". This is the same argument as the entire "regressive/progressive" tax regimes. I mean, yes, 30% of fuck all is not a lot and well worth what you get, but that's not the point, Apple's not making much from the long tail, so why not give the long tail the economic freedom to experiment and grow and make everyone richer. That's the point. Let the small businesses grow into bigger businesses by alleviating the tax burden. The point is that the big fat Rovio's of this world can easily pay for the Apple ecosystem by themselves. The take from the little businesses is relatively small, so why not cut them slack by introducing tiered pricing, allowing them to spend more on growing and advertising, or simply stay in the market, and thus increasing the growth rate of the overall app economy. By using terms like "providing a service" and "platform" and "do all that yourself", you're fundamentally missing the OPs argument. He's not talking about the value of the services, the virtual bin men, or the armies, or the law systems, he's talking about the economy that pays for all that in the first place.
- s73v3r 12y ago
  "Let the small businesses grow into bigger businesses by alleviating the tax burden." Are you honestly trying to say that the only thing stopping some small app shop from getting huge is the 30%?
  - click170 12y ago
    I think that's a straw man. Its not the only or the biggest obstacle, but it is an obstacle.
    - s73v3r 12y ago
      You know what else is an obstacle? Having to set up discovery, hosting, delivery, and payment processing yourself, and convincing the public to use your fly by night store.

tomp 12y ago

All the services they provide don't justify the cost (30% of sales!) in any way. The only reason Apple is able to charge a fee so high is because they are the monopoly provider of apps for the most popular (or the richest) mobile platform.

sokoloff 12y ago
Why should Apple justify the cost? They only need to provide the benefit (access to the overwhelming majority of iOS users) and let developers opt in or not.
- enjo 12y ago
  and let developers opt in or not. Your option is to leave a massive mobile phone platform or opt-in. It's really not much of a choice. As long as people keep giving Apple their money, developers will suffer. The situation is better (but not great) on Android where third party app stores are at least possible.
rdsnsca 12y ago
High fee ??? You should do some research, before Apples App store the split was often 30 % / 70 %. With the store taking the 70 %.
- notsony 12y ago
  Prior to the App Store, indie software developers using turnkey online solutions from eSellerate, Kagi and others were typically only paying around 10% - and this included all the VAT/TAX handling for the EU and different US states.
  - tjl 12y ago
    The 30%/70% was for other digital storefronts, not direct sales through your own store. Kagi and the like are more akin to payment processors.
    - jussij 12y ago
      In other words comparing apples with oranges.
alexqgb 12y ago
I'd be willing to bet you've never built a successful business that handles everything done by Apple in-house. If you had, you'd already be doing everything yourself (and doing it better that Apple) and happily collecting more than 70%. Alternately, you'd have realized that beating this price is a major accomplishment and probably not the best use of your time, making the 30% is a pretty fair trade. In either case, you would not be complaining.
greggman 12y ago
Stea
greggman 12y ago
Steam is charging the same price and is not a monopoly. They're doing just fine. Devs are signing up. While I don't like that Apple is the only way to get your app on iOS it not like 30% is unreasonable given it's the same price in non-monopoly markets
athenot 12y ago
Admittedly, Apple probably has an excellent rate negotiated with the Credit Card Processors. But if you were to sell something for $0.99 yourself, it'd be hard to beat what Apple offers. Taking Stripe as an example, you'd be charged 2.9% of 99¢ PLUS a fixed 30¢ per transaction. That's about 32.9% you lose to the payment processor.
- alexirobbins 12y ago
  Apple bundles payments together to avoid this. It's complicated af.
- tomp 12y ago
  I never claimed I could get such a rate myself, I'm just saying that if there was competition when it comes to app stores, the fee would likely be lower. I'm absolutely certain that big companies can get amazing rates for transactions, with no fixed fees. For instance, I can pay 1 penny (or whatever the minimum cost of an item would be, maybe 20 pence) with my credit card in Tesco or Sainsbury's, I'm pretty sure they're not loosing money by selling stuff to me.
  - thaumasiotes 12y ago
    I wouldn't be at all surprised if Tesco lost money selling you a 20 pence item by credit card. So few people make purchases like that that it will be easy to absorb the losses rather than taking the PR hit that comes with rejecting someone's attempt to pay you. Think of it this way: for every 20p purchase, how many 100 pound+ purchases are there? Can the one cover the other?
  - s73v3r 12y ago
    There are competing app stores. Windows Phone is one, and Android has several. There isn't much difference in the fee.
megablast 12y ago
Do you know how much it cost before Apple came in? It was about 70 to 80% that you gave the publishers. And that was if you were lucky to get accepted to develop apps. Which happened to only a few big companies.
simonh 12y ago
Funny. When they launched, everyone was expecting it to be 50/50, and in fact Intel and Microsoft had announced or launched stores with that as the split but changed to 70/30 as soon as the App store came out. Some rivals even complained that Apple was using it's financial muscle to undercut them at below-market rates as a loss-leader, yet even then at the same time others were making the same complaint you are. Bear in mind the App Store was losing money or barely breaking even for most of it's existence. It's only in the last few years it's begun to make significant profits. They've sunk billions into it. That hardly seems like the business plan of a gouger. As for being a monopoly. That's like complaining that the shop down the road is a monopoly provider of products in their own store. There is no monoploy, you can always buy an Android, Symbian, Tizen, or even Windows Mobile phone.
- TorKlingberg 12y ago
  Yes mobile app publishing was even worse before Apple, when you had to go through carriers etc. It was also largely irrelevant. The modern smartphone ecosystem has very little relation to that of Symbian and others.

vacri 12y ago

Ever since the start of the 30% take, people who have complained about it always sound like they have no experience on the business side of things. For that 30%, you get a canned marketplace, with all the financials and fiddly bits done for you (as you say). A 70% take as a producer of goods is very high for a manufacturer that doesn't own the distribution channel. Also FTA: At $70K in net revenues per year, your spouse could be telling you to get a day job. "Don't you want me to be happy, doing what I love?". I mean, if we're manufacturing convenient numbers to make an argument, let's also look at all the reasons why someone would want to be self-employed as a developer. :)

qzervaas 12y ago
As an Australian developer, any sales to Australian customers include 10% GST (Goods and Services Tax). Apple send a monthly GST report containing the amount of tax we need to pay for our Australian sales, which makes reporting super-easy. Side note: Apple don't charge the tax on top of the price, so earning a 99c sale from a US customer (net revenue ~$0.70) is far more valuable than a 99c sale from an Australian customer ($0.63)
jsprogrammer 12y ago
>A 70% take as a producer of goods is very high for a manufacturer that doesn't own the distribution channel. Is there a competing distribution channel that iOS users are allowed to access? Or does the distributor lock producers into its channel? If the later, the distributor's take is completely arbitrary and can only be assumed to be selected so as to maximize the distributor's take of the producer's generated value.
- s73v3r 12y ago
  Your argument falls apart given that the Play Store has the same split, and there are plenty of competing distribution channels on Android.
  - blumkvist 12y ago
    I don't see a coherent argument.

mattmanser 12y ago

Your comment shows a lack of understanding of what he's saying. You're not paying for software or payment systems, or anything, it's more like a tax. I'd get all of that if I just paid $100 and sold nothing. That stuff is provided for Apple's benefit as well as your benefit. But there is benefit to be gained by not taxing the "poor". This is the same argument as the entire "regressive/progressive" tax regimes. I mean, yes, 30% of fuck all is not a lot and well worth what you get, but that's not the point, Apple's not making much from the long tail, so why not give the long tail the economic freedom to experiment and grow and make everyone richer. That's the point. Let the small businesses grow into bigger businesses by alleviating the tax burden. The point is that the big fat Rovio's of this world can easily pay for the Apple ecosystem by themselves. The take from the little businesses is relatively small, so why not cut them slack by introducing tiered pricing, allowing them to spend more on growing and advertising, or simply stay in the market, and thus increasing the growth rate of the overall app economy. By using terms like "providing a service" and "platform" and "do all that yourself", you're fundamentally missing the OPs argument. He's not talking about the value of the services, the virtual bin men, or the armies, or the law systems, he's talking about the economy that pays for all that in the first place.

s73v3r 12y ago
"Let the small businesses grow into bigger businesses by alleviating the tax burden." Are you honestly trying to say that the only thing stopping some small app shop from getting huge is the 30%?
- click170 12y ago
  I think that's a straw man. Its not the only or the biggest obstacle, but it is an obstacle.
  - s73v3r 12y ago
    You know what else is an obstacle? Having to set up discovery, hosting, delivery, and payment processing yourself, and convincing the public to use your fly by night store.