3 ms·

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 m

by 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.

by tomp 12y ago

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.