Hacker News Reader

Comment by developer2 | Hacker News Reader

The rule and the fee are complete bullshit. 30% isn't even remotely viable. They should be charging equivalent to transaction fees, which would tally below 5%. Hopefully one day someone will find a law with which they can challenge the fee's insanity in court. Anti-competitiveness seems like the appropriate avenue; we just have to wait for a company to try their hand at it.

At a bare minimum, apps must be allowed to explain to users in-app that they can reduce their payments by paying outside the app.

View on HN

Isn't viable for whom? The $14 billion transacted through App Store payments to date would suggest that plenty of buyers and sellers have opted in to this market. They must realize that credit card processing isn't the only thing Apple is selling here.

Why would they charge the equivalent of transaction fees when they (Apple) pays those fees? How would they make any money if they only charged transaction fees?

I've run the numbers on products like this before. In order to absorb transaction fees, build your own product, and support it, fees need to be in the 10-15% range.

Also, note that almost no companies charge less if you pay out of app -- the company just keeps more for themselves.

> I've run the numbers on products like this before. In order to absorb transaction fees, build your own product, and support it, fees need to be in the 10-15% range.

Apple does charge 10-15% for Spotify like apps viz. apps that sell subscriptions for more than 1 year.

https://developer.apple.com/app-store/subscriptions/whats-ne...

   After a subscriber accumulates one year of paid service,    
   your revenue increases to 85% of the subscription price, 
   minus applicable taxes. All current subscriptions are 
   eligible.

That's a brand new rule, just going into effect.

So is Spotify's letter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com