Hacker News Reader

Comment by cwoolfe | Hacker News Reader

As an app developer, I'm not a fan of apple taking a 30% or 15% cut. It's is possible to get around by offering the app for free and then using a third party payment processor to allow users to purchase or subscribe to a service your app provides. The way I see it, developers have that choice to charge the "expensive, easy way" using Apple's platform, or the "more profitable but harder way" using a third party.

View on HN

You cannot do this. I run a website and mobile app ecosystem, which started as a website with standard credit card billing. If you want to mention that you have a website, or link to the website, you must provide every option the website has for purchasing, in your app, using apple's payment system. There is one exception, which is for physical goods/services, see Lyft and the like.

Sorry, but you have to take the 30% hit, or you can't mention your website, and you certainly can't put in a third party payment system. You'll get booted fast, or, won't even make it in the door when they review your app.

Interesting. I suppose the distinguishing factor with apps like Amazon or Home Depot is they deal in physical goods?

I'm pretty sure the distinguishing factor is that Apple takes a cut of all revenue that passes through the app. That was the beef Spotify had at least.

Hmmm ... see the other comment to my post. It sounds like this isn't entirely true. Certain apps like Amazon.com don't have to pay Apple 30% -- I buy plenty of physical goods with the Amazon app, but 30% of those sales don't go to Apple.

Yes. If you buy in the app and consume in the app, Apple wants their 30%.

That's why you can watch videos in the amazon prime video app, but you can't rent or buy movies there. You need to rent or buy the video on Amazon.com, then you can watch on the amazon video app.

you're not allowed to do that. You've to use Apple's in-app purchase otherwise Apple will reject your app.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com