Hacker News Reader

Comment by YetAnotherNick | Hacker News Reader

> If I were in a position where Apple is forcing me to pay a 30% tax, I would literally add "30% Apple Tax" to the check out screen on top of the regular fees to make consumers aware

If you don't know that, it is not allowed to sell for more in iOS than in your site, and the app will get banned for attempting that, forget about displaying 30% apple tax to the users explicitly.

Edit: Heard from somewhere, likely not fully correct.

View on HN

> If you don't know that, it is not allowed to sell for more in iOS than in your site, and the app will get banned for attempting that

I don't think this is true, although you've said it so emphatically that a lot of people are going to believe it without any supporting evidence! Can you help us out with some?

App store guidelines: Nothing about the need for uniform app pricing across platforms.[1]

App price: Examples of apps with higher prices on iOS than elsewhere.[2]

Subscription: Spotify and others charged more to offset Apple's 30% cut ($12.99 instead of $9.99 to subscribe in-app) for years.[3]

IAP: Epic charged more for IAPs on iOS than elsewhere.[4]

[1] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#pay...

[2] https://discussions.apple.com/thread/8031795

[3] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/spotify-apple-app-store-16463...

[4] https://www.reddit.com/r/FortNiteBR/comments/85d3uc/the_app_...

regarding 1:

>You must not directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase, and your general communications about other purchasing methods must not discourage use of in-app purchase.

Which essentially can counteract the uniformity, depending on how insane the reviewer is. Paying more for IAP is obviously discouraging.

This has nothing to do with a company's ability to price differently on other platforms or their website, and there is significant evidence that shows apps allowed onto the app store with more expensive purchase price, subscription price, and IAP price.

But it is. Take Spotify. You can't pay for that in the app. If they could charge more, they would. But they aren't allowed, so they discontinued IAP alltogether.

Spotify did charge more, for years, in iOS. Epic charged more for their coins in iOS than elsewhere, too. Can you point to a specific policy change or news article which supports your argument? You're saying "could" and "would" but the actual evidence is that they did.

And now they don't anymore.

Already linked it: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines

I linked this and have read it. Where exactly does it preclude apps from charging differential pricing on subscriptions?

>must not discourage use of in-app purchase.

You seem to be doing real contortions to try to make this fit your argument, but it doesn't.

Here's another easy disproof: YouTube Premium costs £11.99 on the YouTube website, and £15.99 IAP on the iOS app store right now.

The section you quote is entirely related to communication within the app. It is Apple saying that there is no option to either directly or indirectly push users towards your own payment methods with text or calls to action in your app.

Your argument seems to be that Apple would consider Spotify pricing at $12.99 within the app as somehow "indirectly" pushing users towards other payment options elsewhere when they have $9.99 on their website. Is that right?

Don't you think that offering no means to subscribe in-app -- which means all new users have to seek out the subscription option on Spotify's website -- is a more aggressive way of pushing users out of the app than offering a $12.99 subscription in-app and a $9.99 option on the website?

But in any case: Spotify for years did charge $12.99 in its app and $9.99 on the web. There are multiple[1] instances[2] of[3] users[4] being confused by this and complaining on Spotify's community support pages.

Spotify's anti-trust website[5] -- where they note anything and everything Apple has done to put what they feel to be unfair pressure on them regarding pricing and IAP options -- has this to say about the situation:

> So, we give IAP a try. That means we are now charged Apple's 30% tax and sadly have to increase our price for our fans

> Our users will finally be able to buy a Premium subscription directly through our iOS app. But it also means we have to raise our prices to €12.99 a month. And you guys were rightly not very happy about this

They go on to say:

> We opt out of Apple's payment system and the artificially uncompetitive price we had to charge for using it

> Because we turn off IAP, it means you can no longer upgrade to Premium through the App Store

So to be clear: there was no policy change in 2016 when Spotify disabled IAPs. They did it under their own steam.

YouTube and others persist with charging more for IAPs. Epic did it right up until they implemented their own IAP system and got booted off.

There are many, many good reasons to dislike Apple regarding the app store. You are doing gymnastics to invent a totally new one.

If you want to keep discussing this and don't want to look silly, my suggestion is that you offer direct corroboration of your claim. Try looking for a news article about a developer being told they cannot charge more on iOS than they do on their website, or an announcement of a policy change from Apple.

[1] https://community.spotify.com/t5/Accounts/12-99-iphone-charg...

[2] https://community.spotify.com/t5/Accounts/Charged-12-99-not-...

[3] https://community.spotify.com/t5/Accounts/Why-am-I-charged-1...

[4] https://community.spotify.com/t5/Accounts/Been-Paying-12-99-...

[5] https://www.timetoplayfair.com/timeline/

>You seem to be doing real contortions to try to make this fit your argument, but it doesn't.

It does.

>Here's another easy disproof: YouTube Premium costs £11.99 on the YouTube website, and £15.99 IAP on the iOS app store right now.

If you are Google, you get a free pass. It's simple. Look at the recent Wordpress desaster or Hey. Apple doesn't allow showing that you can subscribe somewhere else, in no app, unless you are maybe Google.

>The section you quote is entirely related to communication within the app. It is Apple saying that there is no option to either directly or indirectly push users towards your own payment methods with text or calls to action in your app.

This includes links or any other hint that there might be such a thing.

>Your argument seems to be that Apple would consider Spotify pricing at $12.99 within the app as somehow "indirectly" pushing users towards other payment options elsewhere when they have $9.99 on their website. Is that right?

This entirely depends on the insanity of the reviewer. If that person thinks that it's pushing, then it gets denied.

>But in any case: Spotify for years did charge $12.99 in its app and $9.99 on the web. There are multiple[1] instances[2] of[3] users[4] being confused by this and complaining on Spotify's community support pages.

And they get the blame for it, since they can't label that as "Apple tax" or similar. That's why users are confused. Because Apple plays the dictator there. "must not discourage". Also your links show no official response from Spotify on this matter. These are forum posts, from users ("community legend") with no affiliation to Spotify.

>There are many, many good reasons to dislike Apple regarding the app store. You are doing gymnastics to invent a totally new one.

Not really. Apple doesn't want other payment options, they prove it time and time again. They don't like you showing your users that those exist, time and time again. So yes, you need to charge similar prices, or else you get in trouble.

Let me just surface yet another clear piece of evidence of how wrong you are: Phil Schiller literally suggested that HEY should charge different prices on the web and in-app.[1]:

> Schiller says that there are a number of decisions about how to charge customers that Basecamp could have made to make the app acceptable under current rules. He lists several, including charging different prices in the app and on the web, and offering a free version with additional functions.

Oh dear. If I was discussing this with someone who actually demonstrates a capacity to incorporate new evidence into their world view I would expect you to acknowledge this and admit that you're wrong. As it is, I look forward to seeing your gymnastics continue!

In any case, you seem to be losing track of your own argument. Here's your original point:

> [Developers cannot charge more on the web than for IAP because of an excerpt from the guidelines] which essentially can counteract the uniformity, depending on how insane the reviewer is. Paying more for IAP is obviously discouraging.

What you are saying: "Apple's guidelines reserve the right to reject your app if you have differential pricing between IAP and your website, by saying that you cannot "directly or indirectly" drive people out of your app and to another payment source. This is at the whim of the reviewer."

Hopefully so far you think I'm being fair.

It was then pointed out to you that this wording is designed to prevent links and other messaging to indicate that services are cheaper elsewhere. Apple is happy for you to charge more for IAPs, but not to say* you do so.

You then used Spotify to support your argument:

> Take Spotify. You can't pay for that in the app. If they could charge more, they would. But they aren't allowed, so they discontinued IAP alltogether.

Then it was pointed out to you that Spotify discontinued IAP of their own volition, not because Apple told them they could not charge more for IAP. YouTube and other services also charge more for subscriptions on iOS than on the web.

Now that your claim has been demonstrated to be false, you're changing your argument from "Look, if Spotify could do it they would do it" to "Well of COURSE these big companies get a free pass from Apple, it's the little guys getting screwed!"

Funny that two replies ago your argument leaned on Spotify entirely, and now you want them to be ignored ;)

> Look at the recent Wordpress desaster or Hey. Apple doesn't allow showing that you can subscribe somewhere else, in no app, unless you are maybe Google.

Neither HEY nor WordPress was charging more online than in the app store. HEY is actually yet another example of you being totally wrong and contorting yourself. Look at this[2] letter from the CEO of HEY.

Relevant excerpts:

> And some people say “Why not just have a special price in-app that’s 30% more than your usual price? Just pass the Apple tax on to customers?” Because that’s not the point.

> And Phil Schiller’s suggestion[3] that we should raise prices on iOS customers to make up for Apple’s added margin is antitrust gold.

As above, Apple's Senior VP Marketing who is in charge of the app store publicly suggested that HEY should charge more for IAP than on the web. Sigh.

> This includes links or any other hint that there might be such a thing.

Yes. And it doesn't stop anyone from charging differential pricing.

> This entirely depends on the insanity of the reviewer. If that person thinks that it's pushing, then it gets denied.

{Citation Needed.} You have offered nothing to support this view.

> And they get the blame for it, since they can't label that as "Apple tax" or similar. That's why users are confused. Because Apple plays the dictator there. "must not discourage". Also your links show no official response from Spotify on this matter. These are forum posts, from users ("community legend") with no affiliation to Spotify.

Nice moving of the goalposts ;)

Looking forward to the next hilarious instalment :)

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/18/interview-apples-schiller-...

[2] https://hey.com/apple/iap

[3] https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/18/interview-apples-schiller-...

>Funny that two replies ago your argument leaned on Spotify entirely, and now you want them to be ignored ;)

You presented forum posts from random users as if they were from Spotify. ;)

>Neither HEY nor WordPress was charging more online than in the app store. HEY is actually yet another example of you being totally wrong and contorting yourself. Look at this[2] letter from the CEO of HEY.

Wordpress didn't charge anything, it was to control Wordpress instances via their XML-API. Apple just thought "hey they link to some site to which you can buy stuff, lets force them to IAP". This right there is insanity.

>{Citation Needed.} You have offered nothing to support this view.

Your own Spotify link. Spotify getting rejected for app changes. This is insanity.

Also, the whole Epic case. Even if they would have just showed a "pay less here <link>". Insanity.

> You presented forum posts from random users as if they were from Spotify. ;)

You said: if Spotify could charge more, they would.

Spotify said: we did charge more, and then we decided to stop doing it.

Keep backflipping dude!

> Wordpress didn't charge anything, it was to control Wordpress instances via their XML-API. Apple just thought "hey they link to some site to which you can buy stuff, lets force them to IAP". This right there is insanity.

Literally nothing to do with our discussion which is about your bogus assertion that apps are forbidden from differential pricing.

> Your own Spotify link.

Unless you're illiterate (increasingly possible!), my Spotify link indicates that Spotify chose to stop differential pricing.

Classic example of cognitive dissonance: ignoring Phil Schiller, the guy who is literally in charge of the app store, telling you that you are wrong ;)

Oh dear mate.

>Spotify said: we did charge more, and then we decided to stop doing it.

Yes, because they couldn't charge more. People wouldn't accept it, so they blamed Spotify instead of Apple, because they weren't allowed to. Of course they can't do differential pricing if they aren't allowed to show that.

>Literally nothing to do with our discussion which is about your bogus assertion that apps are forbidden from differential pricing.

Well it is. In reverse of course, because Apple thought that they'd lose revenue.

>Classic example of cognitive dissonance: ignoring Phil Schiller, the guy who is literally in charge of the app store, telling you that you are wrong ;)

Also the guy who is responsible for that. Hey, Wordpress, Spotify, Netflix, Microft. They are all "wrong". He is the leader of the insane asylum.

More that you should not communicate that your out-of-app purchasing is cheaper, either in-app or out-of-app.

This is not correct. You can charge whatever you like. You just aren’t allowed to have line items like “Apple tax” or words blaming Apple for the price.

Kodi call it appstore tax or so? Since Google did the same.

Microsoft seem to get away with it:

Forza Street on iOS - 125 Gold: £4.99, 255 Gold: £9.99

Forza Street on Windows 10 - 125 Gold: £3.99, 255 Gold: £7.99

Both connect to the same account.

I think YetAnotherNick means the actual words "30% Apple Tax" on the screen.

I don't see how that's possible from his comment:

> If you don't know that, it is not allowed to sell for more in iOS than in your site, and the app will get banned for attempting that

He seems to believe that Apple explicitly bans apps from charging more for iOS subscriptions / IAPs than they do elsewhere (e.g. purchasing the subscription on their website), but I can find no evidence to support this, and a lot of evidence to the contrary.

They do so implicit, then moment is visible to the user that they can buy thinking cheaper elsewhere Apple will cause trouble.

I.e. you are not allowed to be transparent with pricing.

This is literally not true: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24239143

No it is, you are allowed to sell for more but you are not allowed to be transparent about it.

Twitch charges $5.99 for a subscription to a streamer in their app but $5 on their website. Are they breaking this rule too? How are they getting away with it?

It's not visible for the iOS user that they pay more without explicitly looking it up. And the difference is small.

Just add a transparent reporting about how your prices came to be and they will not let you do so.

Are the subscriptions portable between the web and mobile apps? Or only valid one place or the other?

It's account-based, a sub on one transfers transparently.

kind of? They have a special category for mobile subscriptions, and the sub system on mobile uses a token system. So while they all do the same thing, they are actually very diverse in how they are operated. A sub on a phone still gives you the benefits on any platform though, but it will continue to use the payment gateway for the life of the subscription

Well, Apple doesn't actually allow you to sell an app for $5. You can only choose $4.99 or $5.99.

I'm sure they're really hurting for that cent, you think?

Not at all. Just explaining why there’d be a price difference. Apple has a good reason for not allowing weird prices like $3.61 but also excludes prices like $5. They also used to require that subscriptions outside the App Store match In-App Purchase prices, but dropped that requirement.

Pricing $5.99 in-app and $5 outside is a good strategy. It’s a nudge to get users to buy outside the app and save 15%, but if not they’re effectively splitting the Apple tax.

Your second paragraph explains why you think there would be a price difference. That you can only choose 4.99 or 5.99 seems unrelated to your actual theory, and it doesn't make sense on its own.

False. You are just not allowed to say it is cheaper on the website.

I do not believe this is a requirement. You just may not present any other payment option in app.

OP stated it with total conviction and now appears to have downvoted my reply citing evidence to the contrary. Some folks take their anti-Apple agenda pretty personally!

Nothing in the guidelines about this at all: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#pay...

Unless you’re YouTube

Every app can do this. They just can't say that it is cheaper on the website.

Media streaming services "only" pay a 15% fee on IAP

How much are credit card fees? Chargebacks? Fraud? Server costs to host your app and updates? The shopping cart/private infrastructure? You actually get some value from those percentages, but few people actually run the numbers.

2.9% is the highest you'll pay to accept cards unless you're in a high risk category. And even cheaper with volume

Fraud happens with any payment provider including Apple.

You don't have to pay extra for shopping cart infrastructure if you use Stripe or similar

That's stripe rate. You will pay higher elsewhere.

There are others with similar prices. Adyen: https://www.adyen.com/pricing and Braintree: https://www.braintreepayments.com/se/braintree-pricing for example.

Only if you choose a provider that charges above market rate :)

IIRC, PayPal has offered 2.9% for over a decade

Where do you host your shopping cart? Your download server? “Using Stripe” doesn’t build your system. Stripe isn’t a standalone product. You have to have a developer to run and maintain your system. You have to pay server costs as well. And customer support costs dealing with payments and download and install issues.

And with fraud on Apple, you are never affected directly. For example, a chargeback on Stripe costs you $20, unless you win. If you are doing any sort of volume, that is not only expensive, but time consuming — you have to defend your case. You never touch any of that with Apple. At the very least, you need a developer to both build and “run” your store and all of its associated infrastructure.

~3% or less.

~3% plus some fixed transaction fee.

So for low dollar amount charges, like a $1.00 app purchase, the transaction fee can be > 30% (e.g. 2.9% + $0.30 on Stripe).

So selling an App for a dollar using stripe, you get $0.67. With the App Store, you get $0.70.

And for that stripe fee you still have to have your own store, download infrastructure, and website to sell it on. A website that you also have to build, maintain, and market. And you have to deal with chargebacks and customer support during the buying process.

Right, but that stops there

At 1.2$ you already earn more then the Apple Store.

    $ 1.0 Apple: 0.7 Stripe: 0.671
    $ 1.1 Apple: 0.77 Stripe: 0.7681
    $ 1.2 Apple: 0.84 Stripe: 0.8652

So just make it 1.49 and you are good (you'll earn a full 10% more than with Apple)

Anyway even at 0.99 price tag (I think Apple doesn't allow 1$) it only 4.5% less, on a million unit sold the difference would be about 31,710 dollars (693,000 VS 661,290).

I can support that. Along with listing a line item for every tax charged and what those taxes are used for. Perhaps a line item of credit card fees (for non App Store purchases.” Also a line item for salaries of your developers, a line item for the rent charged wherever you are working from. And perhaps a line item for exactly how much the servers and customer support costs.

What’s the markup of a product sold in a brick and mortar shop? It’s a whole lot more than 30%.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com