If Apple accepts this, it has to apply it for all apps. This means a very serious loss of income.
So I mean, I know Apple charges a lot of commission. But Apple has to apply his own rules too.
You are allowed to charge more to make up for the fees. But you cannot tell your users this. If you say "sign up on our website to save" you will be banned from the store. Tons of people pay 30% more for subscriptions because they bought them through apple store.
I'm tired of all the locked down bullshit and you should be too. It's my device, I should be able to install whatever I want
Apple takes no risk and does none of the above, so not remotely the same. Sure if Apple is willing to buy apps from Epic in bulk and speculate in addition to distribute, Epic or any other dev is not going to say no.
Fulfilled by Amazon is much better comparison, you get paid only if the customer actually buys, you get penalized for returns etc. Providing the market place, the customer, the delivery service, storage service and payment gateway. Amazon does not charge even close to 30% in most SKUs.
You think Naughty Dog or Bethesda will pay 30% and also do exclusive releases etc? Sometimes MS or Sony will even pay developers to support their platform, there is always room to negotiate unlike Apple.
[1] Streaming services being the exception in virtual goods, if Apple charges Hulu or Prime 30%, the studios which also license content to Apple TV will not be happy. It could get Apple TV locked out or deals will become expensive.
Back catalogue is really, really valuable in Music and TV, Michael Jackson ownership of ATV is famous example of this Syndication and streaming now is where the money is Apple cannot afford to antagonize the content industry .
Streaming services being the exception in virtual goods, if Apple charges Hulu or Prime 30%, the studios which also license content to Apple TV will not be happy. It could get Apple TV locked out or deals will become expensive.
One has nothing to do with the other. The studios deal with Apple TV because Apple gives them a boatload of money to produce shows for AppleTV. The studios also license content to be sold via iTunes. This was the case before the iPhone was released.
Apple doesn’t pay for syndication rights for older TV shows but for one or two exceptions.
No third party is counting on syndication. Not Netflix or Apple. All of the studios are taking their ball and going home. That’s why there is such a push for original content.
In Arcade of course Apple is paying money now to get enough content on the platform to make subscribers come, same MS did with Windows phone etc. Market place always need boosting either on supply or demand side to get started, it is unlikely Apple or anyone else starting a market place will continue to pay once the market is large enough.
Xbox/ PS keep paying since they know that marquee games are reason many times one the console is bought. For android and iOS market to be considered as one market there should be that level of competition at least.
While streaming has reduced privacy to large extent, the streaming business model whether subscription or micro-purchases (rent/ buy or song / album etc) have been always a threat to studios. Everyone is rushing to do original content yes , Netflix, Prime and Apple are already able to produce similar quantity and quality to studio in new content or will soon enough, however streaming companies cannot compete with the back catalogue for next 20-30 years.
Disney+ and is pulling out of other streaming services today. 5 years from now, Netflix may be ready to multiples than they were paying, just for non exclusive access to that back catalogue of Disney.
Disney will not care whether Prime or Netflix is also showing older disney back catalogues as long they have enough people paying for disney+ , where newer and some exclusive content is available. Their ownership of Disney+ means they can always negotiate from a position of strength. Studios are distribution companies first, content producers second. If you control distribution you control the price.
While the studios are taking the ball home today, I am not sure they will not be back later . I am not saying any of this why Apple is why they charge differently for streaming, just that the industry is in flux currently.
P.S. Had Jobs been alive, things would have turned out differently, I think Apple would have likely acquired Disney, it is a good fit, Jobs owned substantial stake in both.
This is a good thing. I hope Apple Arcade completely turns people against games with in app purchases and ads. Just like Netflix has turned people against ads and encouraged people to pay for content. This may also make room for non slimy indy developers.
it is unlikely Apple or anyone else starting a market place will continue to pay once the market is large enough
If the market grows large enough that developers can convince people to pay for content one time and no ads or in game purchases - that sounds like a win.
I do think the 30% is a bit absurd on reflection. I think OP properly framing it as 30% of our money is an important insight.
1. Can I go into Fortnite and set up a virtual shop to sell items within their platform?
2. Name one store where I can advertise within the store to potential customers that they can buy cheaper somewhere else?
If Epic wants to dent the walled garden app store model, more power to them.
Main reason, I think, is the same in both industries: more people have the ability for the craft than are needed to satisfy demand, and they’re willing to do it for peanuts and/or tricking themselves to think success and, with it, monetary compensation, will eventually come their way.
And compared to the music industry, 30% doesn’t seem that bad. https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/news/music-artists-make-12-...: “Musicians Get Only 12 Percent of the Money the Music Industry Makes”
So, are musicians being preyed upon by the music industry, or is selling music harder work than making music? I would think it’s a bit of both. I also think that applies to apps, too.
I don't really think pointing that other professions have it worse is a justification for abuses in our own.
What are hosting/bandwidth fees like for an app this size anyway?
Apple's situation is more like if Windows decided that all apps running on windows need to pay a 30% cut. The term "App Store" is misleading: it's not a store, if your application isn't in the app store there is no legitimate way of running the app on an iPhone or iPad.
You're also ignoring that not every copy of a game on steam was actually acquired by paying the 30%. You can kiss Humble Bundle and their Humble Store goodbye because they are using Steam infrastructure without paying for it.
It's not really black and white. You can't say that lower fees are better in every case because they involve different trade offs. The cheapest product on the market is rarely the best.
I'd have thought it would be self-evident from the phrasing that that two separate possible scenarios were being described.
> "Since the developers get to pick they will just keep that portion."
Being that HN is mostly developers, few here will regard that as anything other than a good thing. It's a particularly good thing among indie games developers, the majority nowadays, where the risk is high and the rewards usually slim.
It sucks being big. Being big carries with it a whole bunch of nasty implications because suddenly the number of people nor okay with you doing whatever you want starts to out pace the organized efforts you can muster to make everyone agree you should be able to do whatever you want.
Hell, Google does the same stuff with Google Play. Just not with as much of a parasitic model as the Apple Store. Enough I think they'd squeak by a bit longer without notice, but Apple has absolutely gone off the deep end.
https://www.polygon.com/2018/9/26/17905770/fortnite-cross-pl...