Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway189262 | Hacker News Reader

Because 30% is an extraordinary amount of money. Apple is user-hostile on this too, not sure why their users would ever defend it. Think of it this way, every time you buy something on the store you're paying 30% of your money to Apple. You're paying 30% of your money to Apple for the right to install the app on your phone

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

View on HN

Users defend it because it’s a user friendly experience. The concept is good, even if you think apple’s cut is too high. Imagine going to a grocery store and needing to go through several different checkouts depending on which products you bought.

I'd take a couple different checkouts for a 30% discount on some goods. The problem for me is if I can only get their goods through their checkouts.

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.

no one bitches when it’s sony or microsoft charging 30%, which xbox and playstation certainly do for IAPs.

It not the starting of price of 30%, the problem is Apple will not adjust it one bit for anybody[1]. Microsoft or Sony will happily negotiate with AAA developer, none of the top devs will pay close to 30%.

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 .

Sure. Apple negotiates with indy game developers all of the time for exclusive releases via Apple Arcade and they pay them an up front fee.

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.

Apple Arcade explicitly forbids any in-purchases or ads. So not sure if we can compare a subscription service to a marketplace like App Store.

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.

Apple Arcade explicitly forbids any in-purchases or ads. So not sure if we can compare a subscription service to a marketplace like App Store.

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.

The PC is still a viable alternative for gaming that doesn't have such restrictions. I wouldn't mind if Google and Apple didn't have a virtual monopoly on mobile devices. Users don't really have another option

Well two things.

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?

I wonder what markup supermarkets generally charge over the wholesale rates, and if any of them would stock products with labels saying “buy this product direct from us and save $$$!”

Supermarkets loose money if goods do not sell, storage is expensive and limited shelf space , will also promote your product visibility or even give exclusivity etc .

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.

Supermarket's profit margins are in low single digits.

It is peanuts compared with what J2ME, Symbian, Brew, Windows CE, Pocket PC, Blackberry stores used to ask for.

How are those stores doing now?

Gone, given that 30% was an welcomed improvement that made everyone gladly jump into iOS.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com