Hacker News Reader

Comment by piokoch | Hacker News Reader

I think argument about 30% is not that good. There is a number of services that Apple provides like software distribution, updates distribution, reviews (even though they don't benefit software creator directly, they build trust in the platform and attract more users), invoicing, regardless on the location (this one is really big - getting a single invoice from Apple instead of dealing with potentially thousands of documents) and also marketing.

I spoke once to a guy who was selling English language courses on CDs in brick and mortar stores plus he was sending courses by snail mail. He's got interested in that new at that time App Store thing, so I've asked him about the fee. He said that comparing to his current packaging and distrubution costs, paying stores only to be able to put his product on a shelf those 30% is a laughably small fee.

View on HN

Apple don't let us do any of that ourselves, so it's impossible to say that 30% is an appropriate fee for doing it. If they allowed competitor App Stores or direct downloads, and didn't ban us from even mentioning other ways to purchase a subscription (and other such anticompetitive practices), I would find this more convincing.

>Apple don't let us do any of that ourselves

Every stupid app would have its own store if they did. As an iOS user, that would be detrimental to my user experience.

We're seeing a similar phenomenon in the streaming space now, and it's horribly obnoxious. Hardware lock-in is the only thing keeping app distribution on iOS sane.

Before the "but android" rebuttal, consider the more comparable (IMO) situation of wallet apps on android.

> invoicing, regardless on the location (this one is really big - getting a single invoice from Apple instead of dealing with potentially thousands of documents)

Paddle.com do this as a standalone service for any digital product (I use them for my SaaS).

It costs 5%, and that covers all payment transaction fees too, they handle local VAT for the whole world, includes subscriber management tools etc, and they directly handle support for all billing-related requests from your customers.

30% is extortionate.

If it is a reasonable price, why not compete against alternatives fairly?

Steam also has a tax but you still have a choice as a developer or as a gamer. Cyberpunk is on Steam, Gog, Epic and maybe other stores(there are many such games where you as the user can decide what store you trust , what is more comfortable for you or what company you like more).

If you are an iOS developer and and 2 other stores would exists, then you would publish on all to maximize your profit, and hard core Apple fans still get their app from the Apple store but it could cost a bit more.

That would be great if stores weren't pushing so much for 'exclusives'.

I fear that the endgame of multiple App stores is that the guarantee Apple gives (for instance with the privacy labels) will be sidestepped by businesses like Facebook who will force people through their own store without them.

Seeing how many people don't read the small print and just install everything available to them that's the most probable outcome.

>That would be great if stores weren't pushing so much for 'exclusives'.

Exclusives are not that many and instead of fighting like idiots to have only one store we could ask laws to block artificial exclusives.

On PC is not a big deal to install Origin and play a game if you are desperate, on iOS you can't install stuff without a big effort to jailbreak your device (though you can do it on OSX and I did not see any malware/viruses or similar complaints)

Said like that, your arguments sounds like “I had a friend in another business who was abused way harder, we should give Apple a break for abusing only a little”

I think we’d agree reducing/eliminating undue middle-men fees should be a goal whatever the amount.

In particular Spotify for instance gets little benefit from having Apple as a middlemen, while smaller players would sure appreciate the convenience. The argument would be to have a choice to rely or not on what Apple provides.

This is all fine if other stores existed on the phone that could compete with Apple's offering. If it's such good value then developers would choose the 30% cut over publishing on an alternative store with less fees (and potentially less benefits). But as Apple holds a monopoly on app stores on the iPhone this assumption that the cut justifies the value offered can never be tested in a real market setting.

Apple doesnt need to charge any fee (like how macs and pcs never charged a fee to install apps), they get enough benefits from the millions of apps that enrich their platforms, that they otherwise wouldn't ever build themselves.

This whole perverse 'ecosystem' exists because of the skewed oligopoly dynamics of mobile phones.

Exactly this ^^^^.

This would not be permitted on other platforms, but mobile devices seem to have a new level of monopoly.

30% seems a crazy high number in my humble opinion.

For the companies that can, that cost gets transferred to the purchaser.

But for those who can't, for example Spotify who has to compete with Apple Music that has no %, it gets absorbed by the company.

There is no way that the services that Apple provide are worth 30%. 10% would be already too much in my humble opinion.

But then again you have the advantage for apple music who can go 10% lower than the competition in price.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com