Hacker News Reader

Sure but the point is that developers should have the option of rolling out their own solution if they don't need all the features Apple provides or agree with the fee. This in turn creates competition which may reduce rates all around.

The common argument against that is that the 30% also goes to actually developing iOS - you could envision the margin Apple makes on every iPhone as one that goes towards the R&D costs of developing the hardware, while the post-sale revenue goes towards the post-sale costs of developing iOS (and all the updates they test/push out for 5+ years after the device is released).

iPhone users pay the development of iOS, iphone users want to use an iPhone in part because all these third party apps.

This is just them wanting more money, and according to latest earnings they already make a lot.

> The common argument against that is that the 30% also goes to actually developing iOS

How were operating systems funded before vendors could take a cut of every transaction?

They didn’t receive updates. Now Windows pushes ads in the OS as a mechanism of recouping the cost of developing and testing updates for old hardware.

Operating systems have been getting automatic updates for over 20 years. And what 3rd party ads are in Windows? I don't have any.

Here is how to disable the many forms of advertising on Windows 10:

https://www.howtogeek.com/269331/how-to-disable-all-of-windo...

Also don't forget that there is a ridiculous amount of user behaviour telemetry and metadata that Microsoft has permission to use for any reason.

This isn't a common argument, it's just Apple's argument.

Nothing like a business exposing its alleged cost structure to try and justify passing on costs. It’s the worst argument. It’s not even an argument. It induces me to somehow be part of their business, when I’m not an employee, board member or even a shareholder. It’s TMI.

It's weird using the argument that it's a shell game as a positive argument. "It's not a money grab, it's just a hidden fee!"

Apple admitted this wasn't true in a lawsuit. There were actual internal convos about how they didn't need as much money...

> Separately, the documents show that in 2011, Schiller suggested that Apple could "ratchet down from 70/30 to 75/25 or even 80/20 if we can maintain a $1B a year run rate," in terms of App Store commissions, since the 30 percent commission rate would "not last forever."

https://www.macrumors.com/2021/08/20/apple-sideloading-plans...

It’s not that they don’t need more money, it’s that, in my opinion, they also shouldn’t be forced to operate on razor-thin margins. What is an acceptable profit margin? There’s no clear answer so you’d be reliant on a judge or congress to determine that.

An acceptable profit margin would be based on actual costs, not a static 30% which means paid apps are subsidizing free apps or apps like Netflix and Amazon that do not take payment on iOS. Charge based on bandwidth/downloads, not on who is using their payment processor.

> Charge based on bandwidth/downloads, not on who is using their payment processor.

This obviously doesn't tell the whole story either. Some apps provide utility to the end user but don't monetize well. Those apps are valuable to have as a way to drive people to use app store, and keep developers educated.

> if [developers] don't need all the features

Some “features” are seen only by customers, e.g., managing all your subscriptions in one place. I can think of some services that would LOVE making cancelling a subscription more difficult.

I don’t care about apple’s cut. Allowing sideloading instead would have been a win win for everyone

I agree that Apple's system adds a lot of value. And that's why I believe it can and should compete with other systems. There should be no problem with informing users about other payment options both in- and outside of an app. But Apple chose to forbid this. And that's not ok.

Apple very pointedly does _not_ offer total customer management. As an iOS developer, I don’t know who my customers are; I can’t contact them; I can’t offer them a refund, demo, or promo code; I can’t have any kind of relationship with them whatsoever. It’s infuriatingly archaic and useless. Whatever that system is, it certainly isn’t “total customer management”.

I suppose it’s customer management in the sense that they are not your customers, they are Apple’s customers. Apple is providing you access to sell your app to Apple’s customers through Apple’s store.

It's pretty clearly "Total customer control" not management.

Apple has pulled off a really nifty trick of convincing (cough abusively forcing... cough) companies to concede full control of the customer/business relationship to Apple.

From my point of view, you're not really selling anything on the Apple App store - you're giving Apple the right to resell your digital products.

In exchange they keep all analytics data. They keep full control of customer contact and communication. They dictate the terms of the sale, including place and payment method. They control everything.

Your customer is Apple, and they are just as abusive to their "vendors" (app developers) as Walmart is.

Calling it a "Marketplace" is a sham - The core definition of a "Marketplace" is --- arena of competitive or commercial dealings --- And the Apple store is no more a "marketplace" than Walmart.

> From my point of view, you're not really selling anything on the Apple App store - you're giving Apple the right to resell your digital products.

In my understanding that that’s the contractual relationship the developer and user enter into with Apple.

Personally I think this isn’t all bad considering it provides a uniform experience for the user, which lowers cognitive load for the user and might makes the user more willing to purchase. Once they know what app purchasing is like, they can confidently purchase more apps. And they know that no matter who develops an app, in the event of a dispute they will deal directly with Apple.

That sounds like a problem, but as a customer, I see that as a feature. I do not want to be mailbombed by everyone who has ever written an app I used for some time in the past.

And there are other features that I’d like as a customer that Apple will not let developers offer. More payment options, for example. Why not have the choice of multiple app stores and let the market sort them out? We’ll see the best ideas adopted by all.

The other side of the coin is the app can’t refund from their side, nor stop your subscription or fire you as a client either. They need to wait for you to do it, which can brew complicated situations.

This is true. I should have used the term “billing management.” The opaqueness you mention I like to think of as a firewall between the developer and the user in terms of billing. I can truly say to the user: “I’m sorry, but I can’t help you with that.” Many times that’s bad, many times that’s good, and not because I don’t want to deal with users but because I like when users have uniform, familiar experiences that they understand. The clearly divided responsibilities (developer provides software, Apple provides billing) helps maintain focus on product.

Stripe Billing[1] only charges 0.5% for this.

Apple's offerings may have been good when the alternative was software sold on physical CD's in a store, but compared to the alternatives today there is no way 30% is by any means fair or reasonable. The 30% commission is essentially monopoly rents.

1. https://stripe.com/billing

Looks like its a bit more complicated than that according to the webpage.

Stripe Payments [1]: 2.9% + $0.30

Stripe Billing [2]: 0.5%

Stripe Invoicing [3]: 0.4%

[1] https://stripe.com/pricing

[2] https://stripe.com/billing/pricing

[3] https://stripe.com/invoicing/pricing

You don't need both Billing and Invoicing. Invoicing is for one-time payments (typically after a service has been delivered), and Billing is for recurring payments.

All in all, we're looking at $0.30 + 3.4% (or 3.3%). This is clearly lower than 30%, except for very inexpensive apps (~$1.29 or less).

I wonder if raising fees in the developer program would recoup some of the cost of doing at least some of these things. 99 dollars for an individual and 299 for a business if I recall correctly, that’s peanuts and hasn’t been raised in a very long time. I don’t think asking for more is bad, since it’s a yearly fixed cost

Asking for more will start to limit the number of developers who develop for their platform. Probably not the Microsoft's of the world, but tons of smaller ones.

For instance, if you raised the individual's fee to $500, then a bunch of people would opt out, either not developing iOS apps, or just make a web app. Neither of those are good solutions from Apple's point of view.

If the app/play stores allowed alternative payment mechanisms, then third parties would have an incentive to build out an end-to-end flow as well, possibly even better than Apple or Google do (eg upgrade pricing, better cross-platform support).

> They offer total customer management.

No, they FORCE total customer management.

Yes, offer was the wrong word.

> total customer management

you mean end-to-end locked-in ownership of your customers

You can offer total customer and management and compete on its merits and price point, not by forced monopoly.