Hacker News Reader

If I were being extremely charitable on the phrasing, I think they might mean, for example, if you pay Apple 30% (or whatever the going rate is) you might have to pay an external app store an additional number.

Or, it might mean Apple will charge higher rates for apps that are also available on other app stores? Not sure if that's entirely legal, but since when have pesky things like the law stopped companies as big as Apple?

I agree. As a dev, if I list my $3/mo subscription app on the Apple App store and they take 30% and I have 100k customers and I double-list the app in the 3rd party store + the Apple app store and gain 20k customers from the 3rd party store and the 3rd party store charges 10%, I have saved (30% - 10%) x 20k x $3/mo = $12k/mo on the new customers.

If I release my next version update and post it to just the 3rd party app store, I could then theoretically move the 120k customers to download the update from the 3rd party store and then save $72k/mo.

That is what Apple is afraid of. I think.

I don't think that's a problem for Apple:

- For figurative developer moving 120k customers saves $72k/mo

- For figurative customers on $3/mo subscription it means ~$0.65/mo savings

- Such scenario doesn't take into account amount of work required for switch (5 minutes of form filling on $15/h is $2.5 - gain starts at 6th month)

- Neither it does UX around subscription management (right now it's very comfortable to manage Apple's subscriptions)

As a counter, anecdotal, point - I, myself, pay >$5/mo overhead on subscriptions and I'm completely aware that I can save money. My reasons:

- I'm too lazy to set up full account on provider's website

- Apple is VERY verbose about subscriptions, even if I forget about one, they e-mail me about it

- It easy to manage all my subscriptions and thus I only have subscription for things I use

Just extending the hypothetical, the developer can drop the price to $2.49/mo passing on the savings to customers and perhaps capture a few more customers at that price point.

While it is true that inertia might stop many customers from changing the default, it does give an additional degree of freedom for devs.

Also, in price conscious geographies like India (where Apple just launched their first two retail stores this past week), we have alternate payment mechanisms like UPI (Unified Payment Interface) that are zero cost. So, why should a dev be forced to use only the payment mechanisms offered by Apple?

And? Sounds perfectly legal to do, and something that should 100% be possible.

> Even if there are signup fees, the share of revenues that Apple is today taking away from the developer would go down in absolute terms with a 3rd party store.

I guarantee you Apple will find a way to still make the same money.

Just like how in the Netherlands dating apps don't have to use IAP, but the apps need to pay Apple a 28% royalty on all in app purchases that don't go through them.

https://techcrunch.com/2022/02/04/apple-to-charge-27-fee-for...

Thanks, really interesting

> In addition, developers may have to pay extra if they want their apps to be available outside of the iOS App Store, Gurman says.

How I read this is that they are basically creating a 3rd category of apps. Up until now you could sideload apps on an iPhone via an enterprise cert (though it carries some major restrictions that would make it unsuitable for general distribution). With this they are likely creating something like that enterprise cert but for all app developers.

No, my interpretation is that Apple either increases their fees or decreases prices for an app that is also distributed elsewhere.

I don't see a problem with that.

If a producer grants exclusive distribution rights to a seller, the typical consequence is that the seller gives the producer a greater profit share in return.

On ending those terms, the seller may rightfully reduce the profit share, in my opinion.

The problem is that EU law requires Apple to not restrict sideloading for selected apps. It doesn't matter if they pay or don't pay Apple. You have to be able to sideload them.

There’s a misunderstanding: I meant that Apple may increase the fees in their own store for non-exclusive apps.

> ... Apple either increases their fees or decreases prices for an app that is also distributed elsewhere

I don't get why anyone should be paying Apple a rent for using a 3rd party app store (lets say exclusively).

As a hypothetical, lets say Epic Games or Steam launches an Alt App Store for games that can be installed on ios. Why does any gamedev using those stores have to pay Apple any transaction fee?

Just doesn't make any sense and would just be rent-seeking on Apple's part.

I don’t think developers should be paying a rent for using a third-party App Store. I meant it like that: if a developer wants to sell both in a third-party store and in the Apple apps store then Apple is not sole distributor. Losing exclusive selling rights, Apple has every right to cash in a higher fee.

Apple can charge whatever fee they want, provided they also allow alt app stores to operate and set their own fees and let the market decide whether they will download the widget from their App store or the 3rd party store.

Putting up anticompetitive defenses for the app store in the garb of security, censorship etc., while hamstringing alternatives for app installation -- It is a matter of time before the antitrust (or equivalent) units of different governments come after Apple.

For reference, Competition Commission of India penalized Google INR 1337 crores (INR 13,370,000,000 ~ $161M USD) for abusing its dominant position. [1]

From that link:

> For this purpose, the CCI delineated following five relevant markets in the present matter:

> - Market for licensable OS for smart mobile devices in India

> - Market for app store for Android smart mobile OS in India

> - Market for general web search services in India

> - Market for non-OS specific mobile web browsers in India

> - Market for online video hosting platform (OVHP) in India.

The second bullet point is pertinent for Apple's current behavior relating to App Stores.

Apple's market share in India is miniscule. But they have just opened up Apple retail in India this week with stores in Mumbai and Delhi. So, with local customers increasing in the next couple of years, this will be something Apple has to contend with.

[1]: https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1869748

A distributor cannot strong arm producers into exclusivity contracts while in a dominant position, this is text book example on how to get fined heavily in most countries, and would not fly at all in Europe.

I don’t think this is “strong armed” because then developers can freely choose which app store they sell to.