101–110 of 474 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cut is 15% so even if you passed it on to your consumers, which nobody does, you wouldn't charge 50% more.
Apple's subscription cut is 15% after the subscription has been active for a year, it's 30% for the first year.
The 30% cut would have been reasonable after all this time if the platforms were doing anything useful with the money. Instead, we got: - Store APIs that to this day are stupidly complex to get right in all cases, making you wonder why it’s so hard - No support for very common, decades-old pricing schemes like “free demo, then buy” (except through convoluted means) - Stagnant app store designs (esp. Mac, for YEARS) -…
Consider the following need: "I want a free running app that can track my weekly mileage". Quite a simple request right? Search through all the top apps on Android app store, it took me a long time to find a good one that met my needs and had this feature.
And, I'm seeing that the top apps aren't always the best ones.
The 30% cut would have been reasonable after all this time if the platforms were doing anything useful with the money. Instead, we got: - Store APIs that to this day are stupidly complex to get right in all cases, making you wonder why it’s so hard - No support for very common, decades-old pricing schemes like “free demo, then buy” (except through convoluted means) - Stagnant app store designs (esp. Mac, for YEARS) -…
>Absolutely terrible search We have much more powerful CPU, In-Memory DB and SSD, Searching within a comparatively small dataset that is the App Store is a solved problem more than a decade ago and much more so now. Instead we got a appalling App Store search. It could simply mean one thing, Apple just doesn't care.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is it's clearly a monopoly (or duopoly). How did they settle on 30%? Why did Apple and Google come to the same 30% number - is that a coincidence? They could easily provide the same service for less than 1/3 of the cost, but the percent never budges because it doesn't have to. There's zero competitive pressure. In fact they could move it up to 60% if they want to with nothing stopping them. Some people ha…
"Why did Apple and Google come to the same 30% number - is that a coincidence?" Google copied Apple?
The 30% cut would have been reasonable after all this time if the platforms were doing anything useful with the money. Instead, we got: - Store APIs that to this day are stupidly complex to get right in all cases, making you wonder why it’s so hard - No support for very common, decades-old pricing schemes like “free demo, then buy” (except through convoluted means) - Stagnant app store designs (esp. Mac, for YEARS) -…
They are doing a ton that is useful: - Taking care of payment processing - Storing the user's credit card information - Providing a ton of pricing options - Providing analytics and crash monitoring tools - Providing deployment tools - Providing development tools (push notifications, regular updates to their platforms, market segmentation, beta releases, etc) - Providing distribution - Creating a market place for the…
Microsoft failed to establish a healthy developer community and had to close the whole smartphone department because nobody wanted their phones. Windows Phone was a very good operating system and had very high quality hardware but because the apps were missing, people bought Android and iOS.
But without the app stores and tools, developers won't get their apps to their customers.
The 30% cut would have been reasonable after all this time if the platforms were doing anything useful with the money. Instead, we got: - Store APIs that to this day are stupidly complex to get right in all cases, making you wonder why it’s so hard - No support for very common, decades-old pricing schemes like “free demo, then buy” (except through convoluted means) - Stagnant app store designs (esp. Mac, for YEARS) -…
On top of the terrible search, they also show ads. Which, if search was good, would be explicitly worse than actual search results.
If you have an ad-based model, there's less of a reason improve those other systems, since the store might be able to extract 75% of the value created if you get developers bidding against each other to buy visibility. But it sucks for everyone except the app store owner.
Is this any different than the same non-story we've been reading since 2011?[1] Don't want to give Apple their cut? Do what Amazon does, and don't sell through the App Store. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-kindle-2011-2
And so how do you sell iOS apps or in-app content then?
The 30% cut would have been reasonable after all this time if the platforms were doing anything useful with the money. Instead, we got: - Store APIs that to this day are stupidly complex to get right in all cases, making you wonder why it’s so hard - No support for very common, decades-old pricing schemes like “free demo, then buy” (except through convoluted means) - Stagnant app store designs (esp. Mac, for YEARS) -…
In return for 30%, Apple develops and maintains a centralized software distribution channel. It takes care of end to end payment processing, deployment and updates. If you don't believe 30% is reasonable in return for access to that market, you can choose not to develop for that market.
But words like "reasonable" imply some obligation on the part of the company. Why would a company not charge a premium for access to a lucrative distribution channel? Clearly many firms are happy to trade 30% of sales in return for access to that market. From my perspective the issues you've outlined are orthogonal to whether or not Apple's fees are "reasonable."