With Apple shuttering their affiliate program for iOS I hope this means the fee will drop to 15% or even 10%. Otherwise I can't see them dropping that affiliate program unless a change was in the future that could affect it.
Apple and Google Face Growing Revolt Over App Store ‘Tax’
161–170 of 474 posts
Re: Apple and Google Face Growing Revolt Over App Store ‘Tax’
#162And they should. We are fast approaching a world where all markets are walled-in by a few international companies. I've had clients of mine go under because Amazon decided to close their accounts and they depend on the platform to sell their wares. Imagine how hard it is to sell stuff online if you're barred from ebay and amazon... and there is no legal recourse to appeal those bans. Same goes for app stores, what ha…
In part I think it's important to think about how to make and keep a healthy culture of labour unions. There needs to be counter balance to corporate power. Especially in blue collar sectors.
I guess gig unions could be a thing? Can we build apps for worker coordination? What if there was a way for all Uber drivers to coordinate global strikes?
We should be open for regulation that protect the rights of workers to unionize.
Re: Apple and Google Face Growing Revolt Over App Store ‘Tax’
#163Does any of the many app stores in China charge a percentage? Can't find any number on its largest one, MyApp Tencent, which has ~10% of the app market.
Re: Apple and Google Face Growing Revolt Over App Store ‘Tax’
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can you argue that it's not worth "anywhere near 10%, let alone 30%" if there are so many firms willing to pay it? The idea of the fees is not to cover the costs of doing business, it's to turn a (ideally significant) profit. It sounds like your expectation is that a company would not charge as much as the market will accept for a unique product. How much it costs to simply handle e.g. payment processing has rela…
Not sure you can say they are willing to pay it, considering the alternative is not being able to provide the application to iOS/Android users.
They are clearly willing to pay it if they pay it. If users buy these devices knowing in advance that it will be infeasible to install software outside of the app store, I don't think it's fair for developers to act entitled to another software distribution channel.
In particular it doesn't seem anticompetitive to me because Apple/Google charge a fee to every business in return for their service, but don't try to stop competitors from being on the service outright.
Re: Apple and Google Face Growing Revolt Over App Store ‘Tax’
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Apple adds no value there Other than inventing the modern phone, writing the operating system and developer tools, running the store, manufacturing the phones people are consuming Amazon's product on and convincing people to buy them...you can argue about what's "fair," but Apple's certainly adding value.
> Other than inventing the modern phone IBM Simon, 1992. Applr popularised, they didn't invent. Ironically given the target of their 1984 ad.
[deleted]
Re: Apple and Google Face Growing Revolt Over App Store ‘Tax’
#166Doesn't Valve take 30% from games on Steam? But they're complaining Apple taking 30% is too much? I also don't really think the Apple/Google fee is that unreasonable. Considering the resources, tools, marketplaces, tutorials, payment processing, all the other All dev stuff they provide in general. Yes if your app goes big, they make a lot of money. But for every big app there's something like 9 that fail completely (…
The modern marvel that are credit cards or debit cards run at low single digit percentages. And they are getting a ton of margin out of those; so much that in the EU, they capped fees at 0.3%. And those transaction fees actually pay for something, like customer protection, SLAs (not a shitty status site) and no, the credit card company doesn't add unskippable ads on top of the checkout process or advertise a scam clo…
In your analogy, the App Store is the store, not the credit card terminal. As somebody who sells on Amazon, I can tell you that they take more than 30% of what the customer pays.
Re: Apple and Google Face Growing Revolt Over App Store ‘Tax’
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
The monopoly they have isn't phones , it's iOS app distribution . It's a different market -- and the market isn't combined with apps for other systems because they have disjoint sets of customers. You can't use Android apps when you don't have an Android device.
Right, and WalMart has a “monopoly” on WalMarts, but that’s not actually a monopoly. If they had a monopoly on supermarket, that would be a legal issue. Apps is the space for competition, and Apple doesn’t have a monopoly on apps, or phones. In fact you can almost always get the same apps on multiple platforms. People just want something they can’t have, so they play word games to make themselves sound righteous rath…
No, Walmart owns those stores. Phones, on the other hand, are owned by the people who purchase them. And those people who own the phones have the full right to do whatever they want with them.
Re: Apple and Google Face Growing Revolt Over App Store ‘Tax’
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the scale Apple operate None of what you stated above is worth anywhere near 10%, let alone 30%. And for the last few points, they are covered by the Hardware cost which in Apple case cover the software as well. ( Where Windows and Android are covered by other means ) And I don't think you are actually disagreeing with your parents at all. Because all the services they provided and as you have listed are now consi…
How can you argue that it's not worth "anywhere near 10%, let alone 30%" if there are so many firms willing to pay it? The idea of the fees is not to cover the costs of doing business, it's to turn a (ideally significant) profit. It sounds like your expectation is that a company would not charge as much as the market will accept for a unique product. How much it costs to simply handle e.g. payment processing has rela…
>It sounds like your expectation is that a company would not charge as much as the market will accept for a unique product.
Actually I don't have a problem with charging 30%. I just don't think it is worth it. Like Rental, you don't have a choice, unless you don't want to access These customers. I just wish Apple could offer something more, because what they are doing now is rent seeking.
Re: Apple and Google Face Growing Revolt Over App Store ‘Tax’
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my opinion the 30% fee is reasonable because it provides access to Apple's user base. It's not as though they're specifically obligated to earmark that money to improve the app store itself. The things you're complaining about are valid criticisms, but I don't think the have anything to do with whether or not the fee is appropriate. In return for 30%, Apple develops and maintains a centralized software distributio…
> If you don't believe 30% is reasonable in return for access to that market, you can choose not to develop for that market Well, the counter to this is that it is not Apple's userbase. Apple doesn't own those phones. Consumers do, because those consumers paid for them. The alternative isn't "don't build for this market". The alternative is doing exactly what these companies are doing, and building their own marketpl…
I think this is more complex than what you've said in your last sentence. Theoretically you can literally run whatever software you'd like on hardware you've purchased. But I don't think operating system developers targeting that hardware have an intrinsic obligation to sanction arbitrary software installation.
Re: Apple and Google Face Growing Revolt Over App Store ‘Tax’
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
Justifying price you charge for something based solely on cost, isn't the way that capitalism works. Price is purely a function of supply and demand. If app makers decide that it's not worth the 30% cut that Apple charges to reach the But realistically, the developers who are making the most money are the ones doing in app purchases for coins, loot boxes, etc. It's not exactly costing them anything to "produce" more…
No, justifying price based on cost is usually valid because of real competitive pressures in the world. Very few things deviate too far from underlying costs. Apple is a rare special case that has a lot of market power and brand premium. Retail stores take on massive working capital and inventory costs. Of course their 'cut' is going to be higher, and it will be the same in every other retail chain because of the sim…
And that’s why if your business is based on selling a commodity like Android phones and PCs, you’re stuck selling low margin products where you can compete on price.
That also explains why it’s impossible to make real money selling either Android phones or Windows computers.