211–220 of 559 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here are the App Store Review Guidelines, section 3 is about in-app purchases: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
Which clauses are those two rules in?
Apple takes a 30% cut of all IAP. Google scrapes info and displays it in widgets above links to the actual content. Google charges trademark holders AdWords ransom to protect searches for their own brands. Amazon kills OSS business models by offering managed OSS services on AWS at an unbeatable cost. Amazon picks off the best performing market place categories with Amazon Basics ‘recommended’ competitors. The list go…
I can use Google Chrome, and still use a non-Google search engine. I can use a Kindle, and still read DRM-Free epubs. Yes, all the major tech companies are engaged in rent seeking. But Apple is the only one that says users must either must pay rent or throw away their hardware. The App Store and its policies are not the problem. The App Store is Apple's store, just like Amazon.com is Amazon's store. But the App Store…
1) Never need to learn what a "sideload" is
2) Never be exposed to Apps that havn't been vetted by a trustworthy party (in this case Apple)
Apple is taking the opportunity to milk app developers, but they've done an effective job of positioning the milking process so that it is done in the user's interests. It is quite possible that things like this 30% App Store tax are one of the reasons why iPhones remain so prominent.
Why is Apple's revenue here even percentage-based at all? It makes zero sense. According to Apple they need this revenue cut because of the cost of keeping the platform running. If I offer a subscription in my app for 1$/month vs 10$/month what marginal expense is being incurred that apple deserves an extra $2.70 for the higher price?
On the other hand the argument is that all the $0 apps are being subsidized by the paid apps, so they went percentage based so that the cheap apps didn't have a huge fee. It would mean the cheapest paid apps in the app store would be a lot more to absorb the fixed cost, or if they shared it evenly, then there would be no free apps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can use Google Chrome, and still use a non-Google search engine. I can use a Kindle, and still read DRM-Free epubs. Yes, all the major tech companies are engaged in rent seeking. But Apple is the only one that says users must either must pay rent or throw away their hardware. The App Store and its policies are not the problem. The App Store is Apple's store, just like Amazon.com is Amazon's store. But the App Store…
These things are true; and also a significant component of Apple's value proposition. An Apple customer can be sure they will: 1) Never need to learn what a "sideload" is 2) Never be exposed to Apps that havn't been vetted by a trustworthy party (in this case Apple) Apple is taking the opportunity to milk app developers, but they've done an effective job of positioning the milking process so that it is done in the us…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tie it to an API and break the API later?
Yeah, I imagine that's going to go down real well with Cupertino.
Why is Apple's revenue here even percentage-based at all? It makes zero sense. According to Apple they need this revenue cut because of the cost of keeping the platform running. If I offer a subscription in my app for 1$/month vs 10$/month what marginal expense is being incurred that apple deserves an extra $2.70 for the higher price?
How do you allow free apps but still collect money? Maybe you could make a distinction between free and paid apps, and charge a flat fee to the paid apps, but then people would just make their apps free and process their payments separately anyway; essentially the same problem you hit with the 30% fee.
I think there needs to be some distinction between apps that are the main product (or close to it) and apps that support another product (like there is npo point to having the app by itself, you should already have gotten the product/account before downloading the app). I don't know too much about Apple's rules to know if they use that criteria, but it makes sense to me. An app to manage your Tesla makes no sense unl…
The Tesla example is unfortunate to support he point because Apple doesn’t charge 30% on physical goods. A funny idea, maybe some apps should sell a physical card, or wearable that gives you access to premium features, but it would be ecological.
> Apps may not use their own mechanisms to unlock content or functionality, such as license keys, augmented reality markers, QR codes, etc.
> In limited circumstances, such as when features are dependent upon specific hardware to function, the app may unlock that functionality without using in-app purchase[...] You may not, however, require users to purchase unrelated products or engage in advertising or marketing activities to unlock app functionality.
Apple takes a 30% cut of all IAP. Google scrapes info and displays it in widgets above links to the actual content. Google charges trademark holders AdWords ransom to protect searches for their own brands. Amazon kills OSS business models by offering managed OSS services on AWS at an unbeatable cost. Amazon picks off the best performing market place categories with Amazon Basics ‘recommended’ competitors. The list go…
I can use Google Chrome, and still use a non-Google search engine. I can use a Kindle, and still read DRM-Free epubs. Yes, all the major tech companies are engaged in rent seeking. But Apple is the only one that says users must either must pay rent or throw away their hardware. The App Store and its policies are not the problem. The App Store is Apple's store, just like Amazon.com is Amazon's store. But the App Store…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can use Google Chrome, and still use a non-Google search engine. I can use a Kindle, and still read DRM-Free epubs. Yes, all the major tech companies are engaged in rent seeking. But Apple is the only one that says users must either must pay rent or throw away their hardware. The App Store and its policies are not the problem. The App Store is Apple's store, just like Amazon.com is Amazon's store. But the App Store…
These things are true; and also a significant component of Apple's value proposition. An Apple customer can be sure they will: 1) Never need to learn what a "sideload" is 2) Never be exposed to Apps that havn't been vetted by a trustworthy party (in this case Apple) Apple is taking the opportunity to milk app developers, but they've done an effective job of positioning the milking process so that it is done in the us…
But Apple customers can be sure of that anyway--just don't sideload apps. Anything essential is going to want to be in the App Store, in order to reach customers.