Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple releases study defending App Store's 30% cut ahead of testimony

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 30 posts

Re: Apple releases study defending App Store's 30% cut ahead of testimony

#11

Post by hinkley »

KMnO4 wrote: post #5
bigpumpkin wrote: post #2

"Most app stores charge the same 30% cut on digital goods. Retailers, travel booking services and other marketplaces can charge more than 30% for their services. Distributing software through an app store is less expensive than distributing through brick-and-mortar retailers. Other app stores and digital marketplaces often require users to use their in-app payment mechanism and forbid sellers from redirecting buyers…

I don't think the rates are based on competition. If I make an app, I can publish it on: - App Store, and get 70% cut of X users - Play Store, and get 70% cut of Y users - Both, and get 70% cut of (X+Y) users So as long as I can cover my development costs for both platforms, it makes sense to publish to both stores. Let's say Google charged only 10%. Would that change which platforms I publish to? I would say no: I w…

If your company had decided it wasn't worth the extra effort to port to Google, that extra 20% might potentially cover the cost of the extra employees and overhead, or at least lessen the sting.

Re: Apple releases study defending App Store's 30% cut ahead of testimony

#13

Post by mikewhy »

hinkley wrote: post #9

As I said in an earlier thread: Apple pioneered the 30% cut, and it was a massive improvement over the status quo. But they haven't ramped down at all since and that's why these conversations and cases are happening. Also for game theoretic reasons, they should charge a higher % for in-game purchases and lower their cut for outright purchases.

> Apple pioneered the 30% cut

How so? Wasn't it the standard brick-and-mortar rate, and Steam had already been taking 30% for a few years at that point.

Re: Apple releases study defending App Store's 30% cut ahead of testimony

#14

Post by poorman »

mthoms wrote: post #4

The four major findings of the study can be condensed down to two: 1) Our competitors do it too (Google, Amazon) 2) It's cheaper than brick and mortal distribution Notably absent: How the high fees, and payment restrictions benefit consumers and developers. I guess they couldn't find any solid consumer/developer benefits that would stand up to scrutiny? Not a good look.

This one made me laugh.

> The Apple-backed study has four major findings:

> * Most app stores charge the same 30% cut on digital goods.

Fairly certain that if another company tires to create an "app store" they get sued by Apple. i.e. why Google is called the "Play Store". So when they say "Most app stores", are they are talking about the only "app store"?

Re: Apple releases study defending App Store's 30% cut ahead of testimony

#15

Post by hinkley »

mikewhy wrote: post #13
hinkley wrote: post #9

As I said in an earlier thread: Apple pioneered the 30% cut, and it was a massive improvement over the status quo. But they haven't ramped down at all since and that's why these conversations and cases are happening. Also for game theoretic reasons, they should charge a higher % for in-game purchases and lower their cut for outright purchases.

> Apple pioneered the 30% cut How so? Wasn't it the standard brick-and-mortar rate, and Steam had already been taking 30% for a few years at that point.

Before you had to sell your mobile applications through the carriers, who would take up to 70%. When I heard this at a mobile meetup I asked them to repeat it because I was sure I hadn't heard it right. I mean I knew the carriers were insane but that was just beyond the pale. They had a habit of charging extra for featured content, so I suspect that 70% was for content that you actually wanted to advertise.

The mobile app community was all aflutter when Apple Store debuted - margins more than doubled? Popular apps get placements for no additional charges? Yes please. The hype about mobile apps at that time wasn't just about the iPhone, or the app store. Steve Jobs somehow convinced the carriers to let him break the walled garden. Loosen their tight-fisted monopoly. That was a huge watershed moment.

But you can only sit on those laurels so long and I agree that the time has passed. What have you done for us lately?

ETA:

I suspect that 'somehow' was the long exclusivity deal with AT&T. I think people were still wiping away the saliva from the unreasonably popular RAZR phone and getting the next RAZR locked in made them consider things they might not have otherwise. He also got Intel to sell him a bin of mobile CPUs for the original Intel Macbook Pro that was not (yet) available to anyone else. Which makes a weird sense because volume was low, and you can't sell a rare bin to IBM or Dell, but still pissed a lot of people off.

But it seems like that gambit is spent. I haven't heard of anyone recently using these sorts of tricks outside of manufacturing (does Apple still pay for factories to upgrade but then they have to give Apple a permanent discount and right of first refusal?)

Re: Apple releases study defending App Store's 30% cut ahead of testimony

#17

Post by [deleted] »

poorman wrote: post #14
mthoms wrote: post #4

The four major findings of the study can be condensed down to two: 1) Our competitors do it too (Google, Amazon) 2) It's cheaper than brick and mortal distribution Notably absent: How the high fees, and payment restrictions benefit consumers and developers. I guess they couldn't find any solid consumer/developer benefits that would stand up to scrutiny? Not a good look.

This one made me laugh. > The Apple-backed study has four major findings: > * Most app stores charge the same 30% cut on digital goods. Fairly certain that if another company tires to create an "app store" they get sued by Apple. i.e. why Google is called the "Play Store". So when they say "Most app stores", are they are talking about the only "app store"?

[deleted]

Re: Apple releases study defending App Store's 30% cut ahead of testimony

#18

Post by athms »

mikewhy wrote: post #13
hinkley wrote: post #9

As I said in an earlier thread: Apple pioneered the 30% cut, and it was a massive improvement over the status quo. But they haven't ramped down at all since and that's why these conversations and cases are happening. Also for game theoretic reasons, they should charge a higher % for in-game purchases and lower their cut for outright purchases.

> Apple pioneered the 30% cut How so? Wasn't it the standard brick-and-mortar rate, and Steam had already been taking 30% for a few years at that point.

For physical sales, the developer got pennies on the dollar. You needed to find a publisher. Not only would they help with packaging, marketing, localization, and QA, but they also brought access to the wholesale channel. Ingram and MicroD (before they merged) would not touch you unless you could guarantee a certain volume. And like the book business, there were buy backs for unsold product.

I was involved in an Amiga game development deal from 1989-1990 that eventually fell apart and our cut was 18%.

Re: Apple releases study defending App Store's 30% cut ahead of testimony

#19

Post by AnthonyMouse »

hinkley wrote: post #15
mikewhy wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple pioneered the 30% cut How so? Wasn't it the standard brick-and-mortar rate, and Steam had already been taking 30% for a few years at that point.

Before you had to sell your mobile applications through the carriers, who would take up to 70%. When I heard this at a mobile meetup I asked them to repeat it because I was sure I hadn't heard it right. I mean I knew the carriers were insane but that was just beyond the pale. They had a habit of charging extra for featured content, so I suspect that 70% was for content that you actually wanted to advertise. The mobil…

The obvious fallacy in the comparison to carriers is that they were extracting monopoly rents too, and (counter-intuitively) they charged more because they had less of a monopoly than Apple does.

A monopolist wants to maximize profits, so they choose the maximal trade off between margins and volumes. If they charged 100%, nobody would make apps and they would get 100% of nothing. For the carriers, if they charged 30%, more people would make apps than if they charged 70%, but then the competing carriers would benefit from that as much as they do even if they're still charging 70% (which they still can because they each have a monopoly over their own users), so they all charge 70%. Apple gets 100% of the increase in app production rather than ~25%, so their profit-maximizing monopoly rent is a lower percentage (but a much larger absolute dollar amount).

But that 30% is still dramatically more than the ~5% it would take to cover their costs and provide a reasonable profit in a competitive distribution market. Which is what Microsoft now charges in their store, for example.

Re: Apple releases study defending App Store's 30% cut ahead of testimony

#20

Post by AnthonyMouse »

hinkley wrote: post #11
KMnO4 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the rates are based on competition. If I make an app, I can publish it on: - App Store, and get 70% cut of X users - Play Store, and get 70% cut of Y users - Both, and get 70% cut of (X+Y) users So as long as I can cover my development costs for both platforms, it makes sense to publish to both stores. Let's say Google charged only 10%. Would that change which platforms I publish to? I would say no: I w…

If your company had decided it wasn't worth the extra effort to port to Google, that extra 20% might potentially cover the cost of the extra employees and overhead, or at least lessen the sting.

But most relevantly, it doesn't impact the decision of whether to port to iOS at all. If iOS was profitable before it still is, if it wasn't it still isn't. You can't use the Play Store instead of the App Store because the customer sets are completely disjoint.
Post reply on HN