When a customer refunds your paid app, Apple refunds its 30% cut [edited] • Hacker News Board

Re: When a customer refunds your paid app, Apple refunds its 30% cut [edited]

#41

Post by Spooky23 » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 3:49 PM UTC

monkey26 wrote: post #12

This is unfortunate. I recently searched the App Store for “ssh tunnel” and Prompt 2 came up. I bought it without much thought as I heard about. Now I should have done my research but it doesn’t support tunneling or I couldn’t figure out. Some research told me that no iOS ssh client will. So I requested a refund and got it. In this case I think the blame was on Apple. Not the author of the app.

I don’t know how you can blame either party.

If my kid wants a dvd about beetles (the bugs), and I click on a Beatles (the band) documentary instead, that’s neither the seller or producers fault.

Re: When a customer refunds your paid app, Apple refunds its 30% cut [edited]

#42

Post by hugey010 » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 3:49 PM UTC

ryanlol wrote: post #11

bronzeage wrote: post #8

App stores need heavy regulations. It's not only Apple but Google and even steam to a small extent. Apple is of course the biggest offender as they heavily guard their monopoly with code signing enforcement. This shouldn't have been legal. They are the very definitions of predatory competition squashing monopolies.

Why do app stores need separate regulations? > They are the very definitions of predatory competition squashing monopolies. But they aren’t, this is a rather competitive space.

They enforce intentionally anti-competitive policies. Referencing third party mobile platforms (Android) is not allowed in iOS apps. See 2.3.10 https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#acc...

Re: When a customer refunds your paid app, Apple refunds its 30% cut [edited]

#43

Post by ryanlol » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 3:49 PM UTC

_nalply wrote: post #34

ryanlol wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do app stores need separate regulations? > They are the very definitions of predatory competition squashing monopolies. But they aren’t, this is a rather competitive space.

Competitive between developers and perhaps platforms but absolutely a monopoly for iOS.

This is as nonsensical as complaining about Disney having a monopoly in Disneyland.

Re: When a customer refunds your paid app, Apple refunds its 30% cut [edited]

#44

Post by oliverx0 » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 3:49 PM UTC

weaksauce wrote: post #28

oliverx0 wrote: post #18

Seems fair to me. Apple provided with you a service and charged your for it. It is a cost associated with distributing / developing your product. Why should Apple be responsible for refunding you? It was not their fault that the customer decided their money back.

No it’s not fair. This can be a tool that competitors use to hurt you financially. If the customer gets a refund the slate should be wiped clean. That’s fair.

It’s easy to think it’s fair because the cost to Apple is low. But in principle, let’s assume that it costs Apple a significant amount of money and effort to make the transaction happen, for which they charge you that 30%. Seems unfair then that Apple has to be held responsible for refunding a service they provided when it was not their fault the customer wanted the money back for your product.

Re: When a customer refunds your paid app, Apple refunds its 30% cut [edited]

#45

Post by sukilot » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 3:49 PM UTC

gregoriol wrote: post #4

Not saying it's exactly the same situation, but Stripe keeps their fees when you refund a payment

It's not the same at all. Payment processing is work, regardless of direction. Marketing fees for non-sales is payment for nothing.

Re: When a customer refunds your paid app, Apple refunds its 30% cut [edited]

#46

Post by jlmorton » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 3:50 PM UTC

ryanlol wrote: post #11

bronzeage wrote: post #8

App stores need heavy regulations. It's not only Apple but Google and even steam to a small extent. Apple is of course the biggest offender as they heavily guard their monopoly with code signing enforcement. This shouldn't have been legal. They are the very definitions of predatory competition squashing monopolies.

Why do app stores need separate regulations? > They are the very definitions of predatory competition squashing monopolies. But they aren’t, this is a rather competitive space.

Competitive? It is an oligopoly with tacit collusion on price fixing. This is the exact reason why anti-trust legislation exists.

A competitive market would be one in which the platform providers were forced to divest from the app markets, and support competing app markets which meet requirements, and which actively compete on features and price.

If cars only supported gasoline from manufacturer gas stations, and 95% of the market was controlled by cars from GM and Ford, and once you bought a GM car you could only buy gasoline from a GM gas station, would you call the gasoline market competitive?

To extend the metaphor, let's say it was technically possible to use third-party gas stations, but the manufacturers had hidden this ability, and it required a small amount of mechanical knowledge to enable, and maybe voided your warranty, would you then consider the market competitive?

Re: When a customer refunds your paid app, Apple refunds its 30% cut [edited]

#47

Post by arnvald » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 3:50 PM UTC

ryanlol wrote: post #11

bronzeage wrote: post #8

App stores need heavy regulations. It's not only Apple but Google and even steam to a small extent. Apple is of course the biggest offender as they heavily guard their monopoly with code signing enforcement. This shouldn't have been legal. They are the very definitions of predatory competition squashing monopolies.

Why do app stores need separate regulations? > They are the very definitions of predatory competition squashing monopolies. But they aren’t, this is a rather competitive space.

Not really, at least not in a sense that different products and stores compete.

When I buy a phone I can choose from multiple models, then once I choose a model I can choose a store where I want to buy it. These 2 examples are competitive. Then I can choose what app I want to buy, but I can't choose anymore where I buy it (at least on IOS). There's no competition between stores. There's just competition between phone manufacturers that ends the moment you choose the phone, from then onwards is a monopoly (or near monopoly in case of Android)

Re: When a customer refunds your paid app, Apple refunds its 30% cut [edited]

#48

Post by bitexploder » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 3:50 PM UTC

bronzeage wrote: post #8

App stores need heavy regulations. It's not only Apple but Google and even steam to a small extent. Apple is of course the biggest offender as they heavily guard their monopoly with code signing enforcement. This shouldn't have been legal. They are the very definitions of predatory competition squashing monopolies.

I remember when we didn’t have app stores. All we really need is decentralized app publisher trust. Centralized app publishing will always be abused by the publisher in the long run. It’s just too powerful and tempting to not stack the deck in your favor as the app store owner.

Re: When a customer refunds your paid app, Apple refunds its 30% cut [edited]

#49

Post by sukilot » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 3:50 PM UTC

bena wrote: post #39

I don't think the issue is that Apple is keeping its fee even with a return. That on some level is fair. They are providing a service to the developer. The bigger question is whether their cut should be 30% in the first place. 30% was chosen by the first store of this type and it's just never been questioned by platforms. I just read that Valve recently changed their agreement to be a sliding scale based on sales (30…

> all do a 30/70 split on digital sales.

Consistency which is only possible in an environment of collusion.

Re: When a customer refunds your paid app, Apple refunds its 30% cut [edited]

#50

Post by toyg » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 3:50 PM UTC

App Stores are doing to software developers what supermarkets did to food producers and most other manufacturers: moving all power and profit to distributors.

It is somewhat ironic that so many people who helped so many other sectors disintermediate again (by building websites), are now busy actually intermediating their own.