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

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

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 583 posts

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

#121

Post by numpad0 »

zamadatix wrote: post #26
wlesieutre wrote: post #7

Does this mean if there's a developer I don't like, I can buy their stuff and refund it to arbitrarily cost them money at no cost to myself and there's nothing they can do about it? That seems ... not great, especially these days. What happens when mobs of internet morons decide review bombing isn't sufficient and realize Apple will help them cause direct financial harm instead?

If you do this often Apple will ban your account. If you don't do this often it's not a problem.

Apple will ban adversary’s account which could be fake ID with balances loaded from iTS cards bought with stolen CCs.

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

#122

Post by Brian_K_White »

Spooky23 wrote: post #41
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.

It's Apple's fault that they made a standard ssh feature impossible on ios, yet still allow apps to be called "ssh".

No dvd player manufacturer created a dvd store where they sell dvds called "The Beatles" but every Beatles dvd is missing Ringo because their dvd store censors Ringo, but dvds are still named The Beatles.

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

#123

Post by cwhiz »

owenwil wrote: post #87
cwhiz wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Apple is of course the biggest offender as they heavily guard their monopoly with code signing enforcement. What monopoly? Apple controls maybe 8% of the desktop/notebook market and ~13% of the smartphone market. They don't even come close to qualifying as a monopoly.

Apple generates more than 50% of all smartphone App Store revenue, so I'd argue it has a monopoly through that lens https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/07/03/apples-app-store-...

That isn't how monopolies work or are defined or classified. Revenue has nothing to do with market control.

Even if we rewrite the dictionary and legal texts, Apple would be part of a duopoly, not a monopoly. If you try to redefine monopoly to mean that Apple has a monopoly over their own platform, then you better start lawyering up because essentially every company in America has a monopoly.

I think people want Apple to be classified as a monopoly because they see their behavior as unfair. But they aren't a monopoly and your recourse as a free American citizen is to just not buy Apple products. The fact that you are able to buy from a competitor with zero personal harm is absolute indication that Apple is not a monopoly.

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

#124

Post by moogleii »

This policy apparently has been around since 2009: https://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/03/app-store-refunds...

Of note is that the developer "protection" clause in the 2009 version doesn't seem to be in the current version ("Otherwise, no refunds are available."): https://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/us/term...

My memory is fuzzy, but I recall there was pressure from the EU? regarding lack of refunds, so I'm guessing this was Apple's adaptation.

Regardless, it still clearly seems like the right thing to do is to refund the developer the 30%.

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

#125

Post by rcoder »

ryanlol wrote: post #69
solarkraft wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, really? Which competitors to Apple are there on iOS?

Which competitors to $car_manufacturer engines are there for $car_manufacturer cars? This is a stupid question. Whether or not there is competition on iOS doesn’t matter as long as there exists viable competition on any viable platform.

...and if all car manufacturers bought engines from the same factory (TSMC), used the same satnav (except one brand, who had a slightly-worse in-house clone), and an accelerator and gearbox from exactly one source (Google search) would you be more concerned about anticompetitive behavior? What if the manufacturers were allowed to produce "accessories" like batteries, tires, and child seats that refused to work in any other car, and actively sued repair shops that weren't official dealerships?

Apple and Google may be competitors, strictly speaking, but the reality is they've pretty well carved up the market between premium buyers mostly concerned with fit+finish, prestige, and compatibility with other Apple devices, and the operating system and network infrastructure for, well, everything else.

It's absolutely a duopoly, and so minimally competitive: either Google or Apple would happily claim leadership status, but neither party really wants the other to go away lest actual competition or government intervention cause them to lose control of their patch of ground.

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

#126

Post by terrortrain »

simonh wrote: post #101
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.

The iPhone is an Apple product. The App Store is an Apple product. The libraries and development tools needed to create iOS apps are Apple products. Traditionally the company that develops a product gets to decide what features that product has. There are various laws that require a product be safe to use, is not misrepresented and does what it is advertised to do, but beyond that there are very few actual features o…

It's different when TV manufactures put Dolby in charge of advertising and supporting the feature. Then charge them a cut of their profit, with little to no recourse or dispute mechanisms.

Besides that, it could be argued that running software is the feature. What software does is not a feature of the iPhone. Like a recipe is not a feature of a stove.

We are buying the device, it's a tool, and we should control how it's used.

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

#127

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

ryanlol wrote: post #69
solarkraft wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, really? Which competitors to Apple are there on iOS?

Which competitors to $car_manufacturer engines are there for $car_manufacturer cars? This is a stupid question. Whether or not there is competition on iOS doesn’t matter as long as there exists viable competition on any viable platform.

There is no competition, because there are exactly two viable platforms for mobile apps. All the others are footnotes.

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

#128

Post by dragonwriter »

cwhiz wrote: post #123
owenwil wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple generates more than 50% of all smartphone App Store revenue, so I'd argue it has a monopoly through that lens https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/07/03/apples-app-store-...

That isn't how monopolies work or are defined or classified. Revenue has nothing to do with market control. Even if we rewrite the dictionary and legal texts, Apple would be part of a duopoly, not a monopoly. If you try to redefine monopoly to mean that Apple has a monopoly over their own platform, then you better start lawyering up because essentially every company in America has a monopoly. I think people want Appl…

> Even if we rewrite the dictionary and legal texts, Apple would be part of a duopoly, not a monopoly.

If Apple has pricing power because people don't move to competitors, they are a monopoly in the eyes of the law no matter how many players are in the same commonly-described market segment and what their sizes are.

> If you try to redefine monopoly to mean that Apple has a monopoly over their own platform

If that platform is sufficiently sticky that pricing changes don't induce people to switch to competitors, that's exactly what the law already does, no redefinition needed.

> then you better start lawyering up because essentially every company in America has a monopoly.

No, most don't, though they tend to seek them (what do you think a ”moat” is?)

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

#129

Post by alias_neo »

briandear wrote: post #71
jlmorton wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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%…

Can you prove price fixing? Or collusion? If you want to make the claim, then let’s see the proof.

What options are there? Google Play, Apple App Store.

How much do they take? 30% and 30%.

Is there an option where they take less than 30% or where someone can compete on that cut? No.

Is there a different store you can use with the same privileges as these two stores? No.

Can you take your payments outside of the store and manage payment fees yourself so as to not give them 30%? No.

Post reply on HN