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

Post by throwaway45349 » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 4:35 PM UTC

erk__ wrote: post #150

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see what kind of regulation Steam needs. They are hardly the only storefront on the platforms they support, aren't the default one, have almost no exclusive content, and don't even take a cut if you sell Steam keys on other stores. What is there to regulate? If you don't like their terms you can sell on a different store or distribute yourself, there's nothing stopping you like there is on a typical iPhone or…

Steam did not offer refunds at all until they came into trouble for it in Australia and the EU. That is what regulations are for.

Post by rconti » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 4:36 PM UTC

ShinTakuya wrote: post #100

atarian wrote: post #74

I don't understand something here.. let's say I sold an app to someone for $100. 1. Someone pays me $100. 2. Apple takes 30%, so I only get $70. 3. Customer asks for refund and gets back $100. 4. Apple takes back the $70 from me. If Apple was skimming 30% off from the start, how does that affect me during a refund?

The answer is that you're thinking of it the wrong way. See it this way: You make 3 sales of $100. One gets refunded. You get paid $200 - $90 = $110 instead of $140, because in practice Apple pays you in batches and doesn't pay immediately for each purchase.

Post by jahaja » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 4:37 PM UTC

asdfaoeu wrote: post #145

wlesieutre wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will they? In some jurisdictions they are required by law to grant refunds. In others, they still have very little incentive to control refund fraud, what with the fact that they're still making money rather than losing it. It would be one thing if they said "We're keeping the credit card processing fees so that we don't lose money," but to keep the whole 30% cut is just petty.

I've never heard of any jurisdiction where unconditional refunds are required. A lot do require refunds if the product is faulty but that's different.

Post by dgellow » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 4:38 PM UTC

asdfaoeu wrote: post #145

wlesieutre wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will they? In some jurisdictions they are required by law to grant refunds. In others, they still have very little incentive to control refund fraud, what with the fact that they're still making money rather than losing it. It would be one thing if they said "We're keeping the credit card processing fees so that we don't lose money," but to keep the whole 30% cut is just petty.

I've never heard of any jurisdiction where unconditional refunds are required. A lot do require refunds if the product is faulty but that's different.

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 4:38 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #153

terrortrain wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

Apple's view is that the third party software that runs on their phones, which they provide to you and which they charge you for, very much is a feature of their phones. I agree it's a tool and you should control how it's used, but you're demanding that Apple implement specific features for you that they don't want to implement. How do you intend to coerce them into doing that? Who gets to specify precisely how those…