121–130 of 671 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except then the next year you get kicked out of the program and back to 30% on every dollar?
No, you start by 15% default until you reach the $1m threshold. After that you pay 30% for the remainder of that year. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
If you get kicked out, you're stuck paying 30% for at least a year.
Wonder how this will be handled for apps that are shipped on the app store via a 3rd party publisher. The publisher probably does >$1M across all the apps they publish, but each app / developer is likely far under that. If there are no exceptions, it would mean that 3rd-party publishers lose tons of their value proposition.
I guess they can just create a new account for each customer?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tone can be hard to judge, so you should append the /s tag to make it clear you're joking, otherwise people are going to assume you mean it.
What makes you think it is a joke? Happy to hear why you think 15% is reasonable.
You strategy played out very well in pre 2008 days with Windows Mobile. It also played out very well for Microsoft paying developers to create apps for Windows Phone, before Microsoft admitted defeat and left the phone market they were in since 1996.
About the 15%.
Have you tried running a business to make a living?
Have you tried building something yourself?
Have you tried selling it in 155 countries?
Have you tried getting access to a market of 1+ billion people?
Have you tried monitoring you don't breach regulations and tax thresholds in 155 countries?
Have you tried registering for VAT MOSS in one of the EU countries?
Have you tried implementing IP geo-location for your European customers, to charge a correct VAT amount out of 27 options?
Wow. That's amazing. That's a 20% increase in revenue for those eligible. I'm guessing they decided the increased value of their products from more smaller developers creating apps for the platform is greater than the lost revenue. If I understand correctly though, since it's a hard cutoff it creates this gap between 1m and ~1.2m where you're actually worse off by making more money pre-tax. 999k --[-15%]--> 849k 1000…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except Unreal Engine actually delivers some value for their cut.
The operating system isn’t valuable from your perspective? The payment processing? The IDE? The language?
The payment processing? That's usualy 3% for credit card operators.
The IDE and language? That's the $100 per year per developer account.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except Unreal Engine actually delivers some value for their cut.
The operating system isn’t valuable from your perspective? The payment processing? The IDE? The language?
Great move! 30% is a case for antitrust given how big Apple App Store today is. 15% seems reasonable, 10% would be ideal. Though it should be 15% for everybody, no artificial caps. Moreover, I believe once you become a platform there should be an independent nano-courthouse where you can appeal. Today being rejected by Apple, Amazon, or Google platform is equivalent to the economical death penalty for many individual…
> 30% is a case for antitrust given how big Apple App Store today is. 15% seems reasonable, 10% would be ideal. Not it isn't a case for anti-trust. 70/30 split whether people on here like it or not is a standard agreement for these types of business relationship. https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut... The judge in the case agreed. > Judge says the 30% rate is the industry rate— references Ste…
> Not it isn't. 70/30 split whether people on here like it or not is a standard agreement for these types of business relationship.
Huh? They didn't say "standard", they said "reasonable" and "ideal".
> Apple are effectively an affialite for your app i.e. they drive traffic to your app through their store.
The problem is that they charge that fee no matter where the customers come from, and you can't opt out either.
Great move! 30% is a case for antitrust given how big Apple App Store today is. 15% seems reasonable, 10% would be ideal. Though it should be 15% for everybody, no artificial caps. Moreover, I believe once you become a platform there should be an independent nano-courthouse where you can appeal. Today being rejected by Apple, Amazon, or Google platform is equivalent to the economical death penalty for many individual…
How do people come up with these arbitrary rates? How is 30% anticompetitive and 15% okay? 30% was standard long before the App Store, so why does Apple have to lower it now that they're the most profitable app platform?
I don't think anyone liked 30% before either but anyone that can get away with charging 30% is probably already in a monopoly position so nobody has ever been able to do anything about it. Apple are only change now because of the threat of a lawsuit.
But I'm also thinking about the lackluster state of the Mac App Store, which is getting more important now with M1 Macs running iOS apps but also all platforms supporting Catalyst apps. Apple could use some momentum for it's larger screen devices (tablets and PC's) and a lower App Store cut together with a larger audience for your products could help new developers enter the ecosystem or to help developers that turned their backs on the App Store to return.
But all in all the main reason is probably the battle with Epic. It really helps to thin out the choir of complainers when all of the smaller developers stop supporting or at least stop being interested in Epic's cause.
Wow. That's amazing. That's a 20% increase in revenue for those eligible. I'm guessing they decided the increased value of their products from more smaller developers creating apps for the platform is greater than the lost revenue. If I understand correctly though, since it's a hard cutoff it creates this gap between 1m and ~1.2m where you're actually worse off by making more money pre-tax. 999k --[-15%]--> 849k 1000…
You are almost correct - it goes by the prior years income, but based on the 30% cut. Meaning if you sold 1m in products you would still be in the 15% bracket next year. You would need ~1.43m in sales to be "Moved up" the next year (It gets more complicated with subscription revenue already having a 30/15 cut depending on the user's subscription length.) It works out to this (Using 1m in sales as the cutoff to simpli…
Or, they could've just picked $1 million because it's a nice round number and looks good in a press release.