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

US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

macrumors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 1001 posts

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#261

Post by makeitdouble »

hyperbovine wrote: post #172
llm_nerd wrote: post #74

This feels like a straw that breaks the camel's back kind of moment. Apple has gotten away with a tremendous amount (being an astonishingly greedy company. All companies are de facto greedy, but Apple is just next level in its egregious entitlement), but there is simply zero way this stands. And FWIW, I'm an Apple fan and find Tim S a completely unsympathetic character. But seeing the hilariously absurd lengths that…

> But seeing the hilariously absurd lengths that people will go to justify Apple's outrageous greed grows old. Define greed. Seriously, I'm asking for an objective definition, not just ipse dixit. They're charging what the market will bear for a _vastly_ better product (iOS vs. Android).

You're in the "greed" range when you're sued internationaly over how you deal with money and lose in at least one court, at least once.

Apple is in good company in this category.

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#262

Post by mikercampbell »

toasterlovin wrote: post #258

Some perspective: we sell on Amazon as a 3rd party seller. Amazon takes about 9% of the sale price of our products as their commission (it’s actually 12%, but includes credit card processing). To which you might be inclined to reply, “Ah, but 9% is a reasonable commission, so that’s okay.” But we sell physical goods, which cost money to produce. It’s typical for our products to have 20-25% gross margins. So as a shar…

Are they toasters? Because I hear there might be some competition.

But genuinely, your comments enrich this sort of thing. I love your input.

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#263

Post by _gabe_ »

samtheprogram wrote: post #215
nsagent wrote: post #160

I've got to say, Apple definitely lost me on this one. This feels bad enough that despite having an iPhone since the iPhone 3G, I'll likely jump ship when I need to upgrade unless they make a U-turn on this move. EDIT: Wow, getting downvoted for saying Apple is losing me as a customer with this move is surprising. I don't understand how people on Hacker News of all places want conformity of thought. I switched from u…

You haven’t daily driven Android since at least the iPhone 3GS, according to your comment. There’s a reason they’re able to charge 30%, have a dominant market position in the US, and people continue to release apps for iOS (and prioritize launching there over Android). You’re also not the customer in this situation — you’re talking not as a developer but as an end-user without any mention of a subscription service th…

> There’s a reason they’re able to charge 30%, have a dominant market position in the US, and people continue to release apps for iOS (and prioritize launching there over Android).

I keep seeing this line of thinking in the comments (some may say these comments are conforming to a specific line of thought). When is the last time you used a modern android (Galaxy, Pixel, etc)? And really used it, not just tried to use your friend’s Android for a few minutes and then gave up?

I kept reading all these comments about how superior iPhones are on Hacker News. So after having used a MacBook (and being very happy with it over the past year) I bought an iPhone 14 to see if the iPhone also lived up to the hype. It doesn’t. It’s literally the same as an Android. There are no significant differences.

The gestures are a difference, but I kind of hate that about iPhones. You’re just supposed to somehow know these from tribal knowledge or reading something from some random thread (just violently shake the phone to undo typing, very intuitive!). After a couple months of use, I’m finally almost as good at using an iPhone as I was at using my Android. And once again, there are no significant differences. Of course, there’s a learning curve when you switch. But that should be expected. Give it 2 months, and then the devices will feel identical. They’re different, but in the end, they’re pretty much the same.

Edit: and btw, the same exact line of thinking can be used for Android. There’s a reason Google sets their App Store fee at 30%, and Android leads the market globally, and people continue to launch apps on Android.

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#265

Post by CubsFan1060 »

poundofshrimp wrote: post #145

To see why Apple’s mandatory commissions are absurd, compare phones to desktop computers. There is no fundamental difference between the two. So, why is it okay to install whatever you want and pay for it directly on desktops, but on phones it is not? The “better security” argument just doesn’t make sense in this context.

If there is no fundamental difference, then did you just define the market as all phones, tablets, and pcs? If so the the iPhone is a small minority and can’t possibly be forced to change anything, right? You can just replace your iPhone with a pc if you want to install things?

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#266

Post by epistasis »

bradgessler wrote: post #54

Am I getting this right? Say I use Stripe as my payment processor. Stripe takes 2.9% + $0.30, then Apple takes 27% so I'm at 29.9% + $0.30 being taken out of however much I charge for my app? For a $10 app, $0.30 is 3% putting the fee at 32.9%. For the privilege of paying 2.9% more, my users get to see a scary privacy message and when I bill the customer a year later for a subscription, there's a 20-30% chance that t…

Just wait until you see what you have to do to get your food product onto super market shelves...

And grocery stores are not even considered a monopoly!

Edit: which is not say that there should be an "is" vs. "ought" conflation. Just that it's unlikely that this situation is going to be changed through courts. Other routes: legislation and regulation to establish a new social norm, or as Jacquesm has been advocating here, collective bargaining. But as an App Store consumer, and a developer of other sorts of tools, I don't really care at all about the developer-Apple split and am not the least bit excited by whatever might happen should that switch to, say, 99% going to the developer. Even if developers dropped prices 30%, I would have a hard time caring!

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#267

Post by makeitdouble »

hyperbovine wrote: post #172
llm_nerd wrote: post #74

This feels like a straw that breaks the camel's back kind of moment. Apple has gotten away with a tremendous amount (being an astonishingly greedy company. All companies are de facto greedy, but Apple is just next level in its egregious entitlement), but there is simply zero way this stands. And FWIW, I'm an Apple fan and find Tim S a completely unsympathetic character. But seeing the hilariously absurd lengths that…

> But seeing the hilariously absurd lengths that people will go to justify Apple's outrageous greed grows old. Define greed. Seriously, I'm asking for an objective definition, not just ipse dixit. They're charging what the market will bear for a _vastly_ better product (iOS vs. Android).

> They're charging what the market will bear for a _vastly_ better product (iOS vs. Android).

I wonder how you see Qualcomm, being the crushing leader of mobile modem chips.

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#268

Post by chii »

bradgessler wrote: post #54

Am I getting this right? Say I use Stripe as my payment processor. Stripe takes 2.9% + $0.30, then Apple takes 27% so I'm at 29.9% + $0.30 being taken out of however much I charge for my app? For a $10 app, $0.30 is 3% putting the fee at 32.9%. For the privilege of paying 2.9% more, my users get to see a scary privacy message and when I bill the customer a year later for a subscription, there's a 20-30% chance that t…

> a monopoly abusing its dominate market position

this is what happens when the company controls their platform. In the technical sense, it's not monopoly, but surely if you squint a bit, it looks like it.

This is why i am only ever going to produce web based apps. I will not buy into a platform - even android has the same issue, albeit less severe (only because google does not completely control the android ecosystem).

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#269

Post by turquoisevar »

enragedcacti wrote: post #189
lolinder wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was always what the outcome was going to look like. People have been talking ever since the ruling as though dodging Apple as a payment processor was going to magically exempt developers from the full 30% fee, but that was never going to happen and it was never the intention of the ruling. Apple argued from the very beginning that the 30% was its fee for running the App Store, marketing the apps, and storing and…

> Apple argued from the very beginning that the 30% was its fee for running the App Store, marketing the apps, and storing and delivering the app bundles. The in-app payment system was a convenient way for Apple to collect its commission and a way for Apple to create a unified payment experience for its customers, but it was never the Achilles heel for Apple's business model. Is it just me or does this argument seem…

> Is it just me or does this argument seem insanely flimsy?

I'm not sure if it is just you, but both the district court and appellate court are on board with it. And honestly, I can see why.

Apple argued that they provide a bunch of services and access to their IP in exchange for $99/year and a commission over the sales.

The courts have deemed that an acceptable business model.

The district court was hemming and hawing a bit over the actual commission rate being set at 30% (15% for small devs) and at the fact that some developers essentially subsidize others but ultimately didn’t make a ruling on any of that in part because Epic didn’t bring it up as an argument.

The appellate court, however, went a step further and stated in no uncertain terms that it was kosher.

If you think about it, it makes sense. We see similar business models with differential pricing all over in commerce for various reasons.

Sometimes, it’s for goodwill, sometimes, to reach customers that would otherwise be harder to convert into a sale, sometimes, it’s based on usage and who puts the most strain on a system and sometimes, it’s for more egalitarian reasons.

Military discounts, student discounts or even free usage, senior discounts, teacher discounts, first responders, etc. These are all examples of differential pricing.

In particular, the student stuff is interesting because the philosophy there seems to be that as long as you don’t make revenue from it (commercial use), “we” don’t need to make a profit from you.

> It’s like a toll road arguing "no, driving on the road is free of course, we just charge at the entrance and exit for the privilege of looking at the toll road".

I don’t think the analogy is apt, but we see similar stuff on toll bridges. I’ve got a bridge near me where toll rates are based on vehicle type and axles.

While the pricing is slightly higher for commercial vehicles (e.g., trucks), it’s not proportional to the increased cost of upkeep those vehicles cause.

Edit: Also realized that only one direction is burdened with tolls. The other way isn't.

> What does it take for the legal system to be able to call BS on a claim like that?

A very carefully crafted legislative change, I suppose, if possible at all.

Currently, with SCOTUS’ refusal to take up the case, this is standing law, and it’s challenging to craft legislation that wouldn’t have reverberating effects across all of commerce while simultaneously only hitting Apple.

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#270

Post by enragedcacti »

pulisse wrote: post #219
enragedcacti wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple argued from the very beginning that the 30% was its fee for running the App Store, marketing the apps, and storing and delivering the app bundles. The in-app payment system was a convenient way for Apple to collect its commission and a way for Apple to create a unified payment experience for its customers, but it was never the Achilles heel for Apple's business model. Is it just me or does this argument seem…

You want to outlaw price discrimination?

No, I'm really just asking what level of scrutiny can be applied to their claimed justification for the fees. I feel those examples are illustrative of how Apple's decisions aren't really aligned with their claimed justification. One could absolutely come up with a rational explanation (as some commenters have) even if it's not the actual explanation, I'm interested if that's all Apple needs to do to fend off claims of them exploiting their market power.
Post reply on HN