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

291–300 of 1001 posts

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

#291

Post by willsmith72 »

stouset wrote: post #177
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.

Apple is hosting, distributing, and directly marketing apps in the app store. They are reviewing submitted apps for compliance with their policies and security requirements. If you want to compare it to desktop computers, great! Compare it to the macOS App Store which… takes a 30% commission. Whether or not you personally agree that 30% is a reasonable fee, you can't simply deny that operating the app store costs mon…

> Apple is hosting, distributing, and directly marketing apps in the app store. They are reviewing submitted apps for compliance with their policies and security requirements.

They CHOOSE to do this. If there were a free and open market for app stores, competitors would pop up, who would similarly host, distribute, market, and "review" apps. And they would do it for a whole lot less than 30% and 99USD/year.

They charge 30% and restrict other installation methods because they can, but you cannot justify it based on those costs.

I firmly believe this model isn't going to last. If it didn't hurt Apple's bottom line so much, PWAs would be far more prevalent already than they are, and that's right now. In 10-20 years, this thinking will be gone. They just have to milk it as a long as they can for the shareholders.

It's their hardware, for now they can do what they want. Most consumers didn't even know about the 30%, and probably still don't. Guess who it benefits to keep that under wraps? Or convince the world they need an expensive app store to vet their apps before downloading them?

(And don't say "there's nothing like a native app experience". It's completely irrelevant. If there was a will to build it, the UX would be identical)

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

#292

Post by NoPicklez »

jacquesm wrote: post #82
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…

Oh absolutely it is. But all app store developers are complicit in enabling that monopoly. What should happen is that all app store developers withdraw their apps until Apple sees the light. But that won't happen because every app store developer will be pitted against their competition in a race to the bottom who will accept the highest fees that Apple is going to impose and sooner or later you'll be back at that 30…

That is a ridiculous statement.

Just because developers have fallen victim does not mean they should all pull their apps. How would you suggest that all impacted developers go about coordinating such a strike?

Solidarity is very difficult to achieve in a large enough consensus to a point where people would pull their apps.

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

#293

Post by sircastor »

choppaface wrote: post #163
GeekyBear wrote: post #114

At this point, it's worth remembering that one of the points on which Epic lost was Apple's right to take a cut of transactions. I found this discussion of the Apple v. Epic ruling to be informative: > as discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple’s intellectual property. Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a co…

But use of said IP is required because Apple forbids side-loading. Therefore Apple App store is a monopoly. So hopefully the court result will in the end help get the Apple App store shut down / opened up.

Some people think of the App Store as a bazaar that Apple runs on its property, and it’s a 15-30% charge to setup a tent and sell your wares. Others think of it as Apple’s general store where they carry your app as a product, and you pay 15-30% for a place on the shelf.

The concept that Kroger (for instance) has a monopoly of customers in its own store is ridiculous. There are other stores, and other bazaars.

What analogy would you use to describe this situation that clarifies your position?

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

#294

Post by maximus-decimus »

charcircuit wrote: post #168
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.

>So, why is it okay to install whatever you want and pay for it directly on desktops, but on phones it is not? On desktop you have similar stores like Steam. The store takes a 30% cut from all sales on the platform and they require apps on the platform to use their payment processing so that they can take that cut. The difference between Windows and iOS here is that third party stores can be installed without being l…

Steam has a literal button on your library's page to add any game you have already installed and the definitely don't charge you 27% to do that.

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

#295

Post by willsmith72 »

radley wrote: post #116
klabb3 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. If the web was invented today browsers would never be allowed on the App Store. Not even a dumbed down version without advanced scripting capabilities. The fact that they have a browser and allow “3p browsers” is only because the web was already established and customers wouldn’t have bought in without it. iPhones and iPads are not general purpose computing devices. Not by…

Technically, third-party browsers are NOT allowed. The only browsers allowed are built using Apple's "open-source" WebKit.

TIL chrome on ios uses webkit...

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

#296

Post by graeme »

bmitc wrote: post #283
turquoisevar wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the amazement amongst people here on HN amazes me. The district court was crystal clear about this in their judgment, which at the time caused quite some consternation. The appellate court then affirmed the same and even clarified more clearly that it’s completely fine because it primarily is the mechanic Apple gets payment for the use of their IP and, secondly, their services that encompass more than just paym…

> The appellate court then affirmed the same and even clarified more clearly that it’s completely fine because it primarily is the mechanic Apple gets payment for the use of their IP and, secondly, their services that encompass more than just payment processing. This completely ignores Apple's market power though. Because what stops Apple from making this 40% or 50%? 30% is a fair price? Look what they did to Spotify…

> Because what stops Apple from making this 40% or 50%? 30% is a fair price?

Competitive pressure. 30% is pretty in line with what other platforms charge.

Apple has had the same 30% ever since it launched the App Store, back when it was much less dominant. They presumably picked it as a level that would make revenue but also not deter developers.

The App Store hasn’t got a monopoly on computing.

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

#297

Post by doctorpangloss »

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…

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

A class of digital native judges.

The App Store sucks. That’s its problem. 30% fees rub salt in that wound.

Name an Apple application you aren’t forced to use that you like. Notes? Final Cut? That’s all I can think of.

The whole paradigm of iOS is predicated on a 65yo+ consumer who doesn’t know any better, and happens to be also the demographics of the government.

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

#298

Post by voisin »

winter_blue wrote: post #290
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 cost of operating an App Store and providing distribution is relatively negligible. Several Linux distros have app stores, and package management and distribution systems that are as good or superior than Apple’s. The annual fee that Apple charges developers al…

It’s not about cost. It’s about using their IP, which is all of iOS.

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

#299

Post by fenomas »

charcircuit wrote: post #168
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.

>So, why is it okay to install whatever you want and pay for it directly on desktops, but on phones it is not? On desktop you have similar stores like Steam. The store takes a 30% cut from all sales on the platform and they require apps on the platform to use their payment processing so that they can take that cut. The difference between Windows and iOS here is that third party stores can be installed without being l…

> Steam. ... they require apps on the platform to use their payment processing

That's not true at all. Steam literally lets you sell steam keys for your game from other stores, and takes no cut from those sales.

https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/keys

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

#300

Post by throwaway290 »

bmitc wrote: post #283
turquoisevar wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the amazement amongst people here on HN amazes me. The district court was crystal clear about this in their judgment, which at the time caused quite some consternation. The appellate court then affirmed the same and even clarified more clearly that it’s completely fine because it primarily is the mechanic Apple gets payment for the use of their IP and, secondly, their services that encompass more than just paym…

> The appellate court then affirmed the same and even clarified more clearly that it’s completely fine because it primarily is the mechanic Apple gets payment for the use of their IP and, secondly, their services that encompass more than just payment processing. This completely ignores Apple's market power though. Because what stops Apple from making this 40% or 50%? 30% is a fair price? Look what they did to Spotify…

> Because what stops Apple from making this 40% or 50%? 30% is a fair price?

Market. It's capitalism, you know.

They provide users to devs (e.g. in case of Epic most people played Fortnite from iOS) and they provide apps to users. If they jack up the price and devs quit, the deal stops being attractive to users because there's not enough apps so Apple risks losing users unless they make selling apps appealing to devs again.

> Look what they did to Spotify with Apple Music. They absolutely abused their ownership of the platform to stifle a competitor.

Everyone I know on iPhone is using Spotify except me so for me it is hard to see who is stifled exactly...

Post reply on HN