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

931–940 of 1001 posts

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

#931

Post by dkonofalski »

jonhohle wrote: post #428
radley wrote: post #39

There's a strong chance this will be shot down as "bad-faith" compliance. Rumor is Epic will quickly contest it [Update: confirmed] https://twitter.com/timsweeneyepic/status/174740814726057173...

Yeah, as much as I defend Apple against the “they have a monopoly on the iPhone” crowd, this seems worse than the original restrictions. People have been buying stuff online for decades. There’s no new security issue at play here. Taking a commission from a company that’s already paying for payment processing can’t possibly be seen as reasonable. How are they even going to attempt to enforce compliance. Is every stor…

>How are they even going to attempt to enforce compliance.

Per the judge's own words, Apple is allowed access to the company's financials and other information that would allow them to audit developers' use of third-party payment systems.

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

#932

Post by dkonofalski »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #360
SllX wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure Epic actually has standing anymore. They did back when they were part of the developer program. If they can make their case that it is bad faith compliance as part of their original case before the Court goes “c’ya, we’re done here”, they might have something, but Apple revoked Epic’s membership for violating their terms in the developer program worldwide and at the conclusion of this lawsuit, Apple has…

IANAL, but at face value, that seems like it would be, well, quite insane? To emphasize, I've seen plenty of insane stuff in the legal system, but if the argument is basically that Epic doesn't have standing because Apple won't let them be in a position where they could have standing , yet they generally offer that position (dev program membership) to the public at large, that seems like some sort of Catch-22-ish nig…

They're not in a position where they could have standing, though, since they were in that position and violated the terms of their agreement. The judge has not ordered Apple to reinstate Epic's account and the termination was found to be legal.

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

#933

Post by insane_dreamer »

stefandesu wrote: post #416
malshe wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know a few vendors who sell on Amazon. With advertising, they end up paying close to 60% of the selling price to Amazon.

How can Amazon pricing be so competitive if the cut is so large for third-party vendors?

> How can Amazon pricing be so competitive

It's not anymore; the reason they continue to be so popular is locked-in mindshare (just like you think of going to Google to search the web) and because of the fast shipping and easy return policy (esp through Prime).

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

#934

Post by georgeecollins »

dlubarov wrote: post #918
mmcnl wrote: post #907

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on what you consider "value". Apple would argue the distribution through the App Store is part of the value chain. I think the real issue here is that Apple demands 30% always. 30% might be the "distribution value" for small indie devs, but it probably decreases once the developer is big enough and their products are well known (Epic/Fortnite, Spotify). Then it becomes just a tax that indeed skews the pric…

I think it's useful to separate these scenarios - 1. A user knows they want to install a certain app; they do so using the app store since that's the only method Apple allows. 2. A user discovers an app while browsing the App Store, but Apple isn't involved beyond that. 3. A user discovers an app through Apple's marketing, e.g. from WWDC. With (1), it feels very unfair for Apple to charge 30% just to essentially get…

Even with case (3) there are many companies that would love to be the store / portal that you discover and new purchase apps through (with all the security and testing Apple requires) for less then a 30% cut. But Apple won't let them. It's clearly a price set without competition.

Keep in mind Apple sells advertising in the App Store. They make $ beyond just the 30%.

Disclosure: I am APPL shareholder and sometimes app developer.

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

#935

Post by bsimpson »

judge2020 wrote: post #75
radley wrote: post #39

There's a strong chance this will be shot down as "bad-faith" compliance. Rumor is Epic will quickly contest it [Update: confirmed] https://twitter.com/timsweeneyepic/status/174740814726057173...

It'll probably need to be another lawsuit since it's in the developer agreement. Via user lolinder ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39020745 ): > Apple is already pretty clear in its developer agreement [0] that the 30% commission is for "its services as Your agent and/or commissionaire" (Schedule 2 3.4), not for its services as a payment processor. They are contractually allowed to take the 30% fee out of paym…

Holy crap!

> Apple is charging a commission on digital purchases initiated within seven days from link out, as described below. This will not capture all transactions that Apple has facilitated through the App Store, but is a reasonable means to account for the substantial value Apple provides developers, including in facilitating linked transactions.

> Apple’s commission will be 27% on proceeds you earn from sales (“transactions“) to the user for digital goods or services on your website after a link out (i.e., they tap “Continue” on the system disclosure sheet), provided that the sale was initiated within seven days and the digital goods or services can be used in an app.

So tl;dr: of that page is that Apple is saying "if you wanna link to your website, it can't be prominent (only a single text link with our language in our chosen placement) and we still get our commission."

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

#936

Post by silisili »

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…

What that 9% buys you I guess is access to people like me. I'm not Amazon's biggest fan, but their protections and guarantees have always been solid to me. If it doesn't arrive, I get a replacement or refund. If it's broken, same. If it's junk, they'll take it back and issue a refund.

I've been burned by too many places to just start arbitrarily buying from someone I've never purchased from before directly. I've had companies just not respond, accuse me of stealing, tell me missing packages aren't their problem, charge enormous restocking fees, and in more than one case call me an idiot that doesn't know what I'm talking about. None of that with Amazon.

Maybe after establishing a relationship of being a reputable brand I could be swayed over, but even then there's no benefit to me unless the price is cheaper.

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

#937

Post by interpol_p »

iamcasen wrote: post #853
interpol_p wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you can sign up for Spotify using in-app-purchase. Once you're in the app it says: "You can't upgrade to premium in the app. We know, it's not ideal" You have to go to their site to upgrade your account. Apple gets a 0% cut of Spotify's subscription revenue

I believe that is a special deal that apple made them which does not apply across the board.

I don’t think it’s special for Spotify. It comes under the “Reader” apps clause (originally carved out for Kindle?) where apps which sell: music, movies, books, email can require that a user create an account on the web first (but cannot link to it, which is stupid)

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

#938

Post by lolinder »

bsimpson wrote: post #935
judge2020 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'll probably need to be another lawsuit since it's in the developer agreement. Via user lolinder ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39020745 ): > Apple is already pretty clear in its developer agreement [0] that the 30% commission is for "its services as Your agent and/or commissionaire" (Schedule 2 3.4), not for its services as a payment processor. They are contractually allowed to take the 30% fee out of paym…

Holy crap! > Apple is charging a commission on digital purchases initiated within seven days from link out, as described below. This will not capture all transactions that Apple has facilitated through the App Store, but is a reasonable means to account for the substantial value Apple provides developers, including in facilitating linked transactions. > Apple’s commission will be 27% on proceeds you earn from sales (…

Yes. Which the judge explicitly said they'd be entitled to do:

> 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 commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission.

> In such a hypothetical world, developers could potentially avoid the commission while benefitting from Apple's innovation and intellectual property free of charge. The Court presumes that in such circumstances that Apple may rely on imposing and utilizing a contractual right to audit developers annual accounting to ensure compliance with its commissions, among other methods. Of course, any alternatives to IAP (including the foregoing) would seemingly impose both increased monetary and time costs to both Apple and the developers.

https://casetext.com/case/epic-games-inc-v-apple-inc-2

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

#939

Post by lolinder »

dkonofalski wrote: post #931
jonhohle wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, as much as I defend Apple against the “they have a monopoly on the iPhone” crowd, this seems worse than the original restrictions. People have been buying stuff online for decades. There’s no new security issue at play here. Taking a commission from a company that’s already paying for payment processing can’t possibly be seen as reasonable. How are they even going to attempt to enforce compliance. Is every stor…

>How are they even going to attempt to enforce compliance. Per the judge's own words, Apple is allowed access to the company's financials and other information that would allow them to audit developers' use of third-party payment systems.

The relevant quote is below. She's not explicitly granting them that permission, she's saying that it would already be within their rights to make that the rule for participating in the App Store:

> 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 commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission.

> In such a hypothetical world, developers could potentially avoid the commission while benefitting from Apple's innovation and intellectual property free of charge. The Court presumes that in such circumstances that Apple may rely on imposing and utilizing a contractual right to audit developers annual accounting to ensure compliance with its commissions, among other methods. Of course, any alternatives to IAP (including the foregoing) would seemingly impose both increased monetary and time costs to both Apple and the developers.

https://casetext.com/case/epic-games-inc-v-apple-inc-2

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

#940

Post by MBCook »

threeseed wrote: post #275
MBCook wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Throughout the multiple trials that has been a big argument Apple makes. That especially for smaller companies their cut is drastically lower than it would have been for retail software on shelves. Which conveniently ignores the fact that you can buy software for digital download on the Internet for significantly lower overhead. But they keep arguing it.

> buy software for digital download on the Internet for significantly lower overhead But you are looking at that through the lens of an end user. As a developer, Apple's total acquisition cost i.e. 15/30% is far less than what it costs me to acquire customers through other channels e.g. Paid Ads, Referral etc.

I’m not attempting to look at it in any direction. I was simply stating that Apple had indeed made that exact argument.
Post reply on HN