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

If you make $10M in sales, Apple's cut is $6.2M annually

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 63 posts

Re: If you make $10M in sales, Apple's cut is $6.2M annually

#41

Post by aaomidi »

EA-3167 wrote: post #18
Keyframe wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4) This atrocity was written and mandated by Apple Of course people will still not boycott them. They're no better than Microsoft was in the 90's. Not sure if it comes at that high level of a company or they're not all that different to begin with.

They won't boycott them because 99.999% of people aren't mobile devs, and none of this impacts them in the slightest. It didn't impact them when the price was 30% of anything over $1 mil, it doesn't impact them now. The average consumer of Apple products doesn't even care about side-loading, although I'm sure a significant minority is very pleased that it's an option going forward. I really like this site, but people…

And this is why government exists, so it can battle these things without everything being a direct action from the consumer.

Re: If you make $10M in sales, Apple's cut is $6.2M annually

#42

Post by albntomat0 »

nathan_phoenix wrote: post #31

I'm not sure why some call the authors choice of 1$ per install disingenuous. Wouldn't that be the averaged out profit per app when you combine paying and non paying users? Like for each app which costs 5$ I'd expect that there's at least 5 non-paying users using the free version. Update: Also, the revenue per app doesn't affect the 0.5$ per app install fee. Meaning, if the app is making less than 0.5$ per install, a…

It’s disingenuous because they intentionally chose numbers on the pricing curve that resulted in the most clickbaity results.

There are plenty of valid criticisms, but I felt the author’s post missed sufficient nuance.

Re: If you make $10M in sales, Apple's cut is $6.2M annually

#43

Post by tivert »

ezfe wrote: post #3

Things to note: 1) The new terms are opt-in 2) The new terms have not been approved by the EU 3) The reason for the disparity is 10 million installs, which exceeds the 1 million threshold to pay €0.50/install. If you charge €1/install then you're paying 50% to Apple for that fee. If you charge €2/install then you'd be paying 25% to Apple because the fee is flat.

> 1) The new terms are opt-in

> 2) The new terms have not been approved by the EU

I can't imagine how these terms won't eventually swatted down as malicious compliance. I'd really like to see Apple fined something like 20% of global revenue, or something like that. Teach them a lesson, seems like they need one.

Re: If you make $10M in sales, Apple's cut is $6.2M annually

#44

Post by jsnell »

kj99 wrote: post #33
ezfe wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The annual revenue does not affect the €0.50/install fee. 10 million installs would cost €500,000 for a free app under the new terms.

That's true but it doesn't contradict my point about a $1 app with 10 million installs. In any case, a free app can always be released under the current terms. I think the obvious point is that free to consumer apps still cost something in terms of the platform. It has been a common complaint in the past that apps like Uber or Facebook have a huge number of installs but don't pay anything. This simply brings transpar…

Except it can't "always" be released under the current terms. If the developer has ever released an app under the new terms, they're forced into them for all their future apps, forever. Likewise if they ever intend to release a different app under the new terms, all their old apps would be retroactively moved to the new terms.

The irrevocable and all-or-nothing aspect will make it pretty much impossible for any serious developer to ever choose the new terms. Just as Apple intended.

Re: If you make $10M in sales, Apple's cut is $6.2M annually

#45

Post by foogazi »

layer8 wrote: post #32
EA-3167 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They won't boycott them because 99.999% of people aren't mobile devs, and none of this impacts them in the slightest. It didn't impact them when the price was 30% of anything over $1 mil, it doesn't impact them now. The average consumer of Apple products doesn't even care about side-loading, although I'm sure a significant minority is very pleased that it's an option going forward. I really like this site, but people…

The pricing model very much impacts users, because it incentivizes higher app prices, as well as subscriptions over one-time purchases. Users certainly don’t like subscriptions (but Apple loves those).

As a user I don’t like subscriptions but I love Apple Pay - then only other payment provider I’d consider is PayPal

I don’t think I’d click on an external link to go to the app website to pay for anything

Re: If you make $10M in sales, Apple's cut is $6.2M annually

#47

Post by layer8 »

foogazi wrote: post #45
layer8 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pricing model very much impacts users, because it incentivizes higher app prices, as well as subscriptions over one-time purchases. Users certainly don’t like subscriptions (but Apple loves those).

As a user I don’t like subscriptions but I love Apple Pay - then only other payment provider I’d consider is PayPal I don’t think I’d click on an external link to go to the app website to pay for anything

Whether third parties support Apple Pay or not is completely orthogonal to that pricing model. I use Apple Pay on web sites that have nothing to do with apps or app stores.

Re: If you make $10M in sales, Apple's cut is $6.2M annually

#48

Post by Keyframe »

EA-3167 wrote: post #18
Keyframe wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4) This atrocity was written and mandated by Apple Of course people will still not boycott them. They're no better than Microsoft was in the 90's. Not sure if it comes at that high level of a company or they're not all that different to begin with.

They won't boycott them because 99.999% of people aren't mobile devs, and none of this impacts them in the slightest. It didn't impact them when the price was 30% of anything over $1 mil, it doesn't impact them now. The average consumer of Apple products doesn't even care about side-loading, although I'm sure a significant minority is very pleased that it's an option going forward. I really like this site, but people…

since it wasn't obvious - for developers to boycott them. Not Joe Montana.

Re: If you make $10M in sales, Apple's cut is $6.2M annually

#49

Post by EA-3167 »

Keyframe wrote: post #48
EA-3167 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They won't boycott them because 99.999% of people aren't mobile devs, and none of this impacts them in the slightest. It didn't impact them when the price was 30% of anything over $1 mil, it doesn't impact them now. The average consumer of Apple products doesn't even care about side-loading, although I'm sure a significant minority is very pleased that it's an option going forward. I really like this site, but people…

since it wasn't obvious - for developers to boycott them. Not Joe Montana.

Developers have been showing for a LONG time that they're long on talk of boycotts, and short on action. I really doubt that's going to change, the industry is mostly crabs in a bucket.
Post reply on HN