51–60 of 63 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a valid criticism of the new terms. A developer-friendly (and dare I say, user-friendly) fee structure would not have any cases where Apple takes 62% of revenue. Any fee structure so maliciously structured that this edge case exists, deserves such criticism.
If it's an edge case then we can agree that it's misleading not to point that out. The statement in the tweet is actually false in every case of making $10M in sales except this precise edge case.
The expensive apps that would pay less than 50% to Apple are the edge case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uh, given the number of $1 apps on the app store, how is it cooked in any way? It represents a good bit of current reality.
$1 apps that make more than $10,000,000 in annual revenue?
6.99, 1.99, 4.99, 0.99, 0.99, 0.99
That 1.99 (geometry dash) grosses 250k a month in the US alone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's an edge case then we can agree that it's misleading not to point that out. The statement in the tweet is actually false in every case of making $10M in sales except this precise edge case.
It's not an edge case. Roughly 99% of paid App Store apps cost $1 or less. The expensive apps that would pay less than 50% to Apple are the edge case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 serio…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
$1 apps that make more than $10,000,000 in annual revenue?
I mean, the top paid games on the store right now are: 6.99, 1.99, 4.99, 0.99, 0.99, 0.99 That 1.99 (geometry dash) grosses 250k a month in the US alone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not an edge case. Roughly 99% of paid App Store apps cost $1 or less. The expensive apps that would pay less than 50% to Apple are the edge case.
99% of paid iPhone apps don’t have a million installs.
If the "edge case" you're talking about is the number of sales, then the tweet very clearly pointed that out. "If you make $10M in sales..."
So can we agree that nothing here is misleading?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
99% of paid iPhone apps don’t have a million installs.
> If it's an edge case then we can agree that it's misleading not to point that out. If the "edge case" you're talking about is the number of sales, then the tweet very clearly pointed that out. "If you make $10M in sales..." So can we agree that nothing here is misleading?
There are an arbitrary number of ways to reach $10M in sales and only one of them gives Apple a cut of $6.2M.
Every other possible way gives Apple a lot less.
Not qualifying it makes it seem like this is the rule not the exception.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If it's an edge case then we can agree that it's misleading not to point that out. If the "edge case" you're talking about is the number of sales, then the tweet very clearly pointed that out. "If you make $10M in sales..." So can we agree that nothing here is misleading?
It’s absolutely misleading to the point of bordering on a lie. There are an arbitrary number of ways to reach $10M in sales and only one of them gives Apple a cut of $6.2M. Every other possible way gives Apple a lot less. Not qualifying it makes it seem like this is the rule not the exception.
I'll assume good faith and assume that's not a lie, just a misunderstanding. The correct understanding is that the $.50 is a flat fee per install, and Apple's share increases as the price decreases.
If you sell the app for $.55, Apple gets all ten mil. If you sell the app for less, you owe Apple even more than users paid.
The headline is true for the 99% of apps that cost a dollar or less. If they succeed and make ten mil, Apple takes at least 62%.