[deleted]
If you make $10M in sales, Apple's cut is $6.2M annually
11–20 of 63 posts
Re: If you make $10M in sales, Apple's cut is $6.2M annually
#12Things 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.
Yup - this example is deliberately cooked to create a misleading impression.
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.
Re: If you make $10M in sales, Apple's cut is $6.2M annually
#13[deleted]
Re: If you make $10M in sales, Apple's cut is $6.2M annually
#14This feels akin to the folks who go and price out a Mac with all the options and complain. The whole setup here is to generate a weird scenario / social media response and doesn't reflect what you would actually do.
Re: If you make $10M in sales, Apple's cut is $6.2M annually
#15...if you launch outside Apple's store and you charge $1/year/install.
I think Apple's "compliance" in the EU is crappy, but you don't have to use scenarios where companies hit themselves in the face to show it.
Re: If you make $10M in sales, Apple's cut is $6.2M annually
#16...if you launch outside Apple's store and you charge $1/year/install. I think Apple's "compliance" in the EU is crappy, but you don't have to use scenarios where companies hit themselves in the face to show it.
[dead]
Re: If you make $10M in sales, Apple's cut is $6.2M annually
#17> pay per install
Isn't this the same model Unity tried a few months ago and rolled back after being flamed by the community?
Re: If you make $10M in sales, Apple's cut is $6.2M annually
#18Things 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.
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 do sometimes lose sight of the world they live in vs the world most people inhabit.
Re: If you make $10M in sales, Apple's cut is $6.2M annually
#19Things 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.
Re 3: This means that Apple incentivizes developers against low app prices, in order for them to not lose more than half of the revenue to Apple once the million is reached. In addition, since the fee is yearly recurring, this incentivizes subscriptions over one-time purchases. The pricing model is not in consumers’ interests.
Re: If you make $10M in sales, Apple's cut is $6.2M annually
#20[deleted]