Doesn't this violate the App Store guidelines? > Section 3.1.3(b) Multiplatform Services: > Apps that operate across multiple platforms may allow users to access content, subscriptions, or features they have acquired elsewhere, including consumable items in multi-platform games, provided those items are also available as in-app purchases within the app. You must not directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a pu…
This is a pretty shady restriction by Apple. I can see why they wouldn't want IAPs in games to be moved out-of-channel, but making it a violation for subscription services to send you to their website is pretty bad.
Apple and Google not only created the device and funded the R & D for the features, but also created the APIs, the tools, the infrastructure, and attracted the (hundreds of millions of) users. The 30% cut they ask of developers is more than reasonable. Want to bypass that cut? Build a web app and make it play well on mobile. If you want to run it on Android and iOS devices, then I don't really see how anyone can say…
Following that logic, it should require the 30% until the costs of R&D are covered.
This is monopolistic behaviour. I write an app, can't install on someone's device without paying apple? Want 30% fine but it's my device, I should be able to put whatever I want in there. Let's face it, the best price is when people complain but pay. This is just extracting more money, plain and simple.
Can someone help explain how this works today? I'm a bit unclear. The Netflix app is, as far as I know, free. I use it, and I have a subscription paid for via their website. (well, okay, I've never really watched content on a phone or tablet, but I know it works). Is the problem that new users who sign up via the iOS app have to make an in-app payment for their subscription, thus triggering the 30% cut? I assume this…
Correct. They also must have had a way to sign up through the app itself, which would require going through StoreKit and the App Store (as any app that allows purchasing of products delivered to the device without giving apple a cut will be rejected during the review process). So they are now doing exactly as you suggest and just disallowing the in app purchase.
Apple and Google not only created the device and funded the R & D for the features, but also created the APIs, the tools, the infrastructure, and attracted the (hundreds of millions of) users. The 30% cut they ask of developers is more than reasonable. Want to bypass that cut? Build a web app and make it play well on mobile. If you want to run it on Android and iOS devices, then I don't really see how anyone can say…
"Visa and Mastercard not only created the device used for payments, but funded the R&D for it, widely deployed all of the payment readers, created the entire ecosystem of businesses that use it, support all of this infrastructure (for hundreds of millions of users). So, a 30% cut of every purchase made using a Visa card is more than reasonable."
I mean they already charge 1-3% why not 30% if they can get away with it? What are you going to do, not accept credit cards? Take cash on your website? I think people are rightfully mad when they realize how much leverage someone has over them but it doesn't usually change that fact.
So in this case Chrome or Firefox? Does not seem any better. In fact, way worse.
I don't think this is how it works, at least not from my past experience with Lineage. A browser isn't an app installer, as when you download an APK from it, the APK is staged through the phone's integrated file manager (aka "Downloads" app), and is treated as having no real source. As far as I know, real "app installers" are purpose-built programs such as Amazon Appstore and F-Droid.
Hmm, you might be right, but I installed an APK recently (also on Lineage) and it asked me to authorize Firefox, it had the Firefox logo and seemed to suggest that future installs would be authorized. I cancelled it and opened it through the file manager.
Apple and Google not only created the device and funded the R & D for the features, but also created the APIs, the tools, the infrastructure, and attracted the (hundreds of millions of) users. The 30% cut they ask of developers is more than reasonable. Want to bypass that cut? Build a web app and make it play well on mobile. I can understand the argument that they should accept the 30% cut to be listed in and downloa…
However, an iOS device is also the property of its owner and the owner should be allowed (morally) to install software outside the app store. Even if that comes with potential security problems. This is supportable by well known technologies. The user could opt-in to various app-signature blacklists and whitelists. App stores and hardware vendors could publish their official app blacklists and whitelists, and even re…
So how does one install an app not from the iOS app store?
Apple and Google not only created the device and funded the R & D for the features, but also created the APIs, the tools, the infrastructure, and attracted the (hundreds of millions of) users. The 30% cut they ask of developers is more than reasonable. Want to bypass that cut? Build a web app and make it play well on mobile. If you want to run it on Android and iOS devices, then I don't really see how anyone can say…
> The 30% cut they ask of developers is more than reasonable. If only we could prove this. Ie, is Apple honestly selling $1,200 phones for a loss such that they need to recoup money from the App Store to turn a profit? If they didn't take the %30 cut, would they still be profitable? I'm not proving a point, simply asking questions I'm curious about. Would be neat if we knew these answers.
I do think the Apple/Google cut has been natural. The phone and successful app stores aren't accidents, they're endpoints in a long chain of work to focus consumer attention in a way that sells software. That said, these benefits have an expiration date. I don't think the app store cut has been a ripoff for its entire history, but if the temperature of the room has shifted toward hostility, it might be that they've s…
But to negotiate that, you have to be able to threaten them with leaving. And there's no other way to get iPhone users, who are by far the biggest spenders. And if you're going to go this route of web-only transactions, you're going to have some user drop-off and missed sales, it's just a question of how much. Like, where does it make sense to switch. If its 30% drop off it doesn't matter either way. If its 15% or 5%, you'd better do it. If it's 70%, no way in hell should you do it. And I can guarantee you that every app business will have a different number for this, and it's nearly impossible to know what the drop off is before making the jump. So many are not willing to leave, and here we are. Netflix has a strong multi-platform use case already, so it's a natural move for them. Other apps may not fair so well. I think losing these larger companies is somewhat inevitable as long as the rates stay this high. We'll see Apple fight to retain them, but it would be a real surprise to see them booted from the platform over the switch, since they are still adding value. And can you imagine the backlash over the even less fair solution: Apple decides to negotiate special rates for these behemoths (just to keep them honest) while charging upstart developers the full rate! That would cause even more outrage than the 30%!
"Visa and Mastercard not only created the device used for payments, but funded the R&D for it, widely deployed all of the payment readers, created the entire ecosystem of businesses that use it, support all of this infrastructure (for hundreds of millions of users). So, a 30% cut of every purchase made using a Visa card is more than reasonable."
Yep. The difference is that even though your choice of payment network is still relatively limited, there at least is some genuine competition on price. The Android/iOS duopoly seems to have become stuck at a particularly bad Nash equilibrium. 30% would never survive in a competitive market.
I'm doubtful competition mechanics would work to reduce the app store cut even if it wasn't equal between Android and iOS. If Google were to cut its rate to 10%, then what? App publishers aren't going to stop publishing on iOS. Even if cross-platform apps changed their pricing schemes to be cheaper on Android than iOS, I doubt many iOS users would be particularly put off by the extra 20 points in the cost of their apps.
Apple and Google not only created the device and funded the R & D for the features, but also created the APIs, the tools, the infrastructure, and attracted the (hundreds of millions of) users. The 30% cut they ask of developers is more than reasonable. Want to bypass that cut? Build a web app and make it play well on mobile. I can understand the argument that they should accept the 30% cut to be listed in and downloa…
The Fahrenheit 451 analogy sort of falls apart though when they give open access to the internet via Safari. What Apple does with the App Store is maintain a safe & friendly environment for users, where they can trust they won't run into things like viruses or pornography. This creates a healthy market for developers who don't necessarily have the notoriety of a Netflix / Spotify / Amazon to push their product, and i…
Your parent is arguing not that it's wrong to charge a 30% cut to list in the app store, but that it's wrong of Apple to prevent loading apps from any source besides the app store.