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

When a customer refunds your paid app, Apple refunds its 30% cut [edited]

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 583 posts

Re: When a customer refunds your paid app, Apple refunds its 30% cut [edited]

#221

Post by jbob2000 »

sleepydog wrote: post #57
jbob2000 wrote: post #2

Well yeah, I still need to pay shipping for amazon to send me a product even if I need to return it because it's broken. I would have no product to return if I did not pay for the shipping to receive the product. Apple would justify that 30% being non-refundable by saying "you would have never had that client to refund if you did not give us that 30%". They did their job, they got you the client, you were the one who…

Apple is not giving a 70% refund when you refund an app. They are giving a full refund and charging the seller for the 30%. In your analogy, it would be like giving the toll back and charging a portion of it to the bridge builder.

Apple's responsibility is to the transaction. Their job as a marketplace is to make transactions happen. By making the initial transaction happen, they get their 30% cut (if you think 30% is too high, that's fine, but that's not what we're talking about here).

The customer's experience is now in the developer's hands. If the experience is botched, somebody has to cover the full refund. Since the bad experience happened outside of the transaction, it's not Apple's responsibility, it's the developer's; they need to shoulder the full refund. It wasn't Apple that fucked up.

If the user didn't understand the app before buying, that's still on the developer. If the app has issues because of some dependency on wonky Apple implementations, that's up to the developer to communicate to potential clients. The developer is responsible for the experience after the purchase is made, therefore they are responsible for the full refund if the client wants one.

Re: When a customer refunds your paid app, Apple refunds its 30% cut [edited]

#222

Post by [deleted] »

andreasley wrote: post #195

A Statement of Tim Cook for the House of Representatives claimed that "For the vast majority of apps on the App Store , developers keep 100% of the money they make." [1] How can this be even remotely true if Apple takes a 30% commission for every sale in the App Store? [1] https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU05/20200729/110883/HHRG...

[deleted]

Re: When a customer refunds your paid app, Apple refunds its 30% cut [edited]

#223

Post by avianlyric »

wlesieutre wrote: post #186
fnord123 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The jurisdiction that will come to most minds is the EU, but it has exemptions for digitally downloaded content and unsealed software. https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/gua...

Apple explicitly does not claim that exemption, the 14 day no-questions-asked refund period is called out in their terms and conditions. > Right of cancellation: If you choose to cancel your order, you may do so within 14 days of when you received your receipt, without giving any reason

Apple will start applying that exemption if you abuse their refund process. One or two refunds in a short period is usually enough to trigger it, and it disappears again after some “good behaviour”.

Re: When a customer refunds your paid app, Apple refunds its 30% cut [edited]

#226

Post by ladon86 »

rhacker wrote: post #169

This blew up, but like 5 comments down in twitter someone said it wasn't true.

It is true, and I don’t see anyone on that thread saying it’s not. I see a guy confused about whether it’s the consumer or developer that eats the fee - it’s the developer.

This is exactly how it works:

* Customer pays $10

* Apple owes developer $7 (to be paid in 4-6 weeks)

* Customer asks for refund, Apple sends them $10 back

* Developer owes Apple $3

Re: When a customer refunds your paid app, Apple refunds its 30% cut [edited]

#227

Post by barbecue_sauce »

vageli wrote: post #182
im3w1l wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ianal but it might go under tortious interference?

I was thinking more along the lines of criminal laws, I should have been more specific in my word choice.

The word "lawsuit", at least in American english, has the connotation of a civil rather than a criminal case.

Re: When a customer refunds your paid app, Apple refunds its 30% cut [edited]

#228

Post by maxsilver »

briandear wrote: post #97
solarkraft wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, really? Which competitors to Apple are there on iOS?

What competitors are there for Nintendo? Or PlayStation? Or XBox? Every one of those platforms tightly controls access to their platforms.

> Every one of those platforms tightly controls access to their platforms.

They actually can't. Not legally, anyway.

I am not a lawyer, but Nintendo famously lost a lawsuit, when attempting to block third-party software distribution : https://openjurist.org/16/f3d/1032/nintendo-of-america-inc-v... Sega (back when Sega was a major console competitor) also lost a similar lawsuit, when attempting to block third-party software distribution : https://openjurist.org/977/f2d/1510/sega-enterprises-ltd-v-a...

If we still had anti-trust enforcement, this should set precedent against what Apple is doing here today. We already decided this issue in the 80s and 90s, making a specialized locked-down computer (i.e., a "game console") does not entitle you to own the entire software market for that device. And so long as you don't steal copyrighted materials to do so (see Nintendo v Atari), you are allowed to reverse engineer and sell your own software for these devices, without any royalties or licensing owed.

If you want iPhones to be treated like "gaming consoles" instead of computers, then it is already legal to jailbreak an iPhone, distribute your own apps (or entire app store) and sell to iPhone users, without ever paying Apple a single penny.

It's even legal by precedent to modify other people's software when selling your own third-party software (see Game Genie / GameShark lawsuit, it's legal to sell a program that modifies someone elses copywritten software, so long as you don't include or redistribute the original copywritten code).

Re: When a customer refunds your paid app, Apple refunds its 30% cut [edited]

#229

Post by mwest217 »

andreasley wrote: post #195

A Statement of Tim Cook for the House of Representatives claimed that "For the vast majority of apps on the App Store , developers keep 100% of the money they make." [1] How can this be even remotely true if Apple takes a 30% commission for every sale in the App Store? [1] https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU05/20200729/110883/HHRG...

He's referring to the fact that most commerce on the App Store is for physical goods and services (Airbnb, Amazon, Uber, food delivery, etc). Apple doesn't take a cut of those transactions.

Re: When a customer refunds your paid app, Apple refunds its 30% cut [edited]

#230

Post by vageli »

gambiting wrote: post #188
vageli wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that fraud? "Everyone, buy this product and return it to the store for a full refund," doesn't sound like fraud to me. It doesn't result in personal or financial gain to the people perpetrating it, either. edit: so who is in trouble here? The person calling for people to do it with their twitter following or the twitter followers? I'm not saying that buying the app and returning it is not fraud if you entered…

You are entering into a purchase agreement without the intention to actually purchase the item - that is most definitely fraud. It's like ordering a brand new car without the intention to actually ever pick it up, but instead to cost the dealer money. If you're acting maliciously that's definitely fraud.

I completely agree and understand. My statements were about the person inciting others to commit the fraud without so many words. Basically, I was saying it is not fraud to tell your twitter followers to buy and return an item. It may be conspiracy though.
Post reply on HN