251–260 of 627 posts
I am fine with them allowing other payment systems. As long its not OR OR so if apps start to avoid using the built-in payment solution of Apple and Google then I see it as a negative. I can't think of needing to use like Paypal to pay for in-app purchases or something for app X and use stripe for app Y and use iDEAL for app Z. In those cases its better to avoid the app and that's even ignoring app developers getting…
Good. I've been saying this awhile, most notably when Apple (of course followed by Google) introduced a discount on commission for smaller developers. This is completely backwards. I know why they did it. They wanted some positive PR that didn't cost them anything. Thing is, it's the larger publishers who are going to lobby regulators and challenge things in court. It's those same publishers who already have their ow…
From Apple/Google's perspective this is a terrible strategy.
The problem is that, if we assume the Pareto Principle holds, the larger publishers probably generate 80% of revenue on the App Store.
So assuming 5% is operating at cost, you are talking about them probably sacrificing 70%-75% of their current profits (i.e. moving to 5% margin vs 25%, profit for high-grossing apps is probably closer to 1/5th previous rather than 1/3rd).
So they avoid the lawsuit, but they also lose all the profits they are trying to protect anyway.
Instead they chose to dig deeper, but government can be heavy-handed. I hope more countries do this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just wow. > Of course this should force them into binding arbitration and otherwise challenging the discount should void that discount. So you want apple and google to act as even more monopolistic bullies ... I see that you're taking this position as what you would do if you were Apple or Google, not what is the best course of action for all stakeholders. But you then opine that this is justified because the status…
I don't think he's saying that it'd be good if Apple and Google did that. He's saying they should have done that if they had had their strategic thinking caps on.
Yet, it's not out of the ordinary to presume apple and google have good strategists among the management ranks... so what gives? What do we not know?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, for example, if the bulk of the customers in Korea might be using Samsung Pay, you might just want to keep integrating with that instead of also having to provide Apple mechanisms, and maybe restructure your price since Apple imposes its tax?
Sure, I can do that. Let's take a look at it: 1) I need to learn and integrate Samsung's API or I need to hire someone to do that for me. I need to maintain a version of the app that works the way Samsung thinks it should(how do you deliver and restore purchases might differ from Apple). 2) Then I need to go through paperwork and payments that will enable me to sell Korea software from UK. I haven't look at the trade…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I very much agree that this app stores market abuse thing needs to end, and I am also really glad to see that at least one country is responding like this. > a reasonable (single percentage) fee for facilitating payments. I want to point out, though, that the service Apple provides is not merely payment processing. They offer total customer management. Which, when integrated with their entire developer offering (Test…
Sure but the point is that developers should have the option of rolling out their own solution if they don't need all the features Apple provides or agree with the fee. This in turn creates competition which may reduce rates all around.
1. Put your app on the store. (but only reachable via direct link)
2. Have Gapple verify that your app does not represent any obvious security threat. (or else warn users upon install)
3. Make your app appear in search. (organically)
4. Make your app eligible as a recommendation. (organically)
5. Use Gapple payments.
6. Have your app appear in search. (guaranteed placement)
7. Have your app appear as a recommendation. (guaranteed placement)
(and probably many others)
I'm not sure how well that would go down with developers, but I view it as a more honest way for them to create a developer offering. If they want to then go ahead and bundle some of these and offer a discount for developers purchasing more of them, so be it, but unbundling allows developers to pick & choose the value they want provided.
Unsurprising that this is happening in South Korea first as there is a clear beneficiary that has strong government ties.
People who believed the propaganda about "charging 30% for payment processing" are in for a surprise when they pay Stripe's fees but then realize they're still on the hook for Apple/Google's commission. It will just be collected in a less efficient way.
Well, ok, maybe that's an extreme take. Short of that, certainly, developers would possibly pay some kind of annual fee to gain publishing access to the store? Maybe a setup like this could work? Wait, (puts finger to ear) I'm getting some new information, it turns out... they already do this?
Yes, as changes like this roll out in more countries, inevitably, their ability to collect commissions will get "weird". Its their own damn fault! Apple and Google were the ones who picked a rotten, cursed way to collect revenue. They'll need to figure it out; its their lunch.
How long has apt, snap, npm, whatever, ran with zero revenue? Epic and Microsoft run stores at, what, 12%? Don't start with me about how "they're incumbents, they have to price lower"; yeah, they're pricing nearer to cost instead of using their monopoly market power to justify arbitrarily higher prices! Application distribution is not that hard. Its not that expensive. Its a fucking GET request on an object that can be easily CDN'd, with some light versioning on top; just think about how many package managers Linux has, then tell me Apple needs to make a billion bucks a year to justify keeping the ten people who maintain it around. Its a value-addition to the OS and for your users who paid $1400 for a new phone; not a line of business. Anyone who says differently is trying to sell you something (and Apple is definitely trying to sell you something).