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

Apple: if we get you subscribers, we deserve a cut

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 74 posts

Re: Apple: if we get you subscribers, we deserve a cut

#31

Post by nopal »

nomurrcy wrote: post #24

Full disclosure: I generally like apple products and have used NeXT / apple products for a long time. I don't see how Apple's stance here is defensible or honest. They using their position as a large platform provider to steal from 3rd party developers. To me this is akin to me writing a program for OSX that allows users to sign up for a subscription service, and apple taking a 30% cut of my cash flows just because I…

The cut is high, but Apple does do more with iOS than they do in your hypothetical.

Apple has created a ecosystem in which it is very easy for consumers to purchase subscriptions. They're further enhancing the usefulness of this system by blocking applications that do not allow consumers to easily purchase subscriptions in a uniform way (e.g. in-app). And they're requiring app developers to pay 30% for the benefits they receive by exposing your app to the users of this ecosystem.

The rate may be high, or it may not be. We will see by how many developers pull their apps from the AppStore.

Re: Apple: if we get you subscribers, we deserve a cut

#32

Post by hvs »

josefresco wrote: post #12
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #4

So arrogant - "We get you subscribers"! How did they do that? They didn't create the ad, they didn't put it in the app, they did diddly-squat in fact. You (the app developer) did the work, take the risk, and now cannot even get paid properly - you have to essentially make iPhone your sole outlet, or charge 30% premium everywhere else.

They created the very ecosystem in which your app exists. I'd say that's a pretty important aspect of the whole app development model.

Does Microsoft deserve a cut of every application written for Windows?

Re: Apple: if we get you subscribers, we deserve a cut

#33

Post by neutronicus »

enjo wrote: post #18
brisance wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You get heavy promotion. Look at how Angry Birds and all the other games did by being featured on "New and Noteworthy" or "Staff Picks" or "Top Grossing Apps". It's a two-way street; don't make it sound like Apple is taking advantage of your efforts.

That works for a hugely small subset of apps. Each (well written) app creates a lot of value for iOs, most of those won't get anything at all from Apple. So again, why isn't the inverse true? If I'm building something that helps sell an iOs device, why shouldn't I get a cut? Of course I shouldn't, but that's the problem in Apples logic here.

> Each (well written) app creates a lot of value for iOS

We all, being programmers, like to assume this, but I don't think it's really true. I think the bulk of the value for both Apple and iOS users comes from a pretty small core of apps (Mail, Maps, Browser, Music, YouTube, Publisher subscriptions).

> If I'm building something that helps sell an iOs device, why shouldn't I get a cut?

I don't think Apple agrees that you're "helping sell the iOS device". I think Apple correctly assumes that most people who buy iOS devices do so in ignorance of your app. They can take it or leave it, and if they're not going to get a cut, what possible reason do they have to take it?

Re: Apple: if we get you subscribers, we deserve a cut

#35

Post by kbutler »

In related news, the US Interstate Highway system will now require a 30% cut of the purchase price of every vehicle purchased in the United States. "Our philosophy is simple—when US Highways bring a new driver to the car company, US Highways earn a 30 percent share."

The US Postal Service considered a similar regulation, but found that customers would simply divert shipments to competitors UPS, DHL, and Fedex, and is instead filing suit against those companies for unfair trade practices, and lobbying congress for a retroactive grant of a business method patent on package delivery with corresponding extension of patent duration to life of the organization plus 70 years.

kb

Re: Apple: if we get you subscribers, we deserve a cut

#36

Post by trotsky »

nomurrcy wrote: post #24

Full disclosure: I generally like apple products and have used NeXT / apple products for a long time. I don't see how Apple's stance here is defensible or honest. They using their position as a large platform provider to steal from 3rd party developers. To me this is akin to me writing a program for OSX that allows users to sign up for a subscription service, and apple taking a 30% cut of my cash flows just because I…

Philosophically this doesn't seem much different from a case where Apple requires a 30% cut on all commerce done through OSX, Mozilla demanding 30% of a MBP sale through firefox, or MS demanding 30% of that WinXP iTunes sale. I wouldn't expect it to escape the review of various competition authorities.

Re: Apple: if we get you subscribers, we deserve a cut

#37

Post by wmeredith »

kbutler wrote: post #35

In related news, the US Interstate Highway system will now require a 30% cut of the purchase price of every vehicle purchased in the United States. "Our philosophy is simple—when US Highways bring a new driver to the car company, US Highways earn a 30 percent share." The US Postal Service considered a similar regulation, but found that customers would simply divert shipments to competitors UPS, DHL, and Fedex, and is…

Apples and Oranges, my friend. The highway and the USPS are funded by tax dollars. The App Store is a culmination of Steve Jobs and co busting their collective asses for decades on their own time without any mandatory help from you. Now they're going to charge you an arm and a leg for the privilege of using it. If you don't like it, you're free to take a stand with your dollars and go elsewhere.

Re: Apple: if we get you subscribers, we deserve a cut

#38

Post by enjo »

neutronicus wrote: post #33
enjo wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That works for a hugely small subset of apps. Each (well written) app creates a lot of value for iOs, most of those won't get anything at all from Apple. So again, why isn't the inverse true? If I'm building something that helps sell an iOs device, why shouldn't I get a cut? Of course I shouldn't, but that's the problem in Apples logic here.

> Each (well written) app creates a lot of value for iOS We all, being programmers, like to assume this, but I don't think it's really true. I think the bulk of the value for both Apple and iOS users comes from a pretty small core of apps (Mail, Maps, Browser, Music, YouTube, Publisher subscriptions). > If I'm building something that helps sell an iOs device, why shouldn't I get a cut? I don't think Apple agrees that…

It's a small subset of apps that matter to each individual, but collectively it's a big number. Lets take my wife. She'd describe each of these as being indispensable to her:

- Quickoffice - Local weather app (9news here in Denver) - OpenTable - Her password store (not sure what she's using these days) - Evernote - Probably 8-10 others

My list is completely different. These apps, together, create a lot of value for the phone. When we recommend phones to other folks we do it in the context of the applications running on it. Angry Birds has undoubtedly sold a ton of devices (both Android and iPhone) but it's hardly alone. Hell, I'm positive that I sold an iPhone one day while showing someone a document in Quickoffice.

Each app provides a ton of value to Apple. They owe us, not the other way around.

Re: Apple: if we get you subscribers, we deserve a cut

#39

Post by rtrunck »

kbutler wrote: post #35

In related news, the US Interstate Highway system will now require a 30% cut of the purchase price of every vehicle purchased in the United States. "Our philosophy is simple—when US Highways bring a new driver to the car company, US Highways earn a 30 percent share." The US Postal Service considered a similar regulation, but found that customers would simply divert shipments to competitors UPS, DHL, and Fedex, and is…

Gas Tax?

Re: Apple: if we get you subscribers, we deserve a cut

#40

Post by relic17 »

nomurrcy wrote: post #24

Full disclosure: I generally like apple products and have used NeXT / apple products for a long time. I don't see how Apple's stance here is defensible or honest. They using their position as a large platform provider to steal from 3rd party developers. To me this is akin to me writing a program for OSX that allows users to sign up for a subscription service, and apple taking a 30% cut of my cash flows just because I…

"Dishonest", "steal", "anti competitive" - these are some heavy accusations. In the context of Apple's relationship with developers, dishonest would mean deliberately lying, cheating, or signing a contract and then reneging on it (in which case the developer has legal recourse). "Steal" is quite irrelevant here - if Apple stole anything from anyone, it would have been sued. "Anti-competitive" - if your definition of non-anti-competitive is letting anyone (especially small players) do whatever they want with your product for free (just because you are big and they are small), you would be right, but that would be a wrong definition. The reality is that Apple is offering a product, a service, and clear terms of how it wants these to be used as a precondition for doing business. Developers can take it or leave it. I don't think dishonesty, theft, or the super-vague term of anti-competition can be applied here.
Post reply on HN