Live data from Hacker News

US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

macrumors.com

301–310 of 1001 posts

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was always what the outcome was going to look like. People have been talking ever since the ruling as though dodging Apple as a payment processor was going to magically exempt developers from the full 30% fee, but that was never going to happen and it was never the intention of the ruling. Apple argued from the very beginning that the 30% was its fee for running the App Store, marketing the apps, and storing and…

> Apple argued from the very beginning that the 30% was its fee for running the App Store, marketing the apps, and storing and delivering the app bundles. The cost of operating an App Store and providing distribution is relatively negligible. Several Linux distros have app stores, and package management and distribution systems that are as good or superior than Apple’s. The annual fee that Apple charges developers al…

It's not about the cost of the App Store, it's about maximizing profits and generating shareholder value. How is Apple supposed to have the most valuable stock in the world without raking independent developers over the coals?

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#302

Some perspective: we sell on Amazon as a 3rd party seller. Amazon takes about 9% of the sale price of our products as their commission (it’s actually 12%, but includes credit card processing). To which you might be inclined to reply, “Ah, but 9% is a reasonable commission, so that’s okay.” But we sell physical goods, which cost money to produce. It’s typical for our products to have 20-25% gross margins. So as a shar…

That’s just the commission on the sale itself. It doesn’t count FBA or advertising fees which in practical terms are often necessary. After all is said and done, Amazon is usually taking much more than 9%.

Yeah, exactly, but I wanted to compare like for like: just the commission on the sale. You can also pay for ads on the App Store, which would be in addition to Apple’s 30% take.

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple argued from the very beginning that the 30% was its fee for running the App Store, marketing the apps, and storing and delivering the app bundles. The in-app payment system was a convenient way for Apple to collect its commission and a way for Apple to create a unified payment experience for its customers, but it was never the Achilles heel for Apple's business model. Is it just me or does this argument seem…

> Is it just me or does this argument seem insanely flimsy? I'm not sure if it is just you, but both the district court and appellate court are on board with it. And honestly, I can see why. Apple argued that they provide a bunch of services and access to their IP in exchange for $99/year and a commission over the sales. The courts have deemed that an acceptable business model. The district court was hemming and hawi…

Thanks for your reply, I definitely see what you mean with other pricing schemes and how there is pretty wide latitude for what type of price discrimination is justifiable.

I mostly just find it silly that at no point does anyone seem to address the elephant in the room that the only way to access some hundreds of millions of users is through Apple, and that almost certainly influences the fee in a way that can't be really be explained by the value of the IP.

Does the argument require us to believe the fee would still be 30% if iPhone had practically zero users? Or is that legally irrelevant assuming that they aren't found a monopoly?

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#304
post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You haven’t daily driven Android since at least the iPhone 3GS, according to your comment. There’s a reason they’re able to charge 30%, have a dominant market position in the US, and people continue to release apps for iOS (and prioritize launching there over Android). You’re also not the customer in this situation — you’re talking not as a developer but as an end-user without any mention of a subscription service th…

> There’s a reason they’re able to charge 30%, have a dominant market position in the US, and people continue to release apps for iOS (and prioritize launching there over Android). I keep seeing this line of thinking in the comments (some may say these comments are conforming to a specific line of thought). When is the last time you used a modern android (Galaxy, Pixel, etc)? And really used it, not just tried to use…

[deleted]

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#305

I always hated native apps and found them to be very high friction, both as a user and as a developer. I have no idea what's wrong with people. Why are people so keen to install untrusted, intrusive software onto their devices when they can access them in the safety of their browser without downloading anything. When I was younger, people were very careful about what software they installed on their machines, you'd h…

iOS user and a developer here. I actually feel the opposite. With native apps, there are OS level restrictions to accessing certain resources and sensors on the device so I feel safer in a native app than a browser.

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just wait until you see what you have to do to get your food product onto super market shelves... And grocery stores are not even considered a monopoly! Edit: which is not say that there should be an "is" vs. "ought" conflation. Just that it's unlikely that this situation is going to be changed through courts. Other routes: legislation and regulation to establish a new social norm, or as Jacquesm has been advocating…

But imagine buying your food directly from a farm and having to pay a 27% cut to the grocery store anyway.

My experience at farmers markets tells me that I would be paying more than 100% more for the privilege of interacting with somebody that gets employed by the farmer instead of somebody employed by the store.

The analogy would work better if the grocery store sold me some sort of platform for cooking food, that only worked with certain types of food... I don't know, it's hard to find the analogy compelling at all.

People develop for the App Store because they get access to a particular customer base. I could definitely support some sort of customer protection that forces side loading options (but they must be options and easy to disable and hard to enable, otherwise it destroys one of the best aspects of the phone.) But as far as caring for slight changes in percentages for app developers, well, I don't care about that one bit at all, anymore than I care about Apple getting a "fair" deal from the other businesses it interacts with.

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can the “second most popular phone” have a monopoly?

You don't have to be the most popular to be a monopoly. Not even close.

You absolutely have to be the most popular to be a monopoly.

You can be the most popular and not be a monopoly, but the reverse is definitionally impossible.

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#308

Am I getting this right? Say I use Stripe as my payment processor. Stripe takes 2.9% + $0.30, then Apple takes 27% so I'm at 29.9% + $0.30 being taken out of however much I charge for my app? For a $10 app, $0.30 is 3% putting the fee at 32.9%. For the privilege of paying 2.9% more, my users get to see a scary privacy message and when I bill the customer a year later for a subscription, there's a 20-30% chance that t…

This was always what the outcome was going to look like. People have been talking ever since the ruling as though dodging Apple as a payment processor was going to magically exempt developers from the full 30% fee, but that was never going to happen and it was never the intention of the ruling. Apple argued from the very beginning that the 30% was its fee for running the App Store, marketing the apps, and storing and…

EDIT: I just realized:

> running the App Store, marketing the apps

What marketing specifically? Last time I checked, I had to integrate third party ad experiences in order to market my app in their ecosystem.

> In such a hypothetical world, developers could potentially avoid the commission while benefitting from Apple's innovation and intellectual property free of charge.

> Apple argued from the very beginning that the 30% was its fee for running the App Store, marketing the apps, and storing and delivering the app bundles

With hindsight of the antitrust case in the EU this argument itself seems like it is in bad faith. Apples argument in the EU against antitrust was that there isn't one but five different app stores, conveniently for each device family.

So they are indeed aware that a commercial app developer would likely not be "benefitting from Apple's innovation and intellectual property free of charge", because they are likely not taking advantage of their entire catalogue of intellectual property (if there is five different app stores, for five different markets, as per Apples argument, surely there is different IP between those markets to run the app store in an effective manner).

In other words, as others have mentioned, Apple charges a 30% flat fee for "intellectual property" that developers may or may not take advantage of, as per their own argument overseas. I don't see how it's not antitrust when a company forces me to pay for services that I am not taking advantage off or ever had the intent of using, or can't use, due to technical limitations.

As a developer, to me it rather feels like Apple is trying to artificially bind me to invest into the app store as a platform due to this high fee, for example by developing an accompanying watch applet or a tablet version of my app, because the act of simply offering these on their devices seems to be part of their precious App Store IP. And you can't argue that pricing these add-on apps differently would make a difference for Apple, since they collect the 30% cut across income in their entire ecosystem either way.

It also doesn't make sense for Apple to tell me to go elsewhere (Android) to mitigate this, as I can't replicate the UX of their ecosystem on my own even if I tried (prime example would be the peripheral integration imo. You'll find creating a device that integrates as seamlessly as the Apple Watch fairly hard, not because Apple has some special proprietary integration IP secret sauce, but because they artificially lock down ways to interface with peripherals to secure market dominance).

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple is hosting, distributing, and directly marketing apps in the app store. Isn't that a forced situation though, unlike with macOS? With macOS anyone can throw an application on a website (GitHub, etc) and the users can download the application and run it. To get rid of the scary warnings, there's even a $99 dev membership that can be used to sign the macOS binaries. iOS developers don't have any choices to host…

It's been a while but I'm pretty sure signing and notarizing is required on macOS now, without disabiling SIP. At least for things downloaded from a browser. My interpretation is that $99/year is required if you want to avoid your users needing to use the terminal.

Right-clicking an app bundle and clicking open gives you the option to run the app even if it's not signed and notarized by Apple.

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was always what the outcome was going to look like. People have been talking ever since the ruling as though dodging Apple as a payment processor was going to magically exempt developers from the full 30% fee, but that was never going to happen and it was never the intention of the ruling. Apple argued from the very beginning that the 30% was its fee for running the App Store, marketing the apps, and storing and…

> Apple argued from the very beginning that the 30% was its fee for running the App Store, marketing the apps, and storing and delivering the app bundles. The cost of operating an App Store and providing distribution is relatively negligible. Several Linux distros have app stores, and package management and distribution systems that are as good or superior than Apple’s. The annual fee that Apple charges developers al…

The cost of a human working all day is negligible; they need a little bit of food. And yet they still expect to be paid - sometimes quite a lot.

Just based on your quote and without having much interest in the case... the fee isn't about covering costs. They have an app store, people want to be in the app store, and Apple is going to charge them a fee to be in the app store. Similar logic to drawing a wage.

Post reply on HN