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

Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 408 posts

Re: Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases

#301

Post by turquoisevar »

cyberax wrote: post #151
NetOpWibby wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, Android's ecosystem has never been compelling because of Google. Even barring their unrelenting focus on gobbling more of your data, they can't even keep their services on. Their graveyard is massive. How many times has their default messages app changed? It's nuts. Being an Android developer seems like an exercise in frustration. I'm sure it happens on iOS to some degree but I've seen people online brag…

> Personally, Android's ecosystem has never been compelling because of Google. Even barring their unrelenting focus on gobbling more of your data, they can't even keep their services on. Their graveyard is massive. Who cares? If you're developing for Android, you don't need to care about Google killing off Stadia. > How many times has their default messages app changed? It's nuts. Being an Android developer seems lik…

> It has standardized on iMessage, but you can't do anything with it as a developer. It might as well not exist for you.

Hey now, there are dozens of developers making apps for iMessage. Dozens!!

All kidding aside, there is actually quite some stuff you can do with iMessage, but other than the occasional runaway hit like Game Pigeon, not many devs are interested in pouring resources into it.

Re: Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases

#302

Post by HappyRobot »

MR4D wrote: post #295

Does anyone here work in the back office of a grocery chain? What’s the typical markup on a gallon of milk or a frozen dinner? I’d bet that Apple’s 27% isn’t as egregious as it sounds.

I can't speak to food, but 50% markup is a good rule of thumb for manufactured goods in department stores. It's a big markup, but that markup pays for distribution to individual stores, storage costs, payment processing, and all the labor to stock and provide retail assistance. In addition, the stores also need to make a profit with whatever is left over. The question with Apple is how much of that markup actually goes to labor and distribution and how much is just for profit.

Re: Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases

#303

Post by Terretta »

MR4D wrote: post #295

Does anyone here work in the back office of a grocery chain? What’s the typical markup on a gallon of milk or a frozen dinner? I’d bet that Apple’s 27% isn’t as egregious as it sounds.

And brands pay for shelf space.

Why would a brand pay extra to be on a shelf in a supermarket? Isn't the store already making a markup? Does the store have a monopoly on food sales?

Everyone carries on about "monopoly" and thinks Apple pricing will plummet.

OK, explain Valve and Steam. With many stores, shouldn't the price be a fraction?

Here's a comment from July '23:

It's outrageous that Valve takes a 30% cut from every game sale on Steam without providing much in return.

We don't get marketing, PR, or advertising unless our game is already popular. If you're an unknown developer, you'll never get discovered. Support? Hardly. Their mandatory return policy, while beneficial for customers, can actually harm shorter games. Aside from facilitating product returns, they provide minimal assistance in other areas.

Valve doesn't offer funding or act as a traditional publisher, providing guidance or support during development. Steam is the sole platform for distribution, limiting our reach and revenue potential.

They offer no help with QA or testing. Even with their new alpha/beta system, the burden of reviewing any data falls on developers. Valve's main contribution is distribution, but the process is frustratingly outdated.

We need to demand better from Valve: more value for their cut or a reduction in percentage.

https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/1408ng4/valves_30_...

Or, there's some value people aren't thinking about, and "the market [of developers] will bear it"...

“The value of a large network like Steam has many benefits that are contributed to and shared by all the participants. Finding the right balance to reflect those contributions is a tricky but important factor in a well-functioning network,” the company wrote in a statement on the Steam Community page. “It’s always been apparent that successful games and their large audiences have a material impact on those network effects so making sure Steam recognizes and continues to be an attractive platform for those games is an important goal for all participants in the network.”

https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/30/18120577/valve-steam-gam...

Re: Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases

#304

Post by Terretta »

turquoisevar wrote: post #274
tomrod wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is leading to awful, awful outcomes. If I owned a large payment registers company or similar type of capital that is hard to switch immediately, I'd be licking my predatory lips.

You’d have been licking your lips way sooner because that’s completely legal in the US. In fact increasing the switching cost either monetarily or in other ways (e.g., time sink) is a very common way of locking customers in. That’s why cancellation fees are so common in many industries.

And why users love the subscription management in Apple app store.

Re: Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases

#305

Post by aurareturn »

spookie wrote: post #219
aurareturn wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm on Apple's side for this one but weren't game publishers also funding the development, marketing, and distribution?

While one could argue that a some money had to be spent in the old days to get those boxes in the shelf and off them, these days what does Apple do? Besides being one of the two players in the market? Clearly someone is being abused. I'm aware they do bring customers, I guess. Not to _you_, specifically, to someone... Maybe you.

Probably designing ever more power SoCs, OS, accumulating wealthy users for app developers, etc.

Re: Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases

#306

Post by KingMob »

edgyquant wrote: post #137
Muromec wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See: bin Laden's letter to America doing rounds in the internet in 2023.

False equivalency. Most people like living in America and tons of people want to move there, while only religious fanatics would be okay living in a country built and controlled by Al-qaeda

I'm sure any number of Christian lunatics would love to remake America into Y'all-Qaeda.

Re: Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases

#307

Post by KingMob »

nostromo wrote: post #79
peterallport wrote: post #61

Apple must allow alternate payment modes without imposing a gatekeeper tax. It must be consistent without exceptions (i.e. not just Amazon). The issue is not the gratuitous fee, it is the lack of choice. iOS is more ubiquitous than macOS yet more restrictive--it cannot last. This entitlement is so restrictive -- it just seems vindictive. Apple's market share and success means additional responsibility. The argument t…

I will risk an avalanche of downvotes and steel man Apple's argument. :) Have you ever gotten stuck with a monthly fee for something that's hard to cancel? It's a real pain the butt, no? But that never really happens on Apple devices, because Apple makes it incredibly easy to cancel subscriptions. You don't have to call anyone, you don't have to struggle with a bad website -- you just click cancel on your phone and i…

> Have you ever gotten stuck with a monthly fee for something that's hard to cancel? It's a real pain the butt, no?

Not at all, credit card charge-backs are easy. I don't need Apple at all.

In fact, Apple acting as the intermediary makes things worse, because if I wish to dispute/chargeback a payment with a particular app, I have to do that to Apple, which could have unrelated negative effects on my other purchases through them.

Re: Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases

#308

Post by MerManMaid »

tomrod wrote: post #299
MerManMaid wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No need. Market is functioning reasonably well, as Android, PineOS, FirefoxOS, and similar alternatives exist. I'm not sure I'd like a government (whom at least in theory, exists to protect & provide as much collective good for their constituents as possible) to approach the situation in such a cold strictly economic fashion. Hundreds of millions of people unfairly being taken advantage of to the benefit of a small…

I appreciate the time you put into your thought. Fundamentally, I disagree with the assertion that because a minor consumer purchase goes south and charges an unarguably illegal processing fee (for interchange) now deemed legal for hardware providers that the usual moral justification for this, consumer welfare, is harmed as the BATNA is simple - get a different maker's phone. Varying qualities of substitutes are eas…

I also appreciate the discourse (:

>Fundamentally, I disagree with the assertion that because a minor consumer purchase goes south and charges an unarguably illegal processing fee (for interchange) now deemed legal for hardware providers that the usual moral justification for this, consumer welfare, is harmed as the BATNA is simple - get a different maker's phone. Varying qualities of substitutes are easily attainable.

Honestly we may just have to agree to disagree. Both from my own personal experience helping friends and family as well as professional experience working in IT the act of switching away from apple is always an incredibly stressful and more often than not a significantly disruptive event for the user.

A good example here is the elderly. The energy and effort that goes into learning how to use a new phone is significant for most people 70+ and a huge factor when they're trying to decide to upgrade or switch their current phone. Very often, this daunting task is legitimately not worth it for them even if it that means letting apple take advantage of them simply because they don't think or truly know that they don't have the bandwidth to take on learning another smart phone.

Here you have a vulnerable class of people who just can't simply switch over to another OS even when they have the means, ripe for financial abuse. Apple is a multi-trillion dollar company and governments ought to be doing whatever needs to be done to protect the millions of people who are functionally stuck using their platform from being abused.

In regards to the rest of your comment I don't feel knowledgeable enough to comment. All I really wanted to say is:

(a) millions of people are negatively impacted by this to the benefit of a small few.

(b) a huge majority of those people likely aren't aware that they're being taken advantage of and even if they did, a meaningful amount of them couldn't do much about it without some help and/or incurring considerable amounts of stress throughout the switch.

(c) What Apple is doing here is exactly the behavior I believe governments ought to be trying to prevent.

Re: Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases

#309

Post by turquoisevar »

darylteo wrote: post #159
ado__dev wrote: post #7

Honestly if forcing everything through Apple's walled garden wasn't anti-competitive enough, this move certainly makes it so. What's next - pay 30% Apple tax for purchases made through Safari? I'm deeply embedded in the Apple ecosystem. From phone, to computer, to home automation stuff. I have no desire to use a secondary app store. But I want that option to be be available. And there is no good reason for Apple to b…

They are following the SC ruling which has explicitly given them the right to do so. - anti competitive to force users to use their *Payment Processing* platform. - not anti-competitive to charge 30% for purchases made from the app The justification is that you're getting access to Apple's network of customers as "leads" and by referring them to you for purchases, Apple is justified a 27% commission. Similar, other m…

> The justification is that you're getting access to Apple's network of customers as "leads" and by referring them to you for purchases, Apple is justified a 27% commission.

It’s actually more poignant than that. The court established and the appellate affirmed that the commission is primarily payment for Apple’s IP:

“First, and most significant, as discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple's intellectual property. Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission.”

All the rest is bonus.

Re: Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases

#310

Post by freetanga »

dkonofalski wrote: post #103
arrosenberg wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Developers are in arms because they don't believe Apple deserves any money for distributing their app on their App Store. Rephrased - Developers are up in arms because the cost of distribution on iOS is artificially high. It's artificially high because the cost is not subject to market forces. It's not subject to market forces because Apple has a vertical monopoly on hardware and software distribution. Vertical int…

That's not true in the slightest, though. Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, and Steam all take 30% for distribution and hosting, same as Apple. It's not artificially high if it's in line with the rest of the tech industry and if you want to try and claim that it's because of some monopoly, vertical or otherwise, then you have to explain why the other storefronts are also monopolies. It's not a monopoly. Other phones and eco…

On consoles I can buy a digital copy, and I believe the 30% does not apply.

On Windows I can buy a digital copy on the devs website and MS gets nothing.

On Steam, I could buy the game in another storefront (GOG), or Direct, and Valve would get nothing.

On Android I could use a separate AppStore and Google would get nothing…

In other words, in all those platforms devs can opt in to participate on a centralized store taking 30%, or keeping an alternative channel with higher revenues. On iOS, not so much.

Years ago, Apple had a loving relationship with Devs. Now Apple is an over demanding Karen yelling over her alimony payments every end of the month.

Post reply on HN