6 ms·

Then force them to unbundle those fees if they want to collect them. It just doesn't make any sense that some developers have to pay up to 30% of their iOS reve

Then force them to unbundle those fees if they want to collect them. It just doesn't make any sense that some developers have to pay up to 30% of their iOS revenue while others (including huge corporations like Uber, Starbucks, Target etc) pay nothing.

TillE 3y ago
It's 15% for any developer making under $1 million. Even if we think the SDKs should be free, you're not going to find a significantly better deal for payment (with Apple handling all sales taxes etc), auto updates, crash reporting, etc etc. Smaller developers aren't being ripped off, not anymore. There's a philosophical argument that Apple shouldn't control your device, but that really has nothing to do with the 30% they charge larger companies.
- librish 3y ago
  Wouldn't Stripe be significantly cheaper? I'm making the opposite of a philosophical argument, I'm making a practical one. Apple is not going to take away the App Store, or make it too difficult for developers to upload apps, since that would be a real threat to their iPhone business. Developers need Apple, but Apple needs developers too. Currently their market domination makes it an extremely hard collective action problem for developers. Not being on the App Store means losing out on the majority of your revenue, which makes it tough for enough developers to band together against Apple.
  - kj99 3y ago
    > Wouldn't Stripe be significantly cheaper? Can we stop pretending the app store fee is just for payment processing?
    - librish 3y ago
      That is currently the only thing they're charging for. Like I said, let them unbundle if they want to. I wouldn't be surprised if they actually end up just taking a revenue hit to keep the ecosystem healthy, which would mean more money for developers.
      - kj99 3y ago
        What are you talking about? Where do they say that they are only charging for payment processing?
        librish 3y ago
        Right now the only time they take a cut is when they do payment processing. Uber, for example, pays Apple nothing.
        kj99 3y ago
        Amazon pays Apple nothing either, because the goods the customer is paying for aren’t being delivered through the App. This tells us nothing about the charge being only for payment processing.
        librish 3y ago
        It feels like you're trying to win on semantics here. Right now you as a developer pay $X for access to their eco system, and on top of that you pay 15/30% of whatever payments they process for you. You can say "well actually, that 30% isn't all for the payment processing" but I don't why it matters what Apple's intention behind the payment is.
        kj99 3y ago
        Thanks for making the distinction between when you are charged and why then charge is for. Businesses rarely map charges directly into what is being paid for, because that doesn’t work in practice. Charges are made at a convenient point and then used to pay for the service as a whole. This is common practice across all kinds of business. This matters because people are claiming they it is just for payment processing and then arguing that 30% is too much, which is clearly a dishonest position.
judge2020 3y ago
The rule has been that physical purchases don't need to use IAPs, since the service you're purchasing is not solely enabled by Apple's investment into the entire hardware/software/APIs stack that allows your users to buy gems in your game.
turquoisevar 3y ago
> Then force them to unbundle those fees if they want to collect them. No, thank you. I’ve seen what that looks like on the video console side of things. Thousands of dollars for the right of publishing on the manufacturer’s platform (i.e., using their IP) and again thousands for each build that needs to be certified. Hundreds for smaller indie game devs. I’m happy with my 15% commission and the $99/year fee. Nice and cheap and I get my money’s worth out of it and then some. Best part, they do well (i.e., I only owe them) when I do well. No upfront cost that’s essentially a gamble. No fee per build. The more is bundled into a commission tied to my revenue, the better.

TillE 3y ago

It's 15% for any developer making under $1 million. Even if we think the SDKs should be free, you're not going to find a significantly better deal for payment (with Apple handling all sales taxes etc), auto updates, crash reporting, etc etc. Smaller developers aren't being ripped off, not anymore. There's a philosophical argument that Apple shouldn't control your device, but that really has nothing to do with the 30% they charge larger companies.

librish 3y ago
Wouldn't Stripe be significantly cheaper? I'm making the opposite of a philosophical argument, I'm making a practical one. Apple is not going to take away the App Store, or make it too difficult for developers to upload apps, since that would be a real threat to their iPhone business. Developers need Apple, but Apple needs developers too. Currently their market domination makes it an extremely hard collective action problem for developers. Not being on the App Store means losing out on the majority of your revenue, which makes it tough for enough developers to band together against Apple.
- kj99 3y ago
  > Wouldn't Stripe be significantly cheaper? Can we stop pretending the app store fee is just for payment processing?
  - librish 3y ago
    That is currently the only thing they're charging for. Like I said, let them unbundle if they want to. I wouldn't be surprised if they actually end up just taking a revenue hit to keep the ecosystem healthy, which would mean more money for developers.
    - kj99 3y ago
      What are you talking about? Where do they say that they are only charging for payment processing?
      - librish 3y ago
        Right now the only time they take a cut is when they do payment processing. Uber, for example, pays Apple nothing.
        kj99 3y ago
        Amazon pays Apple nothing either, because the goods the customer is paying for aren’t being delivered through the App. This tells us nothing about the charge being only for payment processing.
        librish 3y ago
        It feels like you're trying to win on semantics here. Right now you as a developer pay $X for access to their eco system, and on top of that you pay 15/30% of whatever payments they process for you. You can say "well actually, that 30% isn't all for the payment processing" but I don't why it matters what Apple's intention behind the payment is.
        kj99 3y ago
        Thanks for making the distinction between when you are charged and why then charge is for. Businesses rarely map charges directly into what is being paid for, because that doesn’t work in practice. Charges are made at a convenient point and then used to pay for the service as a whole. This is common practice across all kinds of business. This matters because people are claiming they it is just for payment processing and then arguing that 30% is too much, which is clearly a dishonest position.

judge2020 3y ago

The rule has been that physical purchases don't need to use IAPs, since the service you're purchasing is not solely enabled by Apple's investment into the entire hardware/software/APIs stack that allows your users to buy gems in your game.

turquoisevar 3y ago

> Then force them to unbundle those fees if they want to collect them. No, thank you. I’ve seen what that looks like on the video console side of things. Thousands of dollars for the right of publishing on the manufacturer’s platform (i.e., using their IP) and again thousands for each build that needs to be certified. Hundreds for smaller indie game devs. I’m happy with my 15% commission and the $99/year fee. Nice and cheap and I get my money’s worth out of it and then some. Best part, they do well (i.e., I only owe them) when I do well. No upfront cost that’s essentially a gamble. No fee per build. The more is bundled into a commission tied to my revenue, the better.