7 ms·

Apple's App Store policy is unbelievably ridiculously hubristic. Imagine if Google/Microsoft charged you 30% of your entire business just because you ran it on

by _xnmw 2y ago

Apple's App Store policy is unbelievably ridiculously hubristic. Imagine if Google/Microsoft charged you 30% of your entire business just because you ran it on top of Excel/Sheets and Gmail/Outlook. Or if Adobe took a 30% royalty from all artists creative works. It's madness, plain and simple. Developers already pay an annual fee to publish to the App Store, and consumers pay massive dollar to buy their iDevices. And yet they still have the nerve to demand 30% of entire business revenue, and charge a tax even when conducted outside of the App Store (so-called Core Technology Fee)? Even most governments in the world don't tax out-of-jurisdiction income.

dialup_sounds 2y ago
> Imagine Google's Play Store and Microsoft's Xbox charge the same as Apple's App Store. Microsoft's Windows Store charges less, but nobody uses it store anyway.
- yokoprime 2y ago
  Because side-loading is a thing that works well on Windows.
  - alt227 2y ago
    Not only works well, but is the default accepted way of installing applications.
  - dialup_sounds 2y ago
    That's true, but on the other hand you have Steam, et al. that are popular in spite of that. Or the Mac App Store on macOS.
lolinder 2y ago
Imagine if Steam took 30% of all sales on their platform! Or if Nintendo or Sony or Microsoft charged developers 30% for online app sales! (Spoiler: they all do). There are lots of things worth criticizing about Apple's model, but I'll never understand the fixation on the 30% rule. They provide a distribution platform that is every bit as robust and has a much larger reach than the video game consoles, and if they want to charge the same prices as the consoles I don't see why that's the hill to die on when there are so many other things that are more obviously rotten.
- hu3 2y ago
  Steam is one of the many app stores I can use. Not the only one. Meanwhile Apple forces their app store down their customers throat. And charges for the forced privilege. Consoles are not general purpose devices. But I wouldn't mind if EU went after them as well
  - lolinder 2y ago
    > Steam is one of the many app stores I can use. > Not the only one. A) For the video game consoles this isn't true, they have full control just like Apple does. B) Like I said, there are better hills to die on. App store monopoly is one that makes more sense to me (though I still actually disagree with the mainstream HN consensus on it).
    - alt227 2y ago
      > A) For the video game consoles this isn't true, they have full control just like Apple does. You can still go to any physical retail store and buy a game developed by a 3rd party. Yes that 3rd Party company had to pay a license fee to release the game on the hardware but you can still choose where you want to buy that game from, including any sales or discounts that retailer might see fit to try to gain your custom.
      - lolinder 2y ago
        Which is a right that Apple was willing to concede, but people flipped out when they announced you'd still have to pay the fee. Consoles get a pass for things that Apple gets raked over the coals for. There's clearly something more going on than just "these specific behaviors are unacceptable always", which is the simplified take that gets popular on HN.
        alt227 2y ago
        >Which is a right that Apple was willing to concede Begrudgly and in a way that is very much viewed as malicious compliance, hence them now being investigated for it. >but people flipped out when they announced you'd still have to pay the fee I agree with them When I buy an App from the app store, Apple should take a cut for providing the infrastructure, payment system etc, thats fair. If I am buying something from a company directly from their website or marketplace, for a service they provide in that app, why should I pay Apple a fee?
euroderf 2y ago
30% is arguably justified for some tangible goods, depending on the value add of the channel(s) for sales & distribution. But digital goods? Thievery.
- lolinder 2y ago
  Tell that to Steam, which is generally well liked by developers and users alike. There's clearly something else going on than just the 30% number, and it's worth investigating what that is rather than fixating on the wrong thing.
  - madeofpalk 2y ago
    It's never actually been about the 30%, it's just that that's the easiest manifestation. It's Apple's insistance to insert themselves into the relationship between developers and their users. The fee could be next-to-free and many would still be upset if they're not able to use their own payments infrastructure. Developers are not able to offer customers refunds on IAP or discounts or credits. Steam demonstrates that it's not about the 30%. It shows how 30% is viable in a competetive market if it's what consumers (and developers) prefer.
  - andersa 2y ago
    The difference here is that you don't have to use Steam. For example, Epic Games is doing just fine providing downloads for Fortnite themselves.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      Yep, so the problem isn't how much they're charging at all, it's the tight lock down. I like your sibling comment's summation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40776710 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40776710
pier25 2y ago
Not only Apple charges their tax but they decide if you can distribute your iOS code to users. You can work for a year on an app for iPhone or iPad and then not be able to distribute it if Apple doesn't want to. This is not even hypothetical. Apple owns 30% of your business but has 100% control of it.
- flutas 2y ago
  > You can work for a year on an app for iPhone or iPad and then not be able to distribute it if Apple doesn't want to. Happened to my company. At the time they had no guidelines on sending "tips" digitally, and when we asked for an exception (before building) we were granted it. Submission day, rejected. Cue 3 months of back and forth, which ended with "yeah, you gotta use IAP for that, and we're gonna take 30% from the tips."
tensor 2y ago
In the world of physical products, brick and mortar stores will take 40-50% of the revenue for selling your product. This is the norm. Even worse, production, shipping, and accounting all also cost vastly more. So while the 30% take of the app store is likely too much, you can't really do an "imagine if" because actually prior to the software industry things were far far far more difficult.
- _xnmw 2y ago
  Yeah but physical products are hard work, and cost a lot to store, move and display properly. Yet you can still sell directly to consumer if you wish. Software distribution costs basically nothing on the internet, AND Apple makes it impossible to sell directly to the user.
  - tensor 2y ago
    Sure, putting files on a CDN is very cheap. But, point of sales is a massive pain in the ass. Updates are a massive pain in the ass, notifying users of updates and security patches, not to mention marketing. These things are such a huge pain that I can see why a platform would charge more than pennies for them. Facing building out exactly this stuff myself using Stripe, a traditional website, building in licensing keys, etc etc. If something like the app store were multi-platform and had a bit more support around offline licensing and things like upgrade pricing, then honestly I would not immediately discount it even at 30% cut. Especially if I got some marketing out of it too. You can argue wether 30% is the right number, but what the app store provides is definitely not "basically nothing".
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

by _xnmw 2y ago

dialup_sounds 2y ago

> Imagine Google's Play Store and Microsoft's Xbox charge the same as Apple's App Store. Microsoft's Windows Store charges less, but nobody uses it store anyway.

yokoprime 2y ago
Because side-loading is a thing that works well on Windows.
- alt227 2y ago
  Not only works well, but is the default accepted way of installing applications.
- dialup_sounds 2y ago
  That's true, but on the other hand you have Steam, et al. that are popular in spite of that. Or the Mac App Store on macOS.

lolinder 2y ago

Imagine if Steam took 30% of all sales on their platform! Or if Nintendo or Sony or Microsoft charged developers 30% for online app sales! (Spoiler: they all do). There are lots of things worth criticizing about Apple's model, but I'll never understand the fixation on the 30% rule. They provide a distribution platform that is every bit as robust and has a much larger reach than the video game consoles, and if they want to charge the same prices as the consoles I don't see why that's the hill to die on when there are so many other things that are more obviously rotten.

hu3 2y ago
Steam is one of the many app stores I can use. Not the only one. Meanwhile Apple forces their app store down their customers throat. And charges for the forced privilege. Consoles are not general purpose devices. But I wouldn't mind if EU went after them as well
- lolinder 2y ago
  > Steam is one of the many app stores I can use. > Not the only one. A) For the video game consoles this isn't true, they have full control just like Apple does. B) Like I said, there are better hills to die on. App store monopoly is one that makes more sense to me (though I still actually disagree with the mainstream HN consensus on it).
  - alt227 2y ago
    > A) For the video game consoles this isn't true, they have full control just like Apple does. You can still go to any physical retail store and buy a game developed by a 3rd party. Yes that 3rd Party company had to pay a license fee to release the game on the hardware but you can still choose where you want to buy that game from, including any sales or discounts that retailer might see fit to try to gain your custom.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      Which is a right that Apple was willing to concede, but people flipped out when they announced you'd still have to pay the fee. Consoles get a pass for things that Apple gets raked over the coals for. There's clearly something more going on than just "these specific behaviors are unacceptable always", which is the simplified take that gets popular on HN.
      - alt227 2y ago
        >Which is a right that Apple was willing to concede Begrudgly and in a way that is very much viewed as malicious compliance, hence them now being investigated for it. >but people flipped out when they announced you'd still have to pay the fee I agree with them When I buy an App from the app store, Apple should take a cut for providing the infrastructure, payment system etc, thats fair. If I am buying something from a company directly from their website or marketplace, for a service they provide in that app, why should I pay Apple a fee?

euroderf 2y ago

30% is arguably justified for some tangible goods, depending on the value add of the channel(s) for sales & distribution. But digital goods? Thievery.

lolinder 2y ago
Tell that to Steam, which is generally well liked by developers and users alike. There's clearly something else going on than just the 30% number, and it's worth investigating what that is rather than fixating on the wrong thing.
- madeofpalk 2y ago
  It's never actually been about the 30%, it's just that that's the easiest manifestation. It's Apple's insistance to insert themselves into the relationship between developers and their users. The fee could be next-to-free and many would still be upset if they're not able to use their own payments infrastructure. Developers are not able to offer customers refunds on IAP or discounts or credits. Steam demonstrates that it's not about the 30%. It shows how 30% is viable in a competetive market if it's what consumers (and developers) prefer.
- andersa 2y ago
  The difference here is that you don't have to use Steam. For example, Epic Games is doing just fine providing downloads for Fortnite themselves.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    Yep, so the problem isn't how much they're charging at all, it's the tight lock down. I like your sibling comment's summation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40776710 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40776710

pier25 2y ago

Not only Apple charges their tax but they decide if you can distribute your iOS code to users. You can work for a year on an app for iPhone or iPad and then not be able to distribute it if Apple doesn't want to. This is not even hypothetical. Apple owns 30% of your business but has 100% control of it.

flutas 2y ago
> You can work for a year on an app for iPhone or iPad and then not be able to distribute it if Apple doesn't want to. Happened to my company. At the time they had no guidelines on sending "tips" digitally, and when we asked for an exception (before building) we were granted it. Submission day, rejected. Cue 3 months of back and forth, which ended with "yeah, you gotta use IAP for that, and we're gonna take 30% from the tips."

tensor 2y ago

In the world of physical products, brick and mortar stores will take 40-50% of the revenue for selling your product. This is the norm. Even worse, production, shipping, and accounting all also cost vastly more. So while the 30% take of the app store is likely too much, you can't really do an "imagine if" because actually prior to the software industry things were far far far more difficult.

_xnmw 2y ago
Yeah but physical products are hard work, and cost a lot to store, move and display properly. Yet you can still sell directly to consumer if you wish. Software distribution costs basically nothing on the internet, AND Apple makes it impossible to sell directly to the user.
- tensor 2y ago
  Sure, putting files on a CDN is very cheap. But, point of sales is a massive pain in the ass. Updates are a massive pain in the ass, notifying users of updates and security patches, not to mention marketing. These things are such a huge pain that I can see why a platform would charge more than pennies for them. Facing building out exactly this stuff myself using Stripe, a traditional website, building in licensing keys, etc etc. If something like the app store were multi-platform and had a bit more support around offline licensing and things like upgrade pricing, then honestly I would not immediately discount it even at 30% cut. Especially if I got some marketing out of it too. You can argue wether 30% is the right number, but what the app store provides is definitely not "basically nothing".

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]