4 ms·

Another outstanding decision vetted by Tim Cook. In all seriousness, finance people see everything through the lens of margins and money primarily. Since any c

by sinnsro 8mo ago

Another outstanding decision vetted by Tim Cook. In all seriousness, finance people see everything through the lens of margins and money primarily. Since any company's function is to deliver value to its shareholders, if allowed, bean counters will scorch the earth for it. Ultimately, this is at odds on how Jobs approached things, i.e., money was not the end all be all.

WA 8mo ago
Apple's 30% tax was introduced under Steve Jobs and there were no small business exemptions back then. Jobs died in 2011. It's time to stop extrapolating what Jobs would be doing 15 years later in 2026 if he were still around. Could be the same, could be better, could be worse.
- pjmlp 8mo ago
  In a time were operators where charging up to 90% for other stores. Those with listings of SMS codes for which app to download, depending on the phone OS. So it was a great deal back in 2008.
  - bigyabai 8mo ago
    If Apple adopted the 90%, they would still be criticized. The fact remains that it was a very stupid system in 2008, and lowering the percentage doesn't obviate Apple's perverse incentives.
  - WA 8mo ago
    You are talking about phone apps, I'm talking about "software licenses sold over the internet".
- isk517 8mo ago
  It isn't 'You either die a hero or live long enough to become a villain', it's 'You either die a hero or live long enough for people to realize you are a villain'. While it's ultimately meaningless to speculate on what the dead would do if they were living, Steve Jobs in life did have plenty of belief and made plenty of decisions that are perfectly inline with what we are seeing in 2026 and there is no particular reason to believe he would not just be up there with the worst of them.
vjvjvjvjghv 8mo ago
Jobs was a greedy bastard like all the other CEOs. The difference is that he also had mostly good taste as far as products go.
- ndr42 8mo ago
  At that time 30% was not something you would consider high in contrast to the situation before the advent of app stores.
  - WA 8mo ago
    This is outrageously wrong. Back in 2011, the pricing model for "an app in your pocket" was 99 cents. The universal pricing model of apps was a one-time fee and the pricing range was that of an mp3 roughly. 30% of that is a lot. App sales worked only in volume. If you sold software over the internet, you had PayPal, which had a flat fee of $0.35 + 1.7% or so and if your shareware was $30, the transaction fee essentially was ~$1. Stripe had roughly the same fee when they launched. You had more traditional credit card merchants and when I inquired one in Germany back in 2010, it was more or less in the same ballpark (~10%). In Europe, you could also just get money wired, which cost you something like 0-10 cents. 30% for payment processing were always extremely high. Edit: The only thing where you had no other options was when you tried to sell stuff on the internet for $1, because the flat fee part of credit card processors would eat up all of that. Apple indeed helped here a little bit, because it was always 30% and no fixed part.
    - anomaly_ 8mo ago
      It's not a "processing fee". It's an distribution/access/market fee for the captive audience that Apple has spent tens of billions developing and supporting. If you think you can make any money selling software on the internet and paying nothing other than $0.35 + 1.7%, think again.
      - WA 8mo ago
        Yeah I heard this before, but no, it is mostly a processing fee. The reality is: - Developers helped to make Apple the platform it is today. - Apple had their 30% fee when the App Store was MUCH smaller. It's not like that fee came only after they had the audience. - Apple will do zero marketing for you unless you are already successful. - Apple doesn't earn money with the most popular free apps, but still hosts them. They could charge by traffic, by downloads, whatever, but they won't. - Apple will charge you if you make money in the app. They will force you to use their payment processor if you want to make money. So, it is 100% a processing fee and everything else either came later or isn't congruent with what they actually charge money for.
spacebanana7 8mo ago
Tim Cook is usually good at politics, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Nobody other some CNBC guests really gets too upset when they take 30% from tinder, music or mobile gaming companies. And those types of apps run by unpopular large companies make up the majority of App Store revenue. However, newspapers and content creators are popular in a way that carries political weight. It'd be wise for Apple exempt these categories and write off the few hundred million in forgone revenue as a political expense. For example allowing the NYT or Joe Rogan to have nice paid apps with no fees would be a much more effective use of money than the same amount in political donations.
- dwaite 8mo ago
  Apple doesn't do partner exceptions (one of the complaints Epic had about working with them is that Apple wouldn't negotiate lower rates with companies, unlike the game consoles.) They do have carve outs in the agreement, such as the 'reader' exception. Newspapers I believe also fall under the 'reader' exception. I have suspected for a while that the 15%-after-the-first-year subscription rate drop was a carve out targeted specifically at trying to retain Netflix IAP. However, Netflix was able to operate without IAP because of the "reader" exception.

by sinnsro 8mo ago

WA 8mo ago

Apple's 30% tax was introduced under Steve Jobs and there were no small business exemptions back then. Jobs died in 2011. It's time to stop extrapolating what Jobs would be doing 15 years later in 2026 if he were still around. Could be the same, could be better, could be worse.

pjmlp 8mo ago
In a time were operators where charging up to 90% for other stores. Those with listings of SMS codes for which app to download, depending on the phone OS. So it was a great deal back in 2008.
- bigyabai 8mo ago
  If Apple adopted the 90%, they would still be criticized. The fact remains that it was a very stupid system in 2008, and lowering the percentage doesn't obviate Apple's perverse incentives.
- WA 8mo ago
  You are talking about phone apps, I'm talking about "software licenses sold over the internet".
isk517 8mo ago
It isn't 'You either die a hero or live long enough to become a villain', it's 'You either die a hero or live long enough for people to realize you are a villain'. While it's ultimately meaningless to speculate on what the dead would do if they were living, Steve Jobs in life did have plenty of belief and made plenty of decisions that are perfectly inline with what we are seeing in 2026 and there is no particular reason to believe he would not just be up there with the worst of them.

vjvjvjvjghv 8mo ago

Jobs was a greedy bastard like all the other CEOs. The difference is that he also had mostly good taste as far as products go.

ndr42 8mo ago
At that time 30% was not something you would consider high in contrast to the situation before the advent of app stores.
- WA 8mo ago
  This is outrageously wrong. Back in 2011, the pricing model for "an app in your pocket" was 99 cents. The universal pricing model of apps was a one-time fee and the pricing range was that of an mp3 roughly. 30% of that is a lot. App sales worked only in volume. If you sold software over the internet, you had PayPal, which had a flat fee of $0.35 + 1.7% or so and if your shareware was $30, the transaction fee essentially was ~$1. Stripe had roughly the same fee when they launched. You had more traditional credit card merchants and when I inquired one in Germany back in 2010, it was more or less in the same ballpark (~10%). In Europe, you could also just get money wired, which cost you something like 0-10 cents. 30% for payment processing were always extremely high. Edit: The only thing where you had no other options was when you tried to sell stuff on the internet for $1, because the flat fee part of credit card processors would eat up all of that. Apple indeed helped here a little bit, because it was always 30% and no fixed part.
  - anomaly_ 8mo ago
    It's not a "processing fee". It's an distribution/access/market fee for the captive audience that Apple has spent tens of billions developing and supporting. If you think you can make any money selling software on the internet and paying nothing other than $0.35 + 1.7%, think again.
    - WA 8mo ago
      Yeah I heard this before, but no, it is mostly a processing fee. The reality is: - Developers helped to make Apple the platform it is today. - Apple had their 30% fee when the App Store was MUCH smaller. It's not like that fee came only after they had the audience. - Apple will do zero marketing for you unless you are already successful. - Apple doesn't earn money with the most popular free apps, but still hosts them. They could charge by traffic, by downloads, whatever, but they won't. - Apple will charge you if you make money in the app. They will force you to use their payment processor if you want to make money. So, it is 100% a processing fee and everything else either came later or isn't congruent with what they actually charge money for.

spacebanana7 8mo ago

Tim Cook is usually good at politics, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Nobody other some CNBC guests really gets too upset when they take 30% from tinder, music or mobile gaming companies. And those types of apps run by unpopular large companies make up the majority of App Store revenue. However, newspapers and content creators are popular in a way that carries political weight. It'd be wise for Apple exempt these categories and write off the few hundred million in forgone revenue as a political expense. For example allowing the NYT or Joe Rogan to have nice paid apps with no fees would be a much more effective use of money than the same amount in political donations.

dwaite 8mo ago
Apple doesn't do partner exceptions (one of the complaints Epic had about working with them is that Apple wouldn't negotiate lower rates with companies, unlike the game consoles.) They do have carve outs in the agreement, such as the 'reader' exception. Newspapers I believe also fall under the 'reader' exception. I have suspected for a while that the 15%-after-the-first-year subscription rate drop was a carve out targeted specifically at trying to retain Netflix IAP. However, Netflix was able to operate without IAP because of the "reader" exception.