I am not sure how Apple stifles innovation since every platform charges the same 30%. The app developers reach a larger audience and get more subscriptions as a result. Though companies like Netflix began streaming online and from game consoles first. Apple doesn't prevent companies from selling subscriptions online so they are not stifling anything. Music streaming is way overblown. Spotify has a small paying customer base compared to their free tier and that will get smaller once the labels flex their muscles with higher licensing. If anything the content owners are the ones stifling innovation due to their higher costs. If Apple lowers their take, it will be a sign to the content owners that Apple is now a weak negotiator and it will never stop. Apple should shut down the iTunes music store for a little while to show the labels whose bottem line is more dependent on music sales.
Except Apple forces all IAP to go through them (and thus earn them a 30% cut). Google does not. Being able to purchase a subscription via the app is more convenient. And as far as I know Apple doesn't even allow a redirect to Safari to complete the subscription/purchase. With Google I believe developers are allowed to offer that in app.
As an app developer, I'm more than happy to pay 30% for apps and in-app purchases. But for subscriptions, where Apple has little to do apart from process a credit card once every year? It's likely to stifle innovation on the platform.
Hopefully if Apple makes changes it's consistent across the board and not Apple playing favorites with certain companies. Look at ?TV now. There is zero transparency around how a 'channel' shows up. And you get every 'channel' whether you want it or not. I hope that changes when the new ?TV is announced. Let users download the 'channels' they want.
I am not sure how Apple stifles innovation since every platform charges the same 30%. The app developers reach a larger audience and get more subscriptions as a result. Though companies like Netflix began streaming online and from game consoles first. Apple doesn't prevent companies from selling subscriptions online so they are not stifling anything. Music streaming is way overblown. Spotify has a small paying customer base compared to their free tier and that will get smaller once the labels flex their muscles with higher licensing. If anything the content owners are the ones stifling innovation due to their higher costs. If Apple lowers their take, it will be a sign to the content owners that Apple is now a weak negotiator and it will never stop. Apple should shut down the iTunes music store for a little while to show the labels whose bottem line is more dependent on music sales.
Except Apple forces all IAP to go through them (and thus earn them a 30% cut). Google does not. Being able to purchase a subscription via the app is more convenient. And as far as I know Apple doesn't even allow a redirect to Safari to complete the subscription/purchase. With Google I believe developers are allowed to offer that in app.
A recurring 30% fee to handle a one time transaction is astronomical.
You're wrong. In a shopping center, the rent is usually stated as a minimum guaranteed rent per square foot of leased area against a percentage. Typically, this percentage is between 5 and 7 percent of gross sales, but it varies by type of business and other factors. This means that if the rent calculated by the percentage of sales is higher than the guaranteed rent, you pay the higher amount. If it is lower than the guaranteed rent, then you pay the guaranteed rent amount.
Apple's 30/70 split is copied by all other 'app stores', so Apple did something right.
Also, only a person completely ignorant of the historical percentage split between retail stores and software sellers (not to mention the additional costs for distribution and rack jobbers) could be forgiven for such an uninformed comment.
Apple's 30/70 split is copied by all other 'app stores', so Apple did something right.
Also, only a person completely ignorant of the historical percentage split between retail stores and software sellers (not to mention the additional costs for distribution and rack jobbers) could be forgiven for such an uninformed comment.
In short, stop trolling and get a life.
Funny how Apple is constantly vying for favorable rates for just about everything and won't give any. That's hypocritical.
Funny how Apple is constantly vying for favorable rates for just about everything and won't give any. That's hypocritical.
Hypocritical in what respect? They are the top of the heap and they set the terms. If they make mistakes or are shortsighted in their decision making, they pay for it with market share. Why are you trying so hard to create some kind of imaginary scenario in which all things are equal? All things are not equal.
Apple's 30/70 split is copied by all other 'app stores', so Apple did something right.
Also, only a person completely ignorant of the historical percentage split between retail stores and software sellers (not to mention the additional costs for distribution and rack jobbers) could be forgiven for such an uninformed comment.
In short, stop trolling and get a life.
Wow, that's defensive.
Apple set the standard and Android copied it. That doesn't mean it isn't an expensive payment processing fee. Also note that other app stores are not so restrictive about dictating their own payment processing - apps can use alternatives if they want. And many other app stores don't have recurring billing in the same way iOS does, so it's not really the same.
The historical percentage is irrelevant, the Apple Store is not a brick and mortar store and does not carry the same distribution overheads, it is not the same deal. The fee for subscriptions in terms of overhead is purely about payment processing, nothing else, and vendors need to host and deliver their own content, and 30% is higher than any other pure payment processing outside of the app store ecosystems. WorldPay don't charge 30%, PayPal don't charge 30%, AllPay don't charge 30%, Amazon Payments don't charge 30%; none of them charge anything like that.
Apple set the standard and Android copied it. That doesn't mean it isn't an expensive payment processing fee. Also note that other app stores are not so restrictive about dictating their own payment processing - apps can use alternatives if they want. And many other app stores don't have recurring billing in the same way iOS does, so it's not really the same.
The historical percentage is irrelevant, the Apple Store is not a brick and mortar store and does not carry the same distribution overheads, it is not the same deal. The fee for subscriptions in terms of overhead is purely about payment processing, nothing else, and vendors need to host and deliver their own content, and 30% is higher than any other pure payment processing outside of the app store ecosystems. WorldPay don't charge 30%, PayPal don't charge 30%, AllPay don't charge 30%, Amazon Payments don't charge 30%; none of them charge anything like that.
Funny how Apple is constantly vying for favorable rates for just about everything and won't give any. That's hypocritical.
Hypocritical in what respect? They are the top of the heap and they set the terms. If they make mistakes or are shortsighted in their decision making, they pay for it with market share. Why are you trying so hard to create some kind of imaginary scenario in which all things are equal? All things are not equal.
To think that no one else deserves to get favorable terms except yourself. Nobody gets to the top without help. If all you do is take, and give little in return you'll find yourself with less and less friends. Even if the transaction is recurring 30% is still astronomical.
To think that no one else deserves to get favorable terms except yourself. Nobody gets to the top without help. If all you do is take, and give little in return you'll find yourself with less and less friends. Even if the transaction is recurring 30% is still astronomical.
To think that no one else deserves to get favorable terms except yourself. Nobody gets to the top without help. If all you do is take, and give little in return you'll find yourself with less and less friends. Even if the transaction is recurring 30% is still astronomical.
What in the world are you talking about?
Plainer English it could not have been, but I'll clarify. If I create an app with IAPs I have no other way to get that app to users other than the app store. Apple stores my app, handles distribution, and the transaction. For all that 30% is reasonable. Now take Netflix, Apple handles the transaction but Netflix takes care of the storage and distribution of their content, and there are other ways a user can sign up for it. In that case 30% is an obscene amount to charge.
Plainer English it could not have been, but I'll clarify. If I create an app with IAPs I have no other way to get that app to users other than the app store. Apple stores my app, handles distribution, and the transaction. For all that 30% is reasonable. Now take Netflix, Apple handles the transaction but Netflix takes care of the storage and distribution of their content, and there are other ways a user can sign up for it. In that case 30% is an obscene amount to charge.
Again, that makes no bloody sense. One subscribes to Netflix directly through their web site. There is no 30% cut that goes to Apple. The Netflix app is only for viewing.
Plainer English it could not have been, but I'll clarify. If I create an app with IAPs I have no other way to get that app to users other than the app store. Apple stores my app, handles distribution, and the transaction. For all that 30% is reasonable. Now take Netflix, Apple handles the transaction but Netflix takes care of the storage and distribution of their content, and there are other ways a user can sign up for it. In that case 30% is an obscene amount to charge.
Again, that makes no bloody sense. One subscribes to Netflix directly through their web site. There is no 30% cut that goes to Apple. The Netflix app is only for viewing.
The reason there isn't the convenience of subscribing through their app is because of the 30% fee.
Again, that makes no bloody sense. One subscribes to Netflix directly through their web site. There is no 30% cut that goes to Apple. The Netflix app is only for viewing.
There is no 30% cut because Netflix don't want to pay it.
Comments
Except Apple forces all IAP to go through them (and thus earn them a 30% cut). Google does not. Being able to purchase a subscription via the app is more convenient. And as far as I know Apple doesn't even allow a redirect to Safari to complete the subscription/purchase. With Google I believe developers are allowed to offer that in app.
Hopefully if Apple makes changes it's consistent across the board and not Apple playing favorites with certain companies. Look at ?TV now. There is zero transparency around how a 'channel' shows up. And you get every 'channel' whether you want it or not. I hope that changes when the new ?TV is announced. Let users download the 'channels' they want.
A recurring 30% fee to handle a one time transaction is astronomical.
Sounds like feudalism.
However, it's not a one time transaction. It's a recurring transaction and Apple is the conduit for those recurring transactions.
^ A pretty expensive conduit.
Apple's 30/70 split is copied by all other 'app stores', so Apple did something right.
Also, only a person completely ignorant of the historical percentage split between retail stores and software sellers (not to mention the additional costs for distribution and rack jobbers) could be forgiven for such an uninformed comment.
In short, stop trolling and get a life.
If you subscribe to Netflix they bill you monthly not Apple. They handle the transactions after the initial one.
Funny how Apple is constantly vying for favorable rates for just about everything and won't give any. That's hypocritical.
If you subscribe to Netflix they bill you monthly not Apple. They handle the transactions after the initial one.
If you subscribe to Netflix, you go to Netflix.com, not through Apple's store.
Funny how Apple is constantly vying for favorable rates for just about everything and won't give any. That's hypocritical.
Hypocritical in what respect? They are the top of the heap and they set the terms. If they make mistakes or are shortsighted in their decision making, they pay for it with market share. Why are you trying so hard to create some kind of imaginary scenario in which all things are equal? All things are not equal.
Apple's 30/70 split is copied by all other 'app stores', so Apple did something right.
Also, only a person completely ignorant of the historical percentage split between retail stores and software sellers (not to mention the additional costs for distribution and rack jobbers) could be forgiven for such an uninformed comment.
In short, stop trolling and get a life.
Wow, that's defensive.
Apple set the standard and Android copied it. That doesn't mean it isn't an expensive payment processing fee. Also note that other app stores are not so restrictive about dictating their own payment processing - apps can use alternatives if they want. And many other app stores don't have recurring billing in the same way iOS does, so it's not really the same.
The historical percentage is irrelevant, the Apple Store is not a brick and mortar store and does not carry the same distribution overheads, it is not the same deal. The fee for subscriptions in terms of overhead is purely about payment processing, nothing else, and vendors need to host and deliver their own content, and 30% is higher than any other pure payment processing outside of the app store ecosystems. WorldPay don't charge 30%, PayPal don't charge 30%, AllPay don't charge 30%, Amazon Payments don't charge 30%; none of them charge anything like that.
Wow, that's defensive.
Apple set the standard and Android copied it. That doesn't mean it isn't an expensive payment processing fee. Also note that other app stores are not so restrictive about dictating their own payment processing - apps can use alternatives if they want. And many other app stores don't have recurring billing in the same way iOS does, so it's not really the same.
The historical percentage is irrelevant, the Apple Store is not a brick and mortar store and does not carry the same distribution overheads, it is not the same deal. The fee for subscriptions in terms of overhead is purely about payment processing, nothing else, and vendors need to host and deliver their own content, and 30% is higher than any other pure payment processing outside of the app store ecosystems. WorldPay don't charge 30%, PayPal don't charge 30%, AllPay don't charge 30%, Amazon Payments don't charge 30%; none of them charge anything like that.
So please, call me an uninformed troll again.
You're an uninformed troll and everyone knows it.
You're welcome.
Excellent response.
I haven't clicked on the little red flag since Frosty got kicked.
To think that no one else deserves to get favorable terms except yourself. Nobody gets to the top without help. If all you do is take, and give little in return you'll find yourself with less and less friends. Even if the transaction is recurring 30% is still astronomical.
What in the world are you talking about?
Plainer English it could not have been, but I'll clarify. If I create an app with IAPs I have no other way to get that app to users other than the app store. Apple stores my app, handles distribution, and the transaction. For all that 30% is reasonable. Now take Netflix, Apple handles the transaction but Netflix takes care of the storage and distribution of their content, and there are other ways a user can sign up for it. In that case 30% is an obscene amount to charge.
Again, that makes no bloody sense. One subscribes to Netflix directly through their web site. There is no 30% cut that goes to Apple. The Netflix app is only for viewing.
The reason there isn't the convenience of subscribing through their app is because of the 30% fee.
There is no 30% cut because Netflix don't want to pay it.