What I find fascinating is all these nay sayers say how much Apple is robbing them with these fees. If a developer charges $.99 for their app and get *just* one million downloads, the developer makes a gross of close to $700,000! If they charge $1.99 they gross well over a million dollars. Some of the apps that I have purchased for film work are well over $19.99 and they are worth even more than that as they highly increase productivity to new levels. They are considered standard tools in a filmmakers toolkit so I know they have been very successful. These apps are not made by big corporations either!
I would highly disagree that small developers "cannot survive with those kinds of payments." Watch the video I posted above.
Devs aren't complaining as much about fees for paid apps, but fees for subscriptions where Apple pays no part. Apple gets pissy when devs offer subscriptions outside apps but not within.
Apple pays no part? If anything they play an even bigger one as that subscription is a reoccurring service on Apple's servers behalf. If Apple did not have the App Store and there was a subscription, the developer would have to come up with the infrastructure themselves to have this reoccurring service. Do you really think a small one person company could afford to come up with this on their own? Support it, design the code for the server, host the server, and ensure the money gets transferred to their bank account correctly? Oh and then some hacker finds their server and just for fun decides to do a DDS attack against it. Do you really think a small time developer could survive under these conditions? They would have to charge a lot more for their app to make up the cost of everything, and to ensure they get a proper cut from sales to make it worth their time developing everything.
All Apple has to do is open up iOS to sideloading apps. If they do that, they can charge whatever extortionate fees they want and it won't matter. But so long as they're maintaining a monopoly any fee at all is extortion.
And "no subscriptions unless we get paid our grift" is even worse than the absolutely insane 30%.
If they hadn't been so greedy and only charged 1% or 2%, they'd probably have gotten away with it forever. Hopefully congress takes this seriously and writes a new law explicitly banning app store/OS tying.
All Apple has to do is open up iOS to sideloading apps. If they do that, they can charge whatever extortionate fees they want and it won't matter. But so long as they're maintaining a monopoly any fee at all is extortion.
And "no subscriptions unless we get paid our grift" is even worse than the absolutely insane 30%.
If they hadn't been so greedy and only charged 1% or 2%, they'd probably have gotten away with it forever. Hopefully congress takes this seriously and writes a new law explicitly banning app store/OS tying.
I encourage you to buy your own server, write the software and pay for the bandwidth, and internet, and do it for free. Please tell me how that goes for you.
30% has always seemed on the high side and it has been controversial since day one. I don't know what the costs are but we do know Apple makes shedloads of money and it would make sense (to me), for Apple to share some of the spoils with the creative people who help make the platform so successful by lowering the prices.
So it 'seems' high but you have absolutely know idea why? Where did you get your degree in economics? The bottom line of all these arguments being made about fees and anti-competitive behavior is that Apple makes too much money. From claims of overpriced hardware to overpriced services, to overpriced App Store fees, it al boils down to being upset that Apple makes a lot of money and that, somehow, that's unfair. So it amazes me that your ilk chooses to buy Apple products and services at all. Yet you do, all the while bitching about how evil and anti-consumer Apple is.
All Apple has to do is open up iOS to sideloading apps. If they do that, they can charge whatever extortionate fees they want and it won't matter. But so long as they're maintaining a monopoly any fee at all is extortion.
And "no subscriptions unless we get paid our grift" is even worse than the absolutely insane 30%.
If they hadn't been so greedy and only charged 1% or 2%, they'd probably have gotten away with it forever. Hopefully congress takes this seriously and writes a new law explicitly banning app store/OS tying.
How is it extortion when it's voluntary on your part? You can 'sideload' (a fake techie bullshit term) all you want to on the competing platform, so why don't you. You have a choice. Why haven't you chosen?
These idiots in Congress need to examine wholesale prices before they open their mouths. Back in the physical software days, software publishers had to give distributors like Ingram Micro-D a 48 to 52% discount. And Apple's 30% fee includes credit card fees, which for a small company can be as much as 6%, so the 30% is really 24%.
Many electronic products, like TV's and cameras now wholesale for as much as 90% of selling price, completely screwing retailers. Why aren't they going after those companies? Bookstores generally get up to a 60% discount if they buy direct from the publisher, but if they buy from a distributor, like Ingram or Baker & Taylor, that discount can drop to 48%. Generally bookstores will order from the publisher for their initial order, but order from distributors to replace stock.
This all makes Apple's fees look like a bargain.
Why doesn't Congress look into how little money recording artists collect in royalties from streaming services and the like and how they get screwed by the labels, of which there are now only three majors: Warner, Sony and Universal.
How quickly people forget... before the AppStore, end users purchased apps, utilities, games, etc. from a retail store like Fry’s. Between the game developer and the retail store is the publisher (and sometimes a separate distributor) - each taking a cut.
Prior to the App Store, developers did not receive anything close to 70% of the sale price.
There is competition in that anyone can build apps and compete with existing apps in the App Store AND developers can create apps for any of a number of platform: Mac OS, iOS, Android, Windows, Playststion, XBox, switch, etc.
Big surprise. An uninformed lawmaker acting in a capricious and prejudicial way toward Apple in order to bully them into a corner. This used to be called “restraint of trade” and a “shakedown”. Now it’s just business as usual!
The real problem here, from a lawmaker perspective, is that Apple isn't ponying up nearly enough political lubricant to "warrant" the respect of the lawmakers. If you want to talk about "highway robbery" take a look at the interest rates and fees that payday lenders and credit card companies are able to get away with. May as well look at the pharmaceutical companies, big tobacco, petrochemicals, military-industrial complex, mining, big agra, and their massive layers of lobbyists who've figured out how to keep themselves in good graces by greasing the system in their favor. Apple's above-board, straight-guy, chat-up the don approach can only take them so far. All the bloodsuckers in the system need to be fed to keep everyone on board. Apple is being way too frugal, naive, and honest to survive in the political environment that they are forced to play in.
Big surprise. An uninformed lawmaker acting in a capricious and prejudicial way toward Apple in order to bully them into a corner. This used to be called “restraint of trade” and a “shakedown”. Now it’s just business as usual!
The real problem here, from a lawmaker perspective, is that Apple isn't ponying up nearly enough political lubricant to "warrant" the respect of the lawmakers. If you want to talk about "highway robbery" take a look at the interest rates and fees that payday lenders and credit card companies are able to get away with. May as well look at the pharmaceutical companies, big tobacco, petrochemicals, military-industrial complex, mining, big agra, and their massive layers of lobbyists who've figured out how to keep themselves in good graces by greasing the system in their favor. Apple's above-board, straight-guy, chat-up the don approach can only take them so far. All the bloodsuckers in the system need to be fed to keep everyone on board. Apple is being way too frugal, naive, and honest to survive in the political environment that they are forced to play in.
Regarding the “greasing the system” comment, I agree. Washington runs on sophisticated bribery schemes and Tim is still far too naive about playing that game. Apple subsequently gets investigated, threatened and dragged through the mud in public.
Big surprise. An uninformed lawmaker acting in a capricious and prejudicial way toward Apple in order to bully them into a corner. This used to be called “restraint of trade” and a “shakedown”. Now it’s just business as usual!
The real problem here, from a lawmaker perspective, is that Apple isn't ponying up nearly enough political lubricant to "warrant" the respect of the lawmakers. If you want to talk about "highway robbery" take a look at the interest rates and fees that payday lenders and credit card companies are able to get away with. May as well look at the pharmaceutical companies, big tobacco, petrochemicals, military-industrial complex, mining, big agra, and their massive layers of lobbyists who've figured out how to keep themselves in good graces by greasing the system in their favor. Apple's above-board, straight-guy, chat-up the don approach can only take them so far. All the bloodsuckers in the system need to be fed to keep everyone on board. Apple is being way too frugal, naive, and honest to survive in the political environment that they are forced to play in.
Regarding the “greasing the system” comment, I agree. Washington runs on sophisticated bribery schemes and Tim is still far too naive about playing that game. Apple subsequently gets investigated, threatened and dragged through the mud in public.
I'm pretty sure Tim isn't naive to this. He's well aware of it but chooses not to play that game. He plays differently and still manages a win for the people that really matter: The devs, the consumers, and the shareholders (as opposed to the politicians etc.)
All this would be so incredibly easy for Apple to fix. Halve the fees and stop dictating where people can subscribe to an app's services and everyone would be happy. Unfortunately Apple is like a stubborn old man, absolutely refuses to change until they're forced to legally or otherwise - Mac Pro 2013 as an example, seems they hoped it would go away as a problem if they left it long enough, and the constant attempts with the flawed butterfly keyboards. Considering third party apps are the lifeblood of the iPhone, Apple (and people here) act as if Apple is doing devs a favour - they are to a certain extent, but the devs aren't slaves (sorry if that word isn't allowed anymore). Without third party apps, where would the iPhone be now?
For these people 1/2 the fees would never be enough. If they could get that they would want 1/4.
What I find fascinating is all these nay sayers say how much Apple is robbing them with these fees. If a developer charges $.99 for their app and get *just* one million downloads, the developer makes a gross of close to $700,000! If they charge $1.99 they gross well over a million dollars. Some of the apps that I have purchased for film work are well over $19.99 and they are worth even more than that as they highly increase productivity to new levels. They are considered standard tools in a filmmakers toolkit so I know they have been very successful. These apps are not made by big corporations either!
I would highly disagree that small developers "cannot survive with those kinds of payments." Watch the video I posted above.
Devs aren't complaining as much about fees for paid apps, but fees for subscriptions where Apple pays no part. Apple gets pissy when devs offer subscriptions outside apps but not within.
So what devs want to is put their app in the store free to take advantage of the ease of download and easy updates and then keep any money made with the app. No dice. In the real world those are called freeloaders.
'Bullying' and '30%' are not the point. The point is if you don't accept Apple's terms it denies you access to the market.'
This is exactly the same as leasing a commercial building or renting an apartment. If you want to have your store on 5th Avenue in NYC then you have to pay the going rate. You do not get to dictate to a landlord that the price is unacceptable and you are taking it for 1/2. Desirability has costs and they maybe considered highway robbery, but that is how it works.
Comments
If you do not like the business deal Apple is offering you via the App Store, do not use it.
You are still free to develop and market web apps and you can do pretty much what you want with them.
There is no problem unless you are Microsoft and got run out of the mobile devices market.
Many electronic products, like TV's and cameras now wholesale for as much as 90% of selling price, completely screwing retailers. Why aren't they going after those companies? Bookstores generally get up to a 60% discount if they buy direct from the publisher, but if they buy from a distributor, like Ingram or Baker & Taylor, that discount can drop to 48%. Generally bookstores will order from the publisher for their initial order, but order from distributors to replace stock.
This all makes Apple's fees look like a bargain.
Why doesn't Congress look into how little money recording artists collect in royalties from streaming services and the like and how they get screwed by the labels, of which there are now only three majors: Warner, Sony and Universal.
The monopoly they should be investing are internet service providers, where many people one have one choice or only one good choice for broadband.
So what devs want to is put their app in the store free to take advantage of the ease of download and easy updates and then keep any money made with the app. No dice. In the real world those are called freeloaders.
This is exactly the same as leasing a commercial building or renting an apartment. If you want to have your store on 5th Avenue in NYC then you have to pay the going rate. You do not get to dictate to a landlord that the price is unacceptable and you are taking it for 1/2. Desirability has costs and they maybe considered highway robbery, but that is how it works.