I believe Apple will need to lower app provisions from 30% to about 15% ( Windows Store has 5%)! Alternative app stores should be allowed too, because no single company should decide what apps can be installed.
I believe Apple will need to lower app provisions from 30% to about 15% ( Windows Store has 5%)! Alternative app stores should be allowed too, because no single company should decide what apps can be installed.
Are you really this ignorant, or are you trolling?
These kind of people are the ones that have me wishing message boards would shut down.
The same system they decry is what gets them to all of their customers
I don't think Netflix, Spotify, Hey or developers working in niche markets with multi-platform products get all their customers from the App Store. The 30% commission is justifiable for a customer acquisition, but not for a download service when the developer brings the customers. Apple could distinguish between these cases by using referral codes or offering the option of "unlisted" apps for developers who don't need the App Store for promotion, and adjust their fees accordingly.
That's math, that's economics, that's business. Not wanting to pay for a service does not mean that the service costs too much universally.
The "free market" arguments would make sense if Apple didn't hold a monopoly on the most important mobile ecosystem, and developers had any other way to distribute apps to that segment of its customers. I'm not saying the platform should be opened up like macOS or Android; I'm saying that as long as there aren't alternatives, you can't argue that market forces have proven the validity of a price, or casually invite developers to go elsewhere if they don't like it.
I released my first app, a quirky personal project, in 2010 and thought the commission was fair at the time. Now I'm involved in substantial, multi-platform services that have their own life beyond the App Store, and have costs beyond the software itself, and sending off 30% of the revenue for those doesn't seem appropriate. The partial reduction of subscription fees from 30% to 15% was an acknowledgement that the app landscape had changed, but now I'd like to see Apple make more reforms rather than double down on the old rules.
I'm actually not sure why anyone other than Apple itself would argue for high developer fees. Do people think Apple's products would suffer without this revenue? That's the only reason I can think of. Arguing to lower or eliminate developer fees, undercutting the other platforms, makes more sense. That would further incentivize developers to focus on iOS, and make it an even more attractive ecosystem for Apple's current and potential customers.
It's not about the developer fee. It's about Apple having absolute control over what users are allowed to do with the devices they own. As someone who started programming on micro computers decades ago, I find this concept abhorrent. It's your device. You own it. It is extremely powerful and has many amazing features and capabilities. Many of them are locked behind Apple's code walls. You are prevented from accessing them for your own good. Apple has no such restrictions and can use those features without you even knowing they exist. Right now there is a massive controversy brewing over the COVID-19 trackers that Apple built into the latest iOS update. Apple is using features of the iPhone not available to users and developers to track users contacts with each other. Apple won't even allow developers to test the features and learn how they work unless they are affiliated with a government agency. That is freaking everyone out and rightfully so. We trust Apple but not that much.
You may own the device but you do not own the OS. This is licensed to you and you agree to the terms and conditions the first time you turn it on - this is your contract. You are however free to install any OS you please, but Apple is not obligated to make it easy for you. As a developer using the App Store, they also agree to the terms and conditions prior to making and submitting any Apps. If they don’t agree with these conditions, they don’t have to enter into that contract.
As a consumer, if you don’t agree to Apple’s terms, you are free to go to another brand. As a developer, if you don’t agree to Apple’s terms, you are free to develop for another platform.
Nobody is being forced by Apple to do anything and the end user retains choice.
The same system they decry is what gets them to all of their customers
I don't think Netflix, Spotify, Hey or developers working in niche markets with multi-platform products get all their customers from the App Store. The 30% commission is justifiable for a customer acquisition, but not for a download service when the developer brings the customers. Apple could distinguish between these cases by using referral codes or offering the option of "unlisted" apps for developers who don't need the App Store for promotion, and adjust their fees accordingly.
That's math, that's economics, that's business. Not wanting to pay for a service does not mean that the service costs too much universally.
The "free market" arguments would make sense if Apple didn't hold a monopoly on the most important mobile ecosystem, and developers had any other way to distribute apps to that segment of its customers. I'm not saying the platform should be opened up like macOS or Android; I'm saying that as long as there aren't alternatives, you can't argue that market forces have proven the validity of a price, or casually invite developers to go elsewhere if they don't like it.
I released my first app, a quirky personal project, in 2010 and thought the commission was fair at the time. Now I'm involved in substantial, multi-platform services that have their own life beyond the App Store, and have costs beyond the software itself, and sending off 30% of the revenue for those doesn't seem appropriate. The partial reduction of subscription fees from 30% to 15% was an acknowledgement that the app landscape had changed, but now I'd like to see Apple make more reforms rather than double down on the old rules.
I'm actually not sure why anyone other than Apple itself would argue for high developer fees. Do people think Apple's products would suffer without this revenue? That's the only reason I can think of. Arguing to lower or eliminate developer fees, undercutting the other platforms, makes more sense. That would further incentivize developers to focus on iOS, and make it an even more attractive ecosystem for Apple's current and potential customers.
Apple does not impose high developer fees. The developer fee is $99 / yr. What you pay in the AppStore is not a fee, it is a sales commission. This is the best online selling model ever seen, since it does not require an upfront listing fee, like eBay, Amazon and almost all online marketplaces impose.
In regard to the original post, I’m not sure that you have a real point. Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney Plus and Spotify all have In App Purchasing. As an Apple user, I choose Apple exactly because I can purchase and sign up for subscriptions directly from the App. This means my credit card exposure is exactly 1 company. This means I only need to update it with Apple instead of tens of companies when it expires. It means my personal data is safe and it means it is less likely to be hacked given Apple likely has much better security than the majority of small companies. Finally, I can manage all my subscriptions in a single place. This is a much better customer experience than the alternative.
I understand that I can sign up at their respective websites and that’s a good thing - it’s called choice. “Hey” is limiting customer choice by not having IAP and they are FORCING users to sign up at their website. And they make Apple out to be the bad guy.
The issue as Apple has described it is Hey has no functionality for the average joe who downloads what they think is an email app. Hey is invitation only right now so the average joe cannot use their app at all. This zero functionality is why Hey has been pinged, not the lack of IAP.
In regard to the original post, I’m not sure that you have a real point. Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney Plus and Spotify all have In App Purchasing. As an Apple user, I choose Apple exactly because I can purchase and sign up for subscriptions directly from the App. This means my credit card exposure is exactly 1 company. This means I only need to update it with Apple instead of tens of companies when it expires.
Netflix has been like this for some time, but Spotify more recently stopped offering it, November of last year. Not 100% sure about Amazon Prime and Disney Plus but I think you (still) can with them.
I can see a lot of people -- most prominently Hey's developer -- have never owned a physical business, particularly a business that operates in something like a mall.
To be fair, malls don't charge a percentage of your sales -- but they do charge for the costs of operating the mall and all the services thus provided (from security to parking to lights and janitorial) that are included in the rent, plus a healthy profit for the mall owner. From experience, this will be not very different than the amount Apple charges on sales.
And if you opened a store in a mall and just gave stuff away free (as Apple mostly does, particularly on "free" games where they have to hope players make in-app purchases) -- your bill from the mall would not go down one iota, so you'd be broke pretty quickly. OTOH, Apple will let you put a free app out there and never collect a dime other than a percentage on in-app purchases.
The fact of the matter is that the Apple/Google stores charge much less than the boxed distribution model in retail stores ever did -- about half as much -- because they eliminated a middleman (the distributor). This is precisely the reason the iTunes Store was such a quick success over physical sales until streaming came along ... and where streaming has managed to be a lot cheaper than digital download is primarily by paying the creators/owners of the music a lot less than the digital download model paid.
So if you as a developer want software to go down the same road as streaming, keep on complaining about the two biggest app stores. I'm not surprised Microsoft is getting in on this -- their motivation is very clear because nobody uses the Microsoft app store unless there's no other option; it's as popular as physical MS stores. There's a reason why most developers no longer bother setting up their own separate shops on the Mac (where they are 100 percent free to do so) -- because (surprise) their costs are greater than going through the Mac App Store in most cases.
IMHO, Hey may be sincere about seeking to reform the App Store (though funny they never mention Google Play at all ...), but I suspect the devs are too young to know the history of software distribution so as to know how reasonable 15-30 percent actually is ... nor have they tried to set up their own shop. Primarily, though, I think they're using the publicity they get from raising a stink to try a promote a service that almost nobody will find worth the money.
That's not to say that Apple's model is without any room for improvement -- particularly in app discovery -- but most people (and oddly, Hey's developers) do not seem to have the slightest clue of "the cost of doing business" at nearly any level of the real world.
I can see a lot of people -- most prominently Hey's developer -- have never owned a physical business, particularly a business that operates in something like a mall.
To be fair, malls don't charge a percentage of your sales -- but they do charge for the costs of operating the mall and all the services thus provided (from security to parking to lights and janitorial) that are included in the rent, plus a healthy profit for the mall owner. From experience, this will be not very different than the amount Apple charges on sales.
And if you opened a store in a mall and just gave stuff away free (as Apple mostly does, particularly on "free" games where they have to hope players make in-app purchases) -- your bill from the mall would not go down one iota, so you'd be broke pretty quickly. OTOH, Apple will let you put a free app out there and never collect a dime other than a percentage on in-app purchases.
The fact of the matter is that the Apple/Google stores charge much less than the boxed distribution model in retail stores ever did -- about half as much -- because they eliminated a middleman (the distributor). This is precisely the reason the iTunes Store was such a quick success over physical sales until streaming came along ... and where streaming has managed to be a lot cheaper than digital download is primarily by paying the creators/owners of the music a lot less than the digital download model paid.
So if you as a developer want software to go down the same road as streaming, keep on complaining about the two biggest app stores. I'm not surprised Microsoft is getting in on this -- their motivation is very clear because nobody uses the Microsoft app store unless there's no other option; it's as popular as physical MS stores. There's a reason why most developers no longer bother setting up their own separate shops on the Mac (where they are 100 percent free to do so) -- because (surprise) their costs are greater than going through the Mac App Store in most cases.
IMHO, Hey may be sincere about seeking to reform the App Store (though funny they never mention Google Play at all ...), but I suspect the devs are too young to know the history of software distribution so as to know how reasonable 15-30 percent actually is ... nor have they tried to set up their own shop. Primarily, though, I think they're using the publicity they get from raising a stink to try a promote a service that almost nobody will find worth the money.
That's not to say that Apple's model is without any room for improvement -- particularly in app discovery -- but most people (and oddly, Hey's developers) do not seem to have the slightest clue of "the cost of doing business" at nearly any level of the real world.
I can see a lot of people -- most prominently Hey's developer -- have never owned a physical business, particularly a business that operates in something like a mall. To be fair, malls don't charge a percentage of your sales -- but they do charge for the costs of operating the mall and all the services thus provided (from security to parking to lights and janitorial) that are included in the rent, plus a healthy profit for the mall owner.
To make the mall analogy fit, you would have to stipulate that anyone living in the neighborhood of an Apple mall is not allowed to obtain products anywhere else, so the only way a business can deliver a product to those customers is through Apple's malls. Businesses can advertise and set up their own stores outside the malls at their own expense, and often do because the malls are so crowded, but they cannot actually hand the product over to the customer in their own stores and the customer must still go to the mall to get it.
The better analogy is trying to get your product stocked in a retailer such as walmart, costco or target for example. Here, the retailer typically takes 60% and you take the remaining 40%. Not only is Apple the distributor, but the retailer, payment processor and marketer as well. You are welcome to go elsewhere, but all the other App stores are charging the same, yet Apple provide access to customers willing to spend more.
Why is retail sales of a physical product the benchmark?
Also, I think people are really overestimating the value of the App Store as a marketing resource. I can't remember the last time I downloaded an app that I wasn't aware of until I found it on the App Store. When I survey my own customers, they're mostly finding my product in other ways.
I can see a lot of people -- most prominently Hey's developer -- have never owned a physical business, particularly a business that operates in something like a mall. To be fair, malls don't charge a percentage of your sales -- but they do charge for the costs of operating the mall and all the services thus provided (from security to parking to lights and janitorial) that are included in the rent, plus a healthy profit for the mall owner.
To make the mall analogy fit, you would have to stipulate that anyone living in the neighborhood of an Apple mall is not allowed to obtain products anywhere else, so the only way a business can deliver a product to those customers is through Apple's malls. Businesses can advertise and set up their own stores outside the malls at their own expense, and often do because the malls are so crowded, but they cannot actually hand the product over to the customer in their own stores and the customer must still go to the mall to get it.
Your analogy fails at the very first sentence because right next to the Apple Mall is the Android Mall where you are free to go and set up shop if you don’t like the rules in the Apple Mall.
The Apple ecosystem is a product in a market, it is not a market itself. If you decide that it is then what you’re saying that once a business gets to certain level of profit (not size, profit, because the Apple ecosystem is still smaller than the Android ecosystem) then that business should be forced to damage itself.
But let’s look at Hey for a second and apply your mall scenario to them. Here’s their problem:
Folk come into the Apple Mall, and because the Mall stipulates that vendors have to be transparent about pricing, Hey realised that they will need to put their prices of $99/year, $349/year and $999/year in their shop window, where passing customers can easily compare prices with similar services and see that Hey prices are basically a scam.
So what Hey wants to do is just have an empty shopfront with a man standing outside who persuades customers to get in a van, get driven to a suspect neighbourhood to “close the deal”.
This article misses one vital point when comparing Hey with other apps that do nothing until you sign up. For one thing, there is a good chance that customers will already have an account before they download the app. But that’s not it.
The other services have a page where you can sign up, so Apple can actually check the process and make sure that their customers are being signed up securely and Hey is charging what they say they’re charging.
Hey does not have a sign-up page on its website. Or if they do, it’s hidden until you email them and they give you the URL. Why is that? Is this an email service or a crack house?
Why is retail sales of a physical product the benchmark?
Also, I think people are really overestimating the value of the App Store as a marketing resource. I can't remember the last time I downloaded an app that I wasn't aware of until I found it on the App Store. When I survey my own customers, they're mostly finding my product in other ways.
Might be for you, but certainly not for me.
I start all my searches from the App Store (though I never seem attracted to the apps that have paid for advertising). I sometimes buy apps because they’ve been featured in the App Store editorials.
But I tell you what. If you don’t think the App Store is helping you find paying customers then pull your apps, rewrite them for Android and reap the benefits of the larger markets.
Retail of physical products is the benchmark because richer customers shop at better malls.
Even if you’re customers are finding your products in other ways they’re your customers because they bought an iPhone and iPhone customers are willing to pay money for apps. Apple has spent billions cultivating a customer base that allows you to make money. That’s what you’re paying for. If it want then you’d have already left.
Why do people think that it’s fair to dictate what constitutes “reasonable” fees Apple “should” charge to its suppliers and vendors, I.e., app developers? Do these same folks believe they are justified or qualified to weigh-in on how Home Depot, Walmart, CVS Pharmacy, and other stores manage their suppliers and vendors?
Something is seriously wrong here, and it’s not how Apple is running its business. It’s people who think that Apple should be punished for doing the same thing that other stores have been doing since the creation of the whole store concept.
My only knock on Apple’s App Store is that they don’t have a customer loyalty program or promotional tie-ins with Apple hardware sales that I believe could increase Apple’s sales volumes even further. It’s an untapped potential that they are ignoring.
Yeah I understand that everyone likes to celebrate success, as long as it’s their own.
Why upgrade pricing? From a consumer POV, I don't want to pay extra for the refinement of their sloppy coding. Upgrade pricing is an outdated software marketing model and seems to me like the abuse of "this software is supplied to you as-is without any warranty whatsoever" rhetoric. If they add some extra features worth charging separately, then the In-App Purchases scheme exists just for that. IAP mechanism eliminates the need for upgrade pricing.
Comments
I don't think Netflix, Spotify, Hey or developers working in niche markets with multi-platform products get all their customers from the App Store. The 30% commission is justifiable for a customer acquisition, but not for a download service when the developer brings the customers. Apple could distinguish between these cases by using referral codes or offering the option of "unlisted" apps for developers who don't need the App Store for promotion, and adjust their fees accordingly.
The "free market" arguments would make sense if Apple didn't hold a monopoly on the most important mobile ecosystem, and developers had any other way to distribute apps to that segment of its customers. I'm not saying the platform should be opened up like macOS or Android; I'm saying that as long as there aren't alternatives, you can't argue that market forces have proven the validity of a price, or casually invite developers to go elsewhere if they don't like it.
I released my first app, a quirky personal project, in 2010 and thought the commission was fair at the time. Now I'm involved in substantial, multi-platform services that have their own life beyond the App Store, and have costs beyond the software itself, and sending off 30% of the revenue for those doesn't seem appropriate. The partial reduction of subscription fees from 30% to 15% was an acknowledgement that the app landscape had changed, but now I'd like to see Apple make more reforms rather than double down on the old rules.
I'm actually not sure why anyone other than Apple itself would argue for high developer fees. Do people think Apple's products would suffer without this revenue? That's the only reason I can think of. Arguing to lower or eliminate developer fees, undercutting the other platforms, makes more sense. That would further incentivize developers to focus on iOS, and make it an even more attractive ecosystem for Apple's current and potential customers.
As a consumer, if you don’t agree to Apple’s terms, you are free to go to another brand.
As a developer, if you don’t agree to Apple’s terms, you are free to develop for another platform.
Nobody is being forced by Apple to do anything and the end user retains choice.
I understand that I can sign up at their respective websites and that’s a good thing - it’s called choice. “Hey” is limiting customer choice by not having IAP and they are FORCING users to sign up at their website. And they make Apple out to be the bad guy.
The issue as Apple has described it is Hey has no functionality for the average joe who downloads what they think is an email app. Hey is invitation only right now so the average joe cannot use their app at all. This zero functionality is why Hey has been pinged, not the lack of IAP.
https://help.netflix.com/en/node/25097
https://support.spotify.com/us/account_payment_help/payment_help/spotify-through-the-app-store/
Netflix has been like this for some time, but Spotify more recently stopped offering it, November of last year. Not 100% sure about Amazon Prime and Disney Plus but I think you (still) can with them.
To be fair, malls don't charge a percentage of your sales -- but they do charge for the costs of operating the mall and all the services thus provided (from security to parking to lights and janitorial) that are included in the rent, plus a healthy profit for the mall owner. From experience, this will be not very different than the amount Apple charges on sales.
So if you as a developer want software to go down the same road as streaming, keep on complaining about the two biggest app stores. I'm not surprised Microsoft is getting in on this -- their motivation is very clear because nobody uses the Microsoft app store unless there's no other option; it's as popular as physical MS stores. There's a reason why most developers no longer bother setting up their own separate shops on the Mac (where they are 100 percent free to do so) -- because (surprise) their costs are greater than going through the Mac App Store in most cases.
https://www.entrepreneur.com/answer/222356
https://www.allianceexperts.com/en/knowledge/what-is-a-reasonable-margin-for-your-distributor/
Also, I think people are really overestimating the value of the App Store as a marketing resource. I can't remember the last time I downloaded an app that I wasn't aware of until I found it on the App Store. When I survey my own customers, they're mostly finding my product in other ways.
Shouldn’t laugh though.
Folk come into the Apple Mall, and because the Mall stipulates that vendors have to be transparent about pricing, Hey realised that they will need to put their prices of $99/year, $349/year and $999/year in their shop window, where passing customers can easily compare prices with similar services and see that Hey prices are basically a scam.
Upgrade pricing! Come on, Apple! It’s been years!
My only knock on Apple’s App Store is that they don’t have a customer loyalty program or promotional tie-ins with Apple hardware sales that I believe could increase Apple’s sales volumes even further. It’s an untapped potential that they are ignoring.
http://www.asymco.com/2020/06/20/subscribe-again/