Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Antitrust Committee Chairman Calls App Store Fees 'Highway Robbery'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The people who complain the loudest have no idea what it costs to market a product. They think everything should be free, and when they realize it isn’t, they start whining.
If you think the App Store is so bad, go market your product on Android or Windows or wherever. No one forces you to develop for Apple.
As for the politician, who contributes nothing of value but thinks he’s entitled to a cut of every product and service developed in the United States, and every dollar earned, because he won a popularity contest, well...
If you think the App Store is so bad, go market your product on Android or Windows or wherever. No one forces you to develop for Apple.
As for the politician, who contributes nothing of value but thinks he’s entitled to a cut of every product and service developed in the United States, and every dollar earned, because he won a popularity contest, well...
so kind of like what Basecamp is already doing with Hey? They handle everything on their own, all the app is, is a portal to service they host, not Apple.
And just to be clear since lots of people have a hard time grasping this, $99 a year is for Hey’s email service, not “just an app” as some folks think
Irrelevant. Netflix is hosted on AWS as well.
Doesn't mean anything other than exactly just that.
Your points are valid and I agree that Apple deserves a cut as they are providing a larger service than people realize. I just think 30% is excessive for companies bringing in millions a year. ("they're bringing in millions, they can afford it") it is really an argument that can go both ways.
Then again, it's always about the money. Every company wants to maximize its profits and the App store tax doesn't help.
The Google Pay store also charges 30%. They lowered their subscription cut to 15% only after Apple did.
Like game consoles, Amazon's hardware is sold under cost and subsidized by content sales. Google doesn't charge for Android either, its work is similarly subsidized by search ad and content sales.
Their models are different from Apple's.
I specifically mentioned selling a book to read on a Kindle because that situation is analogous to the one we're discussing in this article. The only way of getting a book on a Kindle, legally, and charging for it is via Amazon's Kindle Direct Publishing system which takes at least a 30% cut.
Great news.
It's even great news for Apple in the long run - the App Store has been poison for the company. It's let units put out terrible software with no consequences. It's let the company lose it's moral compass by supporting authoritarian governments and attacking sexual freedoms. It's let the company get flat out corrupt. If Apple want to be here twenty five years from now these cancers need to be excised.
But their hubris is going to cost them a lot more money in the short term than it would have done otherwise because of greed and selfishness and pride. And frankly the leadership responsible for such insanely suicidal decisions such as that letter to Hey while under two different anti-trust investigations shouldn't be allowed to run a bagel store, never mind a nearly trillion dollar corporation.
It's even great news for Apple in the long run - the App Store has been poison for the company. It's let units put out terrible software with no consequences. It's let the company lose it's moral compass by supporting authoritarian governments and attacking sexual freedoms. It's let the company get flat out corrupt. If Apple want to be here twenty five years from now these cancers need to be excised.
But their hubris is going to cost them a lot more money in the short term than it would have done otherwise because of greed and selfishness and pride. And frankly the leadership responsible for such insanely suicidal decisions such as that letter to Hey while under two different anti-trust investigations shouldn't be allowed to run a bagel store, never mind a nearly trillion dollar corporation.
That's what I hope but if i was Apple I would do anything it takes, lower my fees, be more flexible otherwise why would their big time developers use the Apps store and pay anything at all?
You don't have to go to Amazon.
I want to sell a book on Kindle I could go to Humble Bundle, and have the books uploaded and Amazon would have no financial control or split whatsoever. And I do all the time.
(Still, yes, Amazon should be forced to allow other book retailers to be sideloadable stores on Kindle hardware.)
You’re deflecting. The question is, can Apple charge what they currently are? Some say yes, and some say no. Government and Judicial system is stepping in because there are laws against certain types of behaviors and they ideally protect the consumer since corporations do not but rather are obligated to give shareholders the best return on their money that the company can.
So just saying tough luck, go elsewhere does not always apply.
My only issue is really the uneven application of the rules. Creating these loopholes to allow major streaming services to push users out to sign-up, but not allowing it for other apps. I would be in favor of a scaling rate based upon downloads/sales, with less percentage paid at greater volume, to encourage these signups to be in-app, which improves the experience and makes the platform costs more "sustainable" for apps with strong growth.
Of course, no one really complained about the 30% when the App Store first came about, it was considered "fair" for the overhead and for providing the service. Granted, time passes, standards change, rules are applied unevenly and it's all confusing. Others have stated the Amazon publishing cut being very similar.
That 30% would have to cover the obvious I&O costs of hosting and delivering all of the software, but also cover the notification systems, offset the I&O cost of the substantial number of free apps, the staffing for review and customer care, and the credit card and chargeback fees. It's non-trivial costs, they're probably not netting a truckload of actual profit out of it.
Maybe they could shed a third or so of it (going down to 17-20%) and treat it more like a break-even business, but it's probably not a simple thing to do. I'd say there's a laundry list of expenses against that 30 cents on the dollar.
Of course, no one really complained about the 30% when the App Store first came about, it was considered "fair" for the overhead and for providing the service. Granted, time passes, standards change, rules are applied unevenly and it's all confusing. Others have stated the Amazon publishing cut being very similar.
That 30% would have to cover the obvious I&O costs of hosting and delivering all of the software, but also cover the notification systems, offset the I&O cost of the substantial number of free apps, the staffing for review and customer care, and the credit card and chargeback fees. It's non-trivial costs, they're probably not netting a truckload of actual profit out of it.
Maybe they could shed a third or so of it (going down to 17-20%) and treat it more like a break-even business, but it's probably not a simple thing to do. I'd say there's a laundry list of expenses against that 30 cents on the dollar.
Google permits this and Play still retains the vast, vast majority of app distribution on Android.
The truth is it wouldn't even hurt Apple much financially in reality.
You know what, here, have an example scenario:
- A developer uploads a free app to App Store Connect for review. The app is actually stored on AWS. This costs Apple money because Amazon charges a nominal fee for AWS storage.
- The free app is approved and becomes publicly available on the App Store. Users download the app from the App Store, but really it’s being downloaded from AWS. This costs Apple money because Amazon charges a nominal fee for AWS egress traffic.
Does that make sense to you now?
Apparently he doesn't realize that retail stores and Amazon charge 40-50% of the sale price to developers. The App Store is a steal for developers. Get your app in front of millions of potential buyers? Your own website doesn't give you that same kind of visibility.
Tbh, I threw the numbers out there just as an example and didn't mean "Tax the poor less than the rich". My point was that there could be a system that can benefit both sides of the spectrum. My example was poorly written. Sure, flip the scale tax the smaller guys less, and as they grow hit them harder. I still think 30% is excessive. Tax the small guys 10% and the large ones 20%.
Not what I was asking. I want to sell a book FOR A KINDLE. Just like I want to sell an app FOR AN IOS DEVICE. I'm talking about hardware. I want to sell a book for a Kindle, and I can only do that via Amazon's system that charges at least 30%.
How do I sell a book for a Kobo? I use Kobo Writing Life. I can't use some other store. I have to use Kobo Writing Life. 70% royalties.
How do I sell a book for a B&N Nook? I use &N Press. I can't use some other store. I have to use B&N Press. 65% royalties.
How do I sell an app for an iOS device? I use Apple's App Store. I can't use some other store. I have to use Apple's App Store.
What is the difference?
It's not like devs didn't know what the stakes were before writing their first line of code. It's not like anyone HAS to try to make a living making iOS apps.
If you don't want to get r###d by Apple, don't get into bed with them.
If you don't want to get r###d by Apple, don't get into bed with them.