I would think 30% would be similar or less mark up compared to a tangible product sold in a brick and mortar store. I'm on the fence with this.
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
I think there is another solution here. Devs...how about you figure out how much you want to earn from each sale...and then reverse calculate the selling price so that you get what you need AFTER Apple has taken its 30%? That way you can't say that you can't survive with the fees Apple charges. And if your retort is that then you won't be able to price the app competitively and you will lose sales as a result, well, honestly, tough luck. If your app is good enough people will pay for it.
If you say that you need to earn $7 per sale...price it at $10. Of course you always run the risk that somebody might undercut you but, honestly, that's life!
If you say that you need to earn $7 per sale...price it at $10. Of course you always run the risk that somebody might undercut you but, honestly, that's life!
Apple should drop the restriction on side-loading with the proviso that Apple devices with side-loaded apps installed do not qualify for Apple support. Period. I'd also like to remind the Senator that the headline 30%, that everyone continues to scream at the media, only applies to the first year, after which it is cut in half to 15%. There's nothing like having elected idiots that have ZERO understanding of the costs to support a platform like the App Store making decisions that affect virtually everyone, these days.
Yes, I sold my software back then for other platforms and online stores when they started popping up charged more like 50% or more, shrink wrapped in brick and mortar stores even worse. So when Apple created the App store they set a new standard lower than the norm and the world had to follow. This kind of cut is rather modest for retail type products.
What isn't so great is that there's no possibility for sideloading or independent stores but since Apple is not market dominating it's hard to call it out - there are other options.
As a consumer I'm ok with the situation. As a developer I do think phone apps are ridiculously cheap (and thus sets an expectation of very low prices) but people have gotten used to and expect paying the equivalent of a cup of coffee for apps they use daily. That's why developers are trying to move to subscriptions, I think for many it's not greed but survival.
I only have one app I've paid for - Canary Email. I paid for it happily.
Apple needs to offer an alternative to the commission rates. You can do 30% OR pay something like:
- $2,000 for the SDK.
- $1,000 for each app submission (yearly fee).
- $500 for each update submission approval.
- $1 for every 100MB of the app downloaded.
- No access to the in-app purchase mechanism?
- This would apply to the free apps too.
a loooot of businessman dont even have idea at all. Most will think i will get 50 percent margin and forgeting the cost + commision fee.Most have small budget thinking spending developer is enough .
Possibly, although some folk here have since doubled down on the statement...
Exactly. It's Pick On Apple here. Plus what other 'gatekeeper' - grocery store, Best Buy, Costco on and on, doesn't have fees and costs associated with their shopping experience that a product maker has to deal with? I worked for a company that sold to Walmart, you wanna know how much power Walmart had on our products? Enough to kill a product if they didn't want it, or we weren't willing to sell it to them for the price they wanted. Their 'fee' was how much we had to discount it to get on their shelf. And let's not even START with the notion of digital safety here. You wanna just grab apps from any website, and grant them access to your entire phone and all your experiences on that phone? Can't you just buy Roid then?
The problem some of us have is that we LIKE the security, safety, and ease of use of Apple's model. I LIKE that my mother (who is constantly duped by technology) can't download apps from anywhere. I LIKE that my developmentally disabled sister can't download apps from anywhere. And I like that my minor child can't download apps from anywhere. People always say that if I don't like side loaded apps, then don't install them. Well, yeah, I get that. But even though I wouldn't do it, I have family that doesn't know any better. Apple's system make MY life easier.
If you want side loaded apps, then go with Android. No big deal. But don't take away the only ecosystem that suits my needs just so some developer can make an extra 30% without doing any work. That's not fair to me.
Being able to distribute elsewhere or sideload apps is great for a very small percentage of techie people. Obviously, you can do this with Android, but the vast, vast majority of Android apps are still downloaded from Google Play, with the 30% fee. Enabling side loading or alternative app stores would only affect a small percentage of developers more than a tiny percent. Random Jim or Jill in Nebraska will be buying and downloading all their apps from the Apple App Store regardless.
So I get the righteous indignation, but it's mostly based on principles and with limited real world impact.
So I get the righteous indignation, but it's mostly based on principles and with limited real world impact.
Lets say you buy a boxed copy of tax preparation software in a store (no one does this anymore, but bear with me for a sec). Should the store be entitled to 30% of future upsells or recurring subscriptions in perpetuity? No way.
[automerge]1592521320[/automerge]
You may be right about adoption of sideloading, but this only serves to highlight the power Apple has to keep someone in or out of business on a whim. And they seem to be abusing that market power, hence the regulatory attention.
I smell antitrust coming and it won’t be pretty.
And I do think an alternative way to load apps is not such a technical hurdle. You could take the existing code for TestFlight, remove expiration, and allow external hosting (so Apple does not bear the costs). Yes, apps would not be discoverable in a "store", but if you have a subscription to some software/service they "invite" you to receive the app like TestFlight. Boom you have fixed the antitrust concerns.
I've read through all comments, and there are some arguments that are quite obvious to me that haven't been mentioned:
1. If Apple eliminated its rates (which isn't really fair, but to my mind, allowing so-called "sideloading" of apps -- i.e. what everyone always did right before Apple came up with the concept of an app store), every app could reduce their prices by 30% overnight. Who in their right mind would be against that?
2. I already pay (quite dearly) for my iPhone. I also pay (even more dearly) for my MacBook Pro, but on the latter, I can install any app I wish without Apple taking a mafia-sized cut of it (unless I agree to it by buying from the Mac app store). Also, Apple already charges $99/year from developers. So they make a bootload of money from me for the hardware, make money from the developers for the privilege of entering the ecosystem, and then make money from the developers on each sale (and indirectly, from me, because the user is the one who really pays for Apple's cut -- anybody stating anything to the contrary is delusional, sorry).
Never mind the fact that, if you make an app Apple doesn't approve of, you'll never get it on the app store. So, on the iPhone I paid for, I can only have the apps that Apple deem worthy of being allowed on the app store.
Frankly, with each passing day, I'm solidifying my decision to leave the Apple ecosystem. One of these days, I will just start looking for compatible Android apps for each of my most used apps, and when I find them, I'll just buy a Samsung phone and say goodbye to Apple.
1. If Apple eliminated its rates (which isn't really fair, but to my mind, allowing so-called "sideloading" of apps -- i.e. what everyone always did right before Apple came up with the concept of an app store), every app could reduce their prices by 30% overnight. Who in their right mind would be against that?
2. I already pay (quite dearly) for my iPhone. I also pay (even more dearly) for my MacBook Pro, but on the latter, I can install any app I wish without Apple taking a mafia-sized cut of it (unless I agree to it by buying from the Mac app store). Also, Apple already charges $99/year from developers. So they make a bootload of money from me for the hardware, make money from the developers for the privilege of entering the ecosystem, and then make money from the developers on each sale (and indirectly, from me, because the user is the one who really pays for Apple's cut -- anybody stating anything to the contrary is delusional, sorry).
Never mind the fact that, if you make an app Apple doesn't approve of, you'll never get it on the app store. So, on the iPhone I paid for, I can only have the apps that Apple deem worthy of being allowed on the app store.
Frankly, with each passing day, I'm solidifying my decision to leave the Apple ecosystem. One of these days, I will just start looking for compatible Android apps for each of my most used apps, and when I find them, I'll just buy a Samsung phone and say goodbye to Apple.
Pssst...over here. I have some good news for you, buddy...in no way whatsoever do I have any power to change how apps are distributed on iOS
I feel the same way you do about my mother. I bough her first iPhone for her on Mother’s Day, last year. She loves it. If Apple eventually does allow iOS to download SIGNED apps outside of the App Store, I don’t anticipate that she’ll be scouring the dark web for new make up apps.
Would you trust your mom with a Mac? I would. I would probably just make myself the administrator, go into settings, ahem, system preferences ahead of time and only allow apps from the App Store to be downloaded. And that would be that. One and done.
Also, I don’t want to switch to Android and side load apps. Hell, right now, its hard enough just to type this — i got shots in both wrists 3 hours ago for carpel tunnel, and my hands are still kinda numb from the analgesic. Odd, the treatment for my hands going numb is to...make my hands go numb.
Anyway, I’m not here to argue, just happy to be part the conversation. And you seem like a good guy to take care of your family the way you do, especially your developmentally disabled sister. Keep up the good work, sir
Edit: added three words. See if you can which three and win a free 2027 iPad Pro Max complete with the apple quill, apple paint set, Hovering Wizard Keyboard Pro — $52,000 worth of apple stuff — and a 2nd job to cover your future apple purchases!
Who said sideloading had to be enabled by default? Who said that the setting to enable sideloading couldn’t be hidden on devices where it’s not desired via iOS’s already existing restrictions/parental control model?
It’s really not rocket science.
Allow sideloading from authorized sources. But charge those businesses the "right" yearly price for the certificate.
So what tools did the business use to create a $10M app? How did they distribute it? Who provided technical support? IMO, it appears that most people have no idea how real businesses work. What % of the retail price does Walmart, Amazon, any major retailer take. Hell, wine is marked up 100% in most restaurants!.
Yep. Ship em’ with it default disabled. Then click that little enable button in settings...and boom!
YOU. ARE. NOW. A. HACKER.
From now on, you have to type REALLY fast and REALLY loud, because that’s how hackers type. And shout “I have access to the mainframe!” until your voice turns hoarse.
Additionally, you can now download hacker apps, such as OneNote and VLC — straight from the World Wide Web! Be careful out there as you surf the information superhighway!
Anyway. Parental control is the key here. Worried about your kids getting into dangerous **** by downloading some signed apps? Restrict them, and move along with your day.
You cannot distribute an app on iOS outside of the App Store.
That's the problem.
Imagine if you built something and someone jerked you around at the last second and said "nah" and prevented it from sale.
Or rejected it for months then unveiled a competitor.
Or allowed a competitor to sell but rejected your stuff.
Also imagine you had no other way of distributing your work.
King Schiller determines if you even have a chance at selling. He also demands a 30% tithe if he grants it. Also, King Schiller can change his mind and prevent you from selling at any later time, too.
Yeah, "make better app" is the solution. Make a better app not on a platform that only has a Crap Store.
By the way, is it me or are people going crazy on this "new economy"? You've got a bunch of middlemen and they all want to take 30 or 50% cuts of your revenue. There's app stores, ride sharing apps, food delivery apps (and be glad the app store doesn't take a cut from the food delivery/ride sharing apps), ebook readers, online course purveyors like Udemy (I looked it up out of curiosity, they take a 50% cut), and so on. The 2 or 3% cuts that credit card companies take on their transactions seem almost charitable by comparison.
Pretty soon we'll be paying $50 for any given product which could be sold for $2 if the middlemen didn't take a cut. And from many of the comments I'm seeing here, people will happily do that and stand behind the middlemen for some reason that's quite unclear to me (blind fanboyism perhaps?)
Pretty soon we'll be paying $50 for any given product which could be sold for $2 if the middlemen didn't take a cut. And from many of the comments I'm seeing here, people will happily do that and stand behind the middlemen for some reason that's quite unclear to me (blind fanboyism perhaps?)
So who gets to decide how much the platform the create and consistently support and update year after year is worth. Apple is likely reinvesting a significant amount into their platform to create hundreds of new features each year. Not to mention the things that don’t make it to the finished product. Add the tremendous amount of money spent to market the platform. Nothing is free. It cost money to process online transactions, provide real customer support, marketing, security, etc. It even cost money to host storage and bandwidth for apps. If it was easy and cheap they wouldn’t need Apple in the first place.
Apple's App Store fees are akin to "highway robbery," Representative David Cicilline told The Verge in the latest Vergecast episode.
Cicilline, who is the Chairman of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Antitrust looking into the App Store agreements that Apple has with developers, spoke to The Verge alongside Basecamp CTO David Heinemeier Hansson, developer of the "Hey" app that Apple rejected for failing to offer in-app subscription options.
According to Cicilline, Apple's market power allows it to charge "exorbitant rents" that crush small developers. The antitrust committee has heard from "many people" afraid of economic retaliation.The antitrust subcommittee began soliciting opinions from developers back in November, speaking with those who had been impacted by some of Apple's App Store decisions. Developers of parental control apps impacted last year by Apple's limitations on the use of Mobile Device Management capabilities were among those contacted, for example. Heinemeier Hansson, whose email app "Hey" is in the news this week, also testified in January.
Heinemeier Hansson has been vocal about Hey's rejection from the App Store. After approving the app earlier this week, Apple rejected two updates and told the Hey team that it needs to provide an option to subscribe in the app, which would give Apple a 30 percent cut of the subscription fee.
Hey attempted to skirt Apple's rules around subscriptions by not offering a subscription in the app while also not linking to an outside subscription offering, something that Netflix and Spotify also do. Apple said that Hey isn't classified as a "Reader" app and isn't allowed to operate in that manner, a confusing stance that blindsided the Hey team.
Heinemeier Hansson in the podcast again explains the series of rejections, and shares his opinions on Apple's App Store policies.
Amid the antitrust investigation, Apple this week highlighted a study that said the App Store ecosystem supported $519 billion in billings and sales worldwide in 2019. Apple often promotes how much developers earn from the App Store, a number that has reached over $155 billion.
Apple created the hardware and the platform that allows developers to distribute apps, but Cicilline doesn't believe that entitles the company to collect such high fees. "You cannot simply allow someone merely because they invented a system or a product to continue to enjoy that kind of monopoly power," Cicilline said. "It's contrary to our laws. It's unfair to new developers, new startups, and it hurts consumers."
Cicilline says that the antitrust investigation is "nearing completion" and that a final hearing will take place in July. The committee has been aiming to get major tech CEOs, including Tim Cook, to testify. Cook has so far declined, but Cicilline says that he expects when the hearing happens, "all four CEOs" will be there. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai have agreed to participate.
At the end of the investigation, the group will generate a report on the status of competition in the digital market, which will feature "recommendations with respect to legislative action." Cicilline believes a solution to the App Store problems will require "regulatory action and statutory changes" and that it's something that "Congress has a responsibility to fix."
The full Vergecast interview with Rep. David Cicilline and David Heinemeier Hansson can be accessed on The Verge's website.
Article Link: Antitrust Committee Chairman Calls App Store Fees 'Highway Robbery'
[automerge]1592524668[/automerge]
It’s no different than Walmart or any retail store, online or off. There are guidelines and rules to be followed. Try demanding to be put on their shelves and see what the cost is.
[automerge]1592524814[/automerge]
If they don’t need Apple they can just build and maintain their own platform. That means no cut to pay out. What they want is a free ride.
That would be a reason for me to dump the iPhone and go back to the dumbest phone I can find. The added protection of having vetted apps is what makes the iPhone great. I don't want the ability to circumvent the limitations to even exist, as some of those developers then will force you to go outside of the app store because that's what they want: do their thing without supervision.
That said: for my macs: that's a whole different scenario, but it's not a device stuffed with sensors that I walk around with all day long then.
[automerge]1592525719[/automerge]
Let's say you make shoes, or gloves, whatever.
How much are the ones importing the shoes, the distribution centres, the shop each going to take as a margin ?
You can bet it's well over 30% in total. Yep you made your shoes and sold them. You didn't have to distribute them around the world and you didn't have to own stores to sell them in.
If you do want to use your own distribution system and stores: fine: but now don't start to complain that those who only shop at Walmart can't see or buy your crap.
Same goes for these developers of apps: if you price it to the end user at 100, you know you'll only get 70. Yep, you might get a few more sales if they would sell to the end user for 80, and you still getting 70, but you knew this long before you started to create the app, it's part of your business plan you had long before you started to create apps for the iPhone.
Those whining about it are probably just seeking attention for their apps. Nothing more.
The politicians jumping on it: be suspicious, very suspicious of their real reasons.
Last edited: