This is the most rational and sane argument anyone has posted about this topic today, imo.
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.
Apple and Google Given Mid-October Deadline in South Korea for Filing Plans to Allow Outside Payment Systems in Apps
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I suppose I would have. Glad it didn’t play out that way back then because Windows is a bad OS
The joke is saying the developers pay NOTHING, when the simple fact is, they do.
The point was $99 is a paltry fee to make millions, potentially. It’s not a fee or commission it’s a license subscription.
It's about giving developers a choice. Let them have the option. I know this is an Apple fan forum (and I am a fan as well) but restricting the choice and gaining control over other companies doesnt seem fair.
Apple made their choice to limit their App market and they chose to go the route of providing dev tools and limit the market. I dont think it is a sustainable decision.
Apple made their choice to limit their App market and they chose to go the route of providing dev tools and limit the market. I dont think it is a sustainable decision.
Testing allowing developers to use external links? This isn’t testing new features you know, Apple have no real “work” to perform for this specific task.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not sure if I didnt read the article correctly, but the order was to submit a "plan", no?
Umm this has nothing to do with fees.. It has to do with using 3rd party pay systems and not just $pple 100% of the time.
The district court did affirm that apple has a right to charge for its ip even though the payment collected is external.
Only if the dev charges IAP.
Except, the judge didn’t
Except, the judge didn’t say one way or another as to if Apple was a monopoly or not, not sure where you get there was a decision made in that respect.
Heh my err, mixed up languages, a lauwine/avalanche, snow slide
Last edited:
Nice try, but in this example I am free to sell through other services ie; Gumtree, FB marketplace, etc
Just out of interest, I know there are a few countries that don't have access to an App Store, so can they access another countries store with a VPN or is the store tied to your billing country? If Apple chose to withdraw from South Korea, could users still use another store, or would they be stuck without paid apps?
I think the real question is "what is a fair cut?". Those of you who defend Apple 30% fee, would you also accept 50% or why not 70%? Who stops Apple to take a larger share? No one can do that because there is no real competition.
I think it is ironic that the most strong defenders of Apple business practice also hates governments and especially EU because these seem to misuse their powers. The irony is that Apple as well as governments both introduce fees/taxes from a position of strength which seems unjust.
Apple is in a position of strength and they should be careful how they use that power.
I think it is ironic that the most strong defenders of Apple business practice also hates governments and especially EU because these seem to misuse their powers. The irony is that Apple as well as governments both introduce fees/taxes from a position of strength which seems unjust.
Apple is in a position of strength and they should be careful how they use that power.
and you are free to sell your services in places other than the Apple Store. There is Google Store, Any of the Android stores that anyone is free to open (80% phone market share right there), Microsoft Stores for PC's, Any store you want for the Mac, Any Store you want for Linux, Them you have the playstation store, Microsoft Xbox stores, plus many more. Every developer going in knows Apple's rules, if you don't like those rules, then don't program for it.
No one is going to tell me how to run my store, tell me I have to put up signs to buy direct for a better price, or tell me what payment processor I have to use. If my customers don't like what I have to offer, they don't have to come here anymore. If the companies that have items in my store don't like what I have to offer, they also are not welcome here. If Apple's customers don't like how they have things set up then they don't have to buy Apple. This is what the free market is.
As much as it not being an ideal situation either way, I believe both Apple and Google need to tell South Korea that if this law is not rescinded in 3 days (just as unreasonable a timeline they gave them) they are closing up shop. Caving in to these governments is setting a bad precedent for every store owner in the world. I am sure the people of South Korea will be hammering their politicians in an instant if this happens and the law will be rescinded quickly and they will be back in business in no time. It will also show other governments and politicians that if they wish to keep their jobs, don't mess with people's phones.
The 30% cut has not changed. When it was initiated it was praised by all developers. To claim they are taking advantage of the situation is pure fiction. If they did change it to 50% or 70%, then you may have a case to say that but if anything rates went down on many things since then. So why has 30% become so evil now when 30% was praised not too long ago? Why is it that the ones that are complaining are also the companies that make millions?
To answer your question of "what is a fair cut". The answer is, the percentage that allows me to better profit in that market. If I sell my item in Walmart who wants a 70% markup compared to a small convenience store that only wants 15% markup, it still may be a better option to sell in Walmart due to the sheer volume of customers. The main point is there are no surprises here. The developers know the rate before even starting anything. If you think 70% is unreasonable, there are many things you buy that have bigger mark-ups than that. These items go through many "middle men" distributers, wholesalers, retailers with each of them taking their 30%. Many times the markup is well beyond what the initial company charged for the product. The only reason we are okay with it is because these things are kept private. Apple's 30% which compared to other industries is nothing. The only reason this is such a big deal is because some people have decided to make this public.
I also think you are misunderstanding people defending "Apple". I am not defending Apple, you can look at my post history and you can very well see, when I think Apple needs to have it, I give it to them (and I am not a happy camper right now with Apple). I am defending the principal of free market no matter what the company name is. The idea of a store has been around for decades if not centuries. Now all of sudden we need the government to tell store owners how to run their business. I don't think that's right. It has already been proven in Court that Apple is not a Monopoly so there is nothing to see here. If developers don't like it, they can leave, if customers don't like it, they can leave.
OK...what's your point?!? I was suggesting that they make the fee on a "per app sold" basis. Changes of business model happen all the time...see both Adobe and Microsoft (as proof that BIG companies do it) moving from a purchase to a monthly SAAS model.
Exactly! Plus, surely if it were ONLY based on the $99 yearly then that would trigger a tsunami of complaints from the smaller devs that they are paying the same fees per year as the big devs but selling much less...therefore their costs as a percentage of sales are much higher and so SOMEBODY needs to do something again because if the inequity of the system!
A "cost per sale" system is by far the most fair and equitable. And if that cannot come through payment processing then do it through a developer tools "priced by the number of apps distributed which use the tools" model as I suggested...
Right...so if your boss (assuming you are employed) said to you "PC_tech...I am reducing you wages to 1% of what they previously were...see you Monday"...you would be OK with that? Because...you are "being paid"...right? Of course not!
You put a value on your services as an employee and you have a minimum that you will accept for your time. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that! But when Apple does it, and when they are clear about it upfront, and developers accept the T&Cs, and make money (sometimes huge amounts), Apple are evil and wrong for setting their own prices?
As many others have said here, if the devs don't like it then they can always leave the platform. They will lose out on all the income but that's their choice. In the same way that if I worked at Company A, and I wanted to earn more, and I asked for a raise, and they said no, then I am always free to give my notice and resign. What I should not have a right to do is somehow be able to appeal to Government to force a company to pay me WHAT I WANT...that's insane!
And neither does Apple take a percentage of everything you buy online using their "computer" forever...stop being over dramatic! Apple takes a percentage of everything you buy from their store. If you use their phone to visit Amazon or Ebay or Walmart then they don't take a fee...but if you use their store then they do. In the same way that if you buy a computer off of Ebay...they earn from that sale...and if you then by headphones from Ebay...they earn from that sale. Are they actually doing any kind of fulfilment? Nope! So in a sense they are even less "entitled" to earn than Apple...yet people don't insist that Ebay shouldn't earn a percentage of all sales from their platform? Why are people not demanding that Ebay charge only an annual fee and then no percentage on sales? Perhaps because people know what they are getting into when they decide to sell on Ebay, they accept the terms and the percentage of sales as a "cost of business", they calculate if they can make what they need/want to based on those terms, and then - assuming that the cost/benefit analysis works - they crack on and make money.