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 Begins Lowering App Store Commission to 15% for Eligible Developers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I will admit I'm puzzled as to why a couple of people "HATED" my view of simply saying the 1st 1 million of every developer gets rated at the 15% just to make life easier, easier to manager and fairer.
After all this is the way Tax on your wages works (in the UK anyway) and we all this this is fair.
Say you earn £50,000 a year and the tax rate for the 1st £10,000 is 10% and after that it's 20%
People who earn £10,000 would pay 10%
If you earn £15,000 then you would pay 10% for the 1st £10,000 and the higher 20% for the extra £5000
This system is fair and works well.
Everyone would say it was unfair and was crazy if you earned £10,001 and had to pay 20% on the whole amount.
And this is actually what Apple is doing.
So I struggle to understand anyone who thinks this is fair or good or even logical as we would not think it was good if this was done on our wages.
It would be seen as much fairer and easier to manage AND not have any real effect on Apple.
(Just 1 example and of course there are many many more devs creating high incomes)
Apple made 360 million in revenue from Fortnight due to it's 30% cut and as we know it now makes nothing due to current issues.
It's obvious isn't is, just how insignificant it would be to take just 15% of epic's 1st 1 Million, and then 30% for the remaining 359 Million.
I still remain of the view it would be seem as fair to everyone, and vastly more simple, and despite costing little in realy terms, make Apple seem to be treating everyone the same to simply say 15% for 1st 1 Million for everyone, and then 30% for earnings above that.
Why anyone would disagree with this just puzzles me
After all this is the way Tax on your wages works (in the UK anyway) and we all this this is fair.
Say you earn £50,000 a year and the tax rate for the 1st £10,000 is 10% and after that it's 20%
People who earn £10,000 would pay 10%
If you earn £15,000 then you would pay 10% for the 1st £10,000 and the higher 20% for the extra £5000
This system is fair and works well.
Everyone would say it was unfair and was crazy if you earned £10,001 and had to pay 20% on the whole amount.
And this is actually what Apple is doing.
So I struggle to understand anyone who thinks this is fair or good or even logical as we would not think it was good if this was done on our wages.
It would be seen as much fairer and easier to manage AND not have any real effect on Apple.
(Just 1 example and of course there are many many more devs creating high incomes)
Apple made 360 million in revenue from Fortnight due to it's 30% cut and as we know it now makes nothing due to current issues.
It's obvious isn't is, just how insignificant it would be to take just 15% of epic's 1st 1 Million, and then 30% for the remaining 359 Million.
I still remain of the view it would be seem as fair to everyone, and vastly more simple, and despite costing little in realy terms, make Apple seem to be treating everyone the same to simply say 15% for 1st 1 Million for everyone, and then 30% for earnings above that.
Why anyone would disagree with this just puzzles me
A very smart move by Apple in an attempt to diffuse antitrust investigations. Present yourself as being fair to the small guy without actually putting much of a dent in your revenue.
Completely agree. if you "just" surpass the threshold by a few cents, you should not be "taxed" to the same extent IMHO.
Year One: 800,000 - 15% = 680,000
Year Two: 900,000 - 15% = 765,000
Year Three: 1000,000.10 - 30% = 700000.07
15% for the first million and 30% on subsequent sales would be the fairest and simplest way to do it while retaining a "same rules for everyone" mantra.
Is the new scheme 15% for the part below 1M and 30% for the part over 1M ? That was not absolutely clear in the description of the scheme.
No. You either qualify (each year) for 15% or you don’t. It doesn’t work like tax brackets.
This is why some have suggested pulling an app from the store or making some change as it's a silly way Apple are doing it.
So it's mid December, let's say and your app has generated $999,501
Which you will have to give Apple 15% of your sales income.
If your app stays there generating money for the next few days and you generate another $500 then you have to give Apple 30% of your sales income.
If this was in real life, your stop working, or go sick or close your store down, to be sure you don't just go over the limit.
And people are going to be doing things like this, hence it silly.
just $1 over and you will have to double what you pay Apple.
It's a daft, and if I'm honest unfair way of doing it.
So it's mid December, let's say and your app has generated $999,501
Which you will have to give Apple 15% of your sales income.
If your app stays there generating money for the next few days and you generate another $500 then you have to give Apple 30% of your sales income.
If this was in real life, your stop working, or go sick or close your store down, to be sure you don't just go over the limit.
And people are going to be doing things like this, hence it silly.
just $1 over and you will have to double what you pay Apple.
It's a daft, and if I'm honest unfair way of doing it.
No matter what Apple did or does, there will always be some criticism. (valid or hyperbole criticism) If someone is going to pull the plug over $500, when their app is on the hot track to avoid some fees...it seems daft that someone would do that. But that's me.
This sentiment, while understandable, also strikes me as being extremely shortsighted.
I am willing to bet that the number of people who find themselves in such a situation will be in such the overwhelming minority that it’s a rounding error at best.
Apple likely settled on the $1 million cutoff point because they looked at the developers’ earnings and realised that the majority are earning way below this threshold, while the rest are probably earning way over it.
Let’s say we do have this one or two developers who find themselves in such a scenario. My advice would be to not bother trying to fudge the numbers or game the system. Rather, them hitting $1 million in sales revenue should be a milestone worth celebrating, because it means your business is getting somewhere.
Instead, focus on growing their business to exceed the $1.2 million mark so that even after the 30% cut, they still earn more than if they had given Apple 15% of that million dollars.
You can’t throw out a perfectly working system just to accommodate that small number of edge cases.
They get a lot more than musicians at one of the top record companies. Where the record company gets $7 from a $9.99 record album and pays a pittance to the musicians.
But not really ...
If sales for the first year exceeded $1m you will get charged 30% for year 2 meaning that year two you earn 15% less if your sales are $1,000,000.10 on the previous year.
Did I miss something ?
I bet if someone gave you a winning lotto ticket you would complain about the petrol you used to collect the winnings.
Translation Apple is bad for Facebook's business.
Remember the whole Farmville and whatevervill it was craze? One could argue that set the whole stage for micro transaction blight we have to deal with (ie don't have many friend don't worry money will help )
What monopoly?! Apple only has a 25% marketshare in the mobile market. In what world does 25% of a market count as a monopoly?! The insanity has the same level of silliness of saying Ford is a monopoly because you can't buy a Chevy vehicle from them.
Last edited by a moderator:
The antitrust investigations always come off to me as irrational.as claiming Toyota is a monopoly because you can't buy a Ford from them. For the EU is suspect it is more protectionism under the guise of antitrust.
Last edited by a moderator: