gnasher729
Suspended
Unclear. This seems to be a press release. I'll get their changed terms & conditions at some point, and it should be clearer then. Including what happens with sales outside the USA, and with VAT etc. it gets really complicated.
Apple Drops App Store Fees to 15% for All Developers Making Under $1 Million From App Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There can also be a Jo-Jo effect. With a gross revenue of 1.3 million in one year, the developer nets 0.91 million, thus qualifying for a 15% cut the following year. The same gross revenue of 1.3 million then nets them 1.086 million in that year and thus they are taxed 30% the year after, falling below the one million barrier in net revenue again. And so the cycle continues.
I know this will be a rare edge case but it is still inelegant.
EDIT: An earlier version incorrectly stated the second year revenue as 1.105 million. Thanks to nicho for pointing that out.
Last edited:
Did you actually read the linked press release? The answer to his question doesn't seem unclear at all.
gnasher729
Suspended
A lived for a long time in a country where your income tax was calculated using a third degree polynomial. Your choices: 1. Your head explodes. 2. You download a table that gives the tax amount for every income amount.
It might be mostly public opinion (as well as developer sentiment) that prompted Apple to introduce this change. But scrutiny by Congress raised the public awareness somewhat.
gnasher729
Suspended
It seems very unclear to me. But then I'm a software developer, and I can spot things that are "unclear" and loopholes from a mile. If you were the software developer who has to calculate how much a developer has to pay, would you do it from this text? I wouldn't.
gimarbazat
macrumors regular
15% still too much. Imagine a merchant having to pay that much commission to visa or MasterCard
LeadingHeat
macrumors 65816
That... is how it works
Then just pull all your apps, it doesn’t make a difference how many apps you have.
Spot this: The question was about whether you qualify for the 15% "special rate" every year. The answer is you don't.
Epic Games and Spotify blast App Store changes
Critics of the App Store including Epic Games and Spotify have labelled changes to the App Store as a "calculated move by Apple to divide app creators", stating Apple's App Store rules were "arbitrary
www.imore.com
It... isn't. Try reading the article (or better, the Apple press release). Once you're in the realm of considering the 30% over 1m for the year... you will be paying 30% on the first dollar the next.
15% would be too much if Apple were only providing payment processing to developers.
dynamojoe
macrumors 6502
Kinda figured they'd do that. Here's why:They complained about the cut.Epic Games and Spotify blast App Store changes
Critics of the App Store including Epic Games and Spotify have labelled changes to the App Store as a "calculated move by Apple to divide app creators", stating Apple's App Store rules were "arbitrary
waquzy
macrumors 68000
Brilliant. Comment of the year
Rogifan
macrumors Penryn
That wasn’t my question. But the way most seem to be interpreting it is it’s not 15% on the first $1M. So if I’m a small developer I’m trying to keep my revenues under $1M or making sure my revenues are at least $1.2M.
CarlJ
Contributor
It would make more sense to make it tiered/progressive (maybe more than just 2 levels), but harder to explain.
LeadingHeat
macrumors 65816
I was referring to your second statement of “Wouldn’t it make sense to make the first 1m 15% and 30% for everything earned over 1m?”. Which, yes, that is how it works.
Your earlier question about pulling your app towards the end of the year if you hit $990k and starting the next year off at 15%... that does make sense. Because once you hit that $1M you do pay 30% for the rest of the calendar year. I do wish it were a rolling 12-month spend. That would make much more sense and be more accurate to how big the company actually is.
1) You have the wrong username. I didn't say those things, and it wasn't me you were responding to (with incorrect information) in your previous post.
2) It isn't. It's not a yearly, progressive thing that resets. You "qualify" for the reduction by earning less than 1m the year before. If you earn over 1m, you pay 30% on everything. Try reading.
Including responding to the correct people.
Last edited:
I don’t believe that they will.
Since you said "that's my question" to someone talking about going forward (you stay at 30%) I read your question as one for the following year... not asking about retroactively applying it in the same year (which didn't seem to be mentioned by the other poster).
For those who qualify, it is 15% on the first $1m (technically, first $1.176m) and then 30% beyond it.They then don't qualify for the following year.
For those who don't qualify, it is 30% on everything. But if they earn less than $1m in a year (ie, $1.429m less 30% commission), then they would qualify the following year.
Words also have a range of meanings. The phrase “public opinion forced X to do Y” is a fairly common one. By using it, the author expresses their guess/opinion that it X felt that the pressure by public opinion left them no other choice. One could probably call this a figurative use of the word ‘forced’.
We have enough literalists in various domains, we really don’t need them also in the field of linguistic semantics.
