And so does every single human being in this world. Oh yeah how dare Apple want to be praised for once especially when forums like Macrumors have the majority of their members who do nothing but trash Apple on a daily basis. Your post is a prime example of this. You sound ridiculous. SMH.
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 Shares Praise From Developers Happy With 15% App Store Fee Cut
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, I was referring to all of your other posts. Of course the 12% looks fine compared to 30%, but they don’t offer all of the same perks and resources that Apple does. Plus why would they be fine paying that 30% on other developing platforms? Xbox, PlayStation, etc. Their whole case is selfish and hypocritical.I'm an Epic fanboy because I pointed out the fact that Epic's commission is 12 percent vs Apple's 15 percent? Wow.
It's not as if Apple's never breach a contract (i.e. Qualcomm), right? Maybe Epic took a page out of Apple's playbook.
The ONLY companies with any huge worry at this point are those that have an investment in development for Apple platforms that they’d rather not see evaporate. If you’re NOT on the App Store, then that doesn’t factor into the conversation regarding Apple.
If a company is cross platform, you’re thinking hard about your position and if you want to risk your Apple funding stream (which some companies are). How big IS the share for Unreal anyway. 13%? Oh, ok so there’s likely VERY VERY few companies in this position, but still 13 is greater than zero! Unity Technology’s CEO hasn’t been mouthing off at Apple, and they’re at 48% COINCIDENCE??!?!?
Yes, absolutely a coincidence... maybe /s
Other people doing bad things doesn't justify Epic behaving that way. If anything they should be held to a higher standard.
I do not understand how charging developers less (which Epic does) is bad. A developer chooses to use the Unreal Engine...one of many choices a developer can make.
Epic has more than one business. They run a digital game distribution storefront and they make tools to build games. Making the price of the more popular of those two things dependent upon the less popular one is using their position in one market to influence prices in other markets. It's true they are not the only engine out there, but they are one of the biggest and one of the most recognized.
It's not charging less that is bad. It's how they charge less which is bad.
Their storefront also charges developers less than competing platforms...If you sell on their platform your Unreal Engine fees are waived. It sounds like they developed a win-win for...the developer...and consumer... and Epic.
I honestly do not get your beef. On every front, the actual developer gets to keep the income from their own work at a greater percentage than other engines/storefronts!
There is a fourth party in that scenario. Epic's competitors. I don't see how this is difficult. Epic is using success in one market to influence another market. This is bad. It's just like Amazon and Walmart have done. They supplement lower prices under what the market would end up at in the hopes that they can drive away competition for long enough to build their brand.
Epic is not Walmart or Amazon in the game engine market. Their store, compared to Steam is really small...although, gaining popularity. Unity3d has a massive installed base.
Unity3d could choose to create their own games (i.e. Fortnite), create a storefront, and do the same thing. They choose not to. Heck, have you checked their market cap, they certainly could afford to create a storefront and purchase a few studios. So, no... Unity3d is not being hurt by what Epic is choosing to do.
The developer is the big winner here, by keeping more of their money compared to competing storefronts/engines.
You seem to be seeking every excuse to defend their behavior. If they are or if they ever become the dominate player it will be in part because of these actions and that will be on us for allowing it. They are acting like Walmart and Amazon and that is all that matters.
The rules—as this very news story suggests—aren’t applied consistently, and Apple changes them (or at least how they are enforced) regularly. Are you confident Apple won’t simply change their mind and ban Hey? Because I’m not. And that’s the problem.
Not that this is about me, but why should I have to switch to Android? Would you be happy with Apple if they suddenly decided to stop allowing your email service?
If you’re using a free email client (eg gmail) you’re paying a lot more than $99/year. You just aren’t paying in dollars.I know, right? I still don’t get $99 a year for EMAIL.But, HEY, some folks do. LOL
I really don’t disagree with this characterization. And frankly, though I like the Hey email service, I’m not especially a fan of his.
But this isn’t an either/or situation: I don’t agree with everything he’s said, but I do think he raises some valid points. And I think the “truth” lies somewhere between DHH and Apple. But Apple has all the leverage, and has (to date) been unyielding in their stance.
When one of the largest and wealthiest companies on Earth has all the leverage and is using it to prevent competition, things need to change.
I’m not saying Hey (for example) shouldn’t have to pay their fair share to Apple, but 30% (iirc) isn’t fair for subscriptions and we all know that.
Just slightly more complicated: It's $1,000,000 that the developer receives. So VAT that the customer pays in the EU doesn't count, and 85% of the remainder must be $1,000,000. A UK company selling purely in the UK could make $1,000,000 with the 15% added which gives $1,176,470 before VAT, meaning customers would pay 20% more = 1,411,764 because of VAT, and the developer would get exactly $1,000,000. Plus they would have paid $200,000 in VAT that they can deduct from VAT payments they have to make themselves. If I understand it right. With 150 countries involved, it's Complicated with a capital C.
I think for the smaller developers, 30% commission (even for subscriptions) is reasonable given the role the App Store plays in customer acquisition. And this drops to 15% after the 2nd year. Though I concede that Apple probably should go one step further and lower the cut to 10% or maybe even 5% from the third year onwards (just to cover the costs of payment processing), because it no longer plays an active role in consumers continuing with their subscription.
I can't see how halving the App Store fees for small businesses is anything but a good news story. The comments from Spotify, Epic and Basecamp just make them sound like spoiled children, spiteful because someone else benefited and they didn't. The comments from many MR readers aren't much better.
Eh, they’re applied consistently enough for the vast majority of developers who don’t have an axe to grind to make quite a bit of money. Given the history of “Hey”, I’d guess it’s actually far more likely that they would take actions clearly in violation of their agreement than it would be for Apple to invent a new rule to eliminate them.
I wouldn’t be happy, BUT I’d have to make some adjustments if “Hey” was an integral part of my computing experience. If that means I have to go to Windows, Android, OR do without “Hey”, then that’s just a decision to be made.
I use Apple mail. Yes, if they stopped allowing Apple Mail to work, as long as they provided ample time to switch, it’d be fine in the long run. However, email isn’t a critically important thing to me, so I doubt the impact would be tremendous.
There doesn’t appear to be anything particularly special about “Hey” (but, again, I’m not a subscriber). I can guess that, as email is an accepted electronic communication standard, the way they deal with it can’t be too different from the way anyone else deals with it. When it comes right down to it, the company handling your email is asking you to “trust” them. And, in this case, the company asking folks to trust them also has a CEO that “doesn’t like to play by the rules.” Which, kinda runs counter to “trust”?
Tax cuts? Really? How about the developers passing on the cuts, or part of it, to the little guy who buys their products? If Apple is accused of greed for charging a markup on items it sells, just like every other for profit business, then the same would apply to developers who all of a sudden got a windfall. Where is the outrage and clutching of pearls over that?
I agree.
But what about larger companies? Companies who have built a service that operates across many platforms, eg web, Windows, Android, MacOS, iOS. That’s when Apple’s rules really seem to fall apart IMO.
You seem very intent that everyone follow Apple’s rules. But don’t seem particularly interested in discussing whether those rules are fair. 🤷♂️ And that’s the point of my first post. “Consistently enough” isn’t exactly a proper legal standard, is it?
Does any company like Hey really have a choice but to follow Apple’s rules? No, they don’t, if they want access to half the population. So pushing the envelope as it relates to that “agreement” is in no way indicative of their trustworthiness, FWIW.
Larger companies that earn more can and should pay more, as this money goes back into paying the bills that are incurred from running the App Store and helps ensure its continued viability and vitality.
If it’s a multi platform app, the developer doesn’t have to pay Apple anything if the subscription is made anywhere else (eg: directly through its website). If the user opts to subscribe through the iOS app, one can argue that he chose to do so out of convenience, and that Apple has facilitated a transaction made possible by its App Store functionality.
And since Apple has helped the developer acquire a customer, they feel entitled to a cut of the revenue.
It’s like paying your income tax. Of course the wealthy are going to want to get away with paying as little as possible, but we all know what happens when they do. The system just falls apart.
I’m not going to pretend that I’ve been able to keep up with all the nuance over the years. But I believe the problem is that it’s not that straightforward. Apple requires that you offer a subscription through the App Store, but then they pick-and-choose (nearly arbitrarily) which apps don’t have to follow that rule.
I can’t get behind the arbitrariness... and you can’t blame a developer for not wanting to pay a “tax” to Apple that is disproportionate to the services they are receiving. For apps (like some games, for example) that rely heavily on Apple dev tools and distribution it makes sense. It doesn’t make sense for a service where the iOS app is only a very small portion of the service being provided. It’s taxation without representation.
That’s what the ‘Hey brouhaha’ was all about, no? From the Verge:
- Apple’s App Store rules require paid services to offer users the ability to sign up and pay in the app using Apple’s payment tools. That costs developers a nonnegotiable 30 percent cut.
- There is a controversial carveout in the rules for “reader” apps like Netflix and Spotify but not email apps.
- Apple initially approved the Hey app in the iOS App Store but rejected a bug-fix update because it decided Hey violated the rules by not offering in-app subscriptions.
- Apple told Protocol that “client apps” are allowed for “business services” but not “consumer products,” a distinction that appears nowhere in the rules and which Apple did not push with other media outlets.
ONLY if they want to be on the App Store. Apple’s rules only apply there.
For the apps I use and trust, those companies abide by the rules of the App Store I use to acquire them. As a result, I have little concern about those companies willingly doing something that might get them removed from the App Store. I think we can agree that the same can’t be said for “Hey”. Which is fine by me because my money and info isn’t on the line if they happen to do something shady.
It doesn’t matter that the rules are fair, they are there. And, generally speaking, well behaved companies follow them. There are hundreds of thousands of companies that adhere to their agreements with no problem. Not just for the App Store, mind, but in many things that they do. When it comes down to it, it doesn’t matter if their lease is “fair” or their server costs “fair”, or that the gas for the company car is “fair” fthat’s the price they agreed to during acquisition.
Unlike the leadership of “Hey”, I generally don’t enter into agreements where I disagree with the core of the agreement. Greed is a POWERFUL motivator, though, and was likely part of the reason why Hey entered into an agreement with Apple anyway. I’d actually like to see MORE companies going the Epic Games route. I’m sure if companies can stream a AAA game, there exists the ability to stream any application, especially something as simple as email.
Then we’re at an impasse. I don’t expect anyone—individual or corporation—to follow rules/laws that aren’t inherently fair.
(I also disagree with your assessment that “well behaved companies follow them” ...because many of the companies that appear well behaved aren’t being asked to follow the same rules, eg Netflix.)
When a corporation wields the wealth, power, and market share that Apple does, they lose the ability to completely set their own rules. They are required by law to be fair, and that’s a cornerstone of our society.
Yeah, I think we can only agree to disagree at the end of the day.
To me, Apple’s overriding duty is to ensure the continued vitality and viability of App Store (this is an overarching theme you will keep hearing from me), and their policies are designed with this in mind.
This is what ensures the continued success of the App Store, which in turn is what helps improve the overall user experience and sell more apple products.
I wouldn’t count fairness to developers as one of Apple’s key priorities, for the simple reason that developers are not Apple’s customers (though they may own numerous apple devices themselves, but the relationship dynamic is different), but of course Apple has to keep them happy so they stick around and continuing to create apps for customers.
It’s a fine balancing act.
This then brings me to the next phenomenon where the majority of app developers earn no money or very little, which means that they in turn generate no income for Apple, but incur costs for Apple. Costs that the $99 annual developer fee don’t even come close to covering. But these are also the developers which matter most to Apple, even more so than household brands like netflix, Spotify and yes, even Fortnite.
As such, the financial burden then falls on the minority of developers who are earning supernormal profits to “pay their share” which goes towards covering the costs of the App Store and ensuring its continued support and vibrancy.
So when developers like Epic or DHH complain about having to pay Apple their 30% share, I don’t blame them. As individuals, they need to only care about their own bottom line and their own bottom line alone, and of course they would want to maximise the profits they bring home. I would do the same thing were I in their shoes.
However, I am not Epic. I am not DHH. These companies are earning millions of dollars a year and have no issues making ends meet. They have also demonstrated that they have no qualms about burning the App Store paradigm to the ground just to earn more of the oversized profits that they are already raking in, and that’s where I as an Apple consumer feel compelled to step in and voice my opposition.
As someone who is all in on the Apple ecosystem, I want it to stay a certain way to ensure a great user experience for me. That, amongst other things, means keeping certain things the way they are, such as there being only 1 App Store through all apps must flow through (so Apple can vet and monitor them), the use of iTunes for app purchases (for privacy and ease of tracking subscriptions and updates) and yes, each developer paying his share so the App Store continues to thrive (because it’s already been established that a lower commission rate is not going to lower app prices because software has virtually zero marginal costs).
It’s an issue of equity, not equality.
To clarify, I didn’t think we were at an impasse. Nonetheless, I’ll respect that and keep this brief...
As am I, and as do I. The fact that all apps flow through one App Store is one of my favorite aspects of owning an iPhone. I don’t want that to change.
The only threat I see to the current incarnation of the App Store is Apple’s unwillingness to modify their policies as the market continues to grow and evolve. Developers big and small need to have incentive to develop for iOS. If we lose that, it’s you and me who suffer. And large developers are currently sounding the alarm.
Put another way: if Apple doesn’t have a problem with the Netflix app, they shouldn’t have a problem with the Hey app, right? And yet they do, and that worries me. Shouldn’t it worry all of us? Because what app will be next?
Yeah, accounting and taxes can be complicated fir sure. But this plan isn’t complicated, at least as I understand it.
Any dev who receives less than $1,000,000 from Apple in 2020 is eligible for the new, discounted rate of 15%. They pay 15% as long as they make less than a million a year from Apple.
But if that dev does hit a million, they are removed from the discount program and they immediately pay 30% from that moment on.
And they’ll never see 15% again, ever—unless they finish out some future year at less than $1,000,000.
If they do fall out of the million dollar club, they are again eligible for the 15% rate effective immediately.
Last edited: