I agree on both points. My reply was more retorical than serious; although my points were valid.
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.
U.S. Antitrust Regulators Investigating Apple's App Store Fees and Policies
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A book that is not sold or returned (new edition is added) does not just disappear. The publisher doesn't "eat" the cost. The cost of the book is split between the author and the publisher. This is worldwide publishing and has been in place for decades.
You are confused if you think Apple needs to charge these fees to maintain the App Store. Sure they help but what Apple is offering developers is a marketplace of their users and they don't want Apps like Spotify to grab their userbase and then take off. Netflix had no problem with the fees while they were building up and then they just switched away from in-app purchase and all is fine.
None of Apple's practices are new or unique to Apple. Try putting a software title on retail shelf. If so your best hope is to get 30% of the sale. Steam, XBox, Nintendo, Sega all charge fees, per unit printed, to developers and only after they approve the game.
Printing a magazine and hope to get it in the stands? Again 30% which doesn't include paying your authors. Want to get subscribers to your new magazine? Get prepared to fork some money to get listed and then initial subscription with a yearly charge as well (sounds familiar?)
Authored a book and want Barnes and Noble shelfspace? Go through a publisher/distributor, get it printed and sent to the stores. The books that don't sell are returned then you and the publisher can eat the cost. If you got an advanced you can bet you will not see a dime for the first year unless you have Cred like Stephen King. There are tons of stories how these authors are even charged for "binding and delivery" services on ebooks!
i mostly advice client just follow apple human guideline or not. Mostly will be heart broken when see apple rejection . I prefer to develop system on android and web based instead. Just focus what problem to solve first.
Just need to compare it to console market which is older than the App Store.
Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo and (formally) Sega charges 30% per unit printed (that is before it hits the stores). They get a percent of the disc printed by the Disc Manufacturers. They charge a hosting fee for the digital titles (amount varies). They charge for the "digital" codes to their stores. At the time of publishing they charge for the evaluation. Got a bug and need to release an update, that is another charge ($8,000 to $10,000). Want a reduction in cost? Ok how about working an exclusivity deal and this is usually just for the Big Companies.
Want something closer to the app market. Look into Verzion's old app store or some of the Palm Pilot app stores. Those devs weren't making more that 19% unless it was someone at the level of EA.
[automerge]1593290233[/automerge]
1 to 3% if you are Apple. But if you are a small developer your rates are higher plus fees if you don't make enough transactions, then fees if you make too much. Then VISA/Mastercard/Amex like holding on to your money for a few weeks so they can earn so
While you are at it. Don't develop for Sony or Nintendo or Xbox and Steam (seeing the pattern?)
Last edited:
That’s only for subscriptions and big companies get around it because Apple created the reader category for them. So Netflix gets to be a reader app and thus doesn’t have to offer IAP.
Yes, appreciate it is for subscriptions. But really, I see little support in this thread for developers on this. Up to the governments to determine next move, until that happens, nothing is changing and really I can't see anything but a bad outcome for developers if Apple is forced to make changes.
Apple should lower the fees and allow developers to use alternative payment services.
There's a reason why PSPs (payment service providers) exist: It is often too costly or too much hassle for developers to implement and maintain interfaces to various payment gateways.
What Apple should do:
There's a reason why PSPs (payment service providers) exist: It is often too costly or too much hassle for developers to implement and maintain interfaces to various payment gateways.
What Apple should do:
- Become a real payment processor
- Allow developers to choose between Apple's simple, hassle-free in-app implementation or third party methods that must be implemented outside of the app (linking allowed)
- Lower the costs to 10% for app downloads and in-app features
- Lower the costs to 5% for content subscriptions (music, video...)
- What nobody has talked about: Allow Apple payments for goods and services delivered outside of the app (shopping, Uber rides, bike rentals): 3-5% (currently not possible)
Maybe a developer could flag their app as only being available through the AppStore. So that apple could do a check against the AppStore before installing and block the app from being installed through other ways.
By default all apps would just be flagged like that from the start.
Of course a jailbreak could be used to overcome this, but how low is the percentage of jailbreak users.
but then it also depends how easy it is to modify the ipa file to make it look like it’s a different app.
but see, you are bringing up a good point and I bet Apple might have thought of such consequences.
But a lot of devs are quite shortsighted and don’t consider all aspects, they just see 30% and get angry.
one more thing I could imagine is going down the road like unreal engine. Small developers with a small revenue could be exempt or pay reduced fees.
I am with Apple, its their platform, its their app store, its their hardware, its their software.
That being said, I still think 30% is too steep given that after that the developer still have to pay taxes. Maybe take it down to 15% or 20%. As for subscription apps I feel its fair if you buy subscription outside the app store and download the app free. I think a nice middle ground would be that Apple can offer apps for free but once they hit a specific number of users the developer should pay like $1/user per year assuming the developers generates money like Instagram via ads and not FOSS like VLC.
I mean, its one thing to be a free app with 100K users but if you got like 50M users that apple is reviewing your app for and paying for servers and maintenance...pay up.
That being said, I still think 30% is too steep given that after that the developer still have to pay taxes. Maybe take it down to 15% or 20%. As for subscription apps I feel its fair if you buy subscription outside the app store and download the app free. I think a nice middle ground would be that Apple can offer apps for free but once they hit a specific number of users the developer should pay like $1/user per year assuming the developers generates money like Instagram via ads and not FOSS like VLC.
I mean, its one thing to be a free app with 100K users but if you got like 50M users that apple is reviewing your app for and paying for servers and maintenance...pay up.
Wrong. I don't see as much malware as I do on the Google Play store.
No. If notarized apps that were automatically scanned is just as safe as the human review process, Apple would have just done that for their App Store review process (and require apps be sold exclusively on the App Store) saving the need to hire 300 full time workers to review each app.
Also notarized apps can easily be compromised after many users run an infected version. It's up to the developer to work with Apple to disable that version. iOS App Store apps don't have this specific issue.
[automerge]1593305267[/automerge]
You're assuming those apps distributed outside the App Store would be just as successful without the hundreds of millions of people visiting the App Store every week. That's a wrong assumption. It's just not as easy or as secure as having it installed through the App Store. Those are a couple of reasons why some of these "free" games are successful.
Last edited:
Developers were getting 0% before Apple came along. They created the App Store which created thousands of small developers that didn’t previously exist. In light of that, 70% for the first year doesn’t sound that bad to me.
There's a dungeon of software language, hardware in the market. As me, we build as customers requested and not purely develop for Apple because of low margin and high cost.
Most software markets profitable on enterprise resource planning (ERP) rather than mobile apps. Mobile apps more on marketing purposes and very tiny small systems. Some said making gaming in mobile apps was easy, which actually not.
** My Apps in Play Store just pure marketing not for profit and no advert annoyance.
dungeon - myriad/lot.
For me in apple development, I used Swift/Swift UI - https://www.apple.com/my/swift/
For non apple development - .Net Core(Mac),PHP, Java
Hype - Programming is fragile. As the WWDC event, Apple creates a new update to the language SWIFT, and the old structure might be depreciated. For new developers will focus on the latest hype, innovation, and forgetting sometimes it was not supported for an old Operating System like 11/12.
Hype - For business, the hype just thinking 99 cents will be bought by millions of a user in Apple Store but unknown there was some algorithm to pull their apps to the front page. Like a normal business, you still need to do marketing outside the apple store and link it to your product page.
Fall - Development needed a lot of resources and ideas to keep changing among the bosses(consumer), and low-rank staff(Consumer). So don't forget as the apple environment, we have guidelines to follow (https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guidelines/). This guideline may be accepted by the client and maybe not and most of them try to ask the vendor to submit their idea. So after a few months,year changing all the requirements and all people getting lethargic and at last, they will stop the project.
Are you thinking of Swift UI? What was deprecated? Are you aware that you can code in Swift UI for iOS 11 and 12 without any problems?
Sorry, again don’t understand thE first sentence. Yes, you need to do marketing, but what’s your point?
I take it you are some sort of contract developer?
Are you thinking of Swift UI? What was deprecated? Are you aware that you can code in Swift UI for iOS 11 and 12 without any problems?
Refer to here - https://developer.apple.com/documentation/swiftui
Availability
- iOS 13.0+
- macOS 10.15+
- Mac Catalyst 13.0+
- tvOS 13.0+
- watchOS 6.0+
Sorry, again don’t understand thE first sentence. Yes, you need to do marketing, but what’s your point?
The point some saying we paid 30% commission in-app purchase for putting in the apple store and apple do rest of marketing. To upload you required to paid apple developer 99 dollars.
I take it you are some sort of contract developer?
It can consider as one.
Last edited:
Here is an idea how you can change; sell your product somewhere else or release it on your own store.