Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck Apple

Apple Cuts Affiliate Commissions on Apps and In-App Purchases (macstories.net) 81

Posted by msmash from the strange-developments dept.
From a report on Mac Stories: Today, Apple announced that it is reducing the commissions it pays on apps and In-App Purchases from 7 percent to 2.5 percent effective May 1st. The iTunes Affiliate Program pays a commission from Apple's portion of the sale of apps and other media when a purchase is made with a link that contains the affiliate credentials of a member of the program. Anyone can join, but the Affiliate Program is used heavily by websites that cover media sold by Apple and app developers.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Cuts Affiliate Commissions on Apps and In-App Purchases More

Apple Cuts Affiliate Commissions on Apps and In-App Purchases

Comments Filter:

  • Quasi-monopolies breed abuse. Film at 11.

    • Abuse? How do you figure?

      This is a kickback program, no different than Amazon's affiliate program. Sites attach their referrer ID to links, and when someone following a link buys an app, the referring site gets a kickback (taken from Apple's cut) on each sale. This is a standard business practice, and all Apple is doing here is adjusting the strength of the incentives they're providing, presumably because they no longer see as much value coming from referrals. There's nothing abusive about reducing incentiv

  • But Apple get its 30% cut still. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24, 2017 @04:08PM (#54294315)

    And you're still not getting a MacBook Pro with 32GB of RAM.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by TheFakeTimCook ( 4641057 )

      And you're still not getting a MacBook Pro with 32GB of RAM.

      You will be, as soon as Intel makes good on their Product Roadmap's Delivery Promises.

      • Right, because Intel hasn't yet released any mobile chips that support 32GB in 2 DIMMs. Well, other than the i7 in my wife's gaming laptop, which was already an older model when I bought it for her more than a year ago.

        Right, it's Intel's fault Apple doesn't sell laptops with the maximum amount of RAM possible. You know, just like the 2011 MacBook Pro I have sitting next to me could only possibly use 8GB of RAM (again, due to Intel's limitations, supposedly) but it's been running just fine with 16GB (and

        • Right, because Intel hasn't yet released any mobile chips that support 32GB in 2 DIMMs. Well, other than the i7 in my wife's gaming laptop, which was already an older model when I bought it for her more than a year ago.

          Right, it's Intel's fault Apple doesn't sell laptops with the maximum amount of RAM possible. You know, just like the 2011 MacBook Pro I have sitting next to me could only possibly use 8GB of RAM (again, due to Intel's limitations, supposedly) but it's been running just fine with 16GB (and able to use all of it as well) of aftermarket RAM for 6 years.

          No QUAD CORE, KABY LAKE's (or later) that supported more than 32 GB, sorry. That's what Apple was counting on.

          And the much lower power consumption of the Kaby's was ESSENTIAL to Apple meeting the THERMAL BUDGET for the design.

          And THAT was ESSENTIAL for the 2016 MBP's being able, unlike its 2015 predecessor, to run full-tilt, with NO THERMAL THROTTLING of the CPU nor GPU, making the new MBP MUCH faster in SUSTAINED high-demand Applications than its predecessor, EVEN THOUGH THE CPU IS ABOUT 8% SLOWER.

          https:// [youtube.com]

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Anonymous Coward
            So what you are saying due to Apples bad design they sacrificed functionality in order to keep slim and pretty.

          • And IIRC, your 2011 MBP only supported 16 GB after APPLE released a FIRMWARE REVISION.

            Huh, they must have released that firmware revision on DAY ONE, then... Oh, wait, no... Intel makes the CHIPSETS that contain the RAM CONTROLLERS that DETERMINE HOW MUCH RAM IS SUPPORTED and APPLE'S FIRMWARE NEVER PLAYS A ROLE IN THAT.

            By the way, it is very ANNOYING and REALLY DESTROYS YOUR CREDIBILITY when you type in RANDOM CAPITALS like you did throughout your ENTIRE POST.

            Don't believe me? Ask yourself how annoyed you are and how credible you think I am after reading the above statements.

            • And IIRC, your 2011 MBP only supported 16 GB after APPLE released a FIRMWARE REVISION.

              Huh, they must have released that firmware revision on DAY ONE, then... Oh, wait, no... Intel makes the CHIPSETS that contain the RAM CONTROLLERS that DETERMINE HOW MUCH RAM IS SUPPORTED and APPLE'S FIRMWARE NEVER PLAYS A ROLE IN THAT.

              By the way, it is very ANNOYING and REALLY DESTROYS YOUR CREDIBILITY when you type in RANDOM CAPITALS like you did throughout your ENTIRE POST.

              Don't believe me? Ask yourself how annoyed you are and how credible you think I am after reading the above statements.

              Funny; I just upgraded the RAM in a friend's mid-2010 Mac mini, and it required an Apple Firmware Update to recognize more than 8 GB of RAM. And the threads I was reading at the time also referred to that being necessary for some MBPs around that time-period.

              Ok, it appears it was on the 2008-2010 MBPs; so yours was not affected. But Apple still may not have qualified their systems with > 8 GB at the time of release.

              BTW, here's the link to the firmware (EFI) Update that allows the 2008-2010 MacBook Pros (

          • No QUAD CORE, KABY LAKE's (or later) that supported more than 32 GB, sorry. That's what Apple was counting on.

            Apple didn't need chips that supported more than 32GB in order to build a laptop with 32GB of RAM. Dafuq you talkin 'bout? And, even when they start using those CPUs with support for 64GB of RAM, you know they're only going to give us half of that.

            Wait... Right, Apple does "need" a CPU that can handle 64GB of RAM before they'll sell a system with 32GB, because Apple artificially limits the quantities or RAM they'll sell in their systems to half of what the CPU can actually support.

            Wasn't a big deal bef

            • No QUAD CORE, KABY LAKE's (or later) that supported more than 32 GB, sorry. That's what Apple was counting on.

              Apple didn't need chips that supported more than 32GB in order to build a laptop with 32GB of RAM. Dafuq you talkin 'bout? And, even when they start using those CPUs with support for 64GB of RAM, you know they're only going to give us half of that.

              Wait... Right, Apple does "need" a CPU that can handle 64GB of RAM before they'll sell a system with 32GB, because Apple artificially limits the quantities or RAM they'll sell in their systems to half of what the CPU can actually support.

              Wasn't a big deal before they started soldering the shit to the gahdamn board.

              Sorry that was a typo. Calm down. I meant "more than 16 GB". Sheesh!

              Stop just spewing hate. And most laptop manufacturers are doing that with RAM (at least) these days. I don't like it either; but it's unfortunately an industry-wide trend. Not every laptop (yet!); but it has certainly gone from nobody to a lotta bodies doing it in the past few years. I'm pretty sure it is because of two factors:

              1. Reliability. Seriously, in a laptop, it can matter if the RAM is socketed or soldered.

              2. Outside of Slashdot, m

              • Kaby Lake CPUs didn't come out at all until October 2016 and, when they did, all of the quad-core SKUs supported 64GB of RAM. That's irrelevant, though, as the Kaby Lake CPUs aren't what's in the 2016 MBP. The two prior generations (at least) supported 32GB. That includes the i5-6360U [intel.com] in the lowest-end 2016 MacBook Pro.

                So, what's the excuse, again?

                • Kaby Lake CPUs didn't come out at all until October 2016 and, when they did, all of the quad-core SKUs supported 64GB of RAM. That's irrelevant, though, as the Kaby Lake CPUs aren't what's in the 2016 MBP. The two prior generations (at least) supported 32GB. That includes the i5-6360U [intel.com] in the lowest-end 2016 MacBook Pro.

                  So, what's the excuse, again?

                  So, I went back and re-read some of the articles that came out at the time the 2016 MBPs were launched, and it turns out that I was sort of right; but not exactly right.

                  The real issue was that (if I got this right, synthesizing from a couple of different articles) the CPUs that were due to come out, but didn't, were due to support LPDDR4 (low-power DDR4) RAM, and when they didn't come out as promised by Intel, Apple chose to use a memory controller that supported LPDDR3 RAM (because that's all the CPU would

                  • I wonder what thrashing the SSD to swap to/from RAM does to battery life. Not to speak of performance or the longevity of said SSD.

                    Yes, battery life is a legitimate concern. However, it is less important than having 32GB of RAM to someone who needs more than 16.

                    I'd like to now address something you said a couple posts up:

                    Stop just spewing hate.

                    I'm not. I have waaaaaaaaaaaay too much Apple gear around here to be the Apple hater this site seems to think I am. More detail here. [slashdot.org]

                    If I hated Apple, I wouldn't give two shits that t

                    • I wonder what thrashing the SSD to swap to/from RAM does to battery life. Not to speak of performance or the longevity of said SSD.

                      Yes, battery life is a legitimate concern. However, it is less important than having 32GB of RAM to someone who needs more than 16.

                      I'd like to now address something you said a couple posts up:

                      Stop just spewing hate.

                      I'm not. I have waaaaaaaaaaaay too much Apple gear around here to be the Apple hater this site seems to think I am. More detail here. [slashdot.org]

                      If I hated Apple, I wouldn't give two shits that they don't currently make a computer that suits my needs, and I certainly wouldn't have bought my wife a brand new 5k iMac in November. In fact, if I hated Apple, I would be glad they didn't make a computer that fits my current needs, as that removes any potential temptation for me to give them a shot; more likely, if I hated Apple, I wouldn't know that they don't make a computer that fits my current needs.

                      No, I'm actually quite a fan of Apple. I do hate their current computer lineup, though, because it entirely excludes me.

                      You can pry my iPad Pro from my cold, dead hands, though.

                      Well, thrashing to/from an SSD is definitely less battery-intensive than thrashing to/from an HDD. As far as longevity goes, I would bet that later versions of OS X/macOS minimize the swapping between RAM and SDD, and "load leveling" also helps take care of some of that.

                      Keep in mind that Apple now rolls-their-own SDD controller. Did you know that? I would bet that it and its macOS driver work hand-in-glove to both maximize SDD life (important when you solder the suckers in!), and increase speed (Apple has t

                    • As far as longevity goes, I would bet that later versions of OS X/macOS minimize the swapping between RAM and SDD

                      Just how does one minimize swapping when you're trying to fit a 26GB dataset into 16GB of RAM? You don't and you can't, as that data must be in RAM to be utilized. That means swapping 10GB in and 10GB out every time you need to scan through it. It's actually more than 10GB because some of that 16GB is taken up by the OS and applications, but you (should) get my point.

                      I do wish that Apple would have pushed the Fusion Drive concept more aggressively

                      Why? They're garbage. My wife's 2015 iMac with Fusion has no better load times than her 2013 MacBook Pro did when it used a spinning disk.

                      SDD is still too expensive, and as you point out, still creeps people out (me included!) about longevity, especially with long-lived Apple laptops...

                      If y

                    • As far as longevity goes, I would bet that later versions of OS X/macOS minimize the swapping between RAM and SDD

                      Just how does one minimize swapping when you're trying to fit a 26GB dataset into 16GB of RAM? You don't and you can't, as that data must be in RAM to be utilized. That means swapping 10GB in and 10GB out every time you need to scan through it. It's actually more than 10GB because some of that 16GB is taken up by the OS and applications, but you (should) get my point.

                      I said "Minimize". I didn't say "Eliminate". So, what's your point?

                      I do wish that Apple would have pushed the Fusion Drive concept more aggressively

                      Why? They're garbage. My wife's 2015 iMac with Fusion has no better load times than her 2013 MacBook Pro did when it used a spinning disk.

                      I note you didn't mention Boot Times, I'll bet those were significantly faster.

                      How much faster "load times" are with a Fusion Drive depends on your Application-Use profile. If you use a small number of Applications often, those will get pushed to the SSD "Volume", and "Load Times" for THOSE Applications should be significantly improved. However, if your Application use is more "random", then the Fusion Drive concept will still help for Booti

                    • I note you didn't mention Boot Times, I'll bet those were significantly faster.

                      For a system that's left on (and sleeping when not in use), boot times are largely irrelevant. The difference between a 5 second boot time and a 50 second boot time is less than a second a day. That's the live most of the iMacs I've seen (let's just say more than a handful) live. Load times are what people who actually use their computers notice; most people seem to go get a cup of coffee or a snack while their computer boots, and they're gone much longer than it takes to do so no matter how fast or slow it

                    • I note you didn't mention Boot Times, I'll bet those were significantly faster.

                      For a system that's left on (and sleeping when not in use), boot times are largely irrelevant. The difference between a 5 second boot time and a 50 second boot time is less than a second a day. That's the live most of the iMacs I've seen (let's just say more than a handful) live. Load times are what people who actually use their computers notice; most people seem to go get a cup of coffee or a snack while their computer boots, and they're gone much longer than it takes to do so no matter how fast or slow it is; but they're sitting at the damn thing when they launch a program, aren't they?

                      You may have me there. And it may explain why Apple has de-emphasized the Fusion Drive.

                      I guess the problem is that people run too much of a mix of Applications to make the "Copy the most-used ones to SSD" actually work out in practice. Well, at least I have an answer to my internal question regarding that topic...

                      How many users do you think really spend "upward of $10-20k or more on a single workstation?" The numbers just aren't there.

                      Enough that companies exist just to serve them. If the numbers weren't there, those companies wouldn't be, either.

                      Those companies are mostly systems-integrators, not really OEMs. And most of them are nearly always teetering on the verge of insolvency. Yes, there are a lot of "qualifiers" in that sentence; beca

  • Wow! (Score:3)

    by kamapuaa ( 555446 ) on Monday April 24, 2017 @04:13PM (#54294357) Homepage

    Now that's what I call courage!

  • I am altering the deal (Score:5, Informative)

    by enjar ( 249223 ) on Monday April 24, 2017 @04:13PM (#54294359) Homepage

    Pray I don't alter it any further.

  • I've never purchased anything on iTunes. As usual, Fuck Apple
  • This is a red flag, Apple can and will control any and all business that occurs in their domain. The cut might make good business sense, but it can't be as important to revenue, as it is to confidence. The storefront operator, Apple, will do future renegotiations with the same 'I-have-the-gun' style. Software and data vendors can look forward to an arbitrary set of taxes and fees if they sell in the walled garden.

    • And how is that different to Amazon or the Google Play store?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by krouic ( 460022 )

        There are alternative stores for Android devices and for the stuff that Amazon sells.

        • Yes, for Amazone the alternative e.g. is iTunes/Apple and Google ... wow, that was easy.

          So what exactly is the alternative to Amazone or Google play and how does that affect the revenue of the developers selling there? Hm?

  • Affiliate revenue becomes effectively 0% for smaller earners - Performance Horizon who runs this program puts a threshold value at the country level before earnings are sent out. So now it will take approx three times as many impressions in each country to reach that threshold value - difficult for smaller countries. Why is this important? Because there is a time related threshold as well. If you haven't reached that country threshold in 18 months they keep the loot. Source - I earn through this affiliate

Slashdot Top Deals

If this is timesharing, give me my share right now.

Close