Developers React To 27% Commission With Astonishment and Anger (9to5mac.com) 275
"Developers reacted with astonishment and anger at Apple's 27% commission policy as a minimal form of compliance with a new antitrust law regarding the App Store," reports 9to5Mac. After being ordered by Dutch regulators to allow developers to opt-out of the App Store payment platform, Apple announced today that it "would reduce its commission by only three percent" from the 30 percent commission it typically charges developers, reports 9to5Mac. Additionally, Apple said it would "impose onerous administrative overheads -- such as applying for permission to use a specific API, maintaining a separate version of the app, and filing reports with Apple." 9to5Mac highlights a number of reactions from disgruntled developers: Macworld did a great roundup of reactions to this by a number of well-known developers: "Apple was blasted by developers on Twitter who took issue with the exorbitant fee. Steve Troughton-Smith called the move 'absolutely vile' [...] Marco Arment wrote that you 'can just FEEL how much they despise having to do any of this.' Others noted that it 'defeats the purpose of the law' and that developers will still need to pay at least 3 percent to the payment provider, thus negating even the small savings."
Steve Troughton-Smith retweeted our story, and commented: "Absolutely vile. This says everything about @tim_cook's Apple and what it thinks of developers. I hope the company gets exactly what it deserves. Everybody on their executive team should be ashamed, and some of them should not be here when it's all over. We all see you."
Marco Arment highlighted the conditions imposed by Apple:
- Separate app, only available in Netherlands
- Cannot also support IAP
- Must display scary sheets before payment
- Website links are all to a single URL specified in Info.plist with no parameters
- Must submit monthly report to Apple listing EVERY external transaction
Adding: "And after you pay your ~3% to your payment processor, Apple's 27% commission takes you right back up to 30%. Glorious. Come on, THIS is comedy. Amazing, ridiculous comedy. I'd be surprised if a single app ever took them up on this. (And that's exactly by design.)"
Steve Troughton-Smith retweeted our story, and commented: "Absolutely vile. This says everything about @tim_cook's Apple and what it thinks of developers. I hope the company gets exactly what it deserves. Everybody on their executive team should be ashamed, and some of them should not be here when it's all over. We all see you."
Marco Arment highlighted the conditions imposed by Apple:
- Separate app, only available in Netherlands
- Cannot also support IAP
- Must display scary sheets before payment
- Website links are all to a single URL specified in Info.plist with no parameters
- Must submit monthly report to Apple listing EVERY external transaction
Adding: "And after you pay your ~3% to your payment processor, Apple's 27% commission takes you right back up to 30%. Glorious. Come on, THIS is comedy. Amazing, ridiculous comedy. I'd be surprised if a single app ever took them up on this. (And that's exactly by design.)"
Apple takes the first 27% of the profit! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Apple takes the first 27% of the profit! (Score:5, Interesting)
Nobody else is.
I've been writing ios apps since the store opened. A long time ago I worked out that you DONT want to be the guy who has to fork up the money for the project expecting to make a profit. Man did I learn it the hard way. Because nobody makes a profit. A bunch of us set up a company, and put together one of the first VOIP apps for IOS that could work with the terrible multitasking policy iOS had at the time , essentially using a specialized server to send a background notification to wake up the app when a call was incoming.
So heres the problem. We quickly ran into a problem with patents, with the cheapest license we could get for G729 patents , 100% necessary at the time to interoperate with any VOIP, was $10 a handset. On top of that Apple wants 1/3. End result was a minimum $13 fee for the app just to break even. Now I'll grant much of the blame there was on the stupid patent system, but when your up againt random chinese apps that cost $1 and clearly arent paying for their patents , every cent counts.
Nobody is making money on that place except for the kinds of scumsuckers that talk of "whales" and deliberately engineer apps to screw with peoples attention spans and exploit peoples cognitive faults when it comes to money and risk.
So now I just write other peoples software and if they are the unicorn that actually makes money, well I'll be rejoycing for them, otherwise I'd rather someone else take the fall, and I'll just cut my paycheque and walk away.
This is YOUR fault, you greedy bastards (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple established the concept of the app store, and you flocked to it because you had dollar signs in your eyes. For years on end the financial attractiveness of developing for the Apple walled garden was heralded to elevate yourselves over the poor Android developers. You made your bed, now lie in it. If Apple wants to take half or even more, that's their decision. You put Apple in that position to the detriment of all users. We went from the personal computer to a locked down consumer terminal for the cloud because of YOU and all you can think of is haggling about your share, you goddamn Judases.
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually Apple that has been (successfully) shifting the conversation to "percentages", because there's no public sympathy for a contract dispute over percentages. It makes people tune out. The Epic lawsuit [reuters.com], the anti-trust investigations [theinformation.com] into Apple around [techradar.com] the world [reuters.com], the Bill that just reached the U.S. Senate [reuters.com], and more are all about fixing the fac
Re: (Score:3)
Apple established the concept of the app store
Except that they didn't. Just about every feature phone prior to that had an app store, all the way back to circa 2001 or so. But those app stores were run by the cellular carriers, were specific to a particular model of phone (and carrier), and had maybe a dozen games on them. Apple didn't invent the app store; they just made it popular and more usable.
LOL "Victim": Apple made developers BILLIONS (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
99% False (Score:5, Interesting)
iPhone development started in 2004, and Jobs informed Apple's Board (which Eric Schmidt sat on).
Schmidt panicked because he knew iPhone, if successful, would kill desktops and Google's desktop ad revenues.
Because of this, Schmidt (in the mother of all conflicts of interest) made Google buy Android in 2005 to compete with iPhone.
The first iPhone shipped in January 2007.
The public release of the Android beta on November 5, 2007.
The first commercial version, Android 1.0, was released on September 23,
The ENTIRE POINT of Google rushing Android phones to market was a response to Steve Jobs revealing the iPhone to him (confidentially while he was sitting on Apple's board)! If Schmidt isn't on Apple's board, there are no Android phones as you know them.
The irony is, Schmidt's evil plan didn't really work very well. The lion's share of mobile ad revenue goes through iPhone. So much so, that Google pays Apple billions of dollars per year just to be the default search engine.
One really wonders if Android has been net profitable for Google if you take all of that into account.
Re: (Score:3)
One really wonders if Android has been net profitable for Google if you take all of that into account.
Wow, that is so unbelievably stupid that you deserve to have my handle.
Android makes billions for Google. [theverge.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Also, there is no way in hell any parents are going to use an external app store.
What if there was a third party app store that connected accounts so that the children's account couldn't buy anything, they could only install the apps the parents had purchased?
It seems that rather than be a problem, this is exactly the sort of use case that would benefit from competition.
Google: Similar but Thinking Different (Score:5, Informative)
According to their Service Fees page [google.com], Google has a 4% reduction in service fees using payment systems outside of the app store, if I'm reading that correctly. But if you are making less than $1M/year, their take is only 15% normally and 11% using outside payment systems.
Plus you have the benefit of reaching 70% of the mobile phone market vs. 30% [statcounter.com]. Although, Android users spend only a little over half as much [9to5mac.com] as their iOS counterparts. Still, it maths out better to develop for Android both in terms of market share x spending, and particularly in service fees.
Re:Google: Similar but Thinking Different (Score:5, Insightful)
so why is dateing apps not at ZERO commission? (Score:2)
so why is dating apps not at ZERO commission? like uber on apple?
Re: (Score:2)
so why is dating apps not at ZERO commission? like uber on apple?
That is actually a good question!
I must admit I don't know the answer.
Blatantly obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Its pretty obvious to everyone how greedy they are with such a move.
Uh, today it is. Tomorrow, it will be a lot harder to cry "obvious" when everyone is charging the same. And then everyone collectively bends over and takes it up the ass. And Greed smiled upon the endless moons.
Walled gardens will come to an end sooner or later be it 1 or 50 years in the future.
50 years eh? Hell of a "campaign" offer you've got there to support how "obvious" this is, and how confident you are in defeating the Greed fueling it. No wonder we hate elected officials so much these days.
Do you know who owns corporations? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are levels to Greed, buried within tolerance. Be careful what you ask for. You'll get it, and far more. Greed will eat itself and not care about the pain.
Millions of people own Apple.
It's amazing how incredibly backwards your understanding is, with this. They didn't become a trillion dollar company and command this level of Corporate Arrogance, simply because shareholders.
My understanding is backwards? (Score:2)
My father had to retire due to disability in his 50's. Fortunately, as an Apple stockholder, he is able to live comfortably on the dividends.
Every K-12 public school teacher in America holds Apple stock in their pension funds.
Tell me how many of these whining, ungrateful developers contribute to these type of pro-social outcomes. Sounds like you are the backwards thinking one.
Re: (Score:3)
Its pretty obvious to everyone how greedy they are with such a move. And i think its the first nail in the coffin. Any goodwill any judge looking at this afterwards would possibly have had will have gone out the door by such a face slapp. Walled gardens will come to an end sooner or later be it 1 or 50 years in the future.
A "walled garden" is a prison by another name.
What Apple fears from this move is ultimately that other countries will follow suit. So they're trying to make it as much of a failure as they can whilst still appearing to "comply" with the law. That way they can go to the court of West Texas and say "see, it didn't work in foreign countries, don't do it here".
Re: (Score:2)
Its pretty obvious to everyone how greedy they are with such a move.
And i think its the first nail in the coffin. Any goodwill any judge looking at this afterwards would possibly have had will have gone out the door by such a face slapp.
Walled gardens will come to an end sooner or later be it 1 or 50 years in the future.
Really?
Google charges 26% commission on purchases outside of Google's Payment System. Apple is proposing 27%.
So, what's your point?
Re: (Score:2)
This is just nature at work. The natural world is hardly an open source utopia - wal
Re: Blatantly obvious (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>Its pretty obvious to everyone how greedy they are with such a move. That's correct. Apple has created a successful platform, allowed third parties to develop for it, provided a marketplace for those developers to sell their goods, and all those devs do is complain they don't make enough money.
hahahahahahaha this is rich. The statement "allowed third parties to develop for it" hahahahaha If they didn't allow that, their platform would be complete and utter shit. Can you imagine an iphone today with no 3rd party apps? Would you buy it? You think that would be a "successful platform" without developers? Oh yeah the original ipod touch/ iphone did not allow 3rd party apps, then came Cydia and others that not only provided 3rd party apps when Apple refused but also "created a marketplace" th
Re: (Score:2)
You give developers too much credit (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In your version of things, Apple "allows" me to visit competitors websites in Safari, and they should be free to lock me out at any time. And Apple "allows" me to place phone calls to competitors companies. I mean, why shouldn't Apple get a 30% cut if I place an order for a pizza by ca
Re: (Score:2)
No, the problem is _you_ chose to purchase it, knowing that up front. If you didn't want to buy a device with limitations, you shouldn't have bought it, instead of complaining after the fact with some bullshit which ignores your decision. Take responsibility for your actions, instead of trying to change the contract after the fact.
Re: LOL Antitrust. Apple isn't a monopoly (Score:2)
Rent on the Apple AppStore finally arrives (Score:2)
DEVS have a cross-compile FEE of their own to charge back to Apple for every OS they compile, revise and upgrade. Too long has the AppStore party gone-on under a tide lifts all boats.
SteveJobs is gone. Emerged is a monopoly worthy of the Infinity Loop he built.
Failing that. DEVS can stand-up an AppsMall where their goods can be sold.
Apple isn't a monopoly (Score:2)
Re:Apple isn't a monopoly (Score:4, Informative)
That is not enshrined in law. It is typical of court decisions, but not necessary. A company can exercise enough control over the market to be in a monopoly situation without being the largest company in that market.
https://www.justice.gov/atr/co... [justice.gov]
Apple reduced commission by 10%, not 3% (Score:2, Informative)
Re: Apple reduced commission by 10%, not 3% (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No.
30 - 10% = 27. This is because 10% of 30 is 3. This is what that notation means. You can read it like "30 less 10 percent" if that helps you.
Put it into wolfram alpha [wolframalpha.com] if you don't believe me. I'm not going to get into an argument over primary school math.
Sideloading (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sideloading (Score:5, Insightful)
The regulators should have insisted on allowing sideloading. Force Apple to make the sdks public with a consumer opt in to sideload. Then Apple will have no ability to control payment methods, fees, or censor apps they don't like. As long as they can kill an apps distribution, they'll always pull these shenanigans.
This, exactly. The problem isn't how much Apple charges app developers - it's that Apple is allowed to ram their walled garden down users' and devs' throats.
Sure, have your walled garden; but let users either continue to live in Eden, or to eat the Apple and, with devices and freedoms in hand, escape... ;-}
Re:Sideloading (Score:5, Insightful)
This, exactly. The problem isn't how much Apple charges app developers - it's that Apple is allowed to ram their walled garden down users' and devs' throats.
Buy Android and STFU.
We (Apple Users) like it here.
As a User, Not having to do an hour's worth of research to try and discover whether some random App is going to be safe, combined with the added savings in time and frustration not having to scour the intarwebs trying to locate an App well makes up for the .1% of the time I wish that iOS App Store Rules make a particular Class of App available. I have a computer for those rare occasions.
And not having to spew my CC info out to dozens of random "Third Party App Stores/Websites", plus being able to easily CANCEL Subscriptions is, quite frankly, Priceless; both to me, and AFAICT, to most Apple Users.
So, who should Apple place their greatest emphasis on? Their (incredibly loyal) Userbase (which number in the BEELIONS!), or a bunch of random, greedy Developers (who are a much smaller number!), who think that their nearly 3/4 of a loaf (and for smaller Devs, and those selling long-term Subscriptions), 7/8 of a loaf), for Apple delivering many times the exposure that having their App in some random search aggregator would bring (nevermind handling payment processing, chargebacks/disputes, hosting, etc.), just isn't enough?
But I guess we insignificant Users don't get to decide what we want, eh?
Re: (Score:3)
This seems to be what is always missed in the discussions about Apple products: Apple users buy Apple products because they like the way the Apple ecosystem works.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Sideloading (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The regulators were working with a very limited complaint, and can't generally go outside that complaint without very good reason. "Apple Evil" isn't a good enough reason.
Re: (Score:2)
The regulators should have insisted on allowing sideloading. Force Apple to make the sdks public with a consumer opt in to sideload. Then Apple will have no ability to control payment methods, fees, or censor apps they don't like. As long as they can kill an apps distribution, they'll always pull these shenanigans.
Apple could allow side loading and wall of most of the OS' features in the name of security. Access to them would be allowed if you allowed Apple to review the app and issue a certificate. That of course, cost an upfront fee plus 27% of your revenue, and we can audit sales.
Vote for different politicians (Score:2)
If you don't like the outcome of the law written by current politicians, vote for politicians who will pass laws which will give the outcome you want. If there are enough people like you, you will get the outcome you want.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple commands 98% of mobile revenues. Consumers have voted with their wallets and love Apple's iOS model. And developers could boycott Apple if they don't like their terms, but they are greedy and want a piece of the pie! A pie THAT WOULD NOT EXIST WITHOUT APPLE!
Precisely!
Corporations doing what corporations do (Score:4, Insightful)
"Absolutely vile. This says everything about @tim_cook's Apple and what it thinks of developers".
It's not so much "vile" as "nothing personal - just business". Developers have to understand how they are regarded by corporations like Apple. It doesn't think of them as people, but as raw material to be processed as quickly and efficiently, and at as high a profit, as possible.
When will people understand that corporations are, in every significant respect, AIs? They have essentially one goal: to maximise profit (and perhaps share value). In linear programming you can optimise for only one variable, and for corporations that variable is money. Literally nothing else counts at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, do people think that if Apple had gone OK, tell you what, we will take our commission down to 20% or even 15%, that any of that money now going to developers would be passed on to consumers in terms of cheaper apps?
If it is a fight over profits between suppliers (Apple with the Store, developers with the apps) that has little chance of altering things significantly for the customer, why do governments get involved? If they make a law that pretty much specifically affects Apple over other businesses, w
Re: (Score:2)
"Absolutely vile. This says everything about @tim_cook's Apple and what it thinks of developers".
It's not so much "vile" as "nothing personal - just business". Developers have to understand how they are regarded by corporations like Apple. It doesn't think of them as people, but as raw material to be processed as quickly and efficiently, and at as high a profit, as possible.
While I do see your point, perhaps you should also be putting some or even most of that onus back on the companies who are advertising themselves as "Think Different" or "Don't Be Evil" to employees who are ordered to follow said company motto.
Needless to say, the last lesson every employee should know about "nothing personal"; it also includes lying to your fucking face about being that "different" business.
Shareholders are people too! (Score:2)
Develop for a different platform. (Score:4, Interesting)
Where's all the outrage about games (Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft), where the platform creators have similar control?
Re: (Score:2)
How about we clean up marketing and laws first. When an item is sold, ALL keys must be provided to the purchaser. Digital and physical. Patents and Copyright should not be used to limit a purchase from their owners.
Strawman (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Apple doesn't have to support 3rd party apps, or provide a store to sell them it.
That is 100% true. And 100% irrelevant. The fact is they do support 3rd party apps and they do provide a store to sell them in,
They could have created a completely closed system.
But they didn't.
They are not even close to monopolists
I can't speak for the US, but in the UK 25% market share is enough to be considered a monopoly. Being a monopoly is not illegal. Abusing your market power is.
Where's all the outrage about games (Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft), where the platform creators have similar control?
They should all be held accountable if they abuse their market positions. Can you outline what their abuses are?
Mostly though, whataboutery is not an argument
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People are allowed to participate in something and complain about it. Just because you accept it as the current best option doesn't mean its how it should work.
Personally I gave up my iphone over 10 years ago because I hated being locked into the walled garden, but I understand people like it. There's nothing preventing Apple from running a secure walled garden. They could retain complete ownership and control of their store, but allow alternative stores. The only reason they don't do that is that alternati
25% isn't even CLOSE to being a monopoly. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You should really retire this broken old argument that you keep spouting everywhere. Target is akin to AppStore; no one is claiming that AppStore should be required to sell products from other stores. We're arguing that Apple should allow iPhone to support non-Apple app stores. iPhone is not equal to AppStore.
Re: (Score:2)
Trying to say it's unfair (30% is within the range of typical retail margins or monopolistic (it isn't)
30% is actually quite low compared to margins before app stores. Not only did a developer have to develop the app, getting to market involved copying, printing manuals, packaging, shipping, etc. all up front. Then of course there were returns and piracy. After the distributor and store took their cur a developer was lucky to get 30% of retail which my not have covered their costs, let alone make a profit.
simply shows you're every bit as greedy as they are.
Sure. They want more of the sales revenue at the same price to them as before. Not going to happen w
Re: (Score:2)
Apple doesn't have to support 3rd party apps?
Did you think before you wrote this? Yes, Yes they do have to support 3rd party apps or their platform would be complete garbage. I shouldn't have to tell you that, you're on slashdot you should already know that. Would you go buy an iphone today if there were no 3rd party apps? Maybe you don't use 3rd party apps but i can assure you if that is the case then not everyone out there is like that. Many people today would not buy iphone if it had no 3rd party apps so yes they absolutely have to support 3rd
Re: (Score:2)
Devs have the choice of paying the commission, or not. If they decide that the com
Dutch / European regulators will love this (Score:5, Interesting)
They don't have a history of simply enjoying getting dicked around. I largely expect a 2 word response from the regulator, one of those words being "off".
Turnabout is fair play (Score:2)
Commission (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft's app store takes a 30% commission, for both Windows and XBox. Sony's Playstation store takes a 30% commission. Up until March of last year, the Google Android store took a 30% commission, before dropping it to 15% for subscriptions, everything else is still 30%. Amazon's app store is 30%. Samsung Galaxy store is 30%.
It's almost as if it's an industry standard or something.
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't that called collusion? Agreeing not to compete on price is a crime?
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that called collusion? Agreeing not to compete on price is a crime?
Only if we get together and agree on pricing. I can match a competitor's pricing and not get into a price war, ensuring profit for both of us. A 30 day price match also ensures neither lower prices because then both get less money; while encouraging people to buy because they are "protected from a price drop."
Re: (Score:2)
Google allows sideloading, and alternate app stores, so we can dispense with that; there is no restraint of trade there. I had no problem using Chrome to install F-Droid on my phone. That leaves just the game consoles, which are coming up next after Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Google allows sideloading, and alternate app stores, so we can dispense with that; there is no restraint of trade there. I had no problem using Chrome to install F-Droid on my phone. That leaves just the game consoles, which are coming up next after Apple.
While Apple's walled garden may get breeched, I doubt it will be the great new world many think. Apple will find ways to recoup the lost revenue in fees to developers, resulting in higher up front costs, limit access to features in the name of security, etc. While big developers can probably absorb those costs and the costs of running an App Store, smaller ones will likely get squeezed.
As for competing app stores, the upfront and ongoing costs to develop are truly viable alternative to Apple is likely to r
Re: (Score:2)
While Apple's walled garden may get breeched, I doubt it will be the great new world many think. Apple will find ways to recoup the lost revenue in fees to developers, resulting in higher up front costs, limit access to features in the name of security, etc. While big developers can probably absorb those costs and the costs of running an App Store, smaller ones will likely get squeezed.
If they do that, then they shift the balance of benefit towards focusing on Android; there is "piracy" (yar!) there but that's also a common vector of infection so many people still choose to pay for software, and the majority of users in the world are using Android so the potential market is very much larger. Just as Apple was forced to have apps when they originally only supported webapps, they will be forced to set terms which are not too onerous if they want anything other than big name apps and small n
Re: (Score:2)
While Apple's walled garden may get breeched, I doubt it will be the great new world many think. Apple will find ways to recoup the lost revenue in fees to developers, resulting in higher up front costs, limit access to features in the name of security, etc. While big developers can probably absorb those costs and the costs of running an App Store, smaller ones will likely get squeezed.
If they do that, then they shift the balance of benefit towards focusing on Android; there is "piracy" (yar!) there but that's also a common vector of infection so many people still choose to pay for software, and the majority of users in the world are using Android so the potential market is very much larger. Just as Apple was forced to have apps when they originally only supported webapps, they will be forced to set terms which are not too onerous if they want anything other than big name apps and small name trojans.
While the Android market is larger, it hasn't shown the willingness to pay like Apple's users have. If it was better, they'd already have dropped Apple to focus on Android. The current cost structure makes Apple very attractive, and Apple could maintain that while adding costs for developers who decide to go on tehir own.
As for competing app stores, the upfront and ongoing costs to develop are truly viable alternative to Apple is likely to result in fees close to Apple's anyway for access to a smaller audience.
I predict that if Apple is forced to support alternate app stores, Amazon will produce one. But more importantly, there are plenty of small app stores with specific focuses which are plenty viable on Android. The best known one is obviously F-Droid, and it's not a commercial interest. It's utterly viable.
Amazon has one, and charges the same as Apple at the top and higher 20% vs 15% for smaller developers. It hasn't exactly been a roaring success and I doubt an Apple one would be either.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is my point. Developers want more of the sales but won't want to give up the benefits of Apple's App Store; it's simple greed in the end.
What's being sought here is choice. Some developers will choose to stick with Apple, and some won't. That's a free market.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is my point. Developers want more of the sales but won't want to give up the benefits of Apple's App Store; it's simple greed in the end.
What's being sought here is choice. Some developers will choose to stick with Apple, and some won't. That's a free market.
True, but a free market also is allowing Apple to chose how it prices for access to its tools, OS as well as to drop developers that are not profitable enough. A free market would let Apple charge per download for free apps, which means apps such as Fortnite would cost money to EPIC just to have it on the store. Epic could then open their own store if you can sideload, but then Apple could charge for certification based on say the user base, and require audits to validate the numbers. Apple will act to pro
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they are all following Apple's lead in charging 30%, you left that part out. Did you not know that? or did you chose to deliberately leave that part out? Also you neglected to mention that some of the platforms you mentioned allows sideloading. Samsung, Microsoft, Google and Amazon i know of.
More likely, they sharpened their pencils, did their own cost-analysis, and came to the conclusion that Apple got it about right.
Did you not know that?
Re: (Score:2)
If a developer does something similar with the iOS version of an app, the greedy Apple will (and did) ban ALL their apps with no appeal.
This doesn't bother me (Score:3)
Why do I seem to be the only one not bothered by this? It's Apple's platform. My PS5 is Sony's platform. I didn't have to buy either of these, and I had to work hard to buy the latter. Don't like the game, don't play. It's not like iOS is a monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
INGRATES! (Score:2)
So do not develop for Apple (Score:2)
I guess some people do not have a choice, but those will not be the best ones. Seems there is the usual stupid short-sighted "MBA" mentality at work at Apple.
Short sighted? (Score:2)
2) Apple is the world's most profitable company, making millions of shareholders money
3) Apple commands 98% of the smartphone profits
4) iOS commands the lion's share of software revenues
5) iOS commands the lion's share of ad revenues (so much so that Google pays them billions to be the default search engine!)
As an Apple shareholder, it sounds to me like them MBA's know what they are doing.
Then don't develop for them (Score:2)
Then don't develop for them. That's the power you have.
What's that, you'd lose a lucrative market? Well then it's not a matter of principle for you, but a business calculation. Kind of like the calculation Apple is making.
Google are super evil too... but... (Score:2)
At least you can side load on Android. It's a pain in the ass for your average dumb consumer, but its still lightyears ahead of where Apple is. I used to be an Apple fan boy, but I can't in good conscience support them now.
Choice is good for you (Score:2)
I don't understand the anger (Score:2)
I think 30% is too much of a take, let's get that out of the way.
But the only way you can be angry here is if for some misguided reason you thought something else was going to happen. Apple's case vs. Epic established very clearly that they can charge whatever they want as an access fee to the platform. The 30% on sale is merely the easiest way for them to do so, but if they're forced to open up the payment side, they're still going to take their cut.
Indeed, this is by far the most consistent behaviour from
When complying with a court order (Score:2)
This is a fight over money, and when a money fight plays out in court, it’s a gloves-are-off kind of thing. Apple will grudgingly do what they are ord
Innumeracy (Score:2)
Reducing commission from 30% to 27% is a 10% reduction of 3 percentage points, not a 3% reduction. Journalists = idiots.
Meanwhile, Apple Users Still Happy (Score:2)
Hey dipshit developers!
What about what Apple Users, you know, the ones who buy your mostly lame-ass Apps, want?!?
Notice the utter and complete lack of Articles regarding User Outrage at not being able to have alternate App Stores or Payment Methods?
Wonder why? (And no, it's not Stockholm Syndrome).
If you are a dissatisfied Apple Developer, stop torturing yourself! Go Develop for Android. We won't care. Honest!
Until then, STFU. We like it here, and we number into the Billions
Apple has their Priorities set ju
Re: (Score:2)
I do indeed avoid Apple products - I had an iPod once, many, many years ago, and learned my lesson.
Recently, - as stated, for reasons - I reluctantly purchased an AppleTV box. I regret the decision, but, unfortunately, it was the only reasonable solution that was going to solve my problem quickly and efficiently. I still hated the experience. The mandatory registration of the device, and other interactions, caused my to remember why I quit Apple in the first place, and how much I dislike their whole ecos
Re:Okay, I'll bite (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
As an app developer, my apps earn me a living on apple, but not on android where I have way more users piracy is a big issue and the android logo might as well have eye patch also I find apple product line consistently easier to deploy on and require less maintenance over the lifetime of the app.. if I had to give it a number I would say it’s about a third of the cost of developing and deploying than on android plus it’s much easier to implement ecosystem features
And there is a Developer who has correctly analyzed the available options.
Mod Parent UP!
Re:Okay, I'll bite (Score:5, Insightful)
As an app developer, my apps earn me a living on apple, but not on android where I have way more users piracy is a big issue
You may have way more total users on Android compared to iOS, but not way more wealthy users.
The majority of Apple users have lots of spare money available to spend on software, so they do. Ditto for Android users in the same economic bracket. These, too, like the convenience of tapping "Buy" and getting the app installed with zero difficulties. I'm an Android user, and lucky enough to have enough money to purchase the (few) apps I'm interested in, especially because Google localizes prices down to the actual average purchasing power of people in my country, and so I do.
Hence, the problem with Android isn't the piracy proper. If Google were to completely shut down the ability to sideload apps, you'd certainly see a huge drop in pirated copies of your software. But you wouldn't see any noticeable increase in paid copies, because the vast majority of those pirate users are, simply put, poor.
Now, sure, you would see a small increase thanks to that tiny percentage of pirate users who live in the intersection of the Venn diagram composed of those who are a) nerdy enough to know how to pirate, b) wealthy enough to be able to afford your app without pirating, c) INTJ enough to do the pirating anyway, just for the fun of it, d) and in real need of the app. But that'd be it.
In short, the actual reason you profit more at the Apple version is because there is where the money is. Android is mostly used by those who cannot afford Apple, and this condition extends to their respective app stores.
Re: (Score:3)
You forgot those of us who refuse to deal with Apple.
These are a small minority. Besides, I'm talking about the world at large. Here in Brazil owning an iPhones signals remarkable wealth. The cheapest model costs the equivalent of 3 full months of salary at minimum wage rates. The most expensive ones, a full year or more. And I mean those numbers considering the impossible case of a minimum wage-making person who doesn't spend on anything at all, not even food. Add to that actually having a life and normal expenses, and those numbers go from 2 years of saving
Re:Okay, I'll bite (Score:4, Interesting)
Umm... Brazil is the second largest economy in the Americas. In USD, the expected cost of living for a family of four is ~$1600, which, coincidentally, is the same as the average monthly income. For a single person, that drops to ~$460/month, leaving quite a bit of disposable income.
Those numbers are incorrect. The average monthly wage here is about $365/month. A couple frequently earns double that, about $730/month. And those are raw, pre-tax numbers. From those $730, the government takes $80 for retirement, and businesses take another $45 as the employee deduction of the public transportation costs (the business pays anything above that). That leaves $605/month for all expenses: food, rent, utilities, and something else. Rent goes from $70 to $150, depending on whether the couple is living in a shantytown all the way up to a lower-class neighborhood. Food goes for about $100 if they know very well how to save, and utilities go for about $80 if they also know to save there. Increase these by $120 or so if we're talking two children. That leaves, with careful planning, $155 for everything else: school materials, car installments, and gas if they went for that, medications, emergencies, and leisure. With some luck, that means the average family of four will have about $100 available, or $25/month/person, for other uses.
About the iPhone then. The Brazilian government taxes technological imports at 100%, reasoning they're luxuries, not necessities. This means that $800 iPhone SE becomes a $1600 phone here. Now let's check, if we're talking one iPhone SE per average family, that's $1600/$100 = 16 monthly installments, but still on the expensive side monthly-wagely-wise. This is why telcos here sell iPhones (and Galaxy Ss and the like) in 24 or 36 installments, which makes each installment more affordable. Two such iPhones for an average family, though? Forget it.
So, what is that $1600 number you found about? That's what governmental statistical institutes say people should earn to actually have a comfortable life. It's one of the factors behind the often-quoted number here, that minimum wage should be at the very least $800/month. Instead, our minimum wage is $190/month, less than a quarter of the ideal. Which means the average person above, the one who earns $365/month? Yeah, more than half the population earns less than that (our higher Gini inequality coefficient means the average is higher than the median), with a good chunk earning only these $190/month, and some, especially those who work informally, earning even less than that.
You don't need to use a special code to communicate. You can just use whatsapp like the rest of your countrymen.
I was referring to the situation in many African countries. Brazil is a very wealthy country compared to them, to the point many people from Africa come here seeking a better life. And yes, I use WhatsApp and Telegram.
But the situation with codes isn't that distant from us. In the early 2000s I still used a dumb phone, and such ring codes, when calling home, and them when calling me. Picking up the phone and actually using it to talk was extraordinarily expensive, at least when it came to landline-mobile calls and mobile-mobile calls, so we didn't do it. If I had to actually talk to them I'd seek a public street phone and call them from it. I had a public phone card in my wallet with enough credits to talk up to an hour if needed -- I don't remember how much a credit used to cost, but I remember each provided up to 3 minutes of conversation when calling a local landline, 30 seconds when calling a local mobile or an out-of-town landline, and barely a few seconds when calling an out-of-town mobile.
That's still the reality in poorer places. But yes, here things improved remarkably, on that front at least.
Re: Okay, I'll bite (Score:3)
Or Android users are just less inclined to fork over money for nothing. By buying an apple device, you've already indicated that you're willing to fork over money for nothing.
I'm on Android and the only time I've ever bought any app at all is either I've been given promo credit to spend on apps, and/or they've been steeply discounted, and I just want to satisfy an idle curiosity. All of the apps I have paid for in the past, I don't currently even use. A lot of Android users are probably like me and for the
Re: (Score:2)
Apple, MS and Google. That's all that exists in your world.
Imagine being that pathetic.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Do you know many people who develop color?
I assume he refers to C-41 visa holders.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you know many people who develop color?
There's really not much demand for it since digital cameras have become the norm.
That's your choice, vote with your wallet (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But Apple users have choice too and they prefer the iOS model. Would you want them dictating to your preferences on Android? Careful what you wish for.
And that, sir, is the crux of the biscuit!
Those "hard working" developers (Score:2)