I’m willing to bet that when developers are able to sell directly without the 30% add on, that it’ll be a short time before they start selling at the same price and taking the 30% for themselves.
Apple has a large number of price tiers. You could always drop from the $4.99 price tier to the $3.99 price tier. Or maybe your month-by-month subscription price tier remains the same, but your yearly price tier could drop.
Why would they, though? Apple lowering their cut doesn't change how much customers are willing to pay for an app. Developers set their prices to what the users are willing to pay, and then Apple cribs 30% of their revenue, not the other way around.
If developers really cared about their customers, then they would charge a lower amount if their costs are reduced. The fact that they don’t do this just gives Apple more fuel for the argument that they don’t need to reduce their prices, either — both should either charge what the market will bear, or they should both reduce their prices when their own costs go down. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Apple has 200 billion dollars in liquid cash sitting in their coffers right now. If you're a developer making less than 1 million dollars annually, there is not a chance that in your lifetime you'd be able to acquire even a fraction of that wealth. There is honestly no comparison between indie developers and the largest corporation in the world; it's like saying that the Mom & Pop diner down the street should be subject to the same tax rate as McDonalds because "they both serve food". It's outright lunacy.
Apple is just one company. There are many developers. And Apple has many products. Apple only charges 30% to those developers making a million bucks a year or more. Which means that well over 95% of all developers only pay 15%. Which is a much better deal than any other major platform gives any developer. If those developers choose not to share that reduction in cost to their customers, then that just shows that the developers in question never had the best interests of the users in mind anyway.
> If those developers choose not to share that reduction in cost to their customers, then that just shows that the developers in question never had the best interests of the users in mind anyway.
That argument is a catch-22. If Apple doesn't pass on the insane profit margin they earn off their App Store to their developers, then it just shows that Apple never had the best interests of the developers in mind anyways.
Apple has paid more back to their developers than any other company in the business. Billions and billions. Many of those developers wouldn’t exist at all if it weren’t for Apple. I think Apple has a right to charge a rate for the App Store that is usual and customary, as you see from Sony, Microsoft, Google, and many others. If you want to argue that all app stores should charge a lower rate, then I won’t argue with you. But the application of that rule has to be fair and equitable across the entire industry and not just aimed at Apple. And by the same token, developers should also be forced to charge an amount that is fair and equitable across the entire industry, and thus they should likewise be forced to forgo the concept of “charge what the market will bear”.
> Apple has paid more back to their developers than any other company in the business. Billions and billions.
Yeah, we're going to need a citation here. The only goodwill that comes to mind is their lousy 60gb IDE and the half-finished Swiftlang. They certainly didn't pay for any of the cool BSD features they took from open source devs, but why should they? They're the multi-billion dollar corporation and they're the ones who decided to use permissive licensing, amirite?
I think they're citing Apple's role as a payment gateway as "paid back more to developers than anyone else", since technically on your $2.99 sale, Apple takes that money, and then pays you your $2.10 share.
Meanwhile Microsoft hasn't paid as much out to developers, because Microsoft did not succeed at effectively middle-man that transaction flow the same way Apple has. Apple doesn't do a particularly good job of it on the Mac either, mind.
Meanwhile, Visa, Mastercard, and banks have likely all paid out more to developers in all of time than Apple has, but that doesn't make as good a narrative as comparing Apple as a platform owner, rather than as a financial intermediary.
Apple has the power over the developers, yes. But the developers have the power over the users. And only Apple is strong enough to force the developers to do things that are in the best interests of the users. As one of those users, I choose to have Apple negotiate on my behalf against the developers.
If a developer was charging $2.99 for their app, after 30% cut, they get $2.09.
To get the same amount after the reduction to 15%, they need to charge $2.47.
Apple offers price points at $1.99 (Tier 1) and $2.99 (Tier 2). It does not allow developers to set arbitrary prices.
How do you suggest a developer manages this? Should the developer cut the price down to $1.99, taking home $1.69, and take a 20% pay cut on their total revenue? Or will you continue to begrudge them for not cutting the price, and increasing their total revenue by 21%?
> Aonly Apple is strong enough to force the developers to do things that are in the best interests of the users ... as one of those users, I choose to have Apple negotiate on my behalf against the developers.
Do you recognise that Apple ($123 billion in quarterly revenues) app store policy is the exact reason why you don't see any of that 15% discount trickling down to you, and not greedy (< $1MM annual revenue) developers who are trying to gouge you out of your money?
> Note that 15% decrease in commission is 21% increase in revenue for the developer. For $4.99 you can drop to $3.99 and keep around the same proceed.
No, you can keep less.
$4.99 after 30% results in $3.49 to the developer.
$3.99 after 15% results in $3.39 to the developer.
Why are developers with less than $1MM in annual turnover being vilified when Apple is turning over $123,900MM quarterly revenues, and is the one squeezing them?
Yep. Apple will be able to present this as evidence in any future court cases that while a reduced commission may be beneficial for developers, it does not necessarily reduce prices for consumers.
EU does care about developers very much even if USA doesn't. Credit card tax is the same, the store pays it and not the user, EU realized that 3% was too high for credit cards so they went after Visa and Mastercard and now it is 0.5%. They can get away with 30% in USA, but I doubt they will in EU.
