Apple is facing rage from developers over the commission on the App Store

When people look at this issue they tend to fixate on the 30&#x2F;15% &#x27;tax&#x27;. Is it fair? Is it not?<p>The commission is not nothing, obviously, but misses a larger point.<p>Apple did to Hey what they did to our company. One day we submitted a minor upgrade for an app that had been on in the app store _for years_, a bugfix release, and they told us they would not publish it or any subsequent submission unless we add IAP to the app.<p>We would be happy to pay apple some fair fee to place our app in their store. We all understand that it&#x27;s not a charity. But that&#x27;s just not what apple is doing here, or not the whole story.<p>They took an app that was _already_ in their store for years, and froze updates on it. That approach forced much of our company to stop whatever it was they were working on and implement IAP _now_. Mobile devs, backend devs, accounting, marketing analytics&#x2F;funnelling were all affected. There would be no bugfix releases until that feature was added.<p>The implementation of recurring payments in Apple&#x27;s IAP is quite different from that of other payment processors like Braintree or Stripe. As such it has added a lot of complexity to our backend services, and has sucked a huge amount of time from our developers, accounting, and from our analytics team. All so we can implement a feature we _already had in our products_ and were happy with, just their version of it.<p>We incorporated IAP in the fall of last year, but we are _still_ trying to digest it into our company, still refining how we handle their subs, still mitigating some mistakes we made in the our initial implementation. And their remain some unresolved question for us on the how best to do accounting and market funneling.<p>The media continue to fixate on the 30% commision, as do must of the comments in this thread. But the issue is that Apple does this by imposing the commission on apps that _already_ have huge sunk costs on there platform, going back years, that already have tens of thousands of users (at least in our case), and then one day send back a bugfix release with a letter that says &#x27;if you want to put an update to this app on our platform, add IAP to it. Now.&#x27;

The single best move Europe could make would be to limit any digital stores to maximum 12% commission. That would truly reign in the monopoly power of these platforms (typically American) and dramatically boost the revenues of content creators (many of whom are European).<p>12% covers the overhead costs of the stores and still allows a healthy profit for the monopoly owner.<p>I hope that next on the target list is Valve, who charges a 30% regressive tax on Indie games but allows big-budget AAA games to get by with only 20% tax:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;variety.com&#x2F;2018&#x2F;gaming&#x2F;news&#x2F;valve-revenue-split-changes-1203078700&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;variety.com&#x2F;2018&#x2F;gaming&#x2F;news&#x2F;valve-revenue-split-cha...</a>

While I sympathize with the idea of losing 30% of your revenue just paying to play, I struggle to see Apple as being somehow &quot;extortionate&quot; as others have suggested.<p>While they didn&#x27;t invent the App Store as a concept, they did popularize it, and built the software platform (iOS) that allows the apps to run, as well as built the tools and frameworks (swift, Xcode, etc) for building said apps, as well as built the hardware that the software runs on (iPhone), and then spent billions in marketing to popularize the idea of using &quot;mobile apps&quot; in the first place (ie. Remember <i>there&#x27;s an app for that</i>?).<p>In addition, when you sell on the App Store, you get free distribution in front of the highest income, most desirable segment of smartphone buyers--because that&#x27;s the customer base Apple has invested billions in building and cultivating over 40+ years.<p>Given the above, how is 30% extortionate vs. 20%? It is <i>their</i> platform. Anybody can choose to only create apps for Android instead.

With Reference to this: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;developer.apple.com&#x2F;app-store&#x2F;review&#x2F;guidelines&#x2F;#multiplatform-services" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;developer.apple.com&#x2F;app-store&#x2F;review&#x2F;guidelines&#x2F;#mul...</a><p><pre><code> 3.1.3(b) Multiplatform Services: Apps that operate across multiple platforms may allow users to access content, subscriptions, or features they have acquired in your app on other platforms or your web site, including consumable items in multiplatform games, provided those items are also available as in-app purchases within the app. </code></pre> Can i offer a differential pricing choice within my app. In other words if user buys on my &#x27;website&#x27; the price is $100 and if user decides to make an in-app purchase, the price is, say, $130 (100 + 30% Apple Tax)?

Apple has been facing rage from developers over the commission structure of the App Store for years.

Echos of the anti-trust post that went to frontpage earlier today. Seems to be building to some sort of crecendo.<p>Linking as i think the comments apply peripherally <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=23548674" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=23548674</a>

Couldn&#x27;t the behemoth apps, some of which get a pass from the subscription rules -- Netflix, Slack, Spotify, and others that are too big for Apple to not support -- end this practice pretty easily by insisting they will leave the platform unless Apple agrees to a change in terms?<p>Honestly, if it comes down to a game of chicken, who has more to lose? Netflix, Slack, Spotify, and other subscription apps who still get a ton of revenue from non-Apple sources? Or Apple, who now has to deal with a deluge of irate iPhone owners who want their popular apps?<p>Almost seems like it would be appropriate to have a union of iPhone app developers and collectively bargain.

It’s worth noting that ‘force Apple to allow other stores’ is equivalent to ‘force indie developers to support other stores’.<p>And also paradoxically allowing other stores with fewer restrictions actually means more restrictions for developers.<p>This is because if you are forced to support all the stores, your app must comply with the superset of the restrictions.<p>Apple must improve the store policies to support developers, otherwise the web will just win in the end.<p>However requiring them to support multiple stores will just kill off indie development even more.

I don&#x27;t know whether 30% is fair or not. But I&#x27;d be very very hesitant to develop software where I&#x27;m reliant on a mega Corp with monopoly power AND that Corp view me the way whales view krill. That&#x27;s what both the Android and Apple markers are. 30% would be a lot fairer if there were a guarantee that you wouldn&#x27;t be dropped from the platform with no appeal by an algorithm...

Can apps charge 30% extra if you subscribe within the IOS app? Can they show the breakup? If yes, this should be a non-issue.

Why even demand a percentual rate and not a flat fee per item? This discussion should go beyond the App Store and into payment processor and similar “platforms”. I’m aware that businesses use these platforms to conduct their business but at a certain point these platforms become inevitable and you’re basically at their whim.

The real problem here is that the App Store is a monopsony.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.investopedia.com&#x2F;terms&#x2F;m&#x2F;monopsony.asp" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.investopedia.com&#x2F;terms&#x2F;m&#x2F;monopsony.asp</a>

This is a genuinely hard problem that capitalism doesn&#x27;t give <i>any</i> kind of easy answer to.<p>Obviously Apple is allowed to charge a fee. The App Store costs serious money to run -- to develop, maintain, support.<p>But when the App Store is the <i>only</i> place apps can be published for iOS, and more than half of worldwide mobile app revenue is made there, there&#x27;s no competition.<p>Nobody else can go and create their own separate iOS App Store with lower commissions. But the kicker is, there is a real consumer benefit to that -- the entire iOS world is built on a premise of security and privacy that only comes from having everything locked down and controlled by Apple, from a secure enclave to approved apps.<p>There are really only two solutions here:<p>1) Legislation to define this as a special kind of monopoly situation (a new definition of monopoly, at least in the US) and create some kind of profit cap where Apple isn&#x27;t allowed to charge more than x% over revenue. But which feels pretty icky -- the government stepping in to tell you you&#x27;re not allowed to maximize profit like any other business. And what&#x27;s the legal basis for deciding whether the &quot;allowed profit&quot; is 5% or 50%? 10% or 12%? 0% or 100%? You can invent an argument for any number you want, but ultimately it&#x27;s entirely arbitrary.<p>2) Legislation to require Apple, Google, Microsoft, and all OS&#x27;s generally to allow third-party fully-integrated app stores. But which will obviously do serious damage to the reputation of the iPhone (and mobile devices generally), when people start to associate them with buggy malware apps that drain your battery and use dark UX patterns to trick you into giving them all your location, microphone, etc. permissions.<p>But both seem pretty gross, totally non-market, government-intervention. But Apple&#x27;s 30% cut is also pretty gross at this point.<p>It sucks there&#x27;s just no obvious, elegant, good solution here.

Apple has been so customer hostile with these decisions on the App Store.<p>Offering IAP isn&#x27;t a problem. Heck forcing IAP isn&#x27;t a problem, IF there is a way avoid it - and the best way is to force them to charge .99 but allow outside IAPs.<p>But they choose the worst possible method: forcing a customer to go outside the App Store.

I think these Apple App Store review practices are the main reason why its filled now mostly with bullshit lifestyle and spammy garbage games. No serious developers that I know want to deal with this crap by their choice anymore, it’s all Apples little kingdom there cultivating nothing but spammers that pay to play in it.

the most careful, thorough, high-design value Apple iPhone app developer I know of, whose product was widely praised in the media with high-profile customers, went broke and now works for a local city government. Basically, even his living expenses in this part of the world, were not met with the income from the App Store.

How does it work for game consoles? Don’t developers have to pay for an sdk license _and_ a percentage of sales too?

Am I the only one here that thinks they deserve a cut for building such a platform?

The only reasonable anti-trust regulation would be to allow competing app stores to be installed on ios devices. there is absolutely no reason why a device should be locked down to a single software purchase system.

the obvious solution would be to breakup monopoly - force Apple to divest AppStore as a separate company and allow Apple to accept third-party appstores

Bigger concern is the consumer&#x2F;business lines they draw on IAPs as listed by DaringFireball &amp; DHH over Hey email client.

Let&#x27;s be honest, this is a publicity stunt by Hey.<p>The terms of the App Store haven&#x27;t changed (outside of the 1yr sub provision) in years. They knew this before making their app.<p>The founders of Hey are seasoned professionals. They knew they could manufacture a scandal and it would put their new company in the news.<p>There is no such thing as bad press... especially when it freely promotes your app launch.<p>&lt;slow clap&gt;

I really hope this get&#x27;s traction. Apples app store is modern day slavery.

Agreed that Apple should be consistent in their enforcement of their rules. However, you can opt not to use the App Store. If you think that will impact your product, then this confirms that the App Store provides value - value you will need to pay for.