[alkonaut]

> they do a lot to curtail scummy developer practices.

Which is excellent. Apple taking a cut for apps I have no problem with. They have support, I trust them with privacy/security and so on. That costs money.

The interesting discussion is how much apple can claim to own a part of profits made in the apps, by selling content (in-app purchases).

On one hand: if a game is free for a trial, and you can unlock the full game I think that should count as an app purchase (the alternative would be to not have in-app upgrades and just have 2 apps, which was a worse situation).

But on the other hand: if I buy a recipe app for $10 and then recipes for $1 a piece which I could also buy on the corresponding website, then I don't think apple should have a cut at all.

[NamTaf]

On one hand, I get where you're coming from.

On the other hand, if they offer a recipe app for free (because it contains no recipes, and let's face it, that's how you get quick user interest), then purchase recipes for $1.x each to cover the amortised app creation cost, you're basically just sidestepping the app store cut by any other name.

[graeme]

This is the crux of it. People aren’t applying second order thinking.

[alkonaut]

I don't think Apple should be allowed to charge a cut from a subscription app for example. Just because I can watch Netflix on my iPhone doesn't mean it's wrong that I can download a $0 app, and then pay Netflix for the content without Apple seeing one cent from it.

[graeme]

But what app couldn’t be either a subscription or be unlocked via in app purchase?

The dominant ios business model for apps currently is a basic version free to download, bigger functionality unlocked via in app purchase. Up front app costs are fading.

[alkonaut]

Agreed. So the current model of “take a cut of everything” makes it very simple because they don’t need to differentiate between unlocking a full version of a game and buying a monthly subscription to music.

The first I think is obviously right the second is insane (and in between there are an infinite number of cases).

I don’t think the status quo is acceptable though.

[Razengan]

> if I buy a recipe app for $10 and then recipes for $1 a piece which I could also buy on the corresponding website, then I don't think apple should have a cut at all.

Ah that sounds like a fair point at first, but it could be argued that you gained access to those sales because of Apple.

More importantly, they're processing payments for you, and every payment processor out there takes a cut, one way or the other.

[kwanbix]

So if I use windows does that mean that every app dev must pay 30% to Ms because you can argue that I am using their apps thanks to Microsoft. And hey, why don't we also pay Intel or and, who did the processors?

[Razengan]

> So if I use windows does that mean that every app dev must pay 30% to Ms because you can argue that I am using their apps thanks to Microsoft.

How does the Windows Store and Xbox Marketplace work?

What about Epic's own games store?

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/apps/windows

https://www.xbox.com/en-US/microsoft-store

https://epicgames.com

[dessant]

Microsoft does allow the installation of apps from any source, and they can handle payments independently from Microsoft, Windows Store is not the only app distribution method on Windows.

[mytherin]

Not on Windows, but on the Xbox the official store is certainly the only app distribution method. The iPhone/iPad actually have a lot in common with the Xbox/Playstation/Nintendo: they are devices that come bundled with a locked down operating systems that only allow the user to buy apps from a first party store. You can argue phones are more general purpose than gaming consoles - but with current consoles containing video players/photo viewers/web browsers/etc that is not exactly true either.

Windows/Android are different because the operating system itself is the product. People don't necessarily buy a Google phone or a Microsoft desktop, but they can still buy and run the operating system separately from the physical product.

The question is: if Apple should be forced to open up the iPhone ecosystem, why shouldn't Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo be forced to open up their systems for third party stores? Why are they allowed to take a mandatory cut from anyone that wants to publish on their platform, but Apple is not? To me it seems like a double standard if only Apple is forced to open up, but Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo are not.

Perhaps all hardware that is sold should be open and customisable, and I should be able to install a fresh OS on any piece of hardware I buy. That makes sense to me, but then that doesn't actually solve the problem at all. People will still buy an iPhone and use iOS, so now the OS itself needs to be open in some way. How do you write any of this in law at all?

[kwanbix]

The difference here is that Microsoft/Sony loose money to sell as many machines as possible to generate a viable market for the gaming studios (and obviously for them).

On an iPhone, apple has made plenty of money already.

In any case, the main thing here is not the 30% that they charge when you buy the software, is that they want to keep getting 30% for the services and such, which is crazy.

[TechBro8615]

Payment processors take a cut in the range of 1-3%.

[brianwawok]

Find me a US payment process that takes 1% for credit cards

[TechBro8615]

But I provided a range to absolve myself of the culpability of a citation. :)

Jokes aside, I'm sure you can find processors charging < 2% for customers with high volume. But you're right, it's certainly not standard. Maybe 2-4% is a more accurate range.

Point stands that it's a lot lower than 30%.

[SyneRyder]

Not even for high volume. Stripe's standard rate is just 1.4% for domestic cards in the UK (1.75% in Australia) and 2.9% for international sales.

https://stripe.com/en-gb/pricing

https://stripe.com/en-au/pricing

[brianwawok]

Yah I was talking about the US. You cannot find 2% in the US either. Our fees are much much much higher than UK or AU.

[15155]

https://www.helcim.com/us/pricing/ is 1.9% with no volume.

[brianwawok]

Please change the dropdown to say Online

[8note]

Do stores pay a percentage of each sale to the mall?

That seems directly comparable. The store wouldn't have any sales without the mall's infrastructure so it seems like they would be owed a cut of everything that happens in the store

[alkonaut]

That's not uncommon. But normally the mall isn't the only mall in town.

I consider Amazon and the Apple App store to be not like stores or malls but like streets or cities. They are the market, not in the market, and if someone wants to enter the market they have to pay Apple/Amazon for the privilege. They bought/built the street and now instead of charging a cut they are charging a tax.

[bickeringyokel]

Stores pay a hefty sum of rent to the mall, not sure thats a reasonable comparison.

[alkonaut]

I meant the case in the topic where they are not processing the payments.

I did get access to a market/users via the store but I still don’t think that makes Apple eligible for a cut of sales in all apps that they don’t process.

[kwanbix]

I agree with you somehow. 30% sounds too high. 10% is much more reasonable. Imagine you selling a house and the realtor getting 30% of it. Crazy high.

[Razengan]

What percentage do Microsoft, Google, Sony, Nintendo, Steam and Epic take?

[blaser-waffle]

Can't speak for others, but Steam gets 30%

Source: https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/30/18120577/valve-steam-gam...

[joncalhoun]

Does steam take any cut of in-game purchases for free to play games? I don't think they do, so that is a difference to consider.

[SyneRyder]

Microsoft takes 5%.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsofts-windows-10-sweetene...

[alkonaut]

Take an interesting case like a subscription fee for content, not just an app cut.

No one is angry about cuts from app prices (or prices that are effectively upgrades of an app e.g. from trial to full).

What I'm angry about is when apple wants X% of the price of content whhen they don't produce the content, they don't process the transaction. All they do is host the store where the $0 client app sits. I don't think it makes sense.

[nacs]

Google takes 30% (and have also kicked Fortnite off it's store).

And Epic takes 15%, (some of which goes to Epic's 40% owner Tencent).