[taurath]

> So until these folks clean things up where they ALREADY have full control (on the web) I'm willing to cut apple a ton of slack.

I spent years working at a place where apple wouldn't allow us to even link to a website to manage your account if the signup wasn't sourced by apple, so I feel like any marketing they have around being customer focused is really just window dressing.

[Spivak]

This is a "class gets punished because of a few bad students" kinda thing. Without this rule everyone would and did just play the game of using their iOS app to drive people to their website to sign up to avoid paying Apple.

Apple, who charges for exposure and access to their users, I think is reasonably annoyed that people are trying to get that for free.

[Dracophoenix]

No one who has an app on the App Store is getting free publicity. There's a $99 fee per year per developer. For that much money, if someone uses their app to drive people to their websites, so what? Don't you think it's hypocritical of Apple to use iTunes as a gateway to Apple Music and iCloud without paying Microsoft a cut?

It's one thing to say Apple has the right to do what it wants with its own platform, but it's another thing entirely to set up a straw man in order to justify those rights.

[Spivak]

Exposure in this context means “the right to set up your stall in Apple’s market and sell to their customers.” It might have been more precise to say “reach” but at the end it’s semantics.

You not paying for “publicity” in a marketing sense you’re paying for high-value shelf space in a store that brings in a lot of customers — iOS devices.

If MS wants to charge publishers 30% for all sales done on Windows then power to them.

[thezilch]

No one is trying to get it for free. They are trying to get it for [significantly] less than 30%.

If it's so great to use Apple Pay (one click, easy to revoke payment -- sounds great!), why would a customer not use it over browsing to a random page, entering CC details, and worrying if it will be hard to cancel?

I'd guess the convenience is not worth 10%, much less 30%, to most users.

[judge2020]

> They are trying to get it for [significantly] less than 30%.

So what is the right fee for access to iOS users, and in turn, paying for iOS development itself? This isn't just a transactional payment system, it's an end-to-end payment platform designed to take high-value customers and turn them into sales with minimal friction. iOS is that system, not just IAP.

[Spivak]

> No one is trying to get it for free. They are trying to get it for [significantly] less than 30%.

And Apple charges 30% for sales of digital goods on their platform. You're trying to get what Apple is selling without paying for it. Don't sell on their platform them -- do what Amazon does with Audible or what Netflix does.

> If it's so great to use Apple Pay (one click, easy to revoke payment -- sounds great!)

Because that isn't what Apple is charging for, users don't pay this fee -- publishers do. They're charging publishers for the privilege to sell to Apple customers. I'm sure users like the convenience, I do, but the fee isn't for me. You're absolutely right that it's not worth 30% to me. But it's absolutely worth 30% to you when the alternative is not being able to sell on iOS and Apple knows it.

It's nuts that in threads like this that people begrudgingly pay Apple's 30% fee while in the same breath saying that they're overcharging. Well clearly not since you're paying it. If they were actually overcharging then you wouldn't be complaining because you just wouldn't have an iOS app.

[CRConrad]

> Because that isn't what Apple is charging for, users don't pay this fee -- publishers do. They're charging publishers for the privilege to sell to Apple customers. I'm sure users like the convenience, I do, but the fee isn't for me.

Do you seriously believe you're not, in the end, paying that?

I find it hard to believe that you do. Seems far more likey you're gaslighting for your idol, as Apple fanbois so often do.

[Dylan16807]

So let the apps opt out of "exposure", which tends to be very minimal. And "access" doesn't belong to them, they owe their users access to apps.

[Spivak]

You can opt-out though. Just don't sell digital goods on your app and don't use your app as a funnel to direct people to your website where you sell them. Audible takes this approach and it seems to work fine enough for them. Boom! Apple will take 0% of your revenue.

[Dylan16807]

That's a useful workaround when Apple allows it, which they haven't done consistently.

But that's not at all what I meant by opting out. I meant "If this is the price for 'exposure', just stop giving me 'exposure' and let me sell digital goods in my app."

Also it's not just 'digital goods', it applies to services too. You can currently manage a netflix subscription in the app, I think, but it's been unavailable a lot and netflix seems to have a special exception that doesn't apply to video services in general.

[ec109685]

Audible and Netflix have exceptions given they are “reader” apps. For something like Roblox, they must have in app payments if they accept payment via the web, so the publisher would have to opt out of the platform completely to avoid the 30% surcharge for one of these types of apps.