[notsrg]

I'm shocked those defending the Apple tax aren't considering the fact that businesses are just offloading that tax onto consumers making things artificially more expensive for iOS users. Even worse, when you do this you can't communicate why this is the case or tell people you can use the web for cheaper so users feel like you're just scamming them.

[adam_arthur]

Majority of the people defending Apple would abhor Microsoft doing the same thing for windows. Imagine you had to pay Microsoft 30% on the majority of all commerce on windows.

They certainly could have made a lot more money back in the day!

[sph]

They would abhor any other company doing the same, but for some reason Apple always gets a pass.

I know it's controversial to say it's fanboyism, but if this isn't one proof of it, I don't know what is.

[ansy]

Just a counter point. Apple can charge what it wants. So can Microsoft. So can Sony. So can Nintendo. So can Valve. So can Epic. They all take a cut for access. In many cases it’s exactly the same as Apple’s, 30%. They also have total control over what apps they allow. There’s no legal reason there should be a carve out for Apple saying they’re the only company that can’t do what everyone else is already doing. And no, Apple does not really have a monopoly any more than Sony does for PS5 or Microsoft for Xbox or Google for Android.

Maybe you could argue they’re ALL wrong / illegal. But that’s a different argument.

[ksec]

Because majority or monopoly is defined by their respective market? People keep spinning Sony does for PS5, when they should have said "console". But then the same people will argue console is small market, it needs to be gaming devices which include handheld or any other devices that could play games such as Smartphone. That was actually what Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers spent 5 pages on her EPIC vs Apple case.

And why does a console, which is a single purpose appliance, used for Gaming. Be compared to a multiple purpose tools required for every day modern life?

A Train company has monopoly on trains? People would argue you have different type of transportation and you dont need train? All these argument are useless and completely misses the point.

Arguing whether it has a monopoly may not be a valid either. Standard Oil never had a monopoly, and neither did Microsoft in 90s going by those argument because Microsoft didn't have market shares in other computer like Server. And you still have linux and Mac on Desktop. You have a choice?

Ultimately it is about Anti-Trust. Too much power held by a single company that is also abusing that power.

And on the subject Apple can charge what it want. Yes. Perfectly valid argument in US America. But no, this wont fly in the rest of the world. Visa and Master can charge whatever it want for its network, until EU decide they have to lower their ridiculous fees and not to price average consumers a cut because they could get rebate from elsewhere. The same happened in AUS. Not a business model most countries are happy with.

And of course Apple supporters on 9to5mac and Macrumors are calling to pull out of small countries like Netherland as retaliation. In which I would use the same argument, if it is Apple's devices and Apple could charge whatever they want, it is also EU's market and they can do whatever they want. So yes, pull out if you dont like it.

[ansy]

My point is only that there is a valid argument to be had here. Not that it is so clearly foregone that only irrational fanboys would defend Apple’s position.

That position is a straw man which is unproductive toward the discussion.

Whether you think the EU way or the USA way is right is irrelevant. Countries / unions of countries have sovereignty and will do what they like. Apple can exit the market if it likes, as many companies have already done in places like China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. I’m not comparing the EU to those places, but I am pointing out the precedence that companies don’t need to do business if the regulatory climate makes it impossible.

[ksec]

Yeah my tone was a bit off. Wasn't targeting you or your augment.

[adam_arthur]

I think we should deregulate utilities because if you don't like your utility bill you can easily move to a different neighborhood.

They should be able to charge whatever they want, because if cost is too high, you can simply move.

[programmer_dude]

While you are at it please also deregulate essential services. Crowdfund your own fire brigade, police etc.

[fartcannon]

They're the wealthiest company in history. Surly it's not a stretch to suggest some of their ardent defenders aren't, at the very least, influenced by what is likely the worlds highest paid PR company.

[yokoprime]

This is the very reason why I always check if a subscription can be purchased outside of the app store before even considering buying it there. Its usually more expensive as an in app purchase.

[badwolf]

I follow an almost exact opposite flow. If I'm on a site/service that has a subscription, I check if they take in-app subscriptions and use that.

I have no desire to deal with endless dark patterns to get me to not cancel a subscription.

[Osiris]

That just shows that Apple doesn't have to have a monopoly to compete. They can offer better features, services, etc that people may be willing to pay more for.

Not everyone pays for the extended warranty when they buy electronics/tools but some do because they find value in it.

[ninkendo]

I think a more apt analogy would be: I'd pay a premium to shop at a store where there aren't any pushy associates trying to get me to buy an extended warranty in the first place.

[wingworks]

^ This! At least here in New Zealand almost all perks of "extended" warranties are useless, as pretty much all things you buy here are already covered under our consumers guarantee act.

[rootusrootus]

Nothing is free. An extended warranty is an insurance policy, the purchase price for it is the premium. It's pretty much the same for the original warranty. It may be included in the purchase, but it's still just an insurance policy that the manufacturer has rolled into the price of the product.

So when you have strong regulation like a consumer guarantee act, it just means everything you buy is priced higher to account for it.

[asiachick]

I'd pay a premium to shop at a store where I could buy something quickly. Vs Apple stores where first I have to flag down someone, then they go tell me to stand at some table and wait, then 5-10 mins later someone comes to help me and ask too many questions, then they say in 5-10 mins someone will bring out the thing I wanted. And finally I can buy >:( Even ordering online for pickup my stuff wasn't at the pickup counter and they had to call into the back room. That might be fine if it was unannounced but they made choose a 15 minute window to pickup. You'd think they'd prep for that window. Instead of waiting until the pickup time I could have just gone to the store without the preorder and waited a similar amount.

[smoldesu]

If that were true of most customers, Apple could easily allow other storefronts, since nobody would be inclined to use anything but their service. Without competitors though, there's no way to determine if Apple's offerings really are competitive.

[FpUser]

I do not pay a premium and have no problem telling pushy "associates" to go eff themselves.

[ninkendo]

Good for you.

[jjeaff]

Unfortunately, they don't have to actually offer better services. Because they already have the customer base signed up with cc on file, they simply have to not be terrible. Then, no one will even try out individual subscription services because they already have good enough with apple defaults.

[breakfastduck]

They do offer better services, though. Subscription wise, it is significantly more consumer friendly in the way they can be managed and cancelled compared to signing up with people directly.

[smoldesu]

They offer good services, not "better" ones, since we have no basis of comparison for what other shops on iOS could look like.

[flatline]

More expensive as a one-time cost, but managing subscriptions through Apple allows you to pay once for a recurring subscription then cancel and use it for the remainder of the purchase period. Even one unintended renewal will wipe out whatever discount you got from a direct purchase.

[sircastor]

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.

[ThrowawayR2]

Since many here on HN are developers, having more money go to the developer rather than the gatekeeper would be regarded as a good thing.

[xuki]

Exactly. I didn’t see any indie developers drop their price when Apple reduced the commission to 15% for the first million.

[oarsinsync]

Doesn’t Apple set the price points permitted for sale?

e.g. I have to sell for $4.99. I can’t sell for 15% less because they don’t let me set arbitrary prices.

[bradknowles]

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.

Not that any of them did that, of course.

[smoldesu]

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.

[bradknowles]

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.

[xuki]

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.

[oarsinsync]

> 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?

[nodamage]

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.

[Jensson]

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.

[colinmhayes]

I'm willing to bet you're wrong. Prices go down when competition exists. Without hardware lock in people price shop.

[thegrimmest]

But isn't this fine? In fact isn't it exactly what we want? If consumers were sufficiently upset at the increased cost of apps on the Apple Store, wouldn't they change platforms?

If they're not changing platforms, then the value they get from using Apple's products must be higher than the cost of dealing with higher app prices, mustn't it?

Furthermore, if there was enough of a demand for a more open platform, wouldn't it be able to attract investors to build it?

[jayd16]

This argument boils down to "user hostility can't exist because being a user is a choice." I don't buy it.

Apple is using its market advantage and lock-in as leverage against the user.

[thegrimmest]

> user hostility can't exist because being a user is a choice

User hostility can exist exactly at the level that the market (the users) will bear it. If the prices for things were 10x, then users would clearly notice and leave. If the prices are 1.3x where x is almost always < $10, the users simply don't give enough of a shite to do anything about it, which is why it's not users that are upset here.

[ClumsyPilot]

Hostility to kids can exist exactly at the level that the kids will bear it. If they get beaten 10 times a day, they would clearly run away from home. If they get beaten 0.3 times a day they simply don't give enough of a shite to do anything about it.

[thegrimmest]

Yes, but we are not all children, and should be treated as such.

[ClumsyPilot]

This was meant as a reductuo ad absurdum, not in defence of beating kids.

[joshuamorton]

But there isn't (end) user hostility here, there's developer hostility. It's using this as leverage against the developer, and developers aren't willing to call Apple's bluff...presumably because users are more excited by Apple than by the particular app.

[spsful]

It causes developers to raise prices, which hurts the user. The user does not know why the prices went up, or that they can purchase outside of Apple for a significantly cheaper price.

It's also not right to say that this is fine since users still use Apple. Remember when Apple said they would introduce CSAM scanning into iOS? Was their entire userbase going to ditch them and move to Android? Definitely not. But they still retracted the move after constant negative press coverage and outrage from consumers. Some of us still want to use these platforms but are upset at Apple precisely because they can change.

[joshuamorton]

> The user does not know why the prices went up

Why not? The app can totally tell them! When I eat at restaurants, I see a receipt with tax + tip + SF mandate itemized out. Nothing stops a developer from itemizing out those costs in communication with users though.

[commoner]

Apple prevents developers from disclosing in the app that Apple collects a percentage of in-app purchase amounts as a fee:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/08/facebook-says-ap...

Apple's excuse for this restriction is that Apple considers the disclosure "irrelevant information". Any user who wants to be fully informed about their purchase would disagree.

[jayd16]

The money comes from end users. Developers don't pay into the system.

[ahiknsr]

> If consumers were sufficiently upset at the increased cost of apps on the Apple Store, wouldn't they change platforms?

Consumers are not aware of this problem. Apple doesn't allow apps to inform users about the 30% tax.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/28/21405140/apple-rejects-fa...

"Apple blocked Facebook from informing users that Apple would collect 30 percent of in-app purchases made through a planned new feature, Facebook tells Reuters. Apple said the update violated an App Store rule that doesn’t let developers show “irrelevant” information to users."

[adam_arthur]

If you're not happy with your utility bill, you can move to a different neighborhood too. Why should we regulate utilities?

[rapnie]

And as app developer make Apple's cut very clear, "Install our app for just $9.99 + $3.00 Apple Tax". Make the last part a nice red-colored blinking badge. Might also add a "Because you love Apple" emblem.

[herbst]

Apple as a platform is not growing in most western countries, steadily declining in some. So yeah, customers made their choice already

[summerlight]

Only if there's any meaningful alternative... Your only option is Android + Play Store which has policy and pricing very similar to the App Store. And you need to throw away your precious $1500 iPhone and all the investment put into the App Store.

[netizen-936824]

Also hasn't this been happening for years?

Apple overcharges for literally everything, why would people in the ecosystem even notice when it happens?

[spoonjim]

I have zero problems with the mobile phone ecosystem that I want regulation to solve. I don't want the government to force USB-C charging onto iPhones, I prefer Lightning. I don't mind paying higher prices for Apple subscriptions, it's worth it to me because they're dead simple to cancel. Let Apple does what it does, if they end up pissing me off I'll switch to Android. I don't want some idiot fucking politicians deciding what charging port an iPhone has.

[gigel82]

I can agree with you, as long as Apple allows app developers to clearly spell out that the cost is higher because of the Apple tax and that they have the choice to sign up online if they choose.

[spoonjim]

Yes, app developers should be able to say that (and to say “pay on our website”). The gag order on app developers is wrong and should be illegal.

[turtlebits]

It’s not a tax. It’s just margins. I’m sure any retailer would balk at having to list that.

It’s pretty well known that Costco margins are 10%. Do we call that a tax too?

[faeriechangling]

I don’t really see why something like the fees Apple is charging for Apple Pay should not fall under the purview of regulation. It’s a substantial rent imposed upon a huge fraction of commerce which will have an adverse effect on the affordability of goods.

It will result in payment processors passing on Apple’s fees to merchants. Payment processors already do not allow you to charge a higher fee to customers using a credit card normally, so merchants must pass on the cost of these fees to ALL customers regardless of payment method. This makes it of concern to more than Apple’s customers.

[gjsman-1000]

This is an important point. We might want USB-C on iPhones, we might want subscriptions to not have an "Apple Tax," but do we really want politicians to micromanage industry to such a level?

Personally, I can't help but think of Standard Oil. Plenty of value was made there, drove oil and kerosene prices way down... and they still got broken up.

[tick_tock_tick]

USB-C I don't have much a of view on but I absolutely think it's the role of government to address the "Apple tax". After safety the main purposes of regulation should be the elimination of rent seeking behavior and I can think of few better examples then Apple.

[viktorcode]

> making things artificially more expensive for iOS users

Do you have examples of software that costs more on iOS than elsewhere?

[zamadatix]

Apple has restricted the ability of an app to point this out so it's not as well known as it should be. Subscriptions are the easiest to compare because you can order the exact same thing two ways on iOS (in app or web) and there it's easy to see just look at Netflix or YouTube or Spotify for obvious examples of apps avoiding the cost or costing more if you pay the Apple tax.

It's a bit silly this needs to be defended by example though, where else do people think the 30% cut on stuff subscription is coming from? Certainly not a 30% margin cut or 30% for payment processing, it's ~27% Apple tax apparently.

[viktorcode]

You are thinking from the point of recouping the costs, while in reality it works on a simpler premise: profitability.

Suppose you have your Android app. You are thinking about porting that to iOS. So, for you the calculation will go like this: will selling that on App Store be worth it after paying Apple's fee and cost of porting? If the answer is yes, then you proceed to expand your app's market share. You may as well price your app differently, if you think that will sell more.

[zamadatix]

You've oversimplified on the assumption there is only a single transaction rate (30%). In the real world there is not (even on iOS, though Apple does make it difficult and force it to be hidden), hence why the real world examples given above did not follow your theory the 30% is built into the initial optimal price setting. It ended more like 3%, i.e. the average transaction rate, for anyone not using IAP and as close to +30% that could be reached using typical $0.99 or $0.49 price increments for anyone using IAP (or just cancelling IAP).

This is what the above examples are actually doing, not a theory of what I think it makes sense for them to do.

In the Apple utopia where everyone would always use their payment method your simplified answer would be more correct and the Apple tax would be somewhere between >0% and <infinity% (though usually marginally less 30%) as well as a unique value per app. It would never be <0 though it would be possible (and almost expected) for the app price difference between platforms to be greater than the Apple tax alone. This method of course is god awfully impossible to actually compare as it's theoretical values of multiple what-if's, hence why I went the "more complicated" route of just explaining the Apple tax has to eventually hit the consumer on some level from a recoup perspective.

[vini]

I noticed that in games here in Brazil, in Hearthstone, a card game from Activision Blizzard a 40 cards pack cost 279,90 BRL ($52) in the iOS app, if you buy in the PC app it'll cost 99 BRL ($18), almost 200% increase, crazy.

[viktorcode]

Good example, but for different issue: Apple Store don't have local pricing scheme, unlike Steam.

[bspammer]

YouTube Premium costs a third more to purchase through the iOS app than it does through their website.

[Kique]

Not sure if it's still the case, but Spotify would charge me $12.99 through Apple and encouraged me to switch to paying them directly for $9.99

[MikeDelta]

That case is escalating, with the EU getting involved.

https://techcrunch.com/2021/04/30/europe-charges-apple-with-...

[paraph1n]

There are several examples listed in this article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaharziv/2020/07/08/heres-why-...

[viktorcode]

Thank you. That lists services and one game, which costs less on Android, where Google still takes 30% fee.

[jeffybefffy519]

Netflix, spotify… you dont have to look far

[jiscariot]

If I recall, the amount Netflix is paying to Apple for a cut of subscriptions, is comparable with their AWS bill year over year. Absolute madness.

[viktorcode]

Netflix removed in-app purchases on iOS years ago. They have to honour existing subscriptions though.

[duck]

Not the OP, but it could be very well inflating the costs elsewhere as well so you wouldn't be able to see differences across platforms.

[seanmcdirmid]

Is it really a tax if people can avoid paying it? Or, if we are to accuse Apple of anything, would it be fraud (keeping less informed users from realizing they can buy things with their web browser) instead of anti-competitive behavior (preventing them from doing so)?

[MomoXenosaga]

Apple made iPhone users into paypigs.

Look at Android and there are alternative stores like F-droid and rampant piracy. I don't even see any ads because of a combination of Blokada and Vanced.

[LiquidSky]

> making things artificially more expensive for iOS users.

It's not artificially more expensive, I'm happy to pay for the service and reliability offered by the App Store.

>users feel like you're just scamming them.

Users feel that way because so many subscription services ARE trying to scam them. As a commenter said below, subscribing through the App Store provides a simple, reliable way to manage your subscriptions and guarantee a cancel if you want without having to deal with whatever dark pattern bullshit apps normally throw up at you.

Choose to pay less and enjoy a world of endless unreliable, shitty apps and shady practices if you want, I'm happy to pay not to.

[__MatrixMan__]

iOS users are legitimately willing to pay more for things, Apple has worked very hard to make this be the case. Why should small businesses in the Netherlands be rewarded for Apple's hard work?

[spsful]

...they're not? The commission still goes to Apple.

[orasis]

That’s not really true. Consumers have a fixed willingness to pay and professional app publishers are good at discovering that number, so there really isn’t much passing costs onto the consumer.

[notsrg]

The company I work for literally charges 30% more for iOS users lol.

[Spivak]

And if your iOS users actually pay it then you're a fool to not charge 30% more to your non-iOS users as well.

[clusterfish]

Um, no, cost of doing business affects the equilibrium market price. There's no Apple tax outside of Apple's walled garden, so everyone competing outside of it has lower costs and can thus offer lower prices (outside of the walled garden). If you don't, your competitors will, and you'll lose customers.

[Spivak]

So yes, in the broadest possible abstract, sure. But we're talking about the sale of digital goods here. What market for game coins, app features, digital content w/e is so intensely price sensitive, apparently fungible enough that switching apps doesn't matter, but then also not at all actually price sensitive since the mostly arbitrary distinction to the consumer "what brand is your phone" means you can charge 30% more?

Like I totally believe you, I'm actually just interested.

[lolinder]

> then also not at all actually price sensitive since the mostly arbitrary distinction to the consumer "what brand is your phone" means you can charge 30% more

This distinction isn't arbitrary at all. They're effectively different markets. iPhone owners make more money and spend more money than Android users.

There have been a number of surveys that have shown this, here's one:

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/iphone-users-spend-...

And an older one, but from a bigger source:

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-median-income-for-iphone...

[clusterfish]

If you live in a jurisdiction where you need to pay sales tax, you will pay that sales tax, it will be on top of anything that the seller would normally charge you. You can't escape this tax by going to a different seller in your same jurisdiction. You can choose to move to a different jurisdiction if you don't like paying that tax, but a seller who sells in both will charge you the same subtotal (+ different tax).

Same with Apple's 30% fee - it's unavoidable on their platform so it acts as a private sales tax on their platform. Some developers might choose to essentially subsidize their apple users by charging them the same price on Apple and on tax-free platforms like the web. That may be out of fear for Apple or out of cultural inertia or whatever, but it doesn't make sense, they're the ones leaving money on the table, not the ones who charge people taking into account the cost of doing business with those people on their preferred platform. They could get more profit selling their app for cheaper when not subject to the 30% platform tax, if they think that their pricing with that tax is optimal.

[notsrg]

This implies the business is setting the price, which if so, sure I guess. But "creator economy" applications as one example also fall under "digital goods", which means a user is setting the price on a platform to provide a service for $X, the platform takes $Y cut, and then pays the user $X - $Y, but then Apple wants 30% of $X. It's absolutely insane because most platforms out there don't even charge a fee that high so in order to cover the Apple tax they either have to make $0 per transaction and also pay creators less, or just charge consumers $X + 30% up front.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Consumers have a fixed willingness to pay and professional app publishers are good at discovering that number, so there really isn’t much passing costs onto the consumer.

Prices are set by supply and demand. If you take a 30% cut out of the supplier's revenue, you get fewer suppliers and the price each one can charge goes up because the customer can't switch to a competitor who was driven out of business by the high fees.

[AdrianB1]

My wife was a high level government official in the finance and tax area; she helped me do some calculations showing that the government taxes (direct and indirect on the entire chain) make all the product prices approximately double, some more than triple. Nobody is complaining about this, even if people have no alternatives when paying for utilities or food, while a smartphone is by far optional: you can always buy a cheap phone for communication and you can easily live without apps on the phone (like we did until 10 years ago).

The point? I don't care about rip-off on optional products if I cannot avoid the rip-off on the most basic human needs. I vote with my wallet not to pay Apple anything, problem solved.