Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by sircastor 1601 days ago
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.
3 comments

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

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.

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.
>both should either charge what the market will bear

This assume the symmetry of power, buying or purchase. Which is not the case here.

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