[jsiepkes]

Fine, but apps should be allowed to let you pay via alternative methods and also allow you to pay via Apple and charge you the 30% extra costs which Apple wants.

I highly doubt you would pay 30% more just so you can pay via Apple.

[coder543]

43% more, in point of fact.

If an IAP is $15, then $4.5 of that goes to Apple. If you priced the direct payment option at $10.50, then $15 is 43% more expensive.

And this is the whole reason Apple doesn't want developers to be able to offer both IAPs and direct payment at the same time... it would make Apple look like the bad guy (a horrifying thought!), and they might feel pressured to lower their percentage to something more reasonable.

If Apple would switch to a usage based model more like AWS's where they charge for actual resource consumption (review requests, app store bandwidth, etc., maybe even with some kind of "free tier" to help very small developers who are still paying $99/year) then that would make more sense... but a 30% surcharge for every transaction is just absurd.

If credit card companies tried to charge 30%, the uproar would be so loud that no would be able to sleep for days, and you know businesses would instantly be offering steep discounts for people paying in cash. Apple has demonstrated that they want to eventually charge a 30% tax on all economic activity[0]... the App Store is more than just a place to download Angry Birds these days. Apple's 30% transaction fee is unsustainable. (I feel the same about Google's Play Store fees too, but at least Android allows sideloading and PWAs support push notifications there, giving developers and consumers some options.)

[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/28/technology/apple-app-stor...

[Spivak]

Apple's 30% charge isn't for payment methods. I hate that this meme has persisted through the Epic case and the Netherlands regulations.

Apple charges the seller 30% (well 27% but w/e) as a sales commission for being able to sell digital goods through any means on their platform. Harping for allowing alternative payment methods is the wrong angle if you don't want to pay 30%.

It's not about the payment methods! If you can force Apple to drop their commission then IAP would be a 3% charge and nobody would really care.

[huhtenberg]

That's Apple's spin on this and it's as greedy and unreasonable now as it was when they just started.

The fair setup - as far as the owners of expensive devices are concerned - is to:

1. Be able to install arbitrary software capable of running on the device.

2. Be able to pay for it in whatever way that is supported by the software vendor.

This are reasonable expectations.

If Apple provides a way to install pre-approved software through their Store - excellent. As an option.

If Apple provides a way to pay using their super pro-consumer payment system - ditto, as an option. Possibly as a required option (option!) for programs distributed through the Store.

You want convenience for either aspect - you go through Apple, pay them extra, be happy. You don't want to pay them - install yourself and pay directly.

Voila. It's not very complicated.

All the arguments against this is not a "meme", it's Apple guarding its profits in ways that are explicitly and aggressively anti-consumer.