[thrtythreeforty]

It's a valid criticism of the new terms. A developer-friendly (and dare I say, user-friendly) fee structure would not have any cases where Apple takes 62% of revenue. Any fee structure so maliciously structured that this edge case exists, deserves such criticism.

[kj99]

If it's an edge case then we can agree that it's misleading not to point that out.

The statement in the tweet is actually false in every case of making $10M in sales except this precise edge case.

[leereeves]

It's not an edge case. Roughly 99% of paid App Store apps cost $1 or less.

The expensive apps that would pay less than 50% to Apple are the edge case.

[kj99]

99% of paid iPhone apps don’t have a million installs.

[leereeves]

> If it's an edge case then we can agree that it's misleading not to point that out.

If the "edge case" you're talking about is the number of sales, then the tweet very clearly pointed that out. "If you make $10M in sales..."

So can we agree that nothing here is misleading?

[kj99]

It’s absolutely misleading to the point of bordering on a lie.

There are an arbitrary number of ways to reach $10M in sales and only one of them gives Apple a cut of $6.2M.

Every other possible way gives Apple a lot less.

Not qualifying it makes it seem like this is the rule not the exception.

[leereeves]

> only one of them gives Apple a cut of $6.2M. Every other possible way gives Apple a lot less.

I'll assume good faith and assume that's not a lie, just a misunderstanding. The correct understanding is that the $.50 is a flat fee per install, and Apple's share increases as the price decreases.

If you sell the app for $.55, Apple gets all ten mil. If you sell the app for less, you owe Apple even more than users paid.

The headline is true for the 99% of apps that cost a dollar or less. If they succeed and make ten mil, Apple takes at least 62%.