←back to thread

830 points todsacerdoti | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.206s | source
Show context
karolkozub ◴[] No.25135615[source]
Wow. That's amazing. That's a 20% increase in revenue for those eligible. I'm guessing they decided the increased value of their products from more smaller developers creating apps for the platform is greater than the lost revenue.

If I understand correctly though, since it's a hard cutoff it creates this gap between 1m and ~1.2m where you're actually worse off by making more money pre-tax.

   999k --[-15%]--> 849k
  1000k --[-30%]--> 700k
  1213k --[-30%]--> 849k
replies(14): >>25135653 #>>25135718 #>>25135799 #>>25135851 #>>25135904 #>>25135909 #>>25135932 #>>25136134 #>>25136212 #>>25142912 #>>25143337 #>>25146299 #>>25147078 #>>25154797 #
jclardy ◴[] No.25135909[source]
You are almost correct - it goes by the prior years income, but based on the 30% cut. Meaning if you sold 1m in products you would still be in the 15% bracket next year. You would need ~1.43m in sales to be "Moved up" the next year (It gets more complicated with subscription revenue already having a 30/15 cut depending on the user's subscription length.) It works out to this (Using 1m in sales as the cutoff to simplify the numbers):

Year 1: 999k --[-15%]--> 849k (This year doesn't trip the "limit"

Year 2: 1000k --[-15%]-->850k (Limit is tripped, next year is 30%)

Year 3: 999k --[-30%]-->699k (Fell below the limit, next year is 15% again)

Basically if you are close to the limit at the end of the year, you should immediately stop all advertising/marketing spend to ensure you don't go over the peak :)

I'm not really sure why they did it this way as it really screws over people that are just at the 1m/yr mark, vs a progressive system that would "just work."

replies(2): >>25135961 #>>25139435 #
emdowling ◴[] No.25135961[source]
Giving Apple the benefit of the doubt here (which is a significant caveat), I'd like to think that they modelled out various scenarios and looked at growth rates to know that the year 3 scenario you envisage rarely occurs.

Or, they could've just picked $1 million because it's a nice round number and looks good in a press release.

replies(1): >>25136082 #
1. toyg ◴[] No.25136082[source]
The latter explanation is the winner. They needed an arbitrary threshold and went for an easy-sounding one.