←back to thread

830 points todsacerdoti | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.204s | source
Show context
jakozaur ◴[] No.25135512[source]
Great move!

30% is a case for antitrust given how big Apple App Store today is. 15% seems reasonable, 10% would be ideal.

Though it should be 15% for everybody, no artificial caps. Moreover, I believe once you become a platform there should be an independent nano-courthouse where you can appeal.

Today being rejected by Apple, Amazon, or Google platform is equivalent to the economical death penalty for many individuals.

It should be possible to pay $100 by individuals and appeal to an independent nano-courthouse if the original platform rejects or blocks you. If you win, the appeal fee is refunded and the platform has to cover the cost. If you lose, your $100 is gone.

Fee could be adjusted to your earnings, but basic mechanism should stay the same.

replies(5): >>25135617 #>>25135832 #>>25135840 #>>25135850 #>>25136352 #
forest_dweller ◴[] No.25135850[source]
> 30% is a case for antitrust given how big Apple App Store today is. 15% seems reasonable, 10% would be ideal.

Not it isn't a case for anti-trust. 70/30 split whether people on here like it or not is a standard agreement for these types of business relationship.

https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut...

The judge in the case agreed.

> Judge says the 30% rate is the industry rate— references Steam, Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo have the same rate.

https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/09/28/judge-so-far-not-...

Apple are effectively an affialite for your app i.e. they drive traffic to your app through their store.

Most affiliate style relationships the affiliate will receive 30% of whatever is made. It not only these companies it in almost every industry. e.g. Gambling Affiliate deals typically have 30% of whatever the customer loses on the site.

I really do not like Apple. I don't like the app store policies. But 30% is not a case for anything.

replies(4): >>25135945 #>>25136019 #>>25136090 #>>25136428 #
zmk_ ◴[] No.25136090[source]
It's only standard as Apple was first through the gate with this scheme for online marketplaces. They got to copy the split from brick-and-mortar (without the accompanying costs like restocking) and everyone else followed suit.
replies(1): >>25136201 #
1. aikinai ◴[] No.25136201[source]
Apple was not first through the gate. This fee structure has been in place at least since Nintendo in the 80s.