Apple Announces App Store Small Business Program

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.

> 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.

>> 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. 70/30 split whether people on here like it or not is a standard agreement for these types of business relationship.

Huh? They didn't say "standard", they said "reasonable" and "ideal".

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

The problem is that they charge that fee no matter where the customers come from, and you can't opt out either.

> Huh? They didn't say "standard", they said "reasonable" and "ideal".

I should have clarified. They was saying it (the 30%) was a case for antitrust.

> The problem is that they charge that fee no matter where the customers come from, and you can't opt out either.

Can they come from anywhere other than the actual store?

In any event that is a different issue.

> Can they come from anywhere other than the actual store?

If I have a link on my site that takes a customer directly to the store page, and they buy it, then Apple did nothing at all to earn an "affiliate" level payout. They didn't drive any traffic. Or if the customer puts in the exact app name and buys it.

> In any event that is a different issue.

It's very relevant to whether 30% is reasonable. Apple acts as a legitimate affiliate some of the time, but they forcibly take that fee all of the time.

> If I have a link on my site that takes a customer directly to the store page, and they buy it, then Apple did nothing at all to earn an "affiliate" level payout. They didn't drive any traffic.

The store provides you visibility through promotion on the store page, being listed in search and taking payment for the purchase.

This would be no different than if a boxed piece of software was in a brick and mortar retailer and you told your customers you could by it at those stores.

In a brick and mortar retailer they display your product in your store and people come in, take the box and go to the checkout.

Conceptually the process is exactly the same. The only difference is that it is happening over the internet.

> Or if the customer puts in the exact app name and buys it.

The user is still using the store to buy the app. It would be no different than a boxed piece of software being on display in brick and mortar retailer. The customer may only go in there to pick up the game and nothing else. They are still buying through apple.

> It's very relevant to whether 30% is reasonable. Apple acts as a legitimate affiliate some of the time, but they forcibly take that fee all of the time.

No it isn't. You are conflating the issues of them having absolute control over the app store and whether 30% is reasonable. 30% is reasonable because that is the standard rate in most of these relationships.

If it wasn't reasonable people wouldn't publish with Steam, Gog, Nintendo (nintendo lowered the rate if you look at the IGN link to 30% to match other stores).

Also if it wasn't financially viable with the 30% fee (which has been there since 2011) then people wouldn't publish apps there.

> The store provides you visibility through promotion on the store page, being listed in search and taking payment for the purchase.

Only the first two are affiliate behavior, and they don't apply to every purchase, and you can't opt out.

> They are still buying through apple.

Right. But that's just facilitating a transaction, which is usually not a 30% cut.

> 30% is reasonable because that is the standard rate in most of these relationships.

Again, standard and reasonable are different things. And again, the problem is you can't choose the type of relationship.

> If it wasn't reasonable people wouldn't publish with Steam, Gog, Nintendo (nintendo lowered the rate if you look at the IGN link to 30% to match other stores).

People get pressured into unreasonable rates all the time...

> Also if it wasn't financially viable with the 30% fee (which has been there since 2011) then people wouldn't publish apps there.

It's always going to be viable for someone to publish. Even with a 90% fee. But surely we can agree that 90% would not be reasonable, even if it was standard?

> Only the first two are affiliate behavior, and they don't apply to every purchase, and you can't opt out.

What is and isn't affiliate behaviour isn't important. They are acting like an affiliate I said. It is close enough.

> Right. But that's just facilitating a transaction, which is usually not a 30% cut.

Yes it is a 30% cut. We have already established it is on other stores.

> Again, standard and reasonable are different things. And again, the problem is you can't choose the type of relationship.

You can choose not to do business with Apple.

> People get pressured into unreasonable rates all the time...

These aren't unreasonable rates though. If they were unreasonable people would not publish there. End of. I don't understand how people can say something is unreasonable when there are lots of people using it and making money just fine. So for a lot of people they obviously think it is reasonable.

> Again, standard and reasonable are different things. And again, the problem is you can't choose the type of relationship.

You can. You can not deal with the app store.

> It's always going to be viable for someone to publish. Even with a 90% fee. But surely we can agree that 90% would not be reasonable, even if it was standard?

No we cannot agree. Firstly 90% is not viable to anyone, nobody would agree to that and people wouldn't publish on the app store. So to start your premise is completely absurd.

Pretend for a moment Apple did raise it tomorrow to 90% cut to them. The vast majority of would just pull their apps and Apple would have to lower the rate again. Every company chooses 30% because it is what everyone else does because it is more or less fair to both parties. Now if another player releases a new phone with a store and they have a better market rate and a decent market share then Apple will lower their rates (like Nintendo did).

> It is close enough.

It's really not. The difference is the part that actually motivates you to pay an affiliate.

> We have already established it is on other stores.

When you look at other services that are just doing payment/download, it's far cheaper than 30%.

> You can choose not to do business with Apple.

That doesn't disagree with what I said, which is that you can't choose the type of relationship with Apple.

> You can. You can not deal with the app store.

"Take it or leave it" is the opposite of choosing the type of relationship. I'm so confused by your response here.

> No we cannot agree. Firstly 90% is not viable to anyone, nobody would agree to that and people wouldn't publish on the app store. So to start your premise is completely absurd.

It's not absurd. People still made apps when the market was a lot smaller. People make apps for android. If revenue is greater than cost, then apps will get made. And a cut like that would remove a lot of competition, so the actual drop in pay wouldn't be as extreme.

But okay, what if I said 75% instead? If you get 3x the market share while getting paid 25% of gross revenue, you actually make more money than if you were paid 70% on 1x market share. So there would absolutely be viable apps for some developers. But at the same time, if Apple took a 75% cut that would be unreasonable.

> The vast majority of would just pull their apps and Apple would have to lower the rate again.

They wouldn't if Apple was really committed. The app already exists, removing it would mean less money.

> Now if another player releases a new phone with a store and they have a better market rate and a decent market share then Apple will lower their rates (like Nintendo did).

Even with a better rate, Android's app payment market is smaller. It wouldn't do enough to make the apps there significantly better, and the number of people willing to switch off iphone for the marginal difference wouldn't do anything.

> When you look at other services that are just doing payment/download, it's far cheaper than 30%.

Except if you look at the link that compares all similar stores. It is around about 30% except for EPIC. EPIC can afford such a low rate because they are flush with cash from Fortnite and Unreal Engine dominates the professional game engine market. EPIC are trying to buy their way into the market, if it works then steam and other game stores will have to lower their rates.

> It's not absurd. People still made apps when the market was a lot smaller. People make apps for android. If revenue is greater than cost, then apps will get made. And a cut like that would remove a lot of competition, so the actual drop in pay wouldn't be as extreme.

We weren't talking about market. We were talking about the revenue split.

It was never 90% rate. Apple has had the 30% rate since 2011. Npbody had a problem with the 30% rate back then. Why is it suddenly such an issue?

> But okay, what if I said 75% instead? If you get 3x the market share while getting paid 25% of gross revenue, you actually make more money than if you were paid 70% on 1x market share. So there would absolutely be viable apps for some developers. But at the same time, if Apple took a 75% cut that would be unreasonable.

If people were happy with the arrangement then it is fine. So yes. However nobody would release anything to the app store back in 2011 if it was that high (70% to apple).

> They wouldn't if Apple was really committed. The app already exists, removing it would mean less money.

If everyone did it all at the same time as a protest. Apple would have to respond and everyone certainly would.

> Even with a better rate, Android's app payment market is smaller. It wouldn't do enough to make the apps there significantly better, and the number of people willing to switch off iphone for the marginal difference wouldn't do anything.

So you are saying paying the 30% on the App store is worth it as you get a larger paying market. Which is what makes the 30% reasonable because it is worth it.