←back to thread

447 points hemant6488 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.296s | source
Show context
nancyminusone ◴[] No.44312819[source]
>I’m saving approximately $84-120 CAD annually.

I suppose most of this is eaten up by the need to pay apple $99 per year just to run your own app on your own phone for longer than a week.

replies(8): >>44313113 #>>44313215 #>>44313586 #>>44313614 #>>44313718 #>>44314240 #>>44314560 #>>44315930 #
behnamoh ◴[] No.44313215[source]
This Apple fee is one of the most absurd things they do. Like, how is it even justified—does Apple really spend $99 on infra maintenance and server costs to host your app?

When I buy a device I want to know that I own it, but Apple keeps pushing the narrative that "we LET you use this device in ways we see fit". So basically the customer is just borrowing a device from Apple while paying the full price.

I'm a longtime Apple user but can't shake off this love-hate relationship with the company.

replies(10): >>44313272 #>>44313280 #>>44314081 #>>44314098 #>>44314944 #>>44315377 #>>44315748 #>>44317717 #>>44320005 #>>44320589 #
cortesoft ◴[] No.44315377[source]
> Like, how is it even justified—does Apple really spend $99 on infra maintenance and server costs to host your app?

How much something costs is not what determines how much a company charges for something.

A company sets prices based on what will make it the most money. A company only lowers prices if they think doing so will generate higher total profits in the long run.

Apple seems to think charging $99 a year for developers will help its long term bottom line the most.

There are probably many reasons for that, some of them already mentioned in sibling comments - keeping low effort apps out, preventing spammers from constantly buying new accounts to bypass bans, reducing the workload for approvers, generating revenue from the fees, etc.

Prices aren't justified or not, you choose to pay them or not.

replies(5): >>44315868 #>>44315880 #>>44315891 #>>44316128 #>>44321946 #
sigmoid10 ◴[] No.44315868[source]
>How much something costs is not what determines how much a company charges for something.

It actually does - in a free market. That's, like, one of the main arguments why capitalism is good for the population and not evil. But in a gate-kept oligopoly like phones, actors can abuse the system to squeeze more money out of consumers, leaving the corporations as sole beneficiaries. That's why this kind of stuff usually gets curbed in functioning democracies.

replies(6): >>44316498 #>>44316620 #>>44317782 #>>44317870 #>>44318186 #>>44320682 #
keerthiko ◴[] No.44316498[source]
I'm pretty sure in a free market, how much someone is willing to pay for something is what determines how much a company charges for something, not how much it cost to provide. We wouldn't have inflation of most goods/services if it was based on how much it cost to produce/provide.
replies(3): >>44318172 #>>44319182 #>>44325561 #
1. sigmoid10 ◴[] No.44325561[source]
Nope. In free market theory (=perfect competition, no barriers to entry, unlimited buyers etc.) prices are set as the equilibrium where demand equals supply. Supply ends up being equal to marginal cost in the mathematical limit. So in this limit, companies no longer make profit because if they charge cost+epsilon, they will loose demand to other suppliers. That's literally what you learn in economics 101. Of course in the real world you won't reach that limit, but getting to it within first order is still very good for consumers. The further you go away from this free market state, the more companies can extract what consumers "are still willing to pay" (irrespective of their cost) as you say. The opposite limit is the monopoly, where consumer welfare doesn't matter at all and companies can set their prices to maximise their own profit, because they don't need to adhere to any supply curve. They can literally charge extra until people go broke for inelastic demand curves like those of basic utilities (which phones are becoming more and more).