Corazon de Leon wrote:That's not a growth wrote:Jenuall wrote:Apple taking a cut of initial sale of an app makes sense, but getting 30% of every transaction within that app after purchase is a bit insane really
While I generally agree with this, my thought then goes "what would then stop them to make their apps free, but then an IAP to 'unlock' the full app" - and then Apple have built all this expensive infrastructure which is providing value but not getting paid for it.
Also it would set a
bad president, if stores are forced to be run at a loss it would guarantee this monopoly continues since the barrier to entry would be too high if the only people who can run a store are those who can take the hit.
Getting 30% of all on going payments feels too much - especially for something like Spotify or Netflix that has regular payments. Perhaps it should be similar to credit card processing fees for IAP, which is just a few percent I think.
strawberry floating hell.
jiggles wrote:That's not a growth wrote:Jenuall wrote:Apple taking a cut of initial sale of an app makes sense, but getting 30% of every transaction within that app after purchase is a bit insane really
While I generally agree with this, my thought then goes "what would then stop them to make their apps free, but then an IAP to 'unlock' the full app" - and then Apple have built all this expensive infrastructure which is providing value but not getting paid for it.
Also it would set a bad president, if stores are forced to be run at a loss it would guarantee this monopoly continues since the barrier to entry would be too high if the only people who can run a store are those who can take the hit.
Getting 30% of all on going payments feels too much - especially for something like Spotify or Netflix that has regular payments. Perhaps it should be similar to credit card processing fees for IAP, which is just a few percent I think.
But I can open any gambling or shopping app on my iPhone and deposit funds into my account or buy anything (including digital goods) through the app using any payment method under the sun and Apple doesn’t get a penny.
Yet, if I’m instead looking to put Vbucks into my Fortnite account, I *have* to pay for them through the App Store.
Apple block buying books through the Kindle app because they have their own bookstore, and even though I can open the Amazon app and buy anything, I *still* can’t buy kindle books on it because they block it.
Similarly, I can’t buy films or TV shows on the Google Play Movies & TV app because they have their own store for that, but I can open the YouTube app and buy them there (which is literally the same service!), but the catch is I have to buy it as an IAP, so Apple get paid again.
And in both these cases I can just open the
Safari app and buy what I want there without Apple seeing any of it.
Yeah, I agree - I think I was thinking of things too narrowly since I don't really use IAP systems. I was thinking that Apple would have set up some sort of system that facilitates the transaction, which would require maintenance and other costs to run. I was essentially thinking of them as paypal in that transaction.
But if they're not involved at all, and even go as far to block competition then I don't think they have a leg to stand on.
Essentially my stance is, if Apple are providing tools and infrastructure that costs them money or resources to provide a service then they it's reasonable for them to find a way to make money, otherwise it just doesn't make sense. Such as the app store it's self. That must be well expensive to run.
Sure, there should be a discussion around if 30% is too high. And also how you can only load apps from the app store. But they're separate to that point above, and I don't know where I firmly stand on these currently (I'm against both, but I have no strawberry floating clue what the alternatives should be, or an idea of the full implication involved).