Hacker News Reader

Comment by zamadatix | Hacker News Reader

"You're charging too much" seems unlikely to be the actual argument presented though. Something along the lines of the scare message, still not actually allowing it to be handled via in app flow like a first party payment, and intentionally making a 3rd party choice potentially impossible to compete vs a 1st party choice by arguably hiding part of the processing fee margin in the overall fee would be the kinds of arguments I'd expect.

I.e. Epic's goal here isn't about whether Apple charges 99% or 1% rather it's about allowing other payment methods (theirs in their case of course) to compete with equal footing regardless what Apple wants to charge to do it through them instead.

View on HN

I think the percentage charged is very relevant though.

And the fact the developer is to hide the fee and not list it on the receipt (subscription: $10, Apple tax: $3)

And the fact you cannot charge less for the same service if you sold it outside the platform (as you'd like to do as you didn't need to collect the Apple tax).

Honestly Apple does not act as an agent for companies that are known outside of the Appstore.

Netflix has an app, Netflix “is not” an app. Google Chrome, Airbnb, Epic, anyone who has spent marketing bucks promoting their service and providing a supporting app, was rather acting as a marketing agent for Apple than the opposite.

Apple’s new stance has no merit. We all understand it’s fair to participate in the funding of the Appstore, but it is a very bad defense.

> And the fact you cannot charge less for the same service if you sold it outside the platform (as you'd like to do as you didn't need to collect the Apple tax).

I thought that was expressly permitted - just that Apple Tax still must be collected:

> The link can mention the specific price of content on a website, or that content is discounted on the website from the App Store price. Comparisons are allowed.

Only in the manner that it is silly: Since Apple demands a 27% tax on a linked purchase, there is no room for an actual discount anymore. You can't charge less for the same service because you're required to pay Apple either way.

In that manner, this ensures you cannot compete with Apple IAP on price, and is hence still wholly anticompetitive.

And the fact that you have to implement in-app purchases if you want to do out-of-app purchases!

Can you expand on this?

The fact that your example has a lower apple tax than actual ($3.9 apple tax for $13.0 subscription, not $3.0 as you've stated in the example where a developer would itemize the price or tariff) and none of the people who replied to you noticed is very relevant, too, in the same context as your comment.

Is it still enforced/rule that you can't charge a lower price for a subscription outside the app store? Perhaps thats why streaming services like netflix and max still charge the same price but spend that "Apple tax" to pay other kinds of distributers/promoters like american express, mobile carriers, etc. to offer promotions, bundles or discounts. I think this is how the largest players in the app/subscription market are trying to penetrate the apple tax fortress.

You can’t subscribe to Netflix inside the app.

https://help.netflix.com/en/node/25097/

They’re a so called “reader” app which can send you to an external site to subscribe.

https://developer.apple.com/support/reader-apps/

Other streaming services fall into the same category.

If I recall, and from what I’m now able to find, Netflix didn’t lower their prices when they did that move. And remember they have added ads, are cracking down on password sharing, and prices keep increasing.

So while Apple’s cut is high, let’s not fall into the trap of believing that other big companies are somehow fairer and would totally pass the savings onto us. The overwhelming majority, if suddenly exempt from paying Apple’s cut, would keep charging the same thing and pocket the extra revenue.

> Epic's goal here isn't about whether Apple charges 99% or 1%

Epic's goal is to pay lower platform fees to Apple and Google, presumably lower than the (30%?) platform fees they pay to Nintendo.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com