Hacker News Reader

Comment by code_duck | Hacker News Reader

> Firstly, the app model is pure genius. It means Apple gets an army of developers producing software for Apple with zero health/unemployment/other benefits, no up-front advance payments, and a limited curation cost.

How is that different than say, people writing for the Commodore 64 or Windows and selling it with no connection to the company? Do you mean the alternative would be for apple write all of the software available on iOS? I don't see how third parties writing software for an operating system or device would be considered an amazing new idea.

View on HN

It is different because in the case of Commodore 64/Windows/$thirdParty, the developer can do releases, pricing, refunds, etc outside of Apple's control.

... and without giving them a third of the profit (or is it revenue?)

Apple takes 30% of revenue.

To be fair, Apple handles a lot for that 30%. Accounting/Tax records, payment, bandwidth and storage etc.

They could probably afford to take less, but they do take care of a fare bit of hassle from app distribution and selling.

> "To be fair, Apple handles a lot for that 30%. Accounting/Tax records, payment, bandwidth and storage etc."

I think people would have a better opinion on that deal if it were optional.

Apple offers to take care of billing/bandwidth/storage on iOS for 30% of revenue? Neat!

Apple demands to take care of billing/bandwidth/storage on iOS for 30% of revenue? Lame.

It is optional, we use Stripe, Apple gets nothing. I am surprised there are people in software that don't know this.

I can sell an app on Apple's appstore without Apple getting a 30% cut if I use stripe?

Do you have a source for that that you can link me to? Because from this, I get the impression that is not the case: https://support.stripe.com/questions/apple-and-stripe-tos-an...

No you are incorrect: If you want to sell an app for iOS, it needs to go through the App Store, and it needs to go through Apple's payment processor, be hosted by them etc, and Apple will take 30%.

There are 'work arounds' that involve being enrolled in the Enterprise Developer Program, but you're still at Apple's mercy. If they believe you're not sticking 'to the spirit of the program' (e.g. using it just to get around the App Store) they'll terminate.

Do you really believe Netflix is giving 30% to Apple?

You can't pay for Netflix from their iOS app.

I can confirm this, it is true.

Basically, your app is not allowed to have any links to sign up, or to your website, and you can do this for eg a SaaS app.

The idea is that then you're not using the app store for marketing, it's only for servicing your existing users.

Imagine if Microsoft got a third of the revenue from Turbotax, Photoshop, AutoCAD, World of Warcraft, etc.

A better analogy might be to ask how much Wal-Mart marks up software in their store. The answer is more than Apple does. Apple's value proposition is they bring x hundred million paying customers with credit cards ready to go into the store and you will sell at least 30% more than if they didn't bring those customers to you.

Is Wal-Mart's markup still bigger than Apple's once you take out the incremental costs of dealing with physical boxes in stores [1]? Considering the substantial markups we see on things like books and DVDs, I suspect not.

[1] To be precise we should also take out Apple's incremental (not fixed) costs for delivering apps, but I suspect those are negligible on a per-app basis.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com