As a developer with more than a handful of apps on the AppStore, I can understand as one grows, desiring to move away from the 70-30 split, get better data around users and conversions, etc. This will become an interesting test if I flip. I'm not exactly thrilled about figuring out Paddle/Stripe/BrainTree/Paypal again, subscriptions and verifications, but there are a couple of struggling Apps in the portfolio that I need better data on the lack of conversion to standard price that it may be worth it.
All this said, I think everyone forgets after the first year of continuous billing per customer on subscriptions the percentage drops down to 15%, from the 70-30 to 85-15, which gets pretty close to operational profit parity for small shops.
Also sometimes forgotten is that although doing your own handling of payments through someplace like Stripe has a much lower percentage fee than Apple, it also has a per transaction fee that is typically around $0.25-$0.30.
If the app is selling inexpensive things, such as things at the popular $0.99 price, 30% to Apple is going to be less than 2-3% + $0.30 to a third party payment processor.
Micropayment rates are usually much lower, think 4 to 5 cents plus 5% for small dollar transactions with a normal merchant processor that actually underwrites your account upfront unlike Stripe.
The Visa/MasterCard auth fee can be below 10 cents for larger payments as well, and depending on card type and brand program the percentage can be below 1%
If I agree to sell your product, in the exchange I can obligate you to agree not to direct customers away from my store. Walmart doesn't display advertisements for Target. A grocer that sells Joe's fruit would no longer sell it if it had stickers directing customers to Joe's Fruit Stand. Apple has no obligation to promote competitors. And any competitors are free to create their own package managers and sell their own software, they just can't expect Apple to market them. In commerce contracts, noncompete clauses are legal and ubiquitous. Is Android anti-competitive because I can't run Apple software on it? Apple has not cornered a market through anti-competitive practices. They became successful by selling superior product that is massively popular, and Apple is not the only hardware manufacturer, mobile or otherwise, nor the only software developer. The hardware and software markets have a myriad of vigorous competition on which Apple protecting its IP has negligible or no effect whatsoever. What software developers have AppStore policies run out of business? Developers are making more money than ever thanks to Apple.
The article never once mentions "anti-competitive practice," nor, dare I say, does the judgment. While Epic's allegations of anti-trust were dismissed, the court found "Apple violated California's unfair competition laws by barring developers from telling users about other ways to pay." Your interpretation of this finding that Apple "did have an illegal, and anti-competitive practice" is absurd, and you are merely attempting to couch terms in the same allegations that were dismissed. Neither Apple, nor any storefront, is required to do their competition's marketing for them. The judgement merely states that Apple can't ban links to other forms of payments, without any of the specifics that you are falsly claiming. And there is a pretty good chance Apple will appeal the ruling, so even if your allegations are correct, which they are not, this likely isn't the final ruling. And it stands to reason that if developers agree to Apple's terms, they should abide by them and not claim anti-competitive practices when in fact the issue is whether they should be allowed to ignore their contractual oblication. Why would Apple be required to sell software for a developer if that developer undermines Apple's fee for doing so? Apple's appeal will likely drive this home. Or they will extract a fee for selling a developer's product for them in some other mannor. So maybe cool your jets a little, because not only are you not right, in fact, you are wrong.
Its on page 1: " in favor of Epic on its claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law"
> Your interpretation
You can just read the quote that I posted. Its in the ruling.
> Neither Apple, nor any storefront, is required to do their competition's marketing for them.
They are required to allow outside links. So yes, thats what the ruling says.
> The judgement merely states that Apple can't ban links to other forms of payments
Oh, so you agree with me! Got it. I am glad that you agree, that yes Apple is required to allow outside links, and yes it broke California unfair competition laws, as determined by the judge.
> there is a pretty good chance Apple will appeal the ruling
Did you not know that this was already the appeal?
> if developers agree to Apple's terms, they should abide by them and not claim
Actually, if those terms of service include banning links, then no developers should not abide by illegal terms like that. As the judge ruled that such terms are illegal, and developers don't have to follow them.
If the judge rules that the terms break California law, then developers should not follow them.
> Why would Apple be required
Well, Apple would be required to allow outside links, because thats what the judge just determined.
They should required to do that, that are required of them, by the california unfair competition law.
> not only are you not right
Hey, both the original judge and the appealed judge panel actually agree with me, not you.
> "the trial judge did find that Apple violated California's unfair competition laws"
> There's the line there from the article.
You have used terminology that was absent from the article and the decision, namely, "anti-competitive practices." To be quite clear, the decision finding that Apple violated California's unfair competition laws in no way means that Apple engages in "anti-competitive practices."
> Its on page 1: " in favor of Epic on its claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law"
Again, see above. You have over reached with your language, and are now trying to sweep that under the rug.
> > Your interpretation
> You can just read the quote that I posted. Its in the ruling.
It is not in the ruling. The ruling does not use your terminology, "anti-competitive."
> > Neither Apple, nor any storefront, is required to do their competition's marketing for them.
> They are required to allow outside links. So yes, thats what the ruling says.
That is not what it says. It says they violated California's unfair competition laws by not allowing alternate payment methods. It does not state Apple is required to allow outside links. So that is not what the ruling says.
> > The judgement merely states that Apple can't ban links to other forms of payments
> Oh, so you agree with me! Got it. I am glad that you agree, that yes Apple is required to allow outside links, and yes it broke California unfair competition laws, as determined by the judge.
No, because you are using language that does not apply to the case nor Apple. You are being intentionally inaccurate to spin a false narrative.
> > there is a pretty good chance Apple will appeal the ruling
> Did you not know that this was already the appeal?
Irrelevant straw man. Did you read the article? "Apple may appeal... a larger group of judges on the 9th Circuit or to the U.S. Supreme Court."
> > if developers agree to Apple's terms, they should abide by them and not claim
> Actually, if those terms of service include banning links, then no developers should not abide by illegal terms like that. As the judge ruled that such terms are illegal, and developers don't have to follow them.
> If the judge rules that the terms break California law, then developers should not follow them.
Then Apple can pull their contract for breaching agreed to terms of the contract.
> > Why would Apple be required
> Well, Apple would be required to allow outside links, because thats what the judge just determined.
That is not what the judge said. You are extrapolating beyond the scope of the case and incorrectly rewording, and the result is inaccurate at best and false at worst.
> They should required to do that, that are required of them, by the california unfair competition law.
The California unfair competition law does not require Apple to allow links.
> > not only are you not right
> Hey, both the original judge and the appealed judge panel actually agree with me, not you.
> The legal system is on my side, not yours.
Unlikely. Laws and judgements are meticulous and specific. If the judgement does not include the order, "Apple is required to allow links to alternative forms of payment," which it does not, then that is not the judgement. The judge found that Apple violated California's unfair competition laws, not that Apple engages in anti-competitive practices, and not that Apple is required to provide links to alternative forms of payment.
> To be quite clear, the decision finding that Apple violated California's unfair competition laws
> It says they violated California's unfair competition laws
Awesome! So you agree that yes the courts have ruled that they violated californias unfair competition laws. I am glad that you are conceding that this is the case.
> Then Apple can pull their contract for breaching agreed to terms of the contract
No, not if the contact breaches california's unfair competition laws! In that case, Apple would not be allowed to continue that unfairly competitive action.
> The judge found that Apple violated California's unfair competition laws
But you have to concede that this means that Apple cannot continue to break that law.
So yes, Apple has to change its behavior! You have to admit that yes Apple has to stop doing the unfairly competitive action.
> Awesome! So you agree that yes the courts have ruled that they violated californias unfair competition laws.
Not quite. Effect does not precede cause. I corrected you, and you then parroted my correction.
> No, not if the contact breaches california's unfair competition laws! In that case, Apple would not be allowed to continue that unfairly competitive action.
Apple is not required to issue contracts, nor even keep the AppStore running. Closing the AppStore, for example, would satisfy California's unfair competition laws.
> But you have to concede that this means that Apple cannot continue to break that law.
So yes, Apple has to change its behavior! You have to admit that yes Apple has to stop doing the unfairly competitive action.
This is known as question begging, and it is fallacious.
the percentage Apple takes off the top. If your app or subscription costs $1, you receive $0.70 for each sale. As mentioned, for subscriptions, the second year Apple only takes 15%, so you receive $0.85 per subscription dollar.
It's even more complicated, if your company makes less than $1mm in revenue, Apple discounts their first year take to 15% also. This makes work for the MBAs at startups to make somewhat complicated revenue forecast spreadsheets.
All this said, I think everyone forgets after the first year of continuous billing per customer on subscriptions the percentage drops down to 15%, from the 70-30 to 85-15, which gets pretty close to operational profit parity for small shops.