Apple to Reduce App Store Fee to 15 Percent for Most Developers
- Paul Thurrott
- Nov 18, 2020
-
72
With multiple threats of antitrust action looming against it, Apple has finally bowed to common sense and is lowering its App Store fees for developers. No, not across the board, this is Apple. But it’s the first major crack in an unfair and illegal system that has been harming developers and thus customers for years. It comes via a new developer program called the App Store Small Business Program that Apple says will “benefit the vast majority of developers who sell digital goods and services on the store.”
The App Store Small Business Program launches January 1, 2021, and it provides qualifying developers—those that make less than $1 million per year in the App Store, literally 98 percent of them—with a reduced commission of 15 percent on paid apps and in-app purchases. That’s half the current rate of 30 percent, and it means, in Apple’s words, that “small developers and aspiring entrepreneurs will have more resources to invest in and grow their businesses in the App Store ecosystem.”
Windows Intelligence In Your Inbox
Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday — and get free copies of Paul Thurrott's Windows 11 and Windows 10 Field Guides (normally $9.99) as a special welcome gift!
"*" indicates required fields
“Small businesses are the backbone of our global economy and the beating heart of innovation and opportunity in communities around the world,” Apple CEO Tim Cook said in a prepared statement. “We’re launching this program to help small business owners write the next chapter of creativity and prosperity on the App Store, and to build the kind of quality apps our customers love.”
Under the terms of this new program, existing developers who made up to $1 million in 2020 on the App Store, and any new developers, can qualify for the program and the reduced commission. Should a developer passes the $1 million threshold, the standard 30 percent commission will apply for the year. And if the developer’s business falls below $1 million in subsequent years, they can qualify for the reduced commission again.
Will this be enough to call off the antitrust hounds? Of course not: Most agree that Apple’s fees should be closer to 3 or 4 percent, and a former Apple engineer in charge of the App Store has publicly stated that the service is run at a massive profit and that Apple’s fees and rules are arbitrary. But halving the fees for most developers is still a savvy move. And is long overdue.
Conversation 72 comments
-
codymesh
Log in to Reply<p>all the people who were like "Apple needs and deserves the 30% cut for creating and maintaining the platform!" going to be real quiet now.</p>
-
ajgisler
Log in to Reply<blockquote><a href="#593914"><em>In reply to codymesh:</em></a></blockquote><blockquote><br></blockquote><blockquote>Why? What has changed? Apple made the decision on their own, granted with pressure from the governments and the bad PR. </blockquote><blockquote>I do think the 30% fee is ridiculously high but I think Apple, Google etc should be allowed to set the price they want. </blockquote><p><br></p>
-
rm
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#593917">In reply to ajgisler:</a></em></blockquote><p>Google has more leeway here. There are competing App stores like Samsung's app store. Apple has no leeway here because they 100% control the market with impenetrable barriers of access to it. Developers and customers have no choice but to pay Apple those fees. Yes, part of the cost of purchasing an app includes the higher cost of selling the app that goes to Apple; it raises the cost to consumers. But even Google needs to charge a lot less.</p>
-
codymesh
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#593917">In reply to ajgisler:</a></em></blockquote><p>If your comment is going to be "I think Apple, Google etc should be allowed to set the price they want" when the entire issue is that it is being done while these companies constitute a virtual monopoly in mobile software distribution, please stop weighing in on the issue.</p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyExactly.
-
digiguy
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#593914">In reply to codymesh:</a></em></blockquote><p>I don't care about Apple (I am Windows and Android guy) but I think companies should be free to set their prices. Having said that I am glad that they do this for smaller developers and even more happy that Epic will be excluded from it</p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyThey did this for 98 percent of developers, not for smaller developers.
Your desire to see the good guys lose is difficult to understand.
-
codymesh
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#593931">In reply to digiguy:</a></em></blockquote><p>saying "I think companies should be free" when talking about Apple and Google is exactly the kind of peak American delusion i've come to expect in 2020.</p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyNah. They’ll just keep cheering em on and thinking they did this for the right reasons.
-
lvthunder
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#593914">In reply to codymesh:</a></em></blockquote><p>I'm not going to be quiet. My guess is this program isn't going to effect the bottom line all that much. My main concern is they shouldn't be forced to run the app store at a loss.</p>
-
sammyg
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#593914">In reply to codymesh:</a></em></blockquote><p>Nope. I think Apple, Google, Microsoft , Sony etc can charge want they want. If developers or customers don’t like it they will go elsewhere. </p><p><br></p><p>Microsoft has effectively raised the price of Xbox Live to $100 by eliminating the 12 month option. They are pushing users to Game Pass. That said I know people that are going PS5 for this very reason. Where is Paul’s story about this?????</p>
-
Freezal
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><a href="#594196"><em>W</em></a><em>ait. You don't need Xbox live or Game Pass to use an Xbox to install and use apps or games. How is this the same thing? </em></blockquote><blockquote><em>The only valid argument is that the Microsoft store requires excessive fees as well, and since app distribution is locked, they are guilty of the same exploitation as Apple in this regard.</em></blockquote><blockquote><br></blockquote><blockquote><em>The issue people lose is here:</em></blockquote><blockquote><br></blockquote><blockquote><em>If you don't like the rules you cannot go to a different solution on that Apple device you paid for. Therefor Apple is dictating what you can and cannot do on the hardware you purchased, this is a problem. </em></blockquote><blockquote><br></blockquote><blockquote><em>Imagine you purchased a car and Ford tried to dictate who you were allowed to carry as passengers, or where you were allowed to drive, or required you only buy tires from a ford dealer which they charged a 30% markup.</em></blockquote><blockquote><br></blockquote><blockquote>The only legal recourse they have now is to void your warranty if you don't follow the rules (and even that is not allowed in all states). </blockquote><blockquote><br></blockquote><blockquote>This is the issue most people like me have. And people like me have this issue with any platform that conducts business this way. </blockquote><blockquote><br></blockquote><blockquote><br></blockquote><p><br></p>
-
sammyg
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#594325">In reply to Freezal:</a></em></blockquote><p>Yes you can install games and play them in single player mode without Xbox Live. If you want to play multiplayer you need Xbox Live Gold. </p><p><br></p><p>Example, and one that is relevant here on this site, you need Xbox Live Gold to play Fortnite Battle Royal, basically the only part of the game anyone plays. You don't need that to play the same thing on the PS4/PS5.</p><p><br></p><p>I guess I should not assume that the average smartphone buyer has some brains? If you buy an iPhone expecting it to be able to get apps from other apps stores……..well that is on you. Spend five seconds doing some research before you buy a $500+ piece of kit.</p><p><br></p><p>"The People" are not losers just the dumb ones. You analogy using a Ford car is so flawed, let's not even talk about it because its embarrassing for you.</p><p><br></p><p>Lots and lots and lots of people actually like the walled garden that Apple provides. Especially when you consider the alternative of Google. I do NOT use Google products, none of them and that is by choice. I want my information to remain my information and not Google to sell. Apple, wether it's a marketing point or not is privacy focused and that is what I want.</p><p><br></p><p>I choose to game on the Xbox because I like its wall garden as well. I have a gaming PC and its gets little use outside of the flight sim DCS. MP gaming on the PC is a complete train wreck with the insane amount of cheating that goes on in AAA games like COD, BF, Fortnite, Apex etc. So much so that most console gamers will shut off cross play when an game has it on.</p><p><br></p><p><br></p>
-
codymesh
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#594196">In reply to sammyg:</a></em></blockquote><p>there is no "elsewhere" to go, that's the point. </p><p><br></p><p>The game console market and their associated game stores aren't analogous to general computing devices market and their associated general software distribution stores.</p><p><br></p><p>Also, based on your own logic why shouldn't Microsoft be allowed to "do what it wants" and push people to Xbox Game Pass? You're the one advocating for this without realizing lol.</p><p><br></p><p>PSN used to be free, but people said "companies should do what they want" and also "they will go elsewhere" (?). Now PSN is no longer free and Sony put PS5 cloud saves behind a paywall. Your logic enables this kind of anti-consumer behavior, you argue in favor of it, but then you're also complaining about it?</p><p><br></p><p>Pick a lane.</p>
-
sammyg
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#594333">In reply to codymesh:</a></em></blockquote><p>I am 100% behind Microsoft pushing people to GamePass by upping the price of Xbox Live.</p><p><br></p><p>I am a iPhone user, and a Xbox user with GamePass. If I did not like what Microsoft was doing I could move to the PS5 (I have a PS4). If I did not like what Apple was doing I could move to Android.</p><p><br></p><p>There are choices. I choose Apple and Microsoft.</p><p><br></p><p>PS – By the way PSN Multiplayer is now free via a recent change. Microsoft should do the same thing IMHO.</p>
-
red.radar
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>I feel like this will harm Apple in the end. It just proves the rules are arbitrary and capricious. </p><p><br></p><p>So Apple makes a deal for giants like amazon. And makes a deal for the small guy. Yet people in the middle pay full price ? The action in of itself highlights how there is no check and balance in the system. </p><p><br></p><p>App stores need regulated like utilities. </p>
-
lvthunder
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#593918">In reply to red.radar:</a></em></blockquote><p>Welcome to retail. If you have something that Amazon sells for you they set the final sales price. You set the retail price and get half. Then Amazon sells it at whatever price they want. Pricing is pretty arbitrary.</p><p><br></p><p>App stores do not need to be regulated like utilities. I could understand if you said ISP's should, but not app stores. App stores run just like traditional retail stores.</p>
-
akcanuck
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#593957">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>The difference is I'm not forced to sell through Amazon or any other retailer.</p>
-
Chris_Kez
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#593973">In reply to akcanuck:</a></em></blockquote><p>You are if you want to easily reach Amazon’s customers. Walmart is famously abusive towards their suppliers yet manufacturers line up for the “privilege” because they want to be on Walmart’s shelves and in front of millions of retail shoppers. </p>
-
VancouverNinja
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#593998">In reply to Chris_Kez:</a></em></blockquote><p>Yes Walmart is a good negotiator with their suppliers – what's the point? Consumers can still buy their dishwasher soap from somewhere else. This is the part that is missing in the arguments supporting Apples practices. They have reached a monopolistic postition and now they must be fair. If not they will be forced by law to become fair.</p><p><br></p>
-
lvthunder
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#594018">In reply to VancouverNinja:</a></em></blockquote><p>In what market does Apple have a monopoly? I don't think they even reach 50% in any market.</p>
-
fishnet37222
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#594030">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>In the iOS App Store market. On PCs, Macs, and Android devices the user can either install apps directly or install additional app stores. Businesses can also deliver their apps directly to the user. That is not possible with iOS/iPadOS.</p>
-
SvenJ
<blockquote><a href="#594063"><em>In reply to fishnet37222:</em></a><em> </em>Apple maintaining control of the apps that land on iOS via the app store is a feature. If you could install from any old where, it reduces the security, and reliability of the platform. Yea, I drank the koolaid, but that is Apple's pitch and it does resonate with a large part of their base. If that goes away, they no longer have that differentiator. If you as a developer don't want in that market, don't write for iOS. If you as a consumer don't agree with that policy, buy an Android device. You have that choice. Apple is far from the only choice for developers or consumers.</blockquote><p><br></p>
-
lvthunder
Premium Member<blockquote><em><a href="#594063">In reply to fishnet37222:</a></em></blockquote><p>You can't define a market that way. If so then every game console would be guilty of the same thing.</p>
-
VancouverNinja
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#594030">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p><br></p><p>From the hearings.</p><p><br></p><p>"Apple is the leading smartphone and mobile vendor in the United States and its underlying platform, iOS/iPadOS, has 52 percent marketshare, compared to just 47 percent for Android. “In 2018, Apple sold its 2 billionth iOS device, and is projected to sell its 2 billionth iPhone by 2021,” the report notes.</p><p><br></p><p>The issue, of course, is that Apple has monopoly power over the app stores on its mobile platforms, which generated over $120 billion in revenues and “an estimated $138 billion in economic activity in the U.S. last year.”</p><p><br></p><p>“Apple has significant and durable market power in the market for mobile operating systems and mobile app stores, both of which are highly concentrated,” the report says. “More than half of [all] mobile devices in the U.S. run on iOS or iPadOS … Apple’s market power is durable due to high switching costs, ecosystem lock-in, and brand loyalty. It is unlikely that there will be a successful market entry to contest the dominance of iOS and Android. As a result, Apple’s control over iOS provides it with gatekeeper power over software distribution on iOS devices. Consequently, it has a dominant position in the mobile app store market and monopoly power over the distribution of software applications on iOS devices.”</p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyPlease. Stop.
-
lvthunder
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#593973">In reply to akcanuck:</a></em></blockquote><p>Skipping the big retailers isn't the best move if you want to be successful.</p>
-
VancouverNinja
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#593999">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>Even Walmart is kept in check from, and by, their competitors. If consumers could only get goods through Walmart then you could compare them to Apple.</p><p><br></p>
-
VancouverNinja
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#593957">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>You can't apply the "retail" model to this. In retail there is competition that keeps stores from monopolistic and predatory pricing. Users and developers have no choice or options to buy from somewhere else.</p><p><br></p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyApp stores do need to regulated when they’re controlled by monopolies that abuse their developers, partners, and customers as Apple does. That is why every major antitrust organization in the world, almost literally, is investigating the company right now. But thanks for chiming in.
-
bleduc
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><a href="#594191"><em>In reply to paul-thurrott:</em></a></blockquote><p><br></p><p>I wish you would comment on the other stores too:</p><p><br></p><p>Microsoft Store Fees (July 2020):</p><p><br></p><p>Store Fees. The Store Fee (plus any taxes due in connection with the payment of such Store Fee, if applicable) you owe to Microsoft will be deducted from Net Receipts to calculate the App Proceeds payable to you in accordance with this Section 6. The Store Fee is:</p><p> 1 Fifteen percent (15%) of Net Receipts for any Apps (and any In-App Products in such Apps, including) that are not listed in Section 6(b)(ii) below.</p><p> 2 Thirty percent (30%) of Net Receipts for: (a) all Apps and In-App Products acquired by Customers in the Microsoft Store on an Xbox console and billed to such Customers on a non-subscription basis;</p><p>(b) all Games (and In-App Products in Games) regardless of platform of acquisition; and (c) all Apps and In-App Products acquired by Customers in the Microsoft Store for Business; Microsoft Store for Education; Microsoft Store on Windows 8 devices; or Microsoft Store on Windows Phone 8 devices.</p><p><br></p><p>Google Play Service fees:</p><p>For apps and in-app products offered through Google Play, the service fee is equivalent to 30% of the price. You receive 70% of the payment. The remaining 30% goes to the distribution partner and operating fees.</p><p>As of 1 January 2018, the service fee for subscription products decreases to 15% for any subscribers that you retain after 12 paid months. If a subscriber has been active as of this date, that time will be counted. For example, if a subscriber has been active for four months, the service fee will be reduced to 15% after eight more paid months.</p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyOther stores? When you go after the bad guys, you go after the biggest one first. Then the others will fall, either voluntarily or not.
But if you’re talking about Microsoft, the Microsoft Store on Windows isn’t a monopoly and/or the only way to get apps on Windows. In fact, very few customers even use it, comparatively speaking.
If you’re talking about any console store, those businesses are tiny (10s of millions of units) compared to mobile (several billion units).
If you’re talking about Google, I have. But to reiterate, same basic issues as Apple App Store but Android does allow for third-party stores, eliminating a central complaint about iOS/iPadOS.
-
Chris_Kez
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>For a company that seems able to execute long-term strategy, they are curiously on the back foot when it comes to the App Store. </p>
-
ruvger
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>Apple also charges $90 per year just to put your app in the store.</p><p><br></p><p>Personally, I would settle for 30% as long as I could tell my customers there are other ways to pay (through my website).</p>
-
VancouverNinja
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#593948">In reply to Ruvger:</a></em></blockquote><p>There are approx. 1.8 millions apps in the Apple app store let's say there is an average of 3 apps per dev account. so $90 x 600,000 = $54 million per year. Apple is clearly making a bag of profit right there. If they insist on this there is no excuse for then basically asserting, what amounts to, assuming a partial ownership over the devs app – they are taking 30% right off the top. It's excessive.</p>
-
lvthunder
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#594023">In reply to VancouverNinja:</a></em></blockquote><p>So how much does it cost them to develop XCode? Go look at the price of Visual Studio Pro.</p>
-
Jogy
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#594028">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>Go look at the price of Visual Studio Code and Visual Studio Community.</p>
-
lvthunder
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#594036">In reply to Jogy:</a></em></blockquote><p>VS Community isn't available if you have more then 5 developers I think it is. VS Code isn't the same thing.</p>
-
Jogy
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#594091">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p><br></p><p>VSPro can be used to develop Windows apps (several different frameworks), Web apps (again, many different frameworks), Mobile apps (Android and iOS), Azure, Office, and others.</p><p><br></p><p>XCode can be used to develop only for iOS/macOS.</p><p><br></p><p>So XCode is definitely not the same thing as VSPro and price comparison is meaningless.</p><p><br></p><p>A much better comparison would be between the price of Android Studio and Android Store with those of XCode and Apple store. </p><p><br></p><p><br></p>
-
arthemis
Log in to Reply<p>A step in the right direction yes, but will it be enough to keep regulators at bay? No, probably not, and that is a good thing. </p>
-
doubledeej
Log in to Reply<p>This is a great change, but the $1m threshold seems backwards. Usually higher volume equates to lower fees, not higher fees.</p>
-
lvthunder
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#593970">In reply to doubledeej:</a></em></blockquote><p>Since Paul calls it a tax anyways just think about it like that. The poor pay less and the rich pay more.</p>
-
Chris_Kez
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#593970">In reply to doubledeej:</a></em></blockquote><p>Right. Perhaps part of the difference here is that digital goods and services can grow with nearly zero marginal cost, so profitability gets exponentially higher as revenue increases. </p>
-
Truffles
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#593970">In reply to doubledeej:</a></em></blockquote><p>Digital goods are the reverse. I could host a percentage of the App Store's apps and not stress my domestic upload bandwidth, but throw in any single popular title and my hosting costs would skyrocket. Who should pick up the bill for that? The consumer, the small devs or the popular title devs?</p>
-
anoldamigauser
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>Well, this covers 98% of developers in the App Store, but it sure is not covering 98% of the sales through the App Store. You can bet that the fees earned by these smaller developers are nowhere near what Apple earns from the 2% of developers that clear $1 million per year.</p><p>The big boys are still paying 30% of any sale through the App Store and 30% of any subscription renewed through the App Store, and 30% of any in-app purchases. Apple is not losing that much of the revenue generated by the App Store, so the impact will not change their "services" revenue story. Sorry, but this is just marketing.</p>
-
bluvg
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#593921">In reply to Jeffsters:</a></em></blockquote><p>"The market can advise otherwise."</p><p><br></p><p>How?</p>
-
jchampeau
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>Paul, when you say "Most" agree that Apple's fees should be closer to 3 or 4 percent, what is your source? That sounds annecdotal, but maybe it isn't. 30% is too much, but 3-4% might not cover the cost of the credit card processing fees plus what it actually costs to run the store (people, bandwidth, legal, data centers, software dev and upkeep, etc., etc.). They're in business to make money and they should get to, as long as it isn't unreasonable. 10% sounds right to me, along with allowing app makers to design their apps to use outside payment systems like the Amazon shopping app.</p>
-
VancouverNinja
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#593997">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>?</p><p><br></p>
-
jchampeau
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#593997">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>Users wouldn't necessarily have to enter their card numbers each time. If they have their card numbers already stored in Apple Wallet, they could pay in apps with them just like happens with Uber, Lyft, Hilton, and Target.</p>
-
lvthunder
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#594064">In reply to jchampeau:</a></em></blockquote><p>Apple Wallet isn't available on TVOs. That and Apple gets a cut if you use Apple Pay.</p>
-
jchampeau
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#594090">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>Doing anything on TVos with the "crime against humanity" Apple TV remote, as Paul aptly describes it, is awful. It seems Apple knows this and that's why you get a push notification on your iPhone when a search box or whatever comes up on Apple TV to use your phone instead of the touchpad. So that problem is already solved. And Apple gets a <strong>very</strong> small cut of Apple Pay purchases, but that's not what this article any of the comments under it are about, nor is it what's drawing scrutiny and antitrust action. According to articles on Macrumors and CNN, they get 0.15% of each transaction, or 15 cents per $100. For app store purchases, they get 30%, or $30 on a $100 purchase.</p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyIt doesn’t matter what sounds right to anyone. What matters is what is right. And Apple’s fees are indefensible and unrelated to its cost of having this business.
-
will
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>I believe it should be 15% across the board, 7% if you have a subscription, and FREE, and I think it is, if your app costs $1.</p>
-
lvthunder
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#593992">In reply to will:</a></em></blockquote><p>Nope. I get $.70 for my $.99 app.</p><p><br></p><p>So you know all the expenses the App Store has to be able to set the price? Or do you think Apple should run the app store at a loss?</p>
-
VancouverNinja
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#593995">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>You can't be serious with your comments. Users should be able to gain access to apps outside of the apple store. Apple's cost of maintenance is a fraction of the cost they reap from developers – it's really an unfair business model. </p>
-
SRLRacing
Log in to Reply<p>IMHO This is almost worst that 30% across the board. Its going to be difficult for me to fully articulate why but I will give it a shot. This makes a business in the app store viable in the app store if it makes between 15-30% margin up until the day it crosses that $1M threshold then suddenly the business becomes non-viable. That kind of margin is dreamlike in most cases, for example Apple itself holds a 38% margin on their revenues so if they had to pay someone a 30% cut of their revenues they would have a more typical 8% margin despite being one of the most wildly profitable companies on the face of the planet. Personally, I am dancing in the streets if I hold a 5% margin in my business. You do this while you have the sword of <span style="color: rgb(32, 33, 34);">Damocles</span> hanging above your head of being Sherlocked or being outlawed by other policy changes. Apple's App store policy ultimately stifles innovation, growth, and competition when it could truly become a place where businesses can grow, innovate, and thrive. </p>
-
mattbg
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#594012">In reply to SRLRacing:</a></em></blockquote><p>This is a good point – if it isn't already, it should be progressive so that you only pay the 30% on revenues >$1M and not the whole amount.</p><p><br></p><p>They word it like this (this is verbatim from the Apple press release), so it's possible that it does only apply to the revenues after you hit $1M – if it only applies to the part of the year after you hit $1M:</p><p><br></p><ul><li>If a participating developer surpasses the $1 million threshold, the standard commission rate will apply for the remainder of the year. </li></ul><p><br></p>
-
spiderman2
Log in to Reply<p>oh apple it's so nice, it's totally not because of the antitrust</p><p><br></p>
-
Daekar
Log in to Reply<p>Great PR move that won't affect the bottom line that much. It might be 98% of the developer population which is affected, but it's not anywhere near that of the money which flows through the App Store. This is a master stroke, really…they get to have their cake and eat it too, reaping the benefits of a more vibrant small-app population and sucking the money out of large corporations all while getting credit for helping out the little guy. </p>
-
scovious
Log in to Reply<p>Wow so now everyone can get the Amazon deal, except for big companies like Amazon?</p>
-
SvenJ
Log in to Reply<p>3-4% isn't reasonable. That is based on some concept of credit card fees. Apple does way more than move digital money around to maintain the app store. Don't know if 15% is right. 30% probably was at one time. </p>
-
steenmachine
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#594073">In reply to SvenJ:</a></em></blockquote><p><br></p><p>Agree. They handle all worldwide transactions, digital store upkeep, all the employees supporting the app ecosystem, the servers / infrastructure, developer tools, plus current and future ecosystem investments.</p><p><br></p><p>I recall at the time Steve Jobs stating 30% was ~ break even. Obviously revenue and costs have exponentially grown since 2008, I'm sure not at the exact same rates. Regardless, I think it would be very hard to define what a "right" amount is. </p><p><br></p><p> </p>
-
kjb434
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>?</p><p>98% get the new rate.</p><p>The 2% likely was able to negotiate their own rate anyway.</p><p><br></p>
-
melinau
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>Apple (along with all the other "Tech Giants") will hopefully be brought to heel & properly regulated world-wide. This move is clearly designed to garner positive PR on TV networks & Press, as it's hardly a serious concession. I don't know if 4% is a fairer charge, but it sounds reasonable. While 4% of millions (billions?) is less than 30% it's still ample.</p>