this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024
103 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37702 readers
265 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well, they do provide the AppStore and the whole underlying infrastructure. So a fee in and off itself is not unreasonable.
However, since the AppStore is the only channel for selling/downloading apps it reeks of monopoly (which Apple is rightly being investigated for).
It is unreasonable if they are not the one providing payment infra.
They already charge developers 100$ pa for the app store account. If that doesn't cover their costs, they can increase it, but going after 3rd party payments is pure greed.
Why does providing the App Store entitle them to a percentage of in app purchases instead of, say, a fee per download or something?
If you think about it, a fee per app download is a lot less flexible when it comes to monetising purchases. Means free apps either become paid or shove into you a lot more micro transactions. That exact model is what made devs get mad at unity (although unity doesn’t provide the download infrastructure and it was on top of a cut)
Fair. I still don’t think that entitles Apple to a cut of purchases in the app, but you’re right that a download fee sucks.