When developers inform users how big Apple's cut of IAPs is, and empower them to pay a different way, we see how much Apple actually cares about empowering and informing users. This is a business move plain and simple.
I really doubt most users have even thought about or give a hoot about where fees are going for products they are buying on Apples platform. If the argument is "the product would cost 30% less" sure, they'd probably care. But that's not the argument. It's the relatively few (compared to users) developers and companies selling apps that are losing that money that care and are vocal about it. They would rather keep it for themselves. The end user really doesn't even figure into the equation when it comes to Apple transaction fees on their platform, because it doesn't affect them.
I think the parent poster is pointing out an apparent hypocrisy: Apple has rules which prohibit app developers from disclosing the apple cut in their apps, or even offering discounted off-platform purchase options within the app. Apple I think wants to keep their experience very high quality, but this could be interpreted as not "empowering" or "informing" them.
This is a disingenuous analogy because the costs to the developer are already reflected in the total price offered to the consumer. This is how stores work. No market that I know of makes a point of showing wholesale prices to retail customers.
This cut is a business relationship between Apple and the developer. Apple's developer contracts mean that Apple is entitled to a cut of revenues even if a different payment gateway is used. So it's not like the consumer could be offered a lower cost payment option anyway. This was affirmed by the Judge in Epic v Apple recently.
> This is a disingenuous analogy because the costs to the developer are already reflected in the total price offered to the consumer. This is how stores work. No market that I know of makes a point of showing wholesale prices to retail customers.
I've often bought something off Amazon (or even in a physical shop) and had it come with a flyer for the manufacturer's own site, or a catalogue for ordering accessories from them directly. Plenty of hotels make a point of saying "this is what it costs if you book with us directly".
> So it's not like the consumer could be offered a lower cost payment option anyway.
Then why are Apple so scared of letting customers know the facts?
Amazon and other retailers are free to not sell products if they don’t want to. Entirely up to them. The relationship between booking sites and hotels is vastly different to Apple and app developers.
I doubt Apple would have had a problem with developers noting the 15/30% store fee if it wasn’t being done for such obviously disingenuous purposes. It’s all well and good to argue the reasonableness of such allowances in theory, but here, context is everything.
If it's disingenuous, LET THE USERS DECIDE ! Like Steve Jobs said. . . Ask them! Every time! And make it clear!
What's disingenuous to you is remarkably a standard business practice for a tax or a fee of any kind. Buying an airplane ticket? If there are fees and charges , guess what? They get called out so you have a choice.
Buying an iPhone in most parts of the world? Guess what happens when you go to check out? You see the "Includes Tax of xx%" there so you have the information.
This should not even be an argument in this day and age, but unfortunately, here we are. Market conditions and rules of engagement around competition should NOT be dictated by large companies. There is a line in the sand where Apples platform ends and the real world begins. It's ridiculous that they have been allowed to get away with saying "If you do ANYTHING on our platform, you agree to hamper your business voluntarily in EVERY OTHER PLATFORM you choose to participate in". Do it, or don't do business with us. That's anti competitive and has been finally called out by at least one judge so far in the Epic case.
> Amazon and other retailers are free to not sell products if they don’t want to. Entirely up to them. The relationship between booking sites and hotels is vastly different to Apple and app developers.
Apple is a lot more hotel-booking-like than retailer-like IMO: approximately no-one is browsing through the apple "store" (though people might use it as a search mechanism), it's more or less just an aggregator of a bunch of third-party products. People don't go there because they want to get something from Apple, they go there because it's the only way to get an app onto their phone.
> I doubt Apple would have had a problem with developers noting the 15/30% store fee if it wasn’t being done for such obviously disingenuous purposes.
That's completely backwards - Apple is being far more disingenuous. They keep their cut secret because they know the users would - quite rightly - feel they were being ripped off.
"This is a totally disingenuous argument because the data that Facebook collects is embedded in their privacy policy and extends to any platform that you use Facebook on. This is how business relationships work. I don't know what good would come of showing another permissions dialog on Apple devices" /s
I don't know who you are, but the level of defense you're mounting for Apple makes it clear that you are not a neutral party. This is the first time i've heard someone argue in good faith that _any_ market gets to dictate to independent sellers how they display their price breakdowns.
I don’t agree with your fake quote and I don’t agree with your description of developers as “independent sellers” when in fact they are not the seller. If you don’t like Apple’s developer agreement, take it up with Judge Rogers who affirmed all but one sentence of it.
