[HN Gopher] When a customer refunds your paid app, Apple doesn't...
___________________________________________________________________
When a customer refunds your paid app, Apple doesn't refund the 30%
cut
Author : tomduncalf
Score : 949 points
Date : 2020-07-29 15:20 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| fizixer wrote:
| "When you refund a customer in full, for an app they _returned_ ,
| Apple doesn't refund you the 30% cut" ... ?
| davidwhodge wrote:
| This does not match my experience with my App, Nikola. I've been
| able to match up the transactions and refunds as 1 to 1, price-
| wise.
| christefano wrote:
| Thank you for weighing in. Hearing from more devs is what this
| thread needs, IMO, not rumor mongering.
|
| Great website, by the way!
|
| https://www.nikolaapp.com/
|
| Out of curiosity, can you say whether Tesla has approached you
| for acquisition?
| tomduncalf wrote:
| Interesting. I wonder if it varies from region to region
| perhaps? Going to do a bit more research as this guy seems
| quite convinced they are taking the cut but evidently you've
| experienced otherwise!
| davidwhodge wrote:
| Yeah I'm not sure what the discrepancy is. This afternoon I'm
| going to dig a bit more into my records.
|
| In my data right now I see a few examples of an $80 purchase
| match to $56 in proceeds (70%) matched to $56 of a refund.
|
| I can't say I think the 30% fee is appropriate anymore, but
| this particular case being made about refunds does not appear
| to be accurate for me at least.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Sounds like the customer gets the $80 they paid to Apple,
| you (the dev) are on the hook to Apple for the $56 that
| Apple paid you, and Apple is responsible for sending the
| additional $24 to the customer.
|
| Sounds reasonable to me.
| tomduncalf wrote:
| Could be that this developer is confused, maybe the way
| Apple represent the data is confusing in the records or
| something... in which case my apologies for spreading false
| information, but he seemed pretty convinced!
| ntsplnkv2 wrote:
| Thanks for a different perspective.
|
| The group think on here always reaches a fever pitch when it
| comes to Apple - HN is particularly susceptible to it
| user123ae78 wrote:
| Why is it we don't tax these companies in the same way. 30% on
| all income in the country where the good/service was sold
| bishalb wrote:
| HNers don't seem very critical of Apple here. Imagine if
| Microsoft did the same, all hell would break loose.
| saagarjha wrote:
| "Sorry, we already spent it."
| valuearb wrote:
| This isn't true. Source: me, I'm a developer who has been giving
| customers refund instructions fir ten years.
| jbob2000 wrote:
| Well yeah, I still need to pay shipping for amazon to send me a
| product even if I need to return it because it's broken. I would
| have no product to return if I did not pay for the shipping to
| receive the product.
|
| Apple would justify that 30% being non-refundable by saying "you
| would have never had that client to refund if you did not give us
| that 30%". They did their job, they got you the client, you were
| the one who did the bad job and made the client pursue a refund.
|
| You pay a toll to cross a bridge, but it turns out to be the
| wrong bridge. You don't get your toll back, you still crossed the
| bridge.
| hnxs wrote:
| I've never had to pay shipping for an Amazon return.
| samfisher83 wrote:
| Except apple's marginal cost like 0.
| glofish wrote:
| That is not the right reason to refund. Price should have
| nothing to do with marginal costs.
|
| it has to do with who is being made to carry the cost, and
| the griefing that can occur that way. Not worth the trouble
| IMHO.
| imoverclocked wrote:
| Based on what?
| ebg13 wrote:
| Marginal cost is often not a good way to evaluate things.
|
| A person who focuses only on marginal cost will say "It only
| took you an hour to make that" while discounting the decades
| of training it took to be able to.
|
| A person who focuses only on marginal cost will say "I could
| have made this at home" while discounting the reasons why
| they didn't.
|
| Prices relate to provided value, not just cost.
| sukilot wrote:
| How much value is provided for a refund?
| ebg13 wrote:
| The amount refunded minus the continuing value to the
| user of the returned product (absent the value already
| extracted from the product by the user), of course.
| sleepydog wrote:
| Apple is not giving a 70% refund when you refund an app. They
| are giving a full refund and charging the seller for the 30%.
|
| In your analogy, it would be like giving the toll back and
| charging a portion of it to the bridge builder.
| jbob2000 wrote:
| Apple's responsibility is to the transaction. Their job as a
| marketplace is to make transactions happen. By making the
| initial transaction happen, they get their 30% cut (if you
| think 30% is too high, that's fine, but that's not what we're
| talking about here).
|
| The customer's experience is now in the developer's hands. If
| the experience is botched, somebody has to cover the _full_
| refund. Since the bad experience happened _outside_ of the
| transaction, it 's not Apple's responsibility, it's the
| developer's; they need to shoulder the full refund. It wasn't
| Apple that fucked up.
|
| If the user didn't understand the app before buying, that's
| still on the developer. If the app has issues because of some
| dependency on wonky Apple implementations, that's up to the
| developer to communicate to potential clients. The developer
| is responsible for the experience after the purchase is made,
| therefore they are responsible for the full refund if the
| client wants one.
| wolco wrote:
| Isn't marketing Apple's job. If the message was
| communicated it would be upto them.
|
| The problem is Apple doesn't need paided third party apps
| as much as they use to. The app store gave them runway to
| develop important apps internally. Big name/vendor free
| apps are welcome.
| jayparth wrote:
| Dude... what? Both of those are false analogies.
| glofish wrote:
| Where this analogy fails is that shipping is not a fixed
| percent of a product cost.
|
| And the cost of refund is the same to Apple for a product that
| cost $1 just as it is for products that cost $100.
| jbob2000 wrote:
| My point is that the fee is about "delivering you the
| customer". Apple delivered you the customer. That the
| customer and you were unhappy is no bearing on their ability
| to deliver that customer to you.
| sukilot wrote:
| They didn't deliver a customer. They delivered a non-
| customer.
| glofish wrote:
| Exactly this.
|
| Apple has all the reasons to entice the customer into
| buying the product and encouraging them to do so by
| offering a full refund, and they take none of the risks
| because the make the same money either way.
|
| I am surprised of how many people don't see the conflict
| of interest here.
| the_jeremy wrote:
| I don't usually have to pay shipping with Amazon, so that
| doesn't make sense.
| jmull wrote:
| I'm a little stuck on the terminology here.
|
| Does "customer refunds your paid app" mean the customer requests
| and gets a (full) refund from Apple for a prior app purchase?
|
| (I would say "returns" not "refunds" ... Apple is the one
| refunding, not the customer. The customer receives the refund.
| But I guess this is some kind of regional/informal usage I'm not
| familiar with.)
|
| If so, that's BS. Apple could reasonably keep transaction costs
| of something like 5%, but the full 30 is crazy.
| sbarre wrote:
| As per the thread:
|
| You buy an app for $10, Apple gets $3, the developer gets $7.
|
| You refund the app (through the Apple App Store), you get your
| 10$ back, but that whole 10$ comes from the developer, unlike
| the 7/3 split when you first purchased it.
|
| So in the end, the developer has lost money due to the refund.
| sercand wrote:
| This is wrong.
|
| I just looked at our app store connect Sales and Trends page
| and for a $10 item: Apple proceeds $7 to developer and takes
| back $7 again from the developer on a refund.
| Spivak wrote:
| This is just sales commission rules though.
|
| If I get a 30% commission for a sale when the customer is
| referred by me and at some point in the future the customer
| asks for a refund I don't give my commission back. Our
| transaction was done when the original sale was made.
| LanceH wrote:
| Apple doesn't refer a sale. Apple makes the sale. They are
| the store, something they have set up and enforced.
|
| The developer has no capacity to deny a customer, yet has
| the responsibility for the bad customers shopping someone
| else's store.
| genidoi wrote:
| Devils advocate argument: A refund (probably) reduces the
| LTV of customers, and Apple has no control of the cause
| of those refunds, whether it be a buggy app or
| misrepresenting features.
|
| The ethics of this scheme are debatable but it should be
| assumed that some refunds are legitimate and Apple loses
| tangible customer $LTV from some refunds.
| sbarre wrote:
| This is not a valid comparison, there is no referral or
| commission happening here.
|
| Compare it more to sales tax, which is a much closer
| comparison because it is required as part of the
| transaction in a monopoly ecosystem (much like a sales tax
| is in a country).
|
| If a vendor adds tax to a price, and then charges the
| customer, and the customer gets a refund, the customer get
| the sales tax back, but the vendor then doesn't have to
| remit that tax to the government (and if they've already
| remitted it, they can apply for a credit).
| Spivak wrote:
| I mean would it feel better if you got paid $10 but then
| Apple immediately billed you $3 for marketing and sales
| services?
|
| Because that's basically Apple's whole thing. If you want
| you can just ignore their existence. You can run a very
| successful business on the web, Android, Windows. But
| getting your app on iOS and in front of their customer
| base is really valuable. Better than any billboard or FB
| ad. They know that customer acquisition is hugely
| expensive and that being able to sell on their platform
| will make you more money than not and so they charge like
| it.
|
| The difference between having Spotify on iOS that can't
| mention that premium exists (because that would be using
| iOS as a marketing vector which Apple charges for) and
| therefore has to do their own customer acquisition, and
| being able to convert customers in-app makes a big
| difference.
| annoyingnoob wrote:
| From the perspective of an iPhone user, Apple does a reasonable
| job of keeping nefarious apps out of the app store (not prefect,
| maybe not even great, but reasonable). Most apps that have a set
| price and not a subscription are reasonably priced and one does
| not feel/notice that Apple takes a 30% cut. The end user
| experience is reasonable.
|
| I feel like getting rid of the app store, or even just allowing
| side loading, would open users up to a lot of nefarious software.
|
| If we assume that consumers like the App store and that its not
| going away, how do we satisfy developers but allow consumers the
| comfort of the walled garden?
| perfectstorm wrote:
| People keep talking about 30% cut but it's actually more than
| that if you look outside of U.S.
|
| Apple takes more than 30% cut for in-app purchases made in other
| countries. For example, an in-app-purchase (IAP) you sell in USD
| for $15.99 is translated to 1249 Indian Rupees and you get a
| proceed of 741 Rupees which is only 59%. So Apple keeps the rest
| 41%. Today's (when I wrote this) exchange rate shows approx. 76
| rupees for 1 USD so the amount they charge the user is pretty
| accurate but Apple put so much wiggle room in their favor. This
| is true for other currencies as well.
| tomduncalf wrote:
| Looks like the original tweet may be incorrect according to
| replies on there, or at least this doesn't apply to every app,
| for example:
| https://mobile.twitter.com/LittleFinLLC/status/1288570444417...
|
| Would be great if others could chime in with their experience if
| they have records to check!
|
| My apologies for posting this if it proves to be incorrect, hard
| one to fact check weirdly.
| chrisjarvis wrote:
| Has anyone confirmed this is true (or is this tweet the only
| source...)?
|
| https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/105454 "Apple has the
| RIGHT TO withhold" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23989256
|
| It seems you can only get a refund by reporting a problem, which
| means if your app works as described you shouldn't be able to
| request a refund.
| tomduncalf wrote:
| One developer has said (below) this didn't seem to be the case
| for him, so it's possible the original tweet poster was
| confused.
|
| I have heard this rumour before and it does sound like Apple
| deserve the right to do this, so perhaps it varies on a case by
| case or region by region basis? But seems to be hard to find
| concrete information either way strangely!
| [deleted]
| gruez wrote:
| Here's a second source:
| https://techcrunch.com/2009/03/25/apples-iphone-app-refund-p...
| juiyout wrote:
| I have requested several refunds by reporting a problem saying
| that the app didn't work the way I thought it would.
| Automatically approved and refunded.
|
| Takes like 10 seconds.
| gnicholas wrote:
| Stripe started doing this as well, as of a few months ago. Makes
| it tougher to be generous with refunds for people, knowing that
| we literally lose money doing so.
|
| Fortunately their cut isn't the massive 30% that Apple takes.
| andreasley wrote:
| A Statement of Tim Cook for the House of Representatives claimed
| that "For the vast majority of apps on the App Store , developers
| keep 100% of the money they make." [1]
|
| How can this be even remotely true if Apple takes a 30%
| commission for every sale in the App Store?
|
| [1]
| https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU05/20200729/110883/HHRG...
| ip26 wrote:
| A statement from the IRS - "For the vast majority of Americans,
| taxpayers keep 100% of their after-tax income"
| mwest217 wrote:
| He's referring to the fact that most commerce on the App Store
| is for physical goods and services (Airbnb, Amazon, Uber, food
| delivery, etc). Apple doesn't take a cut of those transactions.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Yeah, they also don't take a cut of the regular day job
| salary of an app developer who writes an app on the side, or
| his inheritance from his mother, or his niece's dog.
| dgellow wrote:
| They do if your service is subscription based.
| lis wrote:
| Two options:
|
| 1) Free apps with advertisements. Paid apps are by far the
| minority.
|
| 2) I guess this statement is related to subscription models
| like spotify. If you acquire the user outside of the apple
| ecosystem and they subscribe on your own website and then
| download your free app from the app store, you get to keep 100%
| on the revenue that the user generates as well.
| andreasley wrote:
| Ah, the ad thing makes sense. It's technically true but the
| meaning conveyed in the statement is quite different.
|
| As for the subscription model, I've thought about that but
| developers that aren't huge companies have a hard time NOT
| integrating in-app purchases for cloud services (see "Hey",
| which had to use social media to get their update approved
| [1]), so it couldn't be the "vast majority of apps".
|
| [1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/18/21296180/apple-hey-
| email-...
| amscanne wrote:
| Perhaps he means that they keep 100% of their 70% ;)
| crazygringo wrote:
| Apple doesn't take a cut of your advertising revenue, and most
| apps are ad-supported rather than paid.
|
| That's why it's true.
| t0ughcritic wrote:
| No most apps aren't ad supported mostly games are. The ad
| supported apps are not real business but side hustles or one
| time, one hit apps that die quickly.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Most apps by app title, not by usage.
|
| It's precisely the long tail of side hustles with ads that
| make up most apps.
| aripickar wrote:
| Apple doesn't take a cut from advertising, which funds the vast
| majority of apps.
| jtsiskin wrote:
| That's true, and makes a weird incentive for advertisements.
| Ads revenue is apple-tax free
| djrogers wrote:
| No, you just aren't seeing the 'tax' the same way. Google
| (and Facebook, and admob, etc) all take a cut of ad
| revenue, and it's even higher than 30% - in some cases much
| much higher.
|
| [1] https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/180195?hl=en
| kevin_b_er wrote:
| Its wily political speak. The devs keep 100% of what they make.
| What do they make? 70% of the price on app store.
|
| They keep 100% of the 70% of the store price. Truthful
| statement, just one that is designed to mislead you.
| lucisferre wrote:
| The idea that they could make less than 100% of the money
| that they "make" under these terms reminds me of the Simpsons
| episode where Bill Gates "buys out" Homer's fake business
| Hyperglobalmeganet.
| WA wrote:
| This. Plus: most apps don't make money. It's easy to keep
| 100% of zero.
| tartrate wrote:
| They also keep 100% of what they make after refunds have been
| processed and yet another cut is taken.
| [deleted]
| chadlavi wrote:
| Payment processors generally don't refund fees on payments when
| the payments are refunded, this isn't new. It's remarkable mainly
| because (a) it's 30%, not 3% and (b) the App store doesn't
| position itself as a payments processor the way Stripe does, so
| it sounds really weird that they would act like one.
|
| If the app store took a 3% chunk and never refunded it regardless
| of the ongoing status of the transaction, that would put them
| right in line with other payment processors. It would also still
| net them billions of dollars, I think!
| grawprog wrote:
| Payment processors also don't typically sell their own
| hardware, then lock said hardware down so that the payment
| processor's store is the only way to purchase things for the
| hardware. Payment processors typically allow you to buy a range
| of goods from a variety of storefronts. Comparing the Apple
| store to something like stripe or PayPal seems pretty apple and
| orangy to me.
| chrischen wrote:
| > Payment processors generally don't refund fees on payments
| when the payments are refunded, this isn't new.
|
| This is new, and in fact PayPal and Stripe enacted this policy
| only this (or last year if I recall correctly).
|
| Some payment processors like Affirm or Amazon Pay have not
| changed their policy on this yet.
| tdeck wrote:
| Square used to refund the fees, they changed that policy when
| I was there and the reason was just to lose less money on
| refunds. I'm not sure whether they had to pay interchange on
| refunds or not.
| seancoleman wrote:
| Stripe does refund their fees with a transaction refund. I
| understand this may be novel for the payment processing
| industry though.
| seancoleman wrote:
| I guess it's been a long time since I've been personally
| responsible for the financial side of Stripe accounts. I
| think it was 5 years ago when I used to run a lot of test
| transactions and refund for net $0, but times change. Sorry
| to lead anyone astray.
| thoraway1010 wrote:
| That's awesome! However, it WILL result in stripe attracting
| a LOT of the crappy billers (ie, folks who mislead / make
| customer unhappy etc). If your business is < 1% refunds, no
| worry if fees stay. A fair number of business have just 1 or
| 2 refunds PER YEAR.
|
| Other business obviously have MUCH higher refund rates
| (sneaky autobill businesses etc). For these loosing 5% on the
| refunds matters if they have a lot of refunds, so they'll be
| very tempted by no costs if you autobill and get caught.
| They'll just autorenew everyone, autosign up and then be VERY
| good about refunds to avoid chargebacks. Even if just 30% of
| customers don't catch a few months you end up with real
| money.
|
| Of course, CUSTOMERS may hate these players, but stripe I
| guess is focused on what works for the businesses generating
| lots of refunds.
| ben509 wrote:
| Having a disincentive for merchants to have many refunds
| makes a lot of sense.
|
| The reasonable thing to do is to ramp up the fees based on
| the number of refunds. You want to push away the crappy
| billers, but not hammer developers that have the occasional
| bad release.
| astura wrote:
| Not anymore
| codegeek wrote:
| No stripe doesn't. They used to but not for a while now. At
| least not for our SAAS business where we do close to 1M ARR.
| Am I missing something ?
|
| https://stripe.com/docs/refunds
| Cerium wrote:
| Same here, they used to but stopped about a year ago.
| mattferderer wrote:
| Ditto. Helping some non-profits, we were really hurt by
| people typo-ing a $10,000 donation when they meant to
| only donate $100. We quickly learned from that mistake.
|
| We also learned about how credit card thieves test credit
| cards. We saw hundreds of donation attempts. Stripe had
| us refund those that went threw, which costed us money in
| fees. Fortunately we were able to put some quick measures
| in place to stop them temporarily & then better measures
| for long term success.
| 42droids wrote:
| I am curious what measures did you put in place?
| slivanes wrote:
| A common way to prevent that is to authorize only first -
| settle/charge that payment at a later time when you think
| it's not a typo.
| fasicle wrote:
| Is this true? From their docs [1]: "There are no fees to
| refund a charge, but the fees from the original charge aren't
| returned."
|
| [1] https://stripe.com/docs/refunds
| balls187 wrote:
| That is not accurate. Stripe does not refund us the fees.
| kemayo wrote:
| The normal structure for credit card processing is a few cents
| flat payment plus a percentage of the transaction[1].
|
| Something like 5 cents + 1.5% would be a great deal on payment
| processing, generally. (Apple is a juggernaut and may have been
| able to negotiate something else, of course.)
|
| That does mean that for a $0.99 app, keeping the fees would
| still be more than that 3%, at ~$0.07... but not _wildly_
| divergent from the 30% amount.
|
| Where the 30% gets really abusive is for things like Codea, the
| app being talked about in the Twitter thread. It costs $14.99.
| So it had presumptive fees of ~$0.28, while Apple's keeping
| $4.50. That's outrageous.
|
| (Also, I see mixed reports on whether credit card refunds
| refund the processing fees. It might be contract-dependent.)
|
| [1]: https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/research/average-credit-
| card...
| hboon wrote:
| Apple doesn't charge the user immediately. Instead it
| consolidates over a few days. So, often, the card processing
| fees are lower for Apple.
| [deleted]
| wwwwewwww wrote:
| PayPal does refund the variable portion of the fee (e.g. 2.7%)
| but not the fixed portion (e.g. 30 cents).
| abc126589 wrote:
| Not true anymore. Check their website
| https://www.paypal.com/us/smarthelp/article/is-there-a-
| fee-f...
| dathinab wrote:
| The 30% cut is not a payment process cut or else this would
| fall under: usury, profiteering, rip-off.
| abc126589 wrote:
| PayPal also keeps the fees when a refund is issued
| https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/20/20876570/paypal-refund-fe...
| gamblor956 wrote:
| Important difference: with Paypal, the _seller_ decides to
| issue the refund, not Paypal unilaterally (except in cases of
| alleged fraud), and the seller can determine how much of a
| refund to provide.
| edoceo wrote:
| Hmm, when I use PP to refund to my clients, PP returns the
| fees - it's a line item in the ledger.
| poxrud wrote:
| That cannot be true or maybe you have a grandfathered
| account, as paypal absolutely does not refund the
| percentage fee. Same with Stripe.
| IshKebab wrote:
| To be fair, Apple and Google do a fair bit more than a payment
| processor does (basically nothing). Not 30pp more, but it
| wouldn't be reasonable to expect 3% fees.
|
| I'd guess 10-15% is what is actually reasonable. Microsoft has
| settled for 15% in their store (because nobody was using it so
| charging 30% is ridiculous).
| feanaro wrote:
| Yes, they do a lot, but not at the moment of, or as part of,
| processing a transaction. What work do they do specifically
| for a transaction so that they get to keep 30% of it?
| lukeramsden wrote:
| Apple and Google actually take 15% for subscriptions __after
| the first year of consecutive subscription __.
| norswap wrote:
| For that low low price they'll also reject your app for
| random reasons and make it impossible to find in their store.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > For that low low price they'll also reject your app for
| random reasons and make it impossible to find in their
| store.
|
| So much the same as the other stores then.
|
| But the store feature I want to see from Apple is that if
| you provide the customer referral to your app yourself,
| Microsoft only takes 5%.
| kshacker wrote:
| Microsoft is not in the business of making money from
| apps, right now they need growth, it might even be a
| question of hey so we need to keep the store running. I
| say only partly in jest but see them change colors if
| they ever get a dominant share.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| So you're saying that companies who have to compete
| charge less whereas companies with a dominant market
| position can extract monopoly rents because they lack
| competition? But people keep telling me that isn't the
| case for Apple. Shouldn't they be doing the same thing to
| try to get store market share from Google?
| natch wrote:
| Generally the reasons for rejection are not random except
| as a matter of uninformed or misinformed perspective.
| However, if you are saying they have made some mistakes at
| times, I'd have to agree.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| Credit card companies (i.e., Visa, Mastercard) absolutely do
| refund fees on payments when the retailer processes a refund.
| This is why retailers generally require you to use the same
| method of payment to get your refund.
|
| It's uniquely _online_ processors that do not refund fees.
| tyingq wrote:
| _" It's uniquely online processors that do not refund fees"_
|
| Uniquely those that provide some higher level thing, like
| PayPal or Stripe. If you have a merchant account, you can get
| an actual refund for online purchases.
| stu2b50 wrote:
| That's because they're not the same class of processor. The
| chain is like
|
| Your bank account -> visa/mastercard/discover -> PayPal's
| merchant bank account -> the person you're paying bank
| account
|
| PayPal only replaces the ccs when you pay with their wallet.
| Otherwise they're just orchestrating the money flow (because
| integrating with the CC companies is a gigantic PITA)
| syshum wrote:
| PayPal is not a credit card processor, it is Money
| transmitter, different legally
|
| Stripe on the other hand is a credit card processor, and as
| a merchant you get a Merchant account, the same like
| Authorize.net who used to be the largest online processor
| before Stripe.
|
| Back in the day (and I have been out of that market for
| over a decade) Authorize.net absolutely refunded processing
| fees on refunds
| leeoniya wrote:
| Authorize.net is not a payment processor but a payment
| gateway.
|
| TSYS, Vantiv, PaymentTech are processors. your merchant
| account is usually with (i think) the acquiring bank
| that's part of the Visa/MasterCard/Amex/Discover network.
| oneplane wrote:
| Didn't PayPal get a bank license which also caused them
| to close a lot of accounts that were created decades ago
| by users that weren't old enough for back accounts back
| then?
| buildawesome wrote:
| Just to add, PayPal is also most likely a credit card
| processor, serving as a Payment Facilitator (PayFac),
| which enables others to become CC Processors. It happens
| that PayPal and Stripe are money transmitters, which may
| come with being a PayFac.
|
| Auth.net is a gateway/portal that facilitates CC
| transactions, and while you may be refunded on processing
| fees for the use of the gateway, someone, somewhere is
| likely eating the interchange and most likely occurring
| at the merchant level.
| arcticbull wrote:
| Notably, Square, founded in 2009 didn't become a money
| transmitter until sometime in 2013, IIRC, and I think a
| few laggard states in 2014. This was in service of Square
| Cash, not the core payments business. They were, however,
| merchant of record the whole time.
| wrsh07 wrote:
| Notably, it's a somewhat recent change for Stripe.
|
| They had refunded fees but iirc it meant they were paying a
| small fee per refunded transaction (which in a sense
| subsidizes apps that incur frequent refunds) which they
| wanted to stop doing.
|
| A quick search showed they started refunding fees in 2012 and
| stopped in 2017. Here's a discussion from the past couple
| years: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22371330
| TAForObvReasons wrote:
| They stopped doing it for new customers in 2017.
| Grandfathered customers saw the policies change in March of
| this year. My company's account saw the change in late
| March, while we were all staying at home, so that felt like
| a gut punch. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22371330
| was contemporaneous
| BillinghamJ wrote:
| That isn't true. They enable the return of the interchange
| (from the issuing bank), they do not refund the scheme fees.
|
| In fact, you will pay more on the scheme fees to process a
| refund, as you need to send another message into the scheme's
| network - often charged per message or per byte etc.
|
| Interchange is not payment scheme revenue - it is just passed
| through to the issuing bank.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _It 's uniquely online processors that do not refund fees._
|
| It sorta makes sense, since the online processors are usually
| middlemen that only make money on the fees they themselves
| charge. I could see their perspective being "we provided the
| service; that service is not un-provided because the customer
| returned the item and you sent them a refund... in fact, you
| used us even _more_ because we had to mediate the refund
| transaction! "
|
| I think if the fees were just a few percent, I wouldn't have
| too much trouble accepting that logic, but from Apple, where
| it's 30%... not so much.
|
| The card issuers don't care quite as much about keeping the
| fees in a refund scenario, I guess... though I believe you
| don't get _everything_ back during a refund, regardless.
| buildawesome wrote:
| CC Processors like Visa and Mastercard do refund fees on CC
| processing, but the interchange or % of return is smaller
| than the actual gross. You don't necessarily get "all" of
| your refund, if you're a merchant.
| adrr wrote:
| Only processing fees aren't refunded which is like 25 basis
| points for a mid size business.
| saurik wrote:
| My experience with PayPal was that they almost always gave me
| my fees back when I processed a refund (there were corner
| cases where that didn't happen); it is possible the rules
| changed or that I am misremembering the extent of the cases
| when they don't, though (I haven't processed payments in a
| year and a half).
| theturtletalks wrote:
| Paypal about a year ago changed their policy that they
| would keep the credit card processing fees for refunded
| orders.
| erikrothoff wrote:
| No, OP is just plain wrong.
| bena wrote:
| I don't think the issue is that Apple is keeping its fee even
| with a return. That on some level is fair. They are providing a
| service to the developer.
|
| The bigger question is whether their cut should be 30% in the
| first place.
|
| 30% was chosen by the first store of this type and it's just
| never been questioned by platforms. I just read that Valve
| recently changed their agreement to be a sliding scale based on
| sales (30% to start, falling to 20% if you hit certain numbers).
|
| But as far as I know, Microsoft, Sony, Apple, and Google all do a
| 30/70 split on digital sales.
| Marsymars wrote:
| Other than games, MS is a 15/85 (or 5/95 split if the customer
| purchases via following a deep link from the publisher's site
| or app) split on digital sales.
| sukilot wrote:
| > all do a 30/70 split on digital sales.
|
| Consistency which is only possible in an environment of
| collusion.
| dogma1138 wrote:
| Not as much collusion as simply lack of competition.
|
| You don't have any other options for most of their respective
| platform and there isn't enough incentive to compete on the
| pricing.
|
| Also even when there is competition there are rules that
| prevent you from lowering pricing in one store vs the other
| (there are some exceptions) so if you end up say selling a
| game on the PC and you set the retail price as $60 and you
| launch it on 3 different digital content distribution
| platforms while you might make more money on one platform
| than the other there is no difference for the end consumer so
| there isn't an actual competitive incentive to reduce your
| cut as a digital distributor unless you think you can get an
| exclusivity deal.
| bena wrote:
| Yeah, I wouldn't call it out and out collusion.
|
| If the first store did 20%, it's likely all the stores
| would have followed suit on that price point.
|
| 30% is likely the most they can take that people will
| tolerate.
| wolco wrote:
| They could take 70% or 95% and there will still be posts
| saying that the market is 3.5 billion people and 5% isn't
| bad because Apple/Google do all of the marketing.
| meed2000 wrote:
| Please, be careful throwing this kind of idea out there,
| people at Apple/Google, who obviously have run out of
| ideas long ago, may be reading this.
| wslh wrote:
| I have mixed feelings about this and understand there are cases
| where it is unfair and where it is a fair penalty.
|
| I see the case where your child spend money via an in-app
| purchase in Roblox. Where The kid buys USD 1k in robux and the
| Roblox app never complain... Where we are using two factor
| authentication and all kind of measures to protect credit card
| purchases. So, I think you can blame Roblox or Apple for not
| adding these measures. This is like a dark pattern hidden in the
| "frictionless" payments via apps.
| yannikyeo wrote:
| PWA web app needs a store to be the distributor for small web
| apps, making it easier for small developers to monetize more than
| just ads. Where is Mozilla, MS, Google, Amazon?
| m3kw9 wrote:
| This probably lower incentives for App devs to create refund
| situations. For example you attempt to get people to download
| your app by misrepresenting it. Most will not get refunds, and
| the Dev gains from such behaviour.
| makecheck wrote:
| The "cost" of refunding a $9.99 app is the same as the "cost" of
| refunding a $0.99 app. Sure, let them keep _some_ amount for
| payment processing but it should be a constant.
| ljw1001 wrote:
| This is Apple exploiting it near monopoly powers, plain and
| simple.
| bawana wrote:
| What happens if I send somebody money with PayPal/cash app but
| then reverse/undo the transaction? Are the fees kept?
| lukeramsden wrote:
| Most likely, but the fees are more like 30p + 2.9% (atleast in
| the UK, on PayPal) or something similar, which on a 99p app
| would be 30%, but on a $15 app it's obviously nowhere near 30%.
| cosmodisk wrote:
| It's not just Apple. Look at the state of business app stores:
| appExchange (Salesforce), Slack, Jira plugin marketplace,and so
| on. They are all milking as much as thry can.
| toyg wrote:
| App Stores are doing to software developers what supermarkets did
| to food producers and most other manufacturers: moving all power
| and profit to distributors.
|
| It is somewhat ironic that so many people who helped so many
| other sectors disintermediate again (by building websites), are
| now busy actually intermediating their own.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| The Web isn't. Sir TBL doesnt get a cut from your sales.
|
| Why developers even use the app stores baffles me
|
| 97% of user's time is spent using the 10 top mobile apps
|
| Average user downloads ~0 apps / month
|
| PC sales are up last year and more this year with COVID
|
| Who makes money?
| oarsinsync wrote:
| Assuming your numbers are accurate, 3% of users time is spent
| on non-top-10 apps.
|
| There are 3.5 billion smartphone users. [0] Smartphone usage
| statistics suggest that an average person spends 2 hours and
| 51 minutes per day on their mobile device. [1] This works out
| to a cumulative total of 3.6 trillion hours of use per year.
| 3% of that time is 109 billion hours a year in non-top-10
| apps.
|
| You might not become a millionaire with your app being part
| of the 3%, but there's still real money there.
|
| [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/330695/number-of-
| smartph...
|
| [1] https://leftronic.com/smartphone-usage-statistics/
| sukilot wrote:
| Apple actively blocks non-app-store apps.
| molszanski wrote:
| How does it work in other stores? Like Google Play, Steam,
| Microsoft Store, Playstation / Xbox / Nintendo / Switch stores?
| Do they keep it?
| tomduncalf wrote:
| Had a look and it seems that Google do refund the transaction
| fee, which I think adds weight to the argument that is unfair
| behaviour by Apple:
|
| https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
|
| "Google will return the transaction fee to you. You'll see the
| returned transaction fee on your next earnings report."
| hn_check wrote:
| "which I think adds weight to the argument that is unfair
| behaviour by Apple"
|
| Apple takes back from the developer exactly what they gave the
| developer. This has been verified by a number of people, and
| this submission is just farcically wrong.
|
| How is this nonsense front page on HN? Is this community this
| clueless?
| smarnach wrote:
| Do you have any sources for your claim? The original claim -
| i.e. developers lost money for each refund - is backed not
| only by the original post, but also by several other sources
| linked in the comments.
| hn_check wrote:
| Which sources would those be? Someone linking to
| preliminary text of Apple's refund policy when they were
| forming the app store in 2009? Because that is meaningless.
|
| Apple takes back exactly what they gave the developer.
| There are _zero_ sources demonstrating otherwise (and the
| source of this links a basic sales chart -- guess what,
| that doesn 't prove his point whatsoever). There are
| literally a half dozen developers replying to him
| countering his claim, yet it's remarkable seeing the
| gullibility of this crowd regarding a simply absurd claim.
|
| The guy's trump card is that they had "negative days". No
| shit. One day they had more refunds than sales. That
| doesn't mean Apple is taking an extra 30%.
|
| EDIT: Even the Reddit story on this absurd tweet now has a
| top comment refuting it, and a wide acknowledgment that
| they need to be more discerning. HN -- all the top comments
| are falling in line. My two comments are at -1. LOL. My bio
| that this place is Dunning-Kruger demonstrated writ large
| holds true. What an embarrassment.
| benologist wrote:
| On the Play Store there is a two hour window after purchasing
| apps where you can simply return to the store and refund your
| purchase yourself as the 'buy' button temporarily turns into a
| 'cancel purchase' button. This feels like the future to me, not
| some regressive scheme where refunds are discouraged and
| 'taxed'.
| tomduncalf wrote:
| Absolutely - I don't want to feel bad for the developers of
| apps I return either. Sometimes the app just isn't very good,
| or doesn't do what I thought it would. I shouldn't have to
| feel guilty about returning it.
| gregoriol wrote:
| Not saying it's exactly the same situation, but Stripe keeps
| their fees when you refund a payment
| gerbal wrote:
| This is also common for most credit card processors. But
| keeping 3% is very different from 30%
| sukilot wrote:
| It's not the same at all. Payment processing is work,
| regardless of direction. Marketing fees for non-sales is
| payment for nothing.
| andrewxdiamond wrote:
| ....but Apple processes payments for App Store purchases? And
| they pay to maintain the store. Storage, bandwidth, updates,
| those are all "work" as well. I do think 30% is quite high,
| but this comment seems to consider Apple a charity house that
| should provide these services for free
| sushid wrote:
| Why are there so many pro bono Apple defenders for this?
| They literally are taking 30% when a user buys an app and
| 30% when they are refunding it.
|
| 30% is quite high? It's highway robbery!
| tialaramex wrote:
| People are powerfully invested in beliefs they have about
| the world. Those beliefs become part of who they are.
| Facts which contradict those beliefs may be interpreted
| as an attack on _them_ as a person and so must be
| rejected even though facts don 't give a shit what you
| believe.
| R0b0t1 wrote:
| Despite the fluid nature of consideration in contract law
| there are checks to ensure you can't demand $5000 for a
| single aspirin. That seems like it'd come into play here.
| The 30% only makes sense in the context of it paying for
| more than payment processing, and consequently if the
| marketing wasn't effective I'd not pay for it.
| latortuga wrote:
| Don't forget that Apple takes a yearly developer license.
| You're claiming that the 30% cut that they keep on a refund
| is used to cover payment processing (typically priced
| around 3%) and the marginal cost of the bandwidth to
| distribute that single copy of the app? Even for $0.99 apps
| that price is outrageously expensive. AWS, notorious for
| their high bandwidth pricing, costs ~2 cents per GB on S3.
| This is 33 cents for a dozen MB.
|
| Nobody is saying Apple shouldn't get paid here, but keeping
| 30% is insane.
| andrewxdiamond wrote:
| A product or service is worth what people will pay, not
| what it costs.
| bzb3 wrote:
| Pretty sure that 30% also covers payment processing
| dawnerd wrote:
| It's pretty common across the board. 30% is really high for
| sure, but payment processors gotta get paid at some point.
|
| I think Apple should split the fee up. Make a portion what they
| charge for processing payments and the rest their commission.
| glofish wrote:
| correct, there is a huge difference between taking 3% and 30%
|
| one is the cost of doing business, the other is predatory
| briandear wrote:
| You aren't required to sell apps for Apple platforms. Has
| anyone even looked at what it takes to make and sell
| console games?
|
| Do you know how much manufacturers earn on products sold in
| grocery stores? Far less than 50% of the retail price. When
| distributors are involved, it's even less. The company that
| makes a bar of soap might get paid $1, the distributor gets
| $1 and the retailer sells it for $3 and has the right to
| return unsold product. And shipping costs aren't included
| in these amounts. The manufacturer gets $1 but also has to
| pay shipping to the distributor.
|
| People complaining about 30% have no idea how real world
| businesses operate. They are in some kind of fantasyland.
| Don't forget, the App Store also handles your worldwide
| sales tax payments, fraud protection, chargebacks, hosting,
| distribution, your storefront, your payment processing and
| gives you worldwide availability for your app in the
| specific local currencies.
|
| If those services aren't of value to you, then don't sell
| apps for iOS. Certainly Windows Phone has some users, or
| perhaps create your own device and ecosystem that offers
| terms you find more amenable. This is Hacker News, not
| crybaby news: you don't like the status quo, then get some
| friends, start making a better system, raise some money,
| then compete. If you think 30% is predatory, then make a
| system that only charges $what_you_think_is_fair.
|
| As far as Stripe, they take more than 3%. And for connect
| accounts, the percentage is closer to 3.5% not to mention
| you get charged $15 or $20 for a chargeback. What's Apple
| charge developers for chargebacks? Zero. How often do
| developers have to challenge chargebacks with Apple? Zero.
| If you are selling using Stripe, it can become a
| significant expense, depending on your industry, especially
| gaming.
|
| It's my feeling that people complaining about 30% have no
| idea of the expense of "doing it themselves."
| thoraway1010 wrote:
| Retail is crazy miserable for the person actually MAKING
| the product.
|
| Getting INTO stores is hard. The store can dump product
| back onto you - so they have no risk. The price on shelf
| has NOTHING to do with what you get, if you are small you
| are already going through some intermediaries. Ie, person
| making product, packing, shipping to distributor (some
| make you pay cost to get it to them), then distribution
| costs then retailer markups then return handling yadda
| yadda. THEN retailers will ask you to run promos and give
| them discounts or they will drop you.
|
| 3%? EVERYONE would pay that. In retail I'd say person
| making product gets maybe 20%? 80% is taken by others?
| taylodl wrote:
| Add this to the long list of how the App Store doesn't serve the
| needs of application producers are their customers, and because
| the needs of these very important members of the app ecosystem
| aren't being served it really isn't serving Apple as well as it
| could either.
| ntsplnkv2 wrote:
| Their customers are not developers, never have been, and never
| will be.
|
| We see what "serving developers" has done to the web in general
| - a genuine mess. Perhaps the fee is a bit much and the refund
| should come with a return, but as an apple product owner, I
| like the general experience of my iPhone and its app stores,
| and I don't want them to cater to devs over me.
| lolsal wrote:
| Apple is taking a cut for providing the store itself,
| distribution, visibility, SDKs/frameworks, etc. Why would they
| refund 30%?
| symkat wrote:
| Because the customer is getting a refund because they're asking
| Apple to unwind the transaction. Apple makes the customer
| whole, Apple makes Apple more than whole, and Apple makes the
| developer less than whole.
| raverbashing wrote:
| Developers do have to pay an yearly fee to just be an iOS
| developer, so the argument that's because of the SDKs is
| incorrect
| lolsal wrote:
| Ok, what about everything else I said? Like distribution?
| Millions of users?
| onion2k wrote:
| _Why would they refund 30%?_
|
| Because they can afford it, and it's the right thing to do both
| ethically and morally.
| lolsal wrote:
| Why is it the right thing to do morally and ethically? Didn't
| they earn that money?
| [deleted]
| sp332 wrote:
| Because if someone refunds the app, the visibility was
| ineffective and the frameworks are not going to be used.
| glofish wrote:
| Perhaps the refund is caused by the store itself? Is it
| inconceivable that the distribution, visibility and framework
| caused the customer to misjudge the product?
| lolsal wrote:
| No, not inconceivable. But still not relevant to me.
| cmurf wrote:
| Purchase: Customer pays $10. Apple keeps $3. Developer gets $7
|
| Refund should be: Developer has $7 deducted from current owed
| "royalties" Apple refunds $10 to the customer.
|
| Is Apple actually taking $10 from the developer and giving it to
| the customer? That would be theft. The developer is not obligated
| to cover refunds beyond the profit/royalty they originally made
| on it.
| philipodonnell wrote:
| > Is Apple actually taking $10 from the developer and giving it
| to the customer?
|
| That is exactly what is happening.
| RonanTheGrey wrote:
| That's exactly what's happening. The developer actually loses
| 30% of the purchase price due to the refund (they are now 30%
| in the hole instead of break even).
|
| Frankly from my point of view this is criminal. We kept
| payments for our product outside the app for years, and now
| Apple closes that ability too, by forcing any app that accepts
| payments of any kind to also accept Apple Pay. We've had to
| basically hide the ability to find it in the app so that people
| will go to the website first.
|
| Apple seriously needs to be regulated.
| conductr wrote:
| So, they do have an incentive to let the iTunes fraud continue.
| Seems like a couple times a year one of my families accounts is
| hacked, they spend $100s and we have to dispute. We get the money
| back but it's costly to the devs at 30%
| lukeramsden wrote:
| I would assume fraud would be fully refunded, no? This is more
| about legitimate Apple-sanctioned returns, not fraudulent
| transactions. I may be wrong, but I hope I'm not lol
| akerro wrote:
| Can you buy and refund and buy and refund the same app multiple
| times? Can you use this to ruin your competition?
| lupinglade wrote:
| It's a mess. In many ways, the App Store is nothing but trouble
| for developers.
| tkubacki wrote:
| One more reason for society as a whole to get rid of greedy tech
| monsters dependency like Apple in long term.
|
| Remember You often have a choice to not support this platform and
| move towards web by default even if it is not easy (Apple enforce
| to use their web engine to make sure you are in a slave position
| on iOS)
| hn_check wrote:
| This isn't correct at all.
|
| This is a serious misunderstanding by someone in a pretty
| incredible way. Literally a single person claiming this and
| _multiple_ people refuting it from their own experience.
|
| Yet it's top of HN. Amazing. A lesson to never, ever trust
| anything here because the masses clicked an arrow.
| curiousgeorgio wrote:
| > When a customer refunds your paid app...
|
| (nitpick) The use of the verb "refund" seems confusingly wrong in
| this sentence. Neither the customer nor the paid app is paying
| back any money. I know it's Twitter, but it'd make a lot more
| sense to say "When Apple refunds a customer of your paid app..."
| glofish wrote:
| Reading the thread here is an interesting datapoint:
|
| https://twitter.com/twolivesleft/status/1288491970248077314
|
| - Since 2011 Codea has had 1,768 refunds
|
| - Estimate it cost us ~$8,000 USD to pay Apple's 30%
|
| - A single day in 2017 saw 193 returns and I have no idea why or
| how that's possible
|
| later:
|
| > _Yes, we've had a few days of negative revenue in the last few
| years due to people refunding Codea. Apple keeps their 30% no
| matter what_
| [deleted]
| briandear wrote:
| Previous story from 2009:
| https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2009/03/app-store-refunds-wi...
| wlesieutre wrote:
| Does this mean if there's a developer I don't like, I can buy
| their stuff and refund it to arbitrarily cost them money at no
| cost to myself and there's nothing they can do about it?
|
| That seems ... not great, especially these days. What happens
| when mobs of internet morons decide review bombing isn't
| sufficient and realize Apple will help them cause direct
| financial harm instead?
| kumarvvr wrote:
| It will not cost them money, per se. Apple is keeping money
| from you.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| Per the linked twitter thread:
|
| _> Yeah Apple keeps their 30% no matter what. So if someone
| refunds an app they get the whole amount back, Apple keeps
| 30%, and the developer has to cover that extra amount_
| jaywalk wrote:
| Seems like a pointless technicality. If somebody refunds my
| $100 app and Apple "keeps" $30 from me, that means the next
| person who buys my app only earns me $40. I've lost $30
| either way.
| munk-a wrote:
| Or if the same person buys the app again later (maybe using
| a different Apple ID) then you lose 60$ out of the money
| they would have paid for your app - to view it a different
| way.
| [deleted]
| 0x0 wrote:
| If your app costs $100, and you only sell 100 copies, and
| they all ask for a refund, then at the end of the month you
| owe Apple $3000?
| RBerenguel wrote:
| Returns are limited. At some point I returned 3 or 4 things
| pretty quickly, because I had an old iPad and some apps didn't
| advertise compatibility well enough and then you get put in a
| "special" category of "you can't get a refund unless you are
| very, very obnoxious or there is a very real reason".
| zamadatix wrote:
| If you do this often Apple will ban your account. If you don't
| do this often it's not a problem.
| pythonslayer wrote:
| As described, it's just a lot of people doing it once.
| ejolto wrote:
| What if you have a big Twitter following and ask them to do
| it?
| azinman2 wrote:
| Then you'd be a jerk. There are many, many ways to be a
| jerk in life.
| himinlomax wrote:
| It's rather stunning how you took that rhetorical
| question literally, and in the process missed the point
| spectacularly.
| tartrate wrote:
| So all it takes is a jerk then..
| lostcolony wrote:
| Good thing there are so few of those. _/ sarcasm_
| pantalaimon wrote:
| Or have a botnet do it
| underyx wrote:
| Individual bots in a botnet usually don't have their own
| credit cards.
| SllX wrote:
| Sounds like a lawsuit in the making if the harm is great
| enough.
| vageli wrote:
| What laws would be broken in this case?
| ralph84 wrote:
| Tortious interference, also known as intentional
| interference with contractual relations, in the common
| law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally
| damages someone else's contractual or business
| relationships with a third party causing economic harm.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
| klank wrote:
| How does that apply? In hypothetical this thread has been
| discussing nobody is damaging the contractual
| relationship itself nor is anybody preventing either
| company from fulfilling their contractual obligations. In
| fact, it's the strength and continued operation of the
| contractual relationship that would cause the economic
| harm. I don't think tortious interference applies here.
| zodiac wrote:
| I would guess that buying an app with the intention of
| harming the app creator by doing a refund is against the
| ToS, and I think that's fair (since the purpose of the
| refund mechanism is to allow the buyer to change their
| mind for some "good faith" reason - even something like a
| change of mood is fine, but "to harm the creator" is
| obviously not)
| usefulcat wrote:
| Good luck proving that intention in court!
| Majromax wrote:
| > Tortious interference, also known as intentional
| interference with contractual relations
|
| I think it would depend on the local jurisdiction's
| definition of the tort. A purchase/refund scheme would
| not induce Apple or the vendor to _breach_ their app
| store contract, but it would deprive the vendor of its
| expected economic benefit.
| mellavora wrote:
| Yes, but you need to serve notice to the offending party,
| which might be hard if they are not a US person...
|
| likewise collecting damages, etc
| munk-a wrote:
| There might be something subtly illegal here - but I
| assume Apple would just refuse to honor the refund if
| they thought it was fraudulent - so it wouldn't be up to
| Apple to collect damages - it'd be up to the other party
| to collect their refund (assuming they can legally compel
| Apple to pay up)
| vageli wrote:
| I've heard of this but am curious, does this also apply
| to people calling for boycotting companies?
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| im3w1l wrote:
| Ianal but it might go under tortious interference?
| klank wrote:
| No, I don't believe it would apply. Tortious interference
| is when you interfere with the contractual relationship
| itself. In this case the continued obligations is what
| would drive the economic harm, thus tortious interference
| wouldn't apply.
| vageli wrote:
| I was thinking more along the lines of criminal laws, I
| should have been more specific in my word choice.
| barbecue_sauce wrote:
| The word "lawsuit", at least in American english, has the
| connotation of a civil rather than a criminal case.
| jfk13 wrote:
| Something about conspiracy to defraud, maybe?
| vageli wrote:
| How is that fraud? "Everyone, buy this product and return
| it to the store for a full refund," doesn't sound like
| fraud to me. It doesn't result in personal or financial
| gain to the people perpetrating it, either.
|
| edit: so who is in trouble here? The person calling for
| people to do it with their twitter following or the
| twitter followers? I'm not saying that buying the app and
| returning it is not fraud if you entered into the
| transaction in bad faith and with intent to cause damage
| to the dev, I'm saying calling people to do that is not
| fraud.
| gambiting wrote:
| You are entering into a purchase agreement without the
| intention to actually purchase the item - that is most
| definitely fraud. It's like ordering a brand new car
| without the intention to actually ever pick it up, but
| instead to cost the dealer money. If you're acting
| maliciously that's definitely fraud.
| vageli wrote:
| I completely agree and understand. My statements were
| about the person inciting others to commit the fraud
| without so many words. Basically, I was saying it is not
| fraud to tell your twitter followers to buy and return an
| item. It may be conspiracy though.
| munk-a wrote:
| You would be fraudulently filling out the request form -
| unless Apple has a "Reason for refund: For the Lulz" in
| its drop down box. You would also probably committing
| some sort of credit card fraud by enacting a transaction
| in bad faith.
|
| I think the form is definitely fraud but I wouldn't be
| surprised if Visa went after you for something as well,
| they need to actually process all those charges and
| charge backs and it does cost them some amount of money
| to do so.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| If I say the product wasn't useful to me, that's going to
| be completely true.
| the_hoser wrote:
| Lawsuits only really work if you know who to sue. And if
| they live in a country that will honor your country's
| court's decisions. And if they have money.
| cortic wrote:
| Source? Cause this sounds like wishful thinking.
| zamadatix wrote:
| https://qz.com/1683460/what-happens-to-your-itunes-
| account-w...
|
| https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208856
|
| https://discussions.apple.com/thread/250384392
| cortic wrote:
| https://qz.com/1683460/what-happens-to-your-itunes-
| account-w... -fraudulent gift card
|
| https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208856 -a problem with
| the payment method
|
| https://discussions.apple.com/thread/250384392 -credit
| card fraud
|
| I asked for you to cite sources on Apple banning people
| for repeatedly claiming a refund. Not for using a stolen
| credit or gift card.
| zamadatix wrote:
| The theme is fraud which is what large amounts of refunds
| are treated as.
|
| Cite me that it's not fraud if that's not good enough for
| you, I'm not really interested in proving fraud is not
| just allowed to run rampant in a payment system in the
| very thread about how doing this exact thing would be
| abusive and need to be stopped somehow.
| numpad0 wrote:
| Apple will ban _adversary's_ account which could be fake ID
| with balances loaded from iTS cards bought with stolen CCs.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| Will they? In some jurisdictions they are required by law to
| grant refunds. In others, they still have very little
| incentive to control refund fraud, what with the fact that
| they're still making money rather than losing it.
|
| It would be one thing if they said "We're keeping the credit
| card processing fees so that _we_ don 't lose money," but to
| keep the whole 30% cut is just petty.
| asdfaoeu wrote:
| I've never heard of any jurisdiction where unconditional
| refunds are required. A lot do require refunds if the
| product is faulty but that's different.
| fnord123 wrote:
| The jurisdiction that will come to most minds is the EU,
| but it has exemptions for digitally downloaded content
| and unsealed software.
|
| https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/
| gua...
| wlesieutre wrote:
| Apple explicitly does not claim that exemption, the 14
| day no-questions-asked refund period is called out in
| their terms and conditions.
|
| _> Right of cancellation: If you choose to cancel your
| order, you may do so within 14 days of when you received
| your receipt, without giving any reason_
| avianlyric wrote:
| Apple will start applying that exemption if you abuse
| their refund process. One or two refunds in a short
| period is usually enough to trigger it, and it disappears
| again after some "good behaviour".
| jahaja wrote:
| In Sweden you have to explicitly waive your right to a
| refund. Otherwise you can do it for 14 days.
| dgellow wrote:
| Europe does have 14 days refund for online orders,
| without conditions.
|
| https://ecommercenews.eu/online-returns-in-europe/
| wlesieutre wrote:
| https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/
| gua...
|
| _> In the EU you have the right to return purchases made
| online or through other types of distance selling, such
| as by phone, mail order or from a door-to-door
| salesperson, within 14 days for a full refund. You can do
| so for any reason - even if you simply changed your
| mind._
|
| There is a potential exemption for digital content "if
| you have already started downloading or streaming it and
| you agreed that you would lose your right of withdrawal
| by starting the performance," but Apple does not appear
| to have its customers agree to that.
|
| Specifically called out in their UK conditions:
|
| _> Right of cancellation: If you choose to cancel your
| order, you may do so within 14 days of when you received
| your receipt, without giving any reason._
|
| https://www.apple.com/legal/internet-
| services/itunes/uk/term...
|
| Presumably in other European terms as well, I checked the
| UK because it's in English.
| p49k wrote:
| > Apple does not appear to have its customers agree to
| that
|
| Actually, with an EU iTunes account, you have an
| additional popup dialog you have to agree to with _every
| in-app purchase_ where you have to agree that it does not
| qualify for the exemption.
| stordoff wrote:
| FWIW, I don't recall ever seeing this in the UK - I've
| just tried an in-app purchase, and it just gives the
| "Double-Click to Pay" FaceID screen (which lists
| description, account, and price, but no information about
| refunds/exemptions).
| R0b0t1 wrote:
| Are they obligated to do business with you? Typically the
| answer is no, but some countries (like Germany) stores
| can't ban people if they're the only store in a town. I'm
| not sure if this would work for Apple, but it might if you
| already own an iDevice.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| I couldn't say. But here's the bit of their terms of
| service (for USA) that mentions refunds:
|
| _> All Transactions are final. Content prices may change
| at any time. If technical problems prevent or
| unreasonably delay delivery of Content, your exclusive
| and sole remedy is either replacement of the Content or
| refund of the price paid, as determined by Apple. From
| time to time, Apple may refuse a refund request if we
| find evidence of fraud, refund abuse, or other
| manipulative behavior that entitles Apple to a
| corresponding counterclaim._
|
| Which makes it sound like they aren't granting refunds at
| all for anything except failure to deliver the product.
|
| And yet when I look at their actual refund request form
| it has options for "I did not mean to buy this, child
| bought without permission, I did not mean to subscribe, I
| did not mean to renew subscription, my purchase did not
| work as expected, in-app not received." So clearly not
| all purchases are final.
|
| I don't think it's a good look for Apple to be issuing
| refunds at their sole discretion and then turning around
| and making someone else pay for it. You're just supposed
| to trust them that the magic fraud prevention box is
| doing its best?
| zmk_ wrote:
| As far as I know, in EU, you have a right to return
| anything that you bought online, no questions asked.
| avianlyric wrote:
| > In some jurisdictions they are required by law to grant
| refunds.
|
| I think the jurisdiction you're talking about is the EU,
| and it's not quite that clear cut.
|
| As a general rule online merchants do need to provide
| refunds, unless it's a digital good, and they provided an
| explicit warning during the checkout flow that the sale
| isn't refundable.
|
| If you ask for refunds from Apple for apps they'll
| introduce that warning into the checkout flow for future
| app purchases, which will disappear again after enough
| purchases.
|
| So Apple do have some basic, compliant, controls that means
| you can't just keep buying apps and getting refunds.
| Thaxll wrote:
| It's like credit card charge back, you will get banned for
| abusing the system.
| balls187 wrote:
| It cuts the other way too--if you have too many charge backs
| you can get das boot from your payment processor.
| jclardy wrote:
| I think this is part of what is holding back iPad software. You
| can't charge $100 for Sketch and lose $30 when someone asks for
| a refund. Apple designed this around $1-$10 apps where losing
| $2 at volume is fine.
|
| What is worse, is that Apple doesn't remove the app from the
| user's device. When you get a refund of a paid app it is on the
| honor system for them to delete it. It is removed from their
| account, so they can no longer download/update, but the
| installed binary is not affected.
| baldajan wrote:
| That's the problem with paid apps... but I also believe now
| it's a problem with devs not validating the app receipt to
| check for refunds and prevent access.
|
| For in-app purchases, up until a few years ago, users would
| always have access to them (even after a refund) then it
| followed the same rules as paid apps - access always maintain
| but one couldn't restore.
|
| Subscriptions however are unique as a server would constantly
| check the receipt from Apple, which would show a refund flag,
| so you could block access. Now they even send you a push
| notification to your server to indicate a refund.
|
| With iOS 14, in-app purchases will get a "notification" when
| a user receives a refund on device (with IAP encompassing
| subscriptions).
|
| So it's getting better. Not perfect. But better.
| gerdesj wrote:
| "where losing $2 at volume is fine."
|
| Sorry, when is this fine?
|
| A dev flogs an app at 10 and pays 3 to Apple. Then on a
| refund they lose 3 and the end user has no incentive to even
| delete the app. Nope, I won't entertain that nonsense.
|
| The only way that I can see for that model to play out is for
| the dev to factor in a lossrate x 1.3 uplift for their app.
| That means owners of shiny iStuff are paying Apple an
| additional unannounced "tax" based on their app churn. Use
| and discard more apps, then you pay more for the privilege. A
| dev would have to become a loss adjuster as well: "Hmm assume
| a 10% return rate" - so the upcharge on my app will have to
| be:
|
| * My app should cost 10, assuming a fair market. * I lose 3
| on a refund, which happens on 1/10 sales (I was paid 10 on
| sale, I paid 3 to Apple, I refunded 10 and hence lost 3)
|
| So my price adjustment would be 10 + (0.1 x 3) = 10.30. Yes,
| it looks like a simple uplift will deal with this. Sales: x,
| churn rate: c, Apple tax: a. => s' = s + (c.a)
|
| That is anti-competitive behaviour on a gigantic scale. Apple
| are making the apps that are developed for their platform
| automatically more expensive by a process that looks
| suspiciously like stealing.
|
| I call that parasitic.
| emtel wrote:
| Can you explain that point a bit more? It doesn't seem to
| make any sense to me. You revenue is going to be number of
| sales * price - (number of refunds * price * 0.3). Factor,
| and you get price * (sales - number of refunds * 0.3). Your
| unit cost is 0, so the only thing that matters is if your
| revenue exceeds your fixed costs.
|
| I don't see how this would explain a disincentive to charge
| higher prices.
| esrauch wrote:
| Perhaps the refund-rate is higher on $100 apps than $1
| ones? If you find out your kid made an unauthorized
| purchase of $2 you're not likely to refund it, if its $100
| you definitely will.
| nkrebs13 wrote:
| I'm not the person you're asking, but I can probably try to
| explain.
|
| Take other payment processing platforms like Stripe as an
| example. Stripe charges $0.30 + 2.9% to process a purchase.
|
| To help build your (and my) mental model: Price of item ->
| Stripe revenue (rounded)
|
| $1 -> $0.33
|
| $5 -> $0.45
|
| $100 -> $3.20
|
| Apple's 30% cut makes sense if they were expecting most
| apps to be roughly $0.99 (anecdotally, I remember this
| being true during the early days of the App Store) and the
| (presumed) few apps that cost more than $1 would be the
| "whale" developers that would subsidize Apple software
| development. But nowadays apps are a lot more powerful,
| feature-full, and development-intensive so higher prices
| are required for any hope of profit.
|
| So the math you have is right, it's just that the path to
| profit is a lot harder when the ONLY way to sell your
| product is to have >=30% cut out immediately upon sale.
| Some stores set a minimum (e.g. $5) sale amount for using a
| credit card and those payment processing platforms have
| fees orders of magnitude less than Apple's App store
| ivalm wrote:
| Your profit (at 0 unit cost) will be
|
| (Sales not refunded * 0.7-refunds * 0.3) * price
|
| If
|
| Sales not refunded/refunds<0.3/0.7 ~ 43%
|
| Then profit can be negative (you lose money because more
| people refund than not).
|
| >57% refund rate literally makes you lose money from
| listing. But even if just quarter of people refund that
| eats almost half of profit.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| Wow, well they got their money and don't care about
| developers.
| mywittyname wrote:
| > What is worse, is that Apple doesn't remove the app from
| the user's device.
|
| This. Is. Ridiculous.
|
| We all know this is an intentional design decision by Apple
| and that they would absolutely not have designed the workflow
| this way if they had to dogfood their own platform.
| nvahalik wrote:
| > if they had to dogfood their own platform.
|
| But Apple does sell one app through the iTunes App Store
| (Dark Sky, which they recently acquired). They sell several
| through the Mac App Store.
|
| So, they do dogfood, but obviously they are not depending
| on revenue to survive here.
|
| Side note: there are a bunch of apps listed under their
| developer that I had not seen before: Music Memos, Indoor
| Survey, Texas Hold'em, and Reality Composer.
| pier25 wrote:
| > So, they do dogfood, but obviously they are not
| depending on revenue to survive here.
|
| Their pro apps are almost given away for free.
|
| You could argue that $200 for Logic is not free, but
| similar DAW products costs 4-5 times more.
|
| Not only that, but competitors need to charge you for
| major updates every couple of years, like any developer.
| Since Apple released Logic Pro X in 2013 it has kept
| pushing updates without asking for money.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| There's also Apple's continued refusal to allow
| devleopers to have separate pricing for updates vs new
| purchases. It's either a free update to the existing app,
| or it's an entirely new app listing with the same price
| for new users and people who owned the previous one.
|
| I've seen this circumvented by creating a package deal of
| the old and new versions, which then gets discounted via
| the "you already own part of this set" mechanism, but
| it's a messy experience and not something that many
| developers have done.
| dathinab wrote:
| This apps also can use internal APIs without faring to be
| removed from the app store, they can also do UX practices
| which are not super compatible with the guid lines and
| they never need to fear an arbitrary ("accidental")
| review block/take down.
|
| So it's not at all feeding they own dogfood. Do do so
| Apple would need to run separate finances and make sure
| they don't get benefited in the review process.
| nomel wrote:
| > We all know this is an intentional design decision by
| Apple
|
| I see this as a good thing, since it probably means that
| only the user is capable of removing apps, requiring
| intent, and that Apple can never remove an app from _my_
| device.
| rzwitserloot wrote:
| Leading to a _trivial_ solution.
|
| Want a refund? Awesome. Delete the software from your
| phone. Then, go to the appstore, find the app again, and
| click 'request refund'. If apple wants to improve the
| user experience, they can offer 'request refund' when
| someone uninstalls a recently bought app.
| [deleted]
| dathinab wrote:
| Apple is fully controlling your device, they can always
| do so if they want to even if they currently have no
| mechanism for it build-in.
|
| (Except if your phone never connects to the internet or a
| cell-phone at all ;=) )
|
| Also apple could just require the user to remove the app
| before requesting refund or at least putting it in a
| partially removed state from which apple then can remove
| if.
|
| I.e. there is 0 benefit for any serious acting person.
| Only people who try to rip of app publishing companies
| profit from it.
| neymgm wrote:
| I saw it the same way. I'd be a terrible idea to let
| Apple remove/install AppStore apps without the customer's
| permission. I don't know if it already does something
| similar but in the next OS update it could block the
| usage and force to delete refunded apps.
| [deleted]
| chrisshroba wrote:
| Serious question: Is this refund problem as big an issue as
| commenters here are implying? Is there data that shows that
| app developers are losing significant money due to Apple's
| fees not being refunded? I would have guessed that very few
| people ever request a refund on an app they purchase, but I
| have no data to back this up.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| Original link includes this tweet estimating about $8000
| cost from Codea: https://twitter.com/twolivesleft/status/
| 1288491970248077314/...
|
| Here's another example from Wil Shipley where someone
| purchased 30 education copies and then refunded all of
| them. Total for the day nets out to -18 purchases and
| sales of $-360:
|
| https://twitter.com/wilshipley/status/768540129203855360
|
| If you made say a high profile game that a particularly
| whiny subset of gamers took notice of, I imagine it could
| be much worse, but I don't know that this has happened
| yet. I'd bet money that it will though, and you have to
| wonder what Apple will do about it.
| snazz wrote:
| I'm glad that Apple can't remotely delete apps from my
| device. It would be somewhat dystopic if they had that
| capability.
| perfectstorm wrote:
| actually they do have the ability to remotely wipe an app h
| ttps://www.macworld.com/article/1134930/iphone_killswitch.h
| ...
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| But they could make the refund wait until you do!
|
| It wouldn't be foolproof in case of backups but it would be
| a lot better than an honor system.
| snazz wrote:
| That's true; that would be the better solution.
| Requesting a refund before deleting the app would give
| the user an error message telling them to delete it.
| tadfisher wrote:
| With the corner case that if the user no longer has
| access to a device with the app installed, they cannot
| get a refund.
| dathinab wrote:
| If you lose the product you bought you can generally not
| get an refound ;=)
|
| And doesn't apple have some form of remote logout/factory
| reset feature for lost devices?
|
| EDIT: (Sure requiring remote factory reset for lost
| devices would not work if it's a iPad which has not
| internet connection and never gets one again in it's live
| time, but that would be an acceptable corner case I
| thing).
| rzwitserloot wrote:
| Of course they can.
|
| If you no longer have access to a device you used to own,
| you should use findmy to remote wipe it.
|
| If you really didn't want that, then you should at the
| very least go through the trouble of filing, with apple,
| that the device is lost or stolen, so that any attempt to
| return that device to an apple store or reseller to fix
| it gets it flagged.
|
| It seems bizarre in the extreme that you'd want to
| somehow protect your privacy by not reporting your stolen
| stuff as stolen with apple, but that you opt in to a
| system where installing apps requires going through a
| single vendor.
| rand49an wrote:
| They absolutely have the ability to do that though, they
| clearly have the ability to shut a device down entirely too
| based on the iOS activation system.
|
| I probably wouldn't go as far as 'dystopic' either.
| pier25 wrote:
| Oh but they install apps with certificates that will expire
| sooner or later.
| efreak wrote:
| There's more than one way to do this. If the purchase is
| refunded on the device, the app can be uninstalled at the
| same time; this is how Google does it. If the app is
| refunded on another device or in the browser, then all it
| takes is for the app store to keep track of app licenses
| (which it already does) and remove apps when their license
| disappears.
|
| It seems odd, though, that Apple wouldn't have an API that
| allows locking app functionally behind licenses; on Android
| [1],
|
| > With Google Play Licensing, your application can query
| Google Play at run time to obtain the licensing status for
| the current user, then allow or disallow further use as
| appropriate. > ... > Note: The Google Play Licensing
| service is primarily intended for paid applications that
| wish to verify that the current user did in fact pay for
| the application on Google Play. However, any application
| (including free apps) may use the licensing service to
| initiate the download of an APK expansion file.
|
| In other words, the licensing service checks for both IAPs
| as well as if you've paid for the app itself.
|
| [1]: https://developer.android.com/google/play/licensing
| nvahalik wrote:
| > that Apple wouldn't have an API that allows locking app
| functionally behind licenses;
|
| This is what their subscription system does, though. I'm
| not familiar with their for-pay app setup, but for
| subscriptions you can monitor the receipt and see what
| it's status is. Perhaps you can't do it from there, but I
| know when even an free app is installed, you still get
| receipt information written to the device.
| dathinab wrote:
| They can, just push a Apple update and wups done.
|
| They could also make the removal part of the refound
| process in which case the user would delete the app through
| the refound process.
|
| The idea that this is because it protects users isn't
| holding up any closer inspection.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| If you charge $100, you get $70 from Apple (I'm an Apple
| developer, so I know, but I don't sell anything that costs
| $100).
|
| Apple gets $30, and you never see it.
|
| I believe that the $70 is taxed; not the $100.
|
| I know that if a customer get a refund, the full Benjamin
| comes back to them (I have received refunds).
|
| So does that mean that Apple asks the developer to pay "back"
| $100, when they only paid the developer $70?
|
| I have never had to issue a refund, so I don't know.
| balls187 wrote:
| > So does that mean that Apple asks the developer to pay
| "back" $100, when they only paid the developer $70?
|
| Kind of, except Apple doesn't ask, instead Apple
| automatically reconciles the balance debiting the $100 from
| the payout balance Apple maintains.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| _> Apple automatically reconciles the balance debiting
| the $100 from the payout balance Apple maintains._
|
| That's the part that puzzles me. If there's a refund, and
| they penalize me by charging $30 more than I was actually
| paid, I see that as being problematic. Also, I suspect
| that it would be illegal in some venues, unless clearly
| spelled out in the contract. I'll have to spend some
| quality time, reviewing my contract, to find that...
| TheKarateKid wrote:
| Getting a refund from Apple is really difficult, so I don't
| think this would be a problem.
|
| I once forgot to cancel a subscription, cancelled one day after
| renewal, and they would NOT refund me. It was a time based
| pricing model, so it's not like I could've used any in-app
| credits.
| stordoff wrote:
| Not for apps, at least in the UK - I've had four different
| apps (and one in-app purchase) refunded for a variety of
| reasons[1] without an issue.
|
| [1] One listed features that were actually (expensive) in-app
| purchases, one didn't work, a new app had been released but
| they were still selling the old non-updated one as well (and
| I bought the wrong one), and one was just really clunky and
| borderline unusable; the in-app purchase was purchased by
| mistake (my thumb was resting on the home button and I hit
| something that triggered a purchase in the app by mistake, so
| it went straight through TouchID)
| RobRivera wrote:
| The fact that that is even a thought screams silly and childish
| in my mind, but then again life has taught me that 'maturity'
| really is a social construct and the rule of law and contracts
| really should be the only baseline expectation of human
| behavior from strangers.
|
| Also - that plotline from SV where he just buys pizza from thd
| pizza startup that is operating at a loss seems like the same
| idea as this but just slightly different. Business is funny
| munk-a wrote:
| It's a bit different when a company is completely voluntarily
| engaging in self-destructive behavior - when it comes to the
| app store it is voluntary that folks post their apps there
| but Apple has an absolute monopoly on the market.
| RobRivera wrote:
| That nuance makes a major difference for sure in the
| situation. Mind I'm not rationalizing any behavior from
| either party. It's more an observation on the state of
| current affairs and how we've allowed it to come to this.
| munk-a wrote:
| Oh it's absolutely terrifying - I just think it's
| important to highlight that in this situation there's a
| large power inbalance that doesn't exist in the SV
| example. It's likely most developers didn't walk into
| having an App knowing how this weird refund rule worked,
| so for most folks (if this is an issue) you've got the
| sunk cost of building the app already and have the choice
| of 1) putting up with Apple's arbitrary rules or 2)
| unlisting your app from the store and accepting that
| you'll never see another dime off your labour.
| incelmods wrote:
| that's kind of like saying walmart has a monopoly on who
| sells what at walmart. you can buy your same exact plastic
| garbage can at target instead, so there is no monopoly.
| just you can buy the same app for a non-apple phone. so
| there is no monopoly on the apps.
|
| now as far as what you sell within your own store, digital
| or brick store - that's not a market. in fact, the same
| apps on google's store have a much larger marked due to
| many more users. and amazon's store. and aptoide. and a
| whole bunch of other stores, which all sell the same app.
|
| so not only does apple not have a monopoly, they have a
| small share of the app market for the apps they sell in
| their store.
| GoodJokes wrote:
| Its kinda cute how tech people are just finding out about
| capitalism now.
| bronzeage wrote:
| App stores need heavy regulations. It's not only Apple but Google
| and even steam to a small extent. Apple is of course the biggest
| offender as they heavily guard their monopoly with code signing
| enforcement. This shouldn't have been legal. They are the very
| definitions of predatory competition squashing monopolies.
| simonh wrote:
| The iPhone is an Apple product. The App Store is an Apple
| product. The libraries and development tools needed to create
| iOS apps are Apple products.
|
| Traditionally the company that develops a product gets to
| decide what features that product has. There are various laws
| that require a product be safe to use, is not misrepresented
| and does what it is advertised to do, but beyond that there are
| very few actual features of products that they are required by
| law to have. Maybe some standards they need to meet.
|
| Sometimes companies will invite other companies to join them in
| adding features to a product. A TV company might add licensed
| audio technology from Dolby, a car company might add licensed
| software for infotainment or navigation software, and they may
| charge their customers for the added software features.
|
| This is how games consoles work, you buy the console from the
| manufacturer, who licenses other companies to write games for
| their product as add-on modules. In the past CDs and cartridges
| were used, but now this often happen via downloads. These games
| are developed using the console manufacturers tools, run
| against their code libraries on the device and are clearly an
| extension of their product. This has been an established
| approach for many decades. When my kids were toddlers I bought
| an educational toy where you could buy little cartridges for it
| that added educational features.
|
| That's all the App Store is. It's a feature added by Apple to
| their product for adding optional features to the device. As in
| many cases in the past, across many types of device, this is a
| feature added by the manufacturer and your relationship as a
| customer remains with them.
|
| There is no law requiring that a device containing a computer,
| be it a car, TV, games console, phone or whatever have any
| specific features to enable loading additional software. That's
| just not a requirement that exists, and if a device does have a
| mechanism to add or update its software, there are no laws
| about how that must or must not be implemented, that I'm aware
| of anyway.
|
| If you disagree that this is the way it should be that's fine,
| that's absolutely your right, but can you explain how such laws
| should be drafted. What kinds of requirements should be put on
| manufacturers? Under what criteria should they apply and to
| what devices?
|
| If you think Apple has failed to comply with some law in the
| way they implemented their products, I'd appreciate some
| clarity about exactly what you think Apple has done wrong, and
| how that should be redressed.
| hrhrhrd wrote:
| Anti-monopoly legislation seems like a good starting place.
| Game console app stores are, at least in my opinion, equally
| exploitative, but Apple is one of the most problematic
| publishers out there. Being able to run whatever software you
| want on general purpose hardware isn't what this is about
| (although you should be able to, as the FSF has been saying
| for years). It's that Apple can't monopolise the market like
| this, so the government should be able to force them to allow
| competing app stores.
| simonh wrote:
| Apple has a monopoly on designing the features of it's
| products and on deciding who they do business with and on
| what terms, that's all. What other monopoly do they have?
|
| Youre not actually answering my questions. Exactly what
| features should Apple, Samsung, Pinephone, etc be required
| to implement? How should we decide what products these new
| requirements should apply to? Who gets to specify those
| features and certify compliance?
| hrhrhrd wrote:
| I'm not a legislator, but I'd like to be able to run an
| app store of my choosing. I'd like to be able to use my
| general purpose computing device as a general purpose
| computer, instead of Apple's business connections
| deciding who I get to do business with. So far as not
| implementing features, if the bare tech were exposed, I'm
| sure people would be very happy to implement it outside
| of Apple. Just because they perpetuate the platform
| doesn't mean they should control how I use it. As to
| implementation (i.e. enforcement), that's just
| whataboutism because the government is more than capable
| of regulation.
| simonh wrote:
| I think this is where we get into the weeds. How do we
| specify what is a general purpose computer? How do we
| specify a legally mandated mechanism for installing
| software? I'm not expecting you to do so now obviously,
| but isn't the fact that it's so hard part of the problem?
| This is an incredibly tricky area to start legislating
| about. Theres much more to this to hitting Apple with a
| 'monopolist' stick.
| newen wrote:
| This is why there are regulatory bodies and people's
| entire career devoted to this. The government can create
| regulatory bodies to answer these questions and then
| regulate companies.
| simonh wrote:
| I don't think saying it's someone else's problem to sweat
| the details cuts it. It sounds too much to me like
| wanting to wave a magic wand to make the problem go away,
| but there is no magic wand. Never, in any of the debates
| I've had on this, any of the blog posts a I've read about
| it, even the EFF articles about this (and organisation I
| have enormous respect for), has anyone actually tackled
| this issue of saying how a law like this would work in
| any specific way and what devices it should or should not
| apply to, specifically.
| rpdillon wrote:
| I'd advocate for letting customers choose where they get
| their software after they've bought a device.
| Artificially coupling device and software repository
| increases switching cost, stifling competition.
| quotemstr wrote:
| Power is power, and power needs to be accountable to those
| subject to that power. A company that makes commodity screws
| and bolts has no power over me: I can find a different
| commodity screw and bolt company. A company providing key
| tech infrastructure had quite a bit of power over me. We live
| in an information society. Why should a few people in the bay
| area unilaterally get to kick people out of that society?
|
| Common carrier regulations on railroads provide a model for
| regulating critical tech infrastructure that happens to be
| privately held. I'm as big a fan as it gets of the capitalist
| market-based way of organizing society, but even I
| acknowledge that at large scales, companies need to play by a
| different set of rules, one that makes them accountable to
| the public. The alternative is essentially the subversion of
| democracy. You can take a purist approach to corporate
| autonomy all the way to its natural feudal end, but I'm not
| going with you.
| bambax wrote:
| > _There is no law requiring that..._
|
| So, let's make them!
|
| Saying that there is "no law" is the weakest argument ever.
|
| We the people make the laws, we can decide whatever we want,
| and we can certainly vote into law the regulations we think
| are necessary.
| terrortrain wrote:
| It's different when TV manufactures put Dolby in charge of
| advertising and supporting the feature. Then charge them a
| cut of their profit, with little to no recourse or dispute
| mechanisms.
|
| Besides that, it could be argued that running software is the
| feature. What software does is not a feature of the iPhone.
| Like a recipe is not a feature of a stove.
|
| We are buying the device, it's a tool, and we should control
| how it's used.
| totalZero wrote:
| A stove is not a satisfying example. The recipe in this
| case is developed using Apple's kitchen utensils and
| delivered in a recipe book printed by Apple. There are
| entanglements between Apple and the Developer that go
| beyond the "tool vs method" abstraction. Some of these are
| forced on the Developer.
| simonh wrote:
| Apple's view is that the third party software that runs on
| their phones, which they provide to you and which they
| charge you for, very much is a feature of their phones.
|
| I agree it's a tool and you should control how it's used,
| but you're demanding that Apple implement specific features
| for you that they don't want to implement. How do you
| intend to coerce them into doing that? Who gets to specify
| precisely how those features are implemented?
|
| I agree that what you do with your phone after you bought
| it should be up to you. If you can find a way to jailbreak
| it, I think you should be allowed to do that. In fact I've
| jai-broken iPhones and iPod Touches before. However I don't
| think I have a right to tell apple how they make their
| products, or to force them to implement features for me
| that I get to specify.
| [deleted]
| peeters wrote:
| OP didn't say Apple was breaking the law. They said that they
| need to be regulated. There's a difference. Make all the
| equivalences you want, at the end of the day the government
| has a mandate to regulate business practice to benefit the
| consumer. If that means treating a mobile phone as a platform
| but not a game console, so be it.
| bitexploder wrote:
| I remember when we didn't have app stores. All we really need
| is decentralized app publisher trust. Centralized app
| publishing will always be abused by the publisher in the long
| run. It's just too powerful and tempting to not stack the deck
| in your favor as the app store owner.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| What if the choice really is to only make things lucrative
| for restrictive shop owners vs malware authors? So far those
| have been the only two options.
| bitexploder wrote:
| I think Microsoft did a good job with its drivers program.
| It was solving different (but similar) goals, and the bar
| was kind of high, but they essentially did a good job with
| their driver signing system. A web of trust approach is not
| horrible. You should know the reputation of software
| publisher before you install an app. App stores do a lot of
| static analysis and screening, and they yank unsavory apps,
| but their profit motive is suspect and inevitably biases
| them towards maintaining that model rather than giving the
| optimal environment that favors users and publishers.
| shi314 wrote:
| What if choice to maximize revenue by all means. Like
| creating extra costs for developers or creating obstacles
| for developers who have lucrative business and it wants to
| control it too.
|
| Btw, curating is basic responsibility of every storefront.
| It's something even your Brick and Mortar Store does.
| aww_dang wrote:
| This will only increase the fees and introduce compliance costs
| new entrants can't readily afford.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| I don't see what kind of regulation Steam needs. They are
| hardly the only storefront on the platforms they support,
| aren't the default one, have almost no exclusive content, and
| don't even take a cut if you sell Steam keys on other stores.
|
| What is there to regulate? If you don't like their terms you
| can sell on a different store or distribute yourself, there's
| nothing stopping you like there is on a typical iPhone or
| Android device. And frankly their terms are pretty damned fair.
| For the longest time they took such a hands-off approach to
| their marketplace that people got angry about that instead!
| erk__ wrote:
| Steam did not offer refunds at all until they came into
| trouble for it in Australia and the EU. That is what
| regulations are for.
| throwaway45349 wrote:
| Other than lack of refunds and poor support for a decade,
| Steam was still the most consumer friendly app store. They
| got everything else _right_.
| freehunter wrote:
| My biggest complaint about Steam is Valve's retail sales.
| They sell a DVD with the installer for Steam and then you
| have to download from Steam even though you're holding a
| physical DVD in your hands.
|
| Me as a kid on Christmas morning 2004 unwrapping the Half
| Life 2 disc only to realize it's a 6.5GB download over my
| 14.4k dial-up connection. My parents bought the physical
| disc for a reason, because we had a shitty Internet
| connection.
|
| They definitely did not get _everything else_ right.
| ihuman wrote:
| I'm surprised you couldn't install the game itself from
| the disc. My physical copy of the orange box installed
| steam, but it also game with the game data on multiple
| discs.
| jandrese wrote:
| The family plan settings on an account are certainly not
| an example of getting it right. You can share a library,
| have multiple linked accounts, but the instant any one of
| those accounts fires up a game all other accounts are
| locked out of the entire library. Not just the game that
| is currently running, but the everything. Valve missed
| the entire point of having a family account setup and
| every time I mention this I get "shut up pirate" as the
| response because having kids isn't a valid use case.
| kej wrote:
| It's not close to an ideal solution, but I've started
| working around this by distributing all new games I get
| between three different accounts, all part of the same
| family. That way playing a game only renders 1/3 of the
| library unavailable to others, instead of all of it.
| efreak wrote:
| If the games you play are single-player (mine are), then
| simply run steam in offline mode to play your games. That
| way anyone sharing your account is unaffected. You can
| also use shady steam_api.dll replacements to not tell
| Steam you're playing at all (I'm actually quite glad
| something like this exists, I've been locked out of
| shutdown activation servers and other dead platforms in
| the past)
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| > The family plan settings on an account are certainly
| not an example of getting it right.
|
| What other stores have a family plan at all?
| VRay wrote:
| Basically every internet game/app store does this
| differently. Google's, Apple's, Xbox, PlayStation
|
| I think even the Nintendo Switch is more fair about it,
| but I haven't checked it directly
|
| This has burned me really badly. I had an account with
| hundreds of Steam games, and then my dad got hooked on
| some of the VR games I'd bought and set up on a Vive
| machine in the living room upstairs. I had to make a new
| account to be able to play new games. Then my nephew got
| hooked on one of the games on the new account, so I ended
| up giving it to him and making a third account for
| myself. That one only has a couple of games on it, since
| I've mostly just transitioned to playing stuff on GoG and
| the Nintendo Switch
| AlfeG wrote:
| Play Store
| jandrese wrote:
| Netflix. Amazon Prime. HBO. Disney+. HULU. Epic.
| Microsoft. GOG. Apple App Store. Google Play.
|
| In most cases the regular plan is the family plan because
| most people live in a family and the extra features don't
| harm people with individual accounts at all.
| benologist wrote:
| Steam actively banned users for getting chargebacks and
| defrauded ~20,000 Australians seeking refunds,
| Australia's like 5% of their users so they probably
| defrauded several hundred thousand more people worldwide.
| They're not a consumer-friendly company at all they just
| had an epiphany about their liability and updated their
| refund policy while being sued for a little tiny fraction
| of their thievery.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| Steam is not a monopoly. You can install other stores and you
| can acquire and install software directly on your computer.
|
| AppStore and, to lesser extent, Google Play _are_ monopolies,
| that severely restrict rights of their users, no matter what
| people say that 'Apple is not a monopoly because you can buy
| another phone'
| Consultant32452 wrote:
| The only heavy regulation I need is the device is fully mine
| after I buy it. I'll take care of the rest.
| EdwinLarkin wrote:
| Sure but you are still just "renting" the software.
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| Exactly. If anyone wants to run an app store, fine, but I
| must be allowed to "side load" apps onto my device so that I
| don't have to participate in the app store economy.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| You can sideload on an iphone now without a developer
| account.
| centimeter wrote:
| A simple regulation that would fix this without overbearing
| price controls is to require manufacturers to allow users to
| sideload their own app stores.
| jfkebwjsbx wrote:
| Steam is the very opposite of a walled garden.
|
| Putting them in the list but leaving out all console
| manufacturers and operating system devs? Strange.
| bronzeage wrote:
| I think all gaming consoles are similar. It's actually
| because steam is something I use while consoles aren't that I
| didn't think about that.
| rabuse wrote:
| This is specifically why I want web browsers to interface with
| mobile devices better. The walled garden these stores are
| absolutely infuriates me.
| ryanlol wrote:
| Why do app stores need separate regulations?
|
| > They are the very definitions of predatory competition
| squashing monopolies.
|
| But they aren't, this is a rather competitive space.
| bronzeage wrote:
| The stock market is heavily regulated. Commodity markets are
| regulated. It's actually the slowness and corruption of the
| law makers that we're still without any regulations to
| virtual markets.
| ryanlol wrote:
| How are app stores like stock markets or commodity markets?
| simion314 wrote:
| Competitive? How many places are where I can host a web page
| and how many app stores ? The ratio is probably much larger
| then 10000 : 1 .
| _nalply wrote:
| Competitive between developers and perhaps platforms but
| absolutely a monopoly for iOS.
| ryanlol wrote:
| This is as nonsensical as complaining about Disney having a
| monopoly in Disneyland.
| jaywalk wrote:
| Phones are not the private property of Apple and Google.
| kube-system wrote:
| That's true about the hardware.
| ViViDboarder wrote:
| It's not like that at all... Disneyland sells Disney IP.
| These stores are marketplaces.
| chownie wrote:
| It is a false comparison to put Disney land (owned by
| Disney) and iOS devices (owned by Apple customers) side
| by side.
|
| We already had battles on this front, Microsoft had to
| offer competing browsers for some time at least in the
| EU. Manufacturing the platform ceases to afford
| dictatorship when the device reaches a large enough share
| of the population imo.
| lacker wrote:
| It seems like a pretty clear duopoly to me, Apple and Android
| are the only two mobile platforms, and rather than compete
| with each other on price they are just both leaving their cut
| at 30%. Personally it's not even the 30% I mind so much as,
| maybe there are cool new products like new mobile browsers
| that are just forbidden by the app stores and so we will
| never get them.
| ryanlol wrote:
| Amazon appstore, F-droid, Huawei app store, Samsung Galaxy
| Apps and so on.
| kilo_bravo_3 wrote:
| None of those matter.
|
| Neither does the fact that you can buy a Linux phone,
| today.
|
| The people downvoting you just want to punish the wicked.
|
| It's like the digital content distribution discussions
| where even a single inconvenience or a perceived lack of
| value is met with "YARR ME MATEY SAIL THE SEVEN SEAS".
|
| When you point out that all of this (waves hand) is an
| optional luxury and if they want open culture they can
| choose to consume open (and public domain) culture you
| are looked at like you are a goblin and downvoted.
|
| They don't care about open culture they just want to
| punish music and film distributors.
|
| If they did care about open culture they would only
| consume culture that had been voluntarily released as
| free and open. There is plenty of creative commons,
| public domain, open source, and other free content for
| them to consume but they want the good stuff.
|
| They don't care about competitive app stores they just
| want to punish the app store owners.
|
| If they did care about open app stores they would all buy
| the PinePhone and support developers on that platform
| MAKING MINOR PERSONAL SACRIFICES until it was a success.
|
| But the people downvoting you don't care and will tie
| themselves into knots and find every hollow and vapid
| excuse why you are wrong and they are right.
| mcherm wrote:
| What is the market share of those?
|
| Ideally measured two ways: in downloads and in dollars.
| hugey010 wrote:
| They enforce intentionally anti-competitive policies.
| Referencing third party mobile platforms (Android) is not
| allowed in iOS apps. See 2.3.10
| https://developer.apple.com/app-
| store/review/guidelines/#acc...
| jlmorton wrote:
| Competitive? It is an oligopoly with tacit collusion on price
| fixing. This is the exact reason why anti-trust legislation
| exists.
|
| A competitive market would be one in which the platform
| providers were forced to divest from the app markets, and
| support competing app markets which meet requirements, and
| which actively compete on features and price.
|
| If cars only supported gasoline from manufacturer gas
| stations, and 95% of the market was controlled by cars from
| GM and Ford, and once you bought a GM car you could only buy
| gasoline from a GM gas station, would you call the gasoline
| market competitive?
|
| To extend the metaphor, let's say it was technically possible
| to use third-party gas stations, but the manufacturers had
| hidden this ability, and it required a small amount of
| mechanical knowledge to enable, and maybe voided your
| warranty, would you then consider the market competitive?
| PostThisTooFast wrote:
| " once you bought a GM car you could only buy gasoline from
| a GM gas station"
|
| On a related note: This kind of scam was the reason for the
| Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Carmakers actually attempted
| this kind of crap, claiming that your warranty would be
| "void" if you didn't use special Ford oil or Chevy tires.
|
| The great thing is that the law extends to all products, so
| all of those stickers saying "warranty void if removed" are
| bullshit. You can modify the devices you own, and if the
| manufacturer wants to deny you warranty service, it has to
| prove that your modification caused the problem that you're
| seeking service for.
| briandear wrote:
| Can you prove price fixing? Or collusion? If you want to
| make the claim, then let's see the proof.
| jlmorton wrote:
| You don't have to prove active collusion. Tacit price
| fixing is still anti-competitive behavior.
| alias_neo wrote:
| What options are there? Google Play, Apple App Store.
|
| How much do they take? 30% and 30%.
|
| Is there an option where they take less than 30% or where
| someone can compete on that cut? No.
|
| Is there a different store you can use with the same
| privileges as these two stores? No.
|
| Can you take your payments outside of the store and
| manage payment fees yourself so as to not give them 30%?
| No.
| noisem4ker wrote:
| I doubt it's news to you, but Android openly allows app
| stores other than Google's.
| alias_neo wrote:
| It's does, but between Google's certification process
| putting restrictions on device manufacturers and the fact
| that usually those alternative app stores can't be
| installed from Google Play, asking side the untrusted
| sources scare tactic against users, and Google Play
| protect so closely integrated in the OS now, theyre not
| really viable market places.
|
| At best I guess we could say Google has a carrot approach
| where Apple prefers the stick.
| arnvald wrote:
| Not really, at least not in a sense that different products
| and stores compete.
|
| When I buy a phone I can choose from multiple models, then
| once I choose a model I can choose a store where I want to
| buy it. These 2 examples are competitive. Then I can choose
| what app I want to buy, but I can't choose anymore where I
| buy it (at least on IOS). There's no competition between
| stores. There's just competition between phone manufacturers
| that ends the moment you choose the phone, from then onwards
| is a monopoly (or near monopoly in case of Android)
| solarkraft wrote:
| Oh, really? Which competitors to Apple are there on iOS?
| briandear wrote:
| What competitors are there for Nintendo? Or PlayStation? Or
| XBox? Every one of those platforms tightly controls access
| to their platforms.
| maxsilver wrote:
| > Every one of those platforms tightly controls access to
| their platforms.
|
| They actually can't. Not legally, anyway.
|
| I am not a lawyer, but Nintendo famously _lost_ a
| lawsuit, when attempting to block third-party software
| distribution :
| https://openjurist.org/16/f3d/1032/nintendo-of-america-
| inc-v... Sega (back when Sega was a major console
| competitor) _also lost_ a similar lawsuit, when
| attempting to block third-party software distribution :
| https://openjurist.org/977/f2d/1510/sega-enterprises-ltd-
| v-a...
|
| If we still had anti-trust enforcement, this should set
| precedent against what Apple is doing here today. We
| already decided this issue in the 80s and 90s, making a
| specialized locked-down computer (i.e., a "game console")
| does not entitle you to own the entire software market
| for that device. And _so long as you don 't steal
| copyrighted materials to do so_ (see Nintendo v Atari),
| you are allowed to reverse engineer and sell your own
| software for these devices, without any royalties or
| licensing owed.
|
| If you want iPhones to be treated like "gaming consoles"
| instead of computers, then it is already legal to
| jailbreak an iPhone, distribute your own apps (or entire
| app store) and sell to iPhone users, without ever paying
| Apple a single penny.
|
| It's even legal by precedent to _modify other people 's
| software_ when selling your own third-party software (see
| Game Genie / GameShark lawsuit, it's legal to sell a
| program that modifies someone elses copywritten software,
| so long as you don't include or redistribute the original
| copywritten code).
| Spivak wrote:
| Sure, but they are allowed to implement any technical
| measures they want to block third-party software
| distribution. If you can hack it to make it work Apple
| can't sue you but they can definitely make it harder and
| don't have to help or support you.
| ryanlol wrote:
| Which competitors to $car_manufacturer engines are there
| for $car_manufacturer cars?
|
| This is a stupid question. Whether or not there is
| competition on iOS doesn't matter as long as there exists
| viable competition on any viable platform.
| ThrowawayR2 wrote:
| > " _Which competitors to $car_manufacturer engines are
| there for $car_manufacturer cars?_ "
|
| Interesting and rather unfortunate that you should use
| that example, since the landmark Magnuson-Moss Warranty
| Act famously invalidated automakers attempts to revoke
| their products' warranty if aftermarket parts were
| installed. It's a clear example of a consumer-hostile
| practice that was deemed to be unfair and regulated, even
| though no monopoly was involved.
| rcoder wrote:
| ...and if all car manufacturers bought engines from the
| same factory (TSMC), used the same satnav (except one
| brand, who had a slightly-worse in-house clone), and an
| accelerator and gearbox from exactly one source (Google
| search) would you be more concerned about anticompetitive
| behavior? What if the manufacturers were allowed to
| produce "accessories" like batteries, tires, and child
| seats that refused to work in any other car, and actively
| sued repair shops that weren't official dealerships?
|
| Apple and Google may be competitors, strictly speaking,
| but the reality is they've pretty well carved up the
| market between premium buyers mostly concerned with
| fit+finish, prestige, and compatibility with other Apple
| devices, and the operating system and network
| infrastructure for, well, everything else.
|
| It's absolutely a duopoly, and so minimally competitive:
| either Google or Apple would happily claim leadership
| status, but neither party really wants the other to go
| away lest actual competition or government intervention
| cause them to lose control of their patch of ground.
| ryanlol wrote:
| > Apple and Google may be competitors, strictly speaking,
| but the reality is they've pretty well carved up the
| market between premium buyers mostly concerned with
| fit+finish, prestige, and compatibility with other Apple
| devices, and the operating system and network
| infrastructure for, well, everything else.
|
| Somehow there are heaps of expensive android phones that
| sell just fine. The flagship Samsung phones cost more
| than any iPhone.
|
| > It's absolutely a duopoly, and so minimally competitive
|
| Well no, there are tons of smartphone manufacturers with
| viable products.
| solarkraft wrote:
| > Well no, there are tons of smartphone manufacturers
| with viable products
|
| There are 2 viable software platforms.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| There is no competition, because there are exactly two
| viable platforms for mobile apps. All the others are
| footnotes.
| ViViDboarder wrote:
| Huh? Which space is competitive? Apple and Google are pretty
| much the only shows in town and even more restricted is that
| the App Store is the exclusive store for iOS.
|
| In fact, they don't even really compete with each other. Play
| is only on Android and App Store is only on iOS.
|
| You could say Android and iOS compete with each other, but
| once someone has bought a phone, they do not have a choice of
| where to buy apps.
| cwhiz wrote:
| >Apple is of course the biggest offender as they heavily guard
| their monopoly with code signing enforcement.
|
| What monopoly? Apple controls maybe 8% of the desktop/notebook
| market and ~13% of the smartphone market. They don't even come
| close to qualifying as a monopoly.
| owenwil wrote:
| Apple generates more than 50% of all smartphone App Store
| revenue, so I'd argue it has a monopoly through that lens
| https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/07/03/apples-app-
| store-...
| briandear wrote:
| That doesn't mean that Apple has a monopoly, only that
| Android users are typically cheap and don't pay for apps as
| much.
| PostThisTooFast wrote:
| This is very likely true. The millions of no-name, rock-
| bottom, cheap-ass phones all over Asia and the rest of
| the world are running the free-to-implement OS: Android.
| They can't run iOS.
|
| Thus Android has a far bigger "market share" by sheer
| numbers, but how many of their users are app buyers or
| big spenders? Way, way fewer than iOS users.
| cwhiz wrote:
| That isn't how monopolies work or are defined or
| classified. Revenue has nothing to do with market control.
|
| Even if we rewrite the dictionary and legal texts, Apple
| would be part of a duopoly, not a monopoly. If you try to
| redefine monopoly to mean that Apple has a monopoly over
| their own platform, then you better start lawyering up
| because essentially every company in America has a
| monopoly.
|
| I think people want Apple to be classified as a monopoly
| because they see their behavior as unfair. But they aren't
| a monopoly and your recourse as a free American citizen is
| to just not buy Apple products. The fact that you are able
| to buy from a competitor with zero personal harm is
| absolute indication that Apple is not a monopoly.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Even if we rewrite the dictionary and legal texts,
| Apple would be part of a duopoly, not a monopoly.
|
| If Apple has pricing power because people don't move to
| competitors, they are a monopoly in the eyes of the law
| no matter how many players are in the same commonly-
| described market segment and what their sizes are.
|
| > If you try to redefine monopoly to mean that Apple has
| a monopoly over their own platform
|
| If that platform is sufficiently sticky that pricing
| changes don't induce people to switch to competitors,
| that's exactly what the law already does, no redefinition
| needed.
|
| > then you better start lawyering up because essentially
| every company in America has a monopoly.
|
| No, most don't, though they tend to seek them (what do
| you think a "moat" is?)
| perl4ever wrote:
| >If Apple has pricing power because people don't move to
| competitors
|
| I'm not taking sides, or claiming I'm an expert on
| economics, but isn't the question with monopolies always
| "what _is_ the market, and what _are_ the competitors "?
| If you accuse someone of being a monopoly, they will
| always define their market as widely as possible, but if
| you are an antitrust lawyer trying to win a case against
| them you will define it as narrowly as possible. There's
| always a _sufficiently_ wide or narrow definition for
| either side to win. And every business has _some_ pricing
| power and _some_ friction for their customers. Everyone
| talks about investing in companies that have a "moat"
| which seems to be understood as something more than many
| companies have, but less than a monopoly.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > I'm not taking sides, or claiming I'm an expert on
| economics, but isn't the question with monopolies always
| "what is the market, and what are the competitors"?
|
| Pricing power is a key way in which that question is
| answered: if an actor doesn't have it, the people to whom
| business goes when they raise prices are the rest of the
| market they are in. If they do have it, there are no
| actual competitors.
| cwhiz wrote:
| Your argument here is basically that Apple charges a lot
| so they must be a monopoly. Wanting something to be true
| doesn't make it true. Apple's share of the smartphone
| market is shrinking, not growing. The basic premise of
| your argument is factually invalid.
|
| The fact that Apple can charge a premium despite being a
| minority player, and despite their marketshare shrinking,
| is evidence of their excellent marketing, not a monopoly.
|
| To be a monopoly you must either have a dominant position
| in the market or your behavior must be such that you are
| attempting to gain a dominant position in the market. Or
| you can just make shit up because you don't like Apple.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Your argument here is basically that Apple charges a
| lot so they must be a monopoly.
|
| You are wrong in two respects.
|
| First, I am not taking a position o whether Apple meets
| the test for monopoly.
|
| Second, the test is pricing power (the ability to raise
| prices without defection to competitors) not "high
| prices". This is more important than how many players
| might be in any popular description of the market,
| because it is test of whether those other players are in
| fact competing with the player in question, or whether
| they are in objectively separate markets even if the
| usual popular description is of a single market.
|
| > Wanting something to be true doesn't make it true
|
| Correct, wanting "are there more players in what is
| typically described in the press as the market in which
| the actor is participating" to be the main legal test for
| monopoly instead of pricing power does not make it so.
| yurlungur wrote:
| May be a stupid idea, but I always feel that appstores should
| be independent from device and service providers. Consumers
| should have the flexibility to not get tied to certain
| distributors of software. Even if apple and Google are not
| prevented from hosting appstores they should be required to
| support third party ones as though they were native.
| jedberg wrote:
| But the regulations you are looking for should be on the device
| manufactures not the app stores. Require Apple to allow other
| app stores to be installed that has the same level of access to
| the OS and APIs that their native app store has, as well as
| direct app downloads from the internet with the same level of
| access (maybe with some extra hoops for security controls).
|
| That would solve the problem. Someone will spin up a better App
| store. Someone already has in fact. If you jailbreak your
| iPhone you get access to a second app store (https://cydia-
| app.com) which has apps that Apple won't put in their regular
| store.
| indymike wrote:
| App stores need competition, not regulation.
| libraryatnight wrote:
| I don't necessarily disagree but that's a tall order when
| lots of users believe the app store default on their
| respective device is the only option.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| In situations where competition is not possible, we need to
| resort to regulation.
| Sargos wrote:
| In this case the economic conditions are a monopoly so
| competition is impossible. That's why regulations exist, they
| fix market failures.
| indymike wrote:
| Breaking the monopoly is the solution. Pouring regulatory
| cement on just makes the monopoly legitimate and sanctioned
| forever.
| 8note wrote:
| Breaking monopolies is a form of regulation
| shi314 wrote:
| To avoid unhealthy competition that endangers competition
| itself, regulation is required. Humans have tendency to
| monopolise.
|
| Regulations makes competition important for benefit
| maximization. Apple would have long bought and closed by
| Microsoft if not for Regulation. AMD would have had suffered
| end.
| alewi481 wrote:
| A positive aspect of Apple's model is that it's impossible
| for a malicious ad to trick an unsuspecting user into
| sideloading malware on their device.
| terrortrain wrote:
| A positive aspect of prison is that you won't crash your
| car
| jjk166 wrote:
| If you want to spend $700 to go to prison for a while so
| you don't crash your car, I don't think there should be a
| law against it.
| im3w1l wrote:
| The vast majority of apps are malware. In both Apple's and
| Google's app stores. It's gotten to the point that apps are
| assumed to harvest all information they have access to,
| store it permanently and sell it to anyone who asks.
| SahAssar wrote:
| You really think there is nothing in the app store that can
| be called malware?
| [deleted]
| rhacker wrote:
| This blew up, but like 5 comments down in twitter someone said it
| wasn't true.
| ladon86 wrote:
| It is true, and I don't see anyone on that thread saying it's
| not. I see a guy confused about whether it's the consumer or
| developer that eats the fee - it's the developer.
|
| This is exactly how it works:
|
| * Customer pays $10
|
| * Apple owes developer $7 (to be paid in 4-6 weeks)
|
| * Customer asks for refund, Apple sends them $10 back
|
| * Developer owes Apple $3
| valuearb wrote:
| It's not true, I've been selling apps on the App Store fir
| ten years, never happened to me.
| leptoniscool wrote:
| Not surprising, since they have control of the platform and the
| market. But it's ethically questionable.
| moogleii wrote:
| This policy apparently has been around since 2009:
| https://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/03/app-store-refunds...
|
| Of note is that the developer "protection" clause in the 2009
| version doesn't seem to be in the current version ("Otherwise, no
| refunds are available."): https://www.apple.com/legal/internet-
| services/itunes/us/term...
|
| My memory is fuzzy, but I recall there was pressure from the EU?
| regarding lack of refunds, so I'm guessing this was Apple's
| adaptation.
|
| Regardless, it still clearly seems like the right thing to do is
| to refund the developer the 30%.
| bloomboom wrote:
| It's amazing that a decade and a half later Apple still hasn't
| fulfilled Steve Jobs' original dream of merging the web and apps.
|
| He wasn't saying third party apps should be HTML5 just to stall
| for time. He really believed it. And it was a good idea and still
| is.
|
| Processors, memory, bandwidth, and browsers have all advanced by
| leaps and bounds and yet the dream remains unrealized and Apple
| is the most to blame. They got addicted to the ill gotten gains
| of their walled garden and can't bring themselves to kick the
| addiction. Rent seeking is a powerful force.
|
| It's pathetic for a company so good at being honest with
| themselves and moving forward when they know what the best future
| is.
|
| The App Store shouldn't exist at this point. It has outlived its
| usefulness. It's in their users' best interests to move beyond
| it. And yet maybe it's too traumatic and daring a move for anyone
| other than Steve Jobs to attempt.
|
| Tim Cook could drop the headphone jack because it didn't damage
| the bottom line but dropping the App Store would actually cost
| something in the short term even if it is the right thing to do
| for everyone in the long term.
| dimitrios1 wrote:
| > It's amazing that a decade and a half later Apple still
| hasn't fulfilled Steve Jobs' original dream of merging the web
| and apps.
|
| Because Google exists, and is diametrically opposed to this
| vision. The past decade have shown constant examples of these
| two visions of the future clashing. Google wants more people on
| the internet. Apple wants more people on their devices.
| wolco wrote:
| Apple has a history of pushing along after Steve left without
| any true vision until he returns. If anyone will return from
| the grave it's probably Steve. When he does he will probably VR
| Apple phones and we'll be in a new era.
| conductr wrote:
| I think they were creating a walled garden and this was just
| lip service. Blaming it on state of tech/HTML5/etc was easy.
| The app store could be open from administration/censors and
| thus would function exactly like the web even if native code
| was required. The frustrating part of current state is they
| censor who, what, and how can be brought to market and the 30%
| cut is just egregious.
| jedimind wrote:
| Tim Sweeney @TimSweeneyEpic
|
| This is a critical consideration in these 30% store fees. They
| come off the top, before funding any developer costs. As a
| result, Apple and Google make more profit from most developers'
| games than the developers themselves. That is terribly unfair and
| exploitative.
|
| https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/128831577560707891...
| josephagoss wrote:
| According to the tweet, if a $1.00 app is refunded the customer
| gets back $1.00 from the developer and Apple keeps $0.30.
|
| So each refund costs the dev more than they took in for the sale
| whilst Apple always pockets the 30%.
|
| How can a refund cost the dev $1.00 if they only took $0.70 for
| the sale?
| monkey26 wrote:
| This is unfortunate. I recently searched the App Store for "ssh
| tunnel" and Prompt 2 came up. I bought it without much thought as
| I heard about.
|
| Now I should have done my research but it doesn't support
| tunneling or I couldn't figure out. Some research told me that no
| iOS ssh client will. So I requested a refund and got it.
|
| In this case I think the blame was on Apple. Not the author of
| the app.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| I don't know how you can blame either party.
|
| If my kid wants a dvd about beetles (the bugs), and I click on
| a Beatles (the band) documentary instead, that's neither the
| seller or producers fault.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| It's Apple's fault that they made a standard ssh feature
| impossible on ios, yet still allow apps to be called "ssh".
|
| No dvd player manufacturer created a dvd store where they
| sell dvds called "The Beatles" but every Beatles dvd is
| missing Ringo because their dvd store censors Ringo, but dvds
| are still named The Beatles.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| So are you angry at the platform restrictions or the App
| Store?
|
| They are two different things.
| fractal618 wrote:
| That doesn't seem fair at all
| arbuge wrote:
| Of note: as of last October, if a PayPal merchant refunds a
| customer for any reason, PayPal is no longer refunding their
| payment processing fee. The merchant will need to refund that to
| the customer at their own expense to grant the customer a full
| refund.
| atarian wrote:
| I don't understand something here.. let's say I sold an app to
| someone for $100.
|
| 1. Someone pays me $100.
|
| 2. Apple takes 30%, so I only get $70.
|
| 3. Customer asks for refund and gets back $100.
|
| 4. Apple takes back the $70 from me.
|
| If Apple was skimming 30% off from the start, how does that
| affect me during a refund?
| FriendlyNormie wrote:
| Relax and just go along with treating this random tweet like
| it's proven to be undeniably true. We're trying to form a
| libelous witch hunt against Apple to temporarily crash the
| stock price. Buy the dip in 30 minutes, friendo.
| fatnoah wrote:
| What it means is that for Apple to retain its $30 commission,
| they'll take $100 from you to refund the customer.
| [deleted]
| ShinTakuya wrote:
| The answer is that you're thinking of it the wrong way. See it
| this way:
|
| You make 3 sales of $100. One gets refunded. You get paid $200
| - $90 = $110 instead of $140, because in practice Apple pays
| you in batches and doesn't pay immediately for each purchase.
| rconti wrote:
| Now I'm more confused. I get why it "should" be $140 but I
| have no idea where the $90 came from.
| wccrawford wrote:
| 3 sales of $100 ($300) means 3x$30 ($90) in fees for Apple.
|
| That should mean 3x$70 for you, $210.
|
| But then one of those is refunded. Apple takes $100 from
| your account and gives it back to the customer. You end up
| with $110.
| jmull wrote:
| I think the previous posted got confused.
|
| Should be like:
|
| You make three sales of $100 each. One is returned. You get
| $70 + $70 + $70 - $100 = $110. Apple gets $30 + $30 + $30 -
| $0 = $90.
|
| That is, you get $70 for each purchase but lose $100 for
| each refund. Apple gets $30 for each purchase and loses $0
| for each refund.
|
| Apple has real costs for each transaction and the refund is
| not really its problem so it makes sense that it keep those
| transaction costs. But those aren't anywhere near 30%
| (well, actually on a $1-$2 purchase it might be, but too
| far beyond that).
| jccalhoun wrote:
| I am not a developer but I presume that Apple doesn't pay you
| every single time someone buys your app. So they would take the
| extra $30 out of your balance with them. Or, if there is no
| balance they will just put you into negative balance so that
| the next time you sell a $100 app you will only get $40 instead
| of $70.
| adrianmonk wrote:
| I would guess what happens is actual money does not change
| hands when a purchase is made.
|
| Instead, Apple keeps records of what it owes each developer,
| and at some later date (likely monthly), it makes one big
| payment to the developer.
|
| Thus at purchase time, Apple enters +$70 in the records it
| keeps of what it owes a developer. And at refund time, it
| enters -$100. So the net effect of a purchase and then refund
| is +$70 + -$100 = -$30.
| atarian wrote:
| OK, this helped me understand things better. If true, I'm
| surprised we're just hearing about this now.
| marcinzm wrote:
| Apple takes back $100 from you. You now owe them $30 more than
| they ever paid you.
| valuearb wrote:
| Nope.
| marcinzm wrote:
| This is Apple's US terms for developers of paid apps:
|
| > You shall reimburse, or grant Apple a credit for, an
| amount equal to the price for that subscription. Apple will
| have the right to retain its commission on the sale of that
| subscription, notwithstanding the refund of the price to
| the End-User.
|
| If you disagree, please cite a source.
| sercand wrote:
| I just looked at our app store connect Sales and Trends
| page and for a $100 item: Apple proceeds $70 to developer
| and takes back $70 again from the developer on a refund.
| sandyarmstrong wrote:
| The tweet claims that step 4 is "Apples takes back $100 from
| me." So you have to cover Apple's share in the refund.
| valuearb wrote:
| The tweets claim is false.
| marcinzm wrote:
| This is Apple's US terms for developers of paid apps:
|
| > You shall reimburse, or grant Apple a credit for, an
| amount equal to the price for that subscription. Apple will
| have the right to retain its commission on the sale of that
| subscription, notwithstanding the refund of the price to
| the End-User.
|
| If you disagree, please cite a source.
| brokencode wrote:
| Apple keeps on abusing their dominant market position to make
| huge profits at the expense of small developers. They subject
| apps to huge fees, then release competing apps at the same price
| (such as Apple Music). They prevent companies from selling ebooks
| on from their apps without taking a huge cut, again, despite the
| fact that they have a competing app in iBooks. These are perhaps
| the most egregious examples, but the list is very long of other
| complaints.
|
| How long will they get away with this before antitrust regulation
| kicks in? They are so focused on extracting rent that they keep
| on poking this sleeping bear, and it eventually will be a huge
| problem for them. If they don't reverse course, expect to see
| large reductions in their profits and stock price when this
| happens.
| chourobin wrote:
| Dig a little deeper in the thread. I don't think this is
| accurate.
| monadic2 wrote:
| Of all the chatter around anti-trust, has anyone broached the app
| store and apple's monopoly on iOS software?
|
| I am using the term in a colloiquial, non-legalistic sense.
|
| My fear is that politicians are invested in tech stocks, like the
| rest of us and pretty much anyone with a mutual fund, so they are
| unlikely to act in a pro-consumer manner.
| olliej wrote:
| What the hell?
| krick wrote:
| I guess in Europe iStuff isn't as overwhelmingly popular as in
| USA, so when I hear things like that I am always amazed at how
| could anyone (a developer) in their mind ever cooperate with
| Apple. Even writing and getting a new app to their store is a
| huge feat, they take a huge cuts when you make money, and when
| you don't they can charge you "30% of what you could make"
| anyway. This is just absolute nonsense.
| bronzeage wrote:
| I also argue that it's the heavy commissions which push nearly
| every App to an ad based model, or physical services Apps which
| don't charge anything.
|
| This in turn shifts more and more apps in the direction of
| invading our privacy with invasive ads libraries, leading to also
| worse privacy as a consequence. It's already pretty hard to
| convince users to pay for an app, the 30% cut almost guaranties
| it will be a bad business model.
| [deleted]
| 8ytecoder wrote:
| A fair and equitable App Store model that also protects users
| would be one where it's opt-in. Apple vetting an app should be
| independent of distribution. Developers can then choose whether
| they want to use the App Store or not.
| oliverx0 wrote:
| Seems fair to me. Apple provided with you a service and charged
| your for it. It is a cost associated with distributing /
| developing your product. Why should Apple be responsible for
| refunding you? It was not their fault that the customer decided
| their money back.
| glofish wrote:
| How do you know that?
|
| The interface and what you can do/demonstrate in the store is
| severely limited.
| weaksauce wrote:
| No it's not fair. This can be a tool that competitors use to
| hurt you financially. If the customer gets a refund the slate
| should be wiped clean. That's fair.
| oliverx0 wrote:
| It's easy to think it's fair because the cost to Apple is
| low. But in principle, let's assume that it costs Apple a
| significant amount of money and effort to make the
| transaction happen, for which they charge you that 30%. Seems
| unfair then that Apple has to be held responsible for
| refunding a service they provided when it was not their fault
| the customer wanted the money back for your product.
| sukilot wrote:
| Obviously, assuming wildly false claims can lead to
| unreasonable conclusions.
| saagarjha wrote:
| Apple prices the exact same things into hardware distribution
| too, but when you ask for your money back there they give it
| back in full, not minus the "service" they already provided
| you.
| oliverx0 wrote:
| And I think that's great! I just don't think they need to be
| forced to do it. If I were Apple I would definitely refund.
| But I don't agree that it should be an obligation for them to
| do it.
| alickz wrote:
| > It is a cost associated with distributing / developing your
| product.
|
| On top of the non-negotiable $99/y developer account fee.
| ikeboy wrote:
| Amazon does the same thing. You can lose more on a return than
| you make on a regular order. Amazon makes more on many orders
| than sellers do.
| ejo4041 wrote:
| Amazon FBA seller here. I came to look for the Amazon comment.
| Their returns are pretty messed up and hurt the sellers.
| Customer can return for any reason and the seller has to eat
| it. Often times it is very hard to track returns down if people
| return the wrong stuff. If it's broken or damaged, amazon will
| side with the customer 100% of the time. On top of all that, if
| you dispose of a damaged, non-sell-able item, they will list it
| in amazon warehouse, we agree to that in the TOS by having an
| FBA account.
|
| If someone knows how to work with their system better regarding
| returns, let me know.
| meed2000 wrote:
| I stopped selling on Amazon nearly 10 years ago. FBA was a
| newly introduced feature which was the trigger for me see
| Amazon's disrespect for 3rd party sellers.
|
| They skim the seller for the sale (because they do the
| marketing for you). They skim on payment processing (it costs
| them less than they charge) They skim for exposure (ads are
| almost a must have to ever appear in search results). They
| then skim on delivery via FBA (they charge more than it costs
| them). And they skim on warehousing via FBA (the pricing was
| already unbelievable back then).
|
| Fast forward 10 years, they have started to skim sellers off
| their business analysis and risk taking effort (They have the
| data, and will compete with 3rd party sellers on products
| that sell decently enough, and even place their product
| before yours).
|
| I've recently taken the time to edited and publish a book
| that is in the public domain, on their KDP platform, a few
| days later I see that Amazon is selling that same book and
| even redirect customer clicks from my page description and
| book cover to their line item to buy.
|
| Amazon has no limit.
| mthoms wrote:
| >a few days later I see that Amazon is selling that same
| book and even redirect customer clicks from my page
| description and book cover to their line item to buy.
|
| Can you expand on this? I'm not sure what you mean exactly.
| Is Amazon redirecting direct links to your free book to a
| non-free version?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-07-29 23:00 UTC)