[HN Gopher] Apple announces 'upgrade' to App Store pricing, addi... ___________________________________________________________________ Apple announces 'upgrade' to App Store pricing, adding 700 new price points Author : zeraphy Score : 129 points Date : 2022-12-06 18:06 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (appleworld.today) (TXT) w3m dump (appleworld.today) | MBCook wrote: | I wonder if more apps will go for, say 50C/, instead of free + | $1.00 IAP. | | I miss the pre-IAP days. | nine_k wrote: | IAP is fine when I as a user am not sure. | | To install, try and pay is as easy as to pay, install, and try | | To install, try and uninstall is much easier then to pay, | install, try, uninstall, and ask for the money back, if the | latter us even supported. | | What's really bothersome is _no_ option to pay and remove ads. | A subscription may be more costly but it 's at least honest, | and UX is not annoying. | jsmith45 wrote: | One thing that can be problematic with App sales is that apps | will usually have new purchases dry up after a while. But | unlike old desktop software where you could release, fix bugs | for a while, and then just call done, for mobile apps you need | periodically update them, or risk getting unlisted from the | stores. Some developers may be ok with that, but others would | prefer their older apps to remain available. Those developers | now have ongoing maintenance costs, so how can they recover | that money? | | The old desktop approach of new major versions that people have | to purchase periodically is not really feasible on IOS, since | old versions would clog up the app store, and there is no way | to offer the new versions at a discount to past purchasers, | which desktop software likes to do to avoid annoying recent | customers when a new version comes out. | | So to recover for costs from ongoing development, an app | developer will either need to 1) somehow increase the number of | people who will purchase the app, 2) add a recurring revenue | source like ads to the app (possibly with IAP to disable), 3) | make the app subscription based (but only some types of apps | can pull this off), or 4) make the app IAP based, and when | updating add new features that can be purchased. | | Now not every app does any of those. Some will just a single | unlock IAP with limited functionality before that. But this is | not all that different from the old demo or shareware approach, | and the design of the app store makes it generally better to | have the demo and full version be the same app, at which point | IAP is the way to do that. Without a recurring revenue source | though, such apps are likely to either change approach or get | abandoned eventually once the costs of periodically upgrading | the app exceed the remaining revenue coming in. | | ---- | | Also there is the abusive IAP single use item to bypass | artificial cooldowns MTX garbage that mobile games tend to be | full of, but I really cannot bring myself to accept that as a | legitimate business model. Even the Gacha model (terrible as it | is) feels somewhat more legitimate, but I have plenty of | significant concerns about those too. But I'm really looking at | this from the perspective of non-games, or at least not "F2P" | games. | asadlionpk wrote: | Isn't this IAP model better for both users and makers? | scarface74 wrote: | Let's not pretend that the App Store is full of Indy | "makers". It came out in the Epic trial that 85% of App Store | revenue came from slimy pay to win games and loot boxes. | rootusrootus wrote: | I'd like to know what fraction today comes from Roblox | alone. | MBCook wrote: | In theory. | | So I have no issue with subscribing to many apps I love to | fund development, or maybe paying an extra "tip" through IAP. | Or just IAP for more content. | | But IAP and subscriptions enabled a few models I hate. | | Free game (either with ads, IAP, or both) have flooded the | App Store and destroyed the market for quality games. Even | the better made ones (like Candy Crush) are still designed to | wring money out of people. | | On the subscription front there are so many scam apps. Buy a | calculator app, and pay $5/week for it because they trick | people into it. | | I'd be happy with no consumable IAPs in games. Or just no | IAPs in games at all. And Apple should probably review high | subscription prices to find scams. Realistically is there any | reason for weekly subscriptions? Maybe just monthly/yearly | only. | yamtaddle wrote: | It might be if they had better filters. IAP being used to | effectively turn a demo into a full, paid version is one | thing. Or IAP for some limited number of expansions in a | game. IAP being used for "consumables" or to nickel-and-dime | every feature is something else. But it's hard to distinguish | between the two uses when browsing the store--and that's a | big part of the reason I hardly game at all on iOS, browsing | their games to sort wheat from chaff is too much of a chore | and their games section _in particular_ is a horrible mess | because IAP exists and their filtering options suck. Problem | goes away if the apps are simply paid or free, no IAP. Or if | they 'd create more categories for various uses of IAP, and | let you filter by them. | 4ad wrote: | Which IAP model? | stephc_int13 wrote: | I think the free-to-play model has been destructive for many | apps and games. The rush to the bottom with $1 price tier, | introduced by Apple, was also destructive in itself. | | The App Store is a huge market, fortunes have been built, but | I know many indie developers who have been reluctant to adopt | the F2P model. | | As a user, I don't like it either. | sgk284 wrote: | Definitely not better for users. You used to buy an app and | get everything it has to offer. You wouldn't have to worry | about getting a useless app and having to pay another $1,000 | to get it functional. And you'd know that any reviews of the | app are inclusive of functionality you'll have access to. | | With IAP, it's really difficult to know what you're getting | and how much it will cost you in the end. And reviews may be | discussing a completely different app experience. Plus the | constant feeling that you're being nickel and dimed. | Someone1234 wrote: | IAPs don't share over Apple Family, purchased-apps do. So I'm | going to say no. | dangoor wrote: | IAPs _can_ share for the family: | https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/4/22154178/apple-family- | sha... | | It's the developer's choice, just like family sharing for | the original purchase. This was a good move, since so many | apps went from paid to free demo +IAP to unlock. I think a | lot of devs who previously allowed family sharing for paid | apps have turned family sharing on for IAP. | MBCook wrote: | To be fair that wasn't the case until maybe 2 years ago. | So it was a real problem. | bonestamp2 wrote: | Probably some. I think this change has more to do with emerging | markets where users expect to make very small payments (and | receive smaller benefits) than western users are accustomed | too. | danjc wrote: | "The team has been hard at work this week and we're now happy to | announce that the number line has even more numbers available in | it." | smoldesu wrote: | You have to hand it to the bean-counters for finding a new way | to butcher their cash cow. | [deleted] | [deleted] | 015a wrote: | I don't agree with most of what Musk does; but if this is the | kind of innovation that requires a team of highly compensated | tech employees and warrants a press release; something is | actually, seriously wrong with efficiency in companies like | Apple, and maybe he's actually right that Twitter, or many | companies, could run better on far fewer employees. | threeseed wrote: | EU and US has already told Musk that his content moderation, | trust/safety, compliance teams are woefully inadequate and | would need to be significantly increased to comply with | existing decrees and regulations. | | Also whilst some employees may find it fun and others on H1B | have no choice but working 80+ hours is not sustainable. | | So before making conclusions about whether Twitter is some | innovative new approach to headcount I would give it a little | more time. | ars wrote: | Since when does the US have regulations about content | moderation? | | > significantly increased to comply with existing decrees | and regulations. | | What decrees and regulations? If the US wanted stuff to be | illegal, make it illegal. You seem to be implying that | Twitter should be a substitute government. | threeseed wrote: | Twitter has an agreement with the FTC around their data | security practices. EU has GDPR now and DSA in 2024. | | And EU member states eg. Germany have their own rules for | what content is allowed or not. | | You can argue whether the laws are appropriate or not but | Twitter does have to comply with them or stop making | their product available in those jurisdictions. | hackernewds wrote: | Not to mention, everything works smoothly (as per design) | during a _code freeze_. Luckily Twitter has few | competitors, and also the ones that remain also have code | freeze during this time. | SkyPuncher wrote: | I don't see a problem with the press release. | | This is an effective way to communicate to their developer | audience while also keeping their shareholders informed. | jimbob45 wrote: | When software and systems become sufficiently large, change | becomes extremely difficult. Even strong architectures have | their limit. I have to imagine that Apple has hit that limit | serving payments worldwide. | | The real lie isn't that this was a difficult and costly | change for their top-notch team. The real lie is that this | works at all - some dev out there is waiting with no | fingernails left for the bugs to start pouring in. | fckgw wrote: | Companies can do more than one thing at a time. | 015a wrote: | That's my point; that clearly they have so many people and | so few actual problems to solve that they're worried about | adding more discrete numbers rather than solving this | problem significantly more efficiently. | archildress wrote: | Can't wait for the courageous design decision to then remove | numbers from the follow-up release for more simplicity. | qzw wrote: | "Our metrics show that less than 0.02% of all apps are using | the $26.65 and $57.30 price points. They are therefore no | longer available to new apps. Existing apps using these price | points will be required to change to one of the other | supported price points by March 1, 2024." | hackernewds wrote: | The hallmarks of a true monopoly here | countvonbalzac wrote: | They say they support up to $10,000 in one part but then in the | chart the $100 increment only goes up to $9,999.99, so which is | it? $9,999.99 or $10,000? | aliqot wrote: | God damn I'm so tired of the global market. | modeless wrote: | So you can sell an app for $0.29 now? That's cool actually if | true. The rest seems silly. | raydiatian wrote: | Now this has me wondering: who has the most expensive product on | the App Store, what is it and how much does it cost? | | -- edit -- | | Looks like the award goes to an app for Piano Tuners. Find a | niche and corner it. $1,000. | dang wrote: | We changed the URL from | https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/12/apple-announces-bigge... | to a third party article I just googled. If there's a better | third-party article, we can change it again. | | Yes, HN has the rule "*Please submit the original source. If a | post reports on something found on another site, submit the | latter" (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), but | corporate press releases are so awful to read that I increasingly | think we need to make them an exception. | | https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... | | All the more so because they have a strong incentive to bury the | lede (I mean in general--not saying that about this | announcement), and while third-party sites have other crap | incentives, like sensationalism and clickbait, they at least | don't do that. | concordDance wrote: | I think that in general the third party articles you find soon | after the press release will just be copy-pastes of the press | release (no time for real analysis) with bits removed. So it | depends on whether you're optimizing for more information (the | PR) or less misreading skimreading/headline reading. | | Do you want to cater to the most thorough commentators or the | masses? | JamesSwift wrote: | What could a third party add to a primary-source's press | release other than speculation? Sure in some cases there could | be some "sources say..." or "when reached for comment Apple | clarified that..." but in general I think its going to be a | rehashing and speculation in general. | greesil wrote: | Context. | pb7 wrote: | I think this was the wrong move. The original source is better | in this case and you are letting your anti-corporate bias and | personal opinion affect your decision making as a moderator. | What makes this so awful to read to you? | devwastaken wrote: | 3rd party sourcing isn't anti-corp. The purpose is to seek a | more neutral position. Apple is clearly motivated to say | positive things about Apple. | geraneum wrote: | The posts here don't have to be neutral! There are a lot of | blog posts, opinion pieces and opinionated comments. That's | actually good. | pb7 wrote: | It has never been about seeking a neutral position. What is | neutral about Vitalik shilling the Ethereum ecosystem?[0] | He's clearly motivated to say positive things about it. | | [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33878216 | thewataccount wrote: | Respectfully I disagree with this. | | The article you linked is mostly just a copy+paste of the apple | page, with a few paragraphs removed. | | I personally don't think going from the direct news source -> | random news source you just googled that copy+pasted most of it | anyway is worth doing. | | > but corporate press releases are so awful to read that I | increasingly think we need to make them an exception. | | Is it really that much better if they just removed 2~3 | paragraphs? They added nothing of value other then trackers and | ads. | | I do ask seriously - does removing 2~3 paragraphs really make | it that much better? | | Are we really going to move to having one person (no offense) | to arbitrarily change the URLs from the official news source to | a random one from your google search results? | | tl;dr - doing this removes the benefits of first hand | reporting, has effectively no different content, and you | appeared to have randomly selected one that offers no clear | benefit in it's content. | armchairhacker wrote: | I see your reasoning but I disagree. HN articles don't need to | be unbiased. The reason being, if you want a more neutral take, | just take a look at the HN comments. | | HN submissions are usually primary sources, and the HN comments | are where you have the discussion. Sometimes even the top voted | comment is just a summary of the actual submission, but | rephrased to be less biased or more clear. If HN can't point | out the buried lede or explanation and get it upvoted then | there's a larger problem, but in practice I don't find this to | be the case (though maybe I'm wrong). | | Does the article provide anything which the HN comment section | wouldn't? | Wowfunhappy wrote: | This is my feeling. The article is the reference material for | what we discuss in the comments; the comments provide | interpretation. | jil wrote: | https://9to5mac.com/2022/12/06/app-store-pricing-changes-dev... | might be a better URL, perhaps? | primitivesuave wrote: | I would always prefer ad-free information directly from the | source, and to follow HN guidelines without leaving them open | to interpretation (call me an HN fundamentalist I guess). | screamingninja wrote: | > https://appleworld.today/archives/101157 | | > The server is temporarily unable to service your request due | to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again | later. | lilyball wrote: | Looking at the original press release, I much prefer it to this | third-party site. All the third-party site really did was | remove a tiny bit of fluff, but it's having intermittent | loading issues and is absolutely _covered_ in ads if you aren | 't using an ad blocker. It also removes some of the actual | content! | taftster wrote: | I mean, basically the web sucks right now. Classic rant | incoming: There's definitely a need that sits between boring | PR release and ad-filled regurgitation. You can't tell me | that heaps of ads are actually helping the monetization of | content, we're on the other side of the slippery slope. Thank | goodness for adblock, I guess. | LocalPCGuy wrote: | I don't know the mechanics of this or if it would just be | manual, but when there is aggregation of submitted links (which | I would assume is the case for a story like this), it does seem | like the main PR link should be the title URL, but could other | links all just be collected in a single comment? | | I really prefer the actual PR links myself, corporate BS or | not, because that gives me the language I need to then search | out the other stories that are based on that PR. If you start | with a blog, now I have to do the process in reverse to find | the source. I think the HN policies are just fine in this | regard. And even if other links can't be collated into a | comment, I generally trust HN readers to provide additional | information or helpful links when appropriate. | dagmx wrote: | The site you picked ironically is failing to load for me on | Safari in iOS, likely because I have an ad blocker enabled. It | just keeps going into a reload loop. | | I would second everyone else's sentiment that going with the | official PR statement is better , especially because Apple are | really good about fast loading pages without ads, and none of | these other sites provide new information that's not in the | press release. | | Additionally many of the third party sites are really bad for | accessibility, whereas the official Apple one is excellent for | those who need readers. | dcdc123 wrote: | I had no idea price points were so restrictive on the app store. | crystaln wrote: | So much Apple cynicism here. | | Apple loves design and beauty. Crisp numbers and stability are | more user friendly and aesthetic. Also some numbers have | implications in certain markets. Seeing numbers like or $69.42 or | $444 or $7.23 is just bad all around. | | International price conversion while maintaining those is also | challenging. | | Before attacking Apple policies, it's worth considering why their | extremely deep design process might have led to that choice. | binarymax wrote: | I'm not an App Store seller so I have no idea what this means. | You can't just pick any number that you want to sell your app | for? You have predetermined prices set by Apple? | threeseed wrote: | As I mentioned above pretty sure this was a limitation of their | SAP based system and the way it was integrated with the iTunes | Store (what App Store used) that required you to pre-define | price points. | mknapper1 wrote: | Correct, only pre-approved price points are allowed. | RetpolineDrama wrote: | Correct, Apple requires you to use one of it's _artisanal_ | price points, hand-selected from a only the most | psychologically supple increments. | spiffytech wrote: | Yep. And previously you couldn't choose a non-zero price lower | than $0.99, so the new price choices will probably go to use. | a_c wrote: | Actually what the motivation in having price point ending in .99? | Why can't I simply price my app at, for instance, 10? I | understand there is a pricing psychology in play and I faintly | remember it has something to do with accounting but I can't | recall the specifics. Can anyone shed some insight? | travem wrote: | In addition to the other replies (which I agree with) about the | psychological aspects, another aspect historically is that | avoiding round numbers meant that change had to be given when | making a purchase. | | I.e. if you bought something that cost $5 you could just hand | the $5 to the cashier and they could just avoid ringing you up | and pocket the money. In contrast if the object cost $4.99 or | $4.95 say they would have to ring it up in the till so they | could open it to provide change to the customer. | blowski wrote: | Another story: a newspaper seller - whose newspaper cost 1 | penny - encouraged .99 price points to increase the number of | pennies in pockets. | | I heard this on Tom Scott's Podcast "Lateral" recently. | coder543 wrote: | > Why can't I simply price my app at, for instance, 10? | | The article says you can. It's one of the "supported | conventions". | a_c wrote: | My bad, completely missed the second table. Thanks for | pointing it out! | nine_k wrote: | The psychology is (allegedly) simple. When you see a price like | $4.99, unless you're pre-conditioned, you are expected to read | it as FOUR-99, essentially $4, even though it's $5 for all | practical purposes. Often it is styled as $4.99 to double down | on this effect. | | This looks silly, and many people, including me, have taught | themselves to recognize this pattern and round the price | correctly without a mental effort. | | Some people, of course, fall for it; I suppose younger kids are | heavily affected. | ryandrake wrote: | How can it be that anyone in the world falls for this | anymore? My daughter recognized this obvious pattern when she | was 7 years old: "It's $5, dad, why don't they just say $5?" | I wonder if pricing something at $4.99 have anything more | than a vague subliminal effect these days? | cactus2093 wrote: | Part of it is that people want to be tricked. If I want to | buy something but I'm on the fence about whether it's worth | $5 then I think the $4.99 price works as like a semi- | subconscious plausible deniability mechanism to let me | allow myself to buy it. | jtsiskin wrote: | Imagine two apps you're scrolling by in the App Store. One | is $5, the other is $4.99. Barely going attention | (essentially picking subconsciously rather than | consciously), you choose one to click first. What are the | odds you clicked the $4.99 one? | hackernewds wrote: | Zero | stephencanon wrote: | Everyone is absolutely consciously aware of it, and this | has always been true. It still works just fine via your | subconscious. | rootusrootus wrote: | And then there are gas stations, infamous for taking it | another step and including another tenth of a penny. | frosted-flakes wrote: | Only American gas stations. They go so far as to have the | 9/10 of a cent fraction as a permanent part of the sign. | eastbound wrote: | French stations too, they've introduced the 1.779EUR a | liter pricing a dozen years ago, so, 4 significant | numbers. On a 100EUR refill, it's 10 cents, ie a drop. | frosted-flakes wrote: | Is it always 9/10 of a cent though, or does it vary? | jamesvnz wrote: | The majority of New Zealand petrol stations display the | fractional cent too. Same in Australia from memory. | frosted-flakes wrote: | Oh I didn't know that. They don't do this is Canada. Fuel | here is priced to the tenth of a cent (192.5 cents per | litre), but it's not fixed to 9/10. | jameshart wrote: | I am old enough that when I was a kid in the UK there was | still such a thing as a halfpenny (pronounced: ha'penny). | Although please note: I am not _that_ old; this was 1/2p - | half a 'new penny', i.e. 1/200 of a pound sterling, and | not to be confused with the old 1/2d, half of an old penny, | which was 1/480 of a pound (or two farthings). Predecimal | currency was well before my time. By over half a decade, in | fact. But anyway, point is: of course this meant that some | things were priced to end with PS0.991/2p. The rules are | universal. | richrichardsson wrote: | Just to add a data point about the pronunciation; the way | you've written it leads me to read it as "har-penny", | which I imagine is valid, however we pronounced it in my | family as "hay-penny". | jameshart wrote: | Sorry, that is indeed the intended pronunciation. In fact | even briefer than that: more hayp'ny. | | Just wanted to really get across that most importantly, | the l and f are definitely both silent. | ralmidani wrote: | Genuine question: is there a market for a $10,000 app? | jbverschoor wrote: | Well, if you're gonna ask for 30% on NFT purchases, you better | have no ceiling | tyingq wrote: | I'm sure somebody could market some kind of "exclusive club" | app. Virtual Fyre Festival or whatever. | arriu wrote: | Maybe something like a Bloomberg terminal on the phone? | | It does seem like quite a reach but I think there are a few | legitimate niche markets for that price point. | bonestamp2 wrote: | Maybe not the app itself, but I could see for example, a | business wants to purchase $10K worth of advertising on a | platform through the their ad channel app. | hbn wrote: | It would seem crazy for an ad agency to implement that | through an IAP where Apple takes $3k off the top (I assume | that 30% rate still applies here?) when you're dealing with | high-paying clients that could be told "go to our website to | purchase" | bonestamp2 wrote: | I agree, but I guess we could say the same thing for all | app and in app purchases. | hbn wrote: | Eh, not really. The benefit of in-app purchases is you | can make a button that users can press that's probably | already hooked up to their credit card so they can make | purchases without the ask of getting them to type in | their credit card number, which is a more conscious | action that gives them plenty of time to think about | whether or not they /really/ want to make that purchase. | Amazon's one-click checkout, ShopPay, etc are not just | for user convenience! | | Comparatively, a high-profile client spending tens of | thousands of dollars in ads isn't doing so on impulse, | they're doing it cause it's their job. They'll open up a | browser and punch in some banking details if it's the | only way to get those ads out. | cauthon wrote: | Are you too young to remember "I Am Rich"? | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Rich | staringback wrote: | Seeing prices list from 2008 having "today's dollars" is | really scaring me. | redtriumph wrote: | "The application was removed from the App Store without | explanation by Apple the day after its release, August 6, | 2008" | | Would be interesting to know the thought process for doing | this. | fckgw wrote: | It generated support complaints and provided no value to | the user. | BudaDude wrote: | The value is there. People buy useless shit all of time | to show off their wealth. Is there any difference between | having a $10,000 app or having a $100+ cosmetic skin in a | game? | martythemaniak wrote: | It embarrassed Apple. | [deleted] | bombcar wrote: | Isn't the Tesla FSD available as an in-app purchase? | moffatman wrote: | At that point it would make sense for the vendor to mail you a | top-of-the-line non-iOS device to avoid the 30% commission if | at all feasible. | le_vision wrote: | Highly niche and specialised apps could set such price points. | Medical apps come to mind. | scarface74 wrote: | I'm not aware of many apps like those that aren't done via a | B2B licensing agreement outside of the App Store. | blowski wrote: | Early on, I remember there being a tactic for apps where the | owner wants them to be findable in the App Store, but doesn't | want any new buyers, they set the price to $10K. But these | days, I think the most expensive apps are $1K - app.cash, | vueCAD Pro and Cyber Tuner. | bmarquez wrote: | Yeah apps for pilots also came to mind, though I took a look | and ForeFlight was $400/year on the iOS store, not a one-time | fee. | sneak wrote: | Why charge $1000 once when you can charge $400 six times? | | I refuse to use apps like this. None of my Apple IDs have | payment information associated with them. | ralmidani wrote: | I would imagine any medical app/ERP/etc. would have creative | ways to get users to not make a one-time purchase via the App | Store. Although certain interpretations of the rules might | mean they have to offer App Store signup as an option. | hoherd wrote: | It looks like this isn't just iOS and iPadOS, but also macOS. | In that case, there is plenty of software that fits that bill, | such as Maya and Avid. I'm sure there's mass media, banking, | video game development, and lots of other software that costs | near that, or will some time in the future. | | Even if it were just for iOS and iPadOS though, they do want | iPad Pro to compete with desktops in places where expensive | software runs. For instance, Grass Valley Livetouch could be | done on an iPad. | smcleod wrote: | Apple needs to make it easier for people pricing their apps | fairly for international markets. | | So many applications and subscriptions are incredibly expensive | when they're priced for the USA which has been over valued for so | many years now. | hackernewds wrote: | That would open up a whole can of worms of users locations | being necessary/easy to fake for discounts. | smcleod wrote: | As that may be - it should be the incredibly wealthy | companies problem to solve, not the users. | johnwheeler wrote: | Drop the 30% tax some, there's a story | sokoloff wrote: | It's 15% for businesses doing under $1M/year on the App Store. | | https://developer.apple.com/app-store/small-business-program... | fnordpiglet wrote: | I can't wait until I can cantor diagonalize App Store price | points. | Overtonwindow wrote: | How many apps have you purchased from the App Store? I have only | purchased five apps since 2008. Are people just spending lots of | money on apps or am I out of the norm? | yamtaddle wrote: | I'm the same, except I also pay for two subscription-based apps | that frequently update content, mostly for my kids. Simply | Piano (amazing, can't praise it enough) and Tappity (mostly | science-related content for younger kids, think Bill Nye or | Beakman's World but semi-interactive and on an iPad instead of | the TV--it's not _amazing_ but my youngest really took to it | and is getting enough out of it to justify the subscription, | IMO) | | I think it's $300-400 a year for the pair of them? Easy to | justify especially in Simply Piano's case, when you consider | what even a few weeks of in-person piano lessons would cost | (not that it makes such lessons obsolete, but still). | | But yeah, outright buying apps or using IAP... ProCreate, Angry | Birds (yay! they re-released the original, which is one of the | only two of those I care about, finally! Now if I could just | get Seasons again...), several tables in Pinball Arcade bought | when they were on steep discount just before they lost the | licenses to most of the tables I was interested in. I think | that's all my App Store purchases, ever, otherwise. | | I think most of the money's from "whales" in shitty F2P games. | howinteresting wrote: | According to the Epic v. Apple decision: | | * The vast majority of app store revenue is from games. | | * A small number of "whales" spend almost all of the money -- | presumably rich kids and adults, and people with an unfortunate | gambling addiction. | intrasight wrote: | This is why I find it so baffling that there are so many | devs/companies chasing the golden ring of app revenue with | sincerity when clearly is a very warped marketplace. What | types of useful, non-scam apps do people look for and buy | that lead devs to believe there's some opportunity? Why | create it as an app and deal with all that BS when you could | just make a nice web site/PWA? | earthnail wrote: | Some products are designed to make use of the iPhone as a | form factor. Then you can't make a PWA. | | But yes, the market is warped and Apple has a lot of work | to do to make it a better marketplace. | | This is a step in the right direction though. Maybe more | steps will follow. | super256 wrote: | I spent ~150EUR since 2018, mostly for productive apps. | | Canarymail (A mail client which supports SMTP streaming + PGP) | - I think was about 30EUR lifetime. | | StrongBox Pro (A Keepass 2 client) - 80EUR Lifetime | | ProCreate - 10EUR Lifetime | | Affinity Designer 1 - 12EUR lifetime | | FEZ - 5EUR Lifetime (Game) | | TweetBot - 5EUR Lifetime but now abandoned for Subscription | Software. Doesn't work anymore, I'm using the normal Twitter | App now (became usable over the last few years). The only app | where I was disappointed in doing a lifetime purchase. It was | abandoned really quickly after my purchgase. | | Blitzer Pro - 10EUR Lifetime | | Threema - 4EUR Lifetime | | DWD WarnWetter - 2EUR Lifetime. Most accurate weather app for | Germany | | Facetune 1 - 4EUR (Didn't fix my face! Surpise!) | | Reeder - 5EUR RSS Feed App, I use this together with Miniflux | Server | | My last purchase was in 2021, Reeder. I made most purchases | when I got the devices, and all lifetime over SaaS purchases | have paid for themselves by now. :) | | But honestly, this was more than I expected. | Eumenes wrote: | The only app I've ever bought is Swiftkey. Now its Microsoft | spyware. I don't even have a credit card on my apple ID (is | that what its called now?) | rootpk wrote: | black_puppydog wrote: | So, never having bothered with Apple hard-/software I am a bit | confused... A developer can't just set a price for something? But | then out of the first 10000 natural numbers, Apple semi- | arbitrarily select a set of 900 "known-good" numbers that work | well for prices? Like, as if the other numbers are somehow bad | prices? If you charge someone $7,43 for something, the ghost of | Steve Jobs will start haunting you? | | That's, like... I don't even know. Feels infantilizing to me. Or | what am I missing? | varispeed wrote: | When selling a product, we were doing A/B tests with price | points and so we had results that the same product was selling | better if it was priced at PS7.49 per month rather than PS6.99. | For some reason people subconsciously think that 7.49 is | smaller than 6.99 or things like PS5 wouldn't sell much but | PS5.99 would be going off the virtual shelves in an instant. | | Crazy. | hackernewds wrote: | How broadly generalizable is that result though? | vanshg wrote: | That should be for the merchant to decide, though, not Apple | kergonath wrote: | Apple _is_ the merchant. | TillE wrote: | Yes that's one of the key services you get in exchange | for 30%. Small companies _really_ don 't want to be | handling sales tax requirements for every jurisdiction on | the entire globe, it's a nightmare. Not to mention fraud, | etc. | threeseed wrote: | It's 15% for developers making less then $1m/year. | | And as Apple demonstrated in Netherlands with the dating | apps it is actually cheaper to use them that try to run | your own payment system. Especially if you're trying to | target a global audience. | seydor wrote: | Their excuse for their antics are that their users are stupi, | er, sorry, they need the apple treatment. In reality it seems | they do it because they can. I doubt there is research outside | apple about their customer base | | Apple also sees itself as a lifestyle, almost fashion brand so | they must enjoy people talking about them in any way | hackernewds wrote: | > they do it because they can | | against the desires of the entire global community of | developers. the hallmarks of a true monopoly | seydor wrote: | Not a monopoly, at least not outside US. But a very | capricious high end electronics brand | guelo wrote: | Depends how you define the market. They are 100% a | monopoly for the iOS apps market. | sokoloff wrote: | And Ferrari is a 100% monopoly supplier of Ferrari | engines. | kaba0 wrote: | The only difference is that you can choose two kinds of | evil for something _required_ for everyday life, while | you can live without a car or choose from several | different ones. Owning the former platform is great power | that shouldn't be unilaterally controlled by a private | company. | sokoloff wrote: | My parents get by entirely fine without a mobile device | (smart or feature). It's convenient, but not required. | JonathonW wrote: | Apple uses price points rather than having developers | explicitly specify prices because they're currency-independent: | you specify a price point and Apple chooses appropriate prices | for each of the ~175 different storefronts where your app could | be available. Apple then periodically adjusts the international | prices as exchange rates fluctuate, to keep them in parity with | the US prices at the same tiers. | | The alternative would be to have developers manually specify | prices for each region, which wouldn't really scale for a lot | of developers (keeping track of exchange rates for 175 | different regions is work). Or to do automatic currency | conversion from {developer's native country here}, which would | eliminate some of the manual work but lead to "ugly" prices in | other regions (no x.00 or x.99 pricing), unless they had some | rounding scheme to make them look nicer, and then you're almost | back at the current price point scheme. | hackernewds wrote: | I find it hard to agree with | | > developers manually specify prices for each region, which | wouldn't really scale for a lot of developers | | while this also is more aligned to Apple's goals, unless | there's also a proven and generalized (geographically and at | all price points, app types) observation where the price | looking beautiful as 0.99 massively offsets the actual | revenue gains of being 1.23. | | > "ugly" prices in other regions (no x.00 or x.99 pricing), | unless they had some rounding scheme to make them look nicer, | pavon wrote: | Thanks for that explanation. Is that why the price point | ranges overlap - does the increment you select tell Apple how | much they should round by when converting currency? | | For example, on the surface it seems redundant to have | overlapping prices bands $0.29-$9.99 in | $0.10 increments $0.49-$49.99 in $0.50 increments | | Since 10 cent increments include 50 cent increments, so why | not say: $0.29-$9.99 in $0.10 increments | $9.99-$49.99 in $0.50 increments | hitpointdrew wrote: | You would think a company like Apple could easily build a | system that updated exchange rates daily and could do the | simple math on any price. Having "price points" seems | arbitrarily and stupid. | simonw wrote: | They could do that, but then users in some countries would | have to pay 0.693 of their local currency or whatever. Why | should the US be the only country that gets friendly | looking prices? | jw1224 wrote: | The point is that prices _are friendly-looking_ in every | country. Price points are adjusted in each country, | they're not a 1:1 match with $USD. | TedDoesntTalk wrote: | I'm an American. I routinely buy things in GBP, EUR, and | JPY and the amounts convert to an arbitrary number in | USD. So what? It is displayed to me as 9.99 EUR. I | understand I'm not going to have a nice, pretty .99 at | the end of my credit card transaction. | simonw wrote: | I would expect that the vast majority of human beings | very rarely buy anything in a currency other than that of | their own country. | gumby wrote: | Yes, but you don't know that in the App store: you're | buying from your "local" store regardless of where the | developer is. | bmicraft wrote: | Or just let the dev specify if they want to round prices | to some precision? | cush wrote: | The fact that is seems stupid from the point of view of the | creator is irrelevant. It's not about the creators, it's | about the users. Apple simplifies incredibly complex | systems into good user experiences. | kaba0 wrote: | But it is not just math. It is about what constitutes a | cheap app for an East-European or to a Chinese person vs | that of an American, and how that changes with time in | relation to the currencies. I really don't get this | dismissive mindset, do you honestly believe that a trillion | dollar company didn't think of this one little trick that | you figured out in a minute? | gumby wrote: | Price points smooth the exchange rate fluctuation (how | often should the prices be updated? Every second? More | often?) and selects for prices that have certain | cultural"gravity" as well. | | I think buyers are more accustomed to and comfortable with | "round" or "standard" prices like x.99, x.88, x.95, x.00 | etc rather than x.47 or x.31. | toast0 wrote: | Otoh, there's value in prices holding still for at least a | while. And 'pretty' prices are appealing in general. You | obviously can't hold prices still forever, but daily prices | is probably not paletable. | darth_avocado wrote: | Not to be that guy, but isn't that like, what computers are | for? | crystaln wrote: | Knowing that Apple is pretty smart, I'm sure they use | computers, but only update occasionally so prices aren't | constantly fluctuating. | | Apple loves design and beauty. Crisp numbers and stability | are more user friendly and aesthetic. | slg wrote: | >but lead to "ugly" prices in other regions | | Isn't this change an introduction of those ugly prices? If | I'm reading the new rules correctly, Apple now supports | prices like 7.39 or 37.40. I guess they don't end in a 1-4 or | 6-8, but they aren't the cleanest numbers either. And if that | last digit is really the problem, rounding to the nearest 5 | is always a possibility. | mynameisvlad wrote: | 7.39 should be possible as part of the 10c price step, but | how would you get 37.40 out of the system? You could do | 37.00, 37.90, 37.95, or 37.99 via the "X." ones, and the | first category would all end in X9. | slg wrote: | They say .50 price steps are possible in the 10-50 range | so X.90 + .50. | mynameisvlad wrote: | So the way I read it is as two separate systems: | | Developers can go in 10c price steps from $0.29 to $9.99 | (0.39, 0.49, 0.59, etc), or in 50c price steps from $0.49 | to $49.99 (0.49, 0.99, 1.49, 1.99, etc), etc OR | developers can use the 4 supported conventions for any | price in those ranges, as long as you fit within the | convention. | | But you cannot start at a supported convention and then | use the price steps. | BulgarianIdiot wrote: | Thank you for clarifying this. This is such an Apple thing to | do. | | Frankly it doesn't matter what the exact price is. All | economics are approximate. | decadancer wrote: | I don't think that's a bad practice. I'm Russian and Steam | games are (were) 1.5x-2x times cheaper for Russia compared | to Europe and Americas, even before regional passes. I | don't know whether that was responsiblity of devs or | storefront, but it seemed quite a fair and profitable | practice, because the price point you are willing to pay | for a game (or an app) is different for people from | different economical and cultural backgrounds. You aren't | getting a game for 80$ if your monthly salary is 300 | lzaaz wrote: | This is fair. OTOH, you have the single European market | (the EU forces games, apps, hardware, etc to be sold at | the same price everywhere in the EU in practical terms), | which has shafted poor countries-it's disgraceful that a | Swedish costumer pays the same price for an iPhone than a | Portuguese costumer while making several times as much | money every month. | sofixa wrote: | > OTOH, you have the single European market (the EU | forces games, apps, hardware, etc to be sold at the same | price everywhere in the EU in practical terms), | | That's not true, where are you imagining this from? | Hardware certainly doesn't cost the same, at the very | least there are different VAT levels, but also pricing is | adapted to the local market (literally just checked, i | can get an Asus ROG Zephyrus G14 for 300EUR less in | Bulgaria compared to France). Software I'm unsure how to | check, but Netflix costs varies by county. | lzaaz wrote: | You can buy it directly from Bulgaria to save 300EUR | then. It would be illegal for the shop to tell you you | have to pay more for buying from another country. | | >Software I'm unsure how to check, but Netflix costs | varies by county. | | If it does (I don't think so, the minimal differences are | because of VAT) you can subscribe from another European | country (using a VPN or whatever) and Netflix can't ban | you or block you from using it (like they would if you | bought the subscription from a third world country for | example) | | Is it fair that both Finland and Italy pay 7.99EUR/month | for the basic plan? | | (This is why I said "in practical terms") | decadancer wrote: | That's kinda messed up. ALL hardware? | sofixa wrote: | No, they're mistaken, there is no such thing. | argsnd wrote: | It's not true. That guy doesn't really know what he's | talking about. | alexandre_m wrote: | The economics of all of that seem sketchy to me. | | It sounds like the main North American market is | subsidizing the apps being produced and sold worldwide. | | Does the same logic apply for other virtual good such as | digital music elsewhere? | jonasdegendt wrote: | Entire reseller websites (e.g. g2a) of games and software | alike have popped up trying to profit from this arbitrage | opportunity. You buy games in Russia and an American | scoops up the license key for a little more, it's all | automated too nowadays. | | On the same note, why are Levi's jeans $100 bucks in | Europe, but $40 in the USA? They're probably coming out | of the same Asian factory. Not an economist but different | value propositions I guess. | Mistletoe wrote: | It applies to video games and software for sure. I think | this is why it is almost always cheaper to buy a code | online for something like a Microsoft product. | teawrecks wrote: | Something else to consider is motivating piracy. If they | sell a piece of software for a flat price in all geos, | the ones who can't afford it will invest more time in | pirating the software. As a side effect, piracy is | normalized in those communities as a necessary way of | life in the digital world. Naturally, their tools and | methods will leak out to other communities and make | piracy easier in places that CAN afford them. Devs would | rather sell to those communities at a "loss" than | ostracize them and deal with the fallout. | | Check out this brief description of how software | proliferated in Poland during the early years of | computers (3:09-8:27): https://youtu.be/ffngZOB1U2A | kaba0 wrote: | Well, the economy of that is sketchy in that | multinational corporations pay sometimes an order of | magnitude less for the exact same job simply due to you | living in a different country. | MonkeyMalarky wrote: | I think it applied to DVDs in the past and was impetus | behind region locking media. Also another way to look at | it is less subsidizing and more maximizing profit by not | leaving money on the table in foreign countries. | foota wrote: | It's really the opposite, it's a form of price | discrimination. | | There's a theory of surplus in economics, which is the | extra benefit that someone gets from a transaction above | what they would have been willing to pay. | | If I buy a game that I would have paid $100 for for $50, | then I have a "$50" consumer surplus. One the other end, | if the producer was willing to let that game sell as low | as $40, then they have a producer surplus. | | Profit seeking producers want to capture as much as the | surplus as they can, and they do this through price | discrimination. You see this in product as two things | that are essentially the same but with different | marketing etc., | | Price discrimination based on geography is quite | effective though as well. People with lower incomes | aren't as willing to pay high prices for games. Countries | can be effectively segmented based on geography (whether | virtually or not), and through this producers can charge | a higher price to countries with high incomes (taking | away the consumer surplus they would have had vs a lower | global optimal price), and still get some value out of | consumers in lower income countries. | | So it's not that NA is subsidizing the market, so much as | it is the company trying to squeeze the most of everyone. | Now, you could call it subsidizing in that there are | probably products that wouldn't be brought to market | without the NA market to pay for them, but that's not | really "subsidizing". | not_a_shill wrote: | >Now, you could call it subsidizing in that there are | probably products that wouldn't be brought to market | without the NA market to pay for them, but that's not | really "subsidizing". | | That's every product ever made _for profit_ by a | developer in a 1st world country. It 's still essentially | subsidizing even if you don't like the optics of the | word. | mr_toad wrote: | Subsidising would imply that they're selling in other | markets for a loss. They're not, there's no subsidy. | greiskul wrote: | From popular internet knowledge, games are more expensive | in Australia then NA (Including digital distribution). | Would you say that Australia is subsidizing games for | Americans? | slg wrote: | It isn't really subsidizing because the goods are virtual | which means the marginal costs are minimal. There of | course could be infrastructure costs to get up and | running in a new country. However once that is done, | almost all the marginal revenue developers get out of | these additional markets is profit because there is | practically no cost to selling an extra copy even if it | is at an extremely steep discount. | pvarangot wrote: | It could also be said that the cost of compliance and the | cost coming from the litigiousness of American consumers | shouldn't be subsidized by countries where selling an app | is monumentally easiest and cheaper. | [deleted] | parker_mountain wrote: | > the main North American market is subsidizing the apps | being produced and sold worldwide | | I think you'll find that this has been the practice for | many decades. A stark example is medicine pricing. | zinekeller wrote: | It's not really. The US medical system has this tendency | to inflate pricing in a cat-and-mouse system where drug | companies and insurance companies try to duke out what is | the "correct" price of a drug. Setting it too high and | the insurers won't cover it, too low and the | pharmaceutical companies are "losing" profits to | insurers. It's a terrible feedback loop that hampers | those who can't afford insurance because the premiums are | too high because pharmaceutical companies know that in | most cases insurers will pay. | JustSomeNobody wrote: | > A developer can't just set a price for something? | | Are you crazy? And miss out on yet another opportunity for | Apple to rub their stank on something? | cactus2093 wrote: | Idk, doesn't this happen everywhere? Like at any physical store | most things are $X.99 or $X.00 or $X.49, but not usually | something like $X.31. Maybe this is just a US quirk. | | Apple sees themselves as a storefront not a payment processor, | so maybe the idea is to make things look more consistent as | you're scrolling through or comparing multiple apps. | crgt wrote: | Support for pricing tiers above 1k for one big thing. | barumrho wrote: | One reason I'm aware of is for foreign customers who are buying | in foreign currencies. As a developer, I don't want to set | prices in every currency, so they translate the price grid for | me which I found useful. | kybernetyk wrote: | But they don't fairly translate the price. They just make up | numbers for different currencies. $49.99 translates by | Apple's standards to 59.99 EUR - which is roughly 10 Euros | too much. | Idiot211 wrote: | Does that 59.99 include VAT at 20%? | oakesm9 wrote: | It does, yes | miskin wrote: | Interesting thing is that there is no way (that I could | find) to buy apps in AppStore for my VAT registered | company in a way that I could receive invoice with | company details and all necessities to be able to get VAT | refund. They seem to pretend they are always selling to | private persons and this is not necessary, yet there are | many business apps and I am quite sure for business app | VAT on 10,000 Eur app would hurt. | mr_toad wrote: | Apparently invoices can be obtained by contacting | customer support. | black_puppydog wrote: | Shouldn't that work for _any_ price you give them? It 's | literally a multiplication with a number they pull per-day as | the conversion rate. That wouldn't change if the price wasn't | one of "their" numbers... | barumrho wrote: | This means that for foreign customers of yours, your | product will have constantly fluctuating price. I | personally don't find that desirable. Also, there is some | considerations to be made for purchasing power especially | for items like apps. $1 might be trivial in the US, but it | may not be so in a third world country. | seydor wrote: | that's quite desireable, i mean it's what everything else | in the world does. | delaaxe wrote: | No, not every good in the world is priced in US dollars | and presented as a random number that changes every day | seydor wrote: | pretty much every good is sold on ebay | kergonath wrote: | I never buy anything in dollars on eBay. Sterling, | sometimes, but it's euros 99% of the time. | | Prices on eBay actually look like something a human would | choose. On AliExpress on the other hand the prices are | all over the place, with really odd numbers of cents, | which I assume comes from automatic conversion from | whatever currency they initially priced it in (not | necessarily dollars at that point). | nicoburns wrote: | Not everything sold on ebay is priced in dollars either. | xxpor wrote: | They could offer stickiness settings, like only change | the price once the FX rate has moved 10%. | kergonath wrote: | Yes, they can have a set of rules to set the prices. But | then it's not that different from the current system, | which really is not problematic in the first place. I | know this is the place for pedantic nit picking, but the | fact that prices have some granularity is very much a | non-issue. | | In any case, actually probably have such rules, just not | public. I am sure they have sales people being paid full | time to agonise over such issues. | kaba0 wrote: | How much do you think about spending 5 dollars? How much do | someone who earn 10 times less than you think about that | exact 5 dollars? Price categories absolutely make sense. | __ryan__ wrote: | Not even close. They semi-arbitrarily came up with prices they | allow in the App Store, probably "justifying" it using some | metrics, or your app will be rejected. | threeseed wrote: | Long time ago I used to work at Apple so not sure if it's | still accurate. | | But originally the App Store was leveraging their existing | payment infrastructure e.g. the one they use for iPhone | sales. Purchases and invoices were done through SAP which was | manually configured to support those price points. It's why | you saw weird behaviour e.g. invoices for free app | "purchases" and largely the limitations of that system drove | what they could and could not do. | | Perhaps they've done an overhaul for this system or migrated | to a custom built one which is what has enabled all of this | new functionality. | kneebonian wrote: | > But originally the App Store was leveraging their | existing payment infrastructure e.g. the one they use for | iPhone sales. Purchases and invoices were done through SAP | which was manually configured to support those price | points. | | Can I just say finding out that Apple uses SAP on the | backend is just one of those things that shakes my world | view. | rgovostes wrote: | The guy who originally set up Apple's SAP integration in | the 80s(?) used to run Caffe Frascati, a popular | cafe/music venue in downtown San Jose. | TAForObvReasons wrote: | Amazon used Oracle until a few years ago, Google | accounting teams used Excel, etc. | kccqzy wrote: | Excel? Small and medium companies probably can run on | Excel but I'm sure no large company can run their finance | entirely with Excel. Google switched from Oracle to SAP. | https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/05/google-will-stop-using- | oracl... | mwest217 wrote: | I don't think that's been true for over a decade. Google | has a pretty sophisticated internal payments system that | handles terms customers, invoicing, payment initiation, | and lots more. | | I understand that Cloud specifically is switching to | manage accounting using SAP, but most of Google runs via | our own in-house systems. | | Source: work at Google in payments. This is only my | personal opinion. | orhmeh09 wrote: | Do Google accountants use Sheets? | r00fus wrote: | From one of my internal contacts who worked there & had | to actually interface with the SAP implementation: | | 1) It's one of the largest SAP deployments in the US if | not the world | | 2) SAP (at the time) was the only one who could offer an | ERP that scaled to do what Apple wanted. | | Homegrown enterprise software is one of those things that | sounds great until you realize you're re-inventing a lot | of code dealing with regulations (tax/hr legal) that is | other companies bread & butter so it's worth "paying | their price" rather than getting it wrong and being on | the wrong side of litigation/legislation. | sokoloff wrote: | The only thing I'd rather work on less than SAP is | rolling my own ERP system. | fatnoah wrote: | The press release implies that the chosen price points are | "approachable" for app store customers. | fungiblecog wrote: | Yep, in the old days you would provide the ability to set a | price. now we need teams of marketers to introduce pointless | complexity... | fmajid wrote: | Still no easy way for app developers to handle upgrades. Apple | really wants to push apps towards profitable but exploitative | subscription pricing models. | TheJoeMan wrote: | And selling to business customers who don't have the huge IT | dept. to setup a full Apple Business Account is a nightmare! | Most employees use their own iPhones, and Apple specifically | closed the Volume Purchase Program. | | The VPP was a way for a small company to basically purchase | download codes and distribute as needed. | timeimp wrote: | 10x the number of price points is nuts. | | Then again, at this point, Apple is a treasury operation that | also sells phones and computers. | r00fus wrote: | Braeburn Capital indeed. | CharlesW wrote: | > _10x the number of price points is nuts._ | | When you RTFA, you'll learn that Apple is also making it far | simpler to manage their app pricing in 45 currencies/175 | storefronts. For example: | | _" Starting today, developers of subscription apps will also | be able to manage currency and taxes across storefronts more | effortlessly by choosing a local storefront they know best as | the basis for automatically generating prices across the other | 174 storefronts and 44 currencies. Developers will still be | able to define prices per storefront if they wish. The pricing | capability by storefront will expand to all other apps in | spring 2023."_ | | Additional capabilities are noted in the announcement. | pifm_guy wrote: | This is the real new feature. | | App developers don't want to go choose a competitive price in | every one of 174 locales. | | But they also don't want to be pricing too high or low for | what the local population can afford/is willing to pay. | | Let apple do the fancy machine learning to figure out optimal | translation tables for each locale to maximize revenue. | hackernewds wrote: | Why isn't that presented as an option then, rather than | mandated? I could want to do my own testing | pifm_guy wrote: | It is an option. | chollida1 wrote: | > Then again, at this point, Apple is a treasury operation that | also sells phones and computers. | | I'm guessing you are joking but incase you were not, Apple | still makes far far more from selling new products than they do | from investments. So that statement is false or misleading. | rootusrootus wrote: | By investments do you mean App Store commissions? They do | make quite a lot from that. Not more than they make on | hardware sales, but it's a pretty substantial fraction of | their revenue. | jjtheblunt wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braeburn_Capital | jarrenae wrote: | This seems like a smart move from Apple to continue expanding | into international markets and increasing revenue potential from | their subscription models. | | Offering a wider range of price points will allow developers to | better tailor their pricing to different markets, and it will | also give consumers more flexibility when choosing which apps to | pay for. | | It'll be interesting to see how this change affects the App Store | ecosystem in the coming months, and whether it leads to more | satisfied users or possibly more predatory subscriptions. The | increased flexibility in pricing could be a great benefit for | developers and consumers, but I'm going to keep an eye on how it | impacts the meta of the pricing models. | | EDIT: Not sure why this was flagged/replied to as GPT - I wrote | this. | | In retrospect I could have _not_ summarized parts of the post, | since ideally we 've all read from the source information. Live | and learn. | nine_k wrote: | Thank you, ChatGPT! </ha-ha:only-serious> | robocat wrote: | Good bot. It was 99.98% detected as fake by | https://huggingface.co/openai-detector | [deleted] | [deleted] | [deleted] | partiallypro wrote: | They are still taking 30%. When are regulators going to step in | on this? | sebrind wrote: | My internal reading voice sounds like Tim Cook whenever I read | Apple's announcements | arriu wrote: | So no changes to the 30% yet? | bonestamp2 wrote: | Not since the change in 2020 (where developers earnings less | than $1 million pay 15%). | CharlesW wrote: | Not beyond their most recent change of commission being 15% for | new developers, and developers who made less than $1M in the | previous calendar year. | grezql wrote: | jayrhynas wrote: | They introduced 15% for apps < $1M/year two years ago. | throwaway4837 wrote: | This shouldn't have to exist if it was designed properly from the | start. This seems like backwards technology, something that is | built on top of a legacy system and constrained by the design | choices of that system. Perhaps that is why "upgrade" is in | quotes. | timbre1234 wrote: | Give me an option to search for "no ads" in an app, or give me | nothing. I've simply stopped buying iOS apps because I'm done | with the ad loads. | SomeHacker44 wrote: | Likewise, I want to search for "no IAP" apps. | [deleted] | TrueGeek wrote: | I don't mind IAP necessarily, but it's frustrating when you | download an app and then it immediately says you have to pay | $10 a month to even open it. Those shouldn't be listed as | "free" in the App Store and should be separate from an app | that might be "free" but have a minor feature disabled by an | IAP. | nailer wrote: | Yep. "Ad Supported" is not "free" | duxup wrote: | This might not be what you want but Apple Arcade has slowly | become the place I search for games. Quality of games is very | high. | | No ads, no IAP. As a parent it is also handy for the same | reasons as far as the kids devices go. | JamesSwift wrote: | It really is a great offering, especially when rolled into a | family plan. Lots of high quality games on apple TV as well. | Only problem is the OS limitation so I can't use a lot of | older iPads I have lying around. | MBCook wrote: | Same. | | My only issue is as a long time iPhone user they have a lot | of games labeled as "+" which means it was previously | available but had cost money. | | There are many great games, but they're not with a lot to me | as I've already played them. | | Great for people who hadn't though. | lattalayta wrote: | Out of curiosity, how do you feel about an app that is free to | download but has ads, but has an In App Purchase to remove the | ads? | | Reading some of the other comments, it sounds like some people | really hate ads and in app purchases | nreilly wrote: | If the in-app purchase to remove ads is shareable across the | family, then that's fine. If not, I'd prefer to just buy the | app and have it share across my kids iPads instead. | nickthegreek wrote: | I want to search for no subs. I dont want to see a result for a | $5/week wallpaper app. | intrasight wrote: | What's a "sub"? | 369548684892826 wrote: | subscription (ongoing payment for app) | metal_am wrote: | Subscription | aeternum wrote: | No subs and no ads would be great. | nomel wrote: | I think that would be better covered by a "one time | purchase" option. Otherwise, you're asking for either a | "starve the dev" category, or something shadier like "show | all apps that monetize my location". | hackernewds wrote: | There are models that work with barely any ads and subs. | Google Maps is a great example. | colejohnson66 wrote: | Google Maps is full of ads. They're just not the kind | you're used to. The POI it decides to show is partially a | money game. | nickthegreek wrote: | No reason not to give the end use the flags for | searching. You either get results or you don't. If | someone wants to make a simple calculator and not charge | for it, they should be allowed to do so and ideally apple | will give the tools to the user to find such an app. | | Also, devs still do put ads in some purchasable apps So | just having a "one time purchase" toggle doesnt solve the | problem. | devmor wrote: | Same here. It's ridiculous that I should pay for an app and | have to deal with banners and popups regardless. | kybernetyk wrote: | Will this solve the issue that the $49.99 tier equals to a 59.99 | EUR price? I get a ton of messages every week by would-be Euro | customers complaining why the fuck I am fleecing them with a | 59.99 EUR price when the US price is $49.99 and the exchange rate | is currently roughly 1:1. | zimzam wrote: | When it comes to differences in hardware prices between the US | & EU, VAT taxes are often most of the difference: are there VAT | taxes on app sales too? | pasc1878 wrote: | The EUR price includes VAT, | | Americans have this odd thing of quoting prices without tax | which tends to be illegal elesewhere. OK the US does not have a | sales type tax on digital goods, | dhosek wrote: | Depends on the location. Sales taxes are determined at the | state, county and municipal level and apply to different | things in different places (so, for example, Illinois does | not charge sales tax on magazines, but California does, and | the tax rate on a single donut may be higher than the tax | rate on a dozen donuts (prepared food vs groceries). | awinder wrote: | Digital goods are taxed and my apple app receipts all have a | tax line on them (US-based). | chongli wrote: | We have the same thing in Canada. Taxes are not included in | the price so that people can be aware of how much tax they're | paying and adjust their behaviour accordingly. Since sales | taxes are charged on some products but not others, the price- | conscious consumer can elect to choose the tax-free products | over the tax-burdened ones. | CameronNemo wrote: | ??? | | If taxes are included in price, the consumer can just look | at the price and compare rather than jumping through the | additional mental hoop to determine if one item is subject | to sales tax, and what its price is in tgat case. | yamtaddle wrote: | It's one of those things that's advocated by tax-haters | and _seems_ like it might do what they say it does, but | in practice just makes life more annoying while doing | nothing useful. See also: having to manually file taxes, | no matter how simple. | chongli wrote: | If you have two items and sales taxes are included in the | price of one but not the other, the only way you can know | which one has the taxes on it is to go look at some | government website that lists all of the categories the | tax applies to and those it does not. | | On the other hand, if the taxes are not included in | prices then you will see which one has taxes at checkout | and elect not to purchase the item with taxes, preferring | the item without taxes. | | Furthermore, with taxes included in prices you are more | susceptible to unscrupulous vendors charging taxes that | should not be applied and pocketing the extra margins. | One example of that is with the manufacturer of Niche | coffee grinders charging VAT to international customers | and pocketing the extra margin. | Strom wrote: | > _the only way you can know which one has the taxes on | it is to go look at some government website_ | | In Europe the tax is listed separately on the bill by | law, no need to visit any website. | trophycase wrote: | It's not about the consumer. The price is listed before | tax to manipulate you into feeling like it's cheaper. If | they add tax while you check out, you're basically | already committed to purchasing the product. | SllX wrote: | There's a reason for that: we don't have VAT like you do. | | Here's an example: a base model iPhone 14 is $799. If I go to | the Downtown San Francisco Apple Store, it is $868.12; if I | go across a bridge to the Berkeley Apple Store it is $880.90; | if I go from there across a different bridge to Corte Madera | it is $870.91; if I go back through San Francisco down to the | neighboring county to the Hillsdale Apple Store it is | $875.90; and if I buy it in Cupertino, then it is $871.91. If | I cross the State border with Oregon and go to an Apple Store | in Tigard or Portland, then it is $799. | | Which is the price Apple should be showing on the Apple | Store? They tell you at checkout because what you pay at the | end is calculated according to your shipping address, and | it's a line item: sales tax, but pricing is also marketing. | Which price should Apple be quoting their American customers | in national ad campaigns? | Strom wrote: | European states have different VAT rates too. A company | advertises 999EUR and then depending on the state it can be | either 832,5EUR + 166,5EUR VAT or 839,5EUR + 159,5EUR VAT | or 799,2EUR + 199,8EUR VAT etc. | | In the case of Apple they sometimes do this and other times | not. So for example the iPhone 14 is 999EUR in both Germany | and Austria, even though they have 19% vs 20% VAT rates. | However in Finland which has a 24% rate the iPhone 14 is | 1039EUR. | SllX wrote: | And does Apple have one Apple Online Store and App Store | for the Eurozone or do they have separate Online and App | Stores for each EU member they operate in in the local | languages and currencies (for the EU and Eurozone are not | even perfectly aligned)? | | Almost every example I gave was within one State: | California, except for the two I tacked on at the end | from California's nearest northern neighbor in Oregon. | All of the California examples were within the same metro | area (the San Francisco Bay Area) but different counties. | There is one US website, and one US App Store. | | It is not the same situation, only seemingly | superficially similar until further inspection. | Strom wrote: | Local municipality taxes exist in Europe too. Some cities | have an extra 1% tax for example and Apple isn't exempt | from that. The price still remains what they advertise | for the larger region. | richrichardsson wrote: | VAT, everyone forgets about it. | | I had a similar conversation with someone on Twitter | complaining that the latest iPhone was much more expensive in | EU, but once you factored in VAT and some import costs and the | fact that apple.com shows the $ price without any sales tax | there wasn't actually such a great disparity. | shortstuffsushi wrote: | As an American who deals in no VAT ever, is something like a | 20% vat (10 on 50) normal? | CameronNemo wrote: | Yes. | | https://taxfoundation.org/vat-rates-europe-2019/ ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-12-06 23:00 UTC)