> it's okay asking for ... a 30% cut to offer the user the convenience of paying via IAP rather than enter a credit card number

I do agree with you that it is ok (and arguably "fair") for Apple to charge a 30% fee for the convenience of IAPs. However, the real debate here is that some developers don't want IAPs, so should Apple be allowed to force them to add them?

Like the current HEY example, the developers aren't even taking money in the app, or allowing sign-ups in the app. You must be an already existing customer to use the app. But Apple is strong-arming them to add this functionality and to use these APIs that Apple gets a cut through. Should Apple be allowed to force them to add an feature to sign up and pay in the app (a function that was never planned or intended by the developers) just so that Apple can get their cut.

In OP's post he was strong-armed the same way. He had no need for any IAPs at all. He didn't even let users sign up in the app. In fact, the title of his app included the phrase "Existing users only". Yet Apple forced him to add functionality to enable IAP in the app to sign up new users, when his app is literally titled and designed around existing users and not new users. I would argue that this triggers the Anti-trust alarm bells.

Sure if you want to take advantage of the convenience that IAP provides, then let Apple charge whatever they want. If the amount is too high then developers would stop using it because it wouldn't match the value that Apple provides by their convenience. But what if I don't need in-app-purchases. Should developers be forced to add them when the app isn't even designed to use/need them? What if a developer doesn't need the convenience of IAPs and wants to take a credit card themselves? Shouldn't they be allowed to? The only argument that Apple makes in this fight is "We own the platform that ~50% of American smartphones, and if you want to participate in that market then you need to share the wealth you generate". Again, it sounds an awful lot like a monopoly.

Another example is Kindle and Audible. Apple won't let users buy Kindle or Audible books through the iOS App even though Amazon already has those credit cards associated with its' users' accounts. Kindle could enable one-click purchases (or even force you to type in a credit card every time), but Apple won't let them sell any books at all through the iOS app, citing the same rules as above.

I think the reasoning behind IAPs is not that IAP is provided as a convenience service to developers, but that IAPs represent value to the iOS users.

If you're using iOS and searching through the app store and then download an app, being able to sign up and pay via the app is useful to you. If you download an app and it doesn't do anything, and you can't sign up or pay via the app then that's a bad experience.

The problem with this argument is it's a lot weaker when Apple also forces you to pay a massive tax when enabling this. I think the argument would be a lot stronger if they forced IAP compatibility, but didn't take a cut and just charged a reasonable up front fee to list on the app store.

I'd argue even an up front fee is unnecessary though. I'm happy with Apple curating the app store to prevent spam and low quality applications, I'm happy with them forcing standards like IAP, but I'm not happy with them controlling the store and then rent seeking.

Apple should make money from making and selling incredible products. That's why people love them.

They do charge an upfront fee, it’s $100 per year for a developer to be allowed to publish an app, regardless of if the app is free or paid or uses IAP.

I think that's reasonable. The profit sharing is not.

$100 a year is nothing considering just the time it takes to review an app.

Apple is the one that insists on reviewing each app so it's the one that should pay for it.

Right because the alternative has worked real well - letting any random app on the store. I specifically don’t download any random crap on my computer but I do on my iOS devices. You can’t even trust known companies like DropBox and Zoom. They have both done shady things on the Mac.

I’m sure you also think that physical good stores should bare all of the cost and allow companies to sell things for free without a markup...

Surrendering freedom and giving power to unelected people, be they monarchs, dictators or CEOs, has never worked well.

> I?m sure you also think that physical good stores should bare all of the cost and allow companies to sell things for free without a markup...

I'm sure you know that's a strawman.

Well we can talk theory or we can hobby history. How well has the open ecosystem on computers worked for the average consumer? Viruses, malware, ransomware, adware dozens of toolbars on their browser, programs randomly uploading their contacts, etc.

I know plenty of people who won’t download random apps on their computer but will on their mobile devices. Because they have had bad experiences before.

Nobody wants to force people to download apps from untrustworthy sources or to ban app stores.

> it should be okay to charge the user 30% extra for that convenience as well

Maybe, but that's a pointless stance. The practical consequence is that a product is likely priced to maximize (num units sold x profit per unit), and the higher price (143% of what was planned), will lead to a (probably steep) drop in the size of the target audience. FWIW, on a macro level economists worry about analogous problems for a ~1% percent increase in sales tax, so Apple's 30% cut is definitely a huge negative impact.

BTW, this is a great example of an ultimatum game that Apple is playing with developers. It is possible that developers collectively taking the (short-term) "irrational" step of pushing Apple's margin on to users (and being very vocal and explicit about this as a "penalty") might catalyze the users to pressurize Apple about the margins.

That's not what is abusive. It's fine to charge that markup, it's not fine to force all transactions (even ones that should have been off-platform), to have that markup.

It sounds like Apple is requiring IAP integration. I think that's what DHH is upset about.

Sure, but I don't see any major downsides in having to add IAP and getting the same subscription fees from people who use it as everyone else. I'd say giving users more options is always good.

One major downside is that once you implement IAP in a cross platform proudct, you then have a different class of subscriptions occurring and being managed outside your platform. Subscriptions which have to conform to Apple's policies around renewal and cancellation. This introduces business, backend and accounting considerations.

The issue is that you're not allowed to link to the non-IAP option from the app or even tell users that it exists.

If most users are unaware they have the option, it's not really an option.

>Sure, but I don't see any major downsides in having to add IAP

Technical debt, added complexity, additional user support, the overhead of having forked subscriptions in the userbase...

I actually don't agree with DHH here, just pointing out the difference. I think Apple has every right to expect a cut of developer revenue given how much they invest in the iOS platform.

The iOS platform would not be viable without developers.

I think Apple has every right to expect developers to pay to be part of their platform, which they already charge for through an annual fee. Expecting a "cut" of every developer's "revenue", even when the product is a cross platform software product, seems extreme.

Would you be okay if Apple charged more for developer fees? A per app fee? A per app update fee?

Can I pay a one time fee to get a product stocked at any retailer?

> Would you be okay if Apple charged more for developer fees? A per app fee? A per app update fee?

Yes, I would be fine with any of those scenarios.

A $1,000 fee to add your app to the app store would be more preferable to me than a nebulous rule about taking 30% of my gross revenue and having Apple dictate to me what my overall business model needs to look like.

> Can I pay a one time fee to get a product stocked at any retailer?

To compare what is going on here with a traditional retail environment is really an apples and oranges comparison. If Apple wants to take my app, price it and sell it at markup, be my guest.

What they are doing is more like if Best Buy forced Nest to give it 30% of every Nest cloud subscription on Nest devices bought in Best Buy retail outlets. Or if Best Buy forced Apple to give it 30% of iCloud subscription fees for MacBooks sold from within Best Buy retail outlets, only after Apple implemented "Best Buy Payments" into it's MacOS software to ensure those fees were collected.

The 30% cut is a 43% markup. Price your app accordingly. You can even price your subscriptions differently depending on where they subscribe.

Apple tried exactly that - to let booksellers set their own prices and they just mark them up. That’s what the publishers wanted instead of Amazon’s pricing ebooks as a loss leader - devaluing the paperbacks and hardbacks. It was shot down by the justice department.