Re:Apple announces changes to iOS, Safari, and the App Store...
by dns_snek on Friday January 26, 2024 @06:21AM
(#39141389)
> Only if the app makes a series of decisions that lead to that outcome.
Isn't that convenient, a series of (dis)incentives which ensure the house always wins, not just on average, but 100% of the time. Something that a certain piece of anti-trust regulation is intended to change?
Re:Apple announces changes to iOS, Safari, and the App Store...
by ankit219 on Friday January 26, 2024 @06:25AM
(#39141418)
It makes sense for apps which have a high ARPU. In gaming and related sectors, the number is notoriously low, even for large developers. The flow is new user installs app -> fraction keeps the app -> even smaller fraction pays. Typically even for a 10% paying users for an app like fortnite. Apple earns more with new terms compared to older terms.
I agree devs dont have to go for new terms and could stay with existing terms. The whole convoluted way of introducing this is meant to have that effect.
Only if the app makes a series of decisions that lead to that outcome.
They can either stick with the 15%/30% commission without install fees. Let’s assume it has a revenue of >$1m, so that would be 30%.
Or they can opt into the new EU offering.
Then they’re immediately subject to a €0.50/unique install in 12 months per install in the EU over they reach a 1M installs in the EU.
The baseline is just that, that install fee. Which Apple calls the Core Technology Fee (CTF), in other words a fee for using Apple’s IP in your app.
If they also choose to distribute via the App Store then they’ll pay a commission of 17% and if they also choose to use IAP then they pay an additional 3% in processing fees.
Ironically, the CTF pushes bigger devs to use alternative stores, assuming they will offer a lower commission rate than 17%.
But it’s definitely possible to only pay the CTF if so desired.