What do you think about apple not refunding developer the full amount?( retracted)

[The Sloth]

Edit the person lied

https://mobile.twitter.com/twolivesleft/status/1288625617873694721

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think 

• Customer buys IAP for 20$ and pays to Apple.
• Apple proceeds 14$ to us and keeps 6$ commission.
• Customer cancels within 14 days and receives 20$ back from Apple.
• Apple charges us 20$ (14$ from initial proceeds + 6$ for commission)

So you end up loosing 6$ in the end. Thought- Keep in mind, refunds on the app store are not easy as Google play or steam, so less consumers refund. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Big devs might get a different contract.  

 

Quote

original tweet 

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/twolivesleft/status/1288344977169235968

 

 

 

 

 

My thought

 

 

This really sucks, hopefully they get questioned about this. For a massive company, it's sucks how they take advantage of the smaller devs with not a lot of negation power. 

 

This shit has been a issue since 2009, when the app store launched. They got away due to contracts devs have to sign and most apps being free with Ads. 

 

 

 

Quote

In the event that Apple receives any notice or claim from any end-user that: (i) the end-user wishes to cancel its license to any of the Licensed Applications within ninety (90) days of the date of download of that Licensed Application by that end-user; or (ii) a Licensed Application fails to conform to Your specifications or Your product warranty or the requirements of any applicable law, Apple may refund to the end-user the full amount of the price paid by the end-user for that Licensed Application. In the event that Apple refunds any such price to an end-user, You shall reimburse, or grant Apple a credit for, an amount equal to the price for that Licensed Application. Apple will have the right to retain its commission on the sale of that Licensed Application, notwithstanding the refund of the price to the end.

 

https://techcrunch.com/2009/03/25/apples-iphone-app-refund-policies-could-bankrupt-developers/ 

 

 

Edit the person lied,  

https://mobile.twitter.com/twolivesleft/status/1288625617873694721

[The Sloth]

5 minutes ago, The Sloth said:

 

 

I think 

• Customer buys IAP for 20$ and pays to Apple.
• Apple proceeds 14$ to us and keeps 6$ commission.
• Customer cancels within 14 days and receives 20$ back from Apple.
• Apple charges us 20$ (14$ from initial proceeds + 6$ for commission)

So you end up loosing 6$ in the end. Thought- Keep in mind, refunds on the app store are not easy as Google play or steam, so less consumers refund. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Big devs might get a different contract.  

 

 

 

TLDR- Devs can have negative revenue due to refund due to apple charging devs their 30% despite it being a refund. 

 

 

My thought

 

 

This really sucks, hopefully they get questioned about this. For a massive company, it's sucks how they take advantage of the smaller devs with not a lot of negation power. 

 

This shit has been a issue since 2009, when the app store launched. They got away due to contracts devs have to sign and most apps being free with Ads. 

 

 

 

 

https://techcrunch.com/2009/03/25/apples-iphone-app-refund-policies-could-bankrupt-developers/ 

 

 

 

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

I understand if this is to deter developers from submitting stuff that outright doesn't work or is misleading for the user (though granted Apple should have much tighter Q&A to prevent stuff like this from slipping through since they're so worried about the user experience). But since a user could still issue a refund when they didn't bother read the application description carefully, that's brutal for app developers. Especially for smaller ones. Looks like Apple is taking the Costco approach. 

[aisle9]

As a former eBay seller whose ass is still sore from all the times eBay violated it, I both feel the devs' pain and have little sympathy for them at the same time.

[dizmo]

I don't really see it as that much of an issue. You're using their service, and if you weren't, you wouldn't be reaching anywhere near the number of users you are.

 

One could easily go the other way, and say if you had made a great app, it wouldn't be refunded in enough of a number that it would negatively affect you. Don't want to go into negative revenue? Don't make shit apps.

 

Refunds should be factored into any business model. Take clothing, for instance. If you get a return, most of the time that item is a complete loss. You're losing a lot more than you are here.

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

Just now, aisle9 said:

As a former eBay seller whose ass is still sore from all the times eBay violated it, I both feel the devs' pain and have little sympathy for them at the same time.

Another victim of the eBay GSP eh?

 

[aisle9]

3 minutes ago, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

Another victim of the eBay GSP eh?

 

Actually, no, but only because I never allowed anything to go out via GSP. Like, ever. If you wanted to buy from me, you had better be in one of the 50 United States, period. International, even territorial sales were just too big a pain in the ass. Even then, I have a few stories of people who used freight forwarders being a pain in the nuts. My best stories are all domestic, believe it or not.

 

But yeah, I understand why Apple is doing it, just like I pretend to understand why PayPal keeps your transaction fee if you issue a refund. It's on paper to prevent refunds from being abused or discourage chronic bad-faith sellers/devs. In practice, it's to pad profits. That's really all there is to it. Doesn't make me think it's a good practice, but I get why it's a practice at all.

[The Sloth]

1 hour ago, dizmo said:

Don't want to go into negative revenue? Don't make shit apps.

What if someone refund bombs you? or the users didn't read the description carefully?  If you are a small time dev selling to a niche audience, this practice is really discouraging.  

 

 

[dizmo]

6 minutes ago, The Sloth said:

What if someone refund bombs you? or the users didn't read the description carefully?  If you are a small time dev selling to a niche audience, this practice is really discouraging.  

 

 

Again, one person. If you can't support the financial cost of refunds, then your app clearly isn't viable for mass release, or you're business model needs work.

[The Sloth]

1 hour ago, dizmo said:

Again, one person. If you can't support the financial cost of refunds, then your app clearly isn't viable for mass release, or you're business model needs work.

Bit of a anecdotal story. I used to sell a  bunch of icons around 2013 to 2016. sold about 20- 35k( overall) total, had 300 refund, so using apples rule, i would have to pay 900$ to Google for people not liking a icon pack? because, it didn't fit into their theme or something. 

 

Not everything is a massive business, some people might have a small hobby. "mass release" might be only a few sales. This hurts small devs. This is a massive discouragement to people who are students with no money, wanted to get some real life experience. 

 

 

This is not a physical good, keep maybe 5% but the whole 30%? that seems a bit excessive. 

 

 

Yes, back then google did absorb the cost, that's what made me choose the google play store. 

 

 

Not anymore, it sucks - https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/2741495?hl=en-GB

 

 

 

For reference, have you ever made or sold a app on the Google/ apple App store? 

 

 

Also some customers can be dumb, we did get refund bomb by this person, who wanted a bunch of Icon we didn't have, they did end up getting banned. 

 

 

Please compare digital goods to digital and physical goods to physical, they are two different ball game.  In this case, google play store is the direct comparison. 

[harryk]

2 hours ago, dizmo said:

I don't really see it as that much of an issue. You're using their service, and if you weren't, you wouldn't be reaching anywhere near the number of users you are.

 

One could easily go the other way, and say if you had made a great app, it wouldn't be refunded in enough of a number that it would negatively affect you. Don't want to go into negative revenue? Don't make shit apps.

 

Refunds should be factored into any business model. Take clothing, for instance. If you get a return, most of the time that item is a complete loss. You're losing a lot more than you are here.

Agreed.

 

Apple's cut is really a service fee. The devs still use that service even if there is a refund (actually more so). Refunds always cost the seller money. If a customer returns an iPhone to Best Buy, Best Buy still has to pay their staff, the electric bill etc.

[The Sloth]

18 minutes ago, harryk said:

Agreed.

 

Apple's cut is really a service fee. The devs still use that service even if there is a refund (actually more so). Refunds always cost the seller money. If a customer returns an iPhone to Best Buy, Best Buy still has to pay their staff, the electric bill etc.

FYI, it costs a lot more to sell physical goods, that's why amazon can have lower prices.  FYI Iphones can be bough from Ebay, Walmart, Target, Bestbuy and FROM APPLE( directly, so they make more profit) even used from EBay or locally , unlike that, only way to get Apps is from the App store in IOS, so a monopoly, do you really think they deserve that 30% cut from not selling an app? why not 5% for less for a refund, they didn't sell anything. 

 

 

 

ALT store is a BS argument, since it takes too many steps for a normal person to use, also has issues with stability. 

 

 

 

Please compare digital goods to digital and physical goods to physical, they are two different ball game.  In this case, google play store is the direct comparison. 

[dizmo]

19 minutes ago, The Sloth said:

Bit of a anecdotal story. I used to sell a  bunch of icons around 2013 to 2016. sold about 20- 35k( overall) total, had 300 refund, so using apples rule, i would have to pay 900$ to Google for people not liking a icon pack? because, it didn't fit into their theme or something. 

 

Not everything is a massive business, some people might have a small hobby. "mass release" might be only a few sales. This hurts small devs. This is a massive discouragement to people who are students with no money, wanted to get some real life experience. 

 

This is not a physical good, keep maybe 5% but the whole 30%? that seems a bit excessive. 

 

Yes, back then google did absorb the cost, that's what made me choose the google play store. 

Don't get me wrong, google changed the rule after realizing, they can earn more money. 

 

https://9to5google.com/2017/02/23/google-play-refund-48-hour-developer-payouts/

 

For reference, have you ever made or sold a app on the Google/ apple App store? 

 

Also some customers can be dumb, we did get refund bomb by this person, who wanted a bunch of Icon we didn't have, they did end up getting banned. 

Yup. You used their service to get the product out there and gain massive exposure. Regardless of whether the person liked it or not.

 

You don't need to be a massive business to account for returns. If you don't sell enough to cover your returns, then you probably shouldn't bother with the product, or you should improve it, as it's clearly grossly lacking or buggy.

 

Even at the low end, you're taking away $900 from a profit of $120,000. That's minuscule.

 

I haven't, no, however I have had a business selling physical goods, which is significantly more complicated than digital goods.

 

18 minutes ago, harryk said:

Agreed.

 

Apple's cut is really a service fee. The devs still use that service even if there is a refund (actually more so). Refunds always cost the seller money. If a customer returns an iPhone to Best Buy, Best Buy still has to pay their staff, the electric bill etc.

Not to mention loss of value, as it's no longer a new product and can't be sold as such.

Is 30% a lot? Perhaps. But it's also a digital item that, really, you'd have no other way to reach that many people.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, dizmo said:

Again, one person. If you can't support the financial cost of refunds, then your app clearly isn't viable for mass release, or you're business model needs work.

That would be fine if the 30% they didn't get refunded was only covering incurred expenses.  But it's not, it includes apples profit as well.  That is BS.  Imagine if every time a retailer had to refund a product to a customer the retailer demanded the manufacturer pay their profit margin on top of incurred costs.    There is cost to doing business at all levels, not one level should have no risk and the other levels have to cover it.  

[dizmo]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

That would be fine if the 30% they didn't get refunded was only covering incurred expenses.  But it's not, it includes apples profit as well.  That is BS.  Imagine if every time a retailer had to refund a product to a customer the retailer demanded the manufacturer pay their profit margin on top of incurred costs.    There is cost to doing business at all levels, not one level should have no risk and the other levels have to cover it.  

They could easily call it a service fee, and be done with it. The service of you getting the exposure that their platform provides.

Take the OPs example. He sold 20k to 35k units. His returns cost him a whopping $900. Do you think he'd have gotten as much exposure off platform? No.

Apple fulfilled their end of the arrangement; they gave said item to the consumer. It's not their fault the person didn't like it.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, dizmo said:

They could easily call it a service fee, and be done with it.

No they can't, that 30% includes their profit, service costs have to be less than that.

2 minutes ago, dizmo said:

The service of you getting the exposure that their platform provides.

Take the OPs example. He sold 20k to 35k units. His returns cost him a whopping $900. Do you think he'd have gotten as much exposure off platform? No.

Apple fulfilled their end of the arrangement; they gave said item to the consumer. It's not their fault the person didn't like it.

 

Are you trying to argue that the 30% apple keep is totally made up of advertising costs and transactions costs?  That's  BS, some of that is profit and you know it, it's highly likely that more than half of it is pure profit for apple and by them taking a profit cut from a failed transaction is criminal.

 

This reminds me of when bands were told by pub owners that the exposure was their payment,  and that the pub was actually doing the band a favor by allowing them to play.

 

Bullshit excuses for Bullshit behavior.

 

 

[dizmo]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

No they can't, that 30% includes their profit, service costs have to be less than that.

 

Are you trying to argue that the 30% apple keep is totally made up of advertising costs and transactions costs?  That's  BS, some of that is profit and you know it, it's highly likely that more than half of it is pure profit for apple and by them taking a profit cut from a failed transaction is criminal.

 

This reminds me of when bands were told by pub owners that the exposure was their payment,  and that the pub was actually doing the band a favor by allowing them to play.

 

Bullshit excuses for Bullshit behavior.

You do realize that a service fee doesn't have to be representative of cost, right?

Yes, I do know it. You're using their platform, they're entitled to charge you whatever they want. Don't like it? Go somewhere else. Period.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

1 hour ago, harryk said:

If a customer returns an iPhone to Best Buy, Best Buy still has to pay their staff, the electric bill etc.

You are right. In Apple's case, they have to pay the wage of the accountant counting all the money they make off other people's work, for example.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, dizmo said:

You do realize that a service fee doesn't have to be representative of cost, right?

Yes, I do know it. You're using their platform, they're entitled to charge you whatever they want. Don't like it? Go somewhere else. Period.

Apple:: you pay us profit when you sell,  and you pay our profit when you have to refund.

Apple consumer: You should be happy to pay their profit out of your pocket and be grateful for the exposure.

 

Apple, the only retailer to keep their profit at the expense of the producer when a refund occurs.

[The Sloth]

20 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Even at the low end, you're taking away $900 from a profit of $120,000. That's minuscule.

 

I wish, it was less then that but close. imagine  that but at a much smaller scale. Lets say, you make a 1$ icon pack, sold 100, 20 people didn't like it, Do you think it's fair to say, they deserve to get foot with the 9$ bill? That seems unfair. 

 

23 minutes ago, dizmo said:

You used their service to get the product out there and gain massive exposure.

No, you don't. We got our exposure from youtuber, android theme, NCIX forum...ect. Trust me, Google play store really is not giving you much exposure as you think. Also exposure doesn't mean much when no one is buying your goods. 

 

4 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Yes, I do know it. You're using their platform, they're entitled to charge you whatever they want. Don't like it? Go somewhere else. Period.

Unfortunate monopoly, it sucks. That doesn't mean you defend them. 

 

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Apple, the only retailer to keep their profit at the expense of the producer when a refund occurs.

I can imagine Costco doing the same thing actually now that I think of it. All I know is that they can just dump returned stock at the doorstep of the manufacturer for them to deal with. 

[dizmo]

5 minutes ago, The Sloth said:

I wish, it was less then that but close. imagine  that but at a much smaller scale. Lets say, you make a 1$ icon pack, sold 100, 20 people didn't like it, Do you think it's fair to say, they deserve to get foot with the 9$ bill? That seems unfair. 

 

No, you don't. We got our exposure from youtuber, android theme, NCIX forum...ect. Trust me, Google play store really is not giving you much exposure as you think. Also exposure doesn't mean much when no one is buying your goods. 

 

Unfortunate monopoly, it sucks. That doesn't mean you defend them.

Yes. I find that perfectly fair. If you find that $9 unfair, you should have charged more, so that it took less of your profits.

 

The fact it's on there at all is what I was referring to. You're going to get many, many times fewer downloads if you were to try and get people to download it off of a site, for example. If no one's buying it, then you've developed a shit product.

 

I don't agree with your viewpoint. So yes, I will defend their choice to charge the 30%, as it's their platform and their entirely within their right to do so, just like you're entirely within your right to sell your goods elsewhere. Want to sell on Apples store? You pay their fees.

[mr moose]

It's always the same old rhetoric,  apple hits their developers over the head with a hammer then the apple cult start telling the developers they should pay apple a service fee to cover the cost of damage to the hammer.

 

 

[spartaman64]

you realize that apple gets something out of having apps on their devices right? if there are no apps nobody would buy their devices. and just because it wouldnt make the app company go bankrupt doesnt mean its ok. if i go to a cash register at a market and took all the money they probably wont go bankrupt but its still not ok. also gangs charging people protection money can argue all they way that they are providing a service of protection that doesnt make that ok either

also apple probably offers zero advertising for the vast majority of apps

[SpaceGhostC2C]

2 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

you realize that apple gets something out of having apps on their devices right? if there are no apps nobody would buy their devices

Apple makes devices and charges developers to have their software in it.

Microsoft makes software and charges device makers to have its software on their devices.

Two examples, and money goes in opposite directions.

 

Why don't developers charge Apple for having their software? Why don't device makers charge Microsoft for "exposure"?

The answer, of course, isn't costs, service fees, restocking fees, or any of that: in both cases the answer is market power (bargaining power more generally if you will).