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

[mr moose]

28 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

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).

The difference is Microsoft don't charge their developers or computer makers a profit margin when the product has to be refunded. 

[harryk]

1 hour ago, The Sloth said:

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. 

Because it cost Apple the same to host the app on their servers and provide the download to the customer. There is no reason for Apple to reduce their fee in the event of a refund except for them being nice.

 

I'm not well-versed on business or Apple's own expenses so I can't defend or attack Apple's choice of 30%. It may be too high or not, I really do not know.

 

Personally I think a flat fee for each app downloaded might make more sense. Every time your app is downloaded Apple charges you $0.30 (for example). This would truly be a service fee and I think be more fair. At least in theory every app download costs Apple the same to support so why not charge everyone the same. Obviously this method would be detrimental to devs who make free apps, and would probably be unpopular. 

 

[TetraSky]

If we were talking about a single, low digit percentage, it might have been a different story considering that's basically the type of fees credit cards charges to merchants in the event of a refund. (like 2 or 3% if I remember correctly)

But 30% is a LOT. Even more so when the devs never saw that money in the first place.

 

Considering everything HAS to go through Apple, be it the apps themselves or micro-transactions, imagine parents refunding one of those 500$ micro-scams in whatever app that their precious little monster bought "without their permission"... That's 150$ that a dev would owe Apple for that refund. It's disgusting is what it is.

 

If a refund is initiated, Apple shouldn't get to have their cake and eat it too. They should refund that 30% or maybe only keep up to 5% as a service fee, instead of keeping it all and making the devs pay out such a huge difference of their pockets. 

 

Turned out to be false. Good to know.

[danomicar]

My feeling is that the 30% is the platform fee. You are leveraging Apple's resources in order to sell your app. Products may still be returned, but ultimately Apple is facilitating all of that. I don't think it's fair to expect all of your money back if the app is paid for and refunded through Apple's platform. 

 

If you dislike it, offer your app on a different platform or host your own. Clearly you can see the alternative doesn't carry as much firepower as the Apple appstore, hence why they can charge the 30% margin and get away with it.

 

Also if your app is truly a good product, your returns will be pale in comparison to your satisfied customers. Otherwise, your product is trash and you don't deserve to sell on a platform at zero cost to yourself. 

[The Sloth]

2 hours ago, danomicar said:

Also if your app is truly a good product, your returns will be pale in comparison to your satisfied customers. Otherwise, your product is trash and you don't deserve to sell on a platform at zero cost to yourself. 

excellent argument, pat your self on the back for that one. 

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, danomicar said:

you don't deserve to sell on a platform at zero cost to yourself. 

No one is saying it should be zero cost to the developer, they are saying it shouldn't be more than it has to be just because apple want to keep the profit as if the sale stayed good.   If the product gets refunded then apple should lose their markup as well, not take it from the developer.

 

In this situation apple are basically making the developer responsible for all losses and taking a profit from them on top of that.  That's not how business works.   If a sale is reversed, the shop loses it's commission and he manufacture loses it's sale.   Profit comes from the sale of an item, no sale means no profit, the shop can't demand the manufacturer/developer pay them the profit when no revenue was made.   

 

The bit in bold is the important bit,  it is the thing people have problems with, not the bit before it.

 

For the life of me I can't understand why anyone is happy to accept that.

[NineEyeRon]

There needs to be A few but they maybe could cut it by 40% or something in exceptional circumstances.

[The Sloth]

@BlueChinchillaEatingDorito@aisle9@dizmo@harryk @mr moose @SpaceGhostC2C @spartaman64 @TetraSky @danomicar @NineEyeRon

 

 

Updated, The person messed up numbers. It seems like around 2016, apple eliminated that term of service. Sorry for the misinformation, should have looked into it more before posting. 

 

 

Sorry

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

As a side note, it was eyeopening to see how many people defended this stupid moronic practice when it was believed to be real. Please use your brain and don't defend a trillion dollar corporation. Call them out, when they do a dumb thing. 

[NineEyeRon]

8 minutes ago, The Sloth said:

As a side note, it was eyeopening to see how many people defended this stupid moronic practice when it was believed to be real. Please use your brain and don't defend a trillion dollar corporation. Call them out, when they do a dumb thing. 

Good for Apple, they were doing something that made business sense and saw a way to support developers at their own cost.

 

This is good ammo for when someone bashes Apple for being heartless.

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

1 minute ago, The Sloth said:

As a side note, it was eyeopening to see how many people defended this stupid moronic practice when it was believed to be real. Please use your brain and don't defend a trillion dollar corporation. Call them out, when they do a dumb thing. 

I don't think you have to worry about people defending companies doing dumb things on this forum. Well... maybe with the exception with AMD nowadays... 

[dalekphalm]

I understand why Apple would do that, but I do think that instead of keeping their 30% cut, they should have a specific designated "refund fee" that they charge the developer - something more reasonable (5 to 15%).

 

EDIT: Just saw that the entire thing was false - glad we cleared that up.

@The Sloth I think you should edit the OP and put the update at the beginning of the post, and make it prominent with large text, rather than a one line edit at the very bottom of the post.

[TetraSky]

A moderate transaction fee would've made sense to me since those are usually not refundable by credit card companies either. But 30% was just egregious. Good to hear it wasn't true in the end.

[The Sloth]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

I understand why Apple would do that, but I do think that instead of keeping their 30% cut, they should have a specific designated "refund fee" that they charge the developer - something more reasonable (5 to 15%).

The industry has to change, apple is very flexible when it comes to massive corporation with millions of people like Amazon, where instead of 30, amazon only has to give apple 15%. 

 

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/29/apple-tried-to-lure-amazon-video-app-with-lower-15percent-fee-eddy-cue-email.html

 

 

Quote

I think you should edit the OP and put the update at the beginning of the post, and make it prominent with large text, rather than a one line edit at the very bottom of the post.

Done, even put retracted on the title, really don't want to spread misinformation.  

[mr moose]

4 hours ago, The Sloth said:

@BlueChinchillaEatingDorito@aisle9@dizmo@harryk @mr moose @SpaceGhostC2C @spartaman64 @TetraSky @danomicar @NineEyeRon

 

 

Updated, The person messed up numbers. It seems like around 2016, apple eliminated that term of service. Sorry for the misinformation, should have looked into it more before posting. 

 

 

Sorry

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

As a side note, it was eyeopening to see how many people defended this stupid moronic practice when it was believed to be real. Please use your brain and don't defend a trillion dollar corporation. Call them out, when they do a dumb thing. 

Thank you for the update. And yes I agree,  regardless if it was true or not if we consider it a social experiment to see what people are willing to accept/defend then it really highlights why these companies take every opportunity to screw over the consumer.  We may as well have a sign above our head saying "Don't worry about the lube, I probably deserve it anyway".