All surveys measure only those who are willing to respond.
I’ve always wondered, when seeing a news report about some poll that says “20% said X and 80% said Y”, about how many people refused to take the survey.
I think the public would have a very different opinion if they reported (for example) that “2% said X, 8% said Y and 90% told the pollster to take a flying leap”.
Reputable advertising market research and media surveys are sent out in waves to random samples in a representative market. They need to achieve a minimum in two or three waves, with three sometimes not passing the smell test. The minimum response rate, depending on the study, is 60% for print, 50% for email, but the bigger the response, the better. If you don’t make it by wave two, you’re allowed a third, but three just passes the smell test. The best and most respected studies are conducted by independent research firms. One of the challenges in the age of new media development is the the rise of an infinite number of new research companies, many of which are rather dubious. And there is also the issue of off the shelf digital research apps.
Polls that are posted on a web page are a totally different animal, as they are only conducted among people who happened to land on the page, weather they have paid to access the content or not.
My younger brother is an econometrics professor who deals a lot with how data gets collected and the methods used to evaluate it. What I have gathered from what he tells me is that truly good polls consist of a huge amount of work to determine which fraction of those 90% that told the pollster to take a hike would actually prefer X vs. Y. Ultimately, the good poll doesn’t tell you what people told the pollster, they aim to tell you what all people (or at least those you’re targeting) really think. That requires a lot of careful modeling, since as you correctly point out, if you rely solely on those who answer, you’re bound to get a skewed result.
I am not a Dev but I have used the App store infrequently. Mostly for updates to apps. But even then, I am greeted by large, obnoxious game suggestions. I don’t use my Mac nor my i-device for gaming. I have a PC and consoles for that. If you like to game on Apple products, then so be it. But I don’t and not given that Option-Out of obnoxious Play Me! And the search…I agree with the others on how it caters to you as an after thought.
As for 30%, I think its reasonable except that there needs to be a tier for Devs that are Small, Medium or Large players. Imagine with your credit cards if they all were 30%. Or that your tax on income was 30%. For some, its not much of a hit. But for small devs that have maybe 2-3 apps, unless hugely popular, 30% is a large chunk. Ofcourse, what lurks behind NDAs?
I don’t care for Fortnight or Epic. And frankly, want Apple to expand and stick with Enterprise apps and support. Nothing more frustrating than working to support Apple in a Business and need AppleID so software. Everything will be on the server, I mean cloud.
A post was merged into an existing topic: Apple removing AFib capabilities from a particular Apple Watch
I’m really not at all a fan of Facebook (to put it mildly), but after reading about Apple forcing Facebook to remove a notice telling users how much of their in-app purchase actually goes to the small business they’re trying to support strikes me as draconian and in no way justified. Regardless of where you stand on the app store debate, can we agree that informing customers ahead of purchase about which portion of the proceeds go to which party is desirable in a free market economy whereas actively complicating customers’ access to such information is borderline nefarious? I can understand Apple will not allow devs to advertise how to circumvent app store purchases within these app store apps, but going so far as to restrict even simple factual information, such as “only 70% of your donation will end up with the donee”, IMHO goes too far.
Facebook is significantly adding to its bottom line by gathering information about everyone who sees the content and what and how much they pay for whatever, all of which will be lumped in to their tracking and ad serving treasure trove. They did not say anything about it being an ad free zone. They will most certainly be profiting from this even though they “won’t collect any fees from paid online events for at least the next year”
“We asked Apple to reduce its 30% App Store tax or allow us to offer Facebook Pay so we could absorb all costs for businesses struggling during COVID-19.” Did Facebook announce that they would donate a % of the money this channel will rake in from its first, second and third party tracking and ad serving businesses? Facebook will be profiting from every click, the amount of time spent + billions and billions of new highly targeted tracking and internal and external ad serving opportunities. They might not be collecting fees, but they will be raking in a big load of money by establishing new and profitable revenue streams, and the yield will be an extremely large load more than Apple will earn from its 30% cut.
Facebook is also getting a s—load of good publicity from whining about Apple’s 30%, especially at a time when a new, super effective tracking block is a default in the new iOS, putting a humongous kabosh on Facebook’s biggest revenue stream, a default that will block cookies in apps as well as web cookies:
Facebook just admitted they will probably loose 50% of its total audience revenue due to iOS 14’s anti tracking:
This is probably a big reason why Spotify is whining about the App Store as well.
I’m not a gamer, and I don’t know anything about Fortnight other than that it’s a very popular, wildly successful app that is giving Apple grief about App Store commissions. So I decided to check out whether or not Epic Games sells ads on Fortnight. Ads are a huge revenue stream:
“Fortnite is still a battle royale game at its core, but it has since evolved into more of a social tool and advertising opportunity for many big-named brands. Sites joke that Fortnite is no longer a game, but one big advertisement — and there is some truth to that. It’s exaggerated a bit, for sure, as Fortnite is still very much a game; but, it’s become so much more than that.“
Epic Games is probably going to be affected at least as badly by the new iOS anti tracking feature as Facebook will. And I couldn’t find out whether or not Epic Games is a part of Facebook’s in app ad network, which will be affected as well.
I think the discussion has been entirely dominated by developers and anyone who bias against Apple.
Epic’s strategy is clear. Knowing that users for the most part don’t care, intentionally getting their platform banned is simply an effort to create outrage amongst users against Apple. What’s my proof? The video they pre-produced.
Is 30% too much? Maybe. But if Epic is paying out 30% to other unnamed console makers and the Google Play store while complaining about Apple, they are being disingenuous.
Any ruling against Apple is bound to affect unnamed console makers and Google Play, along with other stores and platforms in other industries. Be careful what you wish for.
I agree…the other stores, including Epics own IIRC all charge 30% so how this is a great imposition I am having a hard time grokking. Rene Ritchie and Andy Inatkho seem to think that Apples cut is egregious…but it is their store and they are not a monopoly despite what Zucker tug said…so my thought is that if you don’t want to pay them…get the heck outa the App Store and quit whining about it. I sincerely hope that Apple doesn’t knuckle under to the extortion and threats that are being conducted…one of the bit reasons we have Apple devices is the security provided by the store rules.
When it comes to a web site for downloading software, this is what I want:
The App Store fails on nearly every point.
What is also not taken into account is that if Apple allowed side loading the Apple Genius Bar would become overwhelmed with users having problems they created themselves. There is a cost not only to the user but to Apple. Apple prevents all of this Chaos which is clear as day on Android and Windows by vetting software, setting rules and enforcing those rules - yet another cost.
I’m at the point where I’m calling bullshit on Epic and developers.
An important point is that when someone writes an app then they make use of Apple’s ecosystem. One way of charging for this is to take a percentage of the fee. One problem that Apple may also experience is that competition for phones becomes more intense, pushing prices down. Then it will be much like the printer market. Printers are sold at unrealistically low prices, and then the manufacturers make money from the sale of consumables.It won’t progress as far, as it is unlikely that someone would spend $1000 on apps, but it is a nice earner.
I remember back when the App Store was a new thing, the 30% cut was compared against the costs of traditional publishing (get a company to manufacture CDs or floppy disks) and put them on store shelves).
With physical packaging, the publisher and distributor typically applied a 50-100% markup each, plus what the retailer charges. So an author may only see $5 from the sale of a title that costs $30 in a retail store (in other words, “the system” taking a >80% cut).
Apple’s 30% was seen as incredibly cheap, especially because it includes hosting, distribution and payment processing.
Today, over 10 years later, retail sales have almost completely dried up, being unable to compete with app stores and direct downloads, and now that 30% is considered extortion. Not because it’s so horribly expensive but because the alternatives that were horribly expensive no longer exist.
Then why not ban third-party software altogether like they did in the early days of iOS? And why not impose the same set of rules on the Mac platform? Because customers would revolt. They would buy other products and file lawsuits. And in mane cases, they would win those suits.
Lowering support costs can’t be used as justification for every business decision you make.
I forget exactly where I read this, but recently somebody pointed out that for small sales (~$5) card terminal fees usually amount to about 6% (flat fee plus percentage commission). Obviously that just accounts for payment transaction, not the app vetting process, the dev tools, the security effort, etc. But at least for simple in-app payments (such as Fortnite’s V-bucks) I guess you could argue a 30% cut is excessive.
On one hand I want to say, so what, people can leave iOS where they’re forced to use the app store, if they find the prices there too high. On the other hand I also realize that in the US iOS has a ~45% phone market share and there’s only one other competitor (who incidentally also charges that very same 30% commission). Customers don’t have a free market to choose from. In that sense I feel Apple (and Google, although there you can argue since they allow sideloading they are already exposed to competition) obviously can (and probably should) be regulated.
The competition for mobile phone sales has been increasing since the debut of iPhones. Apple always flourished when it focused on the high end of the market. And when Apple shifted to competing in terms of price and licensed the Mac system to hardware cloners? Mac and iOS software is what sells their premium priced hardware, and saved Apple from imminent doom.
Yes they do…as you noted they can switch to Android. Just because they pay the same 30% there doesn’t mean they have no choice.
Earlier post in the thread talked about how 30% was so much cheaper and better for both buyers and developers than the box on the store shelf model of software sales.
Frankly…I hope Apple does not knuckle under to Epic and give them a break. Yes…they do occasionally make special deals but a game seller…even a big one like Epic…isn’t worthy of a special deal. Apple provides security, payment, distribution of proceeds and a lot of other things for their 30%…and it is their store and their business decision about what to charge. And all of the whining because some other billionaire wants an even bigger slice of the billions their app makes is just a pile of BS and should be ignored as such. I heard on Macbreak Weekly yesterday a long discussion about this…and it appears that Rene and Andy (the two extreme liberals on the panel) are thinking that Apple is in the wrong here and should change their store because…well just because.
Don’t work that way. I realize that Apple…at least according to the media…is under “intense scrutiny for their monopolistic practices and needs to be broken up”…but Apple isn’t a monopoly with 15ish% of worldwide market share of smart phones. They do pretty much monopolize the profits in the industry…but that isn’t illegal…the reason they make all the profits is because they provide a platform, experience, and security that people are willing to pay for…and Apple refuses to lose money on every sale because they will “make it up in volume”…an argument that’s never made any sense.
In an earlier post I mentioned just some of all the the other app stores that exist. And there is nothing restraining another developer from introducing another operating system, or opening another App Store. though they won’t be able to run on Apple hardware.
Remember how Windows Phone was going to conquer the world? It was as successful as Zune.