Devs have to pay an additional 42% when customers get a refund. Is this true?

Blue_Mangoo

@EyeOhEss said:
https://www.cnet.com/news/app-store-refunds-much-ado-about-nothing/

“An Apple representative said the company's policy concerning refunds and developers is that when a refund is granted on a purchase made through the App Store, Apple returns the customer's money and debits the developer's account by 70 percent of the application price, or the revenue the developer had gained on the sale. The company does not charge the developer an additional 30 percent during the refund process, the representative said”.

Thank you. This is good news.

I think I will still write to Apple to confirm it.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

tja

@wim said:

@tja said:
It should be illegal for Apple to keep this 30%, of course.

Of course?? And government should decide how much they do get to keep? And if Apple decides that what the government decides isn’t enough to make it worthwhile, should they be forced to continue that business? Or what, go to jail?

Sorry, I’m not following the logic here. I’ll read with an open mind if you decide to respond, but decline to get into a debate. -peace.

If you see the developers as customers of Apple, you are right, sort of.
In this case, they consume a service that Apple provides and problems with their respective customers are there own problem. Apple still get it's fee.

But I don't see it this way.

Both Apple and the developers together offer a service to the customers and they get payed for that.
If something is wrong, and a customers wants a refund, for me that is Apple's problem as well. Finally Apple decides which Apps they allow in their store, and we pay Apple, not the developer.

What you propose is some kind of outsourcing, which is widely done, but sure not good for both customers, developers and finally Apple themselves.

But you are right, I have no hard and fast arguments for this view.
And also, I don't want to argument with you :-)

Maybe I just have too many problems with Apple, their decisions and goals of control and the way they make money and was not happy to read that they f..k the developers too.

Peace

wim

It’s cool @tja. Read your response with interest. Have a great day evening. 👍

BroCoast

@EyeOhEss said:
But people joining a conversation only to make these kind of pointless contributions, like Paul b and brocoast, well that speaks for itself. Bravo to you both!

Thank you.

Well I mean nothing personal, you just have a tendency to go back and forth with people without really listening/reading what they're saying. Outside of that I enjoy your posts here.

Blue_Mangoo

@BroCoast said:

@EyeOhEss said:
But people joining a conversation only to make these kind of pointless contributions, like Paul b and brocoast, well that speaks for itself. Bravo to you both!

Thank you.

Well I mean nothing personal, you just have a tendency to go back and forth with people without really listening/reading what they're saying. Outside of that I enjoy your posts here.

Yeah. I expected this thread would start some arguments and I’m ok with that. But was mainly interested in hearing if anyone has links to articles, information or experience to share regarding whether Apple is actually implementing this refund policy. Cause if they’re not, as the link from @EyeOhEss up above says, then I personally don’t see any more reason to be concerned.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

horsetrainer

@tja said:

@wim said:

@tja said:
It should be illegal for Apple to keep this 30%, of course.

Of course?? And government should decide how much they do get to keep? And if Apple decides that what the government decides isn’t enough to make it worthwhile, should they be forced to continue that business? Or what, go to jail?

Sorry, I’m not following the logic here. I’ll read with an open mind if you decide to respond, but decline to get into a debate. -peace.

If you see the developers as customers of Apple, you are right, sort of.
In this case, they consume a service that Apple provides and problems with their respective customers are there own problem. Apple still get it's fee.

But I don't see it this way.

Both Apple and the developers together offer a service to the customers and they get payed for that.
If something is wrong, and a customers wants a refund, for me that is Apple's problem as well. Finally Apple decides which Apps they allow in their store, and we pay Apple, not the developer.

What you propose is some kind of outsourcing, which is widely done, but sure not good for both customers, developers and finally Apple themselves.

But you are right, I have no hard and fast arguments for this view.
And also, I don't want to argument with you :-)

Maybe I just have too many problems with Apple, their decisions and goals of control and the way they make money and was not happy to read that they f..k the developers too.

Peace

I think Apple Inc. v. Pepper is an interesting read....
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-204_bq7d.pdf

Here's the wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Pepper

Quote from the wikipedia article:

"Opinion of the Court
The Court issued its 5–4 decision on May 13, 2019, affirming the Ninth Circuit's decision that consumers were "direct purchasers" of apps from Apple's store, and did have standing under Illinois Brick to sue Apple for antitrust practices.[14] Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, stated that under the test of Illinois Brick, consumers were directly affected by Apple's fee and were not secondary purchasers, that consumers could sue Apple directly since it was Apple's fee that affected the prices of the apps, and that while the structure for any damages that consumers may win in the continuing suit may be complicated, this is not a factor to determine the standing of the suit. The Court stated that Apple's interpretation of Illinois Brick "did not make a lot of sense", and only served to "gerrymander Apple out of this and similar lawsuits".[15] Disagreeing with Apple's reasoning, the Court explained, that if adopted, it would "directly contradict the longstanding goal of effective private enforcement and consumer protection in antitrust cases". Kavanaugh was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The decision remanded the class-action case to continue in lower courts, though did not rule on any of the antitrust factors otherwise at the center of the case.[15]"

Additionally... Here's a link to a MacRumors article about a new class-action lawsuit Apple is apparently facing from iOS developers:

https://www.macrumors.com/2019/06/04/developers-sue-apple-over-app-store-fees/

Blue_Mangoo

@horsetrainer said:

@tja said:

@wim said:

@tja said:
It should be illegal for Apple to keep this 30%, of course.

Of course?? And government should decide how much they do get to keep? And if Apple decides that what the government decides isn’t enough to make it worthwhile, should they be forced to continue that business? Or what, go to jail?

Sorry, I’m not following the logic here. I’ll read with an open mind if you decide to respond, but decline to get into a debate. -peace.

If you see the developers as customers of Apple, you are right, sort of.
In this case, they consume a service that Apple provides and problems with their respective customers are there own problem. Apple still get it's fee.

But I don't see it this way.

Both Apple and the developers together offer a service to the customers and they get payed for that.
If something is wrong, and a customers wants a refund, for me that is Apple's problem as well. Finally Apple decides which Apps they allow in their store, and we pay Apple, not the developer.

What you propose is some kind of outsourcing, which is widely done, but sure not good for both customers, developers and finally Apple themselves.

But you are right, I have no hard and fast arguments for this view.
And also, I don't want to argument with you :-)

Maybe I just have too many problems with Apple, their decisions and goals of control and the way they make money and was not happy to read that they f..k the developers too.

Peace

I think Apple Inc. v. Pepper is an interesting read....
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-204_bq7d.pdf

Here's the wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Pepper

Quote from the wikipedia article:

"Opinion of the Court
The Court issued its 5–4 decision on May 13, 2019, affirming the Ninth Circuit's decision that consumers were "direct purchasers" of apps from Apple's store, and did have standing under Illinois Brick to sue Apple for antitrust practices.[14] Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, stated that under the test of Illinois Brick, consumers were directly affected by Apple's fee and were not secondary purchasers, that consumers could sue Apple directly since it was Apple's fee that affected the prices of the apps, and that while the structure for any damages that consumers may win in the continuing suit may be complicated, this is not a factor to determine the standing of the suit. The Court stated that Apple's interpretation of Illinois Brick "did not make a lot of sense", and only served to "gerrymander Apple out of this and similar lawsuits".[15] Disagreeing with Apple's reasoning, the Court explained, that if adopted, it would "directly contradict the longstanding goal of effective private enforcement and consumer protection in antitrust cases". Kavanaugh was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The decision remanded the class-action case to continue in lower courts, though did not rule on any of the antitrust factors otherwise at the center of the case.[15]"

Additionally... Here's a link to a MacRumors article about a new class-action lawsuit Apple is apparently facing from iOS developers:

https://www.macrumors.com/2019/06/04/developers-sue-apple-over-app-store-fees/

Interesting and informative. Thank you.

It sounds like that Supreme Court case opened up the possibility of a whole lot of other cases. I’m not personally upset about the Apple seller arrangement, but I’ve often thought 30% might be higher than needed. I’ve heard that the reasoning for that figure was that the business school 101 figure for the percentage of company budget that should be spent on marketing products is 30%. In the early days of the App Store, when there were not so many apps as now, one could simply upload an app to the store and start making money, without budgeting additional funds to marketing apps. That’s not true anymore. But the marketing challenge for iOS developers seems simpler than for those who sell software directly to customers. If we wanted to sell directly we would have to set up a payment portal on our website and customers would probably need to register accounts with us, we would have to handle refunds by ourselves. And then there would be the challenge of how to prevent piracy without the help of apple’s code signing. All that is worth something. But would we pay 30% if there were an alternative? If I remember correctly, a friend of mine who makes apps for Native Instruments Kontakt platform said that NI charges them 3% for a service similar to what Apple does with the App Store.

horsetrainer

@Blue_Mangoo said:

@horsetrainer said:

@tja said:

@wim said:

@tja said:
It should be illegal for Apple to keep this 30%, of course.

Of course?? And government should decide how much they do get to keep? And if Apple decides that what the government decides isn’t enough to make it worthwhile, should they be forced to continue that business? Or what, go to jail?

Sorry, I’m not following the logic here. I’ll read with an open mind if you decide to respond, but decline to get into a debate. -peace.

If you see the developers as customers of Apple, you are right, sort of.
In this case, they consume a service that Apple provides and problems with their respective customers are there own problem. Apple still get it's fee.

But I don't see it this way.

Both Apple and the developers together offer a service to the customers and they get payed for that.
If something is wrong, and a customers wants a refund, for me that is Apple's problem as well. Finally Apple decides which Apps they allow in their store, and we pay Apple, not the developer.

What you propose is some kind of outsourcing, which is widely done, but sure not good for both customers, developers and finally Apple themselves.

But you are right, I have no hard and fast arguments for this view.
And also, I don't want to argument with you :-)

Maybe I just have too many problems with Apple, their decisions and goals of control and the way they make money and was not happy to read that they f..k the developers too.

Peace

I think Apple Inc. v. Pepper is an interesting read....
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-204_bq7d.pdf

Here's the wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Pepper

Quote from the wikipedia article:

"Opinion of the Court
The Court issued its 5–4 decision on May 13, 2019, affirming the Ninth Circuit's decision that consumers were "direct purchasers" of apps from Apple's store, and did have standing under Illinois Brick to sue Apple for antitrust practices.[14] Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, stated that under the test of Illinois Brick, consumers were directly affected by Apple's fee and were not secondary purchasers, that consumers could sue Apple directly since it was Apple's fee that affected the prices of the apps, and that while the structure for any damages that consumers may win in the continuing suit may be complicated, this is not a factor to determine the standing of the suit. The Court stated that Apple's interpretation of Illinois Brick "did not make a lot of sense", and only served to "gerrymander Apple out of this and similar lawsuits".[15] Disagreeing with Apple's reasoning, the Court explained, that if adopted, it would "directly contradict the longstanding goal of effective private enforcement and consumer protection in antitrust cases". Kavanaugh was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The decision remanded the class-action case to continue in lower courts, though did not rule on any of the antitrust factors otherwise at the center of the case.[15]"

Additionally... Here's a link to a MacRumors article about a new class-action lawsuit Apple is apparently facing from iOS developers:

https://www.macrumors.com/2019/06/04/developers-sue-apple-over-app-store-fees/

Interesting and informative. Thank you.

It sounds like that Supreme Court case opened up the possibility of a whole lot of other cases. I’m not personally upset about the Apple seller arrangement, but I’ve often thought 30% might be higher than needed. I’ve heard that the reasoning for that figure was that the business school 101 figure for the percentage of company budget that should be spent on marketing products is 30%. In the early days of the App Store, when there were not so many apps as now, one could simply upload an app to the store and start making money, without budgeting additional funds to marketing apps. That’s not true anymore. But the marketing challenge for iOS developers seems simpler than for those who sell software directly to customers. If we wanted to sell directly we would have to set up a payment portal on our website and customers would probably need to register accounts with us, we would have to handle refunds by ourselves. And then there would be the challenge of how to prevent piracy without the help of apple’s code signing. All that is worth something. But would we pay 30% if there were an alternative? If I remember correctly, a friend of mine who makes apps for Native Instruments Kontakt platform said that NI charges them 3% for a service similar to what Apple does with the App Store.

It will be interesting to see which way these cases resolve. Maybe Apple will be required to provide code signing services to 3rd party App retailers? Or directly to developers who choose to sell their App's directly to the consumer?

If that happen's, I can still see that Apple might be entitled to a fee for providing code signing services. Web stores have associated costs, like payment portals as you've mentioned.

Can the consumer actually save money? Can developers actually make more money? Can Apple release total control over iOS without ruining certain aspects of the "Apple Experience" that has made iOS all the success that it is?

Maybe Apple can sell two different versions of iOS hardware products, or even two different versions of iOS? A traditional version, and "unlocked" versions capable of using App's from other sellers, but with lessor degrees of support due to higher risks associated with loss of complete proprietary control.

There's a lot to speculate about here...

With iPadOs approaching, one might consider if a more "laptop like" iPadOs, might pave the way towards more "laptop like" App buying options. Or maybe Apple's tight-ship proprietorial App Store control is key to iPadOs existing, and damage to the proprietorial system, may in turn damage the ability to take iPadOs to it's fullest future potential?

But maybe at some future date... IF some court rules the App Store a monopoly... One day we will download a software update that could bring up a screen that forces us to choose between " traditional" or "unlocked" iPadOs. One choice providing the fully Apple experience, and the other with a screen of terms saying clicking the "red" button will basically cut off certain Apple services for the sake of security, and let the consumer assume all risk of using their device with 3rd party App providers?

But then if people want an Android experience, they can already have that...

Personally, I won't click on any hypothetical "red" button, I like my Apple experience thank you.

As a side note.... I've never returned any Apps.

RedSkyLullaby

Im pretty sure users get flagged if they are requesting too many refunds and presumably developers/apps get same if a high % of customers are requesting refund

BroCoast

@RedSkyLullaby said:
Im pretty sure users get flagged if they are requesting too many refunds and presumably developers/apps get same if a high % of customers are requesting refund

This is true. I'm usually not able to get refunds (used up my quota on a heap of cheap broken apps.) I was however able to get a refund on OB-XD so they must of been flagged.

DCJ

@BroCoast said:

@RedSkyLullaby said:
Im pretty sure users get flagged if they are requesting too many refunds and presumably developers/apps get same if a high % of customers are requesting refund

This is true. I'm usually not able to get refunds (used up my quota on a heap of cheap broken apps.) I was however able to get a refund on OB-XD so they must of been flagged.

If OB-XD isn’t the best example of an app that demands a refund, I don’t know what is. 1 of my 2 refund requests.

But I digress... I’m sure no one is arguing we should have kept that piece of work.

RUST( i )K

Restocking Fee by another name?

At least it nots like a sales job where a cancelled order and a $500 commission needs to be paid back.....

It all is not ideal.

Most things are not.

Most things I feel people lose on the deal these days(years)

BlueGreenSpiral

@RedSkyLullaby said:
Im pretty sure users get flagged if they are requesting too many refunds and presumably developers/apps get same if a high % of customers are requesting refund

This is definitely the case in the EU. I refunded 2 apps (Thesys and Z3TA+) out of several hundred purchases. Thesys was unusable on an iPad mini apart from using the presets due to tiny controls and Z3TA+ crashed often.

I just bought Ruismaker FM to check if the pop up “If I DOWNLOAD this app within 14 days of tapping ‘Buy’, I will no longer be eligible to cancel this purchase’ still appears.

Seems like I’m back in the good books with apple. Only took about 2 years on probation!!

knewspeak

@brambos said:

@EyeOhEss said:

@MonzoPro said:

@EyeOhEss said:

@MonzoPro said:

@EyeOhEss said:

‘Now, pay attention’ - Maybe do a little research before throwing that kind of log in the fire next time...Especially if you’re going to subsequently sew it in to almost every post as part of your reasoning/stance on something. Let’s leave fake news outside the forum huh

Nice. Now, on to your ten year old article:

@EyeOhEss said:
https://www.cnet.com/news/app-store-refunds-much-ado-about-nothing/

“An Apple representative said the company's policy concerning refunds and developers is that when a refund is granted on a purchase made through the App Store, Apple returns the customer's money and debits the developer's account by 70 percent of the application price, or the revenue the developer had gained on the sale. The company does not charge the developer an additional 30 percent during the refund process, the representative said”.

If that ten year old article is correct and still valid, then it's great that developers don't get penalised for unwarranted refunds.

That doesn't change the fact that anyone refunding apps just because 'they're not into it' isn't abusing the system though. Apple don't offer a 'try before you buy' option, so in doing so you're not abiding by the App Stores conditions of use.

I'm bored with this now. Time to go.

Dude, you don’t listen to people

You blame customers, you said people aren’t cool because of their opinions about this, but everyone else is saying it’s Apple’s fault. Not customers.

Even the dev that started this thread said that he was grateful for refunds because it meant that people could trial his software like they do on desktop. Because, besides refunds, Apple offer no other straight forward solution. At least he felt that way until you filled his head with fake news about devs having to pay for refunds on apps and we all embarked on this road to nowhere.

Fin!

Piss off, you’re annoying me now.

Flag that.

@brambos said:
Unpopular opinion: research before you buy, don’t ask a refund unless a product simply doesn’t work as advertised.

The refund system isn’t meant to be used as a surrogate for try-before-you-buy.

Some days I see up to 25% of my sales refunded and it irritates me to no end.

Hard to research software from videos/manuals in many ways tho. Almost always feels/works/sounds/interacts/workflow is at least slightly different than you imagine. Often vastly so... I’ve only ever refunded one app. But I have a bunch that in hindsight I should have...if all devs made like an hour long video that went in to crazy detail and was totally thorough with all use cases and covered all aspects etc, then yeah ‘maybe’ fair enough...but that’s far from the case. And Too many variables in most software to cover it in a video comparable to actually ‘using’ it.

Until Apple makes iOS same as desktop where you can demo almost anything, refund is the substitute it seems.

No, it has been stated before: if you don’t want to play by Apple’s rules you’re free to not use the App Store at all. You don’t get to make your own rules.

People on mass do, it’s called democracy.

tk32

Let me give you all a scenario...

One day our beloved @brambos decides to release a fairly complicated, pro-level app... let's pretend it's called Mozaic

So imagine all the average, uneducated, appstore users who see this app start to appear in the top Music app charts and think "Hey!, a new Brambos app! I have all his Ruismaker drum apps, so I'll probably like this too..." -- BUY

One hour later...

"What is this piece of crap?! it doesn't make any sound at all?!!" - REFUND

It's not hard to imagine a scenario where significant numbers of dumb users only realise the app was not designed for them after purchase - instead of doing a little reading/research beforehand. It's therefore also not hard to imagine that, for a hardcore, serious app like Mozaic there could be a situation where Bram starts to get flagged for a significant number of refunds, damaging his good reputation (and perhaps even leaving him out of pocket)

What I'm saying is... if we allow a culture of 'buy before you know if you want it', it could even affect the kinds of apps developers feel able to make on the platform. I don't want that to happen, do you?

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

tk32

So in your opinion @EyeOhEss we should all exploit the refund system as a way to demand to Apple our desire for demos/trials (on apps that mostly cost the price of a coffee!) - and the little indy developers just have to suck it up?

No, sorry to disagree - I would prefer to behave in a way that prioritises the creators, not force my personal conveniences by making life awkward for the corporation.

It reminds me of the how the hordes using Napster and thepiratebay in past decades felt it was the right way to 'demand' the need for subscription music and TV services?

Sometimes... you have to be careful what you wish for, and realise actions can have unintended outcomes.

---

(ps. I'm enjoying this debate, so please don't mistake my opposite views as anything hostile/personal)