iPhone App Refund Policies Could Cost Devs
CBRcrash writes "Apparently, if iPhone users decide that they want a refund for an app (users can get a refund within 90 days, according to Apple policy), Apple requires that developers give back the money they received from the sale. But, here's the kicker: Apple will refund the full amount to the user and says that it has the right to keep its commission. So, the developer not only has to return the money for the sale, but also has to reimburse Apple for its commission."
But either way, Apple is still providing a service here that both the developers and the consumers are using. Just because the consumer requires a refund doesn't make the cost of providing that service magically disappear.
...my opinion of them drops more and more. I think my opinion of them can't get worse, but they always manage to come up with some way. :\
I only hope that the devs are all quickly made aware of this and decide to do something to fix it, be that changing platforms, harassing Apple for a change, or whatever else works for them. There's no cause at all for devs to risk a loss of 30% of their initial charge per sale.
http://www.innerfence.com/google-shuts-down-infinite-sms
So, apparently Inner Fence are wrong? Lying? Or just plain incompetent?
If people are returning 7 out of 10 purchases, you still break even. If your software is getting 7 of 10 returns, it's either horribly broken or doesn't do what you say it does, so you shouldn't be getting paid, anyway.
It would hold up in court because I agreed to this by contract, as do any merchants that accept Visa/Mastercard. Discover Card is totally fair though - they reverse the charge, but don't tack on fees, or have a punitive policy when the merchant contests the chargeback.
Actually, I should do my small part to use market pressure to combat this - give an extra in-game perk, or a token discount amount to anyone that pays by Discover Card. (Or Amex; not sure about the rules for that card.) With a game as small as ours it would be nothing more than a statement, but statements are important. Hmmm...
Um, yes? Isn't that the risk that any publisher takes when they take on someone hence why they don't take on every man and his dog? In return they get the rights to sell the stuff.
And then no CC company ever does business with you again. This is also why CC security is so shit; they aren't using their own money.
========
CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
This has apparently been debunked, so the story summary on the front page is not true. The editors need to update the summary.
Sure, but there's no natural law at the bottom of your preference.
The retailer buys wholesale, but presenting & delivering incur costs regardless of ultimate success of a sale. Apple decided not to take a bath on returns, and invoices the developer. This can drive away developers, but only developers who don't have confidence that their code won't be returned by customers.
It may not be a method you 'like', or are familiar with, but it's not idiotic. And attitudes change -- refunds on consumer goods is a relatively recent innovation in the history of marketing. Since this kind of store is new, it may be allow a shift of attitude that makes this the defacto standard method in a few years.