Shopify says remove Stripe billing or get booted from their app store
235 comments
Not a surprising practice, but:
> Pretty ironic too when you've got Shopify's CEO tweeting about the unfair 30% cut Apple wants: https://twitter.com/tobi/status/1362411841943711744
That's pretty hypocritical
> Pretty ironic too when you've got Shopify's CEO tweeting about the unfair 30% cut Apple wants: https://twitter.com/tobi/status/1362411841943711744
That's pretty hypocritical
I have noticed a pattern these days - people publicly criticise certain behaviours and then they do exactly what they criticise. They think that majority of people won't actually verify that and such message will embed a positive impression about that person. Then you have people rather lie to themselves rather than accept that they were wrong, so if they later find out that those people actually were doing what they spoke against, they will dismiss it and rather keep the embedded good image. It's fascinating.
I wonder if there were any studies about that as it seems like so many organisations or people exploit this these days.
Well, Orwell had a thing or two to say about this in 1984. It's incredibly common in party politics.
If you are the party that always criticize something, nobody will believe that you are doing it. So, if you plan on doing something, you accuse our largest opositor of doing it, loudly and repeatedly.
If you are the party that always criticize something, nobody will believe that you are doing it. So, if you plan on doing something, you accuse our largest opositor of doing it, loudly and repeatedly.
but if you're caught later on, then fasten your seatbelts
If you own the media then you can sit back and relax. At most you'll get few days of moaning and things will go back to normal. Majority of people won't even know or connect things anyway.
If media are licensed, then they will never run anything that will upset government too much. I've seen this many times. Even if hostile nation's media pick up the topic and report it honestly, the government can dismiss it as a conspiracy theory or just say it is an attack.
Ultimately even if people see all the evidence, most of the time they'll pretend they didn't and stick with the status quo.
As I said above, people will just not believe it.
Things are obviously more complex than everybody just automatically not believing, and owning the discourse makes all the difference (although owning the press like a sibling comment says is overkill). But it happens again and again on politics, and rarely becomes a problem.
Things are obviously more complex than everybody just automatically not believing, and owning the discourse makes all the difference (although owning the press like a sibling comment says is overkill). But it happens again and again on politics, and rarely becomes a problem.
This puts that insane Qannon theory and the kids who went missing under Trump's kids in cages program in an entirely new context...
You mean Obama Biden's cages, they built them and continue to operate them after all. Exemplifying the point made above about hypocrisy
Hey, please correct this disinformation, its not a good look. Unaccompanied minor immigrants without documentation are safeguarded in facilities now, not jailed in cages.
Ok, let me correct these: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/lawyers-have-fo...
It's true they existed before, but they were used in situations when an underage child arrived to the border. Or child was found with human traffickers. They weren't splitting children from parents for longer than 42h.
Trump was the one that made the cages full, by implementing the zero tolerance policy, separating children with parents and often deporting the parents making it difficult to reunite them.
It's true they existed before, but they were used in situations when an underage child arrived to the border. Or child was found with human traffickers. They weren't splitting children from parents for longer than 42h.
Trump was the one that made the cages full, by implementing the zero tolerance policy, separating children with parents and often deporting the parents making it difficult to reunite them.
Hey please focus on the issue at hand, Biden uses facilities not cages. Whataboutism isn't a good look for you. Please stop using the "C" word.
Last I checked, Biden wasn't separating children from their parents at the border as a blanket policy and using them as leverage to get the parents to go away. Emphasis on BLANKET POLICY. Obama/Biden didn't put every child in a cage the way steven miller did.
So no, I dont' see hypocrisy here.
Its night and day. Trump's stewardship put these children in a lord of the flies scenario where they had to take care of each other and the leadership acting more like prison guards than caretakers.
I agree that Biden should close those things down but he cant just release the children into the wild. He got left with a timebomb and care has to be taken when dismantling it. Time will tell if he commits to transitioning these children to more appropriate living facilities and finding their parents (https://reason.com/2020/10/21/545-migrant-kids-snatched-by-t...) or relatives. He's been president less than 2 months. it will take time to see if he honors his commitments.
So no, I dont' see hypocrisy here.
Its night and day. Trump's stewardship put these children in a lord of the flies scenario where they had to take care of each other and the leadership acting more like prison guards than caretakers.
I agree that Biden should close those things down but he cant just release the children into the wild. He got left with a timebomb and care has to be taken when dismantling it. Time will tell if he commits to transitioning these children to more appropriate living facilities and finding their parents (https://reason.com/2020/10/21/545-migrant-kids-snatched-by-t...) or relatives. He's been president less than 2 months. it will take time to see if he honors his commitments.
The effort is in progress https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/lawyers-have-fo...
They seem to locate parents for 1/6 of them within a month where trump administration just thrown hands in the air that nothing can be done, when court ruled that the children should be reunited.
They seem to locate parents for 1/6 of them within a month where trump administration just thrown hands in the air that nothing can be done, when court ruled that the children should be reunited.
> ...it will take time to see if he honors his commitments.
"I will not ban fracking." ...bans fracking
"$2,000 stimulus checks for everyone." ...$1,400 checks for some
"I have an extensive plan for COVID." ...doesn't have a COVID plan
"We need to close the immigration facilities used to separate parents and children." ...Trump admin closes one site. Biden admin reopens it
"I will eliminate President Trump’s... MPP on day one." ...hasn't ended the MPP
So far, at least on the hot ticket items, he's not running a great track record.
He's done a bunch of little stuff, but the big things promised during the campaign have systematically failed, and several the exact opposite direction.
So, sure, let's see if the career politician honors his commitments. I'm not holding my breath.
"I will not ban fracking." ...bans fracking
"$2,000 stimulus checks for everyone." ...$1,400 checks for some
"I have an extensive plan for COVID." ...doesn't have a COVID plan
"We need to close the immigration facilities used to separate parents and children." ...Trump admin closes one site. Biden admin reopens it
"I will eliminate President Trump’s... MPP on day one." ...hasn't ended the MPP
So far, at least on the hot ticket items, he's not running a great track record.
He's done a bunch of little stuff, but the big things promised during the campaign have systematically failed, and several the exact opposite direction.
So, sure, let's see if the career politician honors his commitments. I'm not holding my breath.
You are reaching.
re: fracking: When asked soon after the comment, he clarified that he was referring to fracking on federal property. The original context of his comments that he would ban fracking were usually centered around the controversy of Trump having opened up lots of federal land to fracking. Fracking on federal land is a small fraction of total output.
re: 2k stimulus checks. Not sure what the actual intent was, but I immediately understood it to mean that they would send out $1400 checks because $2k was the initial amount that Dems wanted and GOP negotiated it down to $600. As for "everyone" well, do we really think -everyone- should get money? Very few people are in favor of high earners getting a check.
re: covid plan. Not sure where you got that. He was working on covid and spending more time pre-Jan 20 meeting with covid experts and task forces than the president at the time. Who was preoccupied with his tv and phone.
re: MPP. Looks like it is already underway. https://www.metro.us/biden-to-bring-in/ You have to unwind programs like this to avoid causing even more harm.
re: immigration facility reopened. Biden admin provided extensive explanation of why they needed to re-open it. Unaccompanied children arriving at the border. They need some stop gap at the moment.
re: fracking: When asked soon after the comment, he clarified that he was referring to fracking on federal property. The original context of his comments that he would ban fracking were usually centered around the controversy of Trump having opened up lots of federal land to fracking. Fracking on federal land is a small fraction of total output.
re: 2k stimulus checks. Not sure what the actual intent was, but I immediately understood it to mean that they would send out $1400 checks because $2k was the initial amount that Dems wanted and GOP negotiated it down to $600. As for "everyone" well, do we really think -everyone- should get money? Very few people are in favor of high earners getting a check.
re: covid plan. Not sure where you got that. He was working on covid and spending more time pre-Jan 20 meeting with covid experts and task forces than the president at the time. Who was preoccupied with his tv and phone.
re: MPP. Looks like it is already underway. https://www.metro.us/biden-to-bring-in/ You have to unwind programs like this to avoid causing even more harm.
re: immigration facility reopened. Biden admin provided extensive explanation of why they needed to re-open it. Unaccompanied children arriving at the border. They need some stop gap at the moment.
Indeed, like fighting systemic racism with systemic racism.
Actually, that's one of the more reasonable strategies of this form. What would you have done to reduce the harm of that problem?
Well, that "problem" presupposes an upward or stagnant trend, which are not demonstrably true. Then the admittedly harmful act of racism was used to accelerate resolution of "that problem".
Here's the problem with that:
- it was not demonstrated that other more productive forms of change were ineffective; in fact, history shows there has been tremendous progress in the absence of "racism to fight racism"
- it has not been shown that "racism v racism" has improved "that problem"
- it is yet to be shown the negative consequences of such a strategy, but history is full of examples of further suffering, not less
You call it "reasonable", and yet I find a complete lack of reason in its use. When challenged to provide reason, all responses I've witnessed reflect an attitude of, "I don't need to give you a reason/justify it".
To my mind, that is precisely absent of reason, so I challenge your assertion that it is in any way "reasonable".
Here's the problem with that:
- it was not demonstrated that other more productive forms of change were ineffective; in fact, history shows there has been tremendous progress in the absence of "racism to fight racism"
- it has not been shown that "racism v racism" has improved "that problem"
- it is yet to be shown the negative consequences of such a strategy, but history is full of examples of further suffering, not less
You call it "reasonable", and yet I find a complete lack of reason in its use. When challenged to provide reason, all responses I've witnessed reflect an attitude of, "I don't need to give you a reason/justify it".
To my mind, that is precisely absent of reason, so I challenge your assertion that it is in any way "reasonable".
A steady forward trend of progress seems quite reasonable. As long as you are not the one who was on the receiving end of past injustice.
In basketball, if someone gets fouled while trying to make a shot, is it unfair that everyone has to stand back while the person fouled gets to shoot free throws just because they are wearing the same color uniform?
It would be great if we could leave race out of the equation when trying to right past wrongs. Unfortunately, when a past wrong was committed based solely on race, given limited resources, the remedy likely needs to be based on race as well.
In basketball, if someone gets fouled while trying to make a shot, is it unfair that everyone has to stand back while the person fouled gets to shoot free throws just because they are wearing the same color uniform?
It would be great if we could leave race out of the equation when trying to right past wrongs. Unfortunately, when a past wrong was committed based solely on race, given limited resources, the remedy likely needs to be based on race as well.
> In basketball, if someone gets fouled while trying to make a shot, is it unfair that everyone has to stand back while the person fouled gets to shoot free throws just because they are wearing the same color uniform?
Thank you for your very interesting example! I'll try to address it:
I believe this analogy to be erroneous. An appropriate example would fall somewhere along the lines of the following:
Imagine, in basketball, if a player fouls another player. Or, rather, a team fouls a great number of players on the opposing team. Nothing is done and the opposing team loses.
During a later game—years later, when none of the original players play for either team anymore—the two teams meet up. For an indefinite number of games between two teams, the fouled team is prescribed some number of free throws for all members of their team.
Would you consider that to be an appropriate facility to rectify the past injustice? Perhaps the fouled team's reputation was damaged because of past, persistent losses, so they were no longer able to compete effectively for years. But over time, referees notice the fouls and punish them as they occur, with traditional "fouled player gets free throws".
Should the fouls of the past team be enforced on the new, modern team in such the way described with indefinite, prescribed free throws?
Your example is obvious: yes, those individuals who are harmed are right to have an opportunity to regain advantage after they are fouled upon. But that is an equitable and obvious form of justice that has been—in one form or another—the default perspective throughout history.
What you're talking about, however, is not that. It's a far more complicated scenario the effects of which are far more difficult to quantify.
If one is to assert that harms done to people who no longer exist by people who no longer exist should be rectified by people related to those who were harmed, then I think it is also the responsibility of such a person to clearly outline and justify:
- the limits of who is eligible to receive such justice
- the degree to which harm has "trickled down" to the modern individual
- why others who have been victims of injustice are not eligible for justice
- a prescription for resolution that adequately repairs the harms
- from whom the justice should be paid
Now, this is exceedingly complex, and one could argue that it's not fair to remain complete inactive just because we cannot perfectly balance these variables. Some justice is better than no justice.
The problem is that innocent people are victimized by the decision to do something when it's not possible to quantify the impossible variables. (From which my basketball example stems.)
Now, the predominant argument seems to be something along the lines of, "we don't have to figure out these variables because everyone from the fouling team has benefited from the history."
I will counter this with an admittedly extremely offensive and unpalatable response. Before I do so, I want to be clear that my writing this does not mean that I advocate it. I mention it to show that it's not a simple matter, even if we reduce it to "those who benefit from the injustice."
If we assert that justice should be served by the people who benefited from past injustice, then it would be apt to identify that those whose ancestors faced injustice have—in some way—also benefited from the injustice. That is not to say that they are responsible, but rather to illustrate that such justification for choosing from whom the justice should come is not simple or clear.
I assert that if the principal is to ensure that those who have faced injustice—or have been indirectly harmed by injustice—are adequately "made right", then the onus is on those prescribing resolution to do it without creating further victims. If that is impossible (which it is), then it is their responsibility to identify at least a generalization of who may be victimized by such justice, and to what degree.
What I see, however, is absolute disregard for the fact that someone, anyone, is victimized by retroactive justice. No analysis or discussion of its side effects. I find this to be ethically offensive, if for no other reason than it is hypocritical to the notion of "justice" for which it purports to be.
Anything other than either precision or at least affirmative acknowledgement of side effects is either ignorant, partisan, racial, or emotional. It is not "justice" nor is it ethical.
To assert that it is the "right" thing to do is just as wrong as pretending no injustice occurred at all.
So the current state of things or path to "justice"? Call it for what it is: vengeance. Because justice is not indiscriminate.
Thank you for your very interesting example! I'll try to address it:
I believe this analogy to be erroneous. An appropriate example would fall somewhere along the lines of the following:
Imagine, in basketball, if a player fouls another player. Or, rather, a team fouls a great number of players on the opposing team. Nothing is done and the opposing team loses.
During a later game—years later, when none of the original players play for either team anymore—the two teams meet up. For an indefinite number of games between two teams, the fouled team is prescribed some number of free throws for all members of their team.
Would you consider that to be an appropriate facility to rectify the past injustice? Perhaps the fouled team's reputation was damaged because of past, persistent losses, so they were no longer able to compete effectively for years. But over time, referees notice the fouls and punish them as they occur, with traditional "fouled player gets free throws".
Should the fouls of the past team be enforced on the new, modern team in such the way described with indefinite, prescribed free throws?
Your example is obvious: yes, those individuals who are harmed are right to have an opportunity to regain advantage after they are fouled upon. But that is an equitable and obvious form of justice that has been—in one form or another—the default perspective throughout history.
What you're talking about, however, is not that. It's a far more complicated scenario the effects of which are far more difficult to quantify.
If one is to assert that harms done to people who no longer exist by people who no longer exist should be rectified by people related to those who were harmed, then I think it is also the responsibility of such a person to clearly outline and justify:
- the limits of who is eligible to receive such justice
- the degree to which harm has "trickled down" to the modern individual
- why others who have been victims of injustice are not eligible for justice
- a prescription for resolution that adequately repairs the harms
- from whom the justice should be paid
Now, this is exceedingly complex, and one could argue that it's not fair to remain complete inactive just because we cannot perfectly balance these variables. Some justice is better than no justice.
The problem is that innocent people are victimized by the decision to do something when it's not possible to quantify the impossible variables. (From which my basketball example stems.)
Now, the predominant argument seems to be something along the lines of, "we don't have to figure out these variables because everyone from the fouling team has benefited from the history."
I will counter this with an admittedly extremely offensive and unpalatable response. Before I do so, I want to be clear that my writing this does not mean that I advocate it. I mention it to show that it's not a simple matter, even if we reduce it to "those who benefit from the injustice."
If we assert that justice should be served by the people who benefited from past injustice, then it would be apt to identify that those whose ancestors faced injustice have—in some way—also benefited from the injustice. That is not to say that they are responsible, but rather to illustrate that such justification for choosing from whom the justice should come is not simple or clear.
I assert that if the principal is to ensure that those who have faced injustice—or have been indirectly harmed by injustice—are adequately "made right", then the onus is on those prescribing resolution to do it without creating further victims. If that is impossible (which it is), then it is their responsibility to identify at least a generalization of who may be victimized by such justice, and to what degree.
What I see, however, is absolute disregard for the fact that someone, anyone, is victimized by retroactive justice. No analysis or discussion of its side effects. I find this to be ethically offensive, if for no other reason than it is hypocritical to the notion of "justice" for which it purports to be.
Anything other than either precision or at least affirmative acknowledgement of side effects is either ignorant, partisan, racial, or emotional. It is not "justice" nor is it ethical.
To assert that it is the "right" thing to do is just as wrong as pretending no injustice occurred at all.
So the current state of things or path to "justice"? Call it for what it is: vengeance. Because justice is not indiscriminate.
>During a later game—years later, when none of the original players play for either team anymore
But of course, life is not like discrete games all played by unrelated teams in a vacuum. Imagine if points were cumulative (you know, like wealth, social capital, culture) and those points were passed down after each game forever. Well then of course it would make sense for a much later team to have to stand while the team that was wronged gets a few free throws.
No one is saying we should take points away from the team that fouled and give them to the team that was wronged. Just give them a few free throws.
There is nothing about any plans I have seen that could qualify as "vengeance".
A free throw isn't vengeance.
I would encourage you to read up on the history of opposition to the civil rights movement in America and note how clearly many of your ideas echo that opposition.
The, "if we give them a chance, that might cause us the slightest tinge of possible harm, so we cannot give them that chance" has been the mantra since immediately after the emancipation proclamation and has been repeated ever since.
But of course, life is not like discrete games all played by unrelated teams in a vacuum. Imagine if points were cumulative (you know, like wealth, social capital, culture) and those points were passed down after each game forever. Well then of course it would make sense for a much later team to have to stand while the team that was wronged gets a few free throws.
No one is saying we should take points away from the team that fouled and give them to the team that was wronged. Just give them a few free throws.
There is nothing about any plans I have seen that could qualify as "vengeance".
A free throw isn't vengeance.
I would encourage you to read up on the history of opposition to the civil rights movement in America and note how clearly many of your ideas echo that opposition.
The, "if we give them a chance, that might cause us the slightest tinge of possible harm, so we cannot give them that chance" has been the mantra since immediately after the emancipation proclamation and has been repeated ever since.
Okay, first up: make sure we're talking about the same thing.
I'm talking about hiring (etc.) quotas requiring the demographics of (e.g.) a workplace to be roughly similar to the demographics of the general population. Fuzzy quotas, so a two-person team doesn't have to be representative but a 20 000 person company shouldn't be almost exclusively white men in their 30s.
I'm talking about hiring (etc.) quotas requiring the demographics of (e.g.) a workplace to be roughly similar to the demographics of the general population. Fuzzy quotas, so a two-person team doesn't have to be representative but a 20 000 person company shouldn't be almost exclusively white men in their 30s.
Everyone thinks they’re different. This other person’s bad behavior is a pattern, but my own is one time things. I’m certain I have my facts right about their behavior from skimming these articles/internet comments, but they are wrong about what I’m doing because they’re too lazy to do their own research. They don’t deserve it, but I do. They’re doing it in bad faith, but I’m not. Their behavior is inexcusable, but you’re missing context to understand mine. Or my favorite: their ends (which I don't understand) don’t justify their means, but mine do.
it is not new, it is called Projection. It has been around for as long as humans existed. it is easier to spot today because of internet and archiving tools that means everything you ever say or do is recorded for all time.
Does as I say, not as I do whether it's the Mega Church pastor or Tim Cook.
Trust No One.
Trust No One.
[deleted]
> They think that majority of people won't actually verify that and such message will embed a positive impression about that person.
That's pretty accurate, though. 80% of people are too distracted or lack the intellectual rigor to put two and two together, or even care about doing so.
That's pretty accurate, though. 80% of people are too distracted or lack the intellectual rigor to put two and two together, or even care about doing so.
[deleted]
The author misunderstands some of the complaints against Apple. In this case: (1) Apple is effectively a monopoly, much more so than shopify. (2) the author can still sell to customers your SAAS service, just not through the shopify store. (3) I could be wrong but I believe the shopify store brings lots of customers. For most developers on the app store, apple does not bring customers (this is why many people argue that apple might take a higher cut for those who find your app on a chart, and a lower cut for just using the link or branded search).
If they don't believe the inbound flow is worth it, then just selling direct to customers should make sense.
If they don't believe the inbound flow is worth it, then just selling direct to customers should make sense.
We don't know this specific scenario, but it's highly likely that the application in question directly reads or writes non-public data on their clients' storefront operations and accounting. In that case, there's very much a sense of lock-in. Shopify does not have an open API where anyone can access data given an OAuth token; it will not let this app use their API unless it complies with their terms. See: https://shopify.dev/concepts/apps#public-apps
In comparison to Apple, phone user : Shopify merchant :: app developer : this SaaS business. If I as a consumer think that Apple policies are too stringent, I can pay money to buy an Android phone. But the cost to me as a merchant of switching from Shopify to a custom site where I can choose who connects over API, once my business is underway and has built a brand identity, is absolutely prohibitive.
App approval processes are app approval processes, plain and simple. And if you make revenue share a precondition of using your APIs, you don't have open APIs.
In comparison to Apple, phone user : Shopify merchant :: app developer : this SaaS business. If I as a consumer think that Apple policies are too stringent, I can pay money to buy an Android phone. But the cost to me as a merchant of switching from Shopify to a custom site where I can choose who connects over API, once my business is underway and has built a brand identity, is absolutely prohibitive.
App approval processes are app approval processes, plain and simple. And if you make revenue share a precondition of using your APIs, you don't have open APIs.
> Shopify does not have an open API where anyone can access data given an OAuth token
We do offer a full GraphQL and REST API that can be accessed through private app keys (apps installed outside of the app store) or through the app store oauth tokens.
https://shopify.dev/docs/admin-api/rest/reference https://shopify.dev/docs/admin-api/graphql/reference https://shopify.dev/docs/admin-api/getting-started#authentic...
We do offer a full GraphQL and REST API that can be accessed through private app keys (apps installed outside of the app store) or through the app store oauth tokens.
https://shopify.dev/docs/admin-api/rest/reference https://shopify.dev/docs/admin-api/graphql/reference https://shopify.dev/docs/admin-api/getting-started#authentic...
[deleted]
If properly motivated SaaS companies can switch from one cloud provider to another (AWS <-> GCP <-> Azure), a far more technically difficult operation, it’s eminently possible to switch off Shopify. It’s far from cheap or easy so the business may decide it’s not worth the time or money, but far more difficult technical migrations have happened. Be aware of your options - if Shopify decided to raise the price they charge 10x, would you really just roll over and pay it because it’s “absolutely prohibitive” to move of them? 100x? Your branding is your own, and Shopify does not control that - you do. I’m not saying you should move off Shopify for the fun of it, just that alternatives exist.
This is a completely bullshit justification. The behavior is identical to Apple's.
> (1) Apple is effectively a monopoly, much more so than shopify
I’m just curious, by which metric?
I’m just curious, by which metric?
Apple has > 60% market share in the US [1]. 60% is considered by courts to be a barrier to entry for new competitors [2]
[1] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-sta...
[2] https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c10784/c10784.pdf: "60% is a favorite threshold for the courts"
[1] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-sta...
[2] https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c10784/c10784.pdf: "60% is a favorite threshold for the courts"
All the search results for iOS US market share give such wildly different answers, from 15% to 65%. I wonder what the deal is.
A quick search for worldwide data shows that both Shopify as iOS have a market share in the ~23% area.
Thanks!
I had the feeling he was complaining about the value amount, not the exclusivity requirement.
It's pretty hypocrital but still... Sort of hypocrital
It's pretty hypocrital but still... Sort of hypocrital
Here's an interesting angle: Shopify apps literally make money for Shopify even without the 20%.
Since these apps are mostly marketing (upsells, abandoned cart reminders, upgrades etc), they drive sellers' revenue = they literally bring more profits for Shopify, or am I missing something?
Since these apps are mostly marketing (upsells, abandoned cart reminders, upgrades etc), they drive sellers' revenue = they literally bring more profits for Shopify, or am I missing something?
I don't understand how Apple can expect to charge 30% when the user is not buying from the app developer, but just using the app to purchase from a seller through the app developers app and store... Shopify doesn't have 30% margin to give to Apple, do they? That doesn't seem right to charge that to Shopify when they're not selling an app feature directly to the user.
I mean, Tim Cook wants his cake and the Shopify CEO wants his cake too, so the hippocracy is expected.
At this point I'd be willing to try a hippocracy.
you and Sandra Boynton both
The rule of hippos?
[Edit] Thanks for clueing me up.
[Edit] Thanks for clueing me up.
Rule of horses. "Hippos" means horse. "Potamus" means river. "Hippopotamus" means "river horse."
And Hippopotamus are closest related to pigs.
I'd prefer the rule of Hippocrates :D
Not doing any harm seems like a good maxim for CEOs...
so it looks like a voyage to the land of the houyhnhnms is in order http://4umi.com/swift/gulliver/houyhnhnm/
I saw a movie about that once - think it was called "planet of the mares".
[deleted]
Is it impossible to reach and provide your service to Spotify merchants without going through the Spotify app store? If yes it's hypocritical, if not then the situation is totally different than what is going on with Apple.
Shopify.
I agree with the case being different to Apple. And not sure why it is hypocritical. Not to mention Shopify holds no clear monopoly over e-commerce. Unless people want to argue the Shopify has a monopoly on Shopify App Store.
I agree with the case being different to Apple. And not sure why it is hypocritical. Not to mention Shopify holds no clear monopoly over e-commerce. Unless people want to argue the Shopify has a monopoly on Shopify App Store.
> Unless people want to argue the Shopify has a monopoly on Shopify App Store.
They're trying to enforce exclusive control over transactions made on their platform, which sounds a whole lot like Apple to me.
And also not unreasonable, IMO (since it's the business model their platform is built around), although their CEO trying to ride the outrage train for political points is pretty distasteful, especially when his own company is doing the same thing.
They're trying to enforce exclusive control over transactions made on their platform, which sounds a whole lot like Apple to me.
And also not unreasonable, IMO (since it's the business model their platform is built around), although their CEO trying to ride the outrage train for political points is pretty distasteful, especially when his own company is doing the same thing.
And Apple has no monopoly over cellphones... it's the exact same thing. If you are a Shopify customer, there's only 1 AppStore.
In US, one could argue Apple has a monopolistic position on Smartphone. Today, the iPhone has 66% market share in the United States, 75% of U.S. App Store revenues, and over 80% of time spent on the mobile internet.
False equivalency here. I get it, dunking on wealthy CEOs is easy and fun, but I would expect better commentary out of hackernews.
I am a Shopify partner through 3 years, paying 20% of my revenue to Shopify, and every time I have been in contact with "partner support" it has been, to put it mildly, an underwhelming experience.
You have to argue your way through an army of outsourced supporters who are equipped with nothing but the public Shopify docs, until you get to a real employee who concludes it with a "sorry, but we can't help".
Some of my issues:
1. If you're not American, you will be forced to hand over 3% of your 80% revenue cut to PayPal. (Unless your MRR cut is >$30k)
2. Sometimes Shopify just kills features, which merchants and partners rely on. Sure, we get a notice that the API will change - but how does that help, when there is no alternative way to achieve the removed functionality? I was lucky enough to get through to someone who knew someone at the dev team, but the response was once again "sorry, you're not a priority".
You have to argue your way through an army of outsourced supporters who are equipped with nothing but the public Shopify docs, until you get to a real employee who concludes it with a "sorry, but we can't help".
Some of my issues:
1. If you're not American, you will be forced to hand over 3% of your 80% revenue cut to PayPal. (Unless your MRR cut is >$30k)
2. Sometimes Shopify just kills features, which merchants and partners rely on. Sure, we get a notice that the API will change - but how does that help, when there is no alternative way to achieve the removed functionality? I was lucky enough to get through to someone who knew someone at the dev team, but the response was once again "sorry, you're not a priority".
Why would any one use Shopify 20% instead of 3 -4 % of stripe? Sounds like Shopify is total rip off.
I think the 20% is the fee for Shopify as a whole, not the payment processing fee. Since payment processing is a small portion of what they offer at Shopify its not an apples to apples comparison with Stripe.
Shopify does provide other qualities for the 20%:
- Seamless integration with the merchant billing system. I.e. free trial(s) are credit card up-front automatically, with zero friction for the user.
- "Free" marketing in the App Store.
- Access to paid advertising in the App Store.
Good partner support is just not one of them :)
- Seamless integration with the merchant billing system. I.e. free trial(s) are credit card up-front automatically, with zero friction for the user.
- "Free" marketing in the App Store.
- Access to paid advertising in the App Store.
Good partner support is just not one of them :)
There is some confusion.
This is revshare of what the shopify partner bills the shopify store owner.
It's identical to apple charging developers a revshare of payments billed through the app store.
Not saying it's good here, just clarifying that it's not card processing fees, it's platform fees + billing fees.
This is revshare of what the shopify partner bills the shopify store owner.
It's identical to apple charging developers a revshare of payments billed through the app store.
Not saying it's good here, just clarifying that it's not card processing fees, it's platform fees + billing fees.
Yeah it sucks, I just think of it as the marketing fee. I have done literally zero marketing other than put my app on their store and it has been selling for 6 years now.
As of now, the app pays for the mortgage, car payment and then some so I can't complain too much I guess.
As of now, the app pays for the mortgage, car payment and then some so I can't complain too much I guess.
> If you're not American, you will be forced to hand over 3% of your 80% revenue cut to PayPal.
That's wild considering they're headquarters is in Ottawa, Canada.
That's wild considering they're headquarters is in Ottawa, Canada.
If you look through the history of Shopify, majority of their features are launched US first and sometimes never make it back to Canada. They also only bill in USD for their service and don't allow Canadian merchants to pay in Canadian dollars... and yes this is a Canadian company. They know where their biggest market is and Canadian market is often way down the priority list.
This is helpful insight into the company.
Offtopic: They are a large Rails shop and apparently are on a hiring binge this year.
It sounds like developers don't really own their app/code, own in the sense of you build, maintain and support it. Working in an organization with support outsourced makes me think they are getting large enough that bureaucracy is growing.
You'd think being an org with lots of engineering they would understand that API support for devs building things on their platform is kinda important and maybe shouldn't be lumped into general support. There are reasons why devs pick Stripe.
Offtopic: They are a large Rails shop and apparently are on a hiring binge this year.
It sounds like developers don't really own their app/code, own in the sense of you build, maintain and support it. Working in an organization with support outsourced makes me think they are getting large enough that bureaucracy is growing.
You'd think being an org with lots of engineering they would understand that API support for devs building things on their platform is kinda important and maybe shouldn't be lumped into general support. There are reasons why devs pick Stripe.
Off topic:
How much of a revenue bonus would be enough incentive to install a specific shopify/plugin/minor-UI-tweaks addition to your store ?
3%? 10% 1%? Lets assume I can convince you we dont share your data or harm your business.
How much of a revenue bonus would be enough incentive to install a specific shopify/plugin/minor-UI-tweaks addition to your store ?
3%? 10% 1%? Lets assume I can convince you we dont share your data or harm your business.
They don't understand the model where SaaS businesses use Shopify as a billing channel on top of their own subscription model, it's all or nothing - they assume that anything in the app store can only use Shopify billing if the user installs via Shopify, which is fair but their billing API has glaring issues:
- App Charges get added to clients bills, you're not getting paid right away (60+ days in some cases) vs getting paid instantly
- If someone doesn't pay their Shopify bill, tough shit you're not getting paid
- Got fraudulent accounts billing via Shopify? They can use your app then never pay anything - fun
- Want to do refunds? Too bad there's no way to do it via the API you have to manually email Shopify then they apply an App Credit (not even a refund) for the customer, then you email them back
- Uninstalling the Shopify App cancels billing, so you lose complete control of your normal downgrade process
- Payments come via PayPal bi monthly :(
There's plenty more, but you're basically losing all the upside of Stripe in exchange for the App Store promotion of your app.
- App Charges get added to clients bills, you're not getting paid right away (60+ days in some cases) vs getting paid instantly
- If someone doesn't pay their Shopify bill, tough shit you're not getting paid
- Got fraudulent accounts billing via Shopify? They can use your app then never pay anything - fun
- Want to do refunds? Too bad there's no way to do it via the API you have to manually email Shopify then they apply an App Credit (not even a refund) for the customer, then you email them back
- Uninstalling the Shopify App cancels billing, so you lose complete control of your normal downgrade process
- Payments come via PayPal bi monthly :(
There's plenty more, but you're basically losing all the upside of Stripe in exchange for the App Store promotion of your app.
Launch on BigCommerce, where you can use your own billing, and come back and tell us how that went.
Hint: poor conversion rate because merchants need to enter their CC details, and low volume. 20% on Shopify is a steal IMO.
Hint: poor conversion rate because merchants need to enter their CC details, and low volume. 20% on Shopify is a steal IMO.
I mean shopify payments have a lot of drawbacks but not having refunds is not one of them [1]
[1] https://shopify.dev/docs/admin-api/rest/reference/orders/ref...
[1] https://shopify.dev/docs/admin-api/rest/reference/orders/ref...
Correction: https://shopify.dev/docs/admin-api/rest/reference/billing/ap...
Also, I have no idea how that API works, because I, like grandparent, always email support when there is a refund request.
Why is this not a simple button in the partner admin page?
Also, I have no idea how that API works, because I, like grandparent, always email support when there is a refund request.
Why is this not a simple button in the partner admin page?
In my experience the "ApplicationCredit" is virtually worthless. You can't apply a credit after a merchant has uninstalled your app since their Shopify API access token has been revoked. And in the vast majority of cases, refund requests happen after a merchant has uninstalled the app.
Why so many refund requests after a merchant has uninstalled your app you ask? Because Shopify inexplicable doesn't prorate app charges when a merchant uninstalls your app in the middle of their 30 day billing period. Even if a merchant uninstalls your app 1 day into their 30 day billing period then Shopify's billing system still charges them for the full 30 days and doesn't automatically refund them back the difference. So we're often inundated with refund requests from merchants. We then have to send an email to Shopify's billing team to have them refund the charge. It's absolutely nuts!
Why so many refund requests after a merchant has uninstalled your app you ask? Because Shopify inexplicable doesn't prorate app charges when a merchant uninstalls your app in the middle of their 30 day billing period. Even if a merchant uninstalls your app 1 day into their 30 day billing period then Shopify's billing system still charges them for the full 30 days and doesn't automatically refund them back the difference. So we're often inundated with refund requests from merchants. We then have to send an email to Shopify's billing team to have them refund the charge. It's absolutely nuts!
[deleted]
This is not a Shopify Billing refund but a refund for orders within a merchant's store.
This is a different API than for App Store billing afaik
If I understand this correctly: this OP partner app (not merchant/store) has been evading the Rev Share agreement with Shopify and is complaining because they got caught and are having to pay back their due? And then they are trying to jump on the furor of Apples 30% rev share agreement to get support from other developers - when the cases are completely different?
To me it sounds like this App developer is trying to have their cake and eat it too. FWIW - I am typically on the small developer side of things but this seems like a case of a bad actor trying to couch it in other complaints...
To me it sounds like this App developer is trying to have their cake and eat it too. FWIW - I am typically on the small developer side of things but this seems like a case of a bad actor trying to couch it in other complaints...
tbh i read it more as yet another example of a platform trying to restrict the rigths of its customers to do every other aspect of their business in the way they choose.
I take your point - and its probably true. BUT when I use what is essentially a glorified website builder to build a site they don't get to tell me who i can put my money through or dictate anything about how i run my business beyond hosting and the builder.
The reality is that it is even more reasons for a business to not build a business that is dependant upon another in this way.
I take your point - and its probably true. BUT when I use what is essentially a glorified website builder to build a site they don't get to tell me who i can put my money through or dictate anything about how i run my business beyond hosting and the builder.
The reality is that it is even more reasons for a business to not build a business that is dependant upon another in this way.
I hear your generic complaint about platforms but in this case the Merchant and actually customers (not third party developer) are the people who should be protected. Partners (third party developers) should have access to provide Merchants much needed services and get paid for that but as I see it Shopify has to regulate what those Partners are doing so that neither their Merchants or Customers are getting taken advantage of. (I.E. avoid any kind of fallout similar to facebooks cambridge analytics level or fraudulent payments).
In this case the third party developer was circumventing the user agreement clearly for their own personal gain and potentially putting customer/merchant data at risk, or at the very minimum not willing to pay the terms that they agreed too. At least thats my perspective.
In terms of glorified website builder - the level of sophistication on these multi channel e-commerce and IRL platforms, inventory management, taxes etc is actually quite daunting to manage.
In this case the third party developer was circumventing the user agreement clearly for their own personal gain and potentially putting customer/merchant data at risk, or at the very minimum not willing to pay the terms that they agreed too. At least thats my perspective.
In terms of glorified website builder - the level of sophistication on these multi channel e-commerce and IRL platforms, inventory management, taxes etc is actually quite daunting to manage.
> Partners (third party developers) should have access to provide Merchants much needed services and get paid for that but as I see it Shopify has to regulate what those Partners are doing so that neither their Merchants or Customers are getting taken advantage of. (I.E. avoid any kind of fallout similar to facebooks cambridge analytics level or fraudulent payments).
People were building complements and addons to pro software long before the whole plateform and app stores fad took hold. The whole thing is pretty much a naked cash grab from publishers and the whole "plateform" strategy which has been so dear to management consultants for the last decade is just another world for artificial barriers to entry but entraving competitions doesn't sound as good as building a plateform.
People were building complements and addons to pro software long before the whole plateform and app stores fad took hold. The whole thing is pretty much a naked cash grab from publishers and the whole "plateform" strategy which has been so dear to management consultants for the last decade is just another world for artificial barriers to entry but entraving competitions doesn't sound as good as building a plateform.
I don't disagree with the building complements and addons forever - no one is arguing that. I would say that the difference between building an application for one company vs building for a platform has some pretty distinct differences.
I think in this instance if you are building for large swaths of a population (ie. merchants) and the brand reputation (Shopify) is at risk of a bad actor (i.e. in Facebooks case cambridge analytics) it is in the interests of the brand (ie Shopify) to manage risk from bad actors.
This may be a cash grab, I don't know the true details only the comments from the aggrieved developer. Though reading the aggrieved comments they seem to have been playing by their own rules and got caught.
If the argument you are trying to make is upstream of that in that the layout of the internet is no longer favor of individual developers - thats a bigger debate that I don't think we can address here. It's a market structure argument in its essence.
I think in this instance if you are building for large swaths of a population (ie. merchants) and the brand reputation (Shopify) is at risk of a bad actor (i.e. in Facebooks case cambridge analytics) it is in the interests of the brand (ie Shopify) to manage risk from bad actors.
This may be a cash grab, I don't know the true details only the comments from the aggrieved developer. Though reading the aggrieved comments they seem to have been playing by their own rules and got caught.
If the argument you are trying to make is upstream of that in that the layout of the internet is no longer favor of individual developers - thats a bigger debate that I don't think we can address here. It's a market structure argument in its essence.
> when I use what is essentially a glorified website builder to build a site they don't get to tell me who i can put my money through or dictate anything about how i run my business beyond hosting and the builder.
Actually, they do if it is in the contract.
The problem with Apple's 30% cut is they are a gatekeeper any business operating on the iPhone and they are using this market power in a oligopolistic fashion (the other player being Google) to engage in rentseeking behavior. There are no alternatives to the Apple app store when it comes to iOS by Apple's design, so they are stifling competition.
In contrast, there are plenty of competitors to Shopify AND Shopify is not using some forced barrier to entry to prevent competition. For example, Amazon being the place of discovery for goods means that Amazon's network effect of being the marketplace where everyone goes to look for any good gives them market power and is a barrier to entry. In contrast, Shopify is not about a marketplace. Each store appears as its own website from the consumers' perspective. Thus, a business can switch to a different e-commerce platform and not be hurt by some market power derived situation.
Thus, it is totally legitimate for Shopify to make such a demand of all customers must use their billing. Their business model is give away X for free (e-commerce website tech) and make money on billing. So long as they aren't engaged in some monopolistic/oligopolistic practice, then they can structure their terms however they please because it isn't causing a market failure and enabling rentseeking.
In the Apple and Google case, 30% would be totally fine if there were alternative app stores, a low barrier to entry to finding those app stores, or the ability to find and install applications from anywhere (again with an easy discovery mechanism for finding those apps).
The counter often made to not allowing other app stores on iOS or installing apps from anywhere is the security risk and potential harm to the consumer. While valid, I think this is disingenuous by Apple. There could be ways to enforce comparable security standards in a more open (not totally open), but more open ecosystem.
Here are some contrived examples: - Properly limited OS APIs to prevent overly broad usage by any app. For example, the move from asking for generic location access to having to specifically ask for background location access vs only while the app is in use. - Then to manage signing permissions, Apple could grant other app stores a new kind signing permissions coupled with a contractual requirement to ensure apps abide by certain security standards (which Apple claims they abide by). This could have stiff penalties, paid by the other app store to a consumer fund similarly to how in an ideal world data breaches should have financial consequences and consumer renumeration.
EDIT: Upon inspection, I realize this 20% by Shopify is for their app marketplace. In that regard, it is more similar to the Amazon example I gave above. I still don't think this is as problematic or comparable to iOS App store as there are tons of alternatives to Shopify and their market power is more limited. Nonetheless, their behavior here is more problematic as it is one of exercising market power to undermine competition in a space that they are becoming increasingly dominant. Thus, it could approach the Amazon situation soon enough. That being said, neither their app marketplace or Amazon's marketplace are anywhere near the true monopolistic behavior that is Apple and Google with their app store pricing. Amazon, for example, is a website where I can easily search different e-commerce websites. There is a much lower switching cost to Amazon on a per purchase basis (I recently bought directly from Home Depot for a bunch of things instead of Amazon). There are no alternatives to the iOS app store if you have an iPhone.
Actually, they do if it is in the contract.
The problem with Apple's 30% cut is they are a gatekeeper any business operating on the iPhone and they are using this market power in a oligopolistic fashion (the other player being Google) to engage in rentseeking behavior. There are no alternatives to the Apple app store when it comes to iOS by Apple's design, so they are stifling competition.
In contrast, there are plenty of competitors to Shopify AND Shopify is not using some forced barrier to entry to prevent competition. For example, Amazon being the place of discovery for goods means that Amazon's network effect of being the marketplace where everyone goes to look for any good gives them market power and is a barrier to entry. In contrast, Shopify is not about a marketplace. Each store appears as its own website from the consumers' perspective. Thus, a business can switch to a different e-commerce platform and not be hurt by some market power derived situation.
Thus, it is totally legitimate for Shopify to make such a demand of all customers must use their billing. Their business model is give away X for free (e-commerce website tech) and make money on billing. So long as they aren't engaged in some monopolistic/oligopolistic practice, then they can structure their terms however they please because it isn't causing a market failure and enabling rentseeking.
In the Apple and Google case, 30% would be totally fine if there were alternative app stores, a low barrier to entry to finding those app stores, or the ability to find and install applications from anywhere (again with an easy discovery mechanism for finding those apps).
The counter often made to not allowing other app stores on iOS or installing apps from anywhere is the security risk and potential harm to the consumer. While valid, I think this is disingenuous by Apple. There could be ways to enforce comparable security standards in a more open (not totally open), but more open ecosystem.
Here are some contrived examples: - Properly limited OS APIs to prevent overly broad usage by any app. For example, the move from asking for generic location access to having to specifically ask for background location access vs only while the app is in use. - Then to manage signing permissions, Apple could grant other app stores a new kind signing permissions coupled with a contractual requirement to ensure apps abide by certain security standards (which Apple claims they abide by). This could have stiff penalties, paid by the other app store to a consumer fund similarly to how in an ideal world data breaches should have financial consequences and consumer renumeration.
EDIT: Upon inspection, I realize this 20% by Shopify is for their app marketplace. In that regard, it is more similar to the Amazon example I gave above. I still don't think this is as problematic or comparable to iOS App store as there are tons of alternatives to Shopify and their market power is more limited. Nonetheless, their behavior here is more problematic as it is one of exercising market power to undermine competition in a space that they are becoming increasingly dominant. Thus, it could approach the Amazon situation soon enough. That being said, neither their app marketplace or Amazon's marketplace are anywhere near the true monopolistic behavior that is Apple and Google with their app store pricing. Amazon, for example, is a website where I can easily search different e-commerce websites. There is a much lower switching cost to Amazon on a per purchase basis (I recently bought directly from Home Depot for a bunch of things instead of Amazon). There are no alternatives to the iOS app store if you have an iPhone.
You have to use Shopify Billing for shops that installed your app through app store, but you can have Stripe for apps that installed your app directly through your site for example, that's how business I'm working for is doing.
Basically if you want Shopify App Store customers, you have to give 20% to Shopify, but you still have option of acquiring users yourself through your site without app store.
Is it fair? Maybe not, but that's a deal. Apple users on the other hand don't have option of installing apps without app store, so comparison is not valid.
Basically if you want Shopify App Store customers, you have to give 20% to Shopify, but you still have option of acquiring users yourself through your site without app store.
Is it fair? Maybe not, but that's a deal. Apple users on the other hand don't have option of installing apps without app store, so comparison is not valid.
The Shopify terms state that if your application accesses the Shopify API and is used by two or more merchants, then you have to give 20% to Shopify.
Do you have any references on there being an exception for apps not installed through the store ? I would be very interested.
Do you have any references on there being an exception for apps not installed through the store ? I would be very interested.
It could be they got special permission for that, I'm not the owner
You make a private app for each customer.
This has been _specifically_ called out in Shopify's recent emails to partners. If the private apps are essentially all the same, it's considered abusing private apps and they may come down on you at some point. Private apps, in Shopify's eyes, are for something like a consultant whom is building one-off apps for clients, not as a way to avoid the store.
This seems pretty reasonable to me. If you don't like the deal you can still target these customers. 20% cut for advertising, billing and other features sounds like a deal that many people would (and do) take.
I would be much more bothered by the 20% cut if there was no other way to target these customers.
I would be much more bothered by the 20% cut if there was no other way to target these customers.
Why compare users who may or may not use Shopify’s app store with people who definitely use apple? People don’t have the choice to use the apple App Store without paying the 30% cut, but they have the choice to not use apple. People don’t have the choice to use the Shopify App Store without paying the 20% cut, but they have the choice to not use Shopify.
Also, I just bought an audiobook last night on my iphone through the browser, and presumably apple didn’t get a cut. I think Shopify’s cut and apple’s cut are fair analogies here.
Also, I just bought an audiobook last night on my iphone through the browser, and presumably apple didn’t get a cut. I think Shopify’s cut and apple’s cut are fair analogies here.
If you delist your Shopify app from the app store you will not have to pay the 20% monthly commission from the new customers. It also means your app is private, and you will have to invest in your distribution channel now. Shopify stores can install it as a Private App, which means you will need to find new customers on your own.
On a different note, I wouldn't recommend building an app that is strongly integrated into the Shopify platform due to a myriad of reasons.
Shopify App store will not give you enough exposure to grow your customer base naturally, you will have to invest in your distribution channel anyways, but now you are tied to a 20% commission since your app is public.
App store ranking system is heavily tuned towards the rate of installations your app has, which means products that offer free, or very cheap pricing plans are getting to the front page. If you offer free or very cheap pricing you will get inundated with customer support requests. The biggest chunk of Shopify customers, have very little understanding how to run an e-commerce store. Handling these requests will be a nightmare. This also means that the Shopify App store is not used anymore by stores that are running on Professional or Shopify Plus platforms, since it is full of apps that are borderline scam, and they can't find valuable services by a simple search.
Shopify understands this as well, that's why they've created Shopify Plus Certified App Store https://www.shopify.com/plus/partners/technology, which is essentially a curated Shopify App store targeting customers who are not afraid of paying money for valuable services. Getting there is not easy since the certification process is not transparent (we've applied but not heard anything from Shopify since then).
Also, Shopify integrates new features into its platform every year getting into more and more verticals. This essentially means that if you build an app that provides important e-commerce functionality, Shopify will probably release the same feature integrated natively into their platform.
All in all, don't bet on the Shopify App Store distribution channel, it is just not worth it.
On a different note, I wouldn't recommend building an app that is strongly integrated into the Shopify platform due to a myriad of reasons.
Shopify App store will not give you enough exposure to grow your customer base naturally, you will have to invest in your distribution channel anyways, but now you are tied to a 20% commission since your app is public.
App store ranking system is heavily tuned towards the rate of installations your app has, which means products that offer free, or very cheap pricing plans are getting to the front page. If you offer free or very cheap pricing you will get inundated with customer support requests. The biggest chunk of Shopify customers, have very little understanding how to run an e-commerce store. Handling these requests will be a nightmare. This also means that the Shopify App store is not used anymore by stores that are running on Professional or Shopify Plus platforms, since it is full of apps that are borderline scam, and they can't find valuable services by a simple search.
Shopify understands this as well, that's why they've created Shopify Plus Certified App Store https://www.shopify.com/plus/partners/technology, which is essentially a curated Shopify App store targeting customers who are not afraid of paying money for valuable services. Getting there is not easy since the certification process is not transparent (we've applied but not heard anything from Shopify since then).
Also, Shopify integrates new features into its platform every year getting into more and more verticals. This essentially means that if you build an app that provides important e-commerce functionality, Shopify will probably release the same feature integrated natively into their platform.
All in all, don't bet on the Shopify App Store distribution channel, it is just not worth it.
There's a difference between delisting your app from the Shopify App Store and making it private (now called custom). A delisted app still needs to use Shopify's billing system and pay the 20% fee even if you find new customers yourself. If your Shopify app is private (custom) then it doesn't need to use Shopify's billing system but then it can't be installed by more than 1 merchant. So Shopify has basically created a catch 22. If you want your app to be installed by more than 1 merchant even if it's not on the Shopify App Store then you're required to pay them a fee. For reference, Shopify made this change at the end of 2019: https://www.shopify.com/partners/blog/shopify-public-apps
Didn't know about the change, thanks.
[deleted]
Shopify is really terrible when it comes to partner support. The documentation is terrible and if you want to use their API, be prepared to bang your hand against the wall for their design choices. Partners are not Shopify's actual customers of course, but Shopify wants partners to make up for all the shortcomings of the platform without making appropriate tools and support available.
In your particular case, if I understand correctly, Shopify wants you to bill customers for App store purchases through their platform. I don't think that's wrong - most marketplaces expect a cut of the revenue you make off their platform.
In your particular case, if I understand correctly, Shopify wants you to bill customers for App store purchases through their platform. I don't think that's wrong - most marketplaces expect a cut of the revenue you make off their platform.
These aren't purchases via their app store (I don't know if you can even do that?). They're within our webapp using Shopify's billing API to buy stuff. The Shopify integration is just used for discovery (via their app store), login, installation, email integration, and of course billing.
Yes but if you bill them separately using Stripe, that's clearly against their Terms of Service.
> The Shopify integration is just used for discovery (via their app store), login, installation, email integration, and of course billing.
So Shopify is responsible for generating 100% of your revenue, correct? If you are opposed to a 20% cut of that on principle, how else do you expect them to make money?
> The Shopify integration is just used for discovery (via their app store), login, installation, email integration, and of course billing.
So Shopify is responsible for generating 100% of your revenue, correct? If you are opposed to a 20% cut of that on principle, how else do you expect them to make money?
Using their subscriptions?
Their subscription service alone doesn't cover the costs of running the business. That's why they take a margin on sales.
Also it seems like a fair way to make money -- sell hosting services for cheap (so people who want to start a business can get going fast) and as they move into larger revenues they provide a portion back to the services that helped them get there.
Also it seems like a fair way to make money -- sell hosting services for cheap (so people who want to start a business can get going fast) and as they move into larger revenues they provide a portion back to the services that helped them get there.
do you show to the Stripe billing option to all installations (meaning also the ones that came directly from the App Store listing) or only the ones that came through your website / are existing customers?
All. That's the issue they've got. It looks like we're going to have to hide it for anyone that comes in via the App Store.
Another problem is we've got 4 products and only one is listed on the Shopify app store. If they log in via product A's listing then buy product B, it seems we must use Shopify's billing for that too.
Another problem is we've got 4 products and only one is listed on the Shopify app store. If they log in via product A's listing then buy product B, it seems we must use Shopify's billing for that too.
I'm not a Shopify partner, but it looks like this is nothing new or suprising, and clearly stated in their terms. Why are you suprised or pissed off?
Or maybe I don't understand how exactly you use Stripe in connection to Shopify. Can you tell us more about what your app does and how you use Stripe?
Or maybe I don't understand how exactly you use Stripe in connection to Shopify. Can you tell us more about what your app does and how you use Stripe?
Just because Apple also has everything "written down" in their terms, but Shopify CEO is pissed off by them. Also, because they're asking for the commission retroactively for any billing they have done bypassing their API.
Apple’s store is the only way to distribute iOS apps. Shopify is not the only ecommerce platform, and on top of that, you can even make plugins for Shopify users without going through their app store. It’s completely different. You have a choice.
Because they're paying for a platform to deliver services and the platform then tries to dictate how they run their business. It's questionable at best and should perhaps be illegal.
No, you've misunderstood the situation here.
OP is not "paying for a platform" on Shopify -- they are not a customer of Shopify running a store. OP is a Shopify partner offering a service to Shopify's clients, through Shopify's own web site, and is expected to pay Shopify a cut of their profits in exchange for being featured this way. This is a standard practice for this type of partnership.
OP is not "paying for a platform" on Shopify -- they are not a customer of Shopify running a store. OP is a Shopify partner offering a service to Shopify's clients, through Shopify's own web site, and is expected to pay Shopify a cut of their profits in exchange for being featured this way. This is a standard practice for this type of partnership.
Sorry to be blunt but what do you expect to happen when you breach ana partner agreement you've read and signed?
It's the walled path you and other merchants paved, but nothing is stopping you right now from making your own store on a personal site I think? If you need one let me know how I can help you.
It's the walled path you and other merchants paved, but nothing is stopping you right now from making your own store on a personal site I think? If you need one let me know how I can help you.
He's not a merchant he's an app developer with a saas that shopify merchants can use.
> currently listed on the Shopify App store.
so their company developed a plugin for shopifys walled garden app store - which has T&Cs
so their company developed a plugin for shopifys walled garden app store - which has T&Cs
Right, and the knowingly violated those T&Cs and got an email about it. Which, by the way, is a hell of a lot nicer than a certified letter from a law firm.
I built an alternative for my wife called MakePostSell https://www.makepostsell.com
Right now it only works for digital downloads but I'm planning to build out shipping and local pickup options for physical goods.
Currently in beta but my wife is using the platform in production here: https://shop.printableprompts.com
The only payment processor at this time is stripe.
My thought is to allow people to bring their own domain, Stripe API keys, PayPal, and S3 bucket or digital Ocean spaces (for files, attachments, thumbnails, preview files, and products.
I want to disrupt and keep pricing very competitive for small shops (potentially even a free entry-level plan)
Hope this helps you feel less trapped.
Click the "New Shop" button to try the beta.
Right now it only works for digital downloads but I'm planning to build out shipping and local pickup options for physical goods.
Currently in beta but my wife is using the platform in production here: https://shop.printableprompts.com
The only payment processor at this time is stripe.
My thought is to allow people to bring their own domain, Stripe API keys, PayPal, and S3 bucket or digital Ocean spaces (for files, attachments, thumbnails, preview files, and products.
I want to disrupt and keep pricing very competitive for small shops (potentially even a free entry-level plan)
Hope this helps you feel less trapped.
Click the "New Shop" button to try the beta.
Your welcome page doesn't mention VAT, so I am going to assume that you do not handle VAT. This makes your product unsuitable for anyone in Europe.
There are other solutions for digital products that take lower commissions, for example FastSpring (would not recommend) or MyCommerce (no experience).
They are probably not as sleek as Shopify, but their rates are around 5-9% (depending on how big average orders are), and they handle VAT and invoicing so you don't end up having to pay a lot of back taxes when the authorities audit your business.
They are built for selling software, but work just as well for ebooks etc.
There are other solutions for digital products that take lower commissions, for example FastSpring (would not recommend) or MyCommerce (no experience).
They are probably not as sleek as Shopify, but their rates are around 5-9% (depending on how big average orders are), and they handle VAT and invoicing so you don't end up having to pay a lot of back taxes when the authorities audit your business.
They are built for selling software, but work just as well for ebooks etc.
Yeah no VAT at this point but seems like a road map item for certain.
I don't give tax advice but in the United States each state handles sales tax and economic/physical nexus on digital goods differently.
All of these are on my radar for MakePostSell and all online sellers should educate themselves on the rules for their region.
I don't give tax advice but in the United States each state handles sales tax and economic/physical nexus on digital goods differently.
All of these are on my radar for MakePostSell and all online sellers should educate themselves on the rules for their region.
Unfortunately "the rules for their region" can be incredibly complex: selling online means you don't necessarily know (or care!) what your customers' region is.
It's complex; good luck if you decide to tackle it!!
It's complex; good luck if you decide to tackle it!!
I think I've already captured enough complexity in MakePostSell to make it possible to implement sales tax. It's not an unsolvable problem since we have plenty of examples in the wild.
I'm sure the examples hide the complexity with abstractions and I'm currently naive to all the edge cases, which makes me but not thankfully not ignorant to the path ahead.
From first principles we should be able to form a generalist approach to solving sales tax. Should be an algorithm in the public domain as far as I'm concerned. : )
I'd take a solution that got me 80% there.
I'm sure the examples hide the complexity with abstractions and I'm currently naive to all the edge cases, which makes me but not thankfully not ignorant to the path ahead.
From first principles we should be able to form a generalist approach to solving sales tax. Should be an algorithm in the public domain as far as I'm concerned. : )
I'd take a solution that got me 80% there.
From first principles we should be able to form a generalist approach to solving sales tax. Should be an algorithm in the public domain as far as I'm concerned. : )
Reasoning from first principles only works if you're Elon Musk and you don't actually have to go beyond a superficial understanding of the problem domain. Unfortunately, there is no "generalist approach" to sales tax or VAT. Every jurisdiction has different rules and rates. The U.S. has more than 3000 different sales tax jurisdictions, of which more than 1000 levy sales tax on digital goods and services even on out-of-state sellers.
And that doesn't take into account the dozens of different definitions of what is a "digital good." Here's a surprise for the unwary: in more than a dozen states, downloaded software is treated as a physical good.
I'd take a solution that got me 80% there.
In this case, the last 20% will take 99% of the time and effort. And then you'll have to make sure to do that work all over again next year, and every year, when the sales tax/VAT laws are updated.
Reasoning from first principles only works if you're Elon Musk and you don't actually have to go beyond a superficial understanding of the problem domain. Unfortunately, there is no "generalist approach" to sales tax or VAT. Every jurisdiction has different rules and rates. The U.S. has more than 3000 different sales tax jurisdictions, of which more than 1000 levy sales tax on digital goods and services even on out-of-state sellers.
And that doesn't take into account the dozens of different definitions of what is a "digital good." Here's a surprise for the unwary: in more than a dozen states, downloaded software is treated as a physical good.
I'd take a solution that got me 80% there.
In this case, the last 20% will take 99% of the time and effort. And then you'll have to make sure to do that work all over again next year, and every year, when the sales tax/VAT laws are updated.
Also, noone will notify you when a sales tax or VAT law changes -- you have to find it out on your own :)
It's not an impossible problem, it's definitely doable, but I'm pretty sure you need a couple of people and won't be able to do it all on your own.
If you're just a small seller, you can "fly under the radar" and just handle taxes in your own jurisdiction.
But as you get bigger, you need to handle every place that you sell to. Especially if you resell your solution to others.
It's not an impossible problem, it's definitely doable, but I'm pretty sure you need a couple of people and won't be able to do it all on your own.
If you're just a small seller, you can "fly under the radar" and just handle taxes in your own jurisdiction.
But as you get bigger, you need to handle every place that you sell to. Especially if you resell your solution to others.
I think a general system could be designed such that most of the classifying work is done up front and also shop owners could opt-in or add additional rules to the algorithm. I think the 20% could be squeezed and solved a number of different ways especially in the name of the public.
Yes, a "general" system can be designed. In fact, they already exist (see, for example Avalara, which does exactly what you aim to do). It took hundreds of developers and hundreds of accountants and lawyers to make these systems work, and the companies that run these systems make thousands of dollars a year from each business customer. And businesses that sell to multiple states/countries gladly pay, because it would cost even more to try and build such a system in-house.
I think a general system could be designed such that most of the classifying work is done up front
The classifying work of products and services already exists. In fact, there are standardized classification systems in the U.S. and the EU. That is not the problem.
shop owners could opt-in or add additional rules to the algorithm.
No, they can't. Because there is no one algorithm to calculating the tax applicable to a transaction. There are thousands of different algorithms, many of which get changed on a yearly basis (and in some cases, even within a year due to special events like disasters). Each tax jurisdiction has its own rates and components. Within a single county, you can have different cities levying their own separate sets of factors and rates when determining sales tax. (See, for example, LA vs Santa Monica for examples of different rates on the same components, or any city in Colorado vs any other city in Colorado for examples of cities within the same county using different components and different rates.)
I think the 20% could be squeezed and solved a number of different ways especially in the name of the public.
Quite frankly, the storefront component is the 20%. You would need to devote 80% of your time to the tax component.
Note: in the "name of the public" the EU has introduced the VATMOSS system to simplify filing VAT reports throughout the EU, and the Streamlined Sales Tax program in the U.S. aims to do the same for filing US sales tax returns. However, filing sales tax/VAT returns was always the easy part of all of this; the hard part has always been figuring out the appropriate sales tax to apply to a transaction.
I think a general system could be designed such that most of the classifying work is done up front
The classifying work of products and services already exists. In fact, there are standardized classification systems in the U.S. and the EU. That is not the problem.
shop owners could opt-in or add additional rules to the algorithm.
No, they can't. Because there is no one algorithm to calculating the tax applicable to a transaction. There are thousands of different algorithms, many of which get changed on a yearly basis (and in some cases, even within a year due to special events like disasters). Each tax jurisdiction has its own rates and components. Within a single county, you can have different cities levying their own separate sets of factors and rates when determining sales tax. (See, for example, LA vs Santa Monica for examples of different rates on the same components, or any city in Colorado vs any other city in Colorado for examples of cities within the same county using different components and different rates.)
I think the 20% could be squeezed and solved a number of different ways especially in the name of the public.
Quite frankly, the storefront component is the 20%. You would need to devote 80% of your time to the tax component.
Note: in the "name of the public" the EU has introduced the VATMOSS system to simplify filing VAT reports throughout the EU, and the Streamlined Sales Tax program in the U.S. aims to do the same for filing US sales tax returns. However, filing sales tax/VAT returns was always the easy part of all of this; the hard part has always been figuring out the appropriate sales tax to apply to a transaction.
For digital downloads within the EU, the VAT rate depends on the location of the end customer (and must be paid to the tax office in the jurisdiction of that end customer).
Failing to do account for this at the time of sale creates legal and/or economic liabilities for your customer.
This means that the API between your platform and your customer would need to have (at least) "gross price", "VAT" and "jurisdiction" for each item, to allow for your customer to do proper book-keeping.
Failing to do account for this at the time of sale creates legal and/or economic liabilities for your customer.
This means that the API between your platform and your customer would need to have (at least) "gross price", "VAT" and "jurisdiction" for each item, to allow for your customer to do proper book-keeping.
Thank you for sharing this.
Having looked into it recently, the current pricing for online merchants is just excessive. Unless you are selling an item with a ridiculous margin, it is hard to keep up. And it isn't just Shopify and companies of the same type. Online marketplaces are about as bad in terms of trying to capture bigger slice of the pie.
I will keep watching your project.
Having looked into it recently, the current pricing for online merchants is just excessive. Unless you are selling an item with a ridiculous margin, it is hard to keep up. And it isn't just Shopify and companies of the same type. Online marketplaces are about as bad in terms of trying to capture bigger slice of the pie.
I will keep watching your project.
Worth mentioning Shopify uses Stripe. A few months back they introduced their Shopify Payment Module (at least in Europe) which runs on Stripe, which then overrides and disables the standalone legacy Stripe module. You can't have both, and they don't straight up tell you this when you try their module.
They now absorb the commission into their pricing. Once you disable your standalone Stripe integration, it disappears and they only way to get it back is to cry to support.
They now absorb the commission into their pricing. Once you disable your standalone Stripe integration, it disappears and they only way to get it back is to cry to support.
I'm sorry but Shopify has always been focused on profit and lock-in, which is why they don't allow tools that move customers away from the platform and will stop paying resellers (all) their recurring commission if you don't add enough new customers to the platform every year.
And now your stepping on their transaction profits which are substantial, considering the amounts they process.
And now your stepping on their transaction profits which are substantial, considering the amounts they process.
wow, they hold seller's data hostage?
This was always the case with the Shopify App Store. They were more loose in using other payment systems, as long as you payed them their 20% by wire transfer. Since end of 2019 they give that permission to almost nobody.
It is also a big piece of the verification process for the App Store. So maybe you added Stripe later and now they found it?
Did you have a written waiver that you could charge another way? That is required at least since ~2015.
It is also a big piece of the verification process for the App Store. So maybe you added Stripe later and now they found it?
Did you have a written waiver that you could charge another way? That is required at least since ~2015.
Nah, we've had Stripe since 2013. Added Shopify billing in 2016 (which was a nightmare using their old API). We'll be too small for an exemption/wire transfer method.
I've used Shopify a few times and it's clear they're trying to be an Apple for e e-commerce. Slick and easy set up with strong lock in and high fees.
As a result, I'll advise clients to use Shopify for a POC perhaps but then to put money aside to build their own system when they gain some traction. And I'm starting to wonder if there's a market for someone to build the Android equivalent of Shopify because this pisses me off royally. Especially when non-US customers pay the same fees but have less features for some unknown reason.
As a result, I'll advise clients to use Shopify for a POC perhaps but then to put money aside to build their own system when they gain some traction. And I'm starting to wonder if there's a market for someone to build the Android equivalent of Shopify because this pisses me off royally. Especially when non-US customers pay the same fees but have less features for some unknown reason.
If Shopify want to do that they had better up their game other wise larger brands will just walk.
They need to start paying attention to core web vitals stat.
They need to start paying attention to core web vitals stat.
What do you recommend instead?
Commerce Layer has a business model with no revenue sharing:
https://commercelayer.io/
I guess maybe you have some connection to Commerce Layer, because you've mentioned them here multiple times now. If you do, perhaps you'd like to tell them that I just visited their site and after a few minutes of reading, I still don't understand what they offer or why it might help me. The pages I saw were full of buzzwords and vague arguments, but had little substance: no high-level explanation of the scope of the product and what functionality it offers, no illustration of how the API works and where it would integrate with the rest of my system, no walk-throughs showing how to build different types of useful functionality with it, no case studies showing the benefits of switching to it. It was a frustrating experience, and they might like to do something about that.
(not related to parent) Excellent feedback! Thanks
Would there be a way to contact you to ask for feedback on another potential ecommerce product? (doesn't exist yet, so that's why there's no link). My email is in profile.
Would there be a way to contact you to ask for feedback on another potential ecommerce product? (doesn't exist yet, so that's why there's no link). My email is in profile.
Sorry, I'm commenting pseudonymously, so helping that way would "out" me and potentially others. But if I come across your product on a forum like HN and it seems like constructive criticism might be welcome, maybe I or someone else will be able to give you some useful feedback then.
This isn't a particularly surprising occurrence, is it? For better or worse, it sounds like them defending their moat: which is exactly what any company would do.
Can you create a private app for each of your customers? I know it would be a lot more challenging and you wouldn't get free marketing from Shopify's app store, but from my understanding private apps aren't subject to Shopify's commission and at least you would have more control over your business.
https://www.shopify.com/partners/terms#section-c2-2
> Unless otherwise indicated in this Agreement or agreed to by Shopify in writing, under the App Plan, an App Developer is entitled to eighty percent (80%) of the total revenues from the sale of, subscription to or charges relating to the Public Application, with Shopify being entitled to the remaining twenty percent (20%).
https://www.shopify.com/legal/api-terms
> “Public Application” means an Application that accesses the Shopify API via an API Client and that is made available to Merchants either via a URL or through the Shopify App Store, and that is not a Custom Application.
> “Private Application” means an Application that accesses the Shopify API via Private API Credentials and is made available to a single Merchant.
https://www.shopify.com/partners/terms#section-c2-2
> Unless otherwise indicated in this Agreement or agreed to by Shopify in writing, under the App Plan, an App Developer is entitled to eighty percent (80%) of the total revenues from the sale of, subscription to or charges relating to the Public Application, with Shopify being entitled to the remaining twenty percent (20%).
https://www.shopify.com/legal/api-terms
> “Public Application” means an Application that accesses the Shopify API via an API Client and that is made available to Merchants either via a URL or through the Shopify App Store, and that is not a Custom Application.
> “Private Application” means an Application that accesses the Shopify API via Private API Credentials and is made available to a single Merchant.
You could in theory, but this requires having each merchant go into their admin and manually grant you scopes and then copy/paste the api key and secret to you. Definitely not a scalable way to go about it.
Shopify is a terrible experience overall, and I wouldn't recommend it for anyone looking to start a quick ecom business online, especially if you don't have technical experience _or_ you don't plan exactly what you'll do if you grow over it. I had to work with some clients that wanted to move away from Shopify and I was surprised at how certain types of paccounts are required to access certain parts of the API for their store. For example, you could retrieve orders but not promocodes, or not users, I can't remember exactly now, but they either had to pay more or put up with CSV parsing with limited amount of information and details. These services would probably not have had the "success" they're seeing if it wasn't for these dark patterns they implement to ex(tract|tort) money from their most likely non-technical clientele.
With that being said, I don't see a problem in requiring their users to use a specific PSP that makes more business sense for them. But yes, like other have pointed out, it's way up there on the hypocrisy chart to do this while complaining about Apple. Apple's 30% cut is not unfair, neither is theirs.
With that being said, I don't see a problem in requiring their users to use a specific PSP that makes more business sense for them. But yes, like other have pointed out, it's way up there on the hypocrisy chart to do this while complaining about Apple. Apple's 30% cut is not unfair, neither is theirs.
Sadly there aren’t a lot of better options. Spotify has to be the worst bang for your buck option though if you actually have customers. The most basic functionality sucks without apps so you have to get them and sure most apps are “free” until you actually get customers but then you get slammed with fees. Wordpress is similar where if you want it to actually perform like a half decent store you need to pay for a ton of add-ons but it’s even worse because even if you have no customers you have to pay for the addons.
I'm not entirely sure that's true, there are plenty of good options. But none of them are as easy to start with for sure, but it's deceptive. Like you said, basic functionality sucks and for any decent behavior if you have customers you need to know which addons to use and pay for them. There is no reason for them to be free, but at least if you're using Wordpress with addons you're in full control of your customer data. Holding your data hostage to force you to pay more is incredibly hostile.
If you're serious about your ecom and you're in it for the long run, it's worth it to pay for a custom solution. Control your code and your customers data.
If you're serious about your ecom and you're in it for the long run, it's worth it to pay for a custom solution. Control your code and your customers data.
The insane growth the stock has had needs to be kept propped up for the shareholders to be happy. More profit = more shareholder value and that's that. Once you IPO, forget about any and all startup grandiose values that was created on inception to help the 'little' guy. Shopify will be the new Yelp with their mafia style tactics.
Why is it ok in software to pay a 20% - 30% commission?
Imagine if your car dealer would ask an extra 30%
Ok, ok I get it, it's not a physical product but still people get paid to work on it and develop it, and there are income taxes and all that, but really 20-30%?!?!
If you sell a product chances are your profit margin is 20-30% and that it's good, but here in software we have to do a cut for 20-30%, well again 10% it's not going to buy all the fancy tech and spaces in expensive parts of the world.
Ok, ok I get it, it's not a physical product but still people get paid to work on it and develop it, and there are income taxes and all that, but really 20-30%?!?!
If you sell a product chances are your profit margin is 20-30% and that it's good, but here in software we have to do a cut for 20-30%, well again 10% it's not going to buy all the fancy tech and spaces in expensive parts of the world.
[deleted]
It’s not cheap sending a few bytes through the internet. It takes... uh... some storage and bandwidth on the order of several dollars to have a website simply show your app.. yea.. this is what happens when marketplaces have monopolies, even if they are essentially self imposed monopolies by the customers simply being to lazy to search for things elsewhere.
Unfortunatelly, big corps have the power to impose their own taxes. Google, Apple, Shopify, Upwork, ...
Don’t try to equate Shopify’s app distribution to Apple’s. They’re not the same.
Apple charges commission for your paid application regardless of distribution form because there is only one and you have to use it, the AppStore. Shopify has an optional distribution platform for apps which they charge a fee for. You can distribute your app on your own and avoid the fee.
Apple charges commission for your paid application regardless of distribution form because there is only one and you have to use it, the AppStore. Shopify has an optional distribution platform for apps which they charge a fee for. You can distribute your app on your own and avoid the fee.
[deleted]
This is absolutely not the wording of the Shopify terms.
If your application 1. uses the Shopify API and 2. is sold to more than one Shopify customer, then Shopify takes 20% of your revenue. Presence on the optional distribution platform is not necessary.
If your application 1. uses the Shopify API and 2. is sold to more than one Shopify customer, then Shopify takes 20% of your revenue. Presence on the optional distribution platform is not necessary.
Some folks have mentioned that this can't be compared to Apple because as a Shopify app creator you have the option to distribute the app on your own platform to avoid the 20% fee.
But in an eco-system driven platform I don't think having a choice matters in the end.
If users are trained that the best place to install apps is through the app store and there's a huge marketing effort put in place by the app store that you can only trust apps from that store, etc., etc. then it almost doesn't matter if there's an alternative because users immediately associate non-app store apps as being very bad and should be avoided at all costs.
I don't use Shopify currently but I imagine the work flow for adding a new app to your store starts with you searching the app store for whatever type of app you want because it's built into the platform. Then you start narrowing down results based on demo videos, features and reviews until you find something you're happy with.
Going outside of the app store doesn't even come up because most app types probably have dozens of decent choices on the app store. Even if you decided to Google around most of the top hits will be apps from the app store because Shopify's SEO is very likely going to be better than yours.
The only way someone will discover and use your app outside of the app store is you have already have a massive following and trust that you're not a bad actor looking to do something shady by avoiding the app store (because this is what users are trained to think) and your app is leaps and bounds better than anything that exists on the app store so that users are willing to take the risk to go with your non-official app. That doesn't seem like it would happen very often.
Does anyone have a wildly successful Shopify app that's not on the app store?
To me this feels like an illusion of choice because yes technically you have the option but realistically the outcome is the same as having no option.
But in an eco-system driven platform I don't think having a choice matters in the end.
If users are trained that the best place to install apps is through the app store and there's a huge marketing effort put in place by the app store that you can only trust apps from that store, etc., etc. then it almost doesn't matter if there's an alternative because users immediately associate non-app store apps as being very bad and should be avoided at all costs.
I don't use Shopify currently but I imagine the work flow for adding a new app to your store starts with you searching the app store for whatever type of app you want because it's built into the platform. Then you start narrowing down results based on demo videos, features and reviews until you find something you're happy with.
Going outside of the app store doesn't even come up because most app types probably have dozens of decent choices on the app store. Even if you decided to Google around most of the top hits will be apps from the app store because Shopify's SEO is very likely going to be better than yours.
The only way someone will discover and use your app outside of the app store is you have already have a massive following and trust that you're not a bad actor looking to do something shady by avoiding the app store (because this is what users are trained to think) and your app is leaps and bounds better than anything that exists on the app store so that users are willing to take the risk to go with your non-official app. That doesn't seem like it would happen very often.
Does anyone have a wildly successful Shopify app that's not on the app store?
To me this feels like an illusion of choice because yes technically you have the option but realistically the outcome is the same as having no option.
That seems to be the case. Even Android allowing apps outside their store to be installed but you have to find 5 more buttons in settings to click to get there causes people to just not do it.
From a user perspective it is better for me to have one invoice from Shopify, in the right format with all necessary information and with additional tax documents required by law.
If I had to set up payments for each extension and go through gathering invoices and documents it would be devastating.
So as long as I understand the author I also understand why Shopify wants the billing API to be used.
Also easy pay = more users ...
If I had to set up payments for each extension and go through gathering invoices and documents it would be devastating.
So as long as I understand the author I also understand why Shopify wants the billing API to be used.
Also easy pay = more users ...
On the other hand, if you pay $2000/month for some other service, you may be unhappy with having to pay an additional $500 just to have it connect to Shopify to expose some data.
I don't know what costs so much. But I know gathering documentation from multiple small vendors across the world, additional taxes can be more expensive than $500
Anti-competition laws need an upgrade in this world of platform economies.
Or, 'Shopify says follow the terms you agreed to when you signed up or get booted from their app store'
How are you surprised? If you have billing sorted for your SaaS, why do you even need Shopify for?
Generally speaking it is very surprising for a merchant of any product to require that you not use a competing product in order to use their product.
plugins, fulfillment, order tracking, the UI. it does way more than billing.
We (stannp.com) created an app for the shopify marketplace some time ago which helped shops send letters and postcards to their customers. The app would sync recipients with our platform or trigger mail to be posted. The shopify rep said we had to implement their billing API on across our whole platform so they get a 30% (i'm sure it was 30% back then) cut on all transactions. It drove me crazy because I saw mailchip in the marketplace and I'm pretty sure they didn't implement the shopify billing API and give 30% for their subscriptions.
The official mailchimp app was also removed from the Shopify app store for not complying with the terms. Shopify doesn't care who you are, everyone is on the same terms now.
That's more common than you think.
If the world is ever dominated by aliens it won't be due to their superior firepower, but because some human accepted their EULA/ T&C without reading.
If the world is ever dominated by aliens it won't be due to their superior firepower, but because some human accepted their EULA/ T&C without reading.
Shopify's subscription apps with their newly released subscription API is also woeful, not surprised of this outcome.
The subscription apps on the App Store are suited for physical goods (coffee beans, etc) rather than digital (membership, gift subscription, saas, etc.) which is what is driving the subscription economy.
So building a digital membership platform on Shopify makes no sense, unless you consider sending shoes as a subscription to someone on a regular basis a 'digital membership'.
The subscription apps on the App Store are suited for physical goods (coffee beans, etc) rather than digital (membership, gift subscription, saas, etc.) which is what is driving the subscription economy.
So building a digital membership platform on Shopify makes no sense, unless you consider sending shoes as a subscription to someone on a regular basis a 'digital membership'.
They passed the point of no return as soon as they started giving out business loans via Shopify Capital. This backlash against lock-in strategies will continue to dog Shopify.
Are you surprised by this? It's like going on Upwork and offering to charge customers less by direct invoice instead of their Upwork charging service lol come on son
If in glasshouse, then do not to throw stones.
Do think this is unjust? I'm a bit confused, I thought that was the whole point/business model of Shopify?
[deleted]
Doubt there is anything you can do. Should have read the contract/terms before getting in bed with them.
If your business has grown you could evaluate to move off the shopify platform. And figure out best way to handle this fine/charge.
If your business has grown you could evaluate to move off the shopify platform. And figure out best way to handle this fine/charge.
Sounds like you signed a B2B partnership agreement and didn't read it...
* 20% *
Holy cow.
Holy cow.
20% of gross is typically 40% of net (since it can't be paid for by anyone else but the merchant) at 100% markup. That's like lending 40% of equity to your electric company.
I don't understand why any business would willingly do that other than business ignorance or technical laziness.
I don't understand why any business would willingly do that other than business ignorance or technical laziness.
How exactly did you think Shopify made money?
Kind of hard your tiny text in gray on yellow on a 6" phone screen... HN needs a UI revamp.
why are you surprised?
shopify is a platform that monetizes selling things. no company would allow the kind of freedom you seek. if that's what you want, build your own website and use stripe. it's not that hard.
shopify is a platform that monetizes selling things. no company would allow the kind of freedom you seek. if that's what you want, build your own website and use stripe. it's not that hard.
This sounds like a phishing mail even, at least the way it's written.
Well... it's in their terms, isn't it? What is the news here?
didn't apple just say they are going to cut their charge in half?
Shopify billing is such shit that only bots can checkout high demand items. People literally have bots scan all Shopify sites and buy up any In demand item before a real customer can even add it to cart.
Kinda funny because Shopify pay is powered by Stripe.
Not surprising but interesting nonetheless.
What does this mean? Even if you use the Shopify API but are not on their App store, you have to use Shopify billing?
Forgive me for hijacking the discussion but it seems Rails CAN scale right?
I could see a lot of reason why Shopify would more or less be force to do this. If the transaction appears to be initiated on their site they may both be liable for PCI DSS and GDPR.
[deleted]
You signed a contract that explitly says you have to use their billing API
You choosed their platform, and you agreed with that, so why do you complain now?
EDIT:
Title should be renamed to: "Shopify asks users to comply with contract they signed when joining the platform"
You choosed their platform, and you agreed with that, so why do you complain now?
EDIT:
Title should be renamed to: "Shopify asks users to comply with contract they signed when joining the platform"
Seriously though. It's proper B2B, not Facebook ads. The fact that the Shopify platform is so customizable that it allows integration of 3p billing says a lot about how they view their customers.
Salesforce uses a similar model
Salesforce uses a similar model
I don't understand the basis of this complaint. They knowingly went around the Shopify rev share by using their own payment gateway. Seems like Shopify called them out for misbehaving.
Anyhow: For larger shops, self-host and find a good payment gateway. SaaS that takes a percentage will bleed you dry.
Anyhow: For larger shops, self-host and find a good payment gateway. SaaS that takes a percentage will bleed you dry.
For larger shops, the pricing for SaaS platforms like Shopify and friends is less than 0.5% of GMV.
If that's too much, the business has bigger problems that certainly won't be solved by self-hosting or maintaining their own homegrown backend.
If that's too much, the business has bigger problems that certainly won't be solved by self-hosting or maintaining their own homegrown backend.
I still don’t understand why people use Shopify. And on top of that people equate them to being the next Amazon. Boggles my mind.
As a merchant (not developer) you own your own clients, your storefront and can run seamlessly IRL and online on Shopify - at least thats the pitch. Shopify doesn't suggest to your clients to go buy from another merchant.
In the case of Amazon you own nothing so as a merchant you are thrown into a marketplace where Amazon controls everything and Amazon can take your best products and then make knock offs of them and undercut your sales. Totally different companies - not in the same ball park (Amazon is way bigger then Shopify, don't fall for the false narrative)
In the case of Amazon you own nothing so as a merchant you are thrown into a marketplace where Amazon controls everything and Amazon can take your best products and then make knock offs of them and undercut your sales. Totally different companies - not in the same ball park (Amazon is way bigger then Shopify, don't fall for the false narrative)
Because for all of their faults, it's dead simple to get your on store up and running.
What is a good alternative to Shopify for a small webstore? I don't want to pay a 20% cut.
IIUC, the 20% cut does not apply to web stores, it's for SaaS vendors who want to offer a plugin to Shopify web store owners, via Shopify's App Store.
I think there's some confusion here. This topic is about developers selling apps via the Shopify App Store, not about how much you pay Shopify to run an online ecommerce store.
Shopify charge a monthly fee for their online ecommmerce stores, and they don't take a 20% cut for that.
Shopify charge a monthly fee for their online ecommmerce stores, and they don't take a 20% cut for that.
If you know a bit of coding I would advise to use SpreeCommerce. I used it very succesfully in the past.
I've been really enjoying SpreeCommerce (based on Rails). You can get away with very little coding if you're happy with the current feature set (which really covers all the basics and then some) and your Payment Gateway of choice is supported by them already or within the ActiveMerchant Payment Gateway options. And then writing your own Payment Gateway integration (like for offsite payments) is really easy too.
Craft commerce is a great platform but not ready to run like Shopify
WooCommerce?
WooConmerce runs like garbage and slows the site speed down to a crawl though.
Really? Seems like a problem for the site & server itself rather than WooCommerce. Is there any evidence for this?
It’s the TOS, and after some social platforms were kicked out of big Corp hostings and app stores because of Trump’s scandal, I don’t think there is much you can do aside of sucking it up and planning a well thought migration out of their service.
I don't get why people downvoted you. I make Shopify apps too and I abide to the same TOS.
OP clicked "I have read and agree" on the TOS when signing up and they are now complaining that the fees are unreasonable?!
OP clicked "I have read and agree" on the TOS when signing up and they are now complaining that the fees are unreasonable?!
I will never - ever use Shopify again. To extract 20% from a vendor of physical goods is criminal. BTW, I buy zero Apple products either - I will not take part in highway robbery...
How is this a problem? Are all marketplaces bad? Were you forced to sell there?
You chose to sell your app on their marketplace and agreed to their TOS and pricing. They provide you with access to their marketplace and you agree to pay them 20%. Were you aware that these are the terms and broke them anyway?
It's like an Uber diver who will start charging cash without going through the Uber app to avoid paying Uber. Or maybe start a McDonald's franchise and hide all the profits. Not to mention paying taxes to the government...
Apple controls the iOS platform, so it's a different case. Shopify does not prevent you from selling on your own website and taking 100% of the profits.
You chose to sell your app on their marketplace and agreed to their TOS and pricing. They provide you with access to their marketplace and you agree to pay them 20%. Were you aware that these are the terms and broke them anyway?
It's like an Uber diver who will start charging cash without going through the Uber app to avoid paying Uber. Or maybe start a McDonald's franchise and hide all the profits. Not to mention paying taxes to the government...
Apple controls the iOS platform, so it's a different case. Shopify does not prevent you from selling on your own website and taking 100% of the profits.
TLDR: Don't even have Stripe as an option for Shopify users or we'll boot you. Also backpay since Jan 2019.
"At Shopify, it is critical to maintain high trust and integrity within the Shopify App Store, so merchants have a reliable place to find solutions to grow their business.
During a routine investigation, Partner Governance identified your app [our app] as offering external billing for Shopify merchants and not using the Billing API for all payments.
[a couple of images of our cart]
As you are aware, all paid apps are required to use our Billing API, as noted in our Partner Program Agreement (Section 3.2 Payments, Point 5) unless express permission is granted by Shopify.
Payment information should not be obtained from the merchant directly and all charges should be processed through the billing API.
We require that you make the required changes as soon as possible to ensure all future payments are handled through our billing API. This would include redirecting any current merchants to select their plan and re-approve the new subscription through the Billing API and ensuring that all new merchants are billed through the API.
Shopify has also recently rolled out an annual subscription feature on the Billing API that makes the yearly subscription event easier on the API.
Additionally, we will require a report of the merchants who have been billed outside of the Billing API and retroactive revenue share payment for any/all qualifying 20% revenue dated January 2019 - Present.
Once the report has been reviewed, we will reach out with next steps on how to submit the transfer of funds to Shopify via wire transfer."
Pretty ironic too when you've got Shopify's CEO tweeting about the unfair 30% cut Apple wants: https://twitter.com/tobi/status/1362411841943711744