Apple Appeals Court-Mandated App Store Payment Rule Changes

[Stuwil]

If you're going to argue click through conversion rates are just the same as IAP conversion rates then we're not living in the same universe. Each additional step of friction reduces the likelihood of the customer purchasing the product. This is a well known, fundamental aspect of online businesses.

Yes, I will give you that if someone is determined to buy the app/subscription, in almost all cases they are going to pick the cheaper option. But the thing is, most users aren't determined to buy it, and even if they click through to the link, then stuff happens - they don't have their wallet on them and so close it out and forget about it. They take a look at the privacy policy and go "eh, no." They think the account setup process is too annoying. Etc. etc. etc. Whereas with IAP, double click a button and look at your phone.


You'd have to ask Tim Cook. I've been saying for years now it seems to me to be really stupid of Apple to fight this so hard. I suspect because the companies who are the ones that avoid paying make the majority of the App Store revenue (free to play games) are the ones that are most likely going to have significantly better conversion rates (if you're already addicted to the game, then you're determined to buy the gems or whatever not going to care about signing up for an account, etc.), but that's just a guess.


Yes, and said in the meantime Apple isn't allowed to charge any commission whatsoever. She didn't say "Apple can't charge 27% but can charge a reasonable number," she said they can't charge a commission at all. That won't change until the judge releases a new order, or an appeals court overturns her order. So again, even if Tim Cook has seen the light (which I am sure he hasn't), Apple can't do anything about it.

It's kinda like when my 4 year old misbehaves. If I tell him to stop throwing his toy or I'm taking it away until tomorrow, and he throws it again, I take it away until tomorrow. Even if he cries, and I can tell he is truly sorry, and he promises he won't throw it again, he's still not getting it until tomorrow.


I am saying I don't trust someone who does business that way to be honest when he says that his app updates were "intentionally slowed down." And even if that's true, what did he expect? I mean, if I am a CEO of a toy company I walk around screaming to anyone who will listen in the media about how Walmart are a bunch of greedy middlemen providing no value and stealing from toy companies, how much longer do you really think my toys will be on Walmart's shelves?

If it’s cheaper then most people will use that option that is the nature of the beast
If people can save money they will
That’s just counting

The difference is this is someone’s business not a 4 year old so they need to be able to make money not treated like you do as we say or else no wonder epic took them to court

Other companies in other government cases have said the exact same thing regarding Apple that if you don’t fall inline they make it difficult as possible for you
Not just Tim Sweeney has said this

Not every company can be wrong in regards to criticism of Apple
It’s very strange that android doesn’t get all these criticisms and regulations put on it
Yet they are both mobile OS’s

 

[I7guy]

Because as a developer it is in there interests to stop you using IAP as then the developer will keep more of the income rather than having to give any to Apple the now
That’s why multiple businesses do it all the time to hook you in

Because that is why Apple don’t want payment links and no other reason

That’s valid that Apple doesn’t want payment links. Hope that gets overturned in court and Apple is entitled to its payments. Which they ultimately will get. The devs now gets a free ride which is not tenable.

Why do you not want a company to include a payment link in their own app?

why do you feel devs are entitled to not pay Apple.

 

[Stuwil]

That’s valid that Apple doesn’t want payment links. Hope that gets overturned in court and Apple is entitled to its payments. Which they ultimately will get. The devs now gets a free ride which is not tenable.

why do you feel devs are entitled to not pay Apple.

That’s not what I said
I said why don’t you think that developers should have a payment link because it’s there app?

Do Netflix not get a free ride then based on your logic?

 

[I7guy]

That’s not what I said
I said why don’t you think that developers should have a payment link because it’s there app?

Do Netflix not get a free ride then based on your logic?

There are multiple classes of apps. Netflix is in a specific class that gets a free ride. Some other apps get free rides. Some don’t.

Right now all are getting a free ride and hope that gets overturned turned.

 

[Stuwil]

There are multiple classes of apps. Netflix is in a specific class that gets a free ride. Some other apps get free rides. Some don’t.

Right now all are getting a free ride and hope that gets overturned turned.

How can it be a free ride if the developer pays the required fee to go on the App Store in the first place

there is nothing wrong with payment links in apps because this is not Walmart

 

[I7guy]

How can it be a free ride if the developer pays the required fee to go on the App Store in the first place

Talking about iap. Putting in app on the app store costs: $0. There is no required fee to use the App Store.

There is an optional developer package one can sign up for. But it’s not required if you don’t want to upload your apps in the App Store.

there is nothing wrong with payment links in apps because this is not Walmart

Correct it’s Apple. And we are not the arbiters of what is right or wrong. The courts are.

 

[Stuwil]

Talking about iap. Putting in app on the app store costs: $0. There is no required fee to use the App Store.

There is an optional developer package one can sign up for. But it’s not required if you don’t want to upload your apps in the App Store.

Correct it’s Apple. And we are not the arbiters of what is right or wrong. The courts are.

Is IAP mandatory currently on IOS?
Because if it’s not then it’s not free loading then is it

The payment links are a good idea because it means developers can now offer promotions to customers unless you think that’s a bad thing

 

[surferfb]

If it’s cheaper then most people will use that option that is the nature of the beast
If people can save money they will
That’s just counting

I don't know how to explain it to you in any other way than I already have. Paying 0% commission on $6.99 sales nets you less money than paying a 30% commission on $9.99 sales if the extra step of linking out leads to literally one person not completing the sale who would have otherwise completed it via IAP. Which is a large part as to why we won't see prices fall due to lower commissions, and why Epic wanted the ability to offer IAPs without going through Apple, not link outs.

The difference is this is someone’s business not a 4 year old so they need to be able to make money not treated like you do as we say or else no wonder epic took them to court

I think you missed the point of the analogy. The judge has told Apple no commissions on links. Until the judge (or a higher court) says otherwise, Apple is not allowed to charge commissions on links. Not if they come back with a "more reasonable" commission. Not if they say they're really sorry. If Apple does that then maybe the judge revises the order. But you have no way to say "Because Apple hasn't changed the terms, therefore they aren't considering changing the terms, and will never change the terms" Again, for all you know they're working on a proposal now, or they've already submitted a new proposal to the judge and she's saying "too bad - you need to face consequences" the same way I say to my four year old after he throws the toy for the third time after I've told him not to.

So, no, Apple couldn't put a 15% on links right now, and the fact that they haven't doesn't say anything other than Apple is (this time) obeying the court order.

Other companies in other government cases have said the exact same thing regarding Apple that if you don’t fall inline they make it difficult as possible for you
Not just Tim Sweeney has said this

Not every company can be wrong in regards to criticism of Apple
It’s very strange that android doesn’t get all these criticisms and regulations put on it
Yet they are both mobile OS’s

I mean, Epic sued Google for being anticompetitive with the Play Store and won. Unlike the case against Apple that they lost (Sweeney's words, not mine).

In my opinion, Apple gets criticism mainly because a bunch of tech nerds and European bureaucrats hate the idea of a closed ecosystem, and really hate that a large, profitable subset of customers love closed ecosystems. So even though Android exists for anyone who prefers an open ecosystem, Apple shouldn't be allowed to run its platform the way it wants to.

The link out situation is one in which I even agree with Apple's critics. But of course the way it gets implemented tramples on Apple's rights (in a way I feel is unconstitutional, but Apple has no-one to blame but themselves for that).

And on that note, politely bowing out of this back-and-forth. Have a good evening!

 

[Stuwil]

I don't know how to explain it to you in any other way than I already have. Paying 0% commission on $6.99 sales nets you less money than paying a 30% commission on $9.99 sales if the extra step of linking out leads to literally one person not completing the sale who would have otherwise completed it via IAP. Which is a large part as to why we won't see prices fall due to lower commissions, and why Epic wanted the ability to offer IAPs without going through Apple, not link outs.


I think you missed the point of the analogy. The judge has told Apple no commissions on links. Until the judge (or a higher court) says otherwise, Apple is not allowed to charge commissions on links. Not if they come back with a "more reasonable" commission. Not if they say they're really sorry. If Apple does that then maybe the judge revises the order. But you have no way to say "Because Apple hasn't changed the terms, therefore they aren't considering changing the terms, and will never change the terms" Again, for all you know they're working on a proposal now, or they've already submitted a new proposal to the judge and she's saying "too bad - you need to face consequences" the same way I say to my four year old after he throws the toy for the third time after I've told him not to.

So, no, Apple couldn't put a 15% on links right now, and the fact that they haven't doesn't say anything other than Apple is (this time) obeying the court order.


I mean, Epic sued Google for being anticompetitive with the Play Store and won. Unlike the case against Apple that they lost (Sweeney's words, not mine).

In my opinion, Apple gets criticism mainly because a bunch of tech nerds and European bureaucrats hate the idea of a closed ecosystem, and really hate that a large, profitable subset of customers love closed ecosystems. So even though Android exists for anyone who prefers an open ecosystem, Apple shouldn't be allowed to run its platform the way it wants to.

The link out situation is one in which I even agree with Apple's critics. But of course the way it gets implemented tramples on Apple's rights (in a way I feel is unconstitutional, but Apple has no-one to blame but themselves for that).

And on that note, politely bowing out of this back-and-forth. Have a good evening!

I know if difficult buddy
But no person will pay more for the same item if it’s cheaper
That is why Apple don’t want it because it will kill their IAP profits
Or else they would have done it already

They are not Walmart buddy
That’s why it’s not unconstitutional
But I suppose a MR poster knows more about the law than a judge 👍🏻

It’s not about them being a closed ecosystem
Because there is nothing that has been legislated against them that isn’t warranted

 

[I7guy]

[…]
Because there is nothing that has been legislated against them that isn’t warranted

Absolutely mostly not true. The DMA is an innovation buster. Apple lost to one point in the US and now we are where we are.

We’ll see how the appeals go.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

I agree with this 100%. Where opinion differs is what Apple's cut should be. For apps purchased from the app store and feature unlocking purchase--whether IAP or outside--I think Apple deserves a 30% cut. Apple is hosting the app. If the developer offers it for free on the Appstore and you pay to unlock it on their website, they're cheating Apple out of a fair cut for hosting a paid app.

For DLC that is 100% on the developer's servers purchased via IAP, Apple deserves a token cut of 10-25 cents per transactions. Whatever it cost Apple to process the payment plus a small profit. Certainly not 30%, sure as heck no free. If they purchase DLC from the developer's website, where is Apple's expense? They deserve nothing.

This ruling is unfair to Apple and Apple's system is unfair to developers.

Yeah, there isn't any choice. You can't give people no choice but to deal with you and then say 'we deserve a cut' that's how the mob do business.

On a Mac a developer can distribute via their own website no need for Apple to worry about hosting anybody's app.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Absolutely mostly not true. The DMA is an innovation buster. Apple lost to one point in the US and now we are where we are.

We’ll see how the appeals go.

and then didn't comply.. you probably forgot to mention that bit...

 

[Stuwil]

Absolutely mostly not true. The DMA is an innovation buster. Apple lost to one point in the US and now we are where we are.

We’ll see how the appeals go.

You might disagree
However the adding payment links within apps is warranted because the App Store is not Walmart

There is nothing wrong with the DMA in regards to innovation because it’s ultimately not going to hurt Apple’s business model

 

[I7guy]

You might disagree
However the adding payment links within apps is warranted because the App Store is not Walmart

There is nothing wrong with the DMA in regards to innovation because it’s ultimately not going to hurt Apple’s business model

The DMA is terrible legislation and an innovation buster. You might disagree.

This situation in the US has been appealed and we’ll see where this goes. It’s an evolving situation.

 

[Stuwil]

The DMA is terrible legislation and an innovation buster. You might disagree.

This situation in the US has been appealed and we’ll see where this goes. It’s an evolving situation.

It’s not Walmart or target based store
It’s more like mall of America
That’s why

How is the DMA an innovation buster
When Apple predominantly sell hardware every year?

 

[surferfb]

How is the DMA an innovation buster
When Apple predominantly sell hardware every year?

There are plenty of threads on that where many of us have gone back and forth on that point.

The short version is: the DMA requires any new iOS invention or feature to be given to Apple’s competitors immediately, for free. The EU is already demanding access to AirDrop and AirPlay so they can be added to Android apps.

What is Apple’s motivation for developing new features if they have to give them to competitors who can then undercut Apple on price, since they didn’t spend the money researching and building it?

 

[Stuwil]

There are plenty of threads on that where many of us have gone back and forth on that point.

The short version is: the DMA requires any new iOS invention or feature to be given to Apple’s competitors immediately, for free. The EU is already demanding access to AirDrop and AirPlay so they can be added to Android apps.

What is Apple’s motivation for developing new features if they have to give them to competitors who can then undercut Apple on price, since they didn’t spend the money researching and building it?

That is because Apple deliberately gives their headphones an advantage over other competitors by giving their products access to additional software that will give their products an advantage over the competition

But did you not say to me that customers don’t care about saving money & they will be quite happy to pay extra for the same product?

 

[surferfb]

That is because Apple deliberately gives their headphones an advantage over other competitors by giving their products access to additional software that will give their products an advantage over the competition

Not going to get into another DMA argument other than to say that I disagree that’s an issue, and certainly disagree it’s an issue that requires government intervention to fix.

But did you not say to me that customers don’t care about saving money & they will be quite happy to pay extra for the same product?

No. I have never said that, that’s just how you keep misinterpreting my argument.

 

[I7guy]

That is because Apple deliberately gives their headphones an advantage over other competitors by giving their products access to additional software that will give their products an advantage over the competition

That is called product differentiation, whereby it is not illegal or anticompetitive. Imagine a company innovating their own products, the horror.

But did you not say to me that customers don’t care about saving money & they will be quite happy to pay extra for the same product?

Yes if perceived convenience, benefits and safety outweigh the cost savings. I would happily pay more.

 

[Abazigal]

In my opinion, Apple gets criticism mainly because a bunch of tech nerds and European bureaucrats hate the idea of a closed ecosystem

I am willing to bet it’s not that these people hate closed ecosystems. Rather, they hate that they are not the ones in charge of said ecosystem, and reaping the profits for themselves.

 

[Stuwil]

That is called product differentiation, whereby it is not illegal or anticompetitive. Imagine a company innovating their own products, the horror.

Yes if perceived convenience, benefits and safety outweigh the cost savings. I would happily pay more.

The difference is Apple make the operating system and then sell products for said OS that deliberately gives them an advantage over the competitors as an incentive to purchase their products
If Apple never made the OS it would be different that’s why

 

[Stuwil]

I am willing to bet it’s not that these people hate closed ecosystems. Rather, they hate that they are not the ones in charge of said ecosystem, and reaping the profits for themselves.

If that was the case then the console makers would be treated the exact same as Apple
Now why do you think that they are not
When Xbox & PlayStation & Nintendo have closed ecosystems
Yet these companies are not regulated or taking to court

 

[I7guy]

The difference is Apple make the operating system and then sell products for said OS that deliberately gives them an advantage over the competitors as an incentive to purchase their products

Yes, it’s called innovation. And it’s perfectly legal to have a company have an advance with its own products.

If Apple never made the OS it would be different that’s why

Sure, the iPhone would have flopped or be generic, like android.

 

[webkit]

That is called product differentiation, whereby it is not illegal or anticompetitive.

If it is being done as a strategy to unfairly (continue to) "dominate" a market or prevent/discourage competitors from entering that market it can be illegal or anticompetitive. A "dominant" company can't intentionally create incompatibility to stifle competition, limit consumer choice, etc. as that could be an antitrust violation.

 

[Stuwil]

Yes, it’s called innovation. And it’s perfectly legal to have a company have an advance with its own products.

Sure, the iPhone would have flopped or be generic, like android.

Yes it might be called innovation
However there is nothing with Apple making headphones & putting additional technology in products to compete like the H2 chip

However given your products additional software to connect better with your OS is different