Maybe the landlords should cut rent 100% in exchange for 30% of the revenue the store generates?
Percentage leases are common in retail, especially in shopping malls.
Given the benefits that Apple stores bring, it probably has leveraged that to negotiate more favorable terms (percentage rate and breakpoints) than other retailers can. But it would be foolish, and risky, for a landlord to completely sacrifice base rent unless a breakpoint was set artificially low, even with such an abnormally high percentage rate, in the theoretical situation proposed.
Your attempt at sarcasm can be understood, but that's how it can, and does, actually work in commercial real estate.
That is an important distinction, because most commenters are undoubtedly interpreting the situation through the prism of being a residential renter, a different kettle of fish.
But that's not how commercial real estate operates. The rules and style of play are different, so while what is occurring with Apple,
and other retailers, may seem shocking, or perhaps unjust, is not unusual.
In contrast to residential leases, most types of commercial leases are biased against the tenants, so for Apple, and others, to seek to renegotiate for more favorable terms that reflect current market circumstances is perfectly normal, and expected.
For their part, Apple's landlords may not warmly welcome the move, but they're not going to be shocked by it either, since it's part of the business, and the next phase of the game will be played out in negotiations.
Given the enormous uncertainty in the near term, and almost complete likelihood that this health crisis will forever alter the nature of retail shopping, and accelerate the existing decline of brick & mortar retail, it would behoove the landlords to sit down with Apple, and other retailers to hammer out deals where both can preserve the relationship as best as possible, and provide some desperately needed stability, and a level of certainty.
