Netflix isn’t getting a special deal. Amazon Prime Video is the only one (known to be) getting a special deal.
Last edited:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Blocked Facebook Update Highlighting Apple's In-App Purchase Fees
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Netflix isn’t getting a special deal. Amazon Prime Video is the only one (known to be) getting a special deal.
Why are you comparing with Wallmart policie when are as close as a word in the name?
The App Store does not sell digital services, digital tickets, email services or whatever. The developer does. The thing is more similar to a shopping mall were each of the stores use a common payment system than a store. It’s quite common to include in the receipts of processing fees.
Tp answer your question, considering the differences what Wallmart does o not is irrelevant
good luck enforcing that....i could see if it was on toilet paper. not a necessity. A luxury item. dont like , dont buy.
The Government staff involved in the anti-trust attack against Apple should resign from their overpaid secure jobs, go into self employment creating their own application store with all the software, entrepreneurial and business expertise that they possess then self impose their own legislation: apply a zero fee to App Developers. It is such a wonderful and successful business model with clear economic outcomes for all parties concerned.
How is, disclosing the percentage markup of a product, make things anti-competitive or make Apple in the wrong here? Microsoft and Sony actually have NDAs to not disclose the money exchange as to what is going on. I can't put on my cereal box that Kroger takes 50% of the cost, people will complain to Kroger that they want the price decreased.
Yes they would. Or they would force you to remove the information. Some people that barely get by will see for $5 product, a supermarket takes 50% of it. So they would go complain to the Supermarket to lower their price because they don't have access to talk to me as the creator of the product. But the managers in the Supermarket are readily available.
No they dont! I have no business knowing what the price of my popcorn goes to where. What are people wanting? 1% goes to building and property, 10% goes to employees, 20% goes to profit.....
There's a lot of people making comparisons like this and I don't understand it. The ads are irrelevant here. You don't pay (with your own money) to see ads, but you know that to at least some extent Facebook is being paid to have those ads there. However, if you're making a contribution to some pandemic event to help some small business survive or something like that, I think it's pretty fair to know that a $15 dollar part of your $50 contribution is going directly to Apple.
Especially for charity events, people tend to assume that all the money is going to the cause, not to a business. It's fair for Facebook users to know that some of their money is going to an unrelated company in the whole ordeal, especially if it means for business owners that someone owning an iPhone is going to stop them from receiving full funds. For small business, that $15 can be a lot of money.
This is why small businesses all over the place will charge you extra for using a card on small purchases of 20c or more, and why so many card readers have something nearby letting you know about the different surcharges made by VISA/MasterCard/AmEx
On the Android app they were going to have 'Facebook doesn't take a fee from this purchase', which you would have seen if you had read the post here.
Apple sells in 150 countries... I can tell you how it works in the UK, if you are a VAT registered company. Let’s say an app is sold for £12.00, that is actually £10.00 + £2.00 VAT. Apple purchases the app from the manufacturer for £8.40, which is actually £7.00 + £1.40 VAT. The £2.00 VAT ends up with the tax office; the 30% calculation is done on the price without VAT. Exactly the same as your local supermarket will do.
You’re sure about that? If you compare Apple and Walmart for example, Apple are absolute saints in comparison.
That’s in the App Store rules. And for a good reason. In the not unlikely case that your friend does a Steve Bannon and keeps lots of money for himself, someone would hold Apple responsible for it. And it would be anti-competitive because people might buy his app instead of mine for some irrelevant reason. German saying: “Do good and don’t talk about it”. You’ll find something similar in the bible.
You are not paying $6.99 Because the developer set the price at $9.99. When you pay $9.99 for washing powder at the supermarket, what do you think goes to the manufacturer?
And if Apple didn’t take anything you would still pay $9.99 because apparently people are willing to pay that much. Not one price would change if Apple reduced their cut.
Last edited:
Sales that happen in the real world vs. Sales that end up on your phone. Epic could sell little toys, real physical toys, related to their games, they could be offered in the app _without_ any payment to Apple.
That has been in the App Store contract from the start. One reason may be that it would be a legal and tax nightmare. Apple has to handle tax laws in 150 different countries, but only for a very very limited number of product classes.
And Apple has to handle complaints about products legally correct. Imagine you hire an Uber through your app, Apple takes a cut, and the driver robs you. What is Apple’s legal responsibility? Btw if you buy through Uber eats, what percentage do they take?
For small companies, that kind of thing is exactly what Walmart will do.
Facts are Facebook is still the most used with the most active users of any social platform at this point in time.
Instagram is growing massively amongst the younger generation but as you know, that's owned by Facebook.
Myspace's active users dropped off the face of the planet as soon as Facebook opened up its network to all email domains, used to be filtered by edu only.
Things like TikTok aren't a Facebook replacement so again, facebook is still the most dominant social network out there no matter which way you try and spin it.
Personally I dislike Facebook and wish there was an alternative that people were actually on, but again, in my universe there currently isn't one.
If all developers did that, the rules would almost certainly change. It's not about 15 minutes of fame - Facebook and Epic both have plenty of fame already.
Remember, in this case, developers are also "customers" of Apple - they pay Apple the 30% fee and the $99 dev fee and so on, in addition to having iOS devices and Macs laying around for development. In this case, the "customers" are speaking. They're expressing their disapproval of something. Customers have regularly argued about high prices many times throughout history. This is what's happening here.
I still see nothing wrong with what Epic/Facebook/anyone else is doing. Ultimately, the market will decide - customers of all these other entities will either decide to side with Facebook/Epic/etc. or Apple. Honestly, even the lawsuits are probably not necessary - just leave things as they are (Fortnite off the store, Facebook using their popularity to expose Apple's 30% cut, etc.) and let the people decide. Apple does plenty of surveying - if people say "I'm leaving iOS because I want Fortnite" and that happens enough, Apple will have some decisions of their own to make.
Well, first of all, "freedom of expression" is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, but it only applies to government, and even then it's against the law to express state secrets on Twitter. Anyone can write a contract that prohibits one or more of the individuals party to the contract from expressing facts, opinions, or the text of the contract. Developers of software do not enter into contracts with Apple or others without believing that thei contract also provides services to the developer that are worth no less to the developer than the consideration that the developer agreed to pay. If a developer is unwilling to cede 30% of the price charged to the end user it is perfectly free to sign up with any other entity that provides the services the developer requires at a lower price, or to invent its own method for distributing and supporting its product.Give me a break man. You sound absolutely and utterly ridiculous.
The case at hand is that Apple is not allowing the App developer to inform their customer how is the business being processed. This totally violates freedom of expression. The issue here for the opressor is not even if the information being passed is non factual or harmful to people. This should be illegal in any free country. What’s next?
I have been informing this forum that the App Store is not a Store. It’s a entirely new thing. If you want to find something similar take a look at the Shopping Mall business. The owners of a Shopping Mall rent a space to businesses to put in their Stores. The App Store is the same thing in this regard. Now the difference is that instead of businesses paying a fixed monthly rent, you are required to share 30%/15% of what ever the shopping mall owner, wants and how they want it Apple. Furthermore, the the shopping mall owner can easily put up their own stores to compete with other while not paying the rent. This shopping mall serves one in two Americans, hence all digital businesses have to have a space there if they do not want to leave 50% of their customers behind in the mobile space. There is no competition here against this shopping mall, unless you want to get in to the businesses of building devices (the real leverage here).
App Store name obfuscates the real nature of this service. This service. i repeat, this service does not sell apps, not even to iOS customers! It’s sell a ”space“ for digital businesses to than put in their stores/services. Than they collect a percentage of whatever revenue they want.
30%/15% is really high considering the services the shopping mall provides to the stores/apps. It’s way above market price for these services. You have no leverage for the negotiation considering the dynamics of digital businesses. To gain leverage you would need to start building and selling devices. Digital businesses do not control the device their customers use traditionally ... apart from less than a handful like Apple.
Considering the above and considering the market share of iOS in the US, the land over which this shopping-mall was built, of course the Policy is highly anti competitive if you happen to compete with Apple or Apple starts competing with your digital services as far as digital businesses services are concerned. Any other conclusion is down to smoke screens.
Finally, before people start considering that I'm some kind of Apple hater or something ... this just arrived at my work desk, iMac 2020.
![]()
Second, the App Store acquisition and selling method is nothing new. Stocks are issued by corporations and other entities, but these entities don't generally go around calling people and asking them to buy their stocks; that function is largely provided by stock brokers who generally charge the corporation an agreed-upon percent of the price of the stock sold. Real Estate brokers charge a fee to a seller, usually expressed as a percentage of the purchase price of the home. Banks and credit card companies charge a percentage of their loans to borrowers, often expressed as "interest", but to the borrower it is just a cost imposed on the borrower to pay for the lender's services and for the risk that the borrower will not meet its obligation to repay, and the risk that interest rates rise. In all these examples the provider of the service charges a fee to the party that expects to benefit from that service. Apple is no different.
The Apple Store is, in fact, as much a store as is any online seller. Walking into a physical space or tapping a keyboard in your pajamas during a pandemic is a distinction without a difference.
Anyone who objects to the percentage that Apple demands is free to walk away. Apple isn't selling breakthrough drugs that can cure a disease that is very likely to result in death; it isn't lying to developers or hiding its pricing. There are certainly competitors to Apple who may charge less than Apple does.
Antitrust laws in the United States are complex, but generally it seeks to outlaw certain monopolies of various types. It does not, however, purport to tell Rolex that it is charging too high a price for its watches. Rolex has an impeccable reputation for high quality, reliability, and fashion. Many other watchmakers can produce time pieces that are equal to a Rolex for telling time but cost a tenth of the cost of the Rolex. The reputation of Rolex, just as the reputation of Apple, is such that many people are willing to pay what such sellers demand. Perhaps these customers are foolish or naive, but they have a right to buy what they believe will make them feel secure, and to spend their own money as they please. Not everyone insists on using only Apple products, but enough have a level of confidence in Apple that they don't have in Facebook or Android. The customer is willing to pay a premium to use Apple to deliver and support applications, and Apple is willing to design, develop, and make secure the apps it places in the App Store. There is a cost for all of this, some imposed on the end consumer, some on the developer, and some to finance the cost of maintaining, improving, and supporting the function of the App Store. Oh, and we have to imagine that some goes to Apple and its shareholders to provide sufficient capital to maintain the quality and the cachet of present and future Apple products and services.
Epic's ad that they rolled after Apple reacted suggests differently.
Let's calculate how much Apple shells out for app update reviews.
How many updates did Fortnite submit in 2019? Nearly 100.
How much does it cost for an app reviewer to review an app? $30/hr (check glassdoor)
How long does it take to review an app? My analytics showed about 1 hour.
100 hours of reviews * $30 = $3000 of Apple's money that they have to shell out for every 100 reviews
So whatever $99 fee you're paying + $399 iPhone SE + $799 Mac mini of being "customers of Apple" won't even cover the App review costs alone (I'm not even subtracting the production costs of those products either). Keep in mind Apple reviews 100k apps every week. That costs Apple at least $3mil every week just to pay out app store reviewer salaries.
Then there are costs for:
-CloudKit
-iCloud
-Apple Maps
-CDN servers
-Editorial
-Xcode yearly updates
-Core ML + ARKit investments
-SpriteKit + Scene full game engines investments
-GameCenter services
-Push Notification servers
-Separate network in China for special government rules
-Developer support
-1-3% credit card fees
-International Taxes
-Human support for App Store refunds
-TestFlight
-Siri for third party apps
-HomeKit services
-App Store (which serves 500 million customers a week. that isn't cheap to run)
A single developer can take advantage of/benefits from all of those services. Calculating all of that, 30% is reasonable. Not to mention, Apple loses money from hosting free apps like Basecamp and Hey where Apple makes $0 since there are no IAP.
At the very least, they broke the terms that they agreed to when they signed up for the App Store. If you can't see that, you're simply ignoring the facts.
AMC doesn't allow porn movies in their theaters. Is AMC violating movie directors' "freedom of expression"?
No. It's not called App Mall. It's called the App Store. There is no store with in a store. It's a store to hold products. App developers submit their product to be put on the virtual shelves.
You want it to be an App Mall. But it's not.
App Store sells apps. It holds apps in this "virtual" space, but that's what stores do. They hold products in a space.
Video game publishers/developers before the App Store barely made 50% when selling their products at Best Buy. 30% is an approvement. Dive in the SDK and you'll realize Apple pays much more than just hosting the app. They provide many services with 0 additional cost to the developer.
No, because unlike Apple, AMC doesn't prevent directors from hosting their explicit movies at other venues.