Apple Blocked Facebook Update Highlighting Apple's In-App Purchase Fees

[Apple Crusader]

Facebook is evil. Always trying to get away with all that they can. Good on Apple for holding their software feet to the fire.

Yes, Facebook is evil because they are trying to disclose that 30% of "donations" made through the Facebook app meant to help small businesses is going into the back pocket of little Timmy Cook.

Apple's not the evil one for pocketing 30% of donations meant for helping businesses during COVID. Yep, they are sure a moral company!

/S

@Edit: I don't know why the posts aren't auto merged anymore!

 

[Laurent François]

An App is not the place where you should discuss details about your contracts with Apple. The user pays (in this example) $9.99. That's the relevant information.

While I'm not very pleased with Apple on this issue, I quite agree with you here.
I'll be the first one to admit that, when paying by credit card online or in a shop, I have absolutely no knowledge, nor do I care, about how much the credit card processing company will charge the seller.

Then, when it comes to Apple vs the rest of the world, monopoly or not and all that... well... may, just maybe, Apple wouldn't feel so much heat had they not closed their system so tightly.
Just make it possible/easier to sideload apps, and let users decide if they want to keep on installing from the app store or a third-party.

It would open a entirely different can of worms, let's no be naive, but it would at the very least offer a choice.

 

[farewelwilliams]

No, because unlike Apple, AMC doesn't prevent directors from hosting their explicit movies at other venues.

You mean like how Apple doesn’t prevent app developers from going to the Play Store?

 

[Apple Crusader]

You mean like how Apple doesn’t prevent app developers from going to the Play Store?

Touche

 

[anniefrost]

While I'm not very pleased with Apple on this issue, I quite agree with you here.
I'll be the first one to admit that, when paying by credit card online or in a shop, I have absolutely no knowledge, nor do I care, about how much the credit card processing company will charge the seller.

Then, when it comes to Apple vs the rest of the world, monopoly or not and all that... well... may, just maybe, Apple wouldn't feel so much heat had they not closed their system so tightly.
Just make it possible/easier to sideload apps, and let users decide if they want to keep on installing from the app store or a third-party.

It would open a entirely different can of worms, let's no be naive, but it would at the very least offer a choice.

The problem is that Apple is blocking that information even from the seller.

Imagine if you were the seller and then people bought your tickets from facebook, only to realize that there is less than 30% of your money. You would want to know who and where that 30% goes. Also, in this case Apple should not get 30% from the total transaction. If facebook charged 5% of fee, then Apple could only get 30% of the 5% because the apps were owned by facebook.

This news is an example how greedy Apple is, that every payment that was made using iPhone should get a 30% cut.

 

[anniefrost]

You mean like how Apple doesn’t prevent app developers from going to the Play Store?

Apple blocked the user from installing apps on their iPhone without illegal means.

Note: Comparing Apple environment and web environment is like comparing apple to orange.

 

[anniefrost]

Facebook could make their own devices. What’s the definition of a parasite?

The definition of parasite is when a company created a closed environment and forced everyone who wanted to be a partner and enter the environment to pay fee every year and high fee for every transaction without even giving back any value to their client or partners.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Apple blocked the user from installing apps on their iPhone without illegal means.

Note: Comparing Apple environment and web environment is like comparing apple to orange.

I didn't compare to the web environment. I compared to Google's environment which is very much like comparing Apples to Apples (pun intended).

I want to install Windows + iTunes on my PS4 so I can listen to Apple Music. But Sony won't let me. Are they doing something illegal too?

 

[Nuno Lopes]

It's not called App Mall. It's called the App Store.

Do not care how it’s called, branded. Just care about what it does.

Netflix is not an App it’s a video service. Apple charges commission on the video service to allow it to be used properly on iOS. The App in most services it’s just a console, how else could digital services be provided?

Yes there are things that are just Apps. Others are Apps and something else. Just like a Console ...

As for comparison with AMC along being names the thing that absolutely defines what product does, just for you maybe the App Store should be called Apple Cinema and the commission Apple Porn ...

Nothing like nonsense for nonsense.

Now, seriously Apps / Broadband to Digital Services are like Oxygen for people. Control this you control everything.

 

[I7guy]

The definition of parasite is when a company created a closed environment and forced everyone who wanted to be a partner and enter the environment to pay fee every year and high fee for every transaction without even giving back any value to their client or partners.

The operative word here is "forced". Were your "forced" to buy a particular phone? Once you bought your phone were you "forced" to install third party apps on the phone? How much are you being "forced" to pay for that free app, that cost you $0? Who said there was no value to client to partners?

If that is your take, then you don't fully understand how easy a one-click upload is for an app to be discoverable by 1 billion devices with a set of management tools. It's not apples' costs at play, it's apples' value.

So this is one of those rare moments where an opinion is wrong.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

@I7guy ,

Create a web site/app in 5 mins and it’s easily discoverable by more people than iOS. iOS Apps inclusive ... heck all kinds of digital services and their apps.

The tech world has evolved from 1994 to here in case you haven’t noticed. You are just spinning features that today are tech commodities.

Don’t get me wrong, as a customer I like the way the App Store manages my app purchases and installation / updates. But in no way it guides my decision to purchase an app or subscribe to a digital service. The information for that matter comes from elsewhere Maybe when there were so few apps in place, but the service as matured in usage to the level of the web. To the point many devs many pay basically to be able to install and update their App on their customers devices. Others may need a bit more, so why not let devs choose what they need from this service?

For every action there is a reaction. Both negative and positive either way.

 

[I7guy]

@I7guy ,

Create a web site/app in 5 mins and it’s easily discoverable by more people than iOS. iOS Apps inclusive ... heck all kinds of digital services and their apps.

The tech world has evolved from 1994 to here in case you haven’t noticed. You are just spinning features that today are tech commodities.

Don’t get me wrong, as a customer I like the way the App Store manages my app purchases and installation / updates. But in no way it guides my decision to purchase an app or subscribe to a digital service. The information for that matter comes from elsewhere Maybe when there were so few apps in place, but the service as matured in usage to the level of the web. To the point many devs many pay basically to be able to install and update their App on their customers devices. Others may need a bit more, so why not let devs choose what they need from this service?

For every action there is a reaction. Both negative and positive either way.

Yes and no. I got your point, but nobody is creating a web app in 5 minutes, unless it's "hello world".

The world may have moved from 1994, but the it seems the model of the app store hasn't. Web apps only go so far as htlm5 only goes so far. Most won't work very well without a connection, hence the need for apps

I'm all for giving the devs what they need, but I don't believe Apple (or google) has any incentive or legal reason to change the way their app stores operate....and why would they or why should they? Customers won't see any benefit, imo.

 

[MacSince1985]

Very few people argue against the 30% fee for app sales. Apple hosts the apps, screens them for viruses, and provides a storefront to the developer. That commission is deserved.

What we are complaining about is the commission on in-app purchases. In this particular case, Apple doesn't do anything to deserve a commission. The user provides the content, Facebook provides the server space, bandwidth, payment collection, and exposure for free, and Apple demands 30%.

Apple needs to revise its pricing structure for in-app subscriptions and purchases. I know it won't be easy to find a solution that prevents every developer from switching to a non-Apple subscription model, but they could figure something out.

 

[I7guy]

Very few people argue against the 30% fee for app sales. Apple hosts the apps, screens them for viruses, and provides a storefront to the developer. That commission is deserved.

What we are complaining about is the commission on in-app purchases. In this particular case, Apple doesn't do anything to deserve a commission. The user provides the content, Facebook provides the server space, bandwidth, payment collection, and exposure for free, and Apple demands 30%.

Apple needs to revise its pricing structure for in-app subscriptions and purchases. I know it won't be easy to find a solution that prevents every developer from switching to a non-Apple subscription model, but they could figure something out.

Seems to me that is the point...Apple processes the payments safely and securely. A single point if needed to see the billings on the app store. As a consumer I could care less what the commission is on IAP., so I'm not clear if you are talking as a consumer, dev or person that just has an opinion.

 

[atmenterprises]

Well, the receivers of the payment may need all the money they can get at the moment with the less customers and the recession happening and all 🙄

Former recession in the US if that's the country you're describing.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Do not care how it’s called, branded. Just care about what it does.

Netflix is not an App it’s a video service. Apple charges commission on the video service to allow it to be used properly on iOS. The App in most services it’s just a console, how else could digital services be provided?

Yes there are things that are just Apps. Others are Apps and something else. Just like a Console ...

As for comparison with AMC along being names the thing that absolutely defines what product does, just for you maybe the App Store should be called Apple Cinema and the commission Apple Porn ...

Nothing like nonsense for nonsense.

Now, seriously Apps / Broadband to Digital Services are like Oxygen for people. Control this you control everything.

Its purpose is a store.

Netflix can charge outside the store and still provide the service while Disney distributes their movie to AMC and AMC takes a 40% cut. Sony used to earn a cut from every Spotify signup via Playstation until Spotify removed the billing feature because they didn’t want to pay Sony the royalties. You’re not making any sense here.

 

[MacSince1985]

I'm not clear if you are talking as a consumer, dev or person that just has an opinion.

As a consumer and as a person who cares about others, including developers and other consumers.

As a consumer, any money that doesn't go directly to paying the services I purchase will eventually increase the price of those services. Let's take an overly simplified example:
- If every Netflix subscriber gets their $10 subscription directly from Netflix, those $10 can be used to produce new shows.
- If 50% of those subscribers got their $10 subscription through Apple, Netflix would collect only an average of $8.50 per subscription.
- To continue producing shows with the same budget, Netflix would have to increase everyone's subscription to $11.75.

I know this is an exaggeration and only a small percentage of Netflix customers subscribe through Apple, but it illustrates the point that commissions are, one way or another, paid by the consumer.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

A single point if needed to see the billings on the app store.

Yes. As a customer I like that feature, just don’t see how that benefits the devs, hence why are they paying for it?

but the it seems the model of the app store hasn't. Web apps only go so far as htlm5 only goes so far. Most won't work very well without a connection, hence the need for apps

What I mentioned does not concern only Web Apps. Any kind of App. Host a binary in some file hosting service, implement payment either on your site or in app and your are done. Instant access to potentially more users than iOS. No need to share 30% of your revenue. The prices of these service aren’t anywhere close to this ... around 5% maybe. Now the actual expense is in marketing, developing the product, paying HR, develop content so on and so forth.

So yes. It has already went way beyond the App Store. Now, there are benefits to having a centralized store to customers. It makes easier for users to downloading, updating apps and consolidate their payments. Charge them For this if they haven’t done it when they bought the device. As there are benefits of having a wider decentralized way of aquiring good and hiring services ... competition brings prices down and quality up ... A processing fee on top of the base price ... much like VAF ($2 + 25% of Apple Value Added Services).

As for devs, charge them for hosting that app, process payments (5%). Eventually if they require Apple to help them with marketing, search /listing ... also sell that service as an option. Say 10% per conversion if driven by some article the’ve done ... direct links from the Internet should not really count right?

As a consumer I could care less what the commission is on IAP., so I'm not clear if you are talking as a consumer, dev or person that just has an opinion.

Well you would if it was you paying for with 30% of your monthly income right?

I got your point, but nobody is creating a web app in 5 minutes, unless it's "hello world".

Neither iOS Apps. I was answering the instant Billion potential customer ... I was just stating that its not a feature particular to the App Store, but to the Internet. In that respect the App Store just rebrands the Internet/Web. But you do need the App Store to install your app in 50% of your US customers devices.

Its purpose is a store.

It’s an App Store so its purpose is to sell Apps. But It’s more than that really. I seams that is magically selling videos services, online tutoring to students, online courses, books, music, video conferencing, games, templates, mail services, remote learning and training ... Whatever they feel like. Heck I wonder if they actually know what they are selling really. Store usually know what they are selling ... need to re-stock etc. But here It is whatever businesses post to be able to install on their customers device, review and collect 30% of their revenue revenue. It’s more like a shopping mall really where all stores share a common payment system and for rent give 30% of their revenue.

 

[I7guy]

Yes. As a customer I like that feature, just don’t see how that benefits the devs, hence why are they paying for it?

It's Apple value add, whether any one individual agrees Apple adds any value or not. A dev has to make the determination to engage in iphone development based on the some of the factors being a rigorous app store policy. It's an individual dev decision and we can't put ourselves in the devs shoes.

What I mentioned does not concern only Web Apps. Any kind of App. Host a binary in some file hosting service, implement payment either on your site or in app and your are done. Instant access to potentially more users than iOS. No need to share 30% of your revenue. The prices of these service aren’t anywhere close to this ... around 5% maybe. Now the actual expense is in marketing, developing the product, paying HR, develop content so on and so forth.

App store in general take around 30% or slightly less. As a dev you decide what's best for you. Maybe being an ios dev isn't the best scenario for your app. Maybe if a dev doesn't like app store policies, but have a great idea, windows or linux or even android is the way to go.

So yes. It has already went way beyond the App Store. Now, there are benefits to having a centralized store to customers. It makes easier for users to downloading, updating apps and consolidate their payments. Charge them For this if they haven’t done it when they bought the device. As there are benefits of having a wider decentralized way of aquiring good and hiring services ... competition brings prices down and quality up ... A processing fee on top of the base price ... much like VAF ($2 + 25% of Apple Value Added Services).

In this case alternate app stores and side-loading, imo, will weaken the overall image that consumers, for the most part, have for the app store the way it exists today. However, should you want the ios app store for your distribution you are bound by the T&C and EULA whether you like them or not.

As for devs, charge them for hosting that app, process payments (5%). Eventually if they require Apple to help them with marketing, search /listing ... also sell that service as an option. Say 10% per conversion if driven by some article the’ve done ... direct links from the Internet should not really count right?

For iphone I don't see the benefit of having a wider distribution network, and this is in my opinion.

Well you would if it was you paying for with 30% of your monthly income right?

And making billions at the same time? I think I would be kissing Apples feet.

Neither iOS Apps. I was answering the instant Billion potential customer ... I was just stating that its not a feature particular to the App Store, but to the Internet. In that respect the App Store just rebrands the Internet/Web. But you do need the App Store to install your app in 50% of your US customers devices.

I'm not with this one. The app store doesn't rebrand anything, it provides a singular focus, a place, where thousands of apps are available with all sorts of target audiences. All of the internet does not run on an iphone.

 

[I7guy]

As a consumer and as a person who cares about others, including developers and other consumers.

As a consumer, any money that doesn't go directly to paying the services I purchase will eventually increase the price of those services. Let's take an overly simplified example:
- If every Netflix subscriber gets their $10 subscription directly from Netflix, those $10 can be used to produce new shows.
- If 50% of those subscribers got their $10 subscription through Apple, Netflix would collect only an average of $8.50 per subscription.
- To continue producing shows with the same budget, Netflix would have to increase everyone's subscription to $11.75.

I know this is an exaggeration and only a small percentage of Netflix customers subscribe through Apple, but it illustrates the point that commissions are, one way or another, paid by the consumer.

On the other hand, if netflix got 200 million customers through the app store that they wouldn't have ordinarily gotten, it's a windfall for them and at the other end, satisfied ios customers. Epic made a lot of money before getting greedy and they bit the hand that was feeding them.

 

[farewelwilliams]

It’s an App Store so its purpose is to sell Apps. But It’s more than that really. I seams that is magically selling videos services, online tutoring to students, online courses, books, music, video conferencing, games, templates, mail services, remote learning and training ... Whatever they feel like. Heck I wonder if they actually know what they are selling really. Store usually know what they are selling ... need to re-stock etc. But here It is whatever businesses post to be able to install on their customers device, review and collect 30% of their revenue revenue. It’s more like a shopping mall really where all stores share a common payment system and for rent give 30% of their revenue.

I can go into Best Buy/Target/Walmart and purchase a "subscription" to a wireless plan in which BB/Target/Walmart get a cut out of it.. That's what stores do.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

I can go into Best Buy/Target/Walmart and purchase a "subscription" to a wireless plan in which BB/Target/Walmart get a cut out of it.. That's what stores do.

Yes, bit they don’t get 30% of that sub neither future subscriptions. Once say you are in ATT, you pay monthly to ATT not Wallmart. If people understand why this is like this for Wallmart I fail to understand why they keep on comparing With App Store. You are basically cherry picking similarities with no context.

@I7guy, So what you are saying is that you with your apps in iOS your making billions right? I suspect that its not the case. Collectively the digital businesses not in the App Store are probably in the several trillions. So make an App, do not put in the App Store and earn trillions, the logic is has linear as this ... or maybe not .

You are trying to separate the App Store from the device to argue the value it delivers. What you are saying is if iOS delivers you customers not so much the App Store ... In that case what about Linux and Windows delivering a customers, macOS, heck what about an ISP delivering a customers, let’s not forget Wallmart that sold the iPhone ... if certainly is also delivering a customer, without them selling there was no customer, oh by the way, Electricity companies also deliver you the customers ... to Apple even ... If each got 30% for each sale they would be loosing money perpetually.

Anyway, this Is getting tiring. Whatever happens customers and digital businesses will get what they deserve either way.

Cheers.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Yes, bit they don’t get 30% of that sub neither future subscriptions.

1. That's still a cut. Your argument was that a store shouldn't do that and it should only sell products (apps) and not services which is wrong. I'm glad you now agree that stores can sell services.
2. No proof that they don't take 30% or more.
3. Spotify signups via Playstation Store took a cut perpetually (before Spotify decided to remove billing recently). You're complaining about Apple but haven't realized many stores *do* take a cut from future payments. Talk about cherry picking.

You're getting tired of this conversation because you're starting to realize you're not being very accurate here but you're not willing to admit it. So I'll stop here since this is a waste of time.

 

[GizmoDVD]

Irrelevant? As in, Apple’s services push is irrelevant when all I want to do is access my own music and books?

Apple is a tyrant, plain and simple. Tim must GTFO. And this is coming from a 3-decade-long Mac user... I am utterly disgusted by Apple’s leadership.

It's embarrassing to see posts like yours. 30% is the norm almost EVERYWHERE in the digital market.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

You're getting tired of this conversation because you're starting to realize you're not being very accurate here but you're not willing to admit it. So I'll stop here since this is a waste of time.

Nope. These things will be taken care through the appropriate channels. Will see how this will go in the EU and other regions.

As I’ve said, you are cherry picking examples ignoring the fact that one in two Americans use iOS and people need to install Apps to access their digital services. It’s a basic need to which you or the dev have to pay... and that is what is giving the App Store revenue. Apps are what make the device fundamentally useful to a wide range of users and situations (general computing).

Its is the iOS market share that put all digital businesses, all of them, reaching 50% or their US customers in no position to negotiate. Either pay or leave those customer behind. There is no store competition to serve these customers. Competition happens in the devices customers choose over which digital businesses have no say. It’s not the brilliant App Store service or whatever.

Smartphones became digital devices as important to humanity as a PC (Mac or otherwise) if not even vital in the modern society. You can cheery pick whatever comparisons, from Porn in AMC, to Wallmart or whatever 80 million users Sony PS might have (get all the online gaming store together if you want).

If Apple welcomed competition would charge developers for app hosting and distribution and compete foe the ability to sell. Case in case, the example of Epic is paradigmatic. It’s Epica ability and service that is able to convince the customer to buy Vbucks within the realm of their service. The same for Netflix or whatever digital service. The only thing similar to this practice in the world is a Tax.

Apple is better to start to diversify revenue streams not at the expense of digital businesses / devs world wide. Because what it has at the moment is basically the iPhome as a cash cow, and people change smartphones like shirts. Look at Nokia. Given the current practices I don’t see devs jumping into excitement in facing an App Store Policy as it is on macOS on ARM. Will see how that move increases dev revenue on he Mac. Heck supporting Apple moving forward with the status quo Apple wants as far as their relationship with digital businesses goes. Because Apple talks about supporting devs, yet devs collectively supported Apple innovations as much if not more Apple supported them. iOS with no dev interest would be another business case like Windows Phone ...

Epic a huge player in the gaming Industry has endorsed Apple innovations by going to their WWDC. Epic would be selling games if even if they did not. Fortnite as little to do with Apple doing. In fact until recentemente it was a Blockbuster in the PC. This helps sell iPhones or whatever. It’s not just a one way street.

It is interesting that I see big players going to WWDC endorsing Apple innovations, but rarely if ever I see the other way around, endorsing others Innovation. It’s just some bland generic statements. It seams that they currently see everyone’s value starting with them. This clearly shows their uncool attitude towards the Industry apart from a marketing paint job.

Americans love and defend winners at expense of anything else until they aren’t. It’s irrational.

GL with your reasoning