lol, what the heck are you talking about? Apple is always talking about transparency and Facebook tries to be transparent to its customers and Apple blocks them?
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
As a customer, I DO care and I DO want to know.
Let's say your friend Joe is a musician. All his gigs have been cancelled due to COVID. He decides to stream a show on FB to make ends meet and sets the price at $10 per stream. You place your order on your iPhone and, suddenly, Joe only gets $7 from you. If you knew, and had some compassion for Joe, you might have opened a browser to place the order so your friend could get the full $10. But without the descriptive statement, you wouldn't even know that the $3 didn't reach Joe.
There is no love for Facebook here. But in this case, they're right. What's next? 30% on all ebay purchases made through the app?
I was giving a simple explanation of the difference between a monopoly and the illegal use of monopoly power. Some people wrongly assume that having a monopoly, by itself, is illegal. The Microsoft example was intended to show that distinction. I never said that the Apple situation is the same as the Microsoft facts, and I wasn’t writing a law review article on all of the issues in the Microsoft case.
Apple blocked Facebook's attempt to tell users about the 30% fee that Apple would take of all in-app purchases made through a new online events feature, Facebook has told Reuters. Apple reportedly told Facebook the update violated an App Store rule that prevents developers from showing "irrelevant" information to users.
Facebook planned to launch a new tool in its app that lets online influencers and other businesses host paid online events as a way to recoup revenue lost during the global health crisis. The feature lets Facebook users buy tickets for the events directly through the app.
Apple's long-standing App Store rules say the iPhone maker takes a 30% cut of all in-app purchases. When Facebook asked Apple to waive the fee so it could pass on all events revenue to business owners, Apple reportedly declined.
The feature is now available in the Facebook app, just without the message notifying users about Apple's 30% fee. The image above was released by Facebook earlier this month to show what the message would have looked like.
Facebook reportedly intended to show a message on Android that read "Facebook doesn't take a fee from this purchase," but Reuters said the message doesn't appear in the version of Facebook currently available on the Google Play Store.
Nothing about Apple's actions is new here – the company has been consistent in preventing other apps like Netflix and Spotify from discussing App Store policies, such as explaining that users could pay for their services via the web without Apple taking a cut.
What's different in this case is that by previewing the message ahead of submitting it to Apple's App Store review process, Facebook is clearly looking to fuel debate about the way Apple polices apps on its iOS platform, at a time when Apple is already facing antitrust lawsuits and government probes over alleged anticompetitive actions.
One particularly vocal critic has been Fortnite creator Epic Games, which has repeatedly referred to the App Store as a monopoly. Earlier this month, Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store after Epic Games introduced a direct payment option in the app for its in-game currency, violating App Store rules. In an apparently orchestrated move, Epic Games promptly filed a lawsuit against Apple, accusing the company of anti-competitive behavior.
Spotify and Microsoft have since sided with Epic over the issue, and Facebook's latest action suggests they have picked up another ally in the increasing controversy over Apple's App Store policies.
Article Link: Apple Blocked Facebook Update Highlighting Apple's In-App Purchase Fees
Maybe someone can explain this to me. How is Apple required to inform potential buyers of third-party apps where the money Apple collects has been determined between Apple and the app owner? Would Apple be required to disclose to every buyer all the details of how the cost is allocated among different Apple employees, hardware, software, advertising, and stock options, just to name a few?
Apple blocked Facebook's attempt to tell users about the 30% fee that Apple would take of all in-app purchases made through a new online events feature, Facebook has told Reuters. Apple reportedly told Facebook the update violated an App Store rule that prevents developers from showing "irrelevant" information to users.
Facebook planned to launch a new tool in its app that lets online influencers and other businesses host paid online events as a way to recoup revenue lost during the global health crisis. The feature lets Facebook users buy tickets for the events directly through the app.
Apple's long-standing App Store rules say the iPhone maker takes a 30% cut of all in-app purchases. When Facebook asked Apple to waive the fee so it could pass on all events revenue to business owners, Apple reportedly declined.
The feature is now available in the Facebook app, just without the message notifying users about Apple's 30% fee. The image above was released by Facebook earlier this month to show what the message would have looked like.
Facebook reportedly intended to show a message on Android that read "Facebook doesn't take a fee from this purchase," but Reuters said the message doesn't appear in the version of Facebook currently available on the Google Play Store.
Nothing about Apple's actions is new here – the company has been consistent in preventing other apps like Netflix and Spotify from discussing App Store policies, such as explaining that users could pay for their services via the web without Apple taking a cut.
What's different in this case is that by previewing the message ahead of submitting it to Apple's App Store review process, Facebook is clearly looking to fuel debate about the way Apple polices apps on its iOS platform, at a time when Apple is already facing antitrust lawsuits and government probes over alleged anticompetitive actions.
One particularly vocal critic has been Fortnite creator Epic Games, which has repeatedly referred to the App Store as a monopoly. Earlier this month, Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store after Epic Games introduced a direct payment option in the app for its in-game currency, violating App Store rules. In an apparently orchestrated move, Epic Games promptly filed a lawsuit against Apple, accusing the company of anti-competitive behavior.
Spotify and Microsoft have since sided with Epic over the issue, and Facebook's latest action suggests they have picked up another ally in the increasing controversy over Apple's App Store policies.
Article Link: Apple Blocked Facebook Update Highlighting Apple's In-App Purchase Fees
A customer has every right and obligation to determine whether the product or service being purchased is or is not worth the amount he is being asked to pay. If the price is too high for what he expects to receive then the customer is free to shop around for a lower price, or to decide that the lowest price found is still too much to pay for what is expected to be received. Is Best Buy required to inform a shopper that Walmart is offering the very same item at a lower price? Is Best Buy required to inform the shopper that the item can be had for a lower price when it goes on sale at Best Buy the following week? Facebook and other purveyors of apps are certainly free to advertise the price of the app when purchased through them, and the customer can decide whether the value expected to be delivered through Facebook or through Apple is, given the respective prices, better for one or the other company.
Similarly, the developer may determine whether the platform supporting its application is best served by Apple or by another seller. If Apple provides the customer a superior platform, if Apple's reputation for quality is believed by the developer to be superior to others, if Apple is considered to be reliable, well-staffed with highly competent staff, or any other reason for the developer to feel more confident and secure, then the developer may certainly decide that a 30% increase cost is a fair amount to pay.
Given the dangers to end customers that can be attached by unscrupulous developers which can materially harm an end user, the decision of a developer or end user to align with the company regarded as the least likely to cause harm is perfectly understandable. We all live in a competitive world, and Tiffany can demand a significantly higher price for a diamond of the same intrinsic value as Honest Joe's Discount Diamonds will offer it. That is not antitrust--it is just a matter of trust.
30% has kinda been a rule of thumb for Apple since SJ came back to Apple. Back in 97’ Apple was selling stock at .75 cents and profit margins had to be built into everything to keep the company alive. TC is only implementing what SJ laid out so many years before. When SJ came back in 97’, Apple was going to be bankrupt within 90 days. Just because a company has 2 trillion, doesn’t mean it has to take loss to facilitate some good will. I mean Apple gives more to charities than a lot of other tech companies. And before you call out Apple, how much have you given during the pandemic? I’ve worked 80-100hr work weeks in hot zones turning up conference rooms, so hospitals could communicate with remote doctors and emergency workers, all volunteer work.
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.
Last edited:
Apple is in the envious position where they technically do not sell "your data", but they facilitate it and get 30% fee for it all the while trumpeting privacy in their commercials.
Yes, I can explain it to you. Apple is not required to inform potential buyers. Facebook wanted to do it itself and Apple explicitly prevented it from doing so.
The other half of the world that isn’t on Facebook has no electricity or running water.
I’m not forgetting anything. No one buys an iOS device expecting it to have multiple app stores. It’s not part of the deal.
If people want to stop buying iOS devices because it doesn’t have what they want (An alternative way of getting apps), they should do so. Again, the issue is having such a product available. It will take time. I just don’t see anything in it for Apple to allow another app ecosystem to live on its products.
As For the original issue at hand— maybe they can come up with a way to grant exemptions in specific use cases for the sake of the little guy. But it would be on their terms and not Facebook’s, and not something they can do lightly (given how big of a target they are.)
Last edited:
Yep. I remember when Apple used to not ask for money - you could literally walk up to their headquarters and ask politely for an apple ][ and they’d give you one.
*rolls eyes*
Are you conveniently forgetting than’joe’ the musician also doesn’t get all of his or her full ticket price at the door of the said venue? Is there a sign outside the door of any venue that tell perspective attendees where their money is going?
Stop comparing with the analog world man. The digital economics is way different. Still yes, his friend would collect the full price as he was the one who sold the ticket to get into his concert hall and than did the concert. What Apple demands is 30% of his revenue for him to put his shop in its land. It’s land price. Stop spreading the lie that its is the App Store that is selling the ticket and providing the concert hall and promo services... its just forcing the payment through they system to make sure it collects its doe before him, even though he was the one who sold it and created the product nothing else.
Last edited:
You may feel blocking it is going too far, but Apple's reasoning is valid. The 30% is on developers, it has little relevance on the user, front-facing public. So, FB trying to show it to users is clearly just in spite. Do you ask your local grocery what every expense they have and decide if it's justified before you purchase food?
P.S. This post has nothing to do with the amount/percentage.
Last edited:
Nope. Let the customer and the digital business decide if it’s relevant or not. If this is true Apple is then interfering with the market by unilaterally deciding what information is relevant or irrelevant to the market constituints.
Walmart would not let a company put a sign on any of the products they sell informing the customers that Walmart take X% of the price they are paying. Walmart would say this is not relevant. In fact these things are purposely kept quiet so different suppliers dont what % the other are getting. At least Apple is fair any everyone is paying 30% and the few times it forced to offer the big boys a reduction there is uproar on the forum. Yet because apple wont give Epic or FB a special deal as they dont add the same value to apple as Netflix and Amazon these other billion dollar companies and spitting their dummy out
Well, Walmart does not have in in-app paymengs, or should it be in device registers?
Maybe Walmart should have had this brilliant idea and force Apple to relinquish 30% of purchases made in the devices they sold. By the way and force them to give their iPhones for free, you know their customer love the Wallmart store and they are protecting their customers after all right? There are so many businesses that just want to scam them ... don’t worry Wallmart has a special division after those crooks.
If you want to compare than compare the entire scheme.
Last edited:
“Irrelevant information” how more subjective can you get? That’s a catch all rule for pretty much anything.
I think letting users know the fees is a good thing.If an app developer charged more for an in-app purchase made from an Apple device to compensate for the fees (for example: $10 from the web and $13 from an iPhone), people would think the developers are trying to milk Apple users.
I think letting users know the fees is a good thing.If an app developer charged more for an in-app purchase made from an Apple device to compensate for the fees (for example: $10 from the web and $13 from an iPhone), people would think the developers are trying to milk Apple users.
Apple's not price gouging. Their fee hasn't increased. However -- and this is in general about the revenue share percentage -- Apple (Google, Microsoft, Sony, etc) may well be involved in (illegal) price-fixing. That is, maybe none of these companies have budged on the "standard" 30% because they all (might) know, "Hey, it's working out for all of us so why mess with it." Again, if that's true, all of the big players with digital content stores would be liable. And that's the only platform companies such as Epic have to stand on. Lastly, of course, all of these huge corporations are all about profit (and mainly to the execs). I don't think anyone is disputing that, are they? One more thing... FB, Epic, etc are taking a poor approach to combat it, which essentially reinforces my previous point.
1 year without fees is a lot though and enough for businesses to decide if they can benefit in the long run from using their platform. Can you imagine Apple doing that? Apple wouldn’t give you a single week.
Read the laws again. Apple is price gouging by taking a Facebook service that is offered for zero cost to self employed and small businesses during an emergency then increasing it to 30% which is more than 10%.
https://oag.ca.gov/consumers/pricegougingduringdisasters
Is price gouging illegal in California?
Yes, in certain circumstances. California’s anti-price gouging statute, Penal Code Section 396, prohibits raising the price of many consumer goods and services by more than 10% after an emergency has been declared.
That's a strange logic you have. The 30% and IAP rule were in place long before the pandemic. It's like a business saying, "Our advertising budget isn't essential and it does seem like a lot, so we'll completely remove it from our profit equation for now and offer you the recalculated price." Sure, a few companies may make such sacrifices but it's by no means required. Could Apple afford to? Obviously, though again, it's not a necessity and not illegal to not make such adjustments. With that said, FB could pass on 100% of the payment to the event publisher, etc and pay the 30% to Apple from other revenues, right? FB can afford such a temporary sacrifice, right?
Price gouging would be if Apple doubled iCloud prices or suddenly charged for even basic/minimal access because so much of Apple's ecosystem relies on it and they know customers would pay it.
Last edited:
My friend’s band did a Covid concert and I paid him through the Venmo ID he shared. He got it all. Same could have been done through Facebook.com.
There is no venue at a virtual concert, which is the scenario you replied too.