Is this the one they were being fined a few million for every month? Must have got tired digging down the back of the sofa if it was. Or Tim got his hand stuck?
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 Eliminates Separate Binary Requirement for Dutch Dating Apps Accepting Alternative Payments
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Developers are paying Apple for more than just the payment system. The App Store offers developers many features including hosting and marketing.
Soon they'll have to cover this with a little price bump to all the phones ... "for 5G"
Unpopular opinion, this is not good for Apple's platform or for Apple customers. One of the key features of the Apple ecosystem is its closed nature. That walled-garden approach provides a controlled environment where user expectations can be met consistently. Any attacks on the ecosystem, however well-meaning, will likely result in a more chaotic and inconsistent experience for users. If flexibility and customization is the goal, we have Android for that.
We've been through all this before.
Apple needs to start to breaking it all out and approach this differently.
A combo flat fee that is justified because of "tools, hosting and marketing" has been co-opted by Apple to make them think they should get huge cuts of ALL revenue going through a given App or service.
Which is nuts and wrong.
That's not even true - Apps go bananas with different UI conventions, violate notification rules, spam and con and copy apps are constantly in the App Store..
..and the "closed nature" actually make the scams far more profitable and pernicious because users all have their guard down (not all users - we are outliers here on this forum)
iOS had the sandbox from Day One whereas macOS added it decades later.
I fully expect that Apple would prefer that all macOS applications used the Mac App Store, but there is far too much precedent for them not doing it that way for them to enforce such a change.
I doubt Apple sees this as a "win" because they didn't want to make any changes. But all they really "lose" is the fee a third-party payment processing service will impose, which is said to be 5% or less.
Apple will still collect the balance of their IAP fee, just not all of it.
Personally I appreciate the way Apple does screw over developers in a way, particularly when it launches its own services that are prioritised above the competitors, but, I also very much appreciate the security aspect of the Apple eco system. I use Apple Pay quite a bit and feel reasonably secure in doing so.
Ahh! the beauty!
Apple Pay could be one of several options an App offers.
I'm even ok with iOS Apps being required to offer Apple Pay as an option.
Apple Pay is great and actually a ton of devs and users would choose it over all others...
..but it should be made to compete on its merits and an option among several
I’m not sure if you’re purposefully trying to be ignorant here, but they cannot 'sell stuff on the App Store for free'.
I'm aware. I was asking someone else why Apple was not entitled to fees for hosting, distribution, etc. That $99 fee does not cover all the costs.
Because obviously there's only one company in the entire world capable of securely handling payment processing. (And, you know, every time someone's payment information is compromised, they inevitably lose their entire life savings.)
"Freedom", my apple!
You have that choice today. Just go Android. Apple's platform is designed to bring benefits that Android can't offer. It's not about Apple sitting around a boardroom table discussing how to "limit your freedoms", and anyone that believes that is a cracker.
Then there's the value-added features that Apple has built into the ecosystem, such as seamless and free updating of apps. If the revenue stops, do you expect Apple to just give that service to you for free?
Be careful with how you portray that. It was not intentional, so be sure to include that small, but important detail. The hackers were abusing the system.
Last edited:
Correct, I used “hackers” as this was the language used in the article I had read.
a wooden one if I remember my dutch footwear history...
Paid app updates were a feature, not a bug. Why do you think nearly all software is either ad-supported or subscription-based these days? (Neither of which is actually "free".)
Apple receiving $99 a year when most folks (hobbyists, uni students, etc) who use the Apple Developer Program never use enough bandwidth, hosting of binaries (+ basic documentation upkeep etc) to recoup said losses.
I think that’s reasonable.
If it’s not, then they can use a plethora of established third party vendors such as Stripe, WorldPay, etc, to ‘cover all the costs’.
Both completely missing the concept of having your information in less places is more secure. Do I want to trust Apple or do I want to trust Apple, Amazon, Epic, Microsoft, Joe blow A, Joe blow B, Joe blow C.
If the whole thing is about these poor companies can't pay Apple their cut do you really think they are going to spend a ton of money standing up their own system? Or are they going to outsource to the lowest bidder that still can skid past a PCI audit?
Please continue to fight to pay for risk.
I honestly think it isn't about the 30% in the first place. It's that fact that they can't track you. They don't just want you to pay exactly what you are paying today they want you to pay and also give them all the personal information Apple anonymizes. They want you to have to deal with them directly for refunds and cancellations. They want you to "trust" them.
The best part is people will still blame Apple/iPhones when it hits the fan.