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 Lobbying Against Arizona Bill That Would Let Developers Use Third-Party Payment Options
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You can't have another payment platform on iOS without giving away the App store.
Gatekeeper and Notarization must come to iOS. Imagine this: had Mac developers been subject to these same encumbrances from its inception, the web browser itself would have never been allowed, as the web browser executes arbitrary code and certainly doesn’t play nicely with sandboxing. Imagine how many good iOS apps and ideas we are missing out on because a larger, more authoritative and powerful Apple was able to seize the moment and force its own rules upon developers: rules that, while generally appreciable, undeniably stifle innovation. An operating system, at its essence, must adhere to the concept of deference. Of course, an operating system also has an equal obligation to security, but this notion of security has nothing to do with the usurious App Store tax that they levy, and is still very much compatible with Notarization and Gatekeeper.
Last edited:
I'm done arguing about this, but I'm curious why this is a state-level bill rather than national.
You've just argued that Apple has a monopoly over the usability of their iDevices.
Apple allows others access to macOS. You can get your apps for macOS through the app store, directly from the app developer (e.g. Affinity, Adobe), an online retailer, or a brick-and-mortar retailer... the latter 3 all bypasses Apple and their payment system and Apple gets $0 of the sale.
I don't think you understand that it's the company who experiences the data breach that is at fault. Why should the digital/online world be any different from the physical/offline world?
Target was to blame for their data breach.
Target to pay $18.5M for 2013 data breach that affected 41 million consumers
More than 41 million customer accounts affected by 2013 Target data breach
www.usatoday.com
Home Depot was to blame for theirs.
Home Depot agrees to $17.5 million settlement over 2014 data breach
The US retailer’s point-of-sale systems were infected with malware.
www.zdnet.com
Besides, it's not as if app developers would set up their own payment system from scratch. They'd likely use some 3rd party provider that charges smaller fees than Apple (e.g. Square, PayPal/Braintree, Stripe, CDGcommerce, Adyen, etc)
Last edited:
If the law passes, Apple stops selling apps to Arizona residents and prevents developers in Arizona from being able to leverage their App Store platforms. Google will likely do the same and it'd be curious if Samsung did something similar. I'd expect they continue to let free apps through but not permit anything that requires IAP to be accessible. They could block this by preventing any card with an Arizona address from being used for checkout and preventing anyone with a registered Arizona address from completing a purchase.
Whilst I understand the developer side of not forcing IAP on them because it enables the developer to use an alternative, I don't understand what it means for a user not to be required to use IAP. Is the user supposed to negotiate their own payment method for the developer? Is the platform at that point supposed to mediate? Is that platform expected to support what ever payment method the user decides they wish to use?
Whilst I understand the developer side of not forcing IAP on them because it enables the developer to use an alternative, I don't understand what it means for a user not to be required to use IAP. Is the user supposed to negotiate their own payment method for the developer? Is the platform at that point supposed to mediate? Is that platform expected to support what ever payment method the user decides they wish to use?
That's not how platforms work. Can you use xbox games on a playstation? Can you run Apple Watch apps on an Android watch?
I mean, it's your device, so you can try, but it's not the platform owner's job to make it easy for you.
I'm all for being pro-consumer, but this bill does is not about giving consumers anything. It's fundamentally about giving big publishers the right to create their own app stores where they charge their own fees (see: Epic).
The App Store has been a huge win for consumers, because it has almost entire eliminated malware from the iPhone. Opening up the App Store would effectively destroy this, and it will be consumers who are hurt by it in the end.
Whilst I understand the need for legislation at the state level with a country as big as America, when states start attempting to bring in individual laws like this it's like companies suddenly have to deal with an extra 50 "countries" with their own arbitrary whims.
Whilst I don't admit to having an understanding on such issue, not living in America, something like 3rd party app store integration seems like it should have nothing to do with an individual state, but should be looked at at a federal level. The app store isn't a state level concern as far as I can see.
Whilst I don't admit to having an understanding on such issue, not living in America, something like 3rd party app store integration seems like it should have nothing to do with an individual state, but should be looked at at a federal level. The app store isn't a state level concern as far as I can see.
As a consumer, I want all payments to go through Apple only, point. I am much more comfortable knowing that there is a single agency having access to my financial and personal information. Not to mention that there are fewer accounts to handle, fewer payment systems to reviews and a single placement gateway is also much more secure. And of course, its a far superior solution for a small-time developer who don't have the resources to deal with payment systems.
Make no mistake, pushing for removing Apple as a single handler of payments on the App Store is not a consumer-friendly move. It's ultimately anti-consumer and anti-security. The only ones who benefits from it are large corporations (who can increase their profits by managing payments in-house) and data mining companies who want to access your payment data. End customers and small-time developers would lose big time.
Make no mistake, pushing for removing Apple as a single handler of payments on the App Store is not a consumer-friendly move. It's ultimately anti-consumer and anti-security. The only ones who benefits from it are large corporations (who can increase their profits by managing payments in-house) and data mining companies who want to access your payment data. End customers and small-time developers would lose big time.
Ah, yes, the famous American definition of freedom as "I own my car, so if I want to burn it on my lawn, I should be able to".
Be a big company that can or already is paying local sales taxes and VAT. Pay your $99 to Apple then host a free app. Put a $10/month subscription on said free app or it won't work. Now you have saved millions in hosting and the like because Apple is supposedly going to foot the bill for you to pay your PSP 2.5%.
Small company, can't afford to pay local sales taxes and VAT to hundreds of countries or hire the manpower nor pay the $2000/month to a third party company. Put your app up on the App Store with a $10/month subscription but Apple are getting 15% because the other option is just too expensive.
The only people that benefit from this is the 2% that already made it big.
Small company, can't afford to pay local sales taxes and VAT to hundreds of countries or hire the manpower nor pay the $2000/month to a third party company. Put your app up on the App Store with a $10/month subscription but Apple are getting 15% because the other option is just too expensive.
The only people that benefit from this is the 2% that already made it big.
And I can almost guarantee you that these additional "choices" you'd be given in alternative app stores would contain three million clones of one and the same game that's popular at the moment (including mal- and adware), gambling and other shady apps with subscription traps and tons of erotic/pornographic material. Just a hunch taken from Android.
Last edited:
Hosting and servers are peanut costs to Apple too, meaning that if they increase the fees it's likely not because they need to cover those costs, but because they want to preserve profit margins. Apple is absolutely entitled to profits, they are no charity, but the question is why shouldn't they have to compete against third-parties on their platform, thereby reducing their profit margins due to competition. There are two main camps on that issue:
- First camp believes that Apple should be able to do as they please on their platform.
- Second camp believes that Apple is a big enough player in the market that anti-trust considerations apply to them, limiting the practices they can employ which stifle competition.
This is guaranteed, but it's also true for Apple IMHO: they are a company and their ultimate goal is to make profits. They argue the "curated" nature of the iOS/iPadOS platform is for the user experience and security, but I'm quite sure preventing competition and protecting profits do also play a big role.
How does malware get on your iPhone if epic gets to sell fortnite bucks on the web, bypassing Apple's payment system?
Maybe Arizona can also force restaurants to let us bring our own food.
To think this has no logic just demonstrates that you don't understand what Apple (and Valve, Sony, Microsoft, Google...) provides that Epic does not. One of those is absorbing the cost of payment processing globally, which can exceed 20% in some markets - Epic gives developers a choice to pay that fee themselves or pass it to the consumer on top of the app cost (ie, a 60 dollar game could go for 75 to cover the fee). Another big one is paying local taxes for you and providing all associated documentation for you to file annually -- saving massive costs on local accountants. Then there's the usual cost of hosting and certifying the code, also items that are not free. What Apple gives for only 15-30% is a steal for smaller companies.
This is ridiculous illogical hysteria. There’s no reason Apple can’t figure out another more transparent pricing model that could lower costs for everyone. This dumb greed-driven mentality has got to go. Most people are SICK of it. Is Apple REALLY going broke? Please 🙄
What kind of more transparent pricing model do you propose? Apple's pricing model is as simple as it gets and their fees are some of the lowest in the industry, especially considering what they offer for that fee.
That's revenue, not profit. They have to pay out the developer share, then pay for their own employees and infrastructure. 54 billion is what the entire company had in net income in the full year.