Just goes to show Judges can be bought in every country.
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 Must Let Dating Apps Offer Alternative Payment Methods in App Store, Dutch Regulator Says
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple could just not offer dating Apps in this case. They can surely be accessed on the internet.
Darth Tulhu
macrumors 68020
As much as certain socialist ideas are appealing to me (housing, food, medical services), having an iPhone is NOT a human need.
I find these laws circumventing the process that Apple has put in place for the PRIVATE SECTOR platform THEY CREATED to be absolute BS and a bad precedent, regardless of the obscene amount of money Apple makes off of it.
It seems more and more people are just refusing to use reasoned logic these days. They just swing either hard right or hard left on every frakking thing, based on whatever circle-jerk they wanna be a drone in.
Sadly, there's nowhere to go. This is happening globally, as those in charge have taken full advantage of the communications revolution to perfect their propaganda machines. So much so as to the point of causing their constituents to even lay their lives on the line for the message, despite evidence against it.
I find these laws circumventing the process that Apple has put in place for the PRIVATE SECTOR platform THEY CREATED to be absolute BS and a bad precedent, regardless of the obscene amount of money Apple makes off of it.
It seems more and more people are just refusing to use reasoned logic these days. They just swing either hard right or hard left on every frakking thing, based on whatever circle-jerk they wanna be a drone in.
Sadly, there's nowhere to go. This is happening globally, as those in charge have taken full advantage of the communications revolution to perfect their propaganda machines. So much so as to the point of causing their constituents to even lay their lives on the line for the message, despite evidence against it.
Well that’s the cost apple say for developing.
You need to keep in mind. Apple takes 30% of NET price, not gross.
Welol apple should then increase the developers fee to cover these expense. And the problem is apple and google is 100% of the market, developers must exist on both to compete.
Absolutely relevant because outside the AppStore apple isn’t relevant and shouldn’t be able to demand a cut. Just as apple can’t demand a cut of add revenue on free apps.
Same thing for free apps or any app selling physical goods, why should apple have a right to their value?
Why should apple be compensated for the value of an app? Apple already take their developers fee and the initial 30% cut on the store. Their job is already done.
Unfortunately Android and iOS are 100% of the market
In EU we have limited this. Any customers are free to go to any independent dealership or service provider to get help with their car. Ford or Toyota aren’t allowed to demand any fee for their spare parts or other essential things sold to customers or competitors who use it to repair their carts etc
This isn’t an argument to stop legitimate competition for in app purchases
Well obviously it seems to not be a little to restrictive on some aspects and anti competitive.
App Store have been profitable for many years. The break even point for apple is likely around 2-4% and should be forced to provide their payment options with benefits to compete with PayPal or stripe for in app purchases. If it truly is superior they will continue to have their 15% cut
It’s not a race to the bottom. It’s the principle of providing competition. I would say what apple provides for a 30% cut is outrageously bad from a customer point of view.
How are the lawmakers wrong? This isn’t America.
It‘s a two-way street. The app ecosystem and its „lock-in effect“ is the major reason why iPhone profits are so high.
The App Store is far from a loss leader today - cause it is subsidised by high commissions on in-app purchases. These dating apps are basically charging money for a service and/or in-app „enhancements“. The cost for Apple to enable these in-app purchases is virtually negligible.
On the other hand, their 99$ developer fee surely is a loss leader at least when it comes to more prolific developers / major accounts. Big app developers submit dozens of app updates each year. Does 99$ cover Apple reviewing all those app updates, moderating user reviews, etc.? Don’t think so. Especially when they’re offered for free to end users.
If the App Store were operated in a cost-covering way, I am quite sure Apple would have
1. charge higher yearly developer membership fes
2. and/or fees on a per-submission and per-download basis
Apple has chosen not to do so.
Neither are having electricity, interstate phone calls or transportation.
Yet governments offer, subsidise and regulate them.
And it may be worth considering why.
My best guess is that at the end of the day, Apple has a vested interest in maintaining the viability and vitality of the App Store.
With the big apps like facebook and twitter being available on both iOS and android, they aren’t really a key differentiator. The majority of apps in the App Store are free apps that earn Apple no money. In this context, the $99 annual fee is there to weed out the unserious developers, while at the same time, it’s low enough so as not to discourage these developers from releasing apps for the iOS platform (some of whom may even still be studying and have little income of their own), which in turn adds to the vitality of the App Store and draws more users to purchase ios devices.
It’s not that dissimilar to a taxation system where those who can pay more, do pay more. The end result is that the App Store ends up being a powerful equalising force that allows the smaller developers to compete on a more equal footing with the larger companies (they all have access to the same development tools, which in turn are largely subsidised by their profits.
So in this regard, I have no issues with seeing these larger, more profitable companies (the majority of whom are freemium games anyways) having to fork out these money.
There is also another argument to be made that 30% or even 15% is not an unreasonable commission to charge, given the role the iOS App Store plays in facilitating additional transactions. The App Store makes it easy to locate an app and convenient to purchase and download one. The end result is that more people end up buying an app (or making an IAP) compared to if they had to navigate to an external website or use another third party payment option, so 70% of a greater number of transactions can still result in higher overall revenue than 100% of a smaller number of app sales. Especially when it comes to IAPs which effectively have zero marginal cost.
So I don’t really agree with the notion of third party payment options being allowed to leverage the aggregating power of the iOS App Store for free (as in, these companies would benefit from the increased volume of transactions that the iOS App Store enables due to Apple having aggregated the best customers in the world by virtue of the iPhone), without needing to pay Apple a single cent for said benefit.
But it would be funny if Apple still billed developers who use alternative payments (ie: PayPal takes 3-5%, Apple still charges them the remainder of 12-27%).
That's what Google is planning to do in South Korea.
They'll take their normal 15% cut if the payment is processed through the Play Store... but Google still gets 11% if the payment is processed externally.
So yeah... developers can certainly use some other company to handle their payments... but that doesn't automatically eliminate fees from the platform owner.
You still gotta pay the piper!
Last edited:
That's what Google is planning to do in South Korea.
They'll take their normal 15% cut if the payment is processed through the Play Store... but Google still gets 11% if the payment is processed externally.
So yeah... developers can certainly use some other company to handle their payments... but that doesn't automatically get them off the hook with the platform owner.
You still gotta pay the piper!
Yeah, I am not convinced these legislators have quite thought this through.
That's what Google is planning to do in South Korea.
They'll take their normal 15% cut if the payment is processed through the Play Store... but Google still gets 11% if the payment is processed externally.
So yeah... developers can certainly use some other company to handle their payments... but that doesn't automatically eliminate fees from the platform owner.
You still gotta pay the piper!
very likely if google and apple just does that it will just kick the can down the road as anticompetitive behavior. very likely it will lead to a hard earnings cap.Yeah, I am not convinced these legislators have quite thought this through.
lets say apples costs could be covered with a 2% fee, then it could be capped at 4% to provide a healthy margin
it could be argued apple must treat in-app purchases exactly the same like Amazon or Netflix etc. technically they both cost apple the same amount of bandwidth and apple only collect the value provided in only one of these.Yeah, I am not convinced these legislators have quite thought this through.
They will adjust, reluctantly. It’s not like this independent judge ruled apple to aid in suppressing the rights of any Dutch citizen. While without hesitation apple adjusts the appstore rules for countries of a dubious regime and help (aid and abet) these to oppress theirs. Choose your battles more wisely apple..
Because Apple charges for use of it's intellectual property.
So maybe Tesla should be barred from entered the market?
And if the independent dealership wants to charge 100 euros for changing a light bulb they can. Is anybody limiting those fees? No the market would speak with their $$$. The ios app store isn't an essential thing, don't try to make the argument it is.
what lock in effect?
What high commissions? Their are industry standard. What is it your business how much Apple (or the diner down the street, or the car manufacturer) makes. If you don't like some companies prices, product, business practices, etc, vote with your dollars.
At least in western civilization electricity is pretty much a necessity for modern society, an iphone is not... as evidenced by switcher rates between the manufacturers of which there are dozens.
Last edited:
That doesn't really matter. If anything, such behavior will lead to even stricter laws, eventually not just forcing them to allow alternative App Stores, but removing theirs as the default. Because, obviously, without payment and subscription management services, they don't do anything for the developer after the initial purchase that could justify cuts larger than maybe 1-2%.
This will just backfire in the long run. What they should have done: Offer a perfect payment experience for all purchases with 5% commission (including physical goods) and just rule the world forever as nobody can or will want to challenge that.
Again, using ios as a platforms means using Apple's intellectual property. That's what they are charging for, even though some don't like it. What some want to happen is to regulate the fees Apple charges for use of it's IP. It's all easy, peasy since the regulators didn't put any of their time, money and materials into this.
Of course devs want total access to iphones and the ios customer base for $0. Lowering commissions, imo, won't benefit the customer, it will net the dev a fatter paycheck with the Apple being the loser.
Apple IMHO offers just that, a great (not good), cost efficient in-app payment system with fair and competitive pricing. Most other digital stores are at 30% so why not Apple?
My issue with some comments on this topic is that people want to say that CC processing at retail varies from 3-5% or so, so Apple charging 30% is outrageous.
Apple charges the 30% to cover:
- the payment processing
- the development/upkeep/upgrades of the App Store (employing devs)
- all of the customer service for the App Store (paying salaries)
- all of the development tools that devs use to write apps (employing ore devs)
- marketing of the app store (paying more salaries)
- developing hardware that attracts a large audience for the devs
Yes, and that is or will be illegal in many countries. Because Apple's intellectual property isn't concerned in the slightest bit by using other means of distribution or payment. As simple as that, and whether you like it or not. Remember Microsoft bundling their web browser with their "intellectual property"? How did that go?
Also, again, how come you value "intellectual property" that much? Because Apple is concerned? The concept is completely against the free market.
I wish these government entities could focus more effort on cell phone carriers and cable internet/TV providers instead of app stores.
I'd love to only pay 4% over what it actually costs Verizon/Spectrum to provide service!
And while we're at it... does a pair of Nike sneakers need to cost $100 at the store?
Investigate every company!
Exactly. The payment processor's only job is to process payments.
They don't run server farms, identification services, provide app review, pay employees to develop the software and APIs that everyone uses, etc.
This kinda reminds me of how MVNOs can offer cell phone plans cheaper than the big carriers.
It's because MVNOs don't have any of the overhead of running a giant network... they just resell service.
I think Apple should take money from app developers for server maintenance or something. More popular app - more money.
Maybe Apple should charge a fee whenever an app gets purchased.
And the more an app gets purchased... the more the developer pays.
Wait a minute...
Which basically means … if you yet have a business we value our participation at15% of its value, if you do we value it at 30%.
Apple themselves have gone on record about trying to lock customers into their ecosystem. The more apps and services a customer buys from Apple, the less likely he is to switch platforms - let alone switch platforms altogether.
They 30% have been industry standard cause the market for app marketplaces a oligopolistic market. There isn't really more than two or three major platforms in many countries. For the iOS platform there is just one.
There is not reason to believe that "industry standard" commissions would be much lower - if the market were competitive (which it isn't. And no, most normal people don't unlock their iPhones to install from 3rd party sources, so it.
Also, for online payment processing and soft licensing - basically flipping a switch in a shareware product to unlock functionality / a license - 30% isn't industry standard, when everything is done online.
It's somewhere in-between. It's much more than only a luxury product. When you can't open many bank accounts without a smartphone, it's becoming a necessity.
You just have to ask people if and how many of them consider a smartphone a necessity. Most people in western civilisations don't base their definition of "necessities" strictly on what's needed for survival.
Switcher rates between manufacturers don't say much with regard to app purchases - if people are still buying from the same app marketplace.
Company management would have to be incompetent not to discuss how to gently get customers to buy their next product from the company. They would risk scrutiny if they actively prevented it. There's a difference.
No, it has been like that fee for decades when every store was a distribution site for software.
By competitive market you mean Apple shouldn't control it's own app store? Right? This gets back to prevailing commissions and use of intellectual property.
Who says? 30% is an industry standard, just not to your liking?
A smartphone is not needed to open a bank account. A low-end phone with a cellular connection and web browser can do the same thing as the highest-end smartphone.
A smartphone may be a necessity, but an iphone isn't. Saying an iphone is a necessity is like saying a 12 cylinder engine on a Honda Accord is a necessity.
It says there is no lock-in.