Apple Responds to Meta's Plan to Charge 30% Fee on Boosted Posts Purchased Through App Store

[AppliedMicro]

They are totally optional. Don’t tell me if your iPhone breaks and has to go without it for a while your life would end. You couldn’t eat, attend to your finances

My life wouldn’t end - but I could literally not attend my finances. I also could literally not control my apartment’s heating. Nor receive and up-to-date journey planning for transit. You’re making the same argument as for internet or phone lines being “optional” - while it is observable fact that they serve as communication and distribution channels for a large part of the B2C economy.

There are hundreds of competitors. That’s a fact.

It’s an irrelevant fact. Hundreds of non-iPhone smartphone all run the same operating system, underlying (Google services) and Play Store. There are only two mobile operating systems and software application store that have divided almost the entire respective markets. The gatekeeping power comes from software, not hardware. Meta/Facebook have to deal with the duopoly of Apple and Alphabet/Google - not dozens of smartphone manufacturers.

Currently, the App Store is run in a manner that allows for a certain equilibrium. Paid apps give Apple 15/30%, which is what subsidises the App Store for all the small developers who generate zero revenue for Apple

It “subsidises” Apple’s earnings.

Apple’s intellectual property is their property, and they should get to charge whatever fee they like

…and their ability to charge should end when it’s not their intellectual property that is used or drives a sale.
And they should not prevent others from marketing and charging for their intellectual property fairly.

Once a Spotify, Netflix or Epic app has been delivered that can play video or music content for free, it’s not Apple’s intellectual property or business when I’m making additional purchases from that developer.

 

[Abazigal]

…and their ability to charge should end when it’s not their intellectual property that is used or drives a sale.
And they should not prevent others from marketing and charging for their intellectual property fairly.

Once a Spotify, Netflix or Epic app has been delivered that can play video or music content for free, it’s not Apple’s intellectual property or business when I’m making additional purchases from that developer.

Hmm, I can accept an argument that perhaps from the third year onwards, Apple's cut of subscription-based apps could be reduced to say, 5% because at this point, the customer is sticking with the app because of its utility, not through any credit of Apple's. I don't see Apple accepting this though, for the simple reason that they will give up their App Store revenue kicking and screaming. Though to be fair, the bulk of their App Store revenue appears to stem from IAPs, and I am not sure how much is derived from app subscriptions.

However, I still believe that Apple does deserve something upfront for its role in facilitating the initial transaction. A personal example was when I tried out the fantastical app a few years ago. I downloaded it from the App Store, created a new account using Sign in with Apple, paid via iTunes, and was up and running in less than a minute. The developer really knew how to make use of Apple's tools to reduce the friction involved in signing up for it and make the customer more likely to pay, and I did.

He could have tried to steer the user to his own website instead, but how many customers would have just deleted the app there and then because they simply couldn't be bothered? The end result would have been a net loss in earnings (especially since something like a calendar app has very low marginal costs), even though the developer was earning more from each individual customer on paper.

 

[AppliedMicro]

I can accept an argument that perhaps from the third year onwards, Apple's cut of subscription-based apps could be reduced to say, 5%

Too long. What about customers that try out a different service for just one month (cancelling their subscriptions for that), only to return to Spotify the next month.

because at this point, the customer is sticking with the app because of its utility, not through any credit of Apple's

Hardly any Spotify or Netflix subscriber is with them due to any credit to Apple.

However, I still believe that Apple does deserve something upfront for its role in facilitating the initial transaction. A personal example was when I tried out the fantastical app a few years ago. I downloaded it from the App Store, created a new account using Sign in with Apple, paid via iTunes

No problem with that.
Using Apple’s services should just not be the only allowed way to do it.
Developers and users are forced to use Apple’s services.

 

[Abazigal]

No problem with that.
Using Apple’s services should just not be the only allowed way to do it.
Developers and users are forced to use Apple’s services.

I mean, there is still the option to navigating to their website to register manually. It's just a lot more cumbersome.

Perhaps when one says "unfair", they really just mean "not to my advantage".

 

[AppliedMicro]

I mean, there is still the option to navigating to their website to register manually. It's just a lot more cumbersome.

They’re forcing developers (when offering any facility to sign in) to also offer Apple’s sign-in service - which locks in users.

 

[Abazigal]

They’re forcing developers (when offering any facility to sign in) to also offer Apple’s sign-in service - which locks in users.

But undeniably also a benefit for the end user, because what incentive would a developer have to implement a feature that doesn’t allow them to track their users otherwise?

 

[cgs1xx]

So greedy Meta just doubled their fees and they’re blaming Apple! 😆
genius!

 

[I7guy]

My life wouldn’t end - but I could literally not attend my finances. I also could literally not control my apartment’s heating. Nor receive and up-to-date journey planning for transit. You’re making the same argument as for internet or phone lines being “optional” - while it is observable fact that they serve as communication and distribution channels for a large part of the B2C economy.

That’s a lack of a proper planning issue and not a platform, monopolistic or competition issue. I have a smart home, and if my iPhone dies or switch to android, other than a learning curve life goes on. I can still get transit updates on my computer, pay for transactions with a credit card etc, turn on my lights and security system, access every one of my financial providers, even drive my Tesla (although not as conveniently) There may be some areas that there will be a minor impact, buts it’s it the catastrophic event because I have a plan in place.

It’s an irrelevant fact. Hundreds of non-iPhone smartphone all run the same operating system, underlying (Google services) and Play Store. There are only two mobile operating systems and software application store that have divided almost the entire respective markets. The gatekeeping power comes from software, not hardware. Meta/Facebook have to deal with the duopoly of Apple and Alphabet/Google - not dozens of smartphone manufacturers.

I know you consider it irrelevant but it’s an important fact. Competition has not limited entry in this market. A popular choice has been made by people voting with their $$$. The EU threaded the needle to come with this legislation.

It “subsidises” Apple’s earnings.


…and their ability to charge should end when it’s not their intellectual property that is used or drives a sale.
And they should not prevent others from marketing and charging for their intellectual property fairly.

Once a Spotify, Netflix or Epic app has been delivered that can play video or music content for free, it’s not Apple’s intellectual property or business when I’m making additional purchases from that developer.

It should also be of a platform doesn’t work vote with your $$$. Apparently world wide except for apple people do that everyday, hour and minute.

 

[MrTemple]

The problem is that Apple got drunk on the drink of an outrageously inappropriate 30% cut of everything

Only legal intervention will ever get them off this sauce

iOS dev here who literally could never make a penny without standing on the shoulders of thousands of Apple iOS devs, who’ve put in uncountable years of effort into areas I basically have zero experience or expertise in. 👋

Tell me you don’t know what “import Foundation” does at the top of literally every iOS code file in Facebook, without telling me…

Let alone:

import UIKit
import SwiftUI
import CryptoKit
Button()
let task = URLSession.shared.dataTask(with: session)
etc, etc, etc…

Literally 💯 of iOS apps use code written by Apple to do a staggering amount of their work.

ZERO apps roll their own custom code instead of using the mountain of frameworks and APIs that Apple has built and perfected (complete with expected features like free dark mode, rotation, language, compat across device, accessibility size, backgrounding, persistence, etc, etc, etc features).

ZERO apps do this because it would cost 10-20x as much to develop, and nobody would pay for the lesser experience.

Even the simplest app would take literal years more development, and STILL not achieve anything close to feature parity by dropping in Apple’s code with zero effort.

Oh, and when iOS updates with new features, or a new style? INSTANTLY that app needs massive work to retain feature parity with other apps that did zero work to match style or make use of many new features. (Sometimes a TEENY bit of work to make a huge new feature work if you want.)

Show me an app developer who doesn’t lean HEAVILY on Apple’s developers’ work, and I’ll show you somebody who gets to talk about the “outrageous” price Apple charges for their work. 🙄

 

[yabeweb]

How come Meta is allowed to sell apps and games in the Meta Quest App then?

It’s all so random! And Apple is becoming cocky. Almost as off putting as those streaming services

Because you can sideload app on the quest, there is Sidequest which you can legally use and load games from for example….

 

[contacos]

Because you can sideload app on the quest, there is Sidequest which you can legally use and load games from for example….

No I mean the Meta Quest app that you download on the AppStore lets you purchase games without using Apples IAP system. You can pay with PayPal or creditcard

 

[MacFarmer]

I am sorry Apple, I am a huge Apple fan, but maybe realize that 30% is way too much of a commission to ask? Imagine if you go to a grocery store and find out that their credit card company charges the store 30% to accept the card payment. It sounds ridiculous, because it is ridiculous. This fee should be 10% TOPS.

I agree with you, but to be fair, the grocery store in my country sometimes charges 200% or more "commission" on some of the good they sell. So I don't think this is a valid comparison.

 

[BipedalOS]

Can you blame them?
I'd also pass on the Apple Extortion Fee to Apple Customers

The one who needs heat from their own customres about the extortion fees .... is Apple

I am torn on this. On one hand Apple deserves to make a cut on sales from App Store purchases. Then app developers can circumvent this fee by offering their app for free and using in app purchases. Apple then said we need to charge for IAP. Then they make exclusions for physical goods so we can buy shoes on Amazon without incurring the fee.

But what makes ad sales different then game sales?

Are only game devs going to be affected by this because their stuff is “fake”.

 

[AppliedMicro]

On one hand Apple deserves to make a cut on sales from App Store purchases

They do. When sales are made through them, they absolutely deserve their cut.
And when purchases are not made using their App Store or In-app purchase system, they do not.

Then app developers can circumvent this fee by offering their app for free and using in app purchases

Circumvention is a fitting term here.
You only call it "circumvention" when something is forced or pushed upon you.
Otherwise, you just decline to buy or sign up for a service.

👉 It's up to Apple to offer competitive commission pricing on App Store purchases and in-app purchases.