Apple Seeks to Pause 'Extraordinary' App Store Ruling in Epic Games Battle

[surferfb]

It’s not Walmart or target
So why should app developers not be allowed to put payment links in apps

The main issue I have is not that developers are allowed to put links in apps (which I support), but the court saying Apple can’t charge commission on those links.

I agree it’d be awesome if Apple didn’t want to charge, and I’d personally advise Tim Cook not to charge, but I don’t think the government should be able to take the ability away if Apple wants to. It’s taking private property and turning it into a public good.

 

[Stuwil]

The judge said Apple must allow app developers to put links to alternative payment systems in their apps, and they must do that without charging them a commission. As the commission is the way Apple makes money from the app store, it is exactly the judge ordering Apple to give it's products and services away for free.

The judge could have easily said that app developers are free to put links to alternative payments systems in their apps, but they will still owe Apple a 10% commission on all purchases that originated from an iOS app, and I think Apple would have a smaller chance of having a stay granted (because they'd still be making some money).

As it stands, the judge's verdict might actually give Apple a stronger argument for an emergency stay to be granted.

It’s not Walmart or target or a store like that
That’s why

 

[Stuwil]

The main issue I have is not that developers are allowed to put links in apps (which I support), but the court saying Apple can’t charge commission on those links.

I agree it’d be awesome if Apple didn’t want to charge, and I’d personally advise Tim Cook not to charge, but I don’t think the government should be able to take the ability away if Apple wants to. It’s taking private property and turning it into a public good.

That’s like the mall of America saying to every retailer we want a cut of every product you sell because it’s in our building

 

[surferfb]

That’s like the mall of America saying to every retailer we want a cut of every product you sell because it’s in our building

You realize most malls charge stores a percentage of revenue in addition to rent, right?

 

[Ctrlos]

The hosting and delivery isn’t “covered by the annual dev fee”. Just serving one app the size of Spotify probably costs Apple $500k-$1m, depending on how much Apple’s bandwidth costs. I suspect Apple’s overall cost for hosting the App Store is $50-$100m just for bandwidth, assuming they’re getting a good deal.

Every needs to realize the $99 dev fee was set with the assumption Apple would also be getting money on the back end from paid apps. If that assumption goes away, expect the dev fee to increase and additional fees to be added.

So the paid apps are just subsidising the free ones?

 

[Plutonius]

I think that Apple has a good shot of getting it paused until Apple can get a complete ruling by the appeals court.

 

[Stuwil]

You realize most malls charge stores a percentage of revenue in addition to rent, right?

Not from every sale they don’t
That is probably why the JUDGE has said payment links & currently zero commission
Because there is nothing stopping Apple from making IAP mandatory as well side by side

 

[wbeasley]

Not from every sale they don’t
That is probably why the JUDGE has said payment links & currently zero commission
Because there is nothing stopping Apple from making IAP mandatory as well side by side

shopping centres (in Australia) can get all sales data from retailers and do charge based on income to the store.

so in effect EVERY SALE is reported back and affects charges...

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Apple 'inject' themselves because it's how they monetise the app store. Which is why there needs to be an appropriate alternative if collecting the fee this way is no longer permitted.

well they already have it..

• The Yearly Developer fee 99$
• The App store 15-30% commission.
• The proprietary In App Purchase mechanism 15-30% commission.
• The proprietary Link outside the app mechanism 13-27% commission

None of this is prevented or banned to continue. They just now need to compete with:

• Apple pay implementation (allegedly a 0.15% commission)
• Some standard payment mechanism (stripe/shopify/paypal etc) 2-6% commission + $0.30 fee
• A custom payment implementation of the app developer
• Other mechanism

And personally i would rather apple tried to standardize using the Apple Pay function instead. cheaper, simpler and more convenient to everyone. They should be better

 

[surferfb]

Not from every sale they don’t

How do you think monthly revenue is calculated? They add up every sale that month.

That is probably why the JUDGE has said payment links & currently zero commission
Because there is nothing stopping Apple from making IAP mandatory as well side by side

The judge said zero commission to punish Apple. But it’s, in my opinion, just as unconstitutional as the judge demanding the Mall of America let any store that wants it have free rent.

 

[tenthousandthings]

So the paid apps are just subsidising the free ones?

Yes

 

[Stuwil]

shopping centres (in Australia) can get all sales data from retailers and do charge based on income to the store.

so in effect EVERY SALE is reported back and affects charges...

That’s called rent you pay to the shopping mall every month a fixed amount
Not on every transaction made

So is the iOS App Store Walmart or is it a shopping mall because there is a big difference
Now if it’s a shopping mall then that’s why it’s zero commission in the USA

 

[Abazigal]

So the paid apps are just subsidising the free ones?

Basically how taxes work in real life, no?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The judge said zero commission to punish Apple. But it’s, in my opinion, just as unconstitutional as the judge demanding the Mall of America let any store that wants it have free rent.

Seems more apple just lacks imagination.

take zero cut on links outside
Mandate either IAP or Apple pay must be provided next to it.

The fact apple haven't pushed apple Pay more is baffling to me. they could more likely have ended up taking 0.15% cut of just about every transaction on their devices. not just the Appstore, but from amazon, Netflix, steam, online retailers etc.

that potential chunk is probably an order of magnitude larger than any revenue the App store could ever generate.

 

[johnnytravels]

That's an interesting consideration: is the iPhone a strong enough product by itself to not need the App Store?

Its a curious thought experiment! You'd have to use the web browser to access pretty much anything else which was Steve Jobs original vision. They would likely continue to offer web services to do things like download tickets or adding bank cards to the Wallet app. Apple might 'do a Nintendo' and become the sole publisher of games on its platform via the Arcade subscription.

They'd be faced with hundreds of lawsuits from developers who claimed doing so ruined their business, but many of these apps are just wrappers for a web service. Meta would moan about not being able to track direct device activity as if it was a bad thing!

Could the EU or FCC force them to reopen it? Unlikely given they are a private company.

Thank you.
I think the implication I was trying to include is that Apple never in a million years would abandon apps in the iPhone. They simply can’t because it would effectively return them to a company that offered auxiliary devices for Mac users and thereby invalidate the iPhone/iPad as contemporary computing devices.
All they can do is offer a better experience marketing and selling apps, foster creativity and utility over subscriptions and in app purchase lootbox lotteries. They have to make the App Store into a sustainable business and abandon the idea that because it is without alternative, it is a viable money printing apparatus for them.

I think what jurisdiction around the world is going to establish is that they simply can’t have the cake and eat it.
The want to be the sole tech provider of apps on their devices? Then they will have to allow competition by not being the sole provider of monetization options in that distribution channel. The fact that switching platforms (iOS to Android) is not a legitimate excuse because of all the other digital lock in mechanics has sufficiently been established. The smartphone is not a single purpose videogame system, but an integral all purpose computing and communication device. Thus, other standards must apply.
Or they could allow purchasing alternatives for end users. Then they will have to make the App Store 30% cut a worthwhile experience.

 

[TheMacDaddy1]

Apple created a closed eco system. You can love it or hate it, embrace it or steer away from it. What I don't get is why 3rd-parties, including other companies or governments should have any control over it? Consumers decide if they like Apple's choices or not. If not, they ultimately move on to something that better suits their needs.

Exactly this. Everyone loved it when it started especially as they made money in this ecosystem. The rules were always there. If you do not like it, don’t use it.

It is more about billionaires wanting to be trillionaires.

 

[TheMacDaddy1]

Thank you.
I think the implication I was trying to include is that Apple never in a million years would abandon apps in the iPhone. They simply can’t because it would effectively return them to a company that offered auxiliary devices for Mac users and thereby invalidate the iPhone/iPad as contemporary computing devices.
All they can do is offer a better experience marketing and selling apps, foster creativity and utility over subscriptions and in app purchase lootbox lotteries. They have to make the App Store into a sustainable business and abandon the idea that because it is without alternative, it is a viable money printing apparatus for them.

I think what jurisdiction around the world is going to establish is that they simply can’t have the cake and eat it.
The want to be the sole tech provider of apps on their devices? Then they will have to allow competition by not being the sole provider of monetization options in that distribution channel. The fact that switching platforms (iOS to Android) is not a legitimate excuse because of all the other digital lock in mechanics has sufficiently been established. The smartphone is not a single purpose videogame system, but an integral all purpose computing and communication device. Thus, other standards must apply.
Or they could allow purchasing alternatives for end users. Then they will have to make the App Store 30% cut a worthwhile experience.

It is super easy to switch platforms IMHO.

 

[mrochester]

What’s striking from this discussion is how ignorant many people are about the way businesses work. Whether that’s willful ignorance or not is open for further debate!

 

[Sophisticatednut]

It is super easy to switch platforms IMHO.

paying 1,000$ to switch platform and repurchase the software is the opposite of easy.

 

[Stuwil]

How do you think monthly revenue is calculated? They add up every sale that month.


The judge said zero commission to punish Apple. But it’s, in my opinion, just as unconstitutional as the judge demanding the Mall of America let any store that wants it have free rent.

It’s rent a fixed amount the figure doesn’t go up & down every month based on sales

if the IOS App Store is getting treated like the mall of America then Apple are not entitled to anything through a payment link

That is why it’s not unconstitutional

 

[wbeasley]

That’s called rent you pay to the shopping mall every month a fixed amount
Not on every transaction made

So is the iOS App Store Walmart or is it a shopping mall because there is a big difference
Now if it’s a shopping mall then that’s why it’s zero commission in the USA

not true.

they pay rent AND on sales

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

Apple created a closed eco system. You can love it or hate it, embrace it or steer away from it. What I don't get is why 3rd-parties, including other companies or governments should have any control over it? Consumers decide if they like Apple's choices or not. If not, they ultimately move on to something that better suits their needs.

Maybe consumers would have the ability to decide with more clarity if any purchase they make through the App Store gets a 30% "fee" added it to during payment. In other words, that game listed for $9.99 actually costs $13.00 after Apple's take of their share? Lots of angry consumers I'd guess. That's probably how developers feel. Right now, it's a "hidden" fee so how could a consumer know?

Proponents of Apple charging 30% to developers would argue the 30% is for all that Apple does to host and distribute their app, advertising, and access to a base of customers. But the customers also get the benefit of a secure location to pay for and download their apps all in one place, so a 30% fee paid by the customer doesn't seem outlandish now, using the same logic the proponents use. Sort of like the "convenience fee" you pay when buying concert tickets online.

Don't get me wrong, I don't support either scenario, just saying it shouldn't be all on the backs of developers if there is going to be any fees charged.

 

[Stuwil]

What’s striking from this discussion is how ignorant many people are about the way businesses work. Whether that’s willful ignorance or not is open for further debate!

Ok
Is the iOS App Store based
On the Walmart model
Or a shopping mall

That is why the JUDGE has ruled a certain way with zero commission based on individual sales

 

[wbeasley]

I see the "everything should be free" gang are out in force.

Apple exist to make a profit.
The AppStore has been a great driver of wealth for Apple AND app devs.

 

[wbeasley]

Maybe consumers would have the ability to decide with more clarity if any purchase they make through the App Store gets a 30% "fee" added it to during payment. In other words, that game listed for $9.99 actually costs $13.00 after Apple's take of their share? Lots of angry consumers I'd guess. That's probably how developers feel. Right now, it's a "hidden" fee so how could a consumer know?

anyting you buy in a physical store has mark ups and the manufacturer gets less.
that's cost of doing business.

don't like it?
go set up you own store/mall. and take control of all the parts of the system ...