Apple Slaps Warnings on Apps Using External Purchases in the EU [Updated]

[germanbeer007]

The App Store is but one cog in a large machine. Apple isn't 'losing' money because they definitely sold that developer a Mac and an iPhone.

If it were true that Apple is selling more hardware from developers and that brings in a ton of money to Apple, why would Apple have a $99/year requirement? That simply adds a barrier for a developer to submit apps to the app store.

They probably need hefty cloud storage to back up all those binaries

No. There's no need to backup history of binaries. Majority of developers keep their repo on github (free plan). If they need to go back, they'll just checkout their git history.

 

[Ctrlos]

If it were true that Apple is selling more hardware from developers and that brings in a ton of money to Apple, why would Apple have a $99/year requirement? That simply adds a barrier for a developer to submit apps to the app store.

I'm just saying that a single developer spends a lot more with Apple as a whole business than $100/y. As a single company, one part of Apple's business pays for the other.

 

[germanbeer007]

I'm just saying that a single developer spends a lot more with Apple as a whole business than $100/y. As a single company, one part of Apple's business pays for the other.

I'm arguing it doesn't really net Apple more money from a developer who doesn't give 30% cut at all to Apple.

 

[Ctrlos]

I'm arguing it doesn't really net Apple more money from a developer who doesn't give 30% cut at all to Apple.

The point is that free and ad-supported apps contribute more than just $100 a year and by extension so do XIAP apps too.

 

[germanbeer007]

The point is that free and ad-supported apps contribute more than just $100 a year and by extension so do XIAP apps too.

It can be more than $100/year, but not to the point where it's a net positive. In other words, if 100% of the developers stopped giving 30%, the App Store would be a net loss, even factoring in hardware, iCloud revenue, and $99/year sales.

 

[Ctrlos]

It can be more than $100/year, but not to the point where it's a net positive. In other words, if 100% of the developers stopped giving 30%, the App Store would be a net loss, even factoring in hardware, iCloud revenue, and $99/year sales.

Which Apple would still bankroll from elsewhere in the company, surely?

 

[PlayUltimate]

Which Apple would still bankroll from elsewhere in the company, surely?

Unsure...I could see a new model that increases the Dev Fee from $99/yr. and perhaps going to a per-download model for apps that don't use Apple's payment system.

 

[germanbeer007]

Which Apple would still bankroll from elsewhere in the company, surely?

Why would Apple run App store at a loss? You're basically saying Apple's hardware sales can basically include a free AirPod with every iPhone purchase. Final Cut Pro can be free. Logic can be free. 200GB of iCloud storage can be free for life. And so on. Doesn't mean that they should. Apple isn't doing this as charity work.

 

[Ctrlos]

Unsure...I could see a new model that increases the Dev Fee from $99/yr. and perhaps going to a per-download model for apps that don't use Apple's payment system.

The reason it’s stayed the same and ad-supported apps get a ‘free ride’ is so Apple can still support hobbyist developers who just want to learn a skill. They don’t want to turn off the next generation of developers with a higher barrier of entry.

 

[Ctrlos]

Why would Apple run App store at a loss? You're basically saying Apple's hardware sales can basically include a free AirPod with every iPhone purchase. Final Cut Pro can be free. Logic can be free. 200GB of iCloud storage can be free for life. And so on. Doesn't mean that they should. Apple isn't doing this as charity work.

That’s clearly not the intention.

Actually they do run some of it as charity work. The lack of charges for free apps is intended to ensure the barrier of entry is low for newer hobbyist developers.

And students often get a free set of AirPods with a purchase!

 

[PlayUltimate]

The reason it’s stayed the same and ad-supported apps get a ‘free ride’ is so Apple can still support hobbyist developers who just want to learn a skill. They don’t want to turn off the next generation of developers with a higher barrier of entry.

Completely agree That is one of the reasons that I'm disappointed in the lawsuit. It seems that the only reason for the lawsuit is so that a few wealthy app developers can become more wealthy regardless of what it does to the eco-system.

 

[Ctrlos]

Completely agree That is one of the reasons that I'm disappointed in the lawsuit. It seems that the only reason for the lawsuit is so that a few wealthy app developers can become more wealthy regardless of what it does to the eco-system.

Aye, really it only benefits the larger companies. It’s not worth the hassle for the smaller devs.

Going back to the start though Apple only have themselves to blame for the 0% ruling. They should have lowballed the percentage. 5% of something is better than 0% of nothing.

 

[germanbeer007]

That’s clearly not the intention.

Actually they do run some of it as charity work. The lack of charges for free apps is intended to ensure the barrier of entry is low for newer hobbyist developers.

And students often get a free set of AirPods with a purchase!

You are suggesting that intention. Lack of charges for free apps is paid for by 30% cut. You're suggesting the charges should be paid for elsewhere in the company, that's where it's coming from. Now imagine that 30% cut disappears, free apps will incur additional charges because Apple needs to pay for it somewhere.

"students"...limited time...deal... vs everyone...all the time...get free airpods. big difference.

 

[Ctrlos]

You are suggesting that intention. Lack of charges for free apps is paid for by 30% cut. You're suggesting the charges should be paid for elsewhere in the company, that's where it's coming from. Now imagine that 30% cut disappears, free apps will incur additional charges because Apple needs to pay for it somewhere....

.....else from its massive mountain of money.

The App Store is not an independent entity.

 

[germanbeer007]

.....else from its massive mountain of money.

The App Store is not an independent entity.

iPhone, App Store are part of Apple.

 

[Meatwad]

(I’ve stated that on many occasions - should you have read and remember them, your reply is a very disingenuous mischaracterisation)

You expect me to even remember who you are? What a full opinion we have of ourselves, don't we?

If Apple can “donate for free” their service to all Uber, Facebook, DoorDash, Instagram, TikTok eBay, Booking.com, banking and transit apps that - they can just as well do it for Epic, Spotify, Netflix and Amazon.

Can you buy anything from Facebook in the app? Or Instragram? Your comparisons are somewhat fallacious.

I think both stores should cut all feels and just sell your data. How do you feel about that?

 

[Meatwad]

Nobody is advocating for that.

They literally are.

 

[throAU]

Good. Consumers deserve to know whether or not the app they're downloading is going to be insecure and/or frustrating to use. Epic deserves this.

Anyone who is against this is clearly not being objective. This is pro-consumer.


EDIT: Love how people downvoting are in favor of less knowledge about what apps they purchase.

Yeah this is a fair warning.

Sure, there will be legitimate stores. This is also open to abuse, and consumers should be informed.

 

[AppliedMicro]

You expect me to even remember who you are? What a full opinion we have of ourselves, don't we?

Although I believe the insinuation I expect Apple to provide everything for free was uncalled for, admittedly I could (should) have done without this comment.

Can you buy anything from Facebook in the app? Or Instragram? Your comparisons are somewhat fallacious.

They make money from advertising.
Without paying a commission to Apple AFAIK.

And there are certainly many other apps that make sales transactions (or for services).