Based on the services Apple provides it seems 30% is more than reasonable. It’s amazing to me how many supposedly non-devs are judging apples business model. (I’m an ex-dev)
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 Threatens to Terminate Epic Games' Developer Accounts on August 28
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wordpress was violating the rules and directing users to its own website (within the help screens) to purchase domains.
So they were given a choice - remove those links, or use in-app purchases. Same as any other developer.
Quite simple really, follow the App Store rules or decide that there is not enough revenue there and do not develop for these devices as native Apps. No risk at all.
Nope. Only those that want to sell services either directly or by including links to how to do so. If they do not feel that making it easy for their iOS users to pay on device is worth it, they should not enable it and not link people to their site. Not very hard to understand.
If that was Apple’s goal, why would they be required to wait until they have Apple Silicon? They could have chosen to prevent it years ago, and even easier since they added the T2 chip. That is not their goal, no matter how much the paranoid and fear mongers on your side say it is.
However, until Apple can force you to purchase their devices, I do not see the problem. You do not like their polices, do not buy their hardware. So easy!
When Apple introduced the App Store, 30% for publishing and distribution was considered rather low. Right now, it is an industry "standard'. Maybe it is time to revisit these things and lower the fees — after all, the volume of apps sold is so high, that Apple is making much more money off it than anticipated. Steve Jobs back then said that they didn't plan to make any money off the App Store, the 30% was merely to cover the expenses for the distribution network (the entire business has exposed since then).
But even if they were to reduce the fee, it won't solve the problem. Because someone like Epic (literally making billions through in-game purchases) can always say "5%? We are not paying it". I see no reasonable way to solve this except introducing legal regulations that will help enforce the basic principles of these types of stores.
If you have a digital business you need to where you customer are. Case in case in the US one in two Americans use iPhones. So your choice it’s a fallacy.
The fact is. There is no iOS market. It’s a fallacy. There is a digital services market empowered by the Internet built by private and state funds, and Apple managed to get within mobile digital services 50% of that market ransome through their devices. They never advertised that would be the case to their customers.
If Apple does not have a sustainable business model that does not require 30% revenue from that market to keep their iOS customer well served, should get the hell out. It’s abusing the entire market and infrastructure.
Full stop.
Last edited:
Sorry, you are just wrong. First, even in the U.S., Apple is under 50% market share. Second, it is possible to deliver a product to iOS users using a web only application, so no need through the App Store at all. Third, unless one is already serving every single Android, Linux, Mac and Windows user, even 50% of the market should be more than sufficient for a company to be profitable. Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, Apple’s customers voluntarily choose to be in this ecosystem, many because of these rules. There is nothing that forces people to buy Apple devices. If companies do not feel they can make money on iOS, they have a giant Android market place to serve. In most of the world that is over 80% of the market.
You are correct, there is a mobile device market of which Apple has a piece. You could define it in a larger way and say general computing market, in which Apple has an even smaller piece. I think the second definition is probably better. That means that in the U.S. Apple has well under 40% and world wide, they have under 15%.
When they started, there was no App Store, and the only way of serving iOS devices was using the web. Later they introduced the App Store and its rules have been basically the same since its beginning. They have been very clear to their customers (and to those people who wanted to develop for their platform) that every app that is available in the store would be vetted and sold by Apple. In fact, the ”Open vs. Closed” debate was a critical component of Google’s advertising for Android. (Here is an example of a story from 2011. There are a million others you can find with a simple search.) From when it came into existence, it was argued that ”Open always wins” and the iOS was doomed. What is great about this market is that customers have free choice to purchase devices that support Apple’s business model or devices that support Google’s model. You are correct that quite a few have chosen to purchase devices from Apple, knowing that the ”walled garden” was part of the deal. This is not just something that Apple waited until they had a billion users and then turned on over night. Privacy, security, integration and convenience are the core selling points of its ecosystem.
Your argument is that despite selling over a billion devices to customers who have 95% or greater customer satisfaction, some developers are angry they cannot build native applications for services on the platform that Apple has built and continues to develop without paying the fees that Apple has decided it wants to charge, therefore Apple should be forced to give let them do that for free. While you have not said so, you may really mean that the most lucrative customers (i.e. those who actually spend money on apps and services), have chosen to be in Apple’s ecosystem, and I am sure you are correct. A large part of the reason for that is they like the business model and convenience that ensures them they can purchase safe applications whose privacy policies are disclosed in advance, and that they do not need to share credit card and/or personal information with companies they know little about. They like that Apple services as a gatekeeper and gateway protecting them from others. While Apple’s protection is not perfect, it is much better than the competition.
Again, if you do not like this as a user, do not purchase an Apple product. If you do not like this as a developer, do not develop native applications for the product. If the only customers who will pay for your product exist in Apple’s ecosystem, respect their choice and stop trying to destroy the system they prefer for your own personal gain. Your potential customers will not thank you for this.
Maybe you can share your sources. Several sources regarding the iPhone report close to 50% and in the cas of iOS the stats point to 58%.
Mobile Operating System Market Share United States Of America | Statcounter Global Stats
This graph shows the market share of mobile operating systems in United States Of America based on over 5 billion monthly page views.
gs.statcounter.com
Anyway, Apple creates, produces and sells general computing devices that plug in into a much large general purpose computing infrastructure not owned, built or serviced by the them but a much larger framework of businesses and governamental investment, over which the digital service market works. Their goal is clearly to force 30% to 15% of shared revenue across all digital services serving digital assets. The WordPress thing is just another example!
They sell the idea that the policies are there to enforce a safe environment to their iOS customer. In what wayare the cases being put forward are about that? No way. This is about collecting 30% of the value created by others through their devices and OS.
They have to be stopped because their policies dip into and control value not created or delivered by them.
Should I remind you that others such as MS back in 2000’s would have been stopped. They were stopped doing way way much less to control this market through their OS. If MS have done something similar Apple would probably not even exist, the digital service landscape would be way different.
People choose Apple devices because they like this product as a general computing mobile device. The connection between this and liking or choosing not to have XCloud, Stadia, Epic ... whatever digital services is a construct, a fallacy, a distorted reality. The question is not about following Apple App Store policies, but if the policies follow fair trade principles or are monopolistic. The company responsible for the policies is Apple not the devs.
This has been an experiment that the market accepted. The multiple cases bring foreword shows that there really bad things to it for customers across digital services as their are hold ransome by their choice of general computing devices. This was never clear by any means. They act like they own the entire network, the entire value chain when their device are just a part of it. If every crucial part demanded 30% devs would be in dept from the start, it’s crazy. Heck, Apple would not even be in business everyone followed their business principles. This is how bad it can go.
Last edited:
I am not sure I follow your logic here. Apple offers a publishing/advertising platform and a content delivery infrastructure, and they demand a cut from sales of digital goods that are marketed over their platform. Isn't this a common practice? It is true that they rely on network infrastructure provided by third party (often public money), but I don't understand why this is even relevant. The network infrastructure is funded by private customers as well as taxes (to which Apple contributes a non insignificant amount). It seems to me that you are arguing that a transport company should not basking their customers for payment because they are using public roads for their delivery trucks...
Except that MS was (and still is) de-facto standard in personal and business computing. Using programs like MS Office for example is a non-negotiable requirement in many professional environments. This is a whole different level of monopoly than Apple mobile devices, which are considered gadgets. Also, if I remember correctly, the issue with MS back then was that they used their unique position to give an unfair advantage to their own software — the infamous "Embrace, extend, and extinguish" strategy. Apple does nothing of the sorts.
How would you suggest to solve this issue?
Nope. App Store offers the mean to install Apps. On top of that it bundles the aforementioned services wether devs need it from Apple or not.
Apart from installing the application and managing updates the infrastructure does nothing more as far as content delivery goes. For instance the infrastructure to deliver video content to the device is not in any way provided by Apple. If a business can deliver 4K video in high quality is down to their infrastructure and others that their customer pay for (internet connection so on and so forth). This applies to any kind of digital assets but the application.
Apps are and always has been a crucial part of the network. Like other parts are.
Look, Apple it’s an amazing company. All my general purpose computing devices are from Apple because they are great at that. I would be trilled if they persue delivering value through that and or compete in the digital services market place as any other.Yet they do not do this second part of the equation.
What Apple does is akin to say Ford asking for 30% commission to the gas station to fill in their cars, parking lots ... what ever services provided to the conductor of the car .. automatic payment, fill in, park, wash, and go. Heck why not even 30% from Ford compatible housing. They could have a a service even listing service de the conductor can use ... crazy.
Last edited:
With “content delivery” I mean first and foremost the distribution of app itself. App Store offers means to discover (for users) and to distribute (for developers) the apps. These things are not free and managing was often way more than 30% of the revenue before all these app stores were a thing. The reason why we have so many apps today is mostly because distributing apps is so easy and cheap nowadays.
But I think I do understand where you are coming from. So let me ask you again: what would be your suggested solution to address these issues?
No, what they do is asking to a used car dealership asking a cut of the car you want to sell using their shop.
I think we have a fundamental disagreement on what Apple gadgets are. You seem to view them as devices that can be used in combination with third party services. I view them as a marketing platform that allow the third party to sell services. Big difference.
Last edited:
Nope. Its not first and for most. Being able to install and update an app on a device is just the tip of the iceberg. First and fore most you need to have a good idea for the service, than you need to invest in implementing it, you need to invest in the infrastructure to deliver the service through apps, than users have to buy the devices, than user need to pay for internet connection than .. ... now in just happens that in the end of it there is a company that has a device market share of 50% in the US, that requires 30% of the value that all this delivers, just for you to allow you and your customer to install the App. Not to mention the investment on marketing that is serviced way outside the boundaries of installing and updating the app.
You see, in no way successfull distribution assured by Apple alone. It’s simply a CRITICAL by policy stop gap like many others in the chain of business.
It is very simple if you actually cut the marketing special around the App Store service out.
The App Store offers:
App Hosting Service: This is very similar to website hosting serving, file hosting ... Devs want to pay for that, like they do anywhere else.
App Review & Curation: This is a service that it’s benefiting Apple customers. In no way benefits devs. So let their customers pay for that if they have not done so when the devices were bought. Say charge them a subscription for the service, much like XBOX and Playstation do and see how far actually customers value this on top of what they have payed for the devices.
App Listing, Metrics, Ranking: This users to search and find your app amongst other things Let the devs choose if they want this or not. If they do, charge them for this. They can always provide a link to the App on their web site, pay for marketing say to Google .. compete in that space Apple.
App In Store Marketing: I’m not quite sure even if this exist as per dev payment. I believe that app article reviews, spotlight and so forth are all at Apple discretion. But if it does, well, if the business finds that this might bring huge for their marketing efforts, in comparison to other forms of marketing they already use, I’m sure they don’t mind paying for that.
Payment and Billing: This allows the customer to pay for digital business services. There are plenty of services like this, that take 1% to 2% over the transaction. Devs don’t mind paying at all for to Apple or any other. Compete with these services. Apple already has Apple Pay don’t they? So use the same policy here.
SDK, IDE: Digital businesses of course to licence the tech. Charge them accordingly. In no other place this is 30% of the revenue. I can tell you that with 2 devs you can create a business of at least half a million. That is two licenses.
Now if you know that market of each of these services, you end up finding that indeed 30% of someone business for this is way way way way out of proportion. You will see the true nature of the value being the delivered by the App Store. They are gouging their value by holding their customer ransome to the digital businesses.
Nope, That only happens when the customers buy the device. The Store in the App Store is a fallacy. This App Store is the means to install and update apps, akin to filling it with gas, rent a parkIng space your device, highway tolls, subscribe to energy service to charge your devices .... . Things that make cars/device a practical vehicle for your every day life. All empowered by the digital business market place, that there was before and will be after Apple. Apple sells, cars, their cars. Amazing and fantastic cars that are part of a larger transportaion network. They are so good that one in two Americas use it, that is all. Great for Apple, really lovely, no issues with that.
I believe that the regulators allowed this experiment to go as far as it should were general purpose computing devices go. The very nature of a free market is being put into question here.
EDIT: I bet the next gen macOS, Mac OS on ARM, they the App Store will be the only way to install apps. If you want to install apps a outside this boundaries, you will probably have to pay a dev licence. This is what I think will happen next. Can you imagens what this would mean if macOS had 50% market sare in the US?
EDIT: All this can be regulated. Just an example:
New German legislation allows access to the iPhone's NFC antenna
As part of the implementation of the fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD5), the German Parliament has decided to require providers of…
Last edited:
The "digital marketplace" is a fallacy and is another paradigm for the way goods(digital and physical), services, personal productivity etc is handled. By all accounts Apple is using the same public internet that the rest of the world is using and has to pay for internet access as does the rest of us, including Amazon, Facebook etc.
Apple by all market share accounts is not a monopoly and what Apple is doing isn't illegal or even immoral. It's up to regulatory bodies and/or the legal system to change that determination. I'm sure Apple is ready with a plan should that come to pass, however.
By the services you listed above, it seems 30% is right on the target based on the percentages other companies are charging for similar services. Very simple for the dev.
1. get a business plan (unless you're a person with a dream and vision, then forego the business plan)
2. develop
3. test
4. upload and distribute
5. Sit back and make money or get noticed or what have you
(Of course the 5 steps above do not mean an automatic income and instant fame)
For the customer:
- search in one place
- make a decision to try or buy
- download
Apple handles the entire transaction safely and security.
Seems to me, as an ex-dev, that would be worth the 30%. (Of course people who aren't devs who never developed an app, will have an opinion of this as well).
Because some devs don't like the system Apple has set up, doesn't mean the system is bad, illegal, immoral. And because some posters believe the ios app store is narrowly defined as a monopoly and runs afoul of anti-trust regulations doesn't mean it is or does.
That “put in the App Store sit back and make money
“ made me giggle. Only Apple can do this to someone brains. Google, open a YouTube channel, make some videos, sit back and make money ... brilliant.
Of course there is a digital market, like there is a non digital one. In fact the all thing is going hybrid. Meaning just ... market ... back again.
This thing of reader and non reader apps is nothing but a Apple construction to try and validate their goal while dodging artifacts that people are somehow more psicologically aware. As the other OP mentioned, a digital good is no less relevant than a analog one when he equated apps with cars.
Last edited:
But that is the essence of what the app store is supposed to provide. Of course, you the dev need the brains, creativity and business knowledge to make your dream come true.
We act as if this digital marketplace is new. The ideas are 30 years old, as old as the internet itself. I do agree, the internet has enabled virtual businesses, whose business model could not survive without the internet.
I don't see how this is true. It is a platform that allows third party to "manufacture" and distribute "goods" (apps), and it has certain rules to make sure that the "good" adhere to certain arbitrary standards (defined by the shop). The iPhone is a device to consume these goods.
It's the other way around. You have to pay dev license is you want to use Apple's infrastructure to distribute apps. This is mandatory on iOS. I don't see this ever happening on macOS, as it will instantly kill the platform.
I agree with you that this has to be regulated to certain degree. Basic rules around app sores have to be legally defined and enforced at the government level. I have no idea how a successful regulation would look like.
Two things though. First, Apple App Store does not have to be a free market. If you don't like how Apple restricts the apps, don't buy their products and/or don't develop apps for them. That simple. The reason why their devices are considered to be practical/useful is exactly because Apple heavily regulates their local market. And there is nothing wrong with that.
Second, the way how yo suggest for it to be regulated is simply... not good. Your idea is to split up the components of the App Store experience and charge them to their respective beneficiaries. Somewhat akin to the "polluter pays" principle. This approach works really great in a market were you want to conserve resources (e.g. environment, sustenance, health), but it would be contra-productive in a digital App Store. Your suggestions would penalize small-time independent developers, put extra burden on users and make the platform less accessible. The true beauty of the App Store model is that generates revenue from success stories, while giving all developers equal opportunity. You are essentially suggesting to go back to the "old good" market model, with "this is item a, it costs this much". But the success of app stores comes from the fact that they have left this model behind, transitioning to a much more interesting mix of neo-capitalism and solitary economy.
You say that based on what exactly? Before app stores, developers used to spend way more than 30% of their revenue on publishing services. And you don't have to go very far to see that the "flat 30%" model is more beneficial for the developer — we have experienced exponential grow in independent software market since App Stores of various kinds were introduced. The main reason behind it is that it is very easy — and cost effective — for a developer, especially a small-time one, to start selling stuff.
Why? According to your reasoning it does not look like that would be the case.
I don’t see how what I proposed would penalize small time devs. If they want they could still give up the 30%/15% revenue and go for the bundle. The web is riddled with small time devs and there is no central store. If you actually look at what is going on in the startup scene you will see the app albeit important is not by any means central. More central is what the service does!. iOS is just an unavoidable channel in the mobile space.
The App Store when it came out was started a gold rush. With so few apps and growing iPhone sales due to its disruptive innovation in the mobile device scene, leading to the demise of Nokia, whatever you did was bound to reach someone.
But the thing as matured beyond that. Today we have millions of apps competing in a pretty common market landscape much like the Web. With the exception of a gigantic shared revenue. The App Store facilities on top of the App Hosting services is like Google search for Apps in iOS. Actually some might argue that is worst. At least with Google Search not only we can locate the Apple, check for ranking, we can actually find articles and videos review about the app. In fact, if you want to make an informed purchased the information required is not by any means in the App Store.
If the App Store was indeed a Store has you our it, than it should compete for it’s abilities like any other Store. But the fact is that it does not because it the only way to install apps on the devices used by 1 in two Americans It’s not just a Store that if you don’t like the service go to some other service to install the App in your customers devices. This is KEY!
It’s about leverage and if Apple is using its leverage to extract value fairly in the context of fair and free trade. They market share gives them the power to effectively kill digital businesses if they choose not to pay to access their customers through the device of their choice.
What is coming next? Yes I understand that you can get what we provide for a fraction, but gives 30% of your business or we build a similar service and cut you out from your customers? Let see how that goes for a small business.
No? don’t know how accurate this is but I’ve heard rumors of Phill Shillers meetings with the Big entertainment businesses that kind of look in this line. I wonder how would that pan out for a small dev.
Last edited:
Ops. There seams to be another exception. First WordPress was in violation of the rules, now it seams that all is ok after all.
They stopped being in violation of the rules by removing the link to their website to buy domains.
Lolol.
First the article stated that the PolIcy was that WordPress was required to provide In a- purchase as it does on other platforms. The WP was not than in compliance because of that. So I guess article is wrong, there is no such policy because it does not look like that in app purchase feature is coming right?
Than the article stated the App was violating another policy after all, that was the real issue. But the fact is that this was fixed weeks before came up with the issue in the first place. But still Apple pressed the developer to put in the in purchase even through the knew it was already fixed!!!!!!
Of course WP CEO os playing diplomacy here. It did not need to support in app purchase after all. The issue was something that was fixed weeks ago before Apple’s move.
Now this happed before .. Apple demanding in app purchase support. One example is CoughDrop.
PS And I guess the guy that wrote the article is confused by the policy also.
the guy from wordpress tweeted the exact communications with apple. So, yes, the article was wrong. There was a link in the help pages to ”buy domain” page on wordpress’ website. They were told that, pursuant to written policy, if they direct users to purchase digital goods outside the app then they must also allow IAP. They removed the link to the website, so they are now in compliance. That’s what the actual communications show that happened.
EDIT: All this can be regulated. Just an example:
New German legislation allows access to the iPhone's NFC antenna
As part of the implementation of the fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD5), the German Parliament has decided to require providers of…www.lexology.com
The regulation doesn’t stop Apple charging for access to the NFC Antenna though....from the article you linked:
One burning question is likely to be whether the "appropriate fee" that Apple will want to charge to issuer seeking access will be higher than, lower than, or identical to the fee that Apple typically charges today to issuers, and in particular German issuers, in relation to payments made through the Apple Pay wallet. Apple may be tempted to charge an "appropriate fee" that is higher than the standard Apple Pay fee in order to incentivise issuers to sign-up to Apple Pay and to continue to send transactions through the Apple Pay wallet (rather than a competing wallet) so as to continue to have access to the transaction data?
the other perspective, of course, is that Epic values that 30% of Fortnite revenue more than they value their unreal engine customers.
Epic could have brought this lawsuit and challenged the legality of Apple’s rules without a suspension. They took the childish approach to maximise PR (because that’s where Epic wants to fight this battle, not in the courts where they will clearly lose).
this approach jeopardises a huge amount of their business. There was a mature, adult way to do it — and they took the idiot's path.
So all of this could have been avoided if Epic was split into smaller companies - one that runs the store, one that develops the engine and one that develops Fortnite. The Fortnite team pays the engine team for the license and the store team for being on the store. Sounds great! Best of all, that way only the Fortnite developers would be facing their Apple developer accounts being closed and the engine team would be fine.
Huh... I guess Epic will do that next, having learned from their mistake...
Huh... I guess Epic will do that next, having learned from their mistake...
Just as a clarification...
Nonetheless, the guidelines were still supposedly broken because...The Verge said:
So, it's the fact WP offers the subscriptions on their website at all, then it must be included in the app. However, I feel, it should be like the "reader" apps, especially because as one (Verge) commenter stated, the WP app is really meant to be used after a site is already set up, not to build one or choose related options.The Verge said:
Additionally, I don't see Apple's stance on “allow users to access content, subscriptions, or features they have acquired in your app on other platforms or your web site.” when reading sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, especially because 3.1.1. begins "If you want to unlock features or functionality within your app, (by way of example: subscriptions," but perhaps it's just in a different section. Maybe some description rewrites are in need.