Not at all, just as the burden is on apple to control apps to work properly and not break the rules, they will need accountants controlling the numbers so they can ask the right fee.
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 to Allow Alternative Payment Systems in App Store in South Korea
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If you had to go into Walmart to get additional subscription then yes you’d have to pay. No different here.
Exactly, apple can take whatever fee they wish on the store, even on their proprietary IAP system. But they should have zero rights to any money a developer makes outside the store with their own system.
Unless apple want to argue for the case that Amazon store owns a cut on every sale apple makes of every device sold through Amazons platform
If Apple can force a developer not to allow external payment, then the internet provided should also ask Apple a fee for all payment that are possible with THEIR network, without which an iPhone would be a brick.
Countries also ask Apple to pay taxes, so that a country can still provide security and stability and conditions allowing Apple to sell iPhones. Yet, Apple doesn't want that. That is more obvious than forbidding a developer having already a payment system in place to use it in his app... and yet, Apple is against it. So, if Apple has no moral whatsoever, why should developers not to try to fight for their rights? Or do you guys think we should even allow Apple to even take a fee for everything bought on an iPhone? For every product we buy after reading a review with an iPhone? Maybe we should all kneel in front of Apple and send them 50% of our salary every month?!
Yeah, I just don't understand why people are licking Apple's butt, like if they would win something. At best, it does not change anything, but most likely, Apple is aware of it and will take advantage of it. Letting a company do its law is never a good idea, unless having invested all the money in that company.
Countries also ask Apple to pay taxes, so that a country can still provide security and stability and conditions allowing Apple to sell iPhones. Yet, Apple doesn't want that. That is more obvious than forbidding a developer having already a payment system in place to use it in his app... and yet, Apple is against it. So, if Apple has no moral whatsoever, why should developers not to try to fight for their rights? Or do you guys think we should even allow Apple to even take a fee for everything bought on an iPhone? For every product we buy after reading a review with an iPhone? Maybe we should all kneel in front of Apple and send them 50% of our salary every month?!
Yeah, I just don't understand why people are licking Apple's butt, like if they would win something. At best, it does not change anything, but most likely, Apple is aware of it and will take advantage of it. Letting a company do its law is never a good idea, unless having invested all the money in that company.
I’m sure it’ll be very easy to fake the numbers, and that’s why Apple will no doubt have a clause that allows them to audit developers to make sure their accounts are in good standing. But I presume the penalty for falsifying your accounts with Apple will be termination of your developer agreement. Is it worth it?
It’ll be the developer who submits to Apple how much they’ve made from iOS apps and Apple will then calculate the fee to be paid. That process increases the burden on developers who now have a new process of filing accounts with Apple they previously didn’t have.
Because Apple made the decision to allow ‘free’ apps in the store.
Apple has a right to charge a commission for use of its intellectual property. And every developer on iOS uses Apples intellectual property. That’s what the fee is for.
And what about apps that don’t have in-app purchases - either because Apple permits them not to (Netflix, Spotify) - or because there is nothing to buy in-app (Facebook, Instagram)? Apple’s model basically has one class of apps - games - subsidizing everything else.
Yes that’s exactly the model that is used.
Apple does permit Netflix and Spotify to have in app purchases, both companies just choose not to have them.
Because Apple allowed them to have a non-functioning app (non functioning until you log in). And Apple gets to decide which apps can be this way. Are there any games on the App Store that don’t function until you’re logged in AND don’t offer IAP in the app?
Very legally doubtful apple can have such clauses. And yes it’s absolutely worth it as apple have no way to verify the information is true without a court order.
It will be a two second job. What the income we made this month? Send number X.
If only developers actually used their IP this would be a problem. But they aren’t.
Xcode and other tools provided by apple is payed by the developers fee so it’s already covered. What IP is actually in use outside the store ?
It does. Those are the companies paying the fee and subsidise the cost of other apps.
What IP is used by every CYDIA developer? Because it seems to be none at all.
What IP does candy crush use when you buy extra lives? What IP does Netflix use when you subscribe to their service?
Surely the develop fee AND commission is what pays for all of the iOS tooling? They are both arbitrary amounts Apple can claim covers any costs + profit. Apple only has to justify to developers what the costs are and if developers aren’t happy they are free to leave.
Well I’m happy to say you can develop IOS apps without Xcode or any tools provided by apple. Only thing we need currently is Xcode to sign the code.
This can simply be solved by a third party acting as the signing agent with their tool for practically nothing.
Apple tries it best to force the use of their IP tho, and that might be illegal. Just as how they complained that Qualcomm took a too high of a fee. Apples does the same thing.
Is there legal standing to claim a fee is to high for a non-essential product in a free market? Could I sue a supermarket for selling bread at what I deemed too high a price for instance? Or could I try, but be laughed out of court?
I can understand a legal argument against charging too much for standards-essential patents and technologies but not for proprietary stuff.
If the fee is forced and actually not needed? Then yes. This is why EU and Korea is regulating apples monopoly market of their own store.
In their eyes apples 30% fee is unjustified, arbitrary and anticompetitive to the health of competition and against the interest of consumers.
That is why apple is in big problems selling their own apps on the store but forcing competitors to pay a fee to compete.
Same with racketeering charges.
Edit:
This is why they don’t care about the Xbox store, PS store or steam etc. as every game can be purchased outside it with almost no fees payed to the store owner for circumventing it.
But apples store you can’t sell your app anywhere but on it.
The fee is not forced, no one needs to make iOS apps. Developers can choose to not make iOS apps. Developers don’t need to pay Apple any fees if they don’t make iOS apps. Just like I don’t need to buy a loaf of bread.
Ive never understood this concept of developers being forced to develop for iOS. In a post above someone even said Apple needs developers more than developers need Apple. That would suggest developers can very easily ignore iOS and therefore not pay any fees to Apple at all.
Last edited:
This is not how anticompetitive laws work in EU.
A market being needed is not relevant, only it’s dominant position in relation to the rest of the market.
Just as Microsoft was forced to remove Internet explorer as the default in windows and provide options without providing an advantage to themselves. And pay a giant fine for stifling the competition.
This started in 1993 and ended in a full blown investigation in 2004 over windows media player and court orders in 2007 Microsoft Corp. v. Commission (2007)