does anyone really think IAP purchases will over the long term will be cheaper? Thats not how pricing works. I guarantee that someone else will take the extra profit, just not apple. But it won't be customers. It never is.
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 In-App Third-Party Payment Options for First Time in the Netherlands
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If you switch to a company-branded credit credit that company will pass the credit-card transaction savings on to you. Many will actually give you more money back than what they saved. For example:
Walmart.com (5% cash back)
Amazon.com and Whole Foods (5% cash back)
Target (5% cash back)
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
The issue has been that some dev's feel Apple make it harder to sell their product for cheaper as they had to include apples share. But rather than make it cheaper they will just take the apples share for themselves if they figure out the demand doesnt change much at the lower price.
Its basically price elasticity. I think so many IAP purchases are on the fly, impulse purchases that I'd bet that they are generally price inelastic. So why change the price to the customer? Why not bank the money yourself?
Thats generally how capitalism from what I've seen.
Thats why the Epic (and all the over lawsuits) that imply that it's better for consumers all the other app stores and increased competition. I dont think that actually happens much in practice.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
The ruling is only about payment processing. Apple's transaction fees are payment processing AND a bunch of other things; so this isn't circumventing the law, it's applying the law as it was meant: you get a discount on the transaction, provide your own payment processing and still pay for the rest.
Why do developers ever put their popular apps on sale? The answer is because app prices aren't inelastic.
in app purchases maybe pretty inelastic given how many people are willing to spend bucket loads of cash to not wait and get to the next level etc
The overwhelming amount of money in games on the store seems to come from IAP. In fact most of the top games are free to play.
So I think price elasticity matters a lot.
Also, the marginal cost of a digital product is basically zero. So price is more about how much people are willing to pay than how much a product costs to manufacture in the digital space. So again, would halving the cost of an IAP give you more than double the customers? Not sure about that either.
I bet prices end up going back to What the market will bare (I.e. what they are now) and they pocket the windfall. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, I’m all for devs making as much as they can. But using the whole “better for customers” thing has always been a ridiculous joke.
Two remarks here:
If this will be general practise in the future, all apps will become free and useless, with payments elsewhere to activate functionality. No money for Apple, the end of a safe App-Store.
There is something special in the Dutch ruling. Dating apps are expected to deliver contacts from all platforms, iOS and Google, it's in the interest of the user. So they can't refuse Apples rules, and that's a monopoly. That's different with most apps, if a developer doesn't like the Apple rules, they can just stay out of the iOS world.
If this will be general practise in the future, all apps will become free and useless, with payments elsewhere to activate functionality. No money for Apple, the end of a safe App-Store.
There is something special in the Dutch ruling. Dating apps are expected to deliver contacts from all platforms, iOS and Google, it's in the interest of the user. So they can't refuse Apples rules, and that's a monopoly. That's different with most apps, if a developer doesn't like the Apple rules, they can just stay out of the iOS world.
It's more convenient to have one point of contact with just one procedure for refund.
Also, Apple almost always side with customers instead of the developer.
A developer would be much more reluctant to return your money, especially if you don't have a good reason.
I have helped people several times getting money back from apps without any good reasons except the app wasn't good enough. We just used "I didn't indent to buy this", "A child made this purchase without permission" and "Other". They have never been asked any questions.
This hasn't been for subscriptions or games.
We are talking about apps, not services.
The complaint is to Apple since you bought it from Apple.
Here it how it works:
1. You buy the app
2. It doesn't do what you wanted it to do
3. You ask for a refund within a week or two from Apple using various explanations which don't have to be true
4. You get the refund
It's difficult if what you are dissatisfied with is subjective.
Have you tried getting money back from services like hotels.com or booking.com because you refused to stay in the room because it wasn't clean? The hotel won't give you any money back because you didn't order it through them.
Getting money back on a stay at a Greek hotel in Athens from booking.com located in the Netherlands, when you leave in Sweden isn't easy.
It takes a long time, requires many emails, persistence and it can take several months.
The App Store is for distributing software and selling software (licenses). It's the most relevant market and here the standard has been 30%. This is the market the EU cares about.
Apple provides tools and support foremost through it's developer program(s). It's a completely different market and one the EU isn't really interested in at all.
No Swedish law or EU regulation explicitly forbids a high commission because you have limited competition. App Store has competition both from Google Play Store, the web and other gaming devices for games.
Apple has operated this way since 2008 both in Sweden and the EU. Why haven't Swedish authorities done anything in the last 14 years if Apple has been breaking the law the whole time?
Why hasn't Spotify, a Swedish company, gone to trial in Sweden many years ago if they believe what Apple does is against Swedish law or EU directives on competition?
YouTube would be considered having a dominant market position in the EU for videos because in practise, they have very little competition. They certainly have more market power than Apple in their respective markets. And yet, EU hasn't done anything with YouTube's huge commission.
Yes, they are judged as in there are no specific law or regulations which explicitly disallows it. Please provide citation for such a law or directive if you believe it exists.
Just charging 30% commission in itself isn't anti-competitive and therefore not illegal by itself.
I don't think the law really forbids being "arbitrary limited". Again, provide a citation.
Almost any original code written is the programmer's IP. They hold the copyright to the code. Copyright = IP.
Every time your application call an API provided by iOS, you are using Apple's code* and thus IP.
Every time your application call an API provided by Android or Google Play Services, you are using Google's code**.
It's impossible to write an app for iOS without using any of the APIs provided. You need them to launch your app, load your resources, write to the screen, interact with the user etc.
Apple has a right to get paid for use of its IP, especially when the user is a commercial entity like a developer. IP law varies by country but they are all bound by the Bern convention.
If Cydia is using or distributing code which Apple's hasn't granted them admission to do, or the law explicitly grants Cydia's use to be an exception, they are breaking copyright which is illegal.
It's the same for your code. No one can use or distribute your code without your permission.
*Apple probably has API which code they don't own. Then you are not using the IP of Apple but of the IP holder of that code.
** Same applies for Google.
Even when Apple plays in the same market and takes a cut from direct competitors? If you’re indifferent to that you should be … different to it.
Well, for one, Spotify has reportedly managed to migrate most of their paying subscribers over from iTunes, so they are paying Apple 15% only for a very small number of users still (and it’s not like they only have iOS users).
So for this to be an issue, you would have to provide an example of a company that Apple directly competes against, whose app is only available on ios (and no other platform), and which all users pay for via iTunes.
I really can’t think of any.
It can be even better for me as a user if Apple are taken money from a competitor and I am using Apple's service.
I can't really see how Apple trying to take money from competitors when I am not a customer of those companies, really affects me in a negative way.
@GMShadow ’learned’ us when this all was coming into play: “It never fails to amuse me when insignificant countries think they have the clout to threaten someone. (…)
I say it’s time some of these tiny places start being reminded of their place.”
Great to see insignificant opinions are still what they are.. insignificant..
I say it’s time some of these tiny places start being reminded of their place.”
Great to see insignificant opinions are still what they are.. insignificant..
I am curious. Apple have been able to argue that they are allowed to charge a commision on transanctions of in-app purchases because developers are forced to use Apple's payment system to process those transactions. A sleezy way of getting commision (forcing someone to use the only payment system allowed). Now Apple are being told they must allow 3rd party payment systems to pay for in-app purchases BUT it states in the article that Apple can still collect commision on transactions. Just how are they going to do that because their pay system will not be used so if a Netherlands user using the dating app pays for an in-app purchase but uses a 3rd party payment to do so, just how exactly is Apple going to get commision on that purchase?. The problem here is that in all documention provide, no where does it explain in detail how this collection of comission works. In all documentions it states that Apple will still collect commision from the dating app's if a 3rd party payment system is used.
Why is Apple being so secretive on this. Yes Apple could justify getting commision on in-app purchases because their own payment system was being used but now their payment system is not going to be used, Apple still say they will get a commision. How exactly? what part of the transaction are they getting commision on?
Why is Apple being so secretive on this. Yes Apple could justify getting commision on in-app purchases because their own payment system was being used but now their payment system is not going to be used, Apple still say they will get a commision. How exactly? what part of the transaction are they getting commision on?
They are getting commission for use of their intellectual property. Apple will very likely change the developer agreement so that developers using third party payment solutions need to submit the correct commission to Apple.
I'm glad I'm generally aware of all these issues being a bit of an Apple geek. I had YouTube premium I got on my iPad or iphone. Cancelled it because it was a bit dear at ~£16/month. Then got annoyed by the ads again, so after reading all the in-app argument here a previous time around wisely didn't just re-start the sub from the app and went and had a look on the youtube desktop website. Well sure enough ~£12: a few quid off a month by google avoiding paying Apple 30%. Hurrah! If I hadn't been aware I could have given Apple about £24 quid extra over the last few months just for handling the payments by now and it would continue to be an extra 3 or 4 quid a month until I stop it.
So based on the comments here I presume google are now guaranteed to scam my credit card and Apple will go bust because I didn't use Apple's payment methods and got a few quid off my subscription. Bummer. ??♂️
So based on the comments here I presume google are now guaranteed to scam my credit card and Apple will go bust because I didn't use Apple's payment methods and got a few quid off my subscription. Bummer. ??♂️
But developers already pay for using Apples intellectual property in the form of the monthly/yearly app store fee that every developer has to pay. The fact that Apple is being extremely secretive over this 'app developers will still pay Apple a commision on transactions but we will let you in the near furture what this entails' should be a cause of concern.