Apple to Allow In-App Third-Party Payment Options for First Time in the Netherlands

[mrochester]

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.

They pay both to cover those fees.

 

[laptech]

They pay both to cover those fees.

Please be more specific. By using a 3rd party payment system means no commision costs should be incurred because Apple's payment system is not being used. Remember, this is why currently app developers who have in-app purchases pay 15%-30% in commision fees because it pays for using Apples payment system. Remove that payment system and there is no commision to pay but Apple in it's documents are stating that commision will be taking on transactions. If Apple's payment system is not being used how exactly is Apple going to still get it's commision? what are they going to charge, people leaving the app to use a 3rd party paying system?

 

[mrochester]

Please be more specific. By using a 3rd party payment system means no commision costs should be incurred because Apple's payment system is not being used. Remember, this is why currently app developers who have in-app purchases pay 15%-30% in commision fees because it pays for using Apples payment system. Remove that payment system and there is no commision to pay but Apple in it's documents are stating that commision will be taking on transactions. If Apple's payment system is not being used how exactly is Apple going to still get it's commision? what are they going to charge, people leaving the app to use a 3rd party paying system?

The commission doesn’t just cover payment processor. It’s a effectively a license fee and a charge for the other services (running and maintaining the App Store).

I suspect the commission will be something like 12% and 27% as most seem to suggest payment processing is about 2-3%.

 

[GMShadow]

@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..

So insignificant you bring it up weeks later. But I guess there's not much else going on there these days.

 

[halifaxcrosby]

Epic is cheering

 

[AppliedMicro]

There are streaming apps created by shady companies who ask their cam models to encourage their fans to buy tokens on their official website, in clear violation of Apple's policy

Yeah... so what? I don't pay cam models and their services - but if I did, yes, let me have a choice please and let there be competition.

It isn't a loophole; it's recognition of basic intellectual property rights. We have international intellectual property agreements (e.g. the Berne Convention and the WIPO Copyright Treaty) to ensure such things. As far as I'm aware, the Netherlands is a party to such agreements.

It's one thing to say a foreign company doing business in your country has to allow alternate payment processing methods. It would be quite another to say that foreign company has to give up basic rights that it has under international copyright law in order to do business in your country - e.g., that it can't require payments (pursuant to common licensing terms, e.g. as percentages of certain kinds of monetization) from other business in exchange for granting them the right to use its intellectual property.

Intellectual property rights give you the right to monetise your intellectual property - yet they don't allow you to do that any way you please. They're balanced out by fair use and competition laws.

It’s a misnomer, because those apps were NEVER INTENDED to be for “dating.” They were for sex, sex, and more sex.

Dating is often see as a means to sex, app or not.
Some users just prefer to keep their date short and simple before moving on to raunchier things.
But it's not as if you're forced to or commit to having sex just because you swiped right on Tinder or whatever.

Let's say I stay a weekend at a hotel in Stockholm. When I get back I call my bank to get the money back. They'll ask: Why are you asking for a refund? The towels were to small.
Have you contacted the hotel? No, I don't want to.

The bank will not return my at this stage. Apple would.

...which is more evidence that Apple is acting anticompetitively and enjoys considerable oligopoly power

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.

More competition means cheaper pricing. That's how most pricing works. If and once the 30% commission minimum is gone, prices will go down (it won't if Apple can get away with charging 27% for non-IAP purchases though).

 

[hans1972]

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.

Have you read the developer agreement?

Every developer appoints Apple to be their commissionaire and/or agent for all apps being distributed to end-users, irregardless of the payment options. Thus Apple is being paid for being an agent and/or a commisionaire, marketing and distributing the apps.

Apple can of course just add using IP to this list.