That raises the one question no one wants to address - why, except for Epic and Itch.io, was everybody (physical stores, mobile, Apple, Google, and consoles) at 30%
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 Collect 27% Commission on Third-Party App Payment Systems in the Netherlands
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Based on your answer, I assume you don’t use Amazon, don’t have broadband, a phone or anything else where Apple isn’t the provider that stores your credit card details. You’ve obviously never bought something from eBay, don’t travel, have subscriptions for regular deliveries (like milk, food, coffee, anything really) because that would mean having your credit card number “floating around”. I also assume that if you have a Mac, you’ve never bought any apps outside of the Mac App Store which hosts a relatively small list of apps compared to what is available outside of the Mac App Store.
There are many untrustworthy places where you might provide your credit card details but just because it’s not Apple doesn’t mean they are not trustworthy.
You might be happy to pay Apple 30% to host apps but if the choice to purchase apps from elsewhere is removed, Apple becomes a monopoly. YouTube & Netflix as examples, were successful for many years before the AppStore but Apple still chargers them 30% for subscriptions. Anyone with any sense, would subscribe to these services by going direct to their websites and save 30% per month.
You're completely misrepresenting facts here.
First, what you claim is "Epic's "expert"" was Apple's very own senior vice president of Software Engineering Craig Federighi.
Second, the court concluded that "Ultimately, the Court finds persuasive that app review can be relatively independent of app distribution. (...) even though unrestricted app distribution likely decreases security, alternative models are readily achievable to attain the same ends even if not currently employed."
In other words, the court found: Apple does not need to be the sole distributor of apps for security purposes. Similar levels of security can be achieved even when Apple is not the sole distributor of apps.
Again, you're misrepresenting facts.
It is just not true that "everybody" charges 30%. I already told you so: https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...r.2332846/page-25?post=30815409#post-30815409
But to answer the question: The console developers could, as they're they only distributors of apps/games on their hardware platform. And Apple and Google could, cause they're dominant in the marketplace for mobile apps.
Last edited:
85% of apps being free is what makes the App Store even a thing for Apple as well. My point was that currently the entire ecosystem (and that includes all the apps, often by large corporations, that sell physical goods) is heavily subsidized by the 15% selling their apps or digital goods through these apps.
1. I can acknowledge that the platforms are differently embedded in terms of user groups.
2. What you are quoting basically says that macOS would not gain security from being App Store only. Why would iOS lose security then? Only because of 1.
3. Whether the App Store is a monopoly or not is neither a conspiracy theory, nor a paranormal mystery, nor a matter of plain conceptual analysis. It is a legal negotiation.
Certain parties have Apple accused of being a monopoly. Telltale signs are that Apple refuses to allow any form of competition on their devices. Certain parties have claimed that Apple exploits their gatekeeping function by 1. charging an amount of money that has no proportionate relation to the services they are providing and 2. by competing with certain parties’ services on the same devices, which gives them the default advantage. One question is: Does Apple dominate any type of market related to the App Store? One answer is: In a certain way they do because no one else is allowed to be present on a significant segment of computing devices without Apple’s permission. Apple’s defense is an appeal to security - a concept that has gained a lot of traction in recent decades. However, security, in a free society (with free markets) must always be measured against the more fundamental value (resulting, by definition, from ‘free society’) that is ‘freedom’ (of market competition, individual freedom. etc.)
Side note: I find it amusing that US society is so vehemently against taxes and the potential for social security resulting from money that belongs to everyone, yet seemingly so apologetic of our tech giants using ‘security’ as a catch all for eliminating freedom in many ways. I wonder why no one has ever come up with the argument that what Apple does is wholly unpatriotic...
[this is intended as a somewhat polemical side note - if it is too political for this board, please consider removing this section only, as the rest is entirely related to the discussion at hand]
I'm discussing the entirety of the e-economy and you're focused on cell services, which wasn't clear in your original post. If you want to only discuss 3g, 4g, 5g etc, "dumb" phones and windows arm tablets as well as android and android tables can tap into this as well. Let's take uber as an example, I can log into the website and order a ride, which means a "dumb" phone with a good browser could do the same. There is no need to overregulate the ios app store.
And yet there are only three cell providers in the US. So there doesn't seem to be any issue with a triopoly.
Still no reason to over-regulate the app store. As android and other platforms are usable.
How about for large developers charge a $1M fee per download or update?
Ferrari charges what it wants because they can get away with it.
You are not paying Apple for the download, you are paying the developer.
Sure there are laws around the sale of products.
The laws should cover fit for use not alternative app stores and payments.
And that's true and no IAP is incurred as long as you don't run the app.
True as long as you don't run the app.
The web app is not using apple ip. Safari is open sourced based on standards outside of Apple.
Absolutely.
I disagree with your premise, there is a lot of swirling about big tech right now, they are the societal whipping boys. Apple (and et al) would be targeted no matter...the app store is a convenient thing to make it look like Congress (and governments) are actually doing something.
When you say they have no business dipping into IAP revenue, that translates to give away Apples' services. You may not like what Apple charges, but when developers opt-in to their platform and agree to abide by the rules the fee on IAP is where Apple is making their money. Maybe Apple should charge $10M a download to make up for lost revenues. That would sure kill the indie developer.
And while Apple may be forced to change that doesn't make that change good. Government's motto is "full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes" and "bad laws - there ain't no such thing".
Agree !
But for a different benefit, "App Discovery".
I've been referring to these as "App Discovery" App Stores.
In the docs for the $100M USD settlement agreement that Apple recently agreed to, they even expand on that to discuss (paraphrasing here) "domain specific" App Stores ... i.e., boutique OR specialty App Stores !
I had NOT thought about it in that way, but they are dead on with their point !
Think of it this way, outside of Apple's App Store, there could be 30-50 other App Stores, each focused on a different Application OR type of Applications.
I had been thinking of it in terms of 10 other App Stores in each major country, each with the same content, & each competing for the best apps to recommend OR promote, much like how Pro Sports works here in the States & elsewhere, where Top Talent is Paid BIG Bucks (to join sides) !
So, how about both ???
Would be much better than the Status Quo, where Apple can literally Bully ANY App Developer they want to !
Along that line, when it comes to App Developers, Tim Cook's Apple is really NOT that much different than how Trump controls, OR tries to control, Republicans in Congress !
Just like with Republicans in Congress, few App Developers have been willing to speak up.
But for both cases, their influence in diminishing & a Sea of Change is about to occur
!Also, just like Trump, Cook's Apple appears to have the exact same level of insecurity.
Trump does what he does because he is Heartless.
Tim Cook is insecure for some other reason; I suspect it's because he is In Over His Head (probably because of his background, Manufacturing Operations), & he simply doesn't want the world to know that.
Do you have proof on this statement? How much is too much? What is the financial breakdown and analysis on their books to indicate that what they are doing now is "unreasonable"?
And yes, they do deserve a cut of IAP as you know what happens if there is an issue - you contact Apple and not the developer. I have discussed with Apple many times about IAP. Who pays those people's salaries?
And all this discussion really leads me to believe the core of what people think here "Apple should not be allowed to set their own prices for their own products". Apple should be free to charge 60% for the Apps if they want!
There always voting with your dollars as a consumer and that applies to devs as well. I hear that Android is a lucrative market do develop apps for.Agree !
But for a different benefit, "App Discovery".
I've been referring to these as "App Discovery" App Stores.
In the docs for the $100M USD settlement agreement that Apple recently agreed to, they even expand on that to discuss (paraphrasing here) "domain specific" App Stores ... i.e., boutique OR specialty App Stores !
I had NOT thought about it in that way, but they are dead on with their point !
Think of it this way, outside of Apple's App Store, there could be 30-50 other App Stores, each focused on a different Application OR type of Applications.
I had been thinking of it in terms of 10 other App Stores in each major country, each with the same content, & each competing for the best apps to recommend OR promote, much like how Pro Sports works here in the States & elsewhere, where Top Talent is Paid BIG Bucks (to join sides) !
So, how about both ???
Would be much better than the Status Quo, where Apple can literally Bully ANY App Developer they want to !
Along that line, when it comes to App Developers, Tim Cook's Apple is really NOT that much different than how Trump controls, OR tries to control, Republicans in Congress !
Just like with Republicans in Congress, few App Developers have been willing to speak up.
But for both cases, their influence in diminishing & a Sea of Change is about to occur
Also, just like Trump, Cook's Apple appears to have the exact same level of insecurity.
Trump does what he does because he is Heartless.
Tim Cook is insecure for some other reason; I suspect it's because he is In Over His Head (probably because of his background, Manufacturing Operations), & he simply doesn't want the world to know that.
As far as the comment regarding Tim Cook it's just more internet babble. Of course you're welcome to your (misguided) opinion, however, the universe disagrees with you.
That more than likely came out of Apple's own pocket for the discount gift cards. Or they have it in an agreement with a store that lets them do it for X amount of times a year for Y discount amount and Z duration type of thing. Epic does similar things in order to compete with Steam. A great example of this is that Epic offered discounts on Borderlands 3 out of their own pocket. You got the game for $50, Epic provided the remaining $10 to the developer. However, that did not end up going too well because the developer complained about it. They regularly offer free games too.
The evidence of dozens if not hundreds of MVNOs is evidence to the contrary, yes.
As are operators operating margins - which are a fraction of Apple's/Google's duopoly App Store margins.
Absolutely. I take no issue with that, since I - like most people - don't reasonably need a Ferrari. Nor do a lot of industries sell or deliver services through Ferrari cars.
The developer pays nothing to Apple for the download (of a "free" app). Yet Apple is happy to offer that distribution to developers.
There is considerable concern over very few such big tech companies acting as gatekeepers to what is becoming - sort of - essential infrastructure for competitive markets (the ability to distribute apps).
Maybe.
It would underline how Apple as a gatekeeper is able to charge such non-competitive prices. I can guarantee you one thing: If Apple suddenly did that, there would be public outcry and very swift push for regulation. Probably injunctions as well.
If Apple were to charge only 10% for mobile app downloads and in-app purchases, there would be much less such push. There's a sweet spot where developers and competitors, competition authorities and lawmakers alike would not much care about Apple and their high commissions and "monopoly" of app distribution.
The threshold is just gradually decreasing below 30% around the world
That only shows how perverted the current system is.
Apple didn't create the third-party in-app purchases and its contents.
You statements really lead me to believe the core of what you think is "Since Apple created iOS, every app running on their phones and OS belongs to them".
I disagree with that.
In-app purchases or subscriptions are not Apple's "own products".
I believe that apps - and in-app content and services - created by a developers fundamentally belong to them: the developer that made and created the. They're not Apples "own product". And neither is an in-game item or subscription. Not even if Apple found clever contractual and technological means to muscle themselves in between me and the app developer (by way of their T&C and threatening to withdraw apps from the store) that I want to buy them from.
And yes, I believe Apple should not be able to arbitrarily set and enforce their pricing for what's not their own but someone else's (the developers') product. Neither should they be able to charge and enforce a non-competitive commission rate on them.
Last edited:
Great. Where does the ball stop now? Now everywhere is gonna think it’s okay to nickel dime anything. In Loremburg* we want a 6.5 reduction on productivity apps in our country. Oh and in Linlinlongan* we feel a 1.5 reduction in <explicit> field over here too! I’m sorry but this is gonna be dangerous precedent in far future for Apple and IS NOT looking good.
A US court already said Apple wasn't a monopoly even though Epic wanted to use "Smartphone Operating Systems" as the benchmark (with the Court didn't buy): "Epic Games constructs a framework to argue that there are three separate product markets at issue. In the foremarket, Epic Games identifies the product market as one for “Smartphone Operating Systems.” Epic Games contends in turn that there are two derivative and relevant aftermarkets that flow from this initial foremarket, including the “iOS App Distribution” market and “iOS In-App Payment Solutions.”
The best the court was to use an incipient interpretation of a vague state law with every attempt by Epic to show Federal antitrust was a dismal disaster. As predicted by an actual lawyer (Hoeg) this likely wasn't going to hold on Appel and the Ninth Circuit nixed the order until the appeal processes through them - which given the load of the Ninth Circuit is going to take a while.
As I have explained before incipient it akin to a judge upholding a speeding ticket for speeding even though you can prove that you were going 34 MPH in that 35 MPH zone because you were close to speeding. The real world example is Civil forfeiture where a cop can simply allege your property was acquired through illegal means and confiscate it with no warrant, no trial, no nothing. Then you have to prove that what the cop allege isn't true.
"Police abuse of civil asset forfeiture laws has shaken our nation's conscience. Civil forfeiture allows police to seize — and then keep or sell — any property they allege is involved in a crime." ACLU.
No, it didn't:
"Ultimately, after evaluating the trial evidence, the Court finds that the relevant market here is digital mobile gaming transactions (...)
Having defined the relevant market as digital mobile gaming transactions, the Court next evaluated Apple’s conduct in that market. Given the trial record, the Court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws. While the Court finds that Apple enjoys considerable market share of over 55% and extraordinarily high profit margins, these factors alone do not show antitrust conduct. Success is not illegal. The final trial record did not include evidence of other critical factors, such as barriers to entry and conduct decreasing output or decreasing innovation in the relevant market. The Court does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist."
They may be a(n illegal) monopolist - only that Epic failed to to conclusively demonstrate it. There's an important legal difference between saying something isn't something - and something just hasn't been (yet) proven.
Last edited:
You "don't see why Apple needs 12%" when "By charging 12% commission, the Epic Games Store will not be profitable for at least several years. Current estimates indicate negative overall earnings in the hundreds of millions of dollars through at least 2027."?!
It should be obvious as if even Fornite's can't support Epics store then why should Apple have to charge the same amount?!
Who owns the lines, cell towers, infrastructure and who sets the rate? Not unlike the App Store.
If we're predicating this entire discussion on the definition and scope of the word "reasonable", I'm going to guess we will not go anywhere...except around in circles.
It's called a loss leader...and for a thinking experiment if every one of the millions of apps were free and no IAP what account would fund the app store?
There also are some legitimate concern about over-regulating as there is the risk of collateral damage. And this gets back above to the use of the word reasonable.
It would outline the the ios app store is an integral part of the ios ecosystem and laws intending take Apples intellectual property and give it away for pennies on the dollars, will ultimately fail.Maybe.
It would underline how Apple as a gatekeeper is able to charge such non-competitive prices. I can guarantee you one thing: If Apple suddenly did that, there would be public outcry and very swift push for regulation. Probably injunctions as well.
If Apple were to charge only 10% for mobile app downloads and in-app purchases, there would be much less such push. There's a sweet spot where developers and competitors, competition authorities and lawmakers alike would not much care about Apple and their high commissions and "monopoly" of app distribution.
The threshold is just gradually decreasing below 30% around the world
It's one thing to regulate essential services and provide for safety for the common good...however this is one law I hope goes back in the garbage pile.
Yes it did as "In the foremarket, Epic Games identifies the product market as one for “Smartphone Operating Systems.” and the court said wasn't the case. You can hem and haw like Trump saying he won the 2020 election but that won't change reality.
Splitting hairs. The ios app store is not a monopoly in the digital gaming marketplace and Epic failed to prove it. Could someone sue and prove that the ios app store is a monopoly in the app store marketplace...maybe. But first have to get through this appeals process I would think. So as this stands the ios app store is not a monopoly and one can slice and dice this until the cows come home.
What you failed to mention:
This was Apple's own claim in their legal defence against Epic Games.
To which Epic made a counterclaim:
"EGS's 12 per cent transaction fee is sufficient to cover the variable costs of running EGS, including payment processing, customer service and bandwidth."
Epic is losing hundreds of millions of dollars in its war against Steam
In its bid to take on Steam with the Epic Games Store, the company behind Fortnite is burning through hundreds of milli…
www.eurogamer.net
Whatever the definition that Epic wanted to use, the court said, Apple could possibly be a monopolist or act as one.
It's just not been proven that they do/are.
Not too unlike the US tax system where, in theory, those that make the lease are supported by those who can pay the most. I say, in theory, because the people with money have turned the US tax system into this Rube Goldberg nightmare there those who can pay effectively don't and those in the middle (ind developers) get taxed like silly.
Now there is an idea. Apple says it is think about using the US tax system as it was in the 1960s, gutting it of all of the special tase breaks, and use that for its store. Say hello to Mr 91% Epic (yes for the richest of the rich the tax rate in the US was that high). s/
Love to see the Congress try to explain the sweetheart the rich get today to the people that elected them. Give them something productive to the average American (fix the train wreck that is Tax Law) than this current Trump level of stupid.
I agree. But it's ultimately irrelevant. Mobile operators in many places around the world have been regulated and fined for anti-competitive practices, while in others there seems to be enough competition.
Let's just say, if we're applying a "reasonable" market definition of "cars", there's (maybe more than) enough competition in the automotive industry.
Sales of iPhones and the margin Apple are making on them would fund it. Easily.
It's about as much an "integral" part of iOS as Internet Explorer or Windows Media Play has been of the Windows ecosystem (see the European Commission's finding against Microsoft on that).
I'd argue mobile app downloads are "semi-essential" services nowadays.
You can, in theory, do without. But your ability to compete will in many industries and for many businesses be severely hampered without mobile apps (due to customer expectations alone).
We obviously agree to disagree a bit on that one, I suppose.
In any case, assuming that the current market shares of smartphone OS and mobile app stores remain similar, the "essentiality" of being available on the dominating platforms (including the iOS App Store) will only increase.
If you give it another 10 or 20 years, there will be IMO little doubt or dissent whether such platforms need to be regulated (for pricing or access) for the "common good".
What we've seen so far is only the beginning of legal regulation and action against Apple.
Last edited:
Interesting analogy, but not applicable since the App Store is not a tax system: The small devs don't get anything out of the fact that the big devs are paying a lot more - all that ‘overhead’ goes to Apple, which is a for-profit corporation. Plus there is special treatment in place. If your company sells physical goods or services you are exempt from paying an App Store fee (if you are offering a free app). If you are Amazon, you get to let your customers spend money on digital goods (movies) without paying a fee to Apple. If, however, you offer a subscription service to stream video games, you can’t even get an app in the App Store that allows streaming the game content even if you were willing to offer the sub as an IAP.
Apple already gerrymandered the hell out of their App Store rules (to use another analogy), and only afterwards returned to screaming ‘same rules apply’ to defend their monopolistic business model.