Apple to Collect 27% Commission on Third-Party App Payment Systems in the Netherlands

[theotherphil]

The ones that feel compelled to.

I could ask back: what sort of company presents a contract that stipulates that they’re entitled to 30% commission of every „aftermarket“ business (such as on gaming apps)?

Nobody has been compelled to develop for iOS. It is personal choice. As a developer, I chose to develop for iOS freely. I didn’t have my arm twisted, nobody came round with baseball bats, a gun wasn’t held to my head. I looked into the costs and potential rewards and decided it was worth it. If it wasn’t, I would have went elsewhere.

Everything in life has pros and cons. Every decision has consequences. Wanna drive? You’ll need a licence. “I felt compelled to get a driving licence in order to drive”…”nobody else was issuing licences”….”the government has a monopoly on licensing”….”I have to renew every 5 years but all they do is take a new photo and payment”.

LOL! Compelled to develop for iOS…I’ve heard it all now.

So much in fact, that they (feel they) don‘t have a choice.
It‘s not like there’s even five other relevant platforms stores they could compete through, is there?
So not being on the App Store or Play Store would impede their ability to compete.

You absolutely have a choice. Develop for Android, Sideload on Android, develop for linux phones, develop for MacOS, develop for Windows, develop for Linux desktops, develop for Raspberry, develop games for Playstation/ Nintendo/ XBox. Nobody owes you a living. You CHOOSE to develop given the limitations of each platform.

You know why I didn’t choose to work in MacDonalds? The terms and conditions of employment weren’t favourable. I decided that I would have to work too hard for too little money.

We both know that, why and how native apps are superior to web apps, don‘t we?

Oh, so we agree….there’s value in the App Store?

 

[draugminaion]

Pretty sure PayPal and stripe handle more orders and they just charge around 3-5% per transaction. 30% is insane.

Paypal doesn't operate a worldwide curated store in 40+ languages that gives developers access to a billion+ wealthy customers. PayPal doesn't build a software and hardware platform that attracts such customers. These things cost money. Apple's take would have to be between 10% and 20% just to break even.

 

[draugminaion]

I thought the justification on the fee was to pay for the maintenance and further development of the IAP system. What’s Apples argument that these revenue streams are different from apps that get revenue from third party ads? Genuinely curious here , isn’t their an argument by doing this that Apple is targeting one type of revenue and not another? What makes Apple entitled to this and not the other?

No. That was never a justification. The IAP system is a tiny cog in the machine and not a lot of work.
As far as Apple has a justification it's that they provide value that is worth 15%, and 30% for those that make lots of money. Also, 30% is a very common commission in lots of businesses.
The value to developers is the OS Apple built, on top of which developers can build apps.
The value to developers is access to Apple's billion+ customers which Apple attracted with the hardware, software and services Apple builds and runs.

By Apple's reckoning they take about 3% of the "App Economy", i.e. all business that is transacted on the platform they built. They figure they deserve 3%.
They get this 3% by taxing 10% with a 30% commission.
The 10% is Apps selling digital goods that can be consumed in the device.
The 90% is free apps, meal delivery apps, taxi apps, banking apps, etc. and also ad supported apps.

Apple decides who pays and who does not.
This means that, like the judge said in the Epic trial, Epic is subsidizing Wells Fargo.

If that way of getting the 3% they think they deserve turns out to be illegal, or becomes illegal with new regulation, they will do it another way.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Here’s a genuine question….why does FaceBook/ dating apps need a native app? They work perfectly well on Safari, including microphone/ camera etc. FaceBook/ dating apps choose to be on the App Store because it adds value. It is more than payment processing. They choose to be on the App Store because Apple’s API’s add value to their product that they don’t want to pay for.

Hi. I’ll try to share my point of view and why your answer although it looks realistic and reasonable is fundamentally flawed.

I’ve been programming since I was 10 years, in the 80’s. Back than there was a machine called ZX Spectrum, amongst many others such as Commodore, Atari, Mackintosh, IBM PC … Anyway, on ZX Spectrum there were also interpreted languages such as Basic and Pascal that developers could use to build non native execution programs. Yet, I would at instances also program in Assembly (native execution) … because it was several others of magnitude faster in execution …

The above technical truth has not changed in time. There are advantages (adds functional value) in developing non native software programs and native programs (adds functional value). These advantages aren’t Apples invention, its a fact of nature of digital technology.

Are you arguing that Apple is aiming charging for the fundamental nature of technology? Don’t think so. I think the Apple aims to monetise the fact that its the sole distributor of software programs (third party things and IP) to 50% of Americans using smartphones (iPhone market share is more or less 50% in the US). It seams be planning doing it not only on mobile devices but also PCs (iMac) and everything else that might come in the future.

So the actual problem is that whoever controls even a bit of the distribution of software programs regardless of genre actually controls the digital economy. Software programs are fundamental to the digital economy, like eyes are to people. Without these digital businesses are blind.

There are indeed similarities even if sometimes thin between the App Store business model and Gaming Consoles. Heck, in general there are similarities between any kind of business, but that is besides my point. The fundamental mental difference between Gaming Consoles Stores and the App Store is that the App Store has no boundaries of any kind all. Meaning it can affect games as well groceries or banking.

The irony of your example is that Facebook App actually pays nothing even though it uses exactly the same has any other payed digital service through the In-Payment-Billing device. If not more, because I would not be surprised if Apple does not have special server farms reserved for those given the load.

Wait there is more. We know very well the Facebook business model, its sells Ads on top of knowledge it gathers analysing personal data and interactions, … heck it seams that it sold personal data at points to third parties. Now imagine that you invent a social ecosystem where its users are actually willing to pay, say 99c per month, getting rid of all these pesky practices … no Ads. Not only you have a huge challenge to compete against an established Facebook, yes the App Store will not help you with that in anyway, but also need to share the a spetacular 30% revenue with Apple when in your App. This is a perfect example where this practice devalues entrepreneurship, your invention, your efforts in favor of these practices. Shouldn’t at least both be paying for the distribution of their software programs?

Ask Apple why isn’t Facebook paying anything. Than come back and talk about privacy rights, security and so on. It’s very simple. With this, Apple is indeed recognizing that digital services do provide substancial contributions to the use of their technology, in turn to iPhone sales, to their bottom line. Intangible contributions.

Cheers.

 

[laptech]

We don’t know where the other 27% comes from. It looks like Apple is going to fight regulators over every percentage point. So if sideloading is mandated they will lower their percentage by x% because they are no longer providing store services. Apple isn‘t going to break out what they are charging for line by line and make things easy for regulators. Some of the charge is for payment processing. Some is for running the Store. Some is for API development ($99/year isn’t nearly enough). Some is for signing/notarization. Some is for developer tools. Etc etc. How much? No one knows. Regulators will have to target each bit individually.

Of course, some of the fee comes from access. Access to the billion+ base of valuable Apple customers. That portion is primarily what developers have taken issue with, but separating out how much Apple is charging for that and determining if that’s a fair rate could take years. Long-term Apple may be forced to allow alternatives at every step of the value chain (i.e. alternatives to IAP, alternatives to App Store, etc.) and for things where alternatives are unfeasible (first party dev tools, APIs) Apple will be forced to license at FRAND rate. Basically Apple is entitled to something, but they won’t get as much as they do now.

What you say is wrong in my opinion because the yearly fee developers pay is meant to be for EVERYTHING, the API's, hosting the app, to run the store. The 30% which was reduced to 15% in some cases was comission for use of apples pay system (according to apple). So, if the 3% has now been identified as the actual cost for using apples pay system then what is the 27% if everything else is already paid for by the yearly fee? You can't say it's for running the store because that's what the yearly fee pays for, you can't say it's for using API's or development of API's because again that's what the yearly fee is for, you can't say it's for processing or signing or development tools because that's what the yearly fee is for.

What this shows is that Apple grab this 30% out of thin air and now they have exposed themselves scamming everyone by identifying that actually 3% is what is needed to pay for using apples pay system and the 27% they got out of thin air because if it is a charge for running the store or for developement of API's or something else then Apple should have identified it in the terms and conditions the app store or put it onto of the yearly fee. The fact they did none of that shows they picked that figure out of thin air and scammed everyone.

Remember, and this is extremely important. Apple stated that the 30% commision on in-app purchases was to pay for using apples pay system. Now, with what Apple has exposed with the dutch dating app's is that actually only 3% goes to paying for apples payment system. If that is the case they where has the extra 27% come from because Apple said it was to pay for using their payment system but they have exposed themselves by showing only 3% of that 30% goes to paying for use of apples payment system. Apple have exposed themselves for being scammers by charging 27% extra for nothing, basically getting people to pay 27% for nothing as it only costs 3% to use apples payment system.

Apple need to explain away the 27% quickly because if they do not I expect lawyers from various quarters will be banging on their doors wanting an explanation.

 

[draugminaion]

What you say is wrong in my opinion because the yearly fee developers pay is meant to be for EVERYTHING, the API's, hosting the app, to run the store. The 30% which was reduced to 15% in some cases was comission for use of apples pay system (according to apple). So, if the 3% has now been identified as the actual cost for using apples pay system then what is the 27% if everything else is already paid for by the yearly fee? You can't say it's for running the store because that's what the yearly fee pays for, you can't say it's for using API's or development of API's because again that's what the yearly fee is for, you can't say it's for processing or signing or development tools because that's what the yearly fee is for.

What this shows is that Apple grab this 30% out of thin air and now they have exposed themselves scamming everyone by identifying that actually 3% is what is needed to pay for using apples pay system and the 27% they got out of thin air because if it is a charge for running the store or for developement of API's or something else then Apple should have identified it in the terms and conditions the app store or put it onto of the yearly fee. The fact they did none of that shows they picked that figure out of thin air and scammed everyone.

Remember, and this is extremely important. Apple stated that the 30% commision on in-app purchases was to pay for using apples pay system. Now, with what Apple has exposed with the dutch dating app's is that actually only 3% goes to paying for apples payment system. If that is the case they where has the extra 27% come from because Apple said it was to pay for using their payment system but they have exposed themselves by showing only 3% of that 30% goes to paying for use of apples payment system. Apple have exposed themselves for being scammers by charging 27% extra for nothing, basically getting people to pay 27% for nothing as it only costs 3% to use apples payment system.

Apple need to explain away the 27% quickly because if they do not I expect lawyers from various quarters will be banging on their doors wanting an explanation.

The developers license fee of $99 absolutely is not even close to be for "everything". That fee is mostly fraud mitigation. If it was much lower there would be lots scammers constantly making new accounts because their old accounts were shut down.

15% is not "some cases", its most cases (about 90% some are guessing). 0% is even more common.
But those "most cases" is not where most of the money is.

Apple never "stated that the 30% commision on in-app purchases was to pay for using apples pay system".
That's nonsense. It's the fee for making money on the platform they built, a tiny part of which is the "pay system".

The payment processing is a tiny easy and boring part of what Apple does for developers.
The work Apple does for developers is in building the OS and running the store.
Running the store costs billions (8B is my guesstimate), that money needs to come from somewhere.

 

[deevey]

It’s not free, developers pay $100 per year fee to be able to develop and publish apps. I’m perfectly ok with Apple increasing that fee to $500 or $1000, but they’re not entitled to a 30% cut of all digital commerce conducted through someone else’s app.

What if they were to charge you a 30% license fee based on the number of app sales instead of $99?

 

[deevey]

Problem is, I can’t download iOS apps from any other source than the App Store.

Then complain to the developer. If they released the game on iOS and allowed you to sign in with their their website credentials you, and they wouldn't pay Apple a cent on the sale.

The fact is that single click IAP's are worth ALOT of money. Game developers don't want you have to go out-of-app to buy v-bucks or whatever every time you needed to reload, you'd think twice, and they'd lose a sale.

Checkout abandonment rate for websites is anywhere from 59-82%

 

[laptech]

The developers license fee of $99 absolutely is not even close to be for "everything". That fee is mostly fraud mitigation. If it was much lower there would be lots scammers constantly making new accounts because their old accounts were shut down.

15% is not "some cases", its most cases (about 90% some are guessing). 0% is even more common.
But those "most cases" is not where most of the money is.

Apple never "stated that the 30% commision on in-app purchases was to pay for using apples pay system".
That's nonsense. It's the fee for making money on the platform they built, a tiny part of which is the "pay system".

The payment processing is a tiny easy and boring part of what Apple does for developers.
The work Apple does for developers is in building the OS and running the store.
Running the store costs billions (8B is my guesstimate), that money needs to come from somewhere.

So, if the rest of the in-app % commission is to pay for running of the app store as many keep on referring to that it does (pays for other things), then why should the likes of Epic, King, Microsoft, Ubisoft and many more pay for freeloaders to stay in the store because all the apps that are free do not pay anything more than just the yearly developer fee. It is not Epics or anyone of the others who use in-app purchases responsibility to pay the extra to help keep the app store running.

what you and others keep saying just proves that all those who use in-app purchases now have a legitimate claim against apple for over inflating the price of the in-app commission just so Apple can keep the free app's running because without that inflated % apple would require the developers of free apps to help pay for the running of the app store.

 

[Reason077]

I believe Visa and Mastercard recently upped it to 1.5%, which antagonised Amazon, who threatened to block Visa payments for this reason.

Not exactly. They increased the fees on cross-border payments between the UK and EU. Such payments are no longer covered by the fee cap (due to Brexit), but intra-UK and intra-EU transactions still are.

This was particularly problematic for Amazon, because apparently it processes all its UK card transactions through Amazon Luxembourg.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The copyright holder can decide which one to prosecute or not. They can discriminate. They can charge money for its use for some people and not for others.

It's in the name: copyright = holding the right to copy

In contrast with patents, the copyright holder doesn't loose copyright just because they don't enforce it or enforce it uniformly.

First sale exhaustion makes this impossible to prosecute.

The implementation code of an API is covered by copyright unless the code is extremely simple.

Computer programs — legal protection | EUR-Lex

eur-lex.europa.eu

straight from the legal text.

Exclusive rights of the rights-holder

The holder of the rights to a computer program may do, or may authorise others to do, the following:

• the permanent or temporary reproduction of the program, or a part thereof;
• the translation, adaptation, arrangement and any other alteration of the program;
• the distribution of the programme.

Limitations of those exclusive rights (no need for prior authorisation from the rights-holder)

• A lawful acquirer of a program may reproduce, translate, adapt, arrange or alter the program, when it is necessary in order to use the program in accordance with its intended purpose.
• A person having a right to use the computer program may make a back-up copy in so far as it is necessary for that use.
• This person may also observe, study or test the functioning of the program in order to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program.

Decompilation *

Prior authorisation from the rights-holder is not required where reproduction of the code and translation of its form are essential to obtain information necessary to achieve the interoperability* of a new computer program with other programs.

The following conditions apply:

• those acts are performed by the licensee or another person having a right to use a copy of a program;
• the information on interoperability has not previously been readily available;
• those acts are confined to the parts of the original program which are necessary in order to achieve interoperability.

A third party software do not reproduce or distribute the APIs. They are located safely on OS level inside consumer devices

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Per the Directive 2009/24/EC you cite and the fact 'Installing the MacOS on anything but a genuine Macintosh can't be done without hacking macOS, so it's a violation of copyright.' it should be illegal to sale Hackintosh computers (ie PCs with the MacOS preinstalled) in Germany. For me, looking for Germany, Hackintosh produced HyperMegaNet UG (PearC) from 2009.

At the time (and even now) information was fragmentary and contradictory. One article said PearC used a completely unmodified copy with software allowing to to be installed (which as you have stated Apple couldn't do anything about) while another stated they preinstalled the MacOS (which would have been illegal). Yet another article claimed "Psystar, run by HyperMegaNet, based in Wolfsburg, Germany, currently ships to 23 destinations including the UK via delivery firm DHL." which if true raises some questions about what was going on and throws the whole legal claim in the dumpster under both the DMCA and EUCD making Apple's EULA irrelevant.

This the problem, copyright do not cover private alterations of your property.
In Germany B2B and B2C is not legally separated, this makes any consumer laws also includes any business transactions.

This is why this only covers Germany with the laws of that time. Because Psystar never agreed to the EULA as shrink wrap contracts aren’t enforceable between B2B transactions

 

[draugminaion]

So, if the rest of the in-app % commission is to pay for running of the app store as many keep on referring to that it does (pays for other things), then why should the likes of Epic, King, Microsoft, Ubisoft and many more pay for freeloaders to stay in the store because all the apps that are free do not pay anything more than just the yearly developer fee. It is not Epics or anyone of the others who use in-app purchases responsibility to pay the extra to help keep the app store running.

what you and others keep saying just proves that all those who use in-app purchases now have a legitimate claim against apple for over inflating the price of the in-app commission just so Apple can keep the free app's running because without that inflated % apple would require the developers of free apps to help pay for the running of the app store.

Apple likes there to be "freeloaders" because that is a large part of what makes the App Store useful for their customers. For most problems that could be solved by an app there is a basic one that is free.

It's like when a government decides to fund bicycle lanes by taxing people who own cars. A government could decide the world would be a better place if bicycle lanes exist, but cyclist are not going to pay, so they decide to tax those with money. All taxes are like this, your tax pays for stuff you don't need yourself or are maybe even opposed to.

Epic doesn't doesn't want to pay its tax because it's mostly not used for anything they benefit from.
But Apple decides who pays and who doesn't.

Now regulators have to decide if Apple is allowed to do that.

If a bar gives drinks away for free to women to attract men is that allowed?
If a theme park decides to let young children in for free to attract families with young children, is that allowed?
If an internet advertising service is providing search for free to attract paying advertisers is that allowed?

If a business model depends on allowing some to be "freeloaders", is that allowed?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Apple likes there to be "freeloaders" because that is a large part of what makes the App Store useful for their customers. For most problems that could be solved by an app there is a basic one that is free.

It's like when a government decides to fund bicycle lanes by taxing people who own cars. A government could decide the world would be a better place if bicycle lanes exist, but cyclist are not going to pay, so they decide to tax those with money. All taxes are like this, your tax pays for stuff you don't need yourself or are maybe even opposed to.

Epic doesn't doesn't want to pay its tax because it's mostly not used for anything they benefit from.
Apple decides who pays and who doesn't.

Now regulators have to decide if Apple is allowed to do that.

If a bar gives drinks away for free to women to attract men is that allowed?
If a theme park decides to let young children in for free to attract families with young children, is that allowed?
If an internet advertising service is providing search for free to attract paying advertisers is that allowed?

If a business model depends on there allowing some to be "freeloaders", is that allowed?

They will absolutely be allowed to do this. The distinction is the legal right beyond the store front.
tangible and intangible goods are inseparable and have the same legal protection

 

[m4mario]

People have to understand. The 30% is not for payment processing. It is for the developer tools like Xcode, instruments, iOS API's, free training videos for developers, App Store maintenance and so on. In contrast, Microsoft's developer tools costs over $1000 per developer, per year. Apple gives these for free, but collects money only on app sales made. This is the business model that has led to the App revolution that we are living in.

 

[draugminaion]

People have to understand. The 30% is not for payment processing. It is for the developer tools like Xcode, instruments, iOS API's, free training videos for developers, App Store maintenance and so on. In contrast, Microsoft's developer tools costs over $1000 per developer, per year. Apple gives these for free, but collects money only on app sales made. This is the business model that has led to the App revolution that we are living in.

Microsoft has free tools too, they are perfectly adequate for many developers.
Those that pay $1000 are those that make serious money.

Like Epic on the App Store.
Only Apple's method of collecting the money is different.

 

[laptech]

Apple likes there to be "freeloaders" because that is a large part of what makes the App Store useful for their customers. For most problems that could be solved by an app there is a basic one that is free.

It's like when a government decides to fund bicycle lanes by taxing people who own cars. A government could decide the world would be a better place if bicycle lanes exist, but cyclist are not going to pay, so they decide to tax those with money. All taxes are like this, your tax pays for stuff you don't need yourself or are maybe even opposed to.

Epic doesn't doesn't want to pay its tax because it's mostly not used for anything they benefit from.
But Apple decides who pays and who doesn't.

Now regulators have to decide if Apple is allowed to do that.

If a bar gives drinks away for free to women to attract men is that allowed?
If a theme park decides to let young children in for free to attract families with young children, is that allowed?
If an internet advertising service is providing search for free to attract paying advertisers is that allowed?

If a business model depends on allowing some to be "freeloaders", is that allowed?

If a bar gives drinks away for free to women to attract men is that allowed?
If a theme park decides to let young children in for free to attract families with young children, is that allowed?
If an internet advertising service is providing search for free to attract paying advertisers is that allowed?

None of the above you wrote is anywhere close to what Apple is doing. Here is what you wrote written with what Apple is doing applied to it:
If a bar gives drinks away for free to women to attract men is that allowed? Bar charges 27% extra on top of everyones order so drinks are free for women. You think that is fair?

If a theme park decides to let young children in for free to attract families with young children, is that allowed?
If the theme park charges extra 27% onto top of entry fee for every none family, is that fair?

If an internet advertising service is providing search for free to attract paying advertisers is that allowed?
If the internet advertising service charges 27% on to every business to allow non businesses and everyone else to search for free, is that fair?

Actually your anology is wrong. The anology you should have used is road tolls where it be a case of motor cyclists/motorbikes using the toll road for free where as other vechicles have to pay. Is this fair?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

People have to understand. The 30% is not for payment processing. It is for the developer tools like Xcode, instruments, iOS API's, free training videos for developers, App Store maintenance and so on. In contrast, Microsoft's developer tools costs over $1000 per developer, per year. Apple gives these for free, but collects money only on app sales made. This is the business model that has led to the App revolution that we are living in.

It doesn’t matter. In apple’s contract they don’t state the 99$ is for fraud mitigation it literally say.

As stated by apple in their

Apple Developer Program License Agreement​

8. Program Fees
As consideration for the rights and licenses granted to You under this Agreement and Your participation in the Program, You agree to pay Apple the annual Program fee set forth on the Program website, unless You have received a valid fee waiver from Apple. Such fee is non- refundable, and any taxes that may be levied on the Apple Software, Apple Services or Your use of the Program shall be Your responsibility. Your Program fees must be paid up and not in arrears at the time You submit (or resubmit) Applications to Apple under this Agreement, and Your continued use of the Program web portal and Services is subject to Your payment of such fees, where applicable. If You opt-in to have Your annual Program fees paid on an auto- renewing basis, then You agree that Apple may charge the credit card that You have on file with Apple for such fees, subject to the terms You agree to on the Program web portal when You choose to enroll in an auto-renewing membership.

And

11. Term and Termination
11.1 Term
The Term of this Agreement shall extend until the one (1) year anniversary of the original activation date of Your Program account. Thereafter, subject to Your payment of annual renewal fees and compliance with the terms of this Agreement, the Term will automatically renew for successive one (1) year terms, unless sooner terminated in accordance with this Agreement.

So according to apple this 99$ pays for everything.

And literally say in their payed application agreement :
3.4 Apple shall be entitled to the following commissions in consideration for its services as Your agent and/or commissionaire under this Schedule 2:
(a) For sales of Licensed Applications to End-Users, Apple shall be entitled to a commission equal to thirty percent (30%) of all prices payable by each End-User.

 

[Phone Junky]

If a bar gives drinks away for free to women to attract men is that allowed? Bar charges 27% extra on top of everyones order so drinks are free for women. You think that is fair?

If a theme park decides to let young children in for free to attract families with young children, is that allowed?
If the theme park charges extra 27% onto top of entry fee for every none family, is that fair?

If an internet advertising service is providing search for free to attract paying advertisers is that allowed?
If the internet advertising service charges 27% on to every business to allow non businesses and everyone else to search for free, is that fair?

Do you think that in each of these cases the amount that the paying customers are charged isn't already marked up to make up for the freebies? Fair or not, it's already figured into the prices. There's no free ride.

 

[draugminaion]

None of the above you wrote is anywhere close to what Apple is doing. Here is what you wrote written with what Apple is doing applied to it:
If a bar gives drinks away for free to women to attract men is that allowed? Bar charges 27% extra on top of everyones order so drinks are free for women. You think that is fair?

If a theme park decides to let young children in for free to attract families with young children, is that allowed?
If the theme park charges extra 27% onto top of entry fee for every none family, is that fair?

If an internet advertising service is providing search for free to attract paying advertisers is that allowed?
If the internet advertising service charges 27% on to every business to allow non businesses and everyone else to search for free, is that fair?

Actually your anology is wrong. The anology you should have used is road tolls where it be a case of motor cyclists/motorbikes using the toll road for free where as other vechicles have to pay. Is this fair?

"Fair" is irrelevant. It's always subjective. "Fair" is for person to person. "Fair" makes it sound like there is a moral dimension.

We are talking about billion dollar companies being unhappy with another billion dollar company.

"Is it legal" is what matters.
And if it's legal, the question "should it be legal" could matter.
If lawmakers decide it should not be legal and change the law then businesses will start doing things differently.

Where do you think the money for the women's drinks is coming from?
If there are as many men as women in the bar that would be a 100% extra charge, men pay double compared to bars that charge men and women equally. Would there be men who think that's worth it? Certainly!

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Apple is taken their commission at the point of sale to buyers.

Also, all Apple developers has signed a contract in which they appoint Apple to be their commissionaire and agent for the sale, distribution and marketing of the apps. That's why Apple charges a commission.

If your interpretation is correct, Epic, will have a huge problem with the licensing of their Unreal engine since it's quite similar. Epic charges a commission from the developer independent of which store or platform the game is sold. Most of the time, Epic, is not involved in the sale, payment or distribution of the game at all.

Not at all, epic is compliance with the law.
Epic actually licenses out the use of their software and code. Developers ship games with their intellectual property such as the unreal engine in the games etc.
they give developers permission to copy, modify, distribute, profit or change their work in games

Apple doesn’t license or sell this the right for any developers to modify, distribute, sell or copy their APIs.

 

[Maximara]

In Germany B2B and B2C is not legally separated, this makes any consumer laws also includes any business transactions.

This is why this only covers Germany with the laws of that time. Because Psystar never agreed to the EULA as shrink wrap contracts aren’t enforceable between B2B transactions

Sigh. You are not getting it. If "Psystar, run by HyperMegaNet, based in Wolfsburg, Germany, currently ships to 23 destinations including the UK via delivery firm DHL." is correct than the issue was DMCA/EUCD copyright protection not Apple's EULA.

"(13) The unauthorised reproduction, translation, adaptation or transformation of the form of the code in which a copy of a computer program has been made available constitutes an infringement of the exclusive rights of the author." - Directive 2009/24/EC

This is the law that existed in the EU when Psystar and HyperMegaNet were doing their thing (assuming they were two different companies which I am not sure of)

Heck, even Apple's EULA of the time stated: "Except as and only to the extent permitted by applicable licensing terms governing use of the Open Sourced Components, or by applicable law, you may not copy, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any part thereof."

Providing the means to put MacOS on other hardware is borderline thanks to other aspects of the DMCA which don't apply now but modifying MacOS and then selling it on was illegal even by EU law of the time. That was my point. That is without touching on the shady things that may have been going on with Psystar (and if Macworld was right HyperMegaNet as well)

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Nobody has been compelled to develop for iOS. It is personal choice.

Humm. I mean no disrespect, are you out of the developers kindergarten? I mean, only in such a context this is true. These usually have no customers to serve, neither being payed is a priority.

If you work for an employer you are compelled to develop for whatever they ask for. They are your customers.

If you don’t work for an employer that makes those decisions for you ... maybe you have a business yourself. Again you choose to work on whatever platforms your customers use. Your choices are as such conditioned. If your customers are using iOS devices, Android and the Web that is where you need to work on to develop your digital service or app. If they are on macOS only that is where you need to work on.

Now if you work for your self and have no customers … you better learn fast how the game is played. You will see that the cases where an App Store may have a positive influence initially are exceptions … jackpot situations. The norm is that is required much more than a good App and an App Store to have sustainable business of any kind, much less a business worth tenths o millions. Minecrafts, Fruit Ninja, talking about payed Apps and such are one in a billion.

The difference between a digital service App and a regular App, is that the functionalities native to the App exhaust is value. While a digital service goes way beyond the features provided by the App itself with the support of the Internet. Take for instance Netflix. If the company had no ability to stream video content to the App, an ability not provided by iOS or the App Store, it would be worth no more than a free media player.

You may specialise in some platform of preference … hopefully the platforms where there is more demand and less supply of developers. But it can also be a totally emotional option, hopefully get payed well for it.

You may have your opinion, but understand that it does look senior. I’ve worked in so many technologies that a long time ago I realize it boils down to the same kinds of artefacts, changing lexic here and there … very few exception to this. So much so, that technically I have very little preferences between them, have fun with all of them … whatever it gets the job done. I think motivated developer communities are more important when choosing when it comes to speeding up development as well as speciality … some platforms are stronger in some things others in other things … choosing well have a great impact in development speed.

The issue at hand at its core is not about developers preferences and personal technical choices but indeed the distribution of software programs and its control. If you already don’t think this way and aim to be able to innovate bringing the most value to your customers while getting payed … think of your self also as a business regardless if you are an employer or an employee, my suggestion is to start thinking this way and have fun doing it.

Cheers.

 

[RoboCop001]

Apple’s IAP doesn’t just process payments. It is also the API that unlocks purchased content. This is already in the developer agreement. Apple can quite easily tell what was purchased and how much was paid with this same API.

For example, a game may have a list of “power up’s” to buy. The price is listed. The user makes a selection and clicks “buy”. A list of payment providers is listed, or just the one the dev wants to use. Once the payment has been made, a cookie/ transaction ID is passed back to Apple with total cost and items to be unlocked. The IAP API unlocks the content and Apple now have a record of who and what was purchased (the audit).

At the end of the month, Apple send out an invoice for their 27%.

Interesting! Right, that makes total sense since content would have to be unlocked. Thank you for explaining!

 

[draugminaion]

Do you think that in each of these cases the amount that the paying customers are charged isn't already marked up to make up for the freebies? Fair or not, it's already figured into the prices. There's no free ride.

Exactly. This is quite normal business practice. But when Apple does it, making some pay and others not, it's somehow bad.