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

[Sophisticatednut]

Calling iOS APIs is using iOS code.
They aren't taking a cut on use of the API's, the API's are free, the code behind the API's is proprietary and subject to a license.
Epic and Unity's cut is based on revenue, why can't Apple do the same?

According to EU this is a distinction without meaning and not protected by copyright.

The difference is epics code is shipped physically in the game.

iOS apps aren’t shipped with any iOS code.

APIs) and other functional characteristics of computer software are not eligible for copyright protection. Users have the right to examine computer software in order to clone its functionality—and vendors cannot override these user rights with a license agreement,

The purchaser of a software licence has the right to observe, study, or test the functioning of that software in order to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program. Any contractual provisions contrary to that right are null and void," the court ruled

Articles 1(2) and 6 of Directive 91/250 are to be interpreted as meaning that it is not regarded as an act subject to authorisation for a licensee to reproduce a code or to translate the form of the code of a data file format so as to be able to write, in his own computer program, a source code which reads and writes that file format, provided that that act is absolutely indispensable for the purposes of obtaining the information necessary to achieve interoperability between the elements of different programs.

Apples cut can’t be for providing no service

 

[mrochester]

No, getting paid for a service is absolutely legal. Epic provide use of their game engine in developers games and take a cut of any game revenue sold that is shipped with their code.

Apple doesn't provide developers the ability to use iOS code in their apps, only the ability to be published in the App Store and call APIs in iOS. Apple will have the right to take a cut on FIRST sale in the store. Apple will be allowed to provide a VOLUNTARY service for developers to use IAP and give apple a cut.

EU will force apple to allow developers to provide their own IAP solution and pay nothing to apple for that.
Apple will still be allowed to take payment for services they provide. It doesn't mean they can take a cut of revenue.

It doesn't mean they can take a cut of APIs as they aren't cover by copyright law and are free to use irrespective of contract or license clauses in EU

I hate to think how expensive those fees would need to be to make up for lost revenue from no commission!

I think developers would be in for a shock.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Courts hav

No. You purchase a license to use it. There’s no ownership.

Courts have already ruled these licenses to be null and void. The consumer are the owner and have the same rights to anything with the software as with the hardware

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I hate to think how expensive those fees would need to be to make up for lost revenue from no commission!

I think developers would be in for a shock.

Well the commission of the AppStore is completely legal. The commission on in app purchases are not if another solution is used not dependant on iTunes billing services

 

[mrochester]

Well the commission of the AppStore is completely legal. The commission on in app purchases are not

That's what I'm saying, if in app commission goes, Apple will need to significantly raise the rates on their other fees to make up for it. That's what I think developers will be in shock over!

 

[Sophisticatednut]

That's what I'm saying, if in app commission goes, Apple will need to significantly raise the rates on their other fees to make up for it. That's what I think developers will be in shock over!

Perhaps, could also just them taking a cut of used services such as per downloaded app etc etc. many solutions exist without rising other costs. Or they will just take the hit.

For no matter what happens google will not increase the costs and apple do not want to scare away smaller developers

 

[Maximara]

New iOS/iPadOS 15.4 beta 2 came out today and it contained a surprise.
Watch this video at time stamp 3:25.
3rd Party Apps code

If it is "like MacOS" then third party stuff is likely going to bring up a dialogue and you have to bring up a drop down menu the first time you want to open the program. Want something hassle free? That is what the Apple App Store is for. ?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

If it is "like MacOS" then third party stuff is likely going to bring up a dialogue and you have to bring up a drop down menu the first time you want to open the program. Want something hassle free? That is what the Apple App Store is for. ?

View attachment 1956563

Absolutely. Except right clicking on iOS xD but we will see

 

[Sophisticatednut]

No. You purchase a license to use it. There’s no ownership.

EULA is just technobabble.

This decision does not mean only that software developers cannot prevent second hand sales of their software by their European licensees. It means software licence agreements and all their terms and conditions (not just the one prohibiting transfer) can be ignored by European courts if the licence period is indefinite, and probably even if it is tied to the lengthy period of copyright in Europe - 70 years after death of last surviving programmer. Such a licence will be regarded as a simple sale and sales of personal property cannot be tagged with conditions on how the property can be used.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The Windows Store has a similar option. Deep linked paired with unlisted apps. Meaning the Apps aren’t promoted, aren’t searchable, no user reviews … nothing of that sort. Still Apps have running access the same as others.

You just pay for hosting and standard review processes for security and certificates which is fair enough. All other stuff, use whatever. Windows Store payment is still required I guess The markup is 5%.

Don’t know if this is new or not:

https://developer.apple.com/support/unlisted-app-distribution/

It does not look similar to the Windows Store. The Windows Store effectively makes a distinction between a lead generated in store or coming from outside through a link (deep link). So I guess if MS can do this and still run at a profit … the question is not profit vs cost but margins as far as Apple is concerned.

Not that it matters, it is here only comparison purposes. Of course customers use what they use and you need to be there whatever they use to serve them.

Well that’s a nail in apples argument

 

[robco74]

That's what I'm saying, if in app commission goes, Apple will need to significantly raise the rates on their other fees to make up for it. That's what I think developers will be in shock over!

Exactly. What people outside the US may not understand is that under US law, Apple is legally obligated to its shareholders to do anything and everything they can to preserve App Store revenue. If they acquiesce, they can be sued in US court by their own shareholders.

That being said, while this may kill the current model, Apple can switch to alternate methods like the wholesale model, or move to a subscription service like Arcade. One upside to alternative stores is that Apple won't need to host everything in their store and they can actually curate it and offer a more focused selection. They could also charge a subscription fee for Xcode, though they may not want to make the barrier too high.

However, I think we'll see a situation where it's other established players who wind up having alternate stores. To take an example from the storage side, Dropbox has only recently become profitable. I don't think there's as much money in selling apps as many people hope, certainly not enough to make it as a standalone business. In practice, I think the only way to keep Apple and Google's stores from remaining dominant would be to force them to shut them down. A tiny fraction of users will sideload or install another store, most will stick with the App Store and Play Store.

But hey, at least lawmakers can say they did something.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Look at the people fighting this 30% cut

It‘s naturally not small time developers that will be first to hire expensive competition lawyers to take on trillion dollar corporations.

It will probably mean more hassle for developers, because the easy and simple way will no longer be allowed.

It would probably mean more hassle for Apple, because the easy and simple way to take 30% of everything will no longer be allowed.

Do it the hard way, where you have to submit accounting of your revenue and we can audit that, and we can freeze your account if we don't understand it or see something strange because you made a mistake.

Yes, please freeze. That will only give more ammunition to the legal accusations of anticompetitive behaviour and abuse of its gatekeeper position.

Calling iOS APIs is using iOS code.
They aren't taking a cut on use of the API's, the API's are free, the code behind the API's is proprietary and subject to a license.

Apple should be allowed to charge whatever they want for use of their IAP API.

The anticompetitive behaviour is forcing developers to use their own API.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

No. You purchase a license to use it. There’s no ownership.

There is ownership of the license to use in good will.

 

[deevey]

I hate to think how expensive those fees would need to be to make up for lost revenue from no commission!

27% of in-app sales sounds about right ?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Exactly. What people outside the US may not understand is that under US law, Apple is legally obligated to its shareholders to do anything and everything they can to preserve App Store revenue. If they acquiesce, they can be sued in US court by their own shareholders.

That being said, while this may kill the current model, Apple can switch to alternate methods like the wholesale model, or move to a subscription service like Arcade. One upside to alternative stores is that Apple won't need to host everything in their store and they can actually curate it and offer a more focused selection. They could also charge a subscription fee for Xcode, though they may not want to make the barrier too high.

However, I think we'll see a situation where it's other established players who wind up having alternate stores. To take an example from the storage side, Dropbox has only recently become profitable. I don't think there's as much money in selling apps as many people hope, certainly not enough to make it as a standalone business. In practice, I think the only way to keep Apple and Google's stores from remaining dominant would be to force them to shut them down. A tiny fraction of users will sideload or install another store, most will stick with the App Store and Play Store.

But hey, at least lawmakers can say they did something.

Everyone knows this, and there’s a difference between knowing how it works in an irrelevant jurisdiction and arguing for changes in the EU market who do not care what US shareholders think.

 

[robco74]

Everyone knows this, and there’s a difference between knowing how it works in an irrelevant jurisdiction and arguing for changes in the EU market who do not care what US shareholders think.

Well, foreign investors could likely sue in US court as well, so not an irrelevant jurisdiction.

Apple could also treat the EU as they treat China, with separate servers and offerings tailored to meet government restrictions. I don't think they would exit the EU entirely.

But unless there is some international consensus around these issues, along with privacy, it's going to cause higher prices, not lower ones as companies have to make bespoke products for every jurisdiction in which they operate.

I'm pretty sure the next target the EU will have is iMessage. Pretty sure Apple will either be forced to open it up to other platforms, or shut it down in the EU.

 

[draugminaion]

I'm pretty sure the next target the EU will have is iMessage. Pretty sure Apple will either be forced to open it up to other platforms, or shut it down in the EU.

Lol no. iMessage is used by nobody in Europe. Nobody cares.

Having Facebook opening up WhatsApp would make more sense.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I see that Microsoft is, unlike Apple, trying to lead on this a bit and get ahead of regulatory issues.
Smart

https://twitter.com/x/status/1491461645901598726

 

[draugminaion]

According to EU this is a distinction without meaning and not protected by copyright.

The difference is epics code is shipped physically in the game.

iOS apps aren’t shipped with any iOS code.

APIs) and other functional characteristics of computer software are not eligible for copyright protection. Users have the right to examine computer software in order to clone its functionality—and vendors cannot override these user rights with a license agreement,

The purchaser of a software licence has the right to observe, study, or test the functioning of that software in order to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program. Any contractual provisions contrary to that right are null and void," the court ruled

Articles 1(2) and 6 of Directive 91/250 are to be interpreted as meaning that it is not regarded as an act subject to authorisation for a licensee to reproduce a code or to translate the form of the code of a data file format so as to be able to write, in his own computer program, a source code which reads and writes that file format, provided that that act is absolutely indispensable for the purposes of obtaining the information necessary to achieve interoperability between the elements of different programs.

Apples cut can’t be for providing no service

Apple made iOS, providing access to it is a service.

 

[robco74]

I see that Microsoft is, unlike Apple, trying to lead on this a bit and get ahead of regulatory issues.
Smart

https://twitter.com/x/status/1491461645901598726

LOL.If MS were trying to lead on this issue, they would open up the Xbox. Given their past, MS is the last company that should be throwing stones right now. The absolute only reason MS is doing this is to try and get some good PR, and because every foray they've made into mobile or wearables has been a dismal and embarrassing failure.

They are hypocrites who just want to see a competitor get smacked down by the EU - just like they were.

 

[robco74]

Lol no. iMessage is used by nobody in Europe. Nobody cares.

Having Facebook opening up WhatsApp would make more sense.

Oh, I'm sure they'll mandate some form of interoperability. At which point it will be easier to just push users back to SMS or RCS.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Well, foreign investors could likely sue in US court as well, so not an irrelevant jurisdiction.

True, But Eu don't care if a company is sued in US by investors. As it's still in the USA and doesn't affect EU.

Apple could also treat the EU as they treat China, with separate servers and offerings tailored to meet government restrictions. I don't think they would exit the EU entirely.

But unless there is some international consensus around these issues, along with privacy, it's going to cause higher prices, not lower ones as companies have to make bespoke products for every jurisdiction in which they operate.

probably considering EU have very strict privacy laws and do not like any data to be available to USA considering the nonexistence of data protection laws. Facebook recently threatens to leave over it and EU figuratively said yes, please take your **** and go.

I'm pretty sure the next target the EU will have is iMessage. Pretty sure Apple will either be forced to open it up to other platforms, or shut it down in the EU.

oh it's already targeted in a different legislation, but more in the principle that messaging services should be able to communicate with each other that aren't number dependent, such as WhatsApp, iMessage, signal etc. should allow users to send to each other. but we will see when the legislation is finalized

Apple made iOS, providing access to it is a service.

and apple takes a cut of sales that go through app store, they do not sell a service to give access to iPhone or iPad operating systems. apple dont own the device consumers use, they do.
The line comes at IAP as these do not use apples services to provide extra content to users.
apps that already exist on a user's iDevice is outside of Apples jurisdiction

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I see that Microsoft is, unlike Apple, trying to lead on this a bit and get ahead of regulatory issues.
Smart

https://twitter.com/x/status/1491461645901598726

Well that's how a smart business operates instead of kicking and screaming like a child whos been told playtime is over.

LOL.If MS were trying to lead on this issue, they would open up the Xbox. Given their past, MS is the last company that should be throwing stones right now. The absolute only reason MS is doing this is to try and get some good PR, and because every foray they've made into mobile or wearables has been a dismal and embarrassing failure.

They are hypocrites who just want to see a competitor get smacked down by the EU - just like they were.

how are they a hypocrite? For smart business move to follow the wind? Learning from their past mistake? Learning from competitor's mistake and adapting? Xbox already allow home brewing, so it's opened up contrary to apple.

 

[robco74]

Well that's how a smart business operates instead of kicking and screaming like a child whos been told playtime is over.

how are they a hypocrite? For smart business move to follow the wind? Learning from their past mistake? Learning from competitor's mistake and adapting? Xbox already allow home brewing, so it's opened up contrary to apple.

If they truly believed in the spirit of the legislation, they should open up the Xbox to other app stores. I should be able to purchase Xbox games without giving MS a cut of the sale, right?

 

[turbineseaplane]

Well that's how a smart business operates instead of kicking and screaming like a child whos been told playtime is over.

As opposed to the genius business minds around here who think Apple should just "pull out of countries that don't let them do whatever the want!!"