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

[laptech]

You should maybe read your original post. You stated the developer fee of $99 covers everything. I posted what it covers and it specifically states that it doesn’t cover the commissions. I’m sorry that was so confusing to you.

Really!!!!, '...it doesn't cover the commissions'...well duh!! you going to be that pedantic about it?, so be it.

 

[Michael Scrip]

And indeed the list goes on of things you pay only $99 to get unrestricted access to.

Again... the $99/year membership fee is just that... a membership fee. Or call it an application fee. Or identification fee.

But once a developer decides to monetize their apps... devs pay additional fees for that.

It was never "you can sell $1,000,000 of apps for just $99"

🤣

 

[AppliedMicro]

Imagine the possibility to take 30% cut on all the merchandise designed in their programs.

Any doubts they would, if they could?

I mean, the only stopping them from doing that may be that professional-grade printing machines can print anything from any source.

But isn't there a way to change that? What if Adobe cryptographically signed their output files ...and professional printing machines could only print cryptographically signed files?

Maybe we should even enshrine that in a new law: Requiring printing machine manufacturers to require and process only cryptographically signed input files. Not only would that combat piracy bigly but also make sure that artists are fairly compensated for their work and IP created. Oh, and the manufacturers of the "tools" (Adobe) too, that were used to create such things of course. It could be all based on blockchains, for all I know!

Since the .psd file format is their own, and we're living in a free market world, I'm Adobe could work out some lucrative exclusivity deals with manufacturers of printing machines. After all, why shouldn't they compensate Adobe for using their IP?

 

[robco74]

Adobe doesn't give away their tools for free. You have to subscribe to their service to use them. Adobe started out with the retail model, but have since pivoted to the SAAS model. There is also no way to pay a small fee, then distribute your work for free with Adobe. They only provide the tools to create, that's it. To be clear before you start getting pedantic, I am referring to free apps in the store. To publish a free app, you pay the annual fee, and that's it.

So to flip this the other way. Instead of complaining about what Apple charges and how they decide to bring in revenue, what would be an acceptable business model in your eyes? What software and services should Apple be permitted to charge for? If the agency model, what percentage? If the retail model, what margins can they resell at? Or should they move to a subscription service like Arcade?

What exactly is Apple allowed to charge for. Can it be prix fixe, or must it be al a carte?

 

[djphat2000]

I'm not taking the time to explain brand loyalty to you and why replacing P&G or Unilever with another vendor won't work, but just know that we're not talking about some dime-a-dozen, bottom shelf, no-name products. Together those two companies account for the vast majority of numerous retail categories, HBA and household cleaning being just two examples. If people can't find Tide at Walmart, they will go to Target or another store where they can buy Tide and do all their other shopping at once. Even if Walmart was able to secure a deal with a third big vendor like Henkel, most of Henkel's brands are licensed to other companies like P&G and Unilever in the U.S., so Walmart couldn't sell Henkel brands under their recognizable names anyway. Marketing research tells us most consumers won't just swap their preferred product out for another in the same category, regardless of how similar the product is, and especially if they can get their preferred product elsewhere; just ask Pepsi why it's never been able to outperform CocaCola.

If your forced to choose between not selling a brand or category of product, as in at all. OR selling whatever you can. I'm willing to bet Walmart will figure out how make soap and bottle it. They have enough funds to do a little R&D and figure it out. It will be a shade or 2 off the Tide color and ruffly shaped the same. Call it Tyde and sell it for $.50 less.

There are far too many flaws in the argument presented to bother responding in this forum, not to mention that my argument is being selectively extrapolated in order to make conjectures and support weak assumptions, rather than responded to in whole. I don't have the time, energy, or will to teach a business course through MacRumors, and especially not to anyone who is too concerned with being correct to acknowledge reality.

Ok

Walmart knows how to properly leverage it's market power without overstepping, so that big vendors always feel the cost of doing business is worth the reward.

Big vendors want to sell in volume at a price that makes them happy. Walmart can sell in volume and buy in volume. Walmart buys a product it will have to sell for say a 15% mark up over it's purchase to say break even. Then it adds what it wants as a profit. Enough to make them happy, and enough to be less than the competition. Sometimes they are less sometimes they are not. Doesn't matter. Most people shopping buy what they need. VERY few use coupons, and that same few may price shop around for what they need. Again, MOST people just buy it without a second thought. Mainly because all the other stuff they need is in the same store. You may charge me 5% more on Cheese, but 15% less on Milk or bread. So, I'll deal.

They were hard lessons for Walmart to learn, and many they still haven't, but the progress they have made is why you don't see Walmart going to court with vendors or governments these days nearly as much as Apple faces their developers, vendors, and governments. Walmart had their time in the negative limelight already, and while still far from perfect, have made corrections to many of their poor business practices. Apple is still fighting tooth and nail to keep a status quo that favors them and spites Apple's developers and other business partners.

Developers are being greedy. Plain and simple. If the argument was that developers are "just" getting buy with how much they make on these Apps because the commission is SO high they can't afford to either cut their costs, or charge less to compete or more to make up the losses. Then I'd be with the group saying the 30% needs to be lower. But, that is not the case. IAP is already bought and paid for. It's been in the app. Already developed, nothing new. Just something that becomes available when you trigger a purchase. AKA PURE PROFIT. Since it is coming from the AppStore. I do feel Apple should get their cut. Commission whatever. If you want a 3rd Party payment option. SURE, have it. Apple should still get a commission on the sale. Their store you bought it from.

If you're that unhappy about it, go to a webpage in Safari or Google Chrome and head over to that developers site and buy what you want direct. We could all save everyone a boat load of time and energy by just doing that small bit. But, then we wouldn't have anything to complain about I suppose.

Every business should want to favor themselves. Otherwise your a charity.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Again... the $99/year membership fee is just that... a membership fee. Or call it an application fee. Or identification fee.

But once a developer decides to monetize their apps... devs pay additional fees for that.

It was never "you can sell $1,000,000 of apps for just $99"

🤣

it has always been like that. How much do you think Facebook have earned? or Tencent with TikTok?

i dont know what to say they literally say this on their website

What’s Included - Apple Developer Program

The Apple Developer Program provides resources for developing and distributing software for Apple platforms.

developer.apple.com

and even a list of free and payed membership...

Choosing a Membership - Support - Apple Developer

developer.apple.com

 

[Abazigal]

Not at all what they did was remove 3% that is the max number payment methods take in EU such as stripe. Nothing said it was apples sales fee. And don’t be surprised that it will not be allowed to take the commission at all.

Nobody wants to eliminate apples commission in store. Only have an option to NOT use it for in app payments the developers chose to be responsible with. No reason that apple can’t still convince developers to pay the 15-30% premium

The goalposts seems to have moved from wanting to use third party payments to desiring to sidestep Apple’s 30% cut altogether. It was never about consumer choice but about the money right from the very start.

The developers should have just started with that and laid their cards on the table right from the get go. Make clear their intention to sidestep the App Store so they don’t have to pay Apple a single cent.

The part of this story that continues to go unreported is how consumers feel about it all. Consumers are never asked about what they think of the App Store and in-app payment options. If consumers don’t want anything to do with third-party payments, it really doesn’t matter want some (vocal) developers think or say.

 

[Michael Scrip]

it has always been like that. How much do you think Facebook have earned? or Tencent with TikTok?
View attachment 1957174
i dont know what to say they literally say this on their website

What’s Included - Apple Developer Program

The Apple Developer Program provides resources for developing and distributing software for Apple platforms.

developer.apple.com

and even a list of free and payed membership...

Choosing a Membership - Support - Apple Developer

developer.apple.com

View attachment 1957180

Cool.

Now show me the part where it says Apple takes 15% or 30% from every purchase on the store in addition to the $99/year that the developer pays.

Because they do. And they have since 2008.

And the Google Play Store does too.

You may think Apple and Google shouldn't take 15% or 30% from every purchase. Well I don't know what to tell you.

It seems silly to keep having to explain how the App Store works even though it's operated this way for 14 years. But I'll say it again one more time.

Free apps:
$99/year membership fee
Distribute all the free apps you want for no additional cost

Paid apps, or apps with IAP:
$99/year membership fee
15% or 30% commission on every app or IAP sold

Seems simple to me...

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Adobe doesn't give away their tools for free. You have to subscribe to their service to use them. Adobe started out with the retail model, but have since pivoted to the SAAS model. There is also no way to pay a small fee, then distribute your work for free with Adobe. They only provide the tools to create, that's it. To be clear before you start getting pedantic, I am referring to free apps in the store. To publish a free app, you pay the annual fee, and that's it.

So to flip this the other way. Instead of complaining about what Apple charges and how they decide to bring in revenue, what would be an acceptable business model in your eyes? What software and services should Apple be permitted to charge for? If the agency model, what percentage? If the retail model, what margins can they resell at? Or should they move to a subscription service like Arcade?

What exactly is Apple allowed to charge for. Can it be prix fixe, or must it be al a carte?

Easy. The standard retail model.
Apple provide their service: they can ask for 99$ a year or 1 million, it makes no difference.
Apple can take 15-30% of sales IN the store, or even 95% if they want or even 1%.
They can take a store fee 1$ for every download or even 100$ to display them for both paid or free apps.
They can even have an update fee, bandwidth fee, review fee, iCloud fee, Apple Maps fee etc etc.

They can even provide IAP as a service and take 95% commission if they wish and include 10$ handling fee for the developer, they are 100% free to take whatever fee they want for any service they want them to have access to and developers actually use.

Now the ONLY THING that we require they do is provide developers with the ability to have their OWN In-App Purchasing mechanism they alone are responsible for paying apple 0% commission on revenue made inside the app after it's already been downloaded

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The goalposts seems to have moved from wanting to use third party payments to desiring to sidestep Apple’s 30% cut altogether. It was never about consumer choice but about the money right from the very start.

It hasn't been moved, this has been the desire from the first place as they have complained about apple's commission. It just becomes an actual problem when apple finally approved 3d party payment options and also tries to implement their commission

The developers should have just started with that and laid their cards on the table right from the get go. Make clear their intention to sidestep the App Store so they don’t have to pay Apple a single cent.

this has never been the intention. Apple can take any fee they want inside the store. Developers want options outside the store

The part of this story that continues to go unreported is how consumers feel about it all. Consumers are never asked about what they think of the App Store and in-app payment options. If consumers don’t want anything to do with third-party payments, it really doesn’t matter want some (vocal) developers think or say.

how consumer feel is 100% irrelevant. If consumer don't want to use 3d party solutions, they won't use it, simple as that. They aren't affected if they can click a button inside the app saying PayPal 9,99$ next to the Apple Pay option with 12,99$ as an option.

 

[robco74]

Right, so why wouldn't every developer roll their own IAP mechanism, or use one from another vendor, make every app free, and sidestep paying Apple anything beyond the annual fee for the developer program? Or can Apple require developers to use their option alongside others?

In order for this to work, you would need to make sure that no service vendor can demand exclusivity as part of their business arrangements.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Cool.

Now show me the part where it says Apple takes 15% or 30% from every purchase on the store in addition to the $99/year that the developer pays.

Because they do. And they have since 2008.

And the Google Play Store does too.

You may think Apple and Google shouldn't take 15% or 30% from every purchase. Well I don't know what to tell you.

It seems silly to keep having to explain how the App Store works even though it's operated this way for 14 years. But I'll say it again one more time.

Free apps:
$99/year membership fee
Distribute all the free apps you want for no additional cost

Paid apps, or apps with IAP:
$99/year membership fee
15% or 30% commission on every app or IAP sold

Seems simple to me...

How it works doesn't equate to it being legal.

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. Solely for auto-renewing subscription purchases made
by customers who have accrued greater than one year of paid subscription service within a Subscription Group
(as defined below) and notwithstanding any Retention Grace Periods or Renewal Extension Periods, Apple
shall be entitled to a commission equal to fifteen percent (15%) of all prices payable by each End-User for each
subsequent renewal

nothing in the agreement points to apple having a right to take a commission of every sale. The main thing is apple exhaust the firs' sale clause after first purchase, effectively terminating this agreement. Only thing apple can use is the mandatory use of their IAP solution

third party payment is not managed by apple as their agent or commissionaire and also not relevant for this clause. Just as nowhere in the agreement do they have 27% commission for outside payment

 

[AppliedMicro]

It was never "you can sell $1,000,000 of apps for just $99"

Yet you can give away 1,000,000 app (downloads) for $99.

what would be an acceptable business model in your eyes? What software and services should Apple be permitted to charge for?

If I had a say, they can charge for all of their services.

They just shouldn't a monopolist at providing downloads for their OS platform.

End user-enabled sideloading will basically solve all problems:
- Gives end users the choice to retain the status quo: They can choose to exclusively download their apps from and make their purchases in Apple's secured walled garden App store
- Promotes competition in app pricing and distribution
- Lessens the grip Apple has in acting as a single gatekeeper to their platform (censoring, stifling innovation)
- Apple will still be adequately compensated for their IP by hardware margin

It's just the Mac/macOS (or Windows) operating model.

 

[robco74]

Yet you can give away 1,000,000 app (downloads) for $99.

If I had a say, they can charge for all of their services.

They just shouldn't a monopolist at providing downloads for their OS platform.

End user-enabled sideloading will basically solve all problems:
- Gives end users the choice to retain the status quo: They can choose to exclusively download their apps from and make their purchases in Apple's secured walled garden App store
- Promotes competition in app pricing and distribution
- Lessens the grip Apple has in acting as a single gatekeeper to their platform (censoring)

• Google allows sideloading and alternate stores, they still got sued by Epic, and are still under antitrust investigation in the US and EU.
• Google allows sideloading, Epic tried this, almost nobody installed their app. Most customers saw the notifications and stopped at that point. Epic wants to be on the platform and enjoy low friction payments, but doesn't want customers to be informed about any potential risk.
• Google allows other stores, very few customers use them.

You basically want to upset the apple cart (pun intended) so that a few devs can release apps outside of Apple, and a few customers will bother to sideload their apps.

As for censorship of objectionable content, that's going to be a problem for any store, especially those operating in the EU.

 

[AppliedMicro]

As for you purchasing from the developer, that's all true, however the tools used to create the app were provided by Apple, they deserve some consideration for that. Hosting, bandwidth, marketing, payment processing, etc. can be handled by others or by the developer, but that will still be a cost to them

Same as on macOS.

You basically want to upset the apple cart (pun intended) so that a few devs can release apps outside of Apple, and a few customers will bother to sideload their apps.

Same as on macOS.

If the consumers don't bother to sideload but prefer Apple's own App Store and walled garden instead, I see no further need for regulation (as long as the playing field is level). Regulation shouldn't decide the outcome of and in a market - it should just ensure there is a market and choice.

So to flip this the other way. Instead of complaining about what Apple charges and how they decide to bring in revenue, what would be an acceptable business model in your eyes?

So to flip this question around:

Is the current Mac/macOS business model in any way unacceptable for Apple?
And (why) would it be unacceptable if lawmakers and regulators required the same for their iOS platform?

 

[Michael Scrip]

third party payment is not managed by apple as their agent or commissionaire and also not relevant for this clause. Just as nowhere in the agreement do they have 27% commission for outside payment

To be fair... Apple's hasn't even implemented 3rd-party payment capabilities yet.

This whole "3rd-party payments in dating apps" thing is still in the proposal phase. And it will probably be rejected by the Dutch ACM anyway. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

So I don't know why we're on page 35 of this of this almost week-long thread when nothing has actually happened yet.

Tomorrow is Friday y'all... have a good weekend!

 

[AppliedMicro]

To be fair... Apple's hasn't even implemented 3rd-party payment capabilities yet.

And why should they?

Just stop requiring their own IAP system and let 3rd-party developers figure out the rest for themselves. The onus shouldn't be on Apple to develop or implement any 3rd-party payment capabilities, should it?

Oh, I forgot, big brother Apple can't let go but demands developers apply for app "entitlements" to do so.

 

[Michael Scrip]

And why should they?

Just stop requiring their own IAP system and let 3rd-party developers figure out the rest for themselves. The onus shouldn't be on Apple to develop or implement any 3rd-party payment capabilities, should it?

I hear ya! And maybe things will change some day.

But they haven't yet. The App Store is still operating mostly the same way it has for the last 14 years.

So stay tuned! Big things are coming, hopefully.

I don't know what else we can say.

 

[laptech]

To be fair... Apple's hasn't even implemented 3rd-party payment capabilities yet.

This whole "3rd-party payments in dating apps" thing is still in the proposal phase. And it will probably be rejected by the Dutch ACM anyway. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

So I don't know why we're on page 35 of this of this almost week-long thread when nothing has actually happened yet.

Tomorrow is Friday y'all... have a good weekend!

Forums are for debating topics. Therefore why have you made a point of telling everyone that this thread has 35 pages? Are you basically saying members are not allowed to have debates that can generate that number of pages?

 

[Michael Scrip]

Forums are for debating topics. Therefore why have you made a point of telling everyone that this thread has 35 pages? Are you basically saying members are not allowed to have debates that can generate that number of pages?

My bad... sorry. I shouldn't have said that.

It is fun reading all the discussions. Obviously I get the notifications and come right back here every time. Like now.

Carry on!

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Right, so why wouldn't every developer roll their own IAP mechanism, or use one from another vendor, make every app free, and sidestep paying Apple anything beyond the annual fee for the developer program? Or can Apple require developers to use their option alongside others?

yes, apple have 100% right to require their option to be displayed next to others, even for some smaller developers and fees apple's 15% cut is more competitive than the usage of stripe.
Stripe takes 1.4% plus 0.25 cents
Apple takes 15-30%
This means if you offer $1 purchases or 50cent purchases etc. it would not make sense to use 3d party options as it would take 50% or more.

and the median IAP prices is about 6$ in 2020
stripe costs 1.4% 0.5$=26cent 1$=26cent 2$=28cent 3$=29cent 4$=31cent 5$=32cent 6$=34cent
+25cent
apple costs 15% 0.5$=7,5cent 1$=15cent 2$=30cent 3$=45cent 4$=60cent 5$=75cent 6$=90cent
so we can see apples IAP is competitive to 3$ and less
now what if apple took 10% instead of 15?
0.5$=5cent 1$=10cent 2$=20cent 3$=30cent 4$=40cent 5$=50cent 6$=60cent
now they still seem competitive for anything bellow 4$. and 4$ was the median IAP in 2017

And nothing stops apple from taking a fee from every app that is free. Such as:
service fee 0.001cents for every download

In order for this to work, you would need to make sure that no service vendor can demand exclusivity as part of their business arrangements.

 

[robco74]

Same as on macOS.

Same as on macOS.

If the consumers don't bother to sideload but prefer Apple's own App Store and walled garden instead, I see no further need for regulation (as long as the playing field is level). Regulation shouldn't decide the outcome of and in a market - it should just ensure there is a market and choice.

So to flip this question around:

Is the current Mac/macOS business model in any way unacceptable for Apple?
And (why) would it be unacceptable if lawmakers and regulators required the same for their iOS platform?

So if Apple has to treat iOS the same as macOS, why shouldn't Microsoft treat XboxOS the same as Windows? Why shouldn't Sony treat PSOS as a Linux distro?

Apple locked down iOS more because phones have way more security concerns than computers. They contain lots of sensitive information, and are much more likely to be lost or stolen. My point is that if openness is a requirement, then it should apply evenly across all platforms, no exceptions, no carve outs.

Personally, I think Apple should open the platform up to alternate stores. Once there are some up and running, they should shut down the store as it exists today, keeping a legacy page for previous purchases. They should then make it a subscription service similar to Arcade. There are far too many apps clogging the store. Apple should pare it down to the best of the best, then offer them to users for a fixed monthly price. Everyone else can go through another store.

Apple should also be allowed to state that if an outside app causes any issues whatsoever, they are not liable, and they are fully within their right to tell you to wipe and restore the device. They should not be in any way responsible for bad actors.

 

[robco74]

yes, apple have 100% right to require their option to be displayed next to others, even for some smaller developers and fees apple's 15% cut is more competitive than the usage of stripe.
Stripe takes 1.4% plus 0.25 cents
Apple takes 15-30%
This means if you offer $1 purchases or 50cent purchases etc. it would not make sense to use 3d party options as it would take 50% or more.

and the median IAP prices is about 6$ in 2020
stripe costs 1.4% 0.5$=26cent 1$=26cent 2$=28cent 3$=29cent 4$=31cent 5$=32cent 6$=34cent
+25cent
apple costs 15% 0.5$=7,5cent 1$=15cent 2$=30cent 3$=45cent 4$=60cent 5$=75cent 6$=90cent
so we can see apples IAP is competitive to 3$ and less
now what if apple took 10% instead of 15?
0.5$=5cent 1$=10cent 2$=20cent 3$=30cent 4$=40cent 5$=50cent 6$=60cent
now they still seem competitive for anything bellow 4$. and 4$ was the median IAP in 2017

And nothing stops apple from taking a fee from every app that is free. Such as:
service fee 0.001cents for every download

I'm trying to understand. You don't seem to understand how a software company functions. Stripe only processes payments (including subs), that's it. They provide zero services beyond that. They do not host your app. They do not cover bandwidth charges. They don't distribute an IDE or development tools. It's been explained to you ad nauseam, but the commission Apple charges includes all that, and processing fees. You are acting in bad faith and not making a fair comparison.

You're giving devs an option to save a few pennies, while increasing their accounting costs, and forcing Apple to nickel and dime developers.

I'm done.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I'm trying to understand. You don't seem to understand how a software company functions. Stripe only processes payments (including subs), that's it. They provide zero services beyond that. They do not host your app. They do not cover bandwidth charges. They don't distribute an IDE or development tools. It's been explained to you ad nauseam, but the commission Apple charges includes all that, and processing fees. You are acting in bad faith and not making a fair comparison.

You're giving devs an option to save a few pennies, while increasing their accounting costs, and forcing Apple to nickel and dime developers.

I'm done.

I perfectly understand how a software company works, we just fundamental disagree that they should be treated differently than any normal retail business. The only difference is apple have unlimited shelf space and close to zero transportation costs.
And Apple has never said their commission is to cover for anything but the act of being their agent/commissionaire and sell the app, but you have just assumed this based on no information.
Bandwidth charges= transportation costs
app hosting= shelf storage
development tools= packaging solution

and I have said multiple times it's completely fine for them to take any commission they want inside the store for the services they provide.

When it comes to IAP, apple provides zero services but payment .
IAP uses ZERO bandwidth
IAP uses ZERO storage space
IAP uses ZERO employee time
IAP uses ZERO customer support
IAP uses ZERO development resources
IAP uses ONE MANDATED use of iTunes billing and 15-30% commission

And any developer will save 90%+ of their costs for anything above 10$
But for 80% or more of developers will still use apple's IAP solution for anything below 7$
and Apple won't need to nickel and dime developers as it will still stay profitable

 

[laptech]

I'm trying to understand. You don't seem to understand how a software company functions. Stripe only processes payments (including subs), that's it. They provide zero services beyond that. They do not host your app. They do not cover bandwidth charges. They don't distribute an IDE or development tools. It's been explained to you ad nauseam, but the commission Apple charges includes all that, and processing fees. You are acting in bad faith and not making a fair comparison.

You're giving devs an option to save a few pennies, while increasing their accounting costs, and forcing Apple to nickel and dime developers.

I'm done.

And what I have quoted is what you and others have failed to understand from those making the opposite argument

They do not host your app. They do not cover bandwidth charges. They don't distribute an IDE or development tools. It's been explained to you ad nauseam, but the commission Apple charges includes all that, and processing fees.

You and others keep going on about the 30% commission paying for other things which myself and others have said we disagree with because there is no evidence that it is used for anything other than payment processing. Where does it state that the 30% is used to help pay for bandwidth charges or development tools or hosting charges?

In business it is generally accepted that when you charge a monthly or yearly fee for something, that fee is designed to pay the running of the business, paying rent, utility bills, employee wages, taxes. Thus meaning company bosses will sit down with their accountants and work out how much it will take both monthly and yearly to run the company which will allow them to determine how much they charge their customers. Apple charge $99 a year for an app developer to host apps on the store and if a app developer choses to have in-app purchases a 30% then 15% commission is charge for payment processing.

Now here is where Apple defenders are struggling to understand the problem. Due to what Apple has done with the Dutch dating apps it was made clear that 3% is what is actually used for payment processing and that they will use the remaining 27% still on commission. Commission on what exactly? It cannot be for running other services of the app store because those who do not have IAP (in-app purchases) only pay $99 a year. Therefore if Apple defenders are saying the 27% is used for to pay for running other services/operations in the app store then why are IAP developers being penalised in paying more to run the app store than those who do not use IAP?. Apple should only be charging a commission on what it costs for payment processing, nothing more but they exposed themselves with the Dutch issue that payment processing only takes up 3% which means Apple had to have heavily over inflated the cost of payment processing and made everyone believe it costs 30% when actual fact it doesn't.