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

[robco74]

Why? Instead of dealing with developers directly, Apple will deal with third-party distributors. They will publish apps the same way they publish media in News+, or music in iTunes. The media will still be available, just not on Apple's terms. Apple sells and streams a lot of music without having a direct relationship with the recording artist. Each aggregator will presumably offer different terms and developers can choose which one they want to do business with. Some may offer a complete suite of services, others may just offer the basics. Far better than the single set of terms offered by Apple.

This will also allow Apple to ink individual deals with the major digital providers directly rather than trying to shoehorn them in with the same terms they offer indie developers. Apple sees value in having Amazon, Netflix, Disney, etc. on their platform, and those companies will likely find value in being on Apple devices. But instead of the 30% commission that they currently offer across the board, they can negotiate their own terms.

Apple can monetize their development tools, that isn't unusual. Developers already pay for IDEs from MS, JetBrains, and others. Apple can also start shipping separate iOS SKUs that match different regional requirements. An EU version might come preinstalled with Spotify instead of Apple Music. Or come with no preinstalled apps at all. It depends on what European regulators decide they want to permit Apple to do.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

They will publish apps the same way they publish media in News+

That one is a success. The news media is thrilled … it saved them … lot of new customers and payers. I see publishers flocking to it too with open arms.

The iOS / iPhone gold rush has passed. Digital businesses don’t really need the iPhone, don’t you get it? It’s nice but not a must support OS. The Web is a must. So they have other options. Time to more sustainable systems.

Meanwhile Apple can burn all the bridges in the process if it wishes … yes your new compound is Brilliant.

PS: Remove Safari from iOS too. Your News+ strategy is the iOS future. Go for it.

 

[Maximara]

That’s not how this works in ant world.
Do you honestly think steam store difrent binaries for Mac, windows and Linux games?

They have to use different binaries. LibreOffice for instance does exactly this (six different binaries as shown below) - all Steam does is hide the back end from you. Heck some programs that were designed for Windows and Mac don't work on Macs with 10.15 or latter and a few don't work on Windows 11. Lego Hobbit (a Steam game I have) case in point as it used the WINE wrapper method of porting.

 

[robco74]

Music is still wildly successful. Not only does Apple Music have plenty of subscribers, but song sales are also strong.

Why would having multiple distribution options for your app be a bad thing?

Piss on Apple's digital strategy all you want, but it's the fastest growing division of Apple in terms of revenue.

Apple has over a billion devices in the wild. That's a lot. Not only that, but Apple customers tend so be more valuable for both direct sales and ad revenue. Trust me, digital businesses very much want to be on Apple devices. Not only that, but most digital content providers like to meet their customers where they are, which means making their services available on competing platforms. Even Apple is doing this, making TV+ available on competing smart TVs and set top boxes, and making more content available via the web.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

They have to use different binaries. LibreOffice for instance does exactly this (six different binaries as shown below) - all Steam does is hide the back end from you. Heck some programs that were designed for Windows and Mac don't work on Macs with 10.15 or latter and a few don't work on Windows 11. Lego Hobbit (a Steam game I have) case in point as it used the WINE wrapper method of porting.

View attachment 1958201

It’s not fat binaries. Only the Mac version might have a fat binary to work on x86 and M1 instruction sets.
I recommend you look up how these things work, because you might be mixing it with another technology.

Steam games doesn’t distribute the same core file with different “binaries”. But two completely different collection of files(if native or emulator) and you can check this. Download half life for Mac and for windows and look how .exe files are constructed plus .dll and other surrounding structures compared to the compact elegant nature of Mac programs

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Why? Instead of dealing with developers directly, Apple will deal with third-party distributors. They will publish apps the same way they publish media in News+, or music in iTunes. The media will still be available, just not on Apple's terms. Apple sells and streams a lot of music without having a direct relationship with the recording artist. Each aggregator will presumably offer different terms and developers can choose which one they want to do business with. Some may offer a complete suite of services, others may just offer the basics. Far better than the single set of terms offered by Apple.

Considering developers don’t need the publisher I can’t see why they would use them instead of making it available directly, and what services can they provide?. I don’t know if you understand the purpose of a publisher was/is and why they are not used.

This you describe sounds like cutting of your leg to fix a broken toe.

This will also allow Apple to ink individual deals with the major digital providers directly rather than trying to shoehorn them in with the same terms they offer indie developers. Apple sees value in having Amazon, Netflix, Disney, etc. on their platform, and those companies will likely find value in being on Apple devices. But instead of the 30% commission that they currently offer across the board, they can negotiate their own terms.

sounds like a killer deal, ignoring they already do individual deals

Apple can monetize their development tools, that isn't unusual. Developers already pay for IDEs from MS, JetBrains, and others. Apple can also start shipping separate iOS SKUs that match different regional requirements. An EU version might come preinstalled with Spotify instead of Apple Music. Or come with no preinstalled apps at all. It depends on what European regulators decide they want to permit Apple to do.

Eu would just require apple to stop advertising Apple Music on the phone. They would never in a million years want Spotify pre installed.

Music is still wildly successful. Not only does Apple Music have plenty of subscribers, but song sales are also strong.

Why would having multiple distribution options for your app be a bad thing?

Piss on Apple's digital strategy all you want, but it's the fastest growing division of Apple in terms of revenue.

Apple has over a billion devices in the wild. That's a lot. Not only that, but Apple customers tend so be more valuable for both direct sales and ad revenue. Trust me, digital businesses very much want to be on Apple devices. Not only that, but most digital content providers like to meet their customers where they are, which means making their services available on competing platforms. Even Apple is doing this, making TV+ available on competing smart TVs and set top boxes, and making more content available via the web.

All these things might sell Apple TV’s but will likely kill the iPhone just like the Mac was killed and is today barely relevant.

Sounds about 1.000 times worse than my solution, but Apple is free to burn everything to the ground if they believe it’s a smart move or not.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Allowing sideloading will be a trickier issue

It's not.

Their Enterprise Developer Program exists today and allows you to publish apps without being reviewed by Apple.
The user just has to manually trust the developer - and Apple instructs him how to do so.

It's being (ab)used today to install third-party alternative app stores on iPhones today.
And had been used by Facebook for "Research", allowing them virtually unlimited access to customer data on iPhones.

It just contractually prohibits third-party developers from distributing to the general public.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Why would having multiple distribution options for your app be a bad thing?

We are talking about Apps not Music. You seam to be conflating kinds of things. Apps are to music like o cars are to oranges. Why you are confusing these two things on this thread have no idea.

Back to Apps and the App Store … it’s not my place to suggest options as it may look like I wish something tailored to specific needs.

But why instead of creating over complicated compounds to hide what actually is being sold here as options like you suggest simply have a pay per use model … “close to the metal”.

For instance, like you I think having a single place where iPhone users can manage their app licenses is super nice. Keeping with this spirit, for certain kinds of apps, why not offer the option to suppliers to pay only for app hosting … like web sites hosts offer … unlisted as of not in the App Store catalogue at all … but still with the advantages Steve Jobs mentioned? Yes, have a submission and review fee and all that but none of the other layers rising the prices up.

No need to compound potential leads from Apple that one might not need, universal billing and payment, apple ads … nothing. No need for side loading … none of that.

Have suppliers use Apple Pay or other forms of secure payment at competitive rate.

This would give iPhone users such advantages as well as web like benefits but using iOS tech for digital businesses to freely innovate. So … instead of having digital businesses moving away from enriching the iOS ecossystem … say to web apps and all … have them still within their sphere of influence.

I think the greatest gift of Apple is producing ground breaking devices and OS … not so much digital services. So why condition something that one is not even that good at? Evidence shows that Apple devices actual need to be enriched by good and innovative digital services by third parties as much as the later needs them … leading to incredible Apple revenues and profits. It is already a win win situation … why burn bridges with marketing fluff, law suits, suspicions, regulators … creating a bad taste in the market. Don’t see the advantage in that for creating a better future founded in art, humanities and wealth.

The iPhone is great, amazing. But if I was going to elect the tech of the century probably would be Computers and the Internet. These artifacts are indeed the foundation that changed the world, not the iPhone.

PS: Now digital services wanting to be on Apple devices … I think they want to be in the devices people use. Not necessarily in the App Store. Given the current conditions they will probably move to Safari as Apple is suggesting …. And then people will move were the services of choice work the best. If people start to find that services work best in other devices that is were they will go. I think this is the logical conclusion.

I’ve seen this kind of behaviour from MS 15 years ago or so. It did not end well for MS. They got to distracted with glueing third party business models to their policies and tech, flanking them at will with pre installed competing services… rinsing the market … monkey dances for developers (Steve Balmer) … massive growth and than they were surpassed by Google and Apple … and lost the mobile phone revolution … digital services left their efforts to get back in the game … in the dust.

But hey, it might work well for Apple. Who knows if the Reality OS will kick another rev. Fingers crossed.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

It's not.

There Enterprise Developer Program exists today and allows you to publish apps without being reviewed by Apple.
The user just has to manually trust the developer - and Apple instructs him how to do so.

It's being (ab)used today to install third-party alternative app stores on iPhones today.
And had been used by Facebook for "Research", allowing them virtually unlimited access to customer data on iPhones.

It just contractually prohibits third-party developers from distributing to the general public.

Even better. Apple allows custom AppStore for businesses. Essentially everything is built, the infrastructure is constructed. Just some random switch and contracts is what’s preventing consumers to use it

Apple @ Work: Self Service in MDM creates a company approved App Store with built-in licensing, upgrades, and more - 9to5Mac

Self Service in an Apple enterprise environment creates a company App Store for apps, settings, printers, OS upgrades, and more.

9to5mac.com

 

[AppliedMicro]

Just some random switch

Arguably not even the switch - it's already there.

If you would trick the elderly and tech-savvy into installing phishing app and the like, you could do so today (as evidenced by the operators abusing the enterprise subscription licensing and terms).

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Arguably not even the switch - it's already there.

If you would trick the elderly and tech-savvy into installing phishing app and the like, you could do so today (as evidenced by the operators abusing the enterprise subscription licensing and terms).

Well just a virtual handshake is what’s stopping it then.

Well the AppStore is ripe with phishing and scammers. Everyone knows it’s safe and put blind trust in it

 

[Maximara]

It’s not fat binaries. Only the Mac version might have a fat binary to work on x86 and M1 instruction sets.
I recommend you look up how these things work, because you might be mixing it with another technology.

"Binary compatibility is an old idea that involves both hardware and software. Two computers can be considered binary compatible if they can run the same software without requiring that the application be recompiled. The computers can be different generations of machines from the same manufacturer, or they can be competing products from different vendors."

 

[robco74]

It's not.

There Enterprise Developer Program exists today and allows you to publish apps without being reviewed by Apple.
The user just has to manually trust the developer - and Apple instructs him how to do so.

It's being (ab)used today to install third-party alternative app stores on iPhones today.
And had been used by Facebook for "Research", allowing them virtually unlimited access to customer data on iPhones.

It just contractually prohibits third-party developers from distributing to the general public.

I was referring more to the carriers. Security is one of the reasons they "let" Apple develop iOS without a lot of interference.

 

[AppliedMicro]

I was referring more to the carriers. Security is one of the reasons they "let" Apple develop iOS without a lot of interference.

It’s a complete non-issue with regards to Apple allowing linking to outside store or even sideloading in a user context.

The carriers have no problem letting Android devices on their networks. And those can install apps from outside the Play Store or manufacturer‘s store. The biggest U.S. cellular carrier even openly tells you openly how to do it.

We‘re not talking about rooting, unlocking the boot loader or, god forbid, the baseband firmware.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

"Binary compatibility is an old idea that involves both hardware and software. Two computers can be considered binary compatible if they can run the same software without requiring that the application be recompiled. The computers can be different generations of machines from the same manufacturer, or they can be competing products from different vendors."

And as you elegantly pointed out.
The programs are not binary compatible on any level. The software is recompiled and remade to fit the different software and hardware. This is not difrent windows versions running on different computer manufacturing hardware

It would be close to impossible to create fat binaries for windows and Mac.
Wine is just a lightweight emulator

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I was referring more to the carriers. Security is one of the reasons they "let" Apple develop iOS without a lot of interference.

Has carriers ever cared about safety? They offer network dongles for computers….

 

[Maximara]

And as you elegantly pointed out.
The programs are not binary compatible on any level. The software is recompiled and remade to fit the different software and hardware. This is not difrent windows versions running on different computer manufacturing hardware

It would be close to impossible to create fat binaries for windows and Mac.

Depends on the program. Very simple programs like anything RenPy builds have an all-in-one option (see picture at end). But more complex programs don't have that luxury unless they are planned from the start to be cross platform.

My point was Epic's CEO has this Gollumish idea of having the customer "buy software in one place, knowing that they'd have it on all devices and all platforms." That would mean iOS, Android OS, Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo, Windows, MacOS, and Linux. As I said even Peter Molyneux would say to scale it back a bit.

Anybody who knows anything about coding and program formats knows this is utter pie in the sky insanity as there would either have to be some ultimate translator so calls made by the program would be translated (emulation is just too slow in most cases) into the various OSes could understand or the poor developer is required to write code that supports all those OSes. Given how companies want to save time guess which they will likely choose?

Heck, there are open source programs on Steam (such as MegaGlest) that state "We no longer produce Mac OS builds since we lost the contributor providing the Mac builds, as well as the sponsor providing us with Mac build infrastructure." Well hope you don't want to use the megaverse (or whatever the buzzword is this month) store because you will have to support "all platforms".

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Depends on the program. Very simple programs like RenPy have an all-in-one option:

We are Obviously not talking about simple programs but extremely complicated ones such as video games or photoshop, web browser etc etc

 

[Maximara]

Depends on the program. Very simple programs like anything RenPy builds have an all-in-one option (see picture at end).

We are Obviously not talking about simple programs but extremely complicated ones such as video games or photoshop, web browser etc etc

Very next line:

But more complex programs don't have that luxury unless they are planned from the start to be cross platform.

Again you avoided the point I was making that for this mad dream of having the customer "buy software in one place, knowing that they'd have it on all devices and all platforms." to have any validity there would have to be some way to run said program on iOS, Android OS, Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo, Windows, MacOS, and Linux. Odds are the developer is going to get saddled with that little project or they are going to have to pay for some master compiler to generate the proper code.

And before you pull out the "have access the Cloud" idea - you generally can't "buy software" that runs in the Cloud but rather buy access. If the servers ever get shut down ala City of Heroes well sucks to be you.

Anybody who actually pulls this apart can see where it will likely lead and it isn't a pleasant place. You really won't own the software but rather the rights to access. Live Services writ large. And if your internet is crap or expensive (good part of the US) then customers are going to get hit in the pocketbook again.

So customers will likely pay more and not own anything but the OS, developers will have to spend time and money making software limiting the access of smaller developers and the only real winner will be the cable companies and multimillion gaming companies. Wonderful. /s

 

[ader42]

If a developer uses an alternative payment method to Apple’ IAP then it will actually mean more work for Apple (auditing, invoicing etc) so I think Apple should charge an extra fee on top of the 30% for those that use an alternative payment processing method.

 

[AppliedMicro]

My point was Epic's CEO has this Gollumish idea of having the customer "buy software in one place, knowing that they'd have it on all devices and all platforms." That would mean iOS, Android OS, Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo, Windows, MacOS, and Linux. As I said even Peter Molyneux would say to scale it back a bit.

What he meant was a cross-platform store that allows cross-platform buys:

"What the world really needs now is a single store that works with all platforms"

? No, it wouldn't be just one such store in the world, but multiple competing ones.
? No, they won't deliver the very same binary or application package for every available OS platform.
? No, by "all" devices and platforms he didn't mean absolutely-every-conceivable platform and device in existence.

Yes, his exact choice of words (if he even said it exactly as reported in the interview) may have been slighty imprecise. But it's quite clear for any reasonable person what was meant: a cross-platform store that allows cross-platform buys. Not that everything would be running on every single platform - but that something running on multiple platforms could be distributed through a single store to every applicable platform (that the developers have chosen to make it available for). Without consumers having to buy more than once from different stores, just because they're using more than one platform.

Seriously, how ****ing hard to understand is it?!?
All that bickering and splitting hairs about words is getting ridiculous.

?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Very next line:

Well when I responded, that was all that you had writen in your comment

Again you avoided the point I was making that for this mad dream of having the customer "buy software in one place, knowing that they'd have it on all devices and all platforms." to have any validity there would have to be some way to run said program on iOS, Android OS, Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo, Windows, MacOS, and Linux. Odds are the developer is going to get saddled with that little project or they are going to have to pay for some master compiler to generate the proper code.

And before you pull out the "have access the Cloud" idea - you generally can't "buy software" that runs in the Cloud but rather buy access. If the servers ever get shut down ala City of Heroes well sucks to be you.

Anybody who actually pulls this apart can see where it will likely lead and it isn't a pleasant place. You really won't own the software but rather the rights to access. Live Services writ large. And if your internet is crap or expensive (good part of the US) then customers are going to get hit in the pocketbook again.

Well we already have it right now. Steam and epic have separate copies of the game. You run the epic/steam store and it knows it’s being run on a Mac/windows computer and download the right copy(if available). It has nothing to do with the cloud. Just as angry birds on iOS is one build and angry birds on android is a completely different one.

**** even call of duty have a separate built for every platform that are recompiled and ported.

Programmers will choose themselves if they want to make their game available for every platform or just one or two. There’s a lot of games on steam that doesn’t work on Mac, and some only work on windows and Linux etc. if epic store existed on every store they might only show titles compatible with the system you run on unless you want to browse everything.

You can’t just press a button and shove it through a compiler to make it work on a new/ all systems and would be to dumb to try.

I can with confidence say we will never have a time within our lifetime that will allow you to take a call of duty game, copy the folder to Mac, and run it, copy it to Linux distro and run it, and copy it to iOS and run it. This will never happen and would be brain dead to even try

 

[Sophisticatednut]

My point was Epic's CEO has this Gollumish idea of having the customer "buy software in one place, knowing that they'd have it on all devices and all platforms." That would mean iOS, Android OS, Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo, Windows, MacOS, and Linux. As I said even Peter Molyneux would say to scale it back a bit.

At no point in the history has anyone proposed that we will have One supreme store to rule them all. Epic envision that they(and other) will have the ability to compete on all platforms independently from the gatekeepers.

Then they might have a iOS/android store so you won’t ever need to worry about purchasing your library again as they might already have a cross platform app so you don’t need to purchase angry birds twice when you change system.

Anybody who knows anything about coding and program formats knows this is utter pie in the sky insanity as there would either have to be some ultimate translator so calls made by the program would be translated (emulation is just too slow in most cases) into the various OSes could understand or the poor developer is required to write code that supports all those OSes. Given how companies want to save time guess which they will likely choose?

Heck, there are open source programs on Steam (such as MegaGlest) that state "We no longer produce Mac OS builds since we lost the contributor providing the Mac builds, as well as the sponsor providing us with Mac build infrastructure." Well hope you don't want to use the megaverse (or whatever the buzzword is this month) store because you will have to support "all platforms".

It will work like a library or bookstore. Not every book is translated to every language in one book cover. But some books have multiple translations and you can pick the one you want to read, and others have only English. Want to read Pinocchio in English? Grab that book. Want to read it in Japanese? Then grab that one if it exist

 

[AppliedMicro]

some books have multiple translations and you can pick the one you want to read, and others have only English. Want to read Pinocchio in English? Grab that book. Want to read it in Japanese? Then grab that one if it exist

The great thing being: You could get all available translations with one buy - and switch between them while reading the book (well, at least if the publisher agrees).

 

[Artemis70]

And why does Apple need to comply with a small country like Netherland. Just pull out of the country. - From Previous Macrumors comment

Because Dutch people have spent over 1 billion euro's in the App Store since it was introduced. Not to mention the money spent on hardware. This small country does contribute more than an insignificant amount to Apple's bottom line.