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

[Sophisticatednut]

If other app stores exist there will be no more choice to stay safe.
The garbage company run by garbage people previously called Facebook will open a store, bamboozle your kids school, your city, and whatever else to host their apps with them, you will have no real choice to not have Facebook spy on you as much as they like.
Developers will lose too, there will be stores that host the rip-off’s of their apps, making piracy hundreds of times worse.

Apples own numbers shows the AppStore isn’t safe. Less than 3% of rejected apps are fraudulent or bad code.

Piracy didn’t kill the PC market and won’t kill the phone market. And you could always force Facebook to be more careful with user info with laws. Such as not allowing the us government to spy on it.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Maybe regulated in a way where apple gets to keep its commissions for third party IAP solutions.

What do you think apple will do if they can’t keep a commission on thirds party solutions? Or links outside the app?

 

[AppliedMicro]

It doesn't make sense for Apple to try and contort themselves to try and hit a moving target

Yet that is exactly what they're doing.
"Contorting" themselves in every which weird way at the moment, with the Dutch regulators.

But not because Apple would be forced to or it was in any way unclear how they could comply with the ACM!
No, complying would be very, very simple: Just allow apps with external payment and be bloody done with it.

They're doing it of their volition: "contorting" themselves, as you say, week after week, to come up with new, ever "creative" ways to skirt the ruling and its spirit:

- Coming up with a new 27% commission on external transactions
- Introducing new app "entitlements" that apps have to apply for
- Trying to force developers to publish new, separate new app with external IPA.

Other OSes allow for a lot of things, doesn't apply to Apple.

Well, as far as I know macOS is a popular OS that is made by Apple.
And so is their own Mac App Store their service.
So yes, seems that it does to Apple too, indeed.

What many consumers will miss is the simplicity and convenience of having centralized payments, being able to manage subscriptions in one place, being able to cancel subscriptions without having to jump through a bunch of hoops.

So what if I prefer to buy my games from one place with centralised billing and download them all from the same trusted place. Only... that platform could be the Steam Store or the Epic Games Store for me?

Also, why we're at jumping through hoops...
As the ACM correctly found:

"app providers are also not able to contact their app users directly for customer service purposes. Dating-app providers are unable to handle any issues regarding invoicing, cancellations, and refunds directly with their customers because they do not have access to the necessary data"

? Why shouldn't I be able to receive customer support and manage billing from the very provider that actually provides me the dating / date matching service?

? Why should I jump through Apple's "hoops" for billing, if Apple don't even provide me the online service to arrange dates? Surely I should take my issues to the company providing my service, shouldn't I?

Google allows for other app stores, few users download them

So what's the problem then?
Apple can just allow external payments then, to comply with the regulator's order and preempt legal action.

You say few people would use it anyway.
So what's preventing Apple from just complying and living happily ever after with a 30% commission, cause few people would look out for alternatives anyway?

 

[AppliedMicro]

If other app stores exist there will be no more choice to stay safe.

Don't use other stores then.

Choice made, problem solved.

The garbage company run by garbage people previously called Facebook will open a store (and) you will have no real choice

Oh, so now we agree that having no "real" choice is an issue then?

Do the developers have a "real" choice, such as for their gym membership?

 

[I7guy]

What do you think apple will do if they can’t keep a commission on thirds party solutions? Or links outside the app?

Links outside of the app I can understand not receiving commissions on. As to what apple will do is anybodys’ guess…capitulate, close the App Store, boot the dating apps from the store..who knows such things.

 

[robco74]

Yet that is exactly what they're doing.
"Contorting" themselves in every which weird way at the moment, with the Dutch regulators.

But not because Apple would be forced to or it was in any way unclear how they could comply with the ACM!
No, complying would be very, very simple: Just allow apps with external payment and be bloody done with it.

They're doing it of their volition: "contorting" themselves, as you say, week after week, to come up with new, ever "creative" ways to skirt the ruling and its spirit:

- Coming up with a new 27% commission on external transactions
- Introducing new app "entitlements" that apps have to apply for
- Trying to force developers to publish new, separate new app with external IPA.

Well, as far as I know macOS is a popular OS that is made by Apple.
And so is their own Mac App Store their service.
So yes, seems that it does to Apple too, indeed.

So what if I prefer to buy my games from one place with centralised billing and download them all from the same trusted place. Only... that platform could be the Steam Store or the Epic Games Store for me?

Also, why we're at jumping through hoops...
As the ACM correctly found:

"app providers are also not able to contact their app users directly for customer service purposes. Dating-app providers are unable to handle any issues regarding invoicing, cancellations, and refunds directly with their customers because they do not have access to the necessary data"

? Why shouldn't I be able to receive customer support and manage billing from the very provider that actually provides me the dating / date matching service?

? Why should I jump through Apple's "hoops" for billing, if Apple don't even provide me the online service to arrange dates? Surely I should take my issues to the company providing my service, shouldn't I?

So what's the problem then?
Apple can just allow external payments then, to comply with the regulator's order and preempt legal action.

You say few people would use it anyway.
So what's preventing Apple from just complying and living happily ever after with a 30% commission, cause few people would look out for alternatives anyway?

The commission isn't new, Apple just reduced it to cover the part that goes toward payment processing. This has been explained multiple times. If you are at all familiar with iOS, app entitlements are not new either. This ruling applies only to NL, so yes, they need their own app binary, since their ruling only applies there, and because it only applies to a very small subset of apps.

If you want to download games from Steam or EGS, knock yourself out. You can play them on your PC or Mac. You can't play them on a console or mobile device. It's not just Apple either, Sony, MS, Nintendo, and Google are all just as greedy. No cross-platform purchasing for you, unless you're going after that next.

You don't get customer support from the app provider because the purchase was made through Apple. If you want to go through them, go to their website and subscribe there. Apple's policies on this have been largely known for over a decade. The developer should have considered this before agreeing to those terms and publishing their app.

The thing is, given the reaction, this isn't about payment processing. They want to go after the commission. If that's the case, quit ****ing around and just do it already. I think Apple should push this as far as they can legally. They don't really have much to lose.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Right, Apple needs to force the issue and finally make politicians put up or shut up. Regulate app stores, or don't. Decide how to do it and do it already. Once they've decided, Apple can alter their business to accommodate. It doesn't make sense for Apple to try and contort themselves to try and hit a moving target. Decide what you want the new system to be and enact it.

Other OSes allow for a lot of things, doesn't apply to Apple.

What many consumers will miss is the simplicity and convenience of having centralized payments, being able to manage subscriptions in one place, being able to cancel subscriptions without having to jump through a bunch of hoops.

All so some devs can opt out, only to find that most consumers are actually happy with the current system, and few will take advantage of multiple payment providers when offered, as evidence by the Epic case against Apple.

Google allows for other app stores, few users download them. Epic put their games there, few users bothered. Google allows sideloading, almost nobody does it. Epic offered the APK, few users bothered after getting all the security warnings. This isn't about consumer protection at all. This is about app developers complaining about a system that many have profited from for over a decade now.

Perhaps we need an international agreement that platforms can have some degree of exclusivity for a time before they are required to open them up. That would still provide some incentive to create. It would also allow Apple to get the App Store into a place where they can put it on autopilot and move resources into other projects.

If that’s the case then close to nothing will change if people prefer apples walled garden.
EUs Digital Markets act puts companies as gate keepers when they reach a some thresholds

• €8 billion in annual turnover in the European Economic Area
• market capitalisation of €80 billion
• provide a core platform service in at least three EU countries
• have at least 45 million monthly end users,
• And more than 10 000 business users

So there you have a great starting point. Personally I think it should be lower.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Links outside of the app I can understand not receiving commissions on. As to what apple will do is anybodys’ guess…capitulate, close the App Store, boot the dating apps from the store..who knows such things.

Offer IAP marked up by 30%. Communicate to users that if you are happy paying the Apple tax no action is necessary, carry on and everyone is happy but if you'd rather save 30% and have better support, switch to direct billing and cancel the IAP subscription.

That’s sounds like a good way as well

 

[Maximara]

Apples own numbers shows the AppStore isn’t safe. Less than 3% of rejected apps are fraudulent or bad code.

What is the source for this?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The commission isn't new, Apple just reduced it to cover the part that goes toward payment processing. This has been explained multiple times. If you are at all familiar with iOS, app entitlements are not new either. This ruling applies only to NL, so yes, they need their own app binary, since their ruling only applies there, and because it only applies to a very small subset of apps.

Great, apple apple wasn’t always in a dominating position ethe or accused for anti competitive practices.

They don’t need special binaries just geofencing.

If you want to download games from Steam or EGS, knock yourself out. You can play them on your PC or Mac. You can't play them on a console or mobile device. It's not just Apple either, Sony, MS, Nintendo, and Google are all just as greedy. No cross-platform purchasing for you, unless you're going after that next.

Sounds like a whataboutism

You don't get customer support from the app provider because the purchase was made through Apple. If you want to go through them, go to their website and subscribe there. Apple's policies on this have been largely known for over a decade. The developer should have considered this before agreeing to those terms and publishing their app.

Well times have changed

The thing is, given the reaction, this isn't about payment processing. They want to go after the commission. If that's the case, quit ****ing around and just do it already. I think Apple should push this as far as they can legally. They don't really have much to lose.

They did. It’s not the ACM fault that apple tries to create loopholes for what they said by interpreting it as favorable to themselves than just sticking to the wording.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

What is the source for this?

It’s from the internal emails from apple in the apple vs epic trial

 

[Abazigal]

The thing is, given the reaction, this isn't about payment processing. They want to go after the commission. If that's the case, quit ****ing around and just do it already. I think Apple should push this as far as they can legally. They don't really have much to lose.

It has never been about choice for the consumer, but money for the developers. I agree the developers should have simply made this clear right from the start. Maybe they were afraid that it may jeopardise their case if their motives came across as being “too” financially motivated?

 

[AppliedMicro]

If you are at all familiar with iOS, app entitlements are not new either. This ruling applies only to NL, so yes, they need their own app binary, since their ruling only applies there, and because it only applies to a very small subset of apps.

All smoke and mirrors.

Whether app entitlements have existed or not (I know they did), they are not required to comply with the ACM ruling (or the one in Korea).
You do not need a separate and/or new app binary to offer both ways of payment. A tiny piece of conditional code can check where a customer is located or where an app was bought.
Whether the ruling only narrowly applies to the Netherlands or dating apps is irrelevant, too.

The thing is: Apple is trying every trick in the book to comply with the ruling only as narrowly as they think they can get away with.

Are they entitled to do that? Probably - that's a long-held position in competition law and its enforcement.

At the same time, they can't (reasonably) and shouldn't claim to be unable to comply with the recent rulings.
It's very easy comply if they hadn't chosen to only comply in the narrowest sense conceivable.

If you want to go through them, go to their website and subscribe there.

Sure, just let developers link it in-app then, can't they?

Also, while that may be allowed for certain so-called "reader" content, it's not for enabling paid in-app functionality. And not for consumables either, I think?

The thing is, given the reaction, this isn't about payment processing. They want to go after the commission.

We absolutely agree on that. ?

The dating apps want to lower their commission costs.
And Apple wants to charge as far and wide-reaching as they can.

Everything else is of minor significance in this battle.
That also includes Apple's pretext of guaranteeing user security.

 

[robco74]

Finally, you admit that you don't like Apple because they make money. Wasn't so hard now was it?

 

[I7guy]

Offer IAP marked up by 30%. Communicate to users that if you are happy paying the Apple tax no action is necessary, carry on and everyone is happy but if you'd rather save 30% and have better support, switch to direct billing and cancel the IAP subscription.

That’s sounds like a good way as well

Sure. If you would rather keep your cc information safe, no hassle return fees no action needed. Else, take your chances and click this link.

Sounds like a pro-consumer choice.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Finally, you admit that you don't like Apple because they make money. Wasn't so hard now was it?

Wrong. I like them very much to make money, since I own their stock (directly and indirectly).
But do I like them to make money as part of a duopoly of big gatekeepers for 99% of mobile apps along with Google? No.

Sounds like a pro-consumer choice.

Depends on the price and value I can get and choose from. If I wouldn't (at least somewhat) trust my dating app provider, I wouldn't provide them my pictures and personal data in the first place, would I?

 

[robco74]

Wrong. I like them very much to make money, since I own their stock (directly and indirectly).
But do I like them to make money as part of a duopoly of big gatekeepers for 99% of mobile apps along with Google? No.

I don't like the duopoly either, but all the major competitors tried and failed. Honestly, BB, MS, Palm/HP, and Amazon should have stepped up sooner and with better offerings. I'm sure Nokia was a big disappointment in the EU, but MS certainly didn't help.

The underlying issue the EU really needs to address is why the Europe lacks a stronger domestic tech industry.

 

[I7guy]

[…]


Depends on the price and value I can get and choose from. If I wouldn't (at least somewhat) trust my dating app provider, I wouldn't provide them my pictures and personal data in the first place, would I?

Hundreds of Millions thought that about Experian, and yet….

 

[I7guy]

[…]

The underlying issue the EU really needs to address is why the Europe lacks a stronger domestic tech industry.

Been answered in this thread.

 

[Maximara]

Yes every developer knew about the 30% BUT what they didn't know was just how inflated that percentage was (snip)

Again 30% was STANDARD and only Epic and Itch.io were charging less. Epic is hoping for profits in 2023 but estimates project 2027.

 

[Abazigal]

I don't like the duopoly either, but all the major competitors tried and failed. Honestly, BB, MS, Palm/HP, and Amazon should have stepped up sooner and with better offerings. I'm sure Nokia was a big disappointment in the EU, but MS certainly didn't help.

The underlying issue the EU really needs to address is why the Europe lacks a stronger domestic tech industry.

That the dominant tech platforms are overwhelming American probably gives the best answer - the lack of government interference and oversight in the US.

I guess it’s really a “there is good in bad, there is bad in good” kind of situation. You want to implement legislation to protect your businesses, it also means creating the sort of environment that may not be conducive for big businesses to thrive, because there is an implicit penalty in being too big and too successful.

It’s the opposite in the US. You get the benefits of huge tech giants (which is great for soft power around the world, as well as enforcing global sanctions), but also the drawbacks (harder to rein them in).

Perhaps these are but two sides of the same coin. You can’t have one without the other.

 

[Maximara]

Apples own numbers shows the AppStore isn’t safe. Less than 3% of rejected apps are fraudulent or bad code.

It’s from the internal emails from apple in the apple vs epic trial
View attachment 1959518

Add how does "10% 2.2 Apps that exhibit bugs will be rejected" and "3% 2.1 Apps that crash will be rejected" add up to "3% of rejected apps are fraudulent or bad code."?

Also that "14% information needed", I assume means Apple needs to know who the developer was. "3% 22.2 contain Apps that false, fraudulent or misleading representations or names use" and "2% 17.2 Apps that require users to share personal information, such as email address and date of birth, in order to function will be rejections" are also important. The 52% is a collection of who knows what.

Apple says it rejected almost 1 million new apps in 2020 and explains common reasons why gives a more recent view:
"* 48,000 apps were removed for using “hidden or undocumented features,” often software tools that Apple uses internally for its own apps.
*150,000 apps were removed because they were spam or copied another app.
*215,000 apps were removed because they collected too much user data or other privacy violations.
*95,000 apps were removed for fraud, often because they changed after Apple’s review to become a different kind of app, including gambling apps or pornography.
And on top of all that.
*Apple booted 470,000 accounts from its developer program because of fraud.

 

[djphat2000]

Which as I have pointed out before ignores the fact iOS runs on both iPhone and iPad and that messes up all the arguments especially if you add in the magic keyboard:
View attachment 1959250

Well, they did separate iOS from iPad with iPadOS. Yes this is rather minor, but does allow it to be treated differently than iOS. More features are added that iOS can't do, to bring it closer (not all the way) to what MacOS can do. Still missing from that but, more than iOS.

I don't expect this to be fully merged since it's just not made for the same purpose. Touch screen Mac's in any form most likely will not happen, at least not anytime soon. I just don't think people realize that this is the case. They just think well, Apple makes MacOS and iOS/iPadOS. Just make them the same and **** about it. Which is completely counter to the truth. They are made for specific purposes. Also, from a time when you didn't have all this CPU/GPU power in such a small device. That took time. Yes, we have M1 and Pro/Max and more to come, that can run it all effectively. But, again that is just happening now. And going forward, we will most likely still see A series chips in iOS/iPadOS with the Pro line on the lower tier M line.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Again 30% was STANDARD and only Epic and Itch.io were charging less. Epic is hoping for profits in 2022 but estimates project 2027.

Seriously, how often are you going to repeat that?

30% may have been standard charged by providers of proprietary closed platforms with gatekeeping power (of which Apple is certainly one. So are Microsoft for the Xbox, Nintendo for the Switch or Sony for Playstation) And if true, it’s evidence of collusion by market participants.

Other competitors for software licensing/payment processing, i.e. the ones that were subject to direct competition have long charged far less (eSellerate, Fastspring, Paddle, Stripe, etc)

 

[mrochester]

Seriously, how often are you going to repeat that?

30% may have been standard charged by providers of proprietary closed platforms with gatekeeping power (of which Apple is certainly one. So are Microsoft for the Xbox, Nintendo for the Switch or Sony for Playstation) And if true, it’s evidence of collusion by market participants.

Other competitors for software licensing/payment processing, i.e. the ones that were subject to direct competition have long charged far less (eSellerate, Fastspring, Paddle, Stripe, etc)

But you aren’t comparing like for like. Stripe does not operate an App Store on a 3% payment processing fee. They just operate payment processing.