Are you able to buy computing hardware that isn't sold by Apple? Does the iPhone have an internet connection?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple to Collect 27% Commission on Third-Party App Payment Systems in the Netherlands
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I find it's also about time for VISA, Mastercard & Co. to start suing, too.
They just didn't realize that Apple is slowly anticompetively elbowing them out of the market.
Someday Apple will request a BANK license, and POW kill them slowly.
Ohh I forgot, they already did request it somehow with for Apple Card.
Comes time comes extinction.
Payment provider, wake up, you're next on Apples list!
They just didn't realize that Apple is slowly anticompetively elbowing them out of the market.
Someday Apple will request a BANK license, and POW kill them slowly.
Ohh I forgot, they already did request it somehow with for Apple Card.
Comes time comes extinction.
Payment provider, wake up, you're next on Apples list!
As pointed out before 30% was the defacto standard and Apple pulled that from Nintendo's playbook.
"At best, these statements reflect Apple’s initial expectation that the App Store was not projected to be profitable for Apple. (584) Apple’s miscalculation, while hugely profitable, does not evidence consumers lock-in with iOS devices. While Apple’s calculated risk returned incredible profits, the reality is that Apple has maintained the same general rules with both consumers and developers since the inception of the iOS devices.
Epic Games’ arguments that Apple has otherwise repeatedly increased prices does not persuade, where Apple’s rate has always been 30%." Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 812 Filed 09/10/21
"Generally, plaintiff must pay 30% across most platforms. Indeed, for example, Epic Games has agreed to such a rate on all Fortnite transactions via the Microsoft (Xbox) Store, the PlayStation Store, the Nintendo eShop, and Google Play." Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 812 Filed 09/10/21 pg 14
By your logic (if can be called that) they must all be in collusion with each other because they all change 30%.
"What the world really needs now is a single store that works with all platforms," Sweeney said in an interview with Bloomberg. "Right now software ownership is fragmented between the iOS App Store, the Android Google Play marketplace, different stores on Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo Switch, and then Microsoft Store and the Mac App Store. (...) Epic already is working to create a means “to buy software in one place, knowing that they’d have it on all devices and all platforms,” he told Bloomberg."
If you think that isn't going to result in Epic becoming a monopoly there is some ocean front property in Colorado somebody wants to sell cheap. /s
One Epic App to Rule Them All - Sauron 2.0
Yes. It’s the commission developers pay for using Apples IP, being available in the iOS App Store and profit for Apple.
you realise that hosting, bandwidth, software development, staff etc etc all cost money
But, assuming they are following the same rules as other companies, they CAN charge a percentage of the developers yearly earnings. They could even charge a percentage of the developers earnings that has nothing whatsoever to do with Apple, if they could get anyone to sign. They could charge based on how much is it raining in Austria. They can do whatever the hell they can get enough developers to agree to, as long as they are not deemed a monopoly and otherwise not breaking any laws, two companies can agree to whatever they want in a contract. The only limiting factor is whether you can get your customers (=developers) to agree to it. It doesn't seem like the 30% cut has stopped developers from being on the platform, has it? It's not like they started at 0%, and then when they grabbed all the customers, jacked the price up. It was 30% right from the get-go. You can turn the whole argument upside down, and argue that if the 30% was unreasonable, developers would not have agreed to participate in the first place, iPhone would have no apps and Apple would not be in a position where the word "monopoly" would even come into play.
The $99 is just a fee to curb fraud. If it was free there would be millions of fake accounts made by scammers.
Apple wants the App Store to be appealing for its customers. More than 85% being free is part of that. Apple wants there to be apps that could not exist if they need to make money or apps that some nerd made just because it is cool. Increasing the license fee will get in the way of that.
Yeah because Google also acts anticompetitive, they forbid manufacturers pre-installing alternative AppStores.
There is a lawsuit going on for this too, that's not a secret and why the term "duopoly" often pops up.
No! They never claimed (to my knowledge) that 30% is just to cover costs. They always argued that they are providing a value to the developer and want to earn money on providing that value.
Everyone arguing that Apple should only be able to charge enough to cover costs should be banned from the discussion.
Apple Card issued by Goldman Sachs which is a Bank
Hmmm so Apple does still know how much money was charged to the user? Or is the developer asked to keep track of those purchases and then give Apple 27% every month, or however often? (I'm just trying to understand the setup).
So, in an app, the user is presented with a screen that asks for a credit card. The user enters their details and proceeds with the purchase. Then the developer gets paid. At this point, does Apple know how much was charged and charges the developer, or does the developer say "Hey, I made $500 this month from third-party purchases. Here's your 27%"?
Costco's US market share is right around the same number as Apple's worldwide market share, interestingly.
A more apt comparison would be Amazon, since they have about half of internet sales and growing, I assume they should be regulated soon too, right? If they are, what percentage should they be allowed to earn?
What IP? LOL The ones they created with monopoly in mind?
E.g. Metal, why didn't they use Vulkan or continue improving OpenGL/CL.
All was done only for one purpose, exploiting the market through anticompetitive behavior.
Last edited:
The latter. The developer tells Apple at the end of each month how much was made using 3rd party payment mechanisms and Apple invoices them for 27% of that. Failure to pay would result in Apple withholding payment that has flowed through Apple or revoking the developers account.
If run in a similar fashion to other industries, the developer is asked to keep track, and Apple audits that the numbers are real. Apple does not know which user specifically made a purchase.
Got it! Thank you for taking some time to explain. I appreciate it.
Being able to buy an Android doesn’t make Apple not part of a duopoly. Not sure what the internet connection question is about.
Then what was the point? Now users can pay in a much less secure way and devs end up with the same share as before, am I missing something? Seems like much fuss and complexity added to Apple's systems for nothing. Doesn't seem good for anyone.
What that this have to do with the price of tea? Apple isn't even dominant in the Netherlands.
Internet connection = web apps + cloud service apps. Example: Microsoft loudly complained about Apple requiring them to submit Game Pass applications for App Store review, then released Game Pass as a browser based cloud gaming service on iOS. The App Store is obviously not the only way to sell applications to iOS users.
You have reached the logical conclusion as to why all of this regulation is totally pointless and unjustified.
A duopoly is not in itself problematic. Collusion is problematic. Just because you have a duopoly doesn't mean you have collusion.
Charging the same price is also not proof of collusion, but some people have a very hard time grasping that.
EDIT: Imagine a world where company A would like to charge 30%, company B would like to charge 40%. Where do you think the actual percentage of each company will end up?
The 30% is completely arbitrary, and so is everyone's personal opinion on what "reasonable" is. History has shown that most providers would actually like to earn more than that, but partly because Apple and then Google have settled on 30%, that is the de facto standard that most have to follow, although they would prefer that it was more. Try researching what Amazon charged for ebooks until Apple came along. They had to go DOWN to 30%, BECAUSE of open competition. Not because of collusion. 30% is reasonable for everyone, it just so happens that because Apple is an insanely large company, 30% ends up being an insane amount of money. But it's not illegal being rich (yet).
Last edited:
the dev's could actually end up paying more since now they have to support the customer with refunds etc, maintain financial records for the customer for up to 6 months i believe, make sure you follow all relevant data protection laws, pay the right taxes which change depending on the country, pay for a merchant account which is probably going to be higher than the 3% on top of a percentage of the transactions they are also responsible for any fraud that happens.