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

[jclardy]

It will be interesting to see what's next. Will the authorities determine that 27% per transactions is too much? Based on what? If they do, will Apple start charging for hosting, downloads, app review, use of the development tools, etc. to get the rest of their fees?

Like the $99/year they already charge all devs in addition to the 30% cut of all purchases?

Yes, the Fortnite's of the world get a steal for hosting their GB's of downloads, but for most apps you are talking about pennies on the dollar in terms of hosting a 10MB indie weather app that gets 10k downloads a month. App review is a joke, we've had multiple rejections for having a "Redeem code" button which links to the Apple sanctioned SDK to show the App Store redeem code sheet. Multiple, day wasting rejections. And that is the simple stuff - we spend weeks of time getting App Review to figure out how to use Sign In with Apple - they try to sign in with 2 factor disabled, our error message explains this, but they reject us anyways.

Charging for Xcode would be nice because it would incentivize everyone else to spend 6 months to build a much better tool since it can now be profitable to build dev tools for iOS.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

I knew this was going to happen. They are reducing the App Store fee to a value that turns any other sales venue non competitive while legitimating the practice of charging for things they do not sell or distribute. I mean, the App Store does not sell dating arrangements yet it charges … anti-trust booklet … drag drag.

 

[antiprotest]

This is hilarious. I like it.

What, did the developers think that the cost would become 0%? The 30% was never for payment processing, but for providing a storefront to the developers to make profits.

Whether 30% is too much is one thing, but -3% from whatever it was is fair. They targeted the wrong problem if they wanted the fee to reduce to nothing.

 

[DailySlow]

Yes, 2-3%

 

[mrochester]

This is hilarious. I like it.

What, did the developers think that the cost would become 0%? The 30% was never for payment processing, but for providing a storefront to the developers make profits.

Whether 30% is too much is one thing, but -3% from whatever it was is fair. They targeted the wrong problem if they wanted the fee to reduce to nothing.

Reducing the fee to nothing is already available to app developers; don't offer Apple IAPs. Sell your content via your own website.

 

[hans1972]

What IP? LOL The ones they created with monopoly in mind?
E.g. Metal, why did they use Vulkan or keept using improving OpenGL/CL.
All was done only for one purpose, exploiting the market through anticompetitive behavior.

Every API and software Apple provides.

If there is an API function to add two dates and you as a programmer is using such function, you are using Apple's IP and they are allowed to charge you for usage.

IP is by design state-supported monopolies.

 

[mrochester]

I knew this was going to happen. They are reducing the App Store fee to a value that turns any other sales venue non competitive while legitimating the practice of charging for things they do not sell or distribute. I mean, the App Store does not sell dating arrangements yet it charges … Typical anti-thrust behaviors

Apple doesn’t have to sell or distribute anything to be entitled to take a cut. Their fee is effectively a commission for introducing customers to developers. Its a service Apple are providing, not a tangible good.

 

[contacos]

LOL it is like they are trolling the court like "here is your 3% price cut biatches!"

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Apple doesn’t have to sell or distribute anything to be entitled to take a cut.

They are entitled to be payed for the use of their tech … not necessarily a cut of the sale of the end product. The second depends on many factors including the force / leverages used to get to it. I think Apple took Qualcomm to courts due to similar practices … they eventually settled.

PS: I wonder if is the App Store directing users to this services or are these services directing users to the App Store. Considering the service being sold I more inclined to think it’s the later … just check those outdoors. Same with the iPhone and Qualcomms chips.

 

[mrochester]

They are entitled to be payed for the use of their tech … not necessarily a cut of the sale of the end product.

Not true, they are entitled to be paid for the services they offer, such as introducing developers to customers.

Think of it as like selling a house. You can do it all yourself, but it would be very difficult. Or you can employ an estate agent to market your house and introduce you to potential buyers. Estate agents take a cut of the sale price of your house. The estate agent didn’t build the house, own the house and was not responsible for the upkeep of the house but their services are charged as a % of the sale price of your house.

 

[lkrupp]

Oh boy, still 27%, this will not land well with anti-monopolists and legislators

"This will not land well with anti-capitalists and legislators."

There, I fixed it for you.

 

[laptech]

How can apple charge developers a commision for something that will no longer be used (apples payment system) and then I read Apple's update and then it hit me, Apple are going to charge developers the commision on everytime the StoreKit External Purchase Entitlement or the StoreKit External Purchase Link Entitlement or StoreKit API's are used because think about it, everytime one of the dating apps customers clicks on a link that takes them outside of the app to pay for something, they will be using StoreKit to do it. This is how Apple is going to get it's commision in my opinion, if they cannot get it via apples pay system, they will get it via StoreKit. what a scummy way to behave. Apple are disgusting.

 

[Wildkraut]

Every API and software Apple provides.

If there is an API function to add two dates and you as a programmer is using such function, you are using Apple's IP and they are allowed to charge you for usage.

IP is by design state-supported monopolies.

That's crap, they absolutely have no IP we badly need for games or Apps.
There are tons of alternatives and alternatives that could be easily ported to iOS.

 

[Rogifan]

I think it’s pretty clear the majority of Apple’s ‘services’ revenues come from the App Store IAP commission. That’s a large chunk of revenue that Wall Street expects now and expects to grow every quarter. That Apple is fighting so hard against any changes to IAP says to me they don’t really have any ideas around other ways to grow services revenues.

 

[alex2792]

"This will not land well with anti-capitalists and legislators."

There, I fixed it for you.

Yeah we should totallly repeal the interstate commerce act and bring back monopolies!

 

[Scipster]

Lol anyone see this requirement? Forget the 27%, Apple is bound to be fined another 5 million euros just for this doozy:

I mean, I get that Apple is trying to protect itself and set the proper expectation, but they could have gone about it in a slightly less tone-deaf/biased way. They literally could have said "This app uses a third-party payment provider" for the heading and made the last sentence read "Purchases will only be secured by the third-party payment provider"

 

[I7guy]

I think it’s pretty clear the majority of Apple’s ‘services’ revenues come from the App Store IAP commission. That’s a large chunk of revenue that Wall Street expects now and expects to grow every quarter. That Apple is fighting so hard against any changes to IAP says to me they don’t really have any ideas around other ways to grow services revenues.

Other than banks, financial institutions and other regulated industries, does any other business have it's fees and commissions regulated. I would like to start regulating commissions and shady practices in car dealers...that affects most of us more (as it could mean thousands of dollars) than a "few potential cents" on the app store.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Not true, they are entitled to be paid for the services they offer, such as introducing developers to customers.

Well just saying not true is not enough. Again check those outdoors and add across the Internet on dating services. In the end a link to the software program hosted on the App Store.

I wonder who is introducing who in the sale process while not being payed for. Talking about intangibles.

Things are not as clear cut you as you state … truthfully.

 

[I7guy]

How can apple charge developers a commision for something that will no longer be used (apples payment system) and then I read Apple's update and then it hit me, Apple are going to charge developers the commision on everytime the StoreKit External Purchase Entitlement or the StoreKit External Purchase Link Entitlement or StoreKit API's are used because think about it, everytime one of the dating apps customers clicks on a link that takes them outside of the app to pay for something, they will be using StoreKit to do it. This is how Apple is going to get it's commision in my opinion, if they cannot get it via apples pay system, they will get it via StoreKit. what a scummy way to behave. Apple are disgusting.

What is disgusting is that people think that apple should host apps for free.

 

[Mac37122]

Apple says it will take 27% commission on purchases made in dating apps through third-party payment options in the Netherlands, in compliance with a Dutch regulatory ruling.

In an update on its developer support site, Apple said it would collect 27% commission instead of its usual 30% on transactions made in dating apps that use alternative payment methods. Apple says the decreased commission excludes the value for collection and remittance of taxes that the company carries out.
The details follow Apple's announcement last month that it will comply with a Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) ruling that compels the company to allow third-party payment services to pay for in-app purchases in dating apps.

Apple has warned that it will not be directly aware of purchases made using alternative methods, and will not be able to assist users with refunds, purchase history, subscription management, and other issues that it usually takes care of as part of its own in-app payments system.

As a result, developers who use the new entitlements will have to take on these additional responsibilities, and will be required to provide Apple with a monthly record of each sale of digital goods and content through the App Store within 15 calendar days of the end of Apple's fiscal month.

Apple's concessions came following a December ruling from the ACM that, by restricting dating apps from using third-party payment methods, Apple is engaging in an "abuse of market power." The ACM threatened to fine Apple up to a maximum of 50 million euros per week ($57 million) if it did not allow dating apps to offer alternative payment options.

Despite agreeing to offer the entitlements, Apple is still appealing the ACM ruling, which it argues is not in the best interests of App Store users. Apple says it is "concerned these changes could compromise the user experience, and create new threats to user privacy and data security."

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

Although I have not read every reply, I believe the real reason behind allowing third party payments for dating apps is so that the person purchasing the service can use a payment method that their spouse does not have access to and can hide the fact that they are fooling around.

 

[alex2792]

Other than banks, financial institutions and other regulated industries, does any other business have it's fees and commissions regulated. I would like to start regulating commissions and shady practices in car dealers...that affects most of us more (as it could mean thousands of dollars) than a "few potential cents" on the app store.

Well seeing how Apple and Google have pretty much total control of mobile digital commerce, yes they should be highly regulated much like banks.

 

[Rogifan]

All that does is shift the cost away from the high earners to the low earners.

So you’re admitting a small number of game developers subsidize the rest of the App Store.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

How would you (and millions of consumers of the App Store) feel if that 30% were added to YOUR cost? You buy a $10 app and your CC is charged $13? Would you think that was fair or do you trust and love Apple only when someone else is footing the bill?

 

[mrochester]

Well seeing how Apple and Google have pretty much total control of mobile digital commerce, yes they should be highly regulated much like banks.

The different is, banks are a necessity, mobile apps are not.

 

[svish]

3% less is nothing but still better than the 30% charged.