You mean a (lower) commission that's not deliberately designed to be anticompetitive and make external purchases financially non-viable?
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 Comply With New Court Ordered App Store Rules, But Will Appeal
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So Apple can’t make any money from the platform they have built from scratch, developed and invested in for almost two decades and keep paying for infrastructure, seems fair.
Agreed. I, for one, do not need to be protected from myself.
Do you know Walmarts profit margins? How they squeeze the suppliers on prices. Do one thing. Go to Walmart tomorrow. Buy a product and tell them you will pay the manufacturer directly. Let's see how that goes.
The reverse engineering of apps is loving this. Many want a safe app store that doesn't have the potential to cause harm to their devices. Those who have been involved with the reverse engineering of apps. Knows the danger to the ecosystem of a device if the vulnerabilities of such apps are exploited. I will never use a 3rd party app store again. Its been this way now for 6 years.
How on earth do you exist with and use normal computers with this approach?
The fact that Apple chose malicious compliance just proves how much of their services revenue comes from IAP commissions. They need to protect it at all costs because services is one of the few growth areas in the company.
It also explains why they don’t really wanna do much about all the dark pattern casino app games and IAP scams.
Folks really need to wake up and realize just exactly how maniacally driven by greed Tim Cook Apple really is.
I'm all for preventing monopolistic behavior, but I don't think charging a fee for use of Apple's store (e.g., when a customer finds an app in Apple's store but does NOT buy it from Apple, they still get the benefit of using the Apple Store framework) is unreasonable 🤷♂️
Where was this enthusiasm when Apple disabled the ability to leave AirDrop on to stop Chinese dissidents from spreading their message?
I totally agree Apple should just comply with the law and move on 😂😂
They already charge an annual developer fee.
Charge more or change how they charge if that is needed.
Getting in the middle of all payment flows between the customer and the developer is unacceptable.
Apple (with their conduct) basically single-handedly elevated that term from legalese to mainstream recognition.
Apple charge premium prices for devices that support/ship with their platform.
They also charge every developer a yearly fee for being able to distribute apps through their App Store.
👉 Your claim that "Apple can’t make any money from the platform" is therefore objectively wrong.
(As a side note, it's also wrong that they've built it "from scratch", given how much they're relying on open source software)
Over the past year, you and I have made it abundantly clear that we disagree on whether or not Apple should be allowed to charge for use of its IP in the manner and price which it prefers, so I'm not going to start another debate on the topic when we actually agree on the main points of the judge's ruling and disagree over one point. It's clear that courts/governments in Apple's most important jurisdictions agree with you and disagree with me, so enjoy the win!
We'll see if that results in a better experience for users like you think, or it'll actually result in a worse experience for users, like I do. I truly hope that I am wrong and you are right!
Apple can argue that the findings that the judge made regarding its compliance are incorrect, and that they were complying with the judge's order. They can also argue that the remedies imposed by the judge are too harsh even if the other courts agree they are in violation of the order. To be clear, I don't think Apple should, or that they'd be right to do so, but they can (and sounds like they are going to).
To give an intentionally ludicrous example:
Pretend I own a rental that I own a furnished house that I rent out, and after moving into the house, my renter sues me for false advertising because I said one of the bedrooms came with a king size bed, and when they got into the house they discovered it actually a queen. The court orders me to put in a king size bed. I find a great deal on a California King bed, and buy that and put it in. The renter for some reason ONLY wants a regular King, not a California King, and goes to the judge saying I'm in contempt. The judge agrees with the renter, says I am not complying with the order, decides to fine me $1,000,000 and says I have to put in a regular King bed. I can appeal the judge's ruling that putting in a California King isn't complying with the order, and that even if the appeals court agrees that I am not complying with the order, that the penalty put in place by the judge is too harsh and should be adjusted.
Whether or not the Appeals Court / the Supreme Court will hear something is an entirely different issue and will be heavily dependent on the arguments made in the filing. It only requires three justices to think there is a reason to take the case for it to be heard. If they decide to hear it, I suspect several of the justices would be amenable to an argument that the inability to charge commissions at all is an unconstitutional restriction of Apple's intellectual property rights, but I'm not going to claim the ability to predict what cases the Court will or won't take up, or what the ultimate disposition would be.
No one thought this back when they first launched the App Store. 30% was much better than the 70-80% that other mobile phones were taking from app developers. As always, people get greedy and something that was once the gold standard in the industry is now seen as "inexcusable rent-seeking behavior". I'll tell you what's inexcusable, signing a contract in which you agree to pay 30% for the right to access the largest highest-paying market in the world and then having the shocked Pikachu face when you have to pay the 30% that you agreed to pay.
...among them, the App Store increasing many hundred- or thousandfold in download volume, revenue and earnings.
And Apple obtaining monopoly power and reaping huge economies of scale.
Without them ever passing on anything to (large) developers and consumers.
That's not how competitive markets are supposed to work - and benefit society.
Last edited:
I had no intent of rehashing that discussion.
Having (substantial parts) of the ruling and its interpretation (including Schiller's advocating for compliance), I tend to agree on that. That leaves the question however:
👉 What route could Apple actually have taken instead? And what commission (how much would you have considered) would have been appropriate?
With the ruling calling Apple out very explicitly for choosing a rate that would make alternative transaction processing economically non-viable, it clearly can't be "any rate or percentage they please".
It may result in a worse experience for users. I agree on that.
That said, we've already had bad experiences for many years:
With in-app purchases being unavailable in some of the most popular apps.
And developers ridiculous dancing around (with words) the fact that users can subscribe elsewhere - but not be told that.
👉 You know what would be a very good experience for users, though?
Apple offering commission rates that are competitive and make developers (including large ones) want to use them!
Apple's own policies regarding in-app purchases have been making many apps a bad experience already.
They are the culprit for bad user experience as much as this ruling (or European legislation).
Last edited:
Those micro transactions are like a drug. Hard to give up.