I do have Amazon Prime and netflix, and some other services.
I was referring to apps, and IAPs from third-parties using a third-party store.
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
I was referring to apps, and IAPs from third-parties using a third-party store.
I suspect if they had dropped down to the standard 15% most apps pay, and subtract out the processing fees, end ended up somewhere around 10-12% they'd have a much stronger argument that they were complying. Amazon pays out a 5% commission on digital goods, and I'd argue the demographics of Apple's customer base is worth a premium.
To be clear, I disagree with the judge that Apple shouldn't be allowed to charge whatever it wants for access to its IP, even if I would prefer they charge a lower price or not charge at all, (I understand I am in the minority on that opinion), but the judge had ruled, and Apple should have made a good faith effort to comply with that ruling. Apple has to follow the law.
I agree developers should be allowed to tell users in their app that they can subscribe elsewhere, and that they should even be allowed to provide a link out (although I would argue they should be required to pay a commission on that link out, but clearly I'm in the minority on that).
No, that will be good for developers. It will change nothing for users. Prices on apps didn't go down when commissions for most apps went to 15% and they're not going to go down here. Epic and Spotify will keep more of their money at the expense of Apple. Which is fine. Apple will survive, but let's not pretend this is anything other than redistribution of money from Apple to large developers.
Disagree - I think Apple's in-app purchases policies are good for almost everyone, except large developers who want to freeload, and frankly, I don't care about large developers who want to freeload. But I know I'm also in the minority on that opinion too.
I think Apple really need to start charging for their developer tools again. I remember when it use to cost upwards of $5,000 to gain developer tools and gain access to the ADC, Apple Developer Connect.
10 to 30% is nothing, it’s dirt cheap. Does the court have a problem with Amazon charging well over 50% to their suppliers? No. I remember when you had to buy software in actual stores where it had been packaged and shipped to. Developers then got maybe 10 to 20% of the retail price of their software. So you’re saying that a developer getting 70 to 90% of their retail price (which they set BTW) is not enough? That’s total bull💩 😉
Everyone piling on Apple isn't going to like it when apps have big garish Buy Now buttons for the company's preferred payment option. The judge allowed this, writing that Apple is barred from "prohibiting or limiting the use of buttons or other calls to action, or otherwise conditioning the content, style, language, formatting, flow or placement of these devices for purchases outside an app."
This is a trial court opinion so the Ninth Circuit will get the final vote and will possibly establish precedent on whether private platforms can be required to accommodate competing payment services.
This is a trial court opinion so the Ninth Circuit will get the final vote and will possibly establish precedent on whether private platforms can be required to accommodate competing payment services.
Last edited:
Yeah and what's funny is that Apple doesn't collect a fee for physical goods purchased through an app. At this point, Apple could probably charge a small fee per transaction for physical goods.
As for this injunction, Apple could charge a monthly or annual App Store listing fee as a workaround and waive it for companies that exclusively use in-app purchases.
Did you read the opinion? It contains several orders, not just one. See Epic v. Apple (Apr. 30, 2025).
Apple is great at doing that for China. I wonder why they have less respect for America and Europe
That’s an extremely melodramatic way to describe the situation. Apple will be fine and will continue to make tons of money from the App Store
There‘a only one thing wrong with social security: People making over $200,000 a year don’t pay any more at all
Fix that and Social Security is fine
“Socialism” is just a word conservatives like to throw around to make something sound scary. It’s tired. Give it a rest
Bahahahaha... Surely you jest, and if not you're missing the entire reason it is going bankrupt! Those same people making over $200K (used to be $400K but whatever, we'll call it inflation) will get the same payment as anyone else that is maxed out! Imagine if you had to pay the car insurance rate for a Maserati even though you drive a Civic! They pay far more now and hit the cap every year because the cap is all they will ever be rated on for a payment in the future! The simple fixes are: Remove EVERYONE from social security, SSDI, SSI, or Aged & Disabled that hasn't paid into the system for the 10 years as those that worked. That is what is eating up the funds of those that PAID, rich, or otherwise! Leave it to the states to provide disability payments. Perhaps states that spend money poorly will have to change their ways.
Not really. Socialism would be arguing that any profits for Apple are wrong, not just their 30% store fee, that the money should be distributed to everyone, not just the creators of the actual content, and the fact Apple had willfully and repeatedly violated the law would be an irrelevant detail, not the entire point of why they're being punished.
There is an appropriate fee for Apple to change, but it should be determined by free market competition. Apple doesn't get a monopoly on all software sales just because they made a nice piece of hardware and a nice OS to run on it.
Well then we somewhat agree. It's a start on socialism for sure, and while it might not be spreading that towards everyone, the mere thought of getting/extorting money from a company to give back to all the developers is surely headed that direction. Apple deserves something for their services provided and I DO NOT believe it is 30% and that's the unfair portion of their percentage payments. Their costs are mostly the same for all apps as a digital hosting platform, however there is no reason that a higher priced app should pay a lot more than a $4.99 app for those fees.
To answer your last sentence though, let me just say, "Why does target get to make 30% on my "insert product here" and it doesn't seem insane? They have overhead, employees, buildings, computers, and infrastructure. So does Apple.
Because Target has competitors. Their prices are whatever the free market says they can charge. I'm not forced to sell my product through Target - I can just as easily sell it at Walmart or Dollar General or through my website or open my own physical store or whatever.
I'm not saying Apple provides zero value to merchants through the App Store. I'm saying there is no free market to fairly assign the value to distributing through the iOS App Store, because I have no other way of reaching potential customers.
We mostly agree. I would argue that cell providers are closely aligned to the stores for phones in that there are the big three, with each of them having a bargain store (mint, cricket, etc.). There are the big two in phone stores, (almost a third - Microsoft tried but fell apart), with each charging fees for their apps. We also agree that they deserve something for the apps as the platform and the work that goes into that needs to be supported. 30% is in my opinion a vague amount due to the disparity between payments depending on the app cost. Apple should account for the true cost of hosting the store (all costs in labor, bandwidth, technical, etc.) and then mark it up a percentage to ensure they have growth.