Apple to Introduce New App Store Fee Structure in Brazil Following Antitrust Settlement

[MacRumors]

Brazilian regulators have approved a settlement that will require Apple to change how the App Store operates on iPhone in the country, including allowing alternative app stores, expanded payment options, and a defined new fee structure.

In a press release, Brazil's Administrative Council of Economic Defense (CADE), said its court has approved a Term of Commitment to Cease proposed by Apple to resolve an investigation into the company's App Store rules on iOS. The case began in 2022 and examined whether Apple's restrictions on app distribution and payments limited competition in Brazil.

CADE said the investigation focused on Apple's prohibition of third-party app stores on iOS, the requirement that developers use Apple's in-app purchase system for digital goods and subscriptions, and restrictions that prevented developers from informing users about alternative payment options.

Under the settlement, Apple will be required to allow developers in Brazil to link to external payment options and promote offers that take place outside their apps. Developers will also be permitted to offer third-party payment methods within their apps alongside Apple's own in-app purchase system, with CADE requiring that these options be presented next to Apple's payment option.

Apple will also have to allow third-party app stores in Brazil. CADE specified that Apple may still display warnings or informational messages to users, but those messages must be neutral, objective, and limited in scope, and must not introduce extra steps or barriers that make alternative options harder to use.

According to Brazilian technology site Tecnoblog, which said it obtained the details directly from CADE, purchases made through the App Store will remain subject to a 10% or 25% commission under standard terms. Developers who use Apple's payment system would also pay a 5% transaction fee.

If an app directs users to pay outside the app using only static text, with no clickable link or button, Apple will not charge a fee. If the app includes a clickable button or link that sends users to an external website for payment, Apple will charge a 15% fee. Third-party app stores will be subject to a 5% Core Technology Commission.

CADE said Apple will have up to 105 days to implement the required changes once the new rules become binding.

Note: Due to the political or social nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Political News forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Article Link: Apple to Introduce New App Store Fee Structure in Brazil Following Antitrust Settlement

 

[sw1tcher]

If an app directs users to pay outside the app using only static text, with no clickable link or button, Apple will not charge a fee. If the app includes a clickable button or link that sends users to an external website for payment, Apple will charge a 15% fee.

Static text / no clickable link = no Apple fee

Clickable button or link = 15% Apple fee?

WTF?

 

[zahuh]

We just want iOS like the Mac. Developers pay a $99/year fee to certify their apps and can distribute their apps on their website with the payment system of our choice or pay Apple a commission and sell through the Mac App Store. Many Mac apps like Notion, Adobe, etc do this and we're all used to it.

 

[jz0309]

Static text / no clickable link = no Apple fee

Clickable button or link = 15% Apple fee?

WTF?

Sounds like this was approved by the regulators - wtf?

 

[jz0309]

We just want iOS like the Mac. Developers pay a $99/year fee to certify their apps and can distribute their apps on their website with the payment system of our choice or pay Apple a commission and sell through the Mac App Store. Many Mac apps like Notion, Adobe, etc do this and we're all used to it.

No, "we" don't want that, it's your opinion, nothing else...

 

[ProbablyDylan]

If an app directs users to pay outside the app using only static text, with no clickable link or button, Apple will not charge a fee. If the app includes a clickable button or link that sends users to an external website for payment, Apple will charge a 15% fee. Third-party app stores will be subject to a 5% Core Technology Commission.

I love how petty and arbitrary this is. I didn't realize that clicking a link was somehow Apple's proprietary technology.

 

[I7guy]

I love how petty and arbitrary this is. I didn't realize that clicking a link was somehow Apple's proprietary technology.

Makes sense to me. Should have been the way it was implemented in the EU.

 

[WarmWinterHat]

Makes sense to me. Should have been the way it was implemented in the EU.

No, it looks petty and like malicious compliance, which is really unattractive in any implementation

 

[I7guy]

No, it looks petty and like malicious compliance, which is really unattractive in any implementation

Welp it isn’t. “Malicious compliance” is as over used as innovation with many moving definitions.

Everything is allegedly worked out. This is the way it should have been implemented from the start.

 

[jz0309]

No, it looks petty and like malicious compliance, which is really unattractive in any implementation

Hmm, since it was apparently approved by the regulators - it certainly is not what you call it.

But hey, if it doesn't work for you, make sure not to move to Brazil ...

 

[Mousse]

The guy at Apple having to keep track of how the AppStore can operate and fees they can charge depending upon jurisdictions because of political requirements.

I'm now a proponent of Apple running the Appstore their way. Buying apps on the iPhone/iPad used to be simple. With propagation of alternate appstores and different fees, you need an evidence board to keep track of everything. It's Android without the sideloading.😅

 

[WilliApple]

We just want iOS like the Mac. Developers pay a $99/year fee to certify their apps and can distribute their apps on their website with the payment system of our choice or pay Apple a commission and sell through the Mac App Store. Many Mac apps like Notion, Adobe, etc do this and we're all used to it.

no. do you realize how hard it is for app discoverability for indie devs on macOS compared to iOS?

 

[surferfb]

I love how petty and arbitrary this is. I didn't realize that clicking a link was somehow Apple's proprietary technology.

It’s a commission for Apple facilitating a sale. It applies to apps who are listed on the App Store, but don’t use Apple’s payment processing. That means Apple is still providing:

• Distribution: discovery, ranking, search, featured placement
• User acquisition: access to a paid, authenticated, global user base
• Security & trust: notarization, review, malware screening, revocation
• Lifecycle services: updates, compatibility across iOS releases, device support

Among a bunch of other things. None of that stops being true just because the final payment step happens on a website. Do you honestly think there is no value in any of that?

And remember, if developers don’t like it, they literally can go elsewhere and still be on iOS, due to the government-mandated reduction in user choice and transformation to an Android-style ecosystem with all the security and privacy issues that brings.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

It’s a commission for Apple facilitating a sale. It applies to apps who are listed on the App Store, but don’t use Apple’s payment processing. That means Apple is still providing:

• Distribution: discovery, ranking, search, featured placement
• User acquisition: access to a paid, authenticated, global user base
• Security & trust: notarization, review, malware screening, revocation
• Lifecycle services: updates, compatibility across iOS releases, device support

Among a bunch of other things. None of that stops being true just because the final payment step happens on a website. Do you honestly think there is no value in any of that?

So why don't they collect when the link is not clickable? As you said - they're facilitating a sale.

They allowed the app to be discovered, they aided user acquisition, they provided security and trust, they provide updates and device support regardless of a link being clickable.

 

[surferfb]

So why don't they collect when the link is not clickable? As you said - they're facilitating a sale.

They allowed the app to be discovered, they aided user acquisition, they provided security and trust, they provide updates and device support regardless of a link being clickable.

I would assume because practically speaking, there is no way to track the sale to the iOS app in those instances, outside of demanding the ability to audit developers’ books, which I imagine would go over swimmingly with the “Apple is a monopolist abusing its power” crowd.

But yes, I agree those not providing a link are freeloading, which is why I’d prefer the old rules to be in place to make sure Apple is compensated. But apparently asking people to use the open ecosystem so those who want a closed one can have one isn’t kosher anymore. You get to have your cake and eat it too, and those who like they system how it is just have to deal because your preferences are apparently more important than ours.

 

[zahuh]

no. do you realize how hard it is for app discoverability for indie devs on macOS compared to iOS?

Yes. As I said. Choice. That’s it.

 

[sw1tcher]

So why don't they collect when the link is not clickable? As you said - they're facilitating a sale.

They allowed the app to be discovered, they aided user acquisition, they provided security and trust, they provide updates and device support regardless of a link being clickable.

The real question is why does Apple collect a facilitation fee when it's a digital good or service, but there's no facilitation fee when it's a physical good or service such as those provided by Amazon, Walmart, McDonald's, Starbucks, Uber, etc.?

Apple provides all of them with the following:

• Distribution: discovery, ranking, search, featured placement
• User acquisition: access to a paid, authenticated, global user base
• Security & trust: notarization, review, malware screening, revocation
• Lifecycle services: updates, compatibility across iOS releases, device support

whether the good/service is digital or physical, right?

This means a 15% fee for a clickable button or link is pure B.S.

 

[DaveTheRave]

No, "we" don't want that, it's your opinion, nothing else...

You’re right. We all just wanted to be treated like babies who need to be told what to do with our $1,000 phones that we own.

 

[jz0309]

This means a 15% fee for a clickable button or link is pure B.S.

Tell that the Brazilian regulators and convince them of your opinion. Good luck with that.

 

[I7guy]

The real question is why does Apple collect a facilitation fee when it's a digital good or service, but there's no facilitation fee when it's a physical good or service such as those provided by Amazon, Walmart, McDonald's, Starbucks, Uber, etc.?

Apple provides all of them with the following:

• Distribution: discovery, ranking, search, featured placement
• User acquisition: access to a paid, authenticated, global user base
• Security & trust: notarization, review, malware screening, revocation
• Lifecycle services: updates, compatibility across iOS releases, device support

whether the good/service is digital or physical, right?

This means a 15% fee for a clickable button or link is pure B.S.

Nonetheless, here we are now.

 

[jz0309]

Nonetheless, here we are now.

Yep, in Brazil, for now

 

[surferfb]

The real question is why does Apple collect a facilitation fee when it's a digital good or service, but there's no facilitation fee when it's a physical good or service such as those provided by Amazon, Walmart, McDonald's, Starbucks, Uber, etc.?

There are perfectly legitimate reasons for treating physical goods differently than digital goods and services. Particularly the marginal costs involved with physical goods and services and lack thereof for digital goods and services.

Apple provides all of them with the following:

• Distribution: discovery, ranking, search, featured placement
• User acquisition: access to a paid, authenticated, global user base
• Security & trust: notarization, review, malware screening, revocation
• Lifecycle services: updates, compatibility across iOS releases, device support

whether the good/service is digital or physical, right?

This means a 15% fee for a clickable button or link is pure B.S.

No, it doesn’t, and no it isn’t.

You guys realize that MacRumors gets a cut if you click on an Amazon link here and then buy the product, right? Is that “pure B.S.”? MacRumors has significantly less to do with the success of any product it links to than Apple does for literally any app on iOS.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Tell that the Brazilian regulators and convince them of your opinion. Good luck with that.

Essentially, “Apple should follow the regulations in the countries they do business in unless I disagree with the regulations those countries decide to enact.”

 

[AppliedMicro]

The guy at Apple having to keep track of how the AppStore can operate and fees they can charge depending upon jurisdictions because of political requirements.

They brought it 100% on themselves with the restrictions they impose upon developers.

which is why I’d prefer the old rules to be in place to make sure Apple is compensated

Apple are free to charge upfront compensation, i.e. a download fee.

There are perfectly legitimate reasons for treating physical goods differently than digital goods and services. Particularly the marginal costs involved with physical goods and services and lack thereof for digital goods and services.

Agree.

Given how Apple incurs close to zero marginal costs in processing In-App transaction - let alone in-app or link-out transactions by third-party developers that Apple do not process - Apple’s commission rates are excessive.

They are a multiple of what’s supported on competitive markets, to the detriment of consumers and thousands of third-party businesses.Which is why legislative and regulatory action is warranted, aimed at enabling competition.

 

[sw1tcher]

You guys realize that MacRumors gets a cut if you click on an Amazon link here and then buy the product, right? Is that “pure B.S.”? MacRumors has significantly less to do with the success of any product it links to than Apple does for literally any app on iOS.

I'd like to see your thought process in how you came to the conclusion that Amazon choosing to offer an affiliate program where they decide the amount of a sale to share with an affiliate partner (e.g. MacRumors) when an affilate link is clicked is remotely the same thing as Apple requiring an app developer to give Apple 15% when there's a clickable link or button but nothing when there isn't a clickable link or button.

A clickable link or button (i.e. a hyperlink) is the basic foundation and fundamental to how the internet works.