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

[mrochester]

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.

If the user clicks the link and buys a product on Amazon, Amazon pays a commission to the originating website.

If the user goes directly to Amazon and buys a product, the originating website does not get a commission.

It’s the facilitating of the purchase that earns the originating website a commission. It’s how Quidco and Topcashback work.

In the same way Apple takes a commission from the developer when the user clicks a link in the iOS app to make the purchase (the use of Apple’s IP to make the app then facilitates the purchase of something).

If the user goes directly to the developers website and makes a purchase, Apple does not take a commission.

This is how it’s always worked though, so nothing new here.

 

[code-m]

Static text / no clickable link = no Apple fee

Clickable button or link = 15% Apple fee?

WTF?

Referral commission 😉

 

[code-m]

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.

Apple iAds 2.0

 

[AppliedMicro]

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.

Apple is in a position to force third parties to sell through them - and use trackable links.

Macrumors.com though… let’s just say they not even nearly depend on Amazon for their revenue/“selling their service” as much as software developers on Apple.

 

[surferfb]

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.

You seem to be confused by the idea of a commission. Apple gets 15% for facilitating the sale. Again, in Brazil, if developers don’t like it, they are free to not include a link, or they can use an alternative AND they can still freeload off of Apple!

Apple is in a position to force third parties to sell through them - and use trackable links.

Not in Brazil they’re not.

Macrumors.com though… let’s just say they not even nearly depend on Amazon for their revenue/“selling their service” as much as software developers on Apple.

So you’re saying Apple provides developers value? Maybe developers should pay Apple a reasonable percentage for that value then.

 

[MilaM]

So you’re saying Apple provides developers value? Maybe developers should pay Apple a reasonable percentage for that value then.

Apple also profits immensely from developers creating useful and popular apps for iOS. Imagine a phone that had only the preinstalled apps and nothing more. Apple would not sell nearly as many devices as they do today.

So you could therefore argue, that Apple should pay developers, or at least make it as convenient and cheap as possible to make apps for the platform.

 

[I7guy]

Apple also profits immensely from developers creating useful and popular apps for iOS. Imagine a phone that had only the preinstalled apps and nothing more. Apple would not sell nearly as many devices as they do today.

This conversation is just chicken and egg. Imagine if Apple didn’t provide an App Store and basically provided the hosting, management etc all for free, except for IAP.

Apple could have created a subsidiary to write 3rd party programs and eschew the developers, but that’s not the way they roll.

So you could therefore argue, that Apple should pay developers, or at least make it as convenient and cheap as possible to make apps for the platform.

Apple makes it plenty cheap. You just don’t like the price.

 

[I7guy]

Apple is in a position to force third parties to sell through them - and use trackable links.

Yeah since 2008.

Macrumors.com though… let’s just say they not even nearly depend on Amazon for their revenue/“selling their service” as much as software developers on Apple.

Unlike the iOS App Store which generates revenue presumably from fess and commission and now ads. Websites are in an entirely different spectrum.

 

[MilaM]

Apple could have created a subsidiary to write 3rd party programs and eschew the developers, but that’s not the way they roll.

Yeah, because then they would have to pay them huge salaries.

 

[I7guy]

Yeah, because then they would have to pay them huge salaries.

Uninformed snarky comment. You really think with the amount of time and money spent on attorneys paying “a third party” a huge salary would somehow exceed the total outlay? If they didn’t open up the App Store and just sold their own apps, none of this would even exist. They could have called other Apple App Store.

 

[djphat2000]

Static text / no clickable link = no Apple fee

Clickable button or link = 15% Apple fee?

WTF?

Would you like me to chauffeur you over to the competition as well?
No Apple IP = Free
Apple IP = Pay me.

 

[djphat2000]

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.

Same reason they don't charge your bank for say a check you deposit via the app and your camera.
They have chosen not to charge for physical goods.

"Could" Apple have made it the same for both Physical and Digital goods on the store? Sure. But, then there would be nothing to fund the store and for what it provides. They could have reversed it for instance, and charged for physical goods and not digital ones. And we would be in the same place as we are today with say, Starbucks or Amazon taking Apple to court 15 years later from when the store came to be.

And while I'm sure either CEO's of those companies would have been more discreet about it than say Tim S has been. We would still be in the same spot. The store and everything that goes with it plus the IP that Apple rightfully should be monetizing. Should bring in revenue for Apple. It's not a charity. And no one here knows what Apple has to pay to support any of that. Or any changes in costs that happen to them over the years either. Which always goes up by the way. It is not supportable via a $99 a year fee. Its their as a LOW bar of entry into creating your own apps that "could" potentially be "sold" on the store. You just as well "could" give away your app. OR "could" provide it with Ads to generate some revenue that would go directly to the creator.

It's 15 now. Was up to 30 before. Let's hold our breath waiting for the prices to come down by that exact amount.

 

[djphat2000]

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.

They are still paying the CTF though. If I am reading it correctly. You can choose to not use the payment system. But, still "pay" Apple 5% CTF.

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

If you're not paying for the clickable link, it's free.
I think you're starting to see how Apple made this entire process so easy for both the developer and the consumer. So now that they are being forced to allow alternative ways to pay. Well, Apple gets to remove that feature.

 

[neuropsychguy]

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.

Are you saying Apple should charge a fee for facilitating a physical good or service?

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Uninformed snarky comment. You really think with the amount of time and money spent on attorneys paying “a third party” a huge salary would somehow exceed the total outlay? If they didn’t open up the App Store and just sold their own apps, none of this would even exist. They could have called other Apple App Store.

And for the first year, that’s what they did, so it’s not like they couldn’t have. Someone convinced them they should provide an opportunity for external developers worldwide to make money and, at the time, they thought it was a good idea. No one knew that “providing an opportunity for external developers worldwide to make money” would be punished.

 

[AppliedMicro]

No one knew that “providing an opportunity for external developers worldwide to make money” would be punished.

It's not being "punished" - Apple are making good money off it.
It's merely their ability to seek rent that is being curtailed.
And someone who has followed the history of antitrust regulation could have anticipated it.

 

[AppliedMicro]

So you’re saying Apple provides developers value?

"That's a nice *** you got there. Would be a shame if anything happened to it."

If you're arguing that protection racket schemes provide value, I agree.
Prohibiting external links in apps do not provide developers value.

Maybe developers should pay Apple a reasonable percentage for that value then.

Maybe not a percentage, but a reasonable fee, yes.

One that gets determined by competition - through allowing developers to target the same consumers through other channels and means. If these are unavailable due to Apple's policies, antitrust regulation and legislation needs to step in to allow them.

Are you saying Apple should charge a fee for facilitating a physical good or service?

They should be legally compelled to provide non-discriminatory terms in doing so (that is, have similar terms for both digital and non-digital goods and services. As in charging Uber the same percentage in facilitating a sale as Spotify and Epic).

 

[I7guy]

It's not being "punished" - Apple are making good money off it.

The DMA is punishment and retribution for success.

It's merely their ability to seek rent that is being curtailed.

They aren’t rent seeking. My comment above is most likely more than true.

And someone who has followed the history of antitrust regulation could have anticipated it.

The DMA is punishment for success.

 

[surferfb]

"That's a nice *** you got there. Would be a shame if anything happened to it."

If you're arguing that protection racket schemes provide value, I agree.
Prohibiting external links in apps do not provide developers value.

But listing your app in the App Store does provide developers value. If developers don’t like the deal they can go elsewhere.

Maybe not a percentage, but a reasonable fee, yes.

One that gets determined by competition - through allowing developers to target the same consumers through other channels and means. If these are unavailable due to Apple's policies, antitrust regulation and legislation needs to step in to allow them.

Android exits. The web exists. And in Brazil, alternate app stores exist.

They should be legally compelled to provide non-discriminatory terms in doing so (that is, have similar terms for both digital and non-digital goods and services. As in charging Uber the same percentage in facilitating a sale as Spotify and Epic).

No they shouldn’t. There are legitimate reasons for treating them differently.

 

[31 Flavas]

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.

You're not going to get that, because iOS / iPhones / iPads are not the same as Windows and Mac PCs. The legislature or the judicial branch of the EU or Brazil or Japan or the U.S. (any of them) could have very clearly said, "No, Apple. You don't get to charge anything other than a yearly developer fee. No, we don't care about the circumstance. You have to allow side loading and you have to allow alt stores and you don't get to impose fees on anything but the sales that happen directly though your own 1st part app store. End of story."

You can say that, whatever, the U.S. judiciary is just a bunch of stupid old geezers that are stuck in the past and are distracted by technicalities. Ok, so you have a second shot with the EU -- they're not beholden to any of the bullcrap that the U.S. thinks is important. But, yet, they themselves wrote into their legislation the right for Apple to charge a percentage fee. So strike two. Now you have Brazil. Their judiciary clearly differed from the U.S. and this let Brazil's own regulators step in. But, yet again, the Brazilian authorities have decided to differentiate sales based on whether they're facilitated by the hardware or not. In other words, strike three -- you're out.

So why? I mean, I guess this just has to mean that Apple has just backed up a dump truck full of cash or paid off everyone involved by buying them all mega yachts or vacation homes or providing scholarships for all the children of all these authorities in the US, EU, and Brazil....

Time after time, the matter of the software sale being facilitated by an iPhone or an iPad considered. When it isn't on Windows or Mac PC hardware. No, I don't expect you to argue against yourself or your position. But, its food for thought. I mean, it's possible the judiciary and legislators are seeing something you aren't. (vs being corrupt, or paid off, or whatever)

 

[31 Flavas]

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

Why do EU legislators, Brazilian regulators (in this case), or the U.S. judiciary keep giving deference to it?

I mean, if it’s so clear cut and unarguable that iPhones, iPads, Androids, and other mobile devices are exactly the same as PCs … you’d think those with the power to compel change would exercise that.

Best to chalk it up to corruption, bribery, and political pro quo. It’d be to unimaginable that you’re unintentionally ignorant. Of course, it also possible you’re being intentionally intellectually dishonest.

 

[31 Flavas]

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.
[pic snip]
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.😅

Almost like anyone that hasn’t been 100% supportive of Epic / Sweeney and hasn’t been 100% behind completely breaking open iOS - might have had legitimate points when they said this could cause more harm then good.

The below isn’t really directed at you and is more complementary discussion on the topic:

I mean, I get the conceptualism - the virtue signaling of “I don’t care about any reasons, just make it exactly the same as PC.”

But, I think if you stop for a second to think about it… why isn’t every developer, at least, utilizing a 3rd party store? Or a “signed by Google” but direct download from the developer (or publisher) website method of distribution on Android? Maybe the majority of consumers find convenience, value, (and /or) security through using the Google Play store. But, seems like any percentage of customers that the app developers can get to use alternative download methods for the Android platform is better for their bottom line.

Also, why did Google fully lose against all the allegations that Epic made against them? And also lose against the DoJ?

What I’ve seen is that any critic of Apple will just ignore all of that - either because it doesn’t make sense, or since it doesn’t fit the narrative. As, in potentially because it literally doesn’t matter to them - intellectual dishonesty.

It doesn’t matter that Google was found to be deliberately hamstringing and not allowing 3rd party app stores and sideloading to function (in their intended role), because… well, sideloading serves only a personal reason. The optics of it “being for the developers” just works to their advantage.

I’m not entirely opposed to Apple having to open up the iOS platform. But, I think Apple’s “bad behavior” is quite vulnerable and would evaporate quite quickly if Google actually allowed 3rd party app stores to function or provided the “signed by Google” but otherwise direct downloads (no commission) sideloading that critics want Apple to provide.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

It's not being "punished" - Apple are making good money off it.
It's merely their ability to seek rent that is being curtailed.
And someone who has followed the history of antitrust regulation could have anticipated it.

If they had kept the app creation business on the App Store to themselves, there would be no rent seeking as no one but Apple would be using their technology. Opening it up to OTHER people to make money has resulted in them wanting a free ride.

And someone who has followed the history of antitrust regulation would not find parallels between prior actions and this one.