Apple's EU Core Technology Fee Could Bankrupt Freemium App Developers

[bcortens]

The CTF seems to lead to a violation of the following provision of the DMA:

Article 5 (3)
”The gatekeeper shall not prevent business users from offering the same products or services to end users through third-party online intermediation services or through their own direct online sales channel at prices or conditions that are different from those offered through the online intermediation services of the gatekeeper.”

Since the CTF may prevent developers from offering their products at the same price as if it were offered exclusively through the App Store.

 

[BaldiMac]

Firstly:

For developers for whom this new system is worse it remains a steering measure.

The system seems designed to ensure that companies like Meta, Spotify, Netflix, and Microsoft continue to use the App Store as the exclusive distribution mechanism (where they can benefit from the Reader exemption and not have to pay the per install fees which would likely affect them more than anyone else).

Or... they may make more money operating outside of App Store rules making the install fee negligible. Half a Euro per year per user isn't the overwhelming incentive you are claiming. Meta could obviously make it up in ads. Spotify certainly thinks that IAP is really important to their growth.

This is steering…

So is it also steering for all the developers for whom the new system is better?

Steer to the left. Steer to the right. It's almost like you didn't turn at all.

 

[bcortens]

Or... they may make more money operating outside of App Store rules making the install fee negligible. Half a Euro per year per user isn't the overwhelming incentive you are claiming. Meta could obviously make it up in ads. Spotify certainly thinks that IAP is really important to their growth.

Spotify also hates what they are calling malicious compliance and have already said they plan to keep fighting this, they clearly don’t think this is in compliance.

How could Meta make more money outside the App Store? They don’t have any in-app purchase in most of their apps but rely entirely on ad revenue as such they are set to only make less money on an equivalent app offered under the mixed use terms.

So is it also steering for all the developers for whom the new system is better?

Steer to the left. Steer to the right. It's almost like you didn't turn at all.

It is not steering for those who get a better deal but that doesn’t matter from the perspective of those for whom it is worse which is precisely my point. Just because some devs get a better deal doesn’t matter for the purposes of the act.

The spirit of the law is to ensure fair competition which does not exist if Apple is steering some developer to its own store.


Clearly Apple doesn’t think it can compete by offering a better store so they must encourage developers to stay in their store by making the terms of leaving arduous or onerous.

 

[BaldiMac]

Spotify also hates what they are calling malicious compliance and have already said they plan to keep fighting this, they clearly don’t think this is in compliance.

Spotify says a lot of stuff that's not true. They want a free development platform. And they're willing to spin anything short of that to their own benefit.

How could Meta make more money outside the App Store? They don’t have any in-app purchase in most of their apps but rely entirely on ad revenue as such they are set to only make less money on an equivalent app offered under the mixed use terms.

No more App Store rules. They estimated Apple's policies cost them $10 billion in app revenue. Plus they could add IAP if they wanted to for any number of purchases in their ecosystem.

It is not steering for those who get a better deal but that doesn’t matter from the perspective of those for whom it is worse which is precisely my point. Just because some devs get a better deal doesn’t matter for the purposes of the act.

Weird. So it's steering in one direction, but not the other? Not very consistent of you. Your point seems to be that the fraction of one percent of developers who would be worse off should... what?

The spirit of the law is to ensure fair competition which does not exist if Apple is steering some developer to its own store.

So, it's better for more than 99.xx% of apps. But the fraction of a percent that it's worse for is all the matters? Seems like you are missing the forest for the trees.

Clearly Apple doesn’t think it can compete by offering a better store so they must encourage developers to stay in their store by making the terms of leaving arduous or onerous.

That's the thing, you are mischaracterizing the competition. Apple isn't just a store. That's not what they are charging for. The provide far more value to developers than just a storefront. If you need to pretend that is all they are to make your point, then your point is nothing but spin.

 

[bcortens]

Spotify says a lot of stuff that's not true. They want a free development platform. And they're willing to spin anything short of that to their own benefit.

Apple also says a lot of stuff that isn’t true. Besides, Spotify is not the only one pointing out that the CTF might be in violation. We will have to wait till March to find out as the EU is declining to comment.

No more App Store rules. They estimated Apple's policies cost them $10 billion in app revenue. Plus they could add IAP if they wanted to for any number of purchases in their ecosystem.

That was under the existing rule-set they have not provided an estimate or claim stating that the new terms are better.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that offering their apps in their own store they can gain $10 billion in advertising revenue.

Under the new terms they would have at least $1.3 billion in additional expenses due to the fact that WhatsApp alone has over 2.8 billion active users. Never mind how much they have to pay for facebook, facebook messenger, instagram, etc…

Will they really be better off over the long term? I don’t believe this is clear at all.

Weird. So it's steering in one direction, but not the other? Not very consistent of you. Your point seems to be that the fraction of one percent of developers who would be worse off should... what?

Steering is the process of incentivizing or putting in place onerous or burdensome conditions which make it difficult for them to choose otherwise.
The idea that you can anti-steer some people doesn’t really matter if you are still steering some people. The rules don’t care if you are offering a deal that is great for 99% if it is worse for 1%.

So, it's better for more than 99.xx% of apps. But the fraction of a percent that it's worse for is all the matters? Seems like you are missing the forest for the trees.

If the rules have anti-steering provisions then yes that is all that matters.

That's the thing, you are mischaracterizing the competition. Apple isn't just a store. That's not what they are charging for. The provide far more value to developers than just a storefront. If you need to pretend that is all they are to make your point, then your point is nothing but spin.

Then we come back again to my point: If Apple needs to charge for all of the services they offer devs then the CTF should apply to apps sold exclusively through the App Store too.

 

[vipergts2207]

App stores prices have gone down over time not up.

Care to cite some sources? Even giving the benefit of the doubt on that one, it still doesn't change the fact that Apple can force companies like Spotify to give them a cut for users that subscribe through in-app purchase. Coca-cola doesn't have the ability to force their competitors to give them money. It's complete nonsense for someone to say that people "need to look at how public companies operate." Yes, we know they all strive to make as much money as possible, but there are always limitations to that, either as a practical matter or a regulatory matter.

 

[BaldiMac]

Apple also says a lot of stuff that isn’t true. Besides, Spotify is not the only one pointing out that the CTF might be in violation. We will have to wait till March to find out as the EU is declining to comment.

Nice comeback, but I didn't rely on any quotes from Apple in my argument. Believing the EU might find the CTF and other terms to be non compliant is reasonable. The DMA is specifically designed to allow the EU to change the rules if they want to.

But you used Spotify's quote as evidence to refute a point that it simply doesn't refute. I just claimed that Spotify could make more money under the new terms than the old terms.

That was under the existing rule-set they have not provided an estimate or claim stating that the new terms are better.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that offering their apps in their own store they can gain $10 billion in advertising revenue.

Under the new terms they would have at least $1.3 billion in additional expenses due to the fact that WhatsApp alone has over 2.8 billion active users. Never mind how much they have to pay for facebook, facebook messenger, instagram, etc…

Will they really be better off over the long term? I don’t believe this is clear at all.

So your own numbers show that they would benefit, but it's not clear? Strange.

Steering is the process of incentivizing or putting in place onerous or burdensome conditions which make it difficult for them to choose otherwise.
The idea that you can anti-steer some people doesn’t really matter if you are still steering some people. The rules don’t care if you are offering a deal that is great for 99% if it is worse for 1%.

If the rules have anti-steering provisions then yes that is all that matters.

That's certainly a made up standard.

Then we come back again to my point: If Apple needs to charge for all of the services they offer devs then the CTF should apply to apps sold exclusively through the App Store too.

The CTF does apply to apps sold exclusively throught the App Store too. So if that's now your point, again, success! (But I have the feeling that it's still not good enough.)

 

[bcortens]

Nice comeback, but I didn't rely on any quotes from Apple in my argument. Believing the EU might find the CTF and other terms to be non compliant is reasonable. The DMA is specifically designed to allow the EU to change the rules if they want to.

But you used Spotify's quote as evidence to refute a point that it simply doesn't refute. I just claimed that Spotify could make more money under the new terms than the old terms.

You said that Spotify thinks IAP is important to growth - I pointed out that they don’t seem to believe that the new rules are good for them - which I agree has nothing to do with IAP, but if the new terms allowed them to offer IAP in a way that benefitted them they wouldn’t be angry.

Spotify makes 100% of subscription revenue under the current terms - how are they making more money under the new terms?
Without just guessing.

So your own numbers show that they would benefit, but it's not clear? Strange.

I highlighted that expenses are up by 1.3 billion just for WhatsApp per year. They also have half a dozen other apps with billions of users. The expenses could easily add more than the ability to opt out of ATT raise.

Facebook made more money per quarter in 2023 than in 2022 I’m guessing that revenue did not drop by the estimated $10 billion per year. Which they admitted at the time was just a guesstimate.

Edit: Besides - why are we taking Facebook’s guesstimate as accurate when they have a vested interest in scaremongering about App Tracking Transparency? The number of users using their apps are more concrete.

That's certainly a made up standard.

It isn’t a made up standard. The standard is from (among others) article 5 of the DMA:
“ 3. The gatekeeper shall not prevent business users from offering the same products or services to end users through third-party online intermediation services or through their own direct online sales channel at prices or conditions that are different from those offered through the online intermediation services of the gatekeeper.”

They cannot prevent business users (developers) from offering the same services under prices or conditions that are different from those offered through the online intermediation services of the gatekeeper (the App Store).

The DMA doesn’t say, “most business users” it is all business users. The DMA doesn’t offer provisions for “most developers make more money”

The CTF does apply to apps sold exclusively throught the App Store too. So if that's now your point, again, success! (But I have the feeling that it's still not good enough.)

No it doesn’t. If developers choose the existing terms and exclusive App Store distribution they remain under the existing terms and they will not have to pay the CTF. Developers can choose to remain on the App Store’s current business terms.

 

[BaldiMac]

You said that Spotify thinks IAP is important to growth - I pointed out that they don’t seem to believe that the new rules are good for them - which I agree has nothing to do with IAP, but if the new terms allowed them to offer IAP in a way that benefitted them they wouldn’t be angry.

You're logic is flawed here. Spotify didn't say the new terms weren't better than the old terms. Just that the new terms weren't what they wanted.

Spotify makes 100% of subscription revenue under the current terms - how are they making more money under the new terms?
Without just guessing.

By increasing the number of subscribers by pushing IAP. Which is why they announced the would add IAP when the DMA rules go into affect.

I highlighted that expenses are up by 1.3 billion just for WhatsApp per year. They also have half a dozen other apps with billions of users. The expenses could easily add more than the ability to opt out of ATT raise.

Facebook made more money per quarter in 2023 than in 2022 I’m guessing that revenue did not drop by the estimated $10 billion per year. Which they admitted at the time was just a guesstimate.

Edit: Besides - why are we taking Facebook’s guesstimate as accurate when they have a vested interest in scaremongering about App Tracking Transparency? The number of users using their apps are more concrete.

I provided evidence that supports my claim. You did not.

It isn’t a made up standard. The standard is from (among others) article 5 of the DMA:
“ 3. The gatekeeper shall not prevent business users from offering the same products or services to end users through third-party online intermediation services or through their own direct online sales channel at prices or conditions that are different from those offered through the online intermediation services of the gatekeeper.”

Which just means that Apple could no longer prevent developers offering different prices or conditions on other payment platforms. Not what you are claiming.

No it doesn’t. If developers choose the existing terms and exclusive App Store distribution they remain under the existing terms and they will not have to pay the CTF. Developers can choose to remain on the App Store’s current business terms.

Keep moving those goalposts!

 

[redheeler]

Finding another job is much more difficult than just moving to Android which is what people should have done.

Not for a developer who wants to target both platforms.

 

[Abazigal]

On a side note, I must say that back then, I pointed that the DMA stated that Apple need allow either sideloading or app stores, and predicted that they would go with the former. I think somebody here insisted that it was a translation error, and Apple had to allow both. Turns out Apple is indeed going with my interpretation that they only had to support one or the other, and for now, are going with the option of an App Store that is way harder to get off the ground.

Anyways, at the heart of the issue is whether Apple is entitled to monetise their intellectual property or not. Apple has stated numerous times that the App Store is the primary way by which they monetise the iOS platform simply because it is the most efficient means of doing so.

Currently, anyone can publish an app for free on the App Store and 30% of revenue is shared with Apple (or 15%). This means that the barrier to entry is extremely low for new and aspiring developers, while the bulk of payments tend to come from IAPs that have zero marginal cost (like Fortnite's vbucks), therefore minimising the harm. In addition, similar to how taxes work in the real world, the ones who pay more to Apple are also the ones who make more money in the first place, which means that those who do have a greater propensity to pay, pay more. If you make zero money off your app (as in the case of a developer releasing a free app as a hobby), then you don't have to pay a cent.

I will argue that this arrangement works best for all parties involved (Apple, customers, developers).

If you do not allow Apple to charge a scaling tax rate to developers, then this is what happens. Everyone gets slapped with a flat fee that scales independently of revenue. Sure, bigger players get to keep more money when they monetise, but the chances of a developer making it big is reduced significantly, due to the higher barriers. It's little different from if Apple decided to jack up to the $99 / year developer fee to to say, $9999 or millions of dollars. Bigger companies like Facebook can afford this with no issues, but you basically kill innovation because new developers can't afford to publish their apps, and that's not good for users, and for society, as a whole.

All other things equal, I can understand why developers would prefer to have their cake and eat it too. Have free and open access to a mobile platform where the best customers in the world have been painstakingly aggregated thanks to the efforts of Apple. Just shift all the costs to Apple and expect them to monetise everything! And anybody who takes Apple's side must be a shill, regardless of the merits of their arguments! Till now, I still don't get the "you must own Apple stock" rebuttal. I don't (own any stock), nor do I have any vested interest in seeing Apple succeed or fail. I just like to debate, and I like to be right. Simple as that.

In addition, I continue to argue that Apple deserves credit for its role in creating a new market for developers, as well as conditioning customers to love apps and to trust the purchasing and downloading process. Yes, developers helped make the iOS platform a success, but without iOS, who knows what all 35 million of them would be doing now. Symbian or Blackberry certainly wouldn't have the necessary infrastructure, the developer tools or the critical mass needed to support the volume of transactions we see on iOS today.

Call me an apologist all you wish. I stand by the argument I have made all these years this current App Store arrangement is what works best for all parties involved ultimately (Apple, customers, developers).

 

[AppliedMicro]

App stores prices have gone down over time not up.

Only for small developers. And maybe (if I'm remembering correctly, for subscriptions beyond the first year.

So, it's better for more than 99.xx% of apps. But the fraction of a percent that it's worse for is all the matters? Seems like you are missing the forest for the trees.

The argument is disingenuous.
For two reasons.

1. The 0.xx% of affected apps are the very most popular apps in the store. A handful of apps makes not only for a huge number of affected consumers - it also makes a large part of consumers affected.

If we took just a handful of affected developers, and their most popular app, let's say...
- Microsoft (Office)
- Netflix
- Spotify
- Google (YouTube)
- Amazon (Prime Video)
- Disney, and maybe two or three local video streaming services...

👉 I'd easily bet that more than half of all iOS devices have one or more of them installed.
👉 I'm also sure that they account for a very sizable share of all app-related consumer spending (that is, including subscriptions that were purchased out of Apple's store but are used on these devices)

2. With the exception of Microsoft Office, Apple has been competing with them in video and music streaming with their own services.

And I've left gaming apps aside there - though it's similarly true for them as well.

So, it's better for more than 99.xx% of apps. But the fraction of a percent that it's worse for is all the matters

By the same token, 99.xx of operating system and software download stores aren't regulated by the DMA.
They aren't gatekeepers.

So consumers still can choose their preferred walled garden from the remaining 99% of software companies.
Surely that nullifies the argument that "choice of a walled garden has been taken away", doesn't it?
And also the claim of government overreach or overregulation... 99% aren't regulated, so nothing to become agitated about?

 

[heretiq]

And developers should not be charged for not using any of that. I build my own backends, nothing in my Apps uses CloudKit. So don't offer CloudKit to non Apple App Store Apps if devs chose to publish their apps in other stores and we're fine!?


When apps are not hosted by the App Store but 3rd party stores host them themselves (also updates), why is this an argument? I'm already paying 99€ per year for the SDKs, all the other services aren't required for apps in 3rd party stores. I'd understand if you'd argue that 99€ a year don't cover the costs of developing the main SDK costs (I still don't agree with that as I think that's already covered in the price of the iPhone the consumer paid), but all these services shouldn't matter if I chose to publish somewhere else without using any of that.


Talking about crying, I see you crying here about optional stuff you (rightfully) don't want to use. That's totally fine, but who are you to dictate other developers how they would like to publish their apps? You don't have to change a single thing, it's just about options. I really don't understand how one can argue about optional ways they don't have to use at all to approach things.

Btw. I'm totally fine with the 15% I'm paying Apple in the App Store, for me that has great value. But for others it might not be and it's about choice, as one company shouldn't be in a position to decide which and how people can install apps on their phone.

Just because a developer can choose to write their own backends and/or other app components, doesn’t mean that Apple avoids the cost of those pre-built components and frameworks that define and comprise Apple platforms. That multi-billion dollar investment is made by Apple and is recovered over millions of users that purchase apps and services delivered via Apple devices — based on published policies and pricing that developers are made aware of *before* they decide to build apps for Apple platforms.

I would question the judgment and motives of a developer that chooses to build for Apple devices using Apple tools, then (a) chooses to take a productivity hit by duplicating built-in components instead of leveraging them (Yes, I know that some cross-platform apps may warrant such a decision, but this is at best a *hypothetical* reality for most indie iOS developers) and then (b) argue that Apple’s published fees (investment recovery) should not apply to them because they are not using said components. C’mon man!

Arguing that you are ok with Apple’s App Store commission structure but other devs might not be .. strikes me as ignoring the irrationality of the counter argument because “one company shouldn't be in a position to decide which and how people can install apps on their phone". Well, this has been the case for every OS that has ever existed — as every OS dictates what kind of apps are permissible and how those apps are installed. Why should the phone OS be any different?

 

[BaldiMac]

Only for small developers. And maybe (if I'm remembering correctly, for subscriptions beyond the first year.

The argument is disingenuous.
For two reasons.

1. The 0.xx% of affected apps are the very most popular apps in the store. A handful of apps makes not only for a huge number of affected consumers - it also makes a large part of consumers affected.

If we took just a handful of affected developers, and their most popular app, let's say...
- Microsoft (Office)
- Netflix
- Spotify
- Google (YouTube)
- Amazon (Prime Video)
- Disney, and maybe two or three local video streaming services...

👉 I'd easily bet that more than half of all iOS devices have one or more of them installed.
👉 I'm also sure that they account for a very sizable share of all app-related consumer spending (that is, including subscriptions that were purchased out of Apple's store but are used on these devices)

2. With the exception of Microsoft Office, Apple has been competing with them in video and music streaming with their own services.

And I've left gaming apps aside there - though it's similarly true for them as well.


By the same token, 99.xx of operating system and software download stores aren't regulated by the DMA.
They aren't gatekeepers.

So consumers still can choose their preferred walled garden from the remaining 99% of software companies.
Surely that nullifies the argument that "choice of a walled garden has been taken away", doesn't it?
And also the claim of government overreach or overregulation... 99% aren't regulated, so nothing to become agitated about?

Hah! You keep fighting for terms that benefit those billion and trillion dollar companies. I’m more interested in consumer benefits and the smaller developers that I work with.

 

[AppliedMicro]

That multi-billion dollar investment is made by Apple and is recovered over millions of users that purchase apps and services

It's very well recovered by their device sales - they need most of them for their own apps anyway.

Operating systems with graphical user interfaces are much like natural oligopolies: Users and the markets converge on one or two, that get all the developer focus.

The system of open and (virtually) free access to those system has been proven very beneficial for consumers and developers - in terms of costs/pricing and innovation in apps.

It has also been very beneficial to provide low entry barriers to iOS development and distribution of mobile apps - in a period when stores for mobile apps weren't really a thing - and most apps cost maybe a EUR or two. Paying even 10 EUR for a mobile app was considered very expensive if not unheard of. Developers were lamenting about mobile app prices being to low compared to desktop apps.

And Apple has also been more than well-compensated in commissions for their early investments and establishing such "stores" over the last 15 years, as the mobile app ecosystems grew.

Given however how 1. these stores/markets have matured and "scaled up", 2. the average price of mobile apps has drastically increased, many of them even moving to subscription models, and 3. Apple has begun to compete in digital subscription services, it's time they get stripped of their free rent for "platform innovations" - so that developers and consumers can finally reap the benefits of increased scale and competition.

 

[AppliedMicro]

You keep fighting for terms that benefit those billion and trillion dollar companies

If these few billion and trillion dollar companies make the apps/services that are most popular with consumers - and that consumers spend most of their money on - yes, why not?

Especially when the biggest trillion dollar company of them all (Apple) is competing with them on unfair terms. But yeah...

👉 The more "mobile" revenue, more users > the more consumers are benefitting from more favourable terms.

I'm certainly not claiming I'm only advocating for small companies.

 

[heretiq]

It's very well recovered by their device sales - they need most of them for their own apps anyway.

Operating systems with graphical user interfaces are much like natural oligopolies: Users and the markets converge on one or two, that get all the developer focus.

The system of open and (virtually) free access to those system has been proven very beneficial for consumers and developers - in terms of costs/pricing and innovation in apps.

It has also been very beneficial to provide low entry barriers to iOS development and distribution of mobile apps - in a period when stores for mobile apps weren't really a thing - and most apps cost maybe a EUR or two. Paying even 10 EUR for a mobile app was considered very expensive if not unheard of. Developers were lamenting about mobile app prices being to low compared to desktop apps.

And Apple has also been more than well-compensated in commissions for their early investments and establishing such "stores" over the last 15 years, as the mobile app ecosystems grew.

Given however how 1. these stores/markets have matured and "scaled up", 2. the average price of mobile apps has drastically increased, many of them even moving to subscription models, and 3. Apple has begun to compete in digital subscription services, it's time they get stripped of their free rent for "platform innovations" - so that developers and consumers can finally reap the benefits of increased scale and competition.

Hmm .. That sounds to me like a recipe for stagnation. Progress is driven by innovation and innovation is driven by research and development that pushes the boundaries of what is possible. That R&D, deployment and maintenance of ever evolving platforms is a continuous investment not a one-time event as the reply suggests.

Consumers and society reap the benefits of innovation in real time — not after some mythical period of pausing to reap benefits — and have done so over the last 16+ years as iOS has contributed to educational, productivity, healthcare, job creation, wealth generation and other tangible and measurable benefits across the globe.

If I understood correctly, I believe the model implied in your reply would have a chilling effect on the innovations that many of us now take for granted. This is because it is ultimately the allure of unregulated and uncapped return on investment that motivates innovators, investors and the people they employ to bring these innovations to all of us — not egalitarian aspirations.

 

[bcortens]

Hah! You keep fighting for terms that benefit those billion and trillion dollar companies. I’m more interested in consumer benefits and the smaller developers that I work with.

Wouldn't fighting for consumer benefits mean:

1. An end to predatory monetization in apps (pay to skip timers in games, pay to buy crystals in games, ad based apps that slurp my information, subscriptions required for office apps for which I don't use the cloud services)
2. Upgrade pricing and capabilities for paid up front apps to facilitate a more consumer friendly but still sustainable business model
3. End App Store ads
4. End the annoying nagging in the system to subscribe to Apple's services (I know you can make it go away but they shouldn't be nagging me in the first place. Advertise somewhere else, I buy Apple products because I want a premium experience not one in which I have ads placed by default.
5. Remove reader app exemption so that I can sign up, subscribe, and cancel my subscription from within the app instead of having to go to the website


I know I have been arguing with you for most of this thread but if Apple would implement the above I would be more than happy for the App Store to be the only way to get iOS apps. I know the DMA does nothing to address the above and for that reason I actually have written to the commission twice with my above complaints (elaborated on in a more refined way of course).

I do think that the DMA is actually going to be pretty good for small devs that have modest annual revenue. It doesn't address my complaints about unequal treatment of developers nor do I think that Apple's position is truly to the unalloyed benefit of the consumer.

The reason I keep arguing with you in this thread is mostly that I think you're wrong to believe Apple is complying with the DMA. I think they are engaged in malicious compliance that is not to the benefit of either the developer or the consumer.


Edit: To follow up with a thought on competition. I do think that perhaps iOS has advanced more quickly than macOS because it is more profitable (not just because of iPhone but because of the App Store commission). Because of this I don't actually know how to square the circle of Apple competing with Spotify vs the 15% subscription commission.

I can argue myself both ways: That Apple shouldn't charge any commission so that apps can compete fairly, but I can also argue myself into believing that for creating and maintaining the platform they do deserve a commission.

I generally lean towards the latter and am mostly annoyed that Spotify, Netflix and others get out of paying for it.

 

[maxoakland]

I honestly don’t think some of these changes will stand up against the EU, especially the „either this or that“ „choice. The EU HATES this. They already don’t like it when a website doesn’t let you enter the website without accepting cookies

Good on the EU. That's the way corporations should be treated

 

[maxoakland]

Hmm .. That sounds to me like a recipe for stagnation. Progress is driven by innovation and innovation is driven by research and development that pushes the boundaries of what is possible. That R&D, deployment and maintenance of ever evolving platforms is a continuous investment not a one-time event as the reply suggests.

Sounds like a great reason to keep Apple from taking such egregious fees, since those companies will be able to use it for R&D to benefit consumers

 

[AppliedMicro]

The EU HATES this. They already don’t like it when a website doesn’t let you enter the website without accepting cookies

No, you got it wrong:

They have got no problem when you enter a web site without accepting cookies.

What they do have a problem with is web sites using dozens of cookie to creepily stalk users and their browsing history and behaviour (even accross web sites) without informing users.

For many web sites, there simply is no technical requirement in using cookies right on their home page anyway (i.e. unless I‘m registered / subscribed and logged in, or filling in a form or shopping cart).

That sounds to me like a recipe for stagnation

The App Store absolutely is in stagnation.
I mean… what is there to anyway? It’s a simple digital „storefront“, nothing more.
Similarly, iOS has matured. They’re iterating and slowly improving details - such as the Windows PC hardware and operating systems did, decades ago.

I generally lean towards the latter and am mostly annoyed that Spotify, Netflix and others get out of paying for it.

What about Amazon‘s store app? Uber? IKEA? Your country‘s or region‘s favourite food delivery or micro- mobility service? Your local transit app that sells tickets?

Why do they get a free pass?
See, the commission was never fair.

Also, why do they get out of paying Apple? Look, the Spotify app was introduced in 2009, when the App Store, and the iPhone, was in its infancy. Apple probably wanted to have the Spotify at least as much as Spotify wanted to be on the platform.

These companies have some (limited) leverage over Apple: them leaving iOS ad discontinuing their app would actually hurt Apple quite a bit. That’s why the “reader” app exception exists.

 

[MacFarmer]

oh my god. This is beautiful! If this is going to be implemented as is, and approved, I would be so happy.

This is unbelievably good!!!! LMAO. They wanted to avoid paying, and now they will be paying even more. haha. Don't forget there are taxes as well

Jesus, this is pure gold!

 

[bcortens]

What about Amazon‘s store app? Uber? IKEA? Your country‘s or region‘s favourite food delivery or micro- mobility service? Your local transit app that sells tickets?

Why do they get a free pass?
See, the commission was never fair.

Also, why do they get out of paying Apple? Look, the Spotify app was introduced in 2009, when the App Store, and the iPhone, was in its infancy. Apple probably wanted to have the Spotify at least as much as Spotify wanted to be on the platform.

These companies have some (limited) leverage over Apple: them leaving iOS ad discontinuing their app would actually hurt Apple quite a bit. That’s why the “reader” app exception exists.

I don't think they should get a free pass, I was using Netflix and Spotify as examples but I actually think that if the commission is a fee for providing such a great platform every monetized app should pay it regardless of how that app makes money (ads, commission on sales, etc...)

As I said, I go back and forth on whether or not any commission at all makes sense. On the one hand I do think that iOS has moved more quickly because it has a commission, on the other hand I am not sure there is any mechanism to implement it in a fair way.

This is made even more difficult because Apple wants to compete with apps on its platform.

Given how important it is to have native apps (rather than web apps) doing away with a percentage/per install based commission might be the only thing that is actually going to provide a platform on which developers can compete fairly.

I also agree that Apps are critical to having a great platform for users. The symbiotic relationship between apps and the platform and the value they bring to each other is again another reason why Apple may need to give up on the commission.

As I said, all of this is hard, I don't think that we are going to see better app monetization schemes offered because of alternative App stores because they are not required to actually get ride of predatory monetization.

 

[mrochester]

I don't think they should get a free pass, I was using Netflix and Spotify as examples but I actually think that if the commission is a fee for providing such a great platform every monetized app should pay it regardless of how that app makes money (ads, commission on sales, etc...)

As I said, I go back and forth on whether or not any commission at all makes sense. On the one hand I do think that iOS has moved more quickly because it has a commission, on the other hand I am not sure there is any mechanism to implement it in a fair way.

This is made even more difficult because Apple wants to compete with apps on its platform.

Given how important it is to have native apps (rather than web apps) doing away with a percentage/per install based commission might be the only thing that is actually going to provide a platform on which developers can compete fairly.

I also agree that Apps are critical to having a great platform for users. The symbiotic relationship between apps and the platform and the value they bring to each other is again another reason why Apple may need to give up on the commission.

As I said, all of this is hard, I don't think that we are going to see better app monetization schemes offered because of alternative App stores because they are not required to actually get ride of predatory monetization.

I think we are likely to see predatory monetisation expand once Apple’s grip on the platform is loosened. App Store owners will be incentivised to make terms that are attractive to developers, because those developers will be paying the fees/commission to those app stores. That probably means more permissive policies to extract greater value from consumers.

Right now Apple are incentivised to make their platform a safe and enjoyable space because that’s what sells their devices (and makes them money). 3rd party App Store owners have no such incentive towards the safety or security of the platform, they only have a profit incentive.

Currently Apple are a mediator between consumers and developers. In the future consumers will have less of that protection from predatory businesses.

 

[bcortens]

I think we are likely to see predatory monetisation expand once Apple’s grip on the platform is loosened. App Store owners will be incentivised to make terms that are attractive to developers, because those developers will be paying the fees/commission to those app stores. That probably means more permissive policies to extract greater value from consumers.

Yeah, this is a big concern of mine as well. We don't see it on the Mac but for some reason phone owners seem much more willing to put up with predatory monetization practices.

Right now Apple are incentivised to make their platform a safe and enjoyable space because that’s what sells their devices (and makes them money). 3rd party App Store owners have no such incentive towards the safety or security of the platform, they only have a profit incentive.

Currently Apple are a mediator between consumers and developers. In the future consumers will have less of that protection from predatory businesses.

I don't think Apple is incentivized to make their platform safe and enjoyable. There are too many antipatterns in the App Store for me to believe that anymore.


I think there are two forces at work inside Apple:

One that, as you say, wants to provide the best possible experience and would probably love to get rid of the anti-patterns and malicious monetization.

The other I think is the one that is absolutely loving the revenue they get from the commission on in-app-purchase and doesn't want to do anything that could possibly jeopardize that revenue even if it improve users experience of their platform.