Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
56,623
19,371


The Arizona House of Representatives today passed HB2005, a state bill that would provide developers with an alternative to Google and Apple's in-app purchase options by allowing developers to use their own payment solutions within apps.

app-store-blue-banner.jpg

Last week, the Arizona House Committee advanced the bill, and now it has also been approved by the House of Representatives. It will next be heard by the Arizona Senate.


Apple and Google have been lobbying aggressively against the bill for weeks now because it would let developers use third-party payment options to avoid the 15 to 30 percent cut that Apple takes from app purchases an in-app payments.

In a hearing last week, Apple chief compliance officer Kyle Andeer called HB2005 a "government mandate that Apple give away the App Store."
"This would allow billion-dollar developers to take all of the app store's value for free, even if they're selling digital goods, even if they're making millions or billions of dollars doing it. The bill is a government mandate that Apple give away the app store."
Apple last month successfully fought back against a similar bill in North Dakota, which would have paved the way for third-party app store options.

Like the North Dakota bill, the Arizona bill was backed by the Coalition for App Fairness, a group that includes companies like Epic Games, Spotify, Basecamp, and Tile, all of whom have had significant issues with Apple's App Store rules. There's a similar bill in Minnesota that Apple is also battling against.

Article Link: Arizona Advances Bill That Will Let Developers Skirt Apple's In-App Purchase Rules
 
  • Love
Reactions: rumormiller

G5isAlive

macrumors 65816
Aug 28, 2003
1,419
2,228
Apple should just not allow Developers in arizona. Easy solution!

I like how game consoles are excluded for no apparent reason.

The problem is this is going to be like incorporating a business in Delaware, the small sliver of land that somehow has 67% of all fortune 500 companies incorporating there, and countless smaller companies. Delaware has made itself a haven for anonymous incorporation, lower taxes, etc, so a number of companies regardless of where they do business, incorporate in Delaware. If this goes through you will see a lot of sham operations relocating in Arizona to take advantage of this loophole. This is politics at its worst.
 

Shirasaki

macrumors G5
May 16, 2015
12,845
6,815
So, it passes house, but will need to go through senate. If last four years is anything to go by, they still have a long way to go before this bill can actually become a thing, let alone any sort of domino effect.
The good thing is, App Store fee and some basics of this policy has been publicly known. Even if this bill is denied in Senate, next time someone picking this bill up might change their mind and we might see some interesting change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KeithBN

Scipster

macrumors regular
Aug 13, 2020
227
591
Apple really needs to get ahead of this so we don't end up with a patchwork of systems and frameworks, with every OS variant named after a state park than a national park. Doing nothing/lobbying against isn't a viable solution. Better to be proactive than reactive! And if there's one company I know can do it, it's Apple. Truly the most visionary business in the industry.
 
Last edited:

ArtOfWarfare

macrumors G3
Nov 26, 2007
9,380
5,657
Wow! What was the breakdown on the vote? In North Dakota, shooting down a similar bill was bipartisan - about 70% of both Republicans and Democrats voted against it, so it didn't seem to be a partisan issue at all. I'm curious if maybe it was different in Arizona and maybe one party of the other was more infavor of this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SFjohn

dguisinger

macrumors 65816
Jul 25, 2002
1,055
2,020
Easy solution is for Apple to charge "rent" for the distribution services, based on number of and size of downloads. You wish to give something away for free? Thats your problem that you have to pay for it and don't want to charge for your software, like any other free software distributed on a cheap website.

Then Apple could reduce their transaction charges to something reasonable for the service they are actually provided. At that point, most developers would stick with it because it would more easily integrate with the eco system for payment / subscription management.

But i still find it completely unreasonable that they collect 30% continuously (yes, i know it drops off after a subscription passes a year) for what often is services provided in that subscription off the developer's infrastructure, and content (for games) that was created on the developer's dime.

I get it, they make the initial sale, make your money off that sale. I get the problem that IAP is for "fremium" apps, as it disrupts that business model.... but that is a business model the app store pretty much created at large scale, and I feel they could solve it in a way that doesn't nail companies who have much larger expenses behind their subscription services than the service apple is providing to charge a card monthly.
 

CthuluLemon

macrumors regular
Aug 14, 2020
243
423
Easy solution is for Apple to charge "rent" for the distribution services, based on number of and size of downloads. You wish to give something away for free? Thats your problem that you have to pay for it and don't want to charge for your software, like any other free software distributed on a cheap website.

Then Apple could reduce their transaction charges to something reasonable for the service they are actually provided. At that point, most developers would stick with it because it would more easily integrate with the eco system for payment / subscription management.

But i still find it completely unreasonable that they collect 30% continuously (yes, i know it drops off after a subscription passes a year) for what often is services provided in that subscription off the developer's infrastructure, and content (for games) that was created on the developer's dime.

I get it, they make the initial sale, make your money off that sale. I get the problem that IAP is for "fremium" apps, as it disrupts that business model.... but that is a business model the app store pretty much created at large scale, and I feel they could solve it in a way that doesn't nail companies who have much larger expenses behind their subscription services than the service apple is providing to charge a card monthly.

It's a great thought, but Tim Cook doesn't know how to do it. The Apple we knew died on October 5, 2011. Now it's just a money-grab operated by an operations hack masquerading as a visionary. Apple is protecting the App Store because fees and hidden expenses are the only way Tim Cook knows how to make money. It's been nothing but half-baked products, service fees, dongles, and stock buybacks under his leadership, not to mention the exodus of numerous other senior executives Jobs had put in place before stepping down. Apple is no better than Microsoft now, wealthy and successful, but no longer a leader in innovation. It will take time for everyone to realize it, of course.
 

The Cappy

macrumors 6502a
Nov 9, 2015
528
922
Dunwich Fish Market
Apple really needs to get ahead of this so we don't end up with a patchwork of systems and frameworks, with every iOS variant named after a state park than a national park. Doing nothing/lobbying against isn't a viable solution. Better to be proactive than reactive! And if there's one company I know can do it, it's Apple. Truly the most visionary business in the industry.
What exactly does it mean to be "proactive" about a stupid idea? You don't "get head of" stupid ideas because they come in endless varieties. All that you *can* do is react to them. Apple reduced its commissions, but you'll notice that did absolutely nothing to mollify the idiot supporters of Epic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jjack50 and jjm3

Scipster

macrumors regular
Aug 13, 2020
227
591
Apple should just not allow Developers in arizona. Easy solution!

I like how game consoles are excluded for no apparent reason.
If it's written like the North Dakota bill, it applies to companies like Microsoft, Google, Sony, and Nintendo too. Any software distribution platform that has in-app purchases with more than 1 million AZ users are subject to the rule, regardless of the manufacturer.
 

farewelwilliams

Suspended
Jun 18, 2014
4,966
18,035
Why would it hurt consumers? And of course it hurts developers they take 15- 30 % off of thin air because they say they “protect the store”

Did you enjoy typing in your CC manually in Doordash? I didn't. And I sure don't know how secure Doordash is. Imagine someone typed in their debit card into a no-name app and the app stored it in plaintext. Their money would be gone in a few months. Oh and, good luck trying to deal with their customer support for a refund as opposed to just asking Apple support (which they generally refund within 24 hours every single time I've asked for one).

I'm saying bypassing IAP would hurt small developers. iOS app dev services rely on IAP for all the features that indie developers use. I certainly enjoy 100% free Apple maps as opposed to paying $10k/mo to Google Maps for my apps.
 

BuffaloTF

macrumors 65816
Jun 10, 2008
1,387
1,613
Why would it hurt consumers? And of course it hurts developers they take 15- 30 % off of thin air because they say they “protect the store”

Sigh......

They don’t provide “nothing” for 15-30%. They provide payment processing, app review, certification, distribution (globally), tax payments (globally), tax documentation (globally), customer service support, advertising, API development, API services support...

The payment processing alone costs 25% in some countries in Asia and Latin America.

30% is a steal for what they get in return.
 

leman

macrumors P6
Oct 14, 2008
16,115
13,275
Why would it hurt consumers?

Because if multiple payment systems were allowed you'd be forced to register and maintain multiple shop accounts, exposing your personal data to multiple agencies and data tracking companies.

And of course it hurts developers they take 15- 30 % off of thin air because they say they “protect the store”

It also provides tons of services that would usually cost much more than 15% of your revenue, especially if you are a new small-time dev. The great thing about the App Store model is that the infrastructure is financed by successful apps, allowing newcomers to enter the market with very little financial risk. I can build an app in my free time, working after my regular job, and maybe I am lucky and this app is going to be popular. And if I fail I only lost my time and learned something. If all the big hitters are not contributing to the infrastructure costs, Apple will probably be forced to ask for hosting/distribution fees, meaning that a small-time dev like me has no chance, since I can't raise $$$ to pay for store space.
 

Michael Scrip

macrumors 604
Mar 4, 2011
7,368
10,688
NC
So what should the rules be?

I know the big "problem" developers have is that they are "losing" 30% to Apple on every sale. (even though it's been this way for 12 years...)

But let's not forget that Apple is the platform. They created the OS. They make the tools. They write the APIs. They run the store. They run the servers. They calculate taxes in over 100 countries. They provide support. And so on.

So I hope these states aren't suggesting that all paid apps and IAP should just freeload off Apple.

And it's because of Apple's rules that developers' iOS apps are rarely pirated. I'd love to hear from Android developers about how much they are "losing" from straight-up piracy.

As a customer... I don't have a fear of downloading an app from some unknown developer because I know Apple has already vetted them. And if I decide to purchase the app or make an IAP... I know Apple's got my back.

Would I download the same app from an unknown developer from some random store? And give them my credit card info? Probably not.

I guess if Apple is forced to allow alternative stores and payment systems... developers won't have to use them. They can still use the real App Store.

Which is good... because I probably won't make purchases anywhere else.

Hell... some developers might make less money in alternative app stores since it's a hassle for consumers to go to various stores.

I can imagine a situation where a developer makes 1,000 sales a day in the App Store... but they have to give 30% to Apple.

An alternative store might only take 10%... but the developer only gets 200 sales a day.

In that case... it'd be better for the developer to just stay in the Apple App Store. Plus they don't have to deal with submitting apps to multiple stores... dealing with updates in multiple stores... etc.
 

Piggie

macrumors G3
Feb 23, 2010
8,771
3,379
May I just state the obvious for a moment please.
The App store will either get broken up, opened up, or slackened off it's total control at some point.
That is a cold hard fact.
Now, it may not be this year, next year, perhaps 5 years, 10 years 20 years?
But it will happen.
At some point opinions of those in charge/power WILL change.
If Apple keeps gaining more customers and more market share, as they of course want then, the percentage of people locked into Apple's system will grow and grow, and likewise the pressure to open the store in some way will grow.

It's simply not a case of if it have to open up, it's a case of when.
I do hope most people here are intelligent enough to understand this will happen, with or without Apple's willingness to do it themselves.

Nothing stays the same forever, and the 100% locked down app store is no different.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.