Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The most recent ATP podcast talks a lot about the App Store and Apple’s relationship with developers. John Siracusa also wrote a blog post on some of the things Apple could do improve their relationship with developers. The gist is that Apple needs to do more to earn the 30% and being forced to compete would force them to improve their services. Siracusa says:

Finally, remove all restrictions on third-party payment methods and app stores. Provide an even playing field (to the extent possible) for third-party replacements for Apple’s own store and payment systems. Freedom of choice is the best way—perhaps the only way—to ensure that developers are satisfied with Apple’s App Store commission, in-app purchase system, and app review process. Developers who don’t like it can go elsewhere. If Apple wants them back, it will have to compete for their business.

Why is Apple so afraid of having to compete here? Allow 3rd party app stores and payment options and then compete to make Apple’s offering one that developers want to use instead of one they’re forced to use.
 
This is such ********. Any company should be allowed to collect fees on their own platform. if you don't want to pay the fees, then don't be on their platform. Is Fortnite still relevant?
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: turbineseaplane
Anyone know when this whole thing is due to be completed? Surely there must be an end point somewhere along the line.
 


Apple will not be able to walk back the anti-steering App Store changes it was ordered to implement in May while the legal process plays out, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said today. That means Epic Games, Spotify, Patreon, and others will be able to continue to direct customers to web purchase options that are available outside of the App Store, and Apple won't be able to collect fees on those web purchases.

iOS-App-Store-General-Feature-Black.jpg

Shortly after being forced to update its U.S. App Store rules to support external purchase links, Apple filed an emergency motion with the appeals court. Apple wanted to be able to hold off on implementing the new rules until it was able to mount a full appeal, but the appeals court denied the motion.

To be granted a stay, Apple needed to prove that its appeal is likely to succeed and that it would be irreparably injured without a stay, while the court also needed to consider whether the stay would injure other parties and where public interest lies. The court said that after "reviewing the relevant factors" it has not been persuaded that a stay is appropriate.

Apple argued that the original order was "extraordinary" and forced it to "give away free access" to Apple products and services, including intellectual property. Apple said that it should be able to collect commission on external purchase links and control the way those links look, both of which are currently prohibited. Apple claimed that keeping the App Store rules as is will cost it "hundreds of millions to billions" of dollars annually.

The App Store changes that Apple implemented in the U.S. are a result of the ongoing Apple vs. Epic Games legal battle that started in 2020. The judge overseeing the case originally ordered Apple to tweak the App Store rules to allow developers to direct customers to web purchase options instead of using in-app purchases. Apple complied after a multi-year appeals process, but levied 12 to 27 percent fees on developers who opted to do so and implemented strict rules around link styling.

Epic Games protested Apple's implementation, and the judge sided with Epic. In a scathing ruling, Apple was ordered to immediately change its U.S. App Store rules. As of now, Apple is not allowed to charge any fee on purchases that consumers make outside of an app, nor is it allowed to restrict the language or design that developers use for buttons or links to web purchase options.

Article Link: Court Rejects Apple's Emergency Motion to Pause App Store Rule Changes
Sounds like a personal ax to grind against Apple for being successful.
 
This is such ********. Any company should be allowed to collect fees on their own platform. if you don't want to pay the fees, then don't be on their platform. Is Fortnite still relevant?

Very much so. Picked up my 12 year old from a birthday party a few weeks ago and all the kids there were playing or watching Fortnite, albeit on Switch. That and Fortnite had somewhere near $5 billion in revenue in last year.

It's also the #1 game on the App Store currently, with 40k reviews.
 
4) Consoles are sold at loss, is iPhone being sold at loss? Apple is making billions of dollars, locking developers in its own App Store, taking billions away from developer. The greed is unbelievable
It’s a choice to sell a console at a loss. Is the switch 2 being sold at a loss? How much profit margin is deemed enough before a platform owner is no longer allowed to profit off their own App Store?

To me, these are two mutually exclusive matters. Apple makes a lot of money from iPhone sales, which in turn allows them to aggregate the best customers (ie: users with more disposable income and a propensity to spend). Developers have the opportunity to make more money (more so compared to android despite the larger market share enjoyed by the latter).

A closed ecosystem also means less app revenue lost to piracy. Increased trust in the platform also mean people tend to spend more.

Charging developers a cut is not unreasonable when you consider all the work Apple has done in conditioning users to trust the purchasing process and spend more on apps than they otherwise would have.

We can debate till the cows come home as to what a reasonable percentage ought to be. Bottom line - Apple deserves something.

I wonder if it’s any coincidence that I have settled on a switch console over the steam deck. Nintendo and Apple seem to share some similarities in their business practices. Their App Store cut, their attention to detail and their need for control over the end user experience 🤔
 
I'm a small independent developer and I'm glad I don't have to pay $2900/mo for Google Maps usage because Apple provides 100% free MapKit usage for all third party iOS developers. This is paid for by the 30% revenue Apple gets from the App Store cut.
So you, a small independent developer, would pay hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of USD more than Uber.

Whereas Uber, a large developer, is raking in billions every year without paying Apple commission and using Apple Maps for free.

If you think that’s fair, good 👍

Apple should just start charging them per app download.
As long as they don’t discriminate, that’s fairer than their current pricing.

Any company should be allowed to collect fees on their own platform
Epic’s Fortnite app, website and Fortnite Item Store are Epic’s platform.

And they should collect their prices or fees as they (and their consumers) like to.
 
Last edited:
It’s a choice to sell a console at a loss. Is the switch 2 being sold at a loss? How much profit margin is deemed enough before a platform owner is no longer allowed to profit off their own App Store?

Again, you completed avoiding other questions. Microsoft does provide alternative way for users to pay and they lowered its margin to 12%.

Apple on other hand, generating billion of dollars on hardware sales, yet they still refuse to lower the cut nor provide alternative way for user to pay.

Apple wants both, and that is the problem.

To me, these are two mutually exclusive matters. Apple makes a lot of money from iPhone sales, which in turn allows them to aggregate the best customers (ie: users with more disposable income and a propensity to spend). Developers have the opportunity to make more money (more so compared to android despite the larger market share enjoyed by the latter).

A closed ecosystem also means less app revenue lost to piracy. Increased trust in the platform also mean people tend to spend more.

Less app revenue lost for Apple, not so much about privacy. You can have alternative apps store still respect users privacy. Don’t tell me Apple is the only company in this entire world respecting user privacy.

it is also up to the developers to decide right? Right now, develop only have Apple way or highway. You still haven’t answered the question about why does Apple feel entitled to take cut on everything? Why does Apple feel it’s entitled to take 30% sales on ebook purchase when entire thing is facilitated by Amazon?

Charging developers a cut is not unreasonable when you consider all the work Apple has done in conditioning users to trust the purchasing process and spend more on apps than they otherwise would have.

We can debate till the cows come home as to what a reasonable percentage ought to be. Bottom line - Apple deserves something.

I wonder if it’s any coincidence that I have settled on a switch console over the steam deck. Nintendo and Apple seem to share some similarities in their business practices. Their App Store cut, their attention to detail and their need for control over the end user experience 🤔

Apparently Epic and whole other developers don’t agree your statement. And these developers were forced by Apple.

Apple deserves nothing from developer when they paid annual developers fee. This is the ticket that Apple charge for developers to developing apps. Each integration of iOS or MacOS requires nee Xcode, and Apple has habit of dropping hardware support arbitrarily. Apple gets money from hardware sale, money from annual developers fee. Apple shouldn’t feel entitled to charge more.
 
My sibling in Christ, Apple has rejected apps and updates for doing exactly this, per App Review Guidelines. With the exception of so-called "reader" apps, Apple forced developers with digital goods/services to use IAP and only IAP on iOS, until recent regulatory changes.

To clarify: Developers were always free to sell their digital goods/services elsewhere, of course,

so...not "forced developers with digital goods/services to use IAP and only IAP on iOS"

your "clarification" contradicts what you wrote earlier as it's not ONLY IAP because you can sell digital goods OUTSIDE OF IAP via iOS Safari. you accused me of not reading properly but I'm highlighting the exact phrase of where you went wrong.

have a great day.
 
If this is the case, I am just going to use 3U tools to side load my apps.

And this will just not work.

If Apple is forced to allow external payment method, then why would developer pay anything? They are just going to list all their App as free app and payment is done on external.

Unless you are saying

1) iPhone users need to pay for per app download. Let's see how iPhone users react.
2) Apple will charge per app download even on a free app.
Charge the developer. Free app or not. If it gets downloaded, you pay X amount per download.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: HighwaySnowman
yea, now Epic and the likes get to load apps into the store and use Apple's infrastructure for $99/year - that is plain wrong.
If Apple doesn't like it, they're free to shut down their ridiculous app store and let us install software normally.

That would be absolutely lovely as far as I'm concerned. I'd much rather install software directly than have Apple play middleman.
 
so...not "forced developers with digital goods/services to use IAP and only IAP on iOS"

your "clarification" contradicts what you wrote earlier as it's not ONLY IAP because you can sell digital goods OUTSIDE OF IAP via iOS Safari. you accused me of not reading properly but I'm highlighting the exact phrase of where you went wrong.

have a great day.
“Only IAP on iOS.” Not difficult.
 
If we were to use analogies, Epic is the drug cartel developing and packaging all the drugs.

Meanwhile, Apple is like the middleman and/or street vendor who sells the Epic drugs to all the kids and gets a 30% cut from each sale.

Now I understand why Apple loves that 30% cut so much and wants to protect it. It's analogous to a street dealer protecting his territory/street corner.

Curious why Apple didn’t allow Fortnite back into The App Store all these years so they could get a cut of
A private company still need to follow the law. And law prohibits monopolistic behavior or anti-competitive action.



If the judge determines Apple is abusing its market power and found Apple is being anticompetitive, then sure Apple need to forced to open up its marketplace.

If a judge found Microsoft, Sony or whatever being anticompetitive, then they sure will be forced to do the same.

Apple is not a monopoly. Neither are they being anti-competitive. The judge in the Epic trial already concluded Apple wasn’t a monopoly.
 
Curious why Apple didn’t allow Fortnite back into The App Store all these years so they could get a cut of


Apple is not a monopoly. Neither are they being anti-competitive. The judge in the Epic trial already concluded Apple wasn’t a monopoly.

Directly quote from the judge:

To summarize: One, after trial, the Court found that Apple's 30 percent commission "allowed it to reap supracompetitive operating margins" and was not tied to the value of its intellectual property, and thus, was anticompetitive. Apple's response: charge a 27 percent commission (again tied to nothing) on off-app purchases, where it had previously charged nothing, and extend the commission for a period of seven days after the consumer linked-out of the app. Apple's goal: maintain its anticompetitive revenue stream.

Two, the Court had prohibited Apple from denying developers the ability to communicate with, and direct consumers to, otherpurchasing mechanisms. Apple's response: impose new barriers and new requirements to increase friction and increase breakage rates with full page "scare" screens, static URLs, and generic statements. Apple's goal: to dissuade customer usage of alternative purchase opportunities and maintain its anticompetitive revenue stream.

In the end, Apple sought to maintain a revenue stream worth billions in direct defiance of this Court's Injunction.


Thus, the judge found the Apple was being anti-competitive.
 
Why is the purchases of a physical CD or book free from Apple's commissions - but an music download or eBook supposed to cost 30% commission?

Moreover, why did the U.S. Supreme Court deny review of the original Apple v Epic case, which let stand the Appellate courts confirmation of the trial courts ruling. Which was that Apple was not a monopoly (not abusive with its monopoly). Allowing Apple to continue to charge 30% commission, does not force them to open up, to allow 3rd party app stores, or even have to allow sideloading. Only thing unenforceable was the anti-steering provision.

Just to be clear, that's not me siding with you in your enthusiasm. Clearly, though, there is a distinction between physical and digital because the SCOTUS denied "cert". Otherwise, they'd have agreed to review and I'd guess side with your belief that there should be no difference between the two. Correct me if I'm wrong.

That said, Apple has stepped in the doo-doo post-adjudication - which you're more then allowed to rejoice over. Apple, for sure, chose poorly here. I just don't know that the trial court's hellfire on Apple can fully be sustained on appellate review. Pretty sure that judges can not dictate pricing. Impose fines, yes, invalidate contract or agreement provisions, yes, force divestiture (sales), break companies apart, mandate compliance, etc sure -- but, pretty sure they can't set pricing or commission rates. We'll have to see.

I'm always more interested in what someone thinks of Google's loss, though. Since, in the Epic v Google case, Google Play is different. In that, Google Play is a monopoly. Or, more specifically, Google abused its monopoly powers with Google Play on the Android platform. Even though Google literally allows -sideloading- and _3rd party app stores_ on Android. That is, where Apple more or less got a slap on the wrist. Google, instead, is the one that's going to face (ostensibly) harsh consequences.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.