Dutch Regulator Says Apple's Plan for Third-Party In-App Payments is Insufficient, Fines Apple 5 Million Euros

[Michael Scrip]

I don't have a problem with Apple collecting some commission. But it should be reflective of the actual investment they made into the App and it should be voluntary. As in something like a ~10% commission and sideloading should be allowed so that if a dev doesn't agree with Apple's terms, there's still a way to reach 60% of U.S. consumers.

I agree with 10%

People... call your representatives. We need to make this happen!

I'm still not sold on sideloading, though. There could be abuse if scammy developers are allowed to run unchecked software on iPhones.

Yes it's still up to the individual user to download a scam app... but still. You know it will happen.

See Windows malware...

Maybe if Apple super-sandboxed everything on the phone it wouldn't be so bad. But I still fear for a scam app getting people's photos or contacts.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Netflix, Spotify, and Amazon Kindle were all highly successful moving 100% of payments involved with their App Store apps to the internet years ago. That all happened without any changes in laws and those are very mainstream kinds of apps that get used by the "typical" smartphone user. It should have failed if iPhone users were really that ignorant of other information sources etc, but they're not so...

not relevant to how laws work as it's still anticompetitive behavior

Ah... so there are other platforms.

And I thought Apple had some kind of crazy monopoly.

?

indeed, other platforms doesn't make it not a monopoly as legally defined. The definitions used in the laws is all that matters

So what should the relationship be?

Can Apple charge a commission?

apple can charge a commission… In the app store. Everything outside, they shouldn't be allowed to force a commission. Such as after a customer have downloaded the app, then apple's work is done, and it should be 100% voluntary if they choose to use apple's IAP system or a third party system on the merit of it being superior to stripe or other options.

They can take a fee for used services if they think it's a good idea for free apps (it's probably not in the long term)

I agree with 10%

it can be 100% as long as its voluntary

I'm still not sold on sideloading, though. There could be abuse if scammy developers are allowed to run unchecked software on iPhones.

well we already have this problem today caused of the sheer number of apps that apple don't have the ability to control them all, just as YouTube can't watch all uploaded content. But I'm also against side loading as long as apple's privacy policy of clear indication of what info is requested and the ability to say no isn't a legal requirement on all apps.

Yes it's still up to the individual user to download a scam app... but still. You know it will happen.

The price for consumer choice for those who don't want to be cuddled by apple all the time

See Windows malware...

Maybe if Apple super-sandboxed everything on the phone it wouldn't be so bad. But I still fear for a scam app getting people's photos or contacts.

well, that's exactly what they do now. People just love finding exploits in the sandbox

 

[Sophisticatednut]

You’re getting the metaphors mixed I feel. Apple is the platform. You can’t goto Wal-mart, not like their terms and goto Wal-Mart in the next town over and negotiate with them separately. That is the difference. You want to be an Apple developer, these are the terms. Just like if you want to be in Wal-Mart, you agree to their terms. You are free to develop for Android, Windows, Steam, Epic or release your own PWA apps, just like you can goto Target, Dollar General or wherever else in retail.

I think you don't understand how software works...
If you make a fidget spinner, you don't produce a Walmart version and an Amazon version or Target to sell it. You have one universal product you can sell anywhere, don't like the terms you can do literary nothing and sell it somewhere else

Software unfortunately is unique by the fact that if you want to sell an app on iPhones; you need to write it for iPhones. You want it on android, then you need to write it specifically for android. You want it on Windows, you need to write it specifically for windows etc. etc. you can't just write one program and upload it everywhere.

you dont like the Apple agreement or you dont get your app approved, the nyou need to write a completely new app if you want to sell it on android. And if you want to sell it on Windows platform then you need to write a new program again

On Windows you can develop one app and sell it on steam, epic, Windows store, retail store, your own website etc. etc. you only need one version.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Pipo usaly think server infrastructure and so on just pays for it
Self they don’t know that a lot money which apple makes from the AppStore is flowing back into servicing and upgrading thair infrastructure and keeping that services running and working improving

Well looking how terribly designed teh app store is made, the removal of iTunes as a useful tool on Windows and their removal of the ability to browse App store on your computer to find apps is removed would say 0-1% of the revenue goes back to improve the service. There isn't even a good way to report apps.

 

[I7guy]

[…]

On Windows you can develop one app and sell it on steam, epic, Windows store, retail store, your own website etc. etc. you only need one version.

You are saying a win32 app will run on a website….I’ve not heard of that but…

 

[thejadedmonkey]

Who pays for the development of this common framework? Who pays for its continued maintenance and updates?

The issue here is that developers are trying to avoid paying Apple a commission, but those same developers are supposed to get free resources?

Apple's original model is the simplest, for developers and users. It's the regulators that are making it a mess.

The OS developer pays for the development, and they in turn get their money from the userbase. Without the frameworks, the applications can't be written, and without the applications, the platform is dead.

Apple is the only company I'm aware of that double dips, and also charges developers in order to allow them access to the APIs they need to use.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

You are saying a win32 app will run on a website….I’ve not heard of that but…

eh i said you can sell it on your website, provide a file that will download and install it. Nothing about it running in the browser. the same file is downloaded everywhere

But yes you can run a Win32 app in a browser if you realy want to.

Thanks to emscripten you can compile anything that can be made into LLVM bytecode (like C or C++) into JavaScript. For example, Unreal Engine 4 was compiled into JS and was able to be run inside of Firefox, without plugins, at around half of native speed. In addition, a list of games, game-engines, emulators, frameworks, and programming languages have been compiled to run as JS in the browser.

So, if you have the source of the application that you want to run in the browser and you don't mind some tinkering, you might be able to get it running with emscripten.

 

[I7guy]

eh i said you can sell it on your website, provide a file that will download and install it. Nothing about it running in the browser. the same file is downloaded everywhere

But yes you can run a Win32 app in a browser if you realy want to.

Thanks to emscripten you can compile anything that can be made into LLVM bytecode (like C or C++) into JavaScript. For example, Unreal Engine 4 was compiled into JS and was able to be run inside of Firefox, without plugins, at around half of native speed. In addition, a list of games, game-engines, emulators, frameworks, and programming languages have been compiled to run as JS in the browser.

So, if you have the source of the application that you want to run in the browser and you don't mind some tinkering, you might be able to get it running with emscripten.

I misread your post. Cool stuff though. However Microsoft business proposition is different than apple and google as Microsoft back in the day didn’t sell hardware.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

You are saying a win32 app will run on a website….I’ve not heard of that but…

here you have a video example that you could if you wanted, for some reason instead of installing it localy

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I misread your post. Cool stuff though. However Microsoft business proposition is different than apple and google as Microsoft back in the day didn’t sell hardware.

well you can do the same thing with Mac as well

 

[mox358]

I think you don't understand how software works...
If you make a fidget spinner, you don't produce a Walmart version and an Amazon version or Target to sell it. You have one universal product you can sell anywhere, don't like the terms you can do literary nothing and sell it somewhere else

Software unfortunately is unique by the fact that if you want to sell an app on iPhones; you need to write it for iPhones. You want it on android, then you need to write it specifically for android. You want it on Windows, you need to write it specifically for windows etc. etc. you can't just write one program and upload it everywhere.

you dont like the Apple agreement or you dont get your app approved, the nyou need to write a completely new app if you want to sell it on android. And if you want to sell it on Windows platform then you need to write a new program again

On Windows you can develop one app and sell it on steam, epic, Windows store, retail store, your own website etc. etc. you only need one version.

I can’t tell if you’re kidding or not? Yes, I understand how software works… I’m a developer. I have apps, written in different languages - swift on iOS, Java and Kotlin on Android and C# on Windows, in different app stores. And web apps too in multiple languages! ??‍♂️

I just plan ahead and if I don’t like the terms a platform offers, I don’t waste my time developing there in the first place. Apple’s terms are great for 99% of devs. So I develop there.

The devs who will benefit from this are billion dollar companies. I think MS, Epic, Spotify and Match will be able to scrape by somehow.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I can’t tell if you’re kidding or not? Yes, I understand how software works… I’m a developer. I have apps, written in different languages - swift on iOS, Java and Kotlin on Android and C# on Windows, in different app stores. And web apps too in multiple languages! ??‍♂️

Then how can you have such a wrong understanding of APIs then?

You should know as a developer you don’t have them in your application but it’s just a list of “system calls” the app can request. You can’t license or copyright a list of things it’s

I just plan ahead and if I don’t like the terms a platform offers, I don’t waste my time developing there in the first place. Apple’s terms are great for 99% of devs. So I develop there.

Obviously not as apples terms are anti competitive. Them being good for you doesn’t make them terrible for the market

The devs who will benefit from this are billion dollar companies. I think MS, Epic, Spotify and Match will be able to scrape by somehow.

And why won’t small developers benefit from this? It will force apple to actually improve their services

 

[Michael Scrip]

And why won’t small developers benefit from this? It will force Apple to actually improve their services

What's wrong with Apple's services? ?

I thought developers had a problem with the fees Apple charges.

Go back and look at all the complaints from Epic, Spotify, Hey!, and the various government investigations.

Not much talk about Apple's services... but a whole bunch of talk about the 30% fees.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

What's wrong with Apple's services? ?

I thought developers had a problem with the fees Apple charges.

Go back and look at all the complaints from Epic, Spotify, Hey!, and the various government investigations.

Not much talk about Apple's services... but a whole bunch of talk about the 30% fees.

Everything is wrong. The store is utter ****, missing some basic features, both for developers and customers

Developers have a problem with apple's fees, regulators have a problem with apple's anticompetitive behavior, limiting their choices on out of store payment options.

The Netherlands don't care if apple takes 30% or 100% of App store purchases, they barely care of In-APP purchases. They care that they can't choose other payment options that isn't apple's solution with a mandated 15-30% cut.

If apple is forced to allow Developers to use third party solutions or apple's solution without taking a commission, this will force apple to justify their 30% cut by either lowering it or providing services that justifies the high commission. And/or provide a link to their website in the app without paying apple a commission. Essentially forcing apple to treat all apps as reader apps equally.

And I can tell you as a customer I will never pay apple's commission if i have the option as i don't think apple deserves it for the quality they provide today. Sometimes i would rather jailbreak my device, pirate the app and send the developer an invoice effectively circumventing apples fees.

 

[mrochester]

Everything is wrong. The store is utter ****, missing some basic features, both for developers and customers

Developers have a problem with apple's fees, regulators have a problem with apple's anticompetitive behavior, limiting their choices on out of store payment options.

The Netherlands don't care if apple takes 30% or 100% of App store purchases, they barely care of In-APP purchases. They care that they can't choose other payment options that isn't apple's solution with a mandated 15-30% cut.

If apple is forced to allow Developers to use third party solutions or apple's solution without taking a commission, this will force apple to justify their 30% cut by either lowering it or providing services that justifies the high commission. And/or provide a link to their website in the app without paying apple a commission. Essentially forcing apple to treat all apps as reader apps equally.

And I can tell you as a customer I will never pay apple's commission if i have the option as i don't think apple deserves it for the quality they provide today. Sometimes i would rather jailbreak my device, pirate the app and send the developer an invoice effectively circumventing apples fees.

I think you’ll find Apple will take a commission regardless of what payment method the developer chooses to accept.

It’s going to be interesting to see what that commission will be. If it’s anything like Google it’ll be 3 or 4 percentage points below where it currently is

 

[Michael Scrip]

Everything is wrong. The store is utter ****, missing some basic features, both for developers and customers

It makes me wonder why developers even bothered making apps for iOS in the first place.

The store is crap... the fees are insane... it's missing basic features... etc.

You know there are other jobs than being an app developer, right?

Time to find a new career. I hear everywhere is hiring...

 

[Michael Scrip]

I think you’ll find Apple will take a commission regardless of what payment method the developer chooses to accept.

It’s going to be interesting to see what that commission will be.

If it’s anything like Google it’ll be 3 or 4 percentage points below where it currently is

Exactly.

Google's commission is 15% if they handle the payments... and 11% if they don't.

So if a developer decides they want someone else like Stripe or PayPal to process their payments... and those services charge 2.9% plus 30 cents on each transaction... the developer is right back to paying roughly 15% anyway.

Seems like the commission fee is what all these lawsuits should be investigating.

All this talk about 3rd-party payment processing is missing the mark. Payment processing is not even the biggest fee.

Who's gonna be the first US state or national government to pass a law that says commission fees are illegal?

That should be fun...

?

 

[mrochester]

Exactly.

Google's commission is 15% if they handle the payments... and 11% if they don't.

So if a developer decides they want someone else like Stripe or PayPal to process their payments... and those services charge 2.9% plus 30 cents on each transaction... the developer is right back to around 15% anyway.

Seems like the commission fee is what all these lawsuits should be investigating.

All this talk about 3rd-party payment processing is missing the mark.

Who's gonna be the first US state or national government to pass a law that says commission fees are illegal?

That should be fun...

?

Exactly, if the only thing Apple is NOT going to be doing is payment processing then that is only a small percentage of the existing commission they charge. So the existing commission will only drop by a small amount to account for the fact Apple will no longer be the payment processor.

Payment processing does not cost 15-30%

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I think you’ll find Apple will take a commission regardless of what payment method the developer chooses to accept.

It’s going to be interesting to see what that commission will be. If it’s anything like Google it’ll be 3 or 4 percentage points below where it currently is

I think you will find the Dutch government will tell apple *NO*

 

[mrochester]

I think you will find the Dutch government will tell apple *NO*

They cant/won’t. Selling goods and services is how capitalist, market economies work. No government is going to tell a company they cannot sell their goods and services for a fee.

 

[I7guy]

I think you will find the Dutch government will tell apple *NO*

Wasn’t apple ready to pull out of the UK over some patent disputes? Maybe they should kick dating apps out of the App Store.

 

[I7guy]

Exactly.

Google's commission is 15% if they handle the payments... and 11% if they don't.

So if a developer decides they want someone else like Stripe or PayPal to process their payments... and those services charge 2.9% plus 30 cents on each transaction... the developer is right back to paying roughly 15% anyway.

Seems like the commission fee is what all these lawsuits should be investigating.

All this talk about 3rd-party payment processing is missing the mark. Payment processing is not even the biggest fee.

Who's gonna be the first US state or national government to pass a law that says commission fees are illegal?

That should be fun...

?

Sure. Let’s have our government pass laws that limit commissions and fees. And let’s start with car dealerships. If that occurs I’ll be the first to support limits on the fees of digital goods.

 

[mrochester]

Sure. Let’s have our government pass laws that limit commissions and fees. And let’s start with car dealerships. If that occurs I’ll be the first to support limits on the fees of digital goods.

Yeah id like my food cheaper from the supermarket. Let’s make the government mandate they give it away for free because I don’t like the fact they charge for it.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Sure. Let’s have our government pass laws that limit commissions and fees. And let’s start with car dealerships. If that occurs I’ll be the first to support limits on the fees of digital goods.

I'd also like the government to limit the fees the cell carriers and ISPs charge.

Lord knows we'd all love to have lower bills for those kinds of services.

I know I spend WAY more on my internet connection than I do buying apps.

App store fees? Doesn't even crack my top ten...

 

[mrochester]

I'd also like the government to limit the fees the cell carriers and ISPs charge.

Lord knows we'd all love to have lower bills for those kinds of services.

I know I spend WAY more on my internet connection than I do buying apps.

App store fees? Doesn't even crack my top ten...

We pay low mobile phone and ISP fees in the UK but that’s because we have lots of competition.

It’s almost like the smartphone operating system market needs more competitors….