Dutch Regulators to Meet With Dating App Providers to Assess Apple's Plan for Alternate In-App Payment Options

[mrochester]

Actually yes, you can. This is a huge chunk of revenue that Apple literally does no work for. Why do they deserve a piece of revenue from a dating app but not from you purchasing something from the Amazon app? Or ordering an Uber? They have an arbitrary rule that says if you’re paying for something you use outside of the app, you don’t have to use an in-app purchase, you can use a different payment method.

Because that’s the way apple wrote the terms and conditions?

 

[jtopp]

Not quite. I already signed a contract with my ISP just like devs sign with apple. I pay my isp a fixed $$$ per month. They don’t offer fees based on usage but apple does.

If you exceed your bandwidth allotment, some service providers can increase your fees. Unlimited internet is throttled in many places after you reach a limit like if you downloaded terabytes of data everyday for whatever reason. I wonder if someone used their home internet $60 or whatever plan to run a real live steaming cable channel complete with hourly shows, commercials etc would the increase in bandwidth cause your isp to increase your cost.

 

[4jasontv]

App developers already pay Apple an annual developer fee.

What's that? Why should Apple provide develoers access to their App Store for nothing more than an annual fee? Well, Apple already does for Netflix, Amazon, Starbucks, Robinhood, etc since Apple doesn't get a cut from the usage of those apps, right?

In a way these smaller developers are subsidizing the app store for these large corporations.

Another option is to allow users to get their apps outside of Apple's App store, that way Apple doesn't have to worry about these developers freeloading off Apple like Netflix, Amazon, Starbucks, Robinhood, etc do.



The incentive is iDevice sales because if there's no convenient way for the masses to get their favorate apps, then iDevice sales will decline/people will move to Android.

I'd imagine most people will choose Apple's in-app payment method for convenience anyways. The number of people who'd choose to use another payment method that gives the app developer a larger cut will be small. It should still be an option though. Make available both payment options and let the user decide which they want to us. Unless Apple is afraid of competition.

Apps like Netflix, Amazon, Starbucks add value to apples brand and in exchange they pay less to be on the App Store. Not all apps add value, and many actually make the App Store worse. Right now there is no punishment for making a bad app beside low sales. Maybe making a bad app should have financial consequences for the developer.

 

[LarxJo]

Many people seems to forget that Netherland is not on the territory of Apple, but it is the opposite.
It is not thanks to Apple that the world lives, but thanks to the world and rules, and education that Apple lives and make profits. Somehow, Apple expect developer to pay a fee to access their store. But when it comes to pay taxes paying for the services/conditions on which Apple is 100% dependent, here suddenly they are against such fees...

No to forget, if we follow the logic, thanks to the AppStore... then, thanks to Safari on iPhone, we can buy things online too! So with the same logic, Apple should take their fee there too. Thanks to the iPhone, I can transfer money between my account, so with the same logic, when I transfer 20000$ to pay taxes using the mobile app, Apple should take 3000$.

The AppStore is main stream, the iPhone is just a computer. So Apple should today either be forced to let other stores or lower their fees so a few percent. Same goes for the PlayStore of course! We are prisoners of the system owned by 2 companies, in which they do whatever they want. It is time to not let 2 companies do what they want in the world, for who violating laws is just a minor investment.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Im glad you can see the future. From a private company's perspective, which companies are required to list products on their stores, provide advertising, all completely free? My guess is none. The real question is not what Apple and Google are dong that customers seem to prefer, but why third party app stores aren't proliferating. It would be very easy to set up an App Store that links to Apple's for download purposes only, then manage the payment and subscriptions completely outside of Apple. Kind of the Spotify and Netflix model (sure you can get a subscription to Spotify through the App Store, but virtually no one does, and if the do, they want the trust and security that comes with it, otherwise they go direct through Spotify, so yah, virtually no one).

These clowns should just act and stop whining already

You are complicating matters. The issue is just one of Apple profiting from the sale of dating arrangements while hasn’t done a thing for it.

 

[mrochester]

You are complicating matters. The issue is just one of Apple profiting from the sale of dating arrangements while hasn’t done a thing for it.

Apple created the App Store, APIs and the customer base. That is what is being paid for by developers.

Apple are a middleman between developers and consumers taking a slice of the transaction fees for the privilege.

 

[mrochester]

Many people seems to forget that Netherland is not on the territory of Apple, but it is the opposite.
It is not thanks to Apple that the world lives, but thanks to the world and rules, and education that Apple lives and make profits. Somehow, Apple expect developer to pay a fee to access their store. But when it comes to pay taxes paying for the services/conditions on which Apple is 100% dependent, here suddenly they are against such fees...

No to forget, if we follow the logic, thanks to the AppStore... then, thanks to Safari on iPhone, we can buy things online too! So with the same logic, Apple should take their fee there too. Thanks to the iPhone, I can transfer money between my account, so with the same logic, when I transfer 20000$ to pay taxes using the mobile app, Apple should take 3000$.

The AppStore is main stream, the iPhone is just a computer. So Apple should today either be forced to let other stores or lower their fees so a few percent. Same goes for the PlayStore of course! We are prisoners of the system owned by 2 companies, in which they do whatever they want. It is time to not let 2 companies do what they want in the world, for who violating laws is just a minor investment.

Welcome to how business works! You maximise profits and minimise expenditure.

 

[twinlight]

Honestly, this would be a great workaround.
You don't want to pay a commission? Fine, we'll host your app, but you'll only be accessible via a link, not really a part of the store
This circles about the aspect of the monopoly of installs on iOS devices

But at the same time, can you imagine the uproar if people can't easily find their Ubers, Netflixs, Amazons, etc.?

I have many times gone to some store and asked for a specific item that they did not have but they can order for me. Sometimes I had to pay a little extra. Sometimes it was the same price as the retailer ordered it for.

Having the app hosted but no exposure would be the same thing.

This will only affect the big apps that see hundreds of thousands dollar revenue or more and they will be found through a google search or their homepage.

They want to control the money? Let them control the rest. Ads, exposure, homepage, servers. Only thing Apple should do is host the app so they can make sure its not breaking the iOS api’s and store rules.

 

[Salvor Hardin]

It's so strange that it's specifically for dating apps. Sounds like someone has their hands lining the pocket of the politicians. Should make it this way for all apps or none.

It’s probably just a proxy battle staged by Epic and their Tencent masters, they look for anything they can exploit and go for it

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Apple created the App Store, APIs and the customer base. That is what is being paid for by developers.

Apple are a middleman between developers and consumers taking a slice of the transaction fees for the privilege.

No way Apple created the customer base for Tinder or any other kind of digital services that built apps for iOS, along for the Web and other OSs. That customer base was built by themselves. That conclusion is ridiculous. Now, I can agree that Apple created a customer base for the App Store through the sale of its mobile devices and its policies.

The source of contention is that even though Apple created its customer base for the App Store, its denying the digital services ability to sell directly to its customer base within their App, something that its their Property and part of their Infrastructure, not Apple’s. That is fundamentally the source of contention of all court incidents around the App Store across the globe.

Apple has many many solutions for honouring digital services right (as per court or law order) to sell their services to their own customer base, within App, while keeping the ability for the App Store to sell, as well charge for the the use of their building blocks to make the App as required by the OS.

For the use of the building blocks (API and all), Apple can for instance charge a royalties or do as they do on macOS (mostly free). These are common practices in the Industry. For the App Store hosting service it can charge like any other cloud service does (Pay per use), it can also charge for listing the App in App Store (their Store) or simply not. They can also bundle it all at 15%/30% as they do now. It would be up to the digital business to decide for the bundle, or subscribe to parts of it as they see fit.

The problem that I have with this Dutch order is that its discriminatory of digital services as much as Apple is for their own. That its weakness and stink.

 

[mrochester]

No way Apple created the customer base for Tinder or any other kind of digital services that built apps for iOS, along for the Web and other OSs. That customer base was built by themselves. That conclusion is ridiculous. Now, I can agree that Apple created a customer base for the App Store through the sale of its mobile devices.

The source of contention is that even though Apple created its customer base for the App Store, its denying the digital services ability to sell directly to its customer base within their App, something that its their Property and part of their Infrastructure, not Apple’s. That is fundamentally the source of contention of all court incidents around the App Store across the globe.

Apple has many many solutions for honouring digital services right (as per court or law order) to sell their services to their own customer base, within App, while keeping the ability for the App Store to sell, as well charge for the the use of their building blocks to make the App.

For the use of the building blocks (API and all), Apple can for instance charge a royalties or do as they do on macOS (mostly free). These are common practices in the Industry. For the App Store hosting service it can charge like any other cloud service does (Pay per use), it can also charge for listing the App in App Store (their Store) or simply not. They can also bundle it all at 15%/30% as they do now. It would be up to the digital business to decide for the bundle, or subscribe to parts of it.

The problem that I have with this Dutch order is that its discriminatory of digital services as much as Apple is for their own. That its weakness and stink.

I understand what you are saying, and the reason it works the way it currently does it because it’s how Apple monetises the App Store.

Ignoring the people who think Apple shouldn’t monetise the App Store (which is frankly just stupid and unreasonable), stopping Apple from collecting commission on IAP will result in those costs being shifted to another part of the balance sheet.

Will developers be happier or not with those costs shifted somewhere else? What are the consequences of those costs being shifted somewhere else? Who wins, who loses?

We can be clear that Apple almost certainly won’t lose in any of this in terms of monetary gain.

 

[genovelle]

Apple and Google are very desperate to think this commission idea will fly with global regulators. It won't.

These are private for profit companies with no requirement to provide their services to other companies for free. Just like these countries collect taxes and these dating companies don’t offer there services for free either.

The reason they bribed the Dutch to do this is because Apple makes it too easy to cancel. They get far more customers by using Apple’s platform and technology, but customers have too much control over their account status. Before Apple, any of the websites they were on were designed to make it impossible to cancel. No links or accessible phone numbers etc.

Apple doesn’t realize, they don’t want good refunds and cancellations support.

 

[RVijay007]

So what’s the solution? Allow app developers to pay nothing to Apple? Apple makes developers pay developer fees based on app downloads? What’s the incentive for Apple to have an App Store if there is no commission?

Regulators/governments are going to lose if they get to force Apple to work for free.

Apple already has the incentive; device sales. No one is going to buy apple products if there are no apps. This is just extra milking, using the global talent pool pf developers and scalping their hard earned cash. Then they hide that cash from tax authorities, while developers have to pay full taxes on their 70% revenue. I’d rather more money be spread out so more developers have th chance to grow than just backing the pockets of Apple execs.

 

[mrochester]

These are private for profit companies with no requirement to provide their services to other companies for free. Just like these countries collect taxes and these dating companies don’t offer there services for free either.

The reason they bribed the Dutch to do this is because Apple makes it too easy to cancel. They get far more customers by using Apple’s platform and technology, but customers have too much control over their account status. Before Apple, any of the websites they were on were designed to make it impossible to cancel. No links or accessible phone numbers etc.

Apple doesn’t realize, they don’t want good refunds and cancellations support.

Some people think/feel that Apple's App Store should be classed as an 'essential service' which is where the argument comes from that they should be heavily regulated and be forced to give away their App Store services for free to developers. It's the same logic as declaring social media services like Facebook a 'public square' and therefore required to permit all speech without any censoring or moderation.

I prefer to take the view that these companies products and services are all OPTIONAL and no one person or business is required to use or work with those services if they don't want to or don't agree with the T&Cs of doing so.

It's a slippery slope to effectively start nationalising products and services that are entirely optional just because you don't like the actions or behaviour of the company that owns and operates those services. We should let people vote with their wallet to determine the outcome.

 

[genovelle]

No way Apple created the customer base for Tinder or any other kind of digital services that built apps for iOS, along for the Web and other OSs. That customer base was built by themselves. That conclusion is ridiculous. Now, I can agree that Apple created a customer base for the App Store through the sale of its mobile devices and its policies.

The source of contention is that even though Apple created its customer base for the App Store, its denying the digital services ability to sell directly to its customer base within their App, something that its their Property and part of their Infrastructure, not Apple’s. That is fundamentally the source of contention of all court incidents around the App Store across the globe.

Apple has many many solutions for honouring digital services right (as per court or law order) to sell their services to their own customer base, within App, while keeping the ability for the App Store to sell, as well charge for the the use of their building blocks to make the App as required by the OS.

For the use of the building blocks (API and all), Apple can for instance charge a royalties or do as they do on macOS (mostly free). These are common practices in the Industry. For the App Store hosting service it can charge like any other cloud service does (Pay per use), it can also charge for listing the App in App Store (their Store) or simply not. They can also bundle it all at 15%/30% as they do now. It would be up to the digital business to decide for the bundle, or subscribe to parts of it as they see fit.

The problem that I have with this Dutch order is that its discriminatory of digital services as much as Apple is for their own. That its weakness and stink.

I disagree on building the customer base. Tinder and other Apps would not exist without Apple. They are Apps that were developed because of the functionality of iOS, the ease of downloading and connecting safety in an ecosystem where they could pay via a card on file with Apple, a trusted source.

After a decade and a half, these companies know that if customers are linked out of iOS they will still feel they are under that protection because of affiliation. I hadn’t though of this before, but requiring this can actually damage Apple’s brand, because customers will assume affiliation when things go south because Apple had Protected them for so long.

 

[mrochester]

I disagree on building the customer base. Tinder and other Apps would not exist without Apple. They are Apps that were developed because of the functionality of iOS, the ease of downloading and connecting safety in an ecosystem where they could pay via a card on file with Apple, a trusted source.

After a decade and a half, these companies know that if customers are linked out of iOS they will still feel they are under that protection because of affiliation. I hadn’t though of this before, but requiring this can actually damage Apple’s brand, because customers will assume affiliation when things go south because Apple had Protected them for so long.

And sadly, with the modern media landscape, no amount of Apple saying 'well it's not our fault because the app developer used a 3rd party payment system' will help. Apple would still get crucified.

Some people don't even begin to think about all the consequences, or if they do, they don't attach enough weight to them. Reputation is everything.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

I understand what you are saying, and the reason it works the way it currently does it because it’s how Apple monetises the App Store.

Ignoring the people who think Apple shouldn’t monetise the App Store (which is frankly just stupid and unreasonable), stopping Apple from collecting commission on IAP will result in those costs being shifted to another part of the balance sheet.

Yes. I strongly believe that Apple has the right to monetise their tech and digital services as they see fit. It is ridiculous to thing otherwise. A right shared with any other digital services and devs, it is also ridiculous to think otherwise. At the moment some rights within this scope of the “problem” seam to be overlapping within the iOS realm hence the source of contention.

Notice, that what is being played here by Apple is not just its properties, but also the company market power on mobile devices. Currently the market power of Apple within the mobile devices market is actively pressuring other markets that other wise would be tangent this market. From date arrangements to banking. This is usually a subject of Anti Trust cases.

Some people, might consider abuse of power to use ones market share on mobile devices to pressure the dating business as well as other business such as banking. Some people might consider unreasonable to require any and all digital business to build their own devices in order to compete with Apple 30% tariff over their businesses. I’m one of those.

Why I think that? Well, consider the auto industry. They build and sell vehicles. If it became common practice for these companies to be able with a flip of a switch to require 30% of ones business to use the vehicle (including your salary) … they would be worth not trillions but Quadrillions or more. This is what Apple is creating with its policies together with their market power.

Why do I compare with auto vehicles? Well, don’t remember if it was Steve Jobs, but I know it was someone at Apple that said something like: “Computers are the future vehicles for the mind”. I believe it is. The corollary of this is that who control the vehicle, also conditions the mind, including $mind$. I believe that this dangerous side effect is possible and is happening if measures aren’t in place to keep this from happening.

Will developers be happier or not with those costs shifted somewhere else? What are the consequences of those costs being shifted somewhere else?

The companies that contend with the App Store already have infrastructure costs for payment and distribution of their tech outside the App Store, web and other OSs. With a snap of finger that can cope with their own in-app sales, in iOS. That is one thing.

The second thing, referring to Apple relate costs shifting to say royalties and hosting … I think devs are fine with it. I would. I suppose that devs could always go for the bundling offered by Apple anyhow if that fits better their business model. Why not? Unless Apple goes on a $vendetta$ and remove the bundle … which would be silly.

I believe the important thing is keeping the system flexible and free from pressure of markets that are tangent to their business activities, case in case the mobile device market. Much like the auto market is tangent to say dating apps or banking. If not I believe that devaluing people minds in favor of these vehicles and builders does not end in a good future.

Cheers.

 

[mrochester]

Yes. I strongly believe that Apple has the right to monetise their tech and digital services as they see fit. It is ridiculous to thing otherwise. As well as other digital services and devs, it is also ridiculous to think otherwise. At the moment some rights within this scope of the “problem” seam to be overlapping within the iOS realm hence the source of contention.

Notice, that what is being played here by Apple is not just its properties, but also the company market power on mobile devices. Currently the market power of Apple within the mobile devices market is actively pressuring other markets that other wise would be tangent this market. From date arrangements to banking. This is a subject of Anti Trust.

Some people, might consider abuse of power to use ones market share on mobile devices to pressure the dating business as well as other business such as banking. Some people might consider unreasonable to require any and all digital business to build their own devices in order to compete with Apple 30% tariff over their businesses. I’m one of those.

Why I think that? Well, consider the auto industry. They build and sell vehicles. If it became common practice for these companies to be able with a flip of a switch to require 30% of ones business to use the vehicle (including your salary) … they would be word not trillions but Quadrillions or more. This is what Apple is creating with it policies and market power.

Why do I compare with auto vehicles? Well, don’t remember if it was Steve Jobs, but I know it was someone at Apple that said something like: “Computer are the future vehicles for the mind”. I believe it is. The corollary of this is that control the vehicle, control the mind, including $mind$. I believe that this is possible if measures aren’t in place to keep this from happening.



The companies that contend with the App Store already have infrastructure costs for payment and distribution of their tech outside the App Store, web and other OSs. With a snap of finger that can cope with their own in-app sales, in iOS. That is one thing.

The second thing, referring to Apple relate costs shifting to say royalties and hosting … I think devs are fine with it. I would. I suppose that devs could always go for the bundling offered by Apple anyhow if that fits better their business model. Why not? Unless Apple goes on a $vendetta$ and remove the bundle … which would be silly.

I believe the important thing is keeping the system flexible and free from pressure of markets that are tangent to their business, case in case the mobile device market. Much like the auto market is tangent to say dating apps or banking. If not I believe that devaluing people minds in favor of these vehicles and builders does not end in a good future.

Cheers.

The way I view it is that the current payment system is progressive; the more you earn from the iOS App Store, the more you pay Apple.

Eliminating that progressive payment system from the App Store means that developers with either free or low revenue apps will suddenly be burdened with much greater costs. Some people say that is a good thing because it gets rid of the crap. But it most certainly is not pro-competition as it raises the barrier to access.

What will this do to the developer landscape? Will access to be able to create a business via means of an app be enhanced or diminished if fixed up-front costs go up?

For some, preventing Apple from earning the money (because they think Apple has done nothing for it) is more important than the fallout that will be caused by forcing Apple to change how it monetises the store. Right now, broadly speaking, the App Store model works great for developers, users and Apple. It's some developers who want more of the money that are potentially going to spoil it for everyone. It's why we can't have nice things.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

The way I view it is that the current payment system is progressive; the more you earn from the iOS App Store, the more you pay Apple.

That might be the difference between us in perception. I don’t think businesses earn from the App Store. Businesses earn from themselves. The App Store its just a vehicle that is required by policy.

Spotify, Tinder, Netflix, …, the John Doe business, earn for themselves. If you don’t heavily promote your digital business outside the App Store platform, currently referring to the App Store (link) you go nowhere. That is all your work, all your expenditure that drives value to in-App sales …. App Store sales by policy … where Apple participates nothing in the costs. Now you should of course also promote in the App Store … and pay for the promotion within the platform … if you find of benefit to your business.

You see, I believe that digital business enrich Apple ecosystem as much as Apple devices enrich theirs. If you remove digital services from the App Store, one would have a brick of a smartphone. Which would i turn hurt iPhone and iPad sales badly.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Eliminating that progressive payment system from the App Store means that developers with either free or low revenue apps will suddenly be burdened with much greater costs.

Don’t understand. How is it progressive? It is flat rate with two scales, 15% and 30% based on sales volume … reminiscent of analog world. If you wanna look at progressive costs in the digital space, look at cloud service pricing models where they tax space, computing power and traffic. Now that is progressive adapted to the digital realm … not using analog system as a metaphore to hide the 10 fold cost reductions systemic of digital material when compared to the analog. Perception.

But I’m digressing from my centre point.

 

[sudo-sandwich]

Interesting that you mention Amazon. Isn't Apple hosting the Amazon app (and many others such as Netflix, Spotify, Robinhood, Coinbase, etc) for free, or does Apple get a cut from each of their transactions?

Yep. Those apps will earn them almost zero fees but will sell iPhones, so Apple is happy.

I think Apple and their ecosystem will do just fine either way. But this ruling is still wrong and oddly specific (i.e. smelling of corruption).

 

[mrochester]

That might be the difference between us in perception. I don’t think businesses earn from the App Store. Businesses earn from themselves. The App Store its just a vehicle that is required by policy.

Spotify, Tinder, Netflix, …, the John Doe business, earn for themselves. If you don’t not heavily promote your digital business outside the App Store platform, currently referring to the App Store (link) you go nowhere. That is all your work, your expenditure that drives value to in-App sales …. App Store sales by policy … where Apple participates nothing in the costs. Now you should of course also promote in the App Store …

The way I think of it is, without a Spotify app in the App Store, how many iOS customers would Spotify have?

 

[Michael Scrip]

Don’t understand. How is it progressive? It is flat rate with two scales, 15% and 30% based on sales volume... reminiscent of analog world.

He explained it one line above the line you quoted:

"The way I view it is that the current payment system is progressive; the more you earn from the iOS App Store, the more you pay Apple."

 

[Nuno Lopes]

He explained it one line above the line you quoted:

"The way I view it is that the current payment system is progressive; the more you earn from the iOS App Store, the more you pay Apple."

I don’t believe businesses and minds earn from the App Store, iPads or iPhones but from themselves, if not Apple, as I explained also. Meaning, its explanation is fallacious and it’s trivial to demonstrate that it is in the by observing the daily life of a business.

I can’t believe intelligent people buy into these kinds of explanation to their reality, reality distortions … well … its a fact they do … oh well. So ready to easily devalue themselves.

 

[mrochester]

That is the thing. I don’t believe businesses earn from the App Store but from themselves as I explained also. Meaning, its explanation is fallacious.

So without an app on the App Store, how successful would Spotify be amongst iOS users?