Those API are required for platform to be a viable one. The fact that Apple, which employs exactly zero workers in dating business, is entitled to 30% of dating business revenues is an obvious aberration which should be corrected legislatively. Current situation is causing absolutely unjustifiable redistribution of money between different types of businesses thus impeding innovation. This is not in the interest of our society.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Dutch Regulators to Meet With Dating App Providers to Assess Apple's Plan for Alternate In-App Payment Options
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No government in the world is going to make Apple give away their proprietary software for nothing. There is no precedent or legal basis for it. It is anti-capitalist and anti-competitive.
A Store, aka Shop has always been a place where goods and services are sold to customers. Some shops manufacture their own goods and produce their own services, their own IP. Others sell third party goods and services, sell third party IPs. Others a mix a both.
Yes, the premise of the App Store is definitely not manufacture or production.
Nobody is arguing for that. They can charge for their software as much as they want as long as it does not discriminate against alternative app stores or any specific customers. If they want to charge everybody, say, $1M for their developer tools, let them. There probably will be some 10 apps left in the App Store and iOS as a platform will die within a year.
Well. That is totally casuistic fact. Not so long ago Apple fundamentally prevented game streaming Apps in the App Store as their feared it would compete with their services. They simply created an impossible situation for these businesses to operate with a native App. The end result is that smartphone owners were denied access to a native app on their smartphone for the purpose … even though the device and OS is totally capable for that measure.
Meaning, if Apple ever so wish they can do the same to Spotify, Netflix … and any digital service with a flip of a change of policies for one moment to another.
The problem is, even though it’s their store … the smartphones over which it fully operate on … aren’t. Neither were bought given such market premises. We just need to observe the commercials and the latest WWDC to observe what is being marketed to smartphone users … it is not this ability.
The point is that indeed the App Store policies allow Apple to charge for products and services they do not sell, distribute or provide a platform for. Case in case, dating arrangements, but also audio streams, video streams … so on and so forth. The store effectively and simply distributes and sells software programs … yet its policies also drive a mandatory in-app billing device / service for everything else that it does not!
If say Best Buy does not sell or distribute X, say Books (infinite examples), why would it be granted by law the ability charging for sales of Xs? No need for a law blocking such practice as enforcing is
impossible in the physical world right? That is the magic of the App Store(s) … it is possible in the digital realm. But is impossibility law when turned possible? Or is it the fact when a practice is turned possible it may require new laws dealing with a new reality.
Cheers.
Last edited:
This is already how it works??? All developers selling eligible goods are subject to the same 15% or 30% as every other developer. Everybody selling in a fictional alternative App Store would likely be subject to the same percentage commissions too. Apple doesnt charge Spotify any less or more than deezer or Amazon music.
Last edited:
No, the app owners are charged a fee from their revenues which have nothing to do with software development tools.Every developer paying the same price would mean that match.com and I-am-dodo app developer would pay the same price. As is, Apple get money for dates set up by match.com.
The provide the platform, which is where we have a disagreement in philosophy of why Apple gets a commission on certain transactions.
Huh? How is the charge not a charge for software development tools?
Apple gets money for unlocking digital features in the app, not for dates. If Apple got money for dates then they'd be getting paid for even the free version of the app.
I don‘t know where have you gotten the idea that we disagree on that. Apple provide a platform to build, distribute and run apps. And should be payed for that, typically in royalties over the use of their properties. Absolutely! Not just this Apple, any other “Apple”.
What we might disagree is that Apple should not get royalties for products and services they do not sell, distribute or provide a platform for. And the current policies do enforcing mandatory POS in third party apps for everything, from selling the App itself to selling whatever.
Let me reduce this to the absurd. Suppose in a world where we have two Apple’s. You have an App on both ecosystems. I sell a Book in Apple A, and this Apple gets its share and pays me for my sale (go figure). Your customer uses both ecossystems, has your app installed in both. Than it goes to Apple ecossystem B to read the book. This Apple B provides exactly the same thing, a platform to distribute and run apps, provides the same services … guess what … it gets payed zilch, nada, zero? But shouldn’t it per your moral stance around IPs also get payed for the same measure? Imagine that it does … ops … there it goes another 30% … now we are at 60% commission on a Book Sale, not the App, one to Apple A and another to Apple B … move to Apple C …
I know what current Tim Apple would say … “well you should only build Apps for our iOS” … that would sort out the absurd. Logical reasoning. Heheheh.
Removing all fallacies on this … idea that that due to its platform to build is distribute software programs a company its reasonable to think that its totally normal getting a commission for things its does not sell, distribute or provide a platform for Its TOTALLY ABSURD!!! Its abusive. Don’t you get it? Regulators are sleeping, sleeping … the all parties involved is dozed trying to figure out what the … is going on. But is indeed very simple.
Yes, Apple and every other business doing the same should be payed for their platforms to build, run and distributes software programs. But that is just what they should be payed for. Nothing else … Not for dating arrangements, not for videos streams, not for game streams, not for classes, not for remote gym, not for ride share, not for elearning none of it. Any other service should be optional, such as billing.
Qualcomm provides chips to for Apple to build their iPhones, call it a low level comms platform, I think the deal is based on royalties. If Qualcomm demanded a revenue share on the sale of the iPhones and iPads but also on whatever … say the App Store … would be crazy wouldn’t it? Why here is so sensible to you? After eventually a initial boost ... would inevitably be a race to the bottom for Apple if accepted such a deal.
Don’t get why people that think like you do not understand this … and systematically gaslight others when faced with these concerns.
So. I believe there should exist a law that blocks the business practices that allow a business to mandatory charge for products and services that do not provide, regardless of artifice. Period. This is where we disagree and you seam to try a cover it with platitudes as fast and as much as possible as it probably hurt your s…. let’s not go that way.
I believe that the reason why such law might never existed … is because it was never so clearly possible to implement in the analog space. But it is in the digital space, and Big Tech is adopting it … not just Apple even though is in the forefront. Apple. Google, Amazon. Microsoft, well it does not really have that power to enforce this at the moment. Their core products and services were not architected for it from the ground up as Apple, Google and Amazon did with their digital ventures … but they tried.
Cheers.
Last edited:
The platform that the book was bought on should get the commission. Just like the physical shop that sells you a book makes the profit even though you could go and read the book inside a competitors shop.
Its not the use per se of the IP that is being paid for, it’s the selling digital content that uses that IP that is being charged for.
If you prevent Apple from collecting commission from the sale of digital goods and services in iOS apps then Apple will need to make that money from somewhere else.
Where do you propose they charge this fee instead?
I agree with that. Absolutely. But let me distill what you said.
Which Apple platform are you talking about? The iPhone and iPad, the devices, The platform to build and run apps, call it iOS? The App Store? Or the third party Platform, call it the Book Shop?
The first platform, iOS, has not sold a Book in its life. It does not have such capability. It was built to support running apps on iPhones and iPads, amongst other technical things. So I guess this is not the platform you are referring to right? Its an Apple platform.
Let’s move to the second platform, that works on top of the previous one, the App Store. The fact is that the App Store platform has not sold such product neither it has it for sale. If it had sold the Book, show me the book on its shelves, on its catalog, where is the Book listed in the App Store? Can you find the Book in it? No. It does not sell it, how can it be found there. So is not for sale in the App Store. So I guess this is not the one you are referring to. Also an Apple Platform.
Now let’s move to the Book Shop platform, not an Apple Platform. Their iOS App is just a component of their larger infrastructure. In fact they have Apps on multiple platforms. So even though their iOS App is runs on top of iOS and was distributed by the App Store, the reality is that their platform does not run neither of the platforms mentioned above, only the iOS App runs.
Now the user enters the Book Shop iOS APP, and with in the realm of this the third party platform, the customer is indeed able to find a book there and buy it. Yet Store is forced to deliver Apple the billing process to Apple when the customer is ready to buy … That is just it … billing. The App Store does not sell, it bills.
You see. There is a reason business have two concepts. Billing and Sale. On sale, Billing is the least important and cheapest aspect of a sale yet it gets a lion share, 30% of the Book being sold. In order for the Book Shop to sell a book, well it had to build the App (hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions in time), it had to build the entire infrastructure from cataloguing the Books etc, the entire infrastructure technical infrastructure in the Cloud, …, than close distribution deals with the publishers if not directly with authors (get them on board), than it had to promote the Books Shop at the Books being sold (promos, outdoors, marketing ….) than if the customer liked your shop and the price you have listed, only than the customer might click buy … at that moment you are required to deliver the billing to Apple. Even if that is not the best option for your business. It can be, but its not necessarely … more on that bellow.
Look. I’m not saying that this is a bad deal to all kinds of businesses. People that don’t have a business and want to start a new one. Startups. It’s a good option, 30% of 0 is 0. They have other problems to fry than dealing with billing, moreover international billing. But once you really have a business a million, two million business … entirely down to the efforts above, creating jobs and you feel like its time to lower the billing costs, 30% on payment processing and billing is insane … ops … you cannot. In fact, it gets even higher, 30%. Why … because the all thing is stacked to get the billing out of your hands within your App, within your infrastructure and your customers device.
Now comes another poster … “look you aren’t forced to use the App Store”. Well, there is where another platform plays. The iPhone and iPad hardware platform, bought and licensed by you and me. the iPhone it self with a 50% market share, meaning one in two American have one in the pocket. So if you want reach your customers in their pocket, in your app … well you don’t really an option but to use the App Store if you want to be in the Book business ... Forget lowering your billing costs when selling a Book there.
Cheers.
Last edited:
I quite agree, Apple does not sell a single book. But that does not mean they are not entitled to get paid for use of the technology that allows those books to be sold in the first place.
Getting a fee on products Apple doesn't sell is due to use of Apple IP on one of it's interconnected platforms. Apple clearly has multiple platforms that span the hardware they develop eg icloud. A dev that uses Apples' platform to make a buck, pays Apple a fee based on the current terms of service. Even here, Apple is entitled to collect a fee because a dev is earning revenue from Apples' IP.
It looks like I agree with that too, but let me distill this just to check we are on the same page.
As I’ve said over and over again, I totally agree, I think anyone would agree, that Apple should be payed for the use of their properties by their customers. Wether the customer is another business or a person. Much like any other business entity.
If that is what you are saying … I totally agree. But in you assessment it looks like you think there is a strong connection between using Apple properties to build and run Apps … and selling say a Book. There is indeed a connection … its called “USE”, but that is as far as the connection goes. ”Use” is a very very weak connection. I may use the best trainers in the world, it does turn you into an olympic gold medalist.
For instance, take a Typewriter. Not a long time ago it was the technological cutting edge. Suppose you are a writer and use such Typewriter to write, and happened to write a Blockbuster novel that everyone wants to buy. Can you assume that the Typewriter allowed you to create a sell and sell your blockbuster novel? Of course not … it simply allowed you to probably type faster … and waste less time in creating the Novel. But that is nowhere related with the value of your novel in the market, much less the ability to be sold.
But let me provide you another example. One that resembles a bit the works of science fiction. Don’t be shocked, what is happening today is the works of science fiction of 40 years ago … so here we go. Say you are a brilliant scientist and that invented a machine that would allow anyone to be teleported to any place in the Universe. You built the machine and start selling teleports … I bet it would make you extremely rich, 3 times the value of Apple … or more. Now here is the interesting bit … not only you sell teleports for X, but also businesses using teleports 30% charge of whatever is found an sold in the universe (just to be fare, outside Planet earth). Here is the thing here, this great scientist is basically assuring with its machine a stake on 30% of the value of the known and unknown Universe … forever. Hehehehe brilliant.
Apple is this scientist. Other scientists, Google and Amazon do the same. All on the basis of selling space travel … hehehehe.
There we go, from Typewriters to Space Travel, and the reality today. Same absurd and fallacious reasoning to arrive to charges over things a business does not distribute or sell … much less create or discover. I mean, yes we can agree that has the potential for a thing to be done in ways that may not have been possible before in general: including write the next great novel, open a shop in some new Planet similar to ours, down to say selling books in an App on some OS. In general, but once it becomes specific the all thing falls apart. Allowing the sale of a specific book, open a specific shop successfully or creation a specific novel … No. It did not allow that per si. It was used … that is as far the contribution goes.
So I digress when you say that Apple technology allowed those books to be sold (Those, has specific). But I do agree that its technology has the potential to be used to create many great things … including innovative Book Stores, as it was done already. But I don’t agree that it allowed anything specific that exists today, say, Netflix or Spotify, two specific business, no. Much less, a specific video stream, or specific book. So charging for the use of their tech, when selling specific things that does not deliver makes no sense … no sense at all.
The buck really stops in the Typewriter, in the space travel ticket, in iOS SDKs and App distribution. Any other value is highly speculative, its just potential that Apple, the crazy scientist …. did not realize in any point in time. Charging for IP based on potential uses its crazy … I don’t recall 15 years ago that to be the case anywhere. Much less a reasonable way to think about these things.
So yes. I do agree that the use of Apple tech should be payed by any entities that uses… fully fully. But not more than fully. I believe when the company is allowed to enforce charges over things that it did not realize … that is the same as requiring the market to pay over fully, to pay for potential that in effect did not realize itself.
Many, many things can go bzerk once we allow business entities charge for things that do not do or realize using whatever device: in-app-purchase, a chip in your home, or heck … why not one in your brain?Dramatic? Wait for VR … (effectively a chip as close to your brain as possible today) … wait for the glasses … wait for the smartcars. Suddenly you will have the value of future being already taken before it becomes the present.
That is how bad these “new” business principles can be in my opinion if not stopped and jurisprudence is allowed to be formed around it.
Cheers.
@I7guy, none of those devices where bought by your customers to be put in their pockets. So if your customer are using an iPhone and you want to serve them ... you need to have an App there. Unless you leave your customers there, without the support of your business, to be taken by some other business … maybe even Apple itself.
Last edited:
That pesky caveat the wrests control over one owns property. Businesses should be able to control their properties, within the law of course. But there is no law forcing Costco to sell Planters' Peanuts. Costco is able to determine that. It is also allowed to charge the Mars company distributors some fees for selling M&Ms and to decide to not sell M&Ms in the future.
Last edited:
So what do you suggest?
If you had something like ‘fee per download’ the fee would have to be very high to make up for the lost revenue from ‘fee per digital transaction’. And all of a sudden free apps are no longer free because the fee model shifts the fees away from the big earners and spreads that amongst all developers.
Its not my place to suggest another company ways not to impose mandatory charges over the sale of things that it does not sell, create or provide a platform for. It does not even host the sale, nothing.
Another thing is to point out how uncommon such practice actually is, how pernicious it is already and it will only become a bigger market problem as jurisprudence of such practice is established.
Alternatives? Do you really need me to suggest anything? Just look at the business practices out side the realm of App Store and the likes of it. I’m sure the brains @Apple can figure that one out. Its a trivial exercised.
Don’t see a reason for Apple to provide any other options to businesses that need the entire Apple stack, from App Distribution to billing … but hey … But I can see businesses finding value in more selective options.
In those cases what do you mean by lost revenue? I do understand that valuing a Typewriter used by a novelist at the expense of its blockbuster book (30% of sales) might inflate its merits in context. I guess, this kind of blur would disappear. As it is, reality seams to be diluted … much like … you know … real state dept CDOs.
No. This developer social justice argument falls apart in reality. If you look around, the actual very big earners deploy their Apps for free and have the costs of distribution of their Apps banked by the App Store at the expense of smaller businesses. Yet, these Big Earners bank all the infrastructure of deploying their Web App (app on the web) and still give it for free go figure. So don’t think that would be much of a problem for them pay Apple for hosting and distributing their iOS app, listing and promotion on the App Store.
Furthermore … I don’t understand why Ad supported apps pay zilch for the App Store app distribution, promotion and listing. It look like Apple brains think that these are earning so little that cannot bank not even a cent for hosting and distributing their iOS when in fact are earning hundreds of millions with in App Ads … While a small business, say a teacher / trainer that gives an online classes to groups of people in their local city, that actually built an app for the purpose needs to pay 15% of in app sales of their classes … or subscription monthly.
Hey. But I agree with @I7guy, its not the place for us to say how businesses should control their assets and freely allocate capital as they see fit. Apple or any other business should have full control, now and always.
Yet what we are discussing is something else. Allowing any shop business by policy charge over the sale of products and services that do not even list or host, much less sell, distorts all these principles.
This is not about removing control from companies, but actually assuring that everyone will always have a level of control over their properties regardless of circuntances. A smartphone, an iOS app … or whatever else. If the entire value of your properties can be lawfully taken out with a flip of a switch by some other market entity … you have no control over these. Any sense of control of these properties is a mirage.
Not even Qualcomm can switch off their modems within all iPhones if it finds that its royalties aren’t been well payed by Apple or to enforce agreement changes (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/16/apple-qualcomm-settle-royalty-dispute-sources-say.html). If eventually Qualcomm wants Apple to stop selling iPhones to say US customers, it needs a court order signed by a federal judge. Apple can do that to any digital business with a flip of a switch embedded in the pocket property owned by 50% of US. It has done that. Now that is powa!!! This is not in some VR world created for people amusement, its actually reality.
I consider the current in-app-puchase practices to be not far from a device to hijack third parties value … current … and value to come. I tried to explain why with very simple stories … and clean up fallacies with some logical reasoning devoid of perception or emotion. They seam to have found a loop hole that is granting them probably the most profitable “Store” in the world … when it will the loop be closed and the market is back to basic business principles, less dilluted and speculative if ever … will see.
Last edited:
Turns out I can see the future.
Dutch Regulator Says Apple's Plan for Third-Party In-App Payments is Insufficient, Fines Apple 5 Million Euros
The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) has ruled that Apple's plan to allow App Store dating apps to use third-party payment methods...
www.macrumors.com