30% is a little much, 15% seems more reasonable, and that should apply to all in-app purchases. But I don't agree with Facebook doing this in the first place, unless it helps discourage people from getting news there, in that case I'm fine with it. 
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.
Facebook Won't Add News Subscription Service to iOS App Due to Apple's 30% Cut
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's really not relevant.... nor should a gatekeeper decide or be involved with Facebook (or another party) building/designing features. If Facebook adds STORIES to their Facebook app, they can and do - and the rate they pay Apple for any In-App purchase doesn't suddenly change. Nor should it.
That doesn't make sense. I can sign up for Netflix, NYTimes, and Spotify outside of Apple, and I can get all the content I subscribe to. Yet Apple thinks that just because I sign up through their phone instead of a web browser, they deserve 30%? That's ridiculous. I barely watch Netflix on iPhones. Apple isn't charging for "access to their customer base". I was already a customer before Apple. I was going to be a customer even without an Apple device. Apple's not giving access anything that gets them a 30% cut for doing nothing.
[doublepost=1508440552][/doublepost]
It is relevant. The comparison was made that Apple is granting access like a Wal Mart, when Apple isn't selling anything.
That's exactly it. You *CAN* sign up externally - avoiding Apple's gatekeeper hold.
Again... Apple (like every company) is CHARGING FOR THE *ACCESS* (there are other ways to access users, external is one)
Again.... keywords you mentioned *GRANTING ACCESS*. That's key. Understand those keywords, and you'll understand how the real world operates.
30% is a little much, 15% seems more reasonable, and that should apply to all in-app purchases. But I don't agree with Facebook doing this in the first place, unless it helps discourage people from getting news there, in that case I'm fine with it.
I thought the new Apple fees was 30/15... 30% for the first 12 months and then 15% thereafter... or is different for services ?
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/subscriptions/
Seller gets 85% of revenue after 12 months.
Last edited:
You don't understand how business works then. A company like Facebook, Apple, Google, Amazon, Target, Best Buy, etc., spends billions of dollars building a customer base, platform, billing operation, etc, and then spends billions more updating it, keeping it secure, employing thousands of engineers and you want access to it for free? Business models don't work that way, or these platforms, etc., wouldn't exist. Same business principle exists on smaller scale. Macrumors wouldn't exist if companies didn't have to pay to use the platform and access the customer base MR has built. Try approaching MR and asking them to run an ad for free because you will bear all the cost of fulfilling the customer's order and see if they agree.
If it helps to understand, assume that every company got to do what you suggest Facebook be allowed to do, i.e., use the App Store for free and revenue drops to zero. Apple has billions in costs, but no revenue. See the problem now?
Ah, probably should have read into the article a little bit further. "... though that number drops after a person has subscribed to a service on an iOS device for more than a year."
I'm sorry if you're embarrassed about my rebuttal, but no need to pretend that somehow my knowledge of antitrust law implies I don't have a job. We both know better. I recommend that you review a history of case law particularly around Standard Oil and AT&T with that extra energy you are wasting. It would likely help explain the way these things work, and perhaps would help you get ahead in your own career as well. Further reading is a little research into the reasons why Microsoft wasn't broken up after all. Good luck.
Now Facebook is literally breast feeding its users (customers) crap that they will pay for
I get the idea of apps in general. The thing is, Facebook's app is pretty much just the website, like those other lame pseudo-apps. IDK what the rest of the payload is. Tracking?
[doublepost=1508453114][/doublepost]
IAPs are handled through Apple, and they provide both the infrastructure and the convenience for that. It's nontrivial: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/subscriptions/
You're also allowed to publish an app that requires a subscription not necessarily purchased through IAPs, in which case Apple wouldn't get the cut but also wouldn't provide the payment service. I think there has to also be an IAP option for the subscription, but I'm not sure if this is a written rule or what.
Last edited:
Exactly.
As far as I'm concerned, I don't have any interest in that platform anymore. Even the tech groups that I've joined aren't of much use lately, with small but truly wonderful exceptions.
I won't go through the large list of things I dislike about it, but looking back I'm realising that singing up was a huge mistake.
Their first strike was limiting the post reach from pages I'm actually interested in and highlighting non-important content from "friends".
You’re overlooking one key factor. Payment processing. That costs Apple money. That was one of the key benefits to the App Store for indie developers, is Apple handles all payments and payment processing. Which is where the revenue split stems from.
You are using your Apple ID to subscribe to the service, which means Apple handles all payment processing every month. Everything involved with payment processing is at play here....security, processing fees, etc. That’s not free. Not to mention the significant value associated with the fact that Apple has hundreds of millions of users with credit cards on file with 1-tap shopping. Developers are leveraging the enormous work Apple spent building their iTunes infrastructure to what it is today, and Apple is not going to hand it out for free. Period.
I doubt Amazon would let sellers leverage all of the Amazon users with credit cards on file, 1-click purchasing, payment processing, etc without charging some kind of fee to have access to all that goodness.
Apple might one day decide its of more value to make this service free to developers, to make their platforms more enticing. But that’s not today
Apple doesn't get any money from many applications, for example Amazon, eBay, or Uber apps. Where they drive traffic. For apps like Netflix and Spotify, the rules are simple: Apple takes their cut if the end user buys from within the app, Apple gets nothing if the end user buys from outside the app, and the app cannot advertise payments outside the app.
Anyway, if Apple didn't drive traffic, you wouldn't have an app!
"if your good at something, never do it for free" ---amazing quote from the Joker himself.
When you have the best way to deliver the information the info givers must either comply die or create something else. I would say that the vast majority of us that have an iPhone could live without Facebook (lets be honest your not switching to an android device for Facebook)
When you have the best way to deliver the information the info givers must either comply die or create something else. I would say that the vast majority of us that have an iPhone could live without Facebook (lets be honest your not switching to an android device for Facebook)
But I didn't understand this, Apple gets a 30% cut if the user purchases a subscription through the iOS app.. why can't Facebook directly launch the service on the app, and when a user tries to read a page which needs subscription, the user would be required promted that a subscription is required with a link to the website. The website should not directly open, but the user should manually tap the link. The website should open in safari, and the user can subscribe..
Apple can't get a cut if that's the case right? Otherwise all purchases made on Amazon etc, through ads in the apps would require Apples cut...
And also, if that's the case, does Apple take a share in a prime membership on Amazon, if we opt for it in the app?
Apple can't get a cut if that's the case right? Otherwise all purchases made on Amazon etc, through ads in the apps would require Apples cut...
And also, if that's the case, does Apple take a share in a prime membership on Amazon, if we opt for it in the app?
I pay for The New York Times digital subscription. The reason I pay is because I know how they operate and the content is good.
Sad when trillion dollar companies have to resort to bickering over money. Cut a quatro comma bud a break!