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.
Judge Says Apple Has Until December 9 to Make App Store Change Letting Developers Link to Alternate Payment Methods
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
apple is one of the richest companies in human history i dont think you need to worry about them being compensated. same for google
This is the second dumbest thing I’ve read this week. You don’t think that pissing off all their developers and customers might be bad for business?
You won't see me lose any sleep over this, and I still stand by everything I have said regardless. Right is right, even if it's Apple, and wrong is wrong, even if it's some small, scrappy developer.
History is replete with formally massive companies that are either long gone or shadows of their formers selves.
Apple may be massive now, for sure. But there’s no gurantees that they’ll be here in 10 years time. Chances are they will, but no-one knows what the future holds.
Ask Blockbuster, Borders, Toys ‘r’ Us, Radio Shock etc.
Ditto Blackberry\RIM
The issue is not WILL they. The issue is are they ALLOWED to. Apple said in the hearing today they are already testing a system in Japan that applies to reader apps, so they may continue to be exempt. But you can bet if someone tries to sell you in-app currency or what not by using a link to a web browser, apple will demand a cut.
This is a ridiculous decision that paints Apple into a stupidly disastrous corner.
The model Apple has developed is fair and evenly applied.
By giving work arounds to a fair system, and undermining Apple's business model (which is micro-managing), Apple will now be forced to individually contract with developers. Even if Apple is perfectly intentioned, there is no way to make pricing as evenly applied, and so there will be winners and losers and the losers will take Apple to court for unfair business practices. And they will be unfair. Why? Because some idiot judge imposed it on a fair system on behalf of a bad actor.
The model Apple has developed is fair and evenly applied.
By giving work arounds to a fair system, and undermining Apple's business model (which is micro-managing), Apple will now be forced to individually contract with developers. Even if Apple is perfectly intentioned, there is no way to make pricing as evenly applied, and so there will be winners and losers and the losers will take Apple to court for unfair business practices. And they will be unfair. Why? Because some idiot judge imposed it on a fair system on behalf of a bad actor.
They might be able to use alternative payment systems, but I will not be paying anyone what Apple for App Store purchases. Additionally there is no obligation for Apple to not charge for having apps in the store. For those Apps have outside payment systems I expect they will be charged "ground rent" for using the store as a way to sell their product. In the real world this is done for vendors who want the most prominent position or in some cases even to get in a store.
They already charge ground rent. It’s called the Apple Developer Program annual fee and it’s $99.
The real world is not as fair, or as flexible to sellers, as the current design of the app store.
This design will backfire in every way. Apple will make more $$$ because of this, because they will begin to optimize pricing for the big players, and they will also be in court more because of this because some companies will not get as good a deal as others.
EPIC opened a pandora's box that is only going to hurt them and other big devs.
I will be paying the cheapest price for what I get out of any app with alternate payment mechanisms. We need payment competition to drive prices lower and value higher for every dollar a consumer hands over.
Apps just need to hook up PayPal, Stripe, etc and compete on price.
Apple is already incentivized to have apps stable on their platform to drive iPhone sales. They don’t need both the ridiculous price of phones + variable revenue from the creativity of app developers as well. Creators should get a much larger share of the pie. Device neutrality just like net neutrality!
Apps just need to hook up PayPal, Stripe, etc and compete on price.
Apple is already incentivized to have apps stable on their platform to drive iPhone sales. They don’t need both the ridiculous price of phones + variable revenue from the creativity of app developers as well. Creators should get a much larger share of the pie. Device neutrality just like net neutrality!
What makes you think the prices will be any cheaper?
No, its $99 + 30% x revenue.
If companies can remove the 30%, its going to by $99 plus some other form of compensation. You can be sure that if Apple has to pay people to negotiate, audit and enforce individual distribution agreements, that prices are only going to go up.
Apple created an almost 'frictionless' payment system within the App Store framework. I tended to trust Apple to process payments correctly and to ensure that when I moved iPhones or iPads I could restore my purchases in a seamless and easy fashion.
This is the benefit of the Apple 'walled garden'. The problem is that they charged the developer an exorbitant amount of money to provide this service. If they had scaled this as the number of sales increased I doubt we would have had this problem, who knows. Bottom line is that Apple misjudged what the market would bear and now developers and app publishers believe (probably correctly) that there is too much money being left on the table and have challenged Apple.
For me, if the alternative system is painful (by that I mean multiple entries of information and elaborate anti cheat schemes) or I have to give credit card details to organizations with which have no established trust I just will not use these alternative schemes for payment. I am not going to give my information to many many app developers and hope they keep my data secure. It is bad enough that T Mobile and AT&T leave sensitive data around to be picked up by all and sundry. I know that there are no really safe options, but there are some that are more safe than others. At the moment Apple have earned my trust and I am, currently because things change, happy to let them handle payments for me. So Apple give me, the user, a relatively safe way to pay the developers and it has relatively low friction in its implementation. This is about to go away and I suspect it will become the wild west out there, but Apple only have themselves to blame due to their greed.
This is the benefit of the Apple 'walled garden'. The problem is that they charged the developer an exorbitant amount of money to provide this service. If they had scaled this as the number of sales increased I doubt we would have had this problem, who knows. Bottom line is that Apple misjudged what the market would bear and now developers and app publishers believe (probably correctly) that there is too much money being left on the table and have challenged Apple.
For me, if the alternative system is painful (by that I mean multiple entries of information and elaborate anti cheat schemes) or I have to give credit card details to organizations with which have no established trust I just will not use these alternative schemes for payment. I am not going to give my information to many many app developers and hope they keep my data secure. It is bad enough that T Mobile and AT&T leave sensitive data around to be picked up by all and sundry. I know that there are no really safe options, but there are some that are more safe than others. At the moment Apple have earned my trust and I am, currently because things change, happy to let them handle payments for me. So Apple give me, the user, a relatively safe way to pay the developers and it has relatively low friction in its implementation. This is about to go away and I suspect it will become the wild west out there, but Apple only have themselves to blame due to their greed.
How much will Uber have to pay to have their app in the App Store? Right now it it is free but it is key to Uber's business and Uber gets a cut of each transition for the digital service of connecting riders with drivers. Apple has no problems with having out of app payment systems and not getting a cut of the profits, they do it for all of what they class as non-digital purchases.
And you will still BE ABLE TO DO THIS, you will be able to choose how you want to pay - using apple pay and paying more, o turning over your credit card information for other legit payment providers and paying less...
Last edited:
Do we need the "What's a computer?" talk again?
PCs, Macs, tablets, phones: yes
Consoles, eReaders, microwaves: no
General purpose vs fixed purpose. One is integrated deeply into your life, the other is an optional feature of your life. Government keeps their eye on the former.
They had enough time, they could have started coding already, instead of wasting time with non-sense propaganda if favor of anti-competition.
Next stop, EU Digital Markets Act…
Enforcing competition and promoting innovations.
Hey Crook, better tell your Lemmings to start coding the base for sideloading today.
The deadline will be tight, too.
Enforcing competition and promoting innovations.
Hey Crook, better tell your Lemmings to start coding the base for sideloading today.
The deadline will be tight, too.
Unless I'm mistaken, Apple does not take a cut for services and goods, and Uber falls under this category, which is why they use Braintree/Paypal.
Apple now simply has to comply. But I think many will not be using external payment methods. Safer to pay through Apple.