Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
63,558
30,889


Meta, Microsoft, X, and Match today joined Epic Games to protest the way Apple complied with a court ruling requiring it to walk back its anti-steering rules. In an amicus brief in support of Epic Games (via The Wall Street Journal), the four companies said that the fees Apple is charging are too high, and that there are too many restrictions on how developers link to their websites. "The Apple Plan comports with neither the letter nor the spirit of this Court's mandate," reads the brief.

app-store-blue-banner-epic-1.jpg

For context, Apple was ordered to change its App Store rules in 2021 as part of the decision in the Epic Games case. The judge took issue with the anti-steering guidelines that kept apps from directing consumers to lower prices available outside of the App Store. Apple delayed implementing the changes while it attempted to appeal the ruling, but the appeal was not successful and Apple had to update its rules in January.

Developers are now allowed to include a single link in their app, with that link going to a website where customers can make a purchase without using the in-app purchase system. Apple is still collecting commission for purchases made this way, requiring developers to pay between 12 and 27 percent (three percent lower than the standard 15/30 fee).

Epic Games last week told the court that Apple has not complied with the order, and that the Cupertino company should be held in contempt of court. Epic Games said that Apple's implementation makes links "commercially unusable" due to the fee and the "accompanying web of restrictions."

Microsoft, Meta, X, and Match further complained that Apple is not allowing apps to include "even the most basic information" about alternative purchase options. Apple does not allow apps to let customers know about how to receive a discount by purchasing directly from a website, for example.

Meta said that it should be able to direct users to the web to pay for boosted posts to avoid Apple's fee, and Microsoft complained that Apple's rules limit options for providing subscriptions and discounts. X, formerly Twitter, said that Apple's 27 percent fee eliminates incentives to include an external link, while Match claimed that the rules prevent price competition for digital transactions.

Apple in January claimed that it was in full compliance with the injunction, and that it has given developers a way to inform customers about alternative purchase mechanisms both in their apps and outside of their apps.

The amicus brief filed today supports Epic Games' recent filing. Epic Games has asked the court to force Apple to bring its policies into compliance with the injunction, so it will be up to the court to decide whether Apple's rule change does enough to satisfy the requirements of the initial judgment.

Article Link: Meta, Microsoft, X and Match Join Epic Games in Protesting Fees for Non-App Store Purchase Links
 

oofio2461

macrumors 6502
Sep 20, 2021
416
1,701
 Full Moon
I will say that the fees should be waived for non-profit/small dev groups under a certain income, the big groups get the normal rate, and if they earn a lot, then they can pay the fee.
 

Stromos

macrumors 6502a
Jul 1, 2016
785
1,897
Woodstock, GA
So if I go to Netflix’s website via Safari and sign up for a subscription Apple gets nothing but if I click a link in the app that takes me to their subscription page Apple gets 27%? Why?
This one is simple to me. If you download an app and you are already a customer Apple gets nothing seems fine to me.

If you download an app and you are a new customer then the app being marketed by Apple App Store has brought developer xyz business. Apple gets a cut.
 

lkrupp

macrumors 68000
Jul 24, 2004
1,882
3,810
a bit rich coming from a company that doesn't allow third party stores on xbox which Tim Sweeney seems to not want to fight because they can't risk all of their clients losing access to unreal engine on a major platform lmao

hypocrites
No such thing as hypocrisy when it comes to corporate machinations. Show them the MONEY, baby.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KeithBN

dannyyankou

macrumors G5
Mar 2, 2012
13,018
28,008
Westchester, NY
This one is simple to me. If you download an app and you are already a customer Apple gets nothing seems fine to me.

If you download an app and you are a new customer then the app being marketed by Apple App Store has brought developer xyz business. Apple gets a cut.
I agree with this. Think about a retail store like Target. If Target platforms Apple's products and they sell a pair of AirPods, would it be fair for them not to get a cut of that sale?
 

vipergts2207

macrumors 601
Apr 7, 2009
4,275
9,524
Columbus, OH
This one is simple to me. If you download an app and you are already a customer Apple gets nothing seems fine to me.

If you download an app and you are a new customer then the app being marketed by Apple App Store has brought developer xyz business. Apple gets a cut.
Who says it was marketed by Apple rather than me searching for it specifically because I knew I wanted to become a customer? If I search for it in the App Store and sign up Apple gets a cut, but if I search for it in Safari and sign up they don’t?
 

crsh1976

macrumors 68000
Jun 13, 2011
1,572
1,756
So if I go to Netflix’s website via Safari and sign up for a subscription Apple gets nothing but if I click a link in the app that takes me to their subscription page Apple gets 27%? Why?
Yes, akin to Spotify and many others - you can't subscribe via their iOS app to avoid letting Apple take its cut for providing the platform 3rd-parties make some of their money off of.

What I find ridiculous is trying to cut off those who circumvent the ordeal via their own means tho, it's no where near as secure or convenient as an official app platform, but if some want to risk it, let them.
 
Last edited:

nutmac

macrumors 603
Mar 30, 2004
6,060
7,334
I think we can all agree that Apple is entitled to some compensation for developing the platform, SDK, and tools (e.g., Xcode). After all, Epic takes 12% commission from apps distributed through its store, which is more generous than Apple and Google, but it is certainly not free.

So the real question is, what is fair? €0.50/year beyond 1 million install is certainly prohibitive for free and freemium apps generating very little recurring revenue from each user.

Apple's take should be capped to more reasonable amount, such as €0.50/year for active users that generate a minimum revenue of €2.00/year or €1,000/year per developer, whichever is higher.
 

lkrupp

macrumors 68000
Jul 24, 2004
1,882
3,810
I don't know why more companies wouldn't join up to fight the anti competitive behavior.
Because that would be the pot calling the kettle black. Do you actually believe Apple is the one and only tech company that does stuff like this? How about big Pharma? Apple has a physical hardware platform that developers need to be able to run their software on. Most of the ones whining about this, including Microsoft, basically only sell software for Apple and PC hardware manufacturers. Without the hardware to run on software developers would be non-existent.
 

vipergts2207

macrumors 601
Apr 7, 2009
4,275
9,524
Columbus, OH
I think we can all agree that Apple is entitled to some compensation for developing the platform, SDK, and tools (e.g., Xcode). After all, Epic takes 12% commission from apps distributed through its store, which is more generous than Apple and Google, but it is certainly not free.

So the real question is, what is fair? €0.50/year beyond 1 million install is certainly prohibitive for free and freemium apps generating very little recurring revenue from each user.

Apple's take should be capped to more reasonable amount, such as €0.50/year for active users that generate a minimum revenue of €2.00/year or €1,000/year per developer, whichever is higher.
What compensation does Apple get for macOS apps? Microsoft for Windows apps?
 

GroovyCatticus

Suspended
Jun 2, 2022
306
268
This point is primarily why I think this link charge is bogus, Apple just seems to be doing it out of spite.
Why should Netflix get a free ad for their service?

They asked for the link, and Apple provided a mechanism.

If it converts within 7 days, you owe Apple for the referral.

Don’t want that, don’t include the link 🤷🏻‍♂️
 

bcortens

macrumors 65816
Aug 16, 2007
1,183
1,527
Ontario Canada
This one is simple to me. If you download an app and you are already a customer Apple gets nothing seems fine to me.

If you download an app and you are a new customer then the app being marketed by Apple App Store has brought developer xyz business. Apple gets a cut.
You can't possibly know this. To claim that the reason that someone downloads something like Netflix or Spotify is marketing by the App Store is just pure speculation, likely false pure speculation given how much of a household name Netflix is.
 

bcortens

macrumors 65816
Aug 16, 2007
1,183
1,527
Ontario Canada
Why should Netflix get a free ad for their service?

They asked for the link, and Apple provided a mechanism.

If it converts within 7 days, you owe Apple for the referral.

Don’t want that, don’t include the link 🤷🏻‍♂️
What free ad? Netflix is a household name, I very very very strongly doubt that the reason someone downloaded Netflix from the App Store is because it is within the App Store.
If Netflix paid for an App Store ad to get their app placed higher that is even more reason that this isn't a free ad.
 

swm

macrumors 6502a
May 29, 2013
518
848
So if I go to Netflix’s website via Safari and sign up for a subscription Apple gets nothing but if I click a link in the app that takes me to their subscription page Apple gets 27%? Why?
AFAIK apple gets the cut if you make your subscription through the App Store subscription mechanism and pay using apple's billing system.
oh. had to read the last lines
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.