Minnesota and Arizona Bills Aim to Let Developers Skirt Apple's In-App Purchase Rules

[Rogifan]

There’s a simple solution. Let developers offer their own IAP alongside Apple’s. Then consumers can choose which they want to use. Those that want to use Apple (because they think it’s more secure, they want all their subscriptions in one place etc) can pay 30% more for that. Of course we know the 30% isn’t really about that. It’s rent-seeking. It’s Apple saying we’re responsible for you having any customers so give us 30%. Yet it only applies to digital goods and only from companies that aren’t big or popular enough to get a carve-out from Apple.

 

[I7guy]

There’s a simple solution. Let developers offer their own IAP alongside Apple’s. Then consumers can choose which they want to use. Those that want to use Apple (because they think it’s more secure, they want all their subscriptions in one place etc) can pay 30% more for that. Of course we know the 30% isn’t really about that. It’s rent-seeking. It’s Apple saying we’re responsible for you having any customers so give us 30%. Yet it only applies to digital goods and only from companies that aren’t big or popular enough to get a carve-out from Apple.

So with the above experiment, the dev can offer their own IAP but it has to be 30%. The hitch is that the dev has to give apple back a small percentage.

So with both apple IAP and dev IAP being the same price, except with dev IAP you need another payment method, the numbers on which IAP gets predominantly chosen would be interesting.

We can go down the rabbit hole of hypotheticals.

 

[now i see it]

The apl is getting too big. If they pulled the plug, hundreds of millions of people would be screwed big time

 

[PlainBelliedSneetch]

Again, devs have to pay a fee for a developer certificate. None of it is free even for devs who pay a 0% cut to Apple they still have to pay the annual fee.

Isn’t it only $100?

 

[Abazigal]

There’s a simple solution. Let developers offer their own IAP alongside Apple’s. Then consumers can choose which they want to use. Those that want to use Apple (because they think it’s more secure, they want all their subscriptions in one place etc) can pay 30% more for that. Of course we know the 30% isn’t really about that. It’s rent-seeking. It’s Apple saying we’re responsible for you having any customers so give us 30%. Yet it only applies to digital goods and only from companies that aren’t big or popular enough to get a carve-out from Apple.

As it stands right now, smaller developers pay just 15% while the companies who pay 30% are the higher ones who are more than capable of taking the hit because they would by definition be earning more than a million dollars a year.

I would argue that the 30% cut is there is help offset the costs of running the App Store, which that $99 annual developer fee only partly covers (yet developers make such a huge deal of like it’s an arm and a leg for them).

It’s not all pure profit for Apple. If developers want to be able to access Apple’s user base and be able to market to them directly for free, sure. It just means that the shortfall is probably going to have to be made up for in some other way. It could be higher annual fees (which would penalise indie developers more).

At the end of the day, I am not convinced that the companies pushing for this like Epic are doing it to help other developers or the end users. They just want more money, and they will burn the App Store to the ground to get their way.

 

[Rob_2811]

Isn’t it only $100?

99 for small devs 300 for larger orgs.

 

[PlainBelliedSneetch]

But you are not allowed to tell anybody that you do!

Is advertising outlawed now?

 

[PlainBelliedSneetch]

99 for small devs 300 for larger orgs.

Seems like a bargain to me. 300 for large orgs is a rounding error.

 

[Rob_2811]

Seems like a bargain to me. 300 for large orgs is a rounding error.

I don't think it's the dev certificate fee most have a problem with. I think it's when Apple takes 30% of their business.

 

[PlainBelliedSneetch]

I don't think it's the dev certificate fee most have a problem with. I think it's when Apple takes 30% of their business.

Well, I am an old guy who owned a software company many years ago and it was normal to give up 60% and I paid for advertising. The App store has changed the world by giving very small developers a chance that didn’t exist previously. You wont convince me that 30% isn’t a bargain either.

 

[jonblatho]

3 Clicks from the App Store Setting > Subscriptions > [Pick a subscription] > Cancel Subscription

WOW that was so difficult!!!

As a developer considering working on a subscription app, I strongly believe that a user should be able to cancel their subscription in as few clicks/taps as possible, in the most discoverable place possible, no questions asked (other than a confirmation).

It’s my opinion that the median user would first think to undo something they did (like start a subscription) in an app by opening that app. That’s especially true now that IAP is branded as Apple Pay in the sheet that’s presented when you’re asked to buy something. But right now, Apple doesn’t allow that, instead forcing many (most?) users to Google “how to cancel subscription iphone” and similar queries before they find out that they have to open either the App Store or Settings to cancel a subscription that they started in a specific app. Then it becomes “oh, I’ll just do it tomorrow,” and then it rebills, rinse, repeat.

Since Apple’s taking a cut, Apple makes it easy to start giving them money and difficult to stop. That’s sleazy.

Edit: Speaking of which, why do you think Apple waited until a PR firestorm erupted to start cracking down on apps that charge $9.99 a week for a simple PDF scanner feature or some nonsense like that? I thought they thoroughly review apps in the App Store.

Or something.

 

[I7guy]

I don't think it's the dev certificate fee most have a problem with. I think it's when Apple takes 30% of their business.

Who is most? For what Apple provides i dont have a problem and I’ll wager “most “don’t either. Does one greedy dev? Yep.

As a developer considering working on a subscription app, I strongly believe that a user should be able to cancel their subscription in as few clicks/taps as possible, in the most discoverable place possible, no questions asked (other than a confirmation).

It’s my opinion that the median user would first think to undo something they did (like start a subscription) in an app by opening that app. That’s especially true now that IAP is branded as Apple Pay in the sheet that’s presented when you’re asked to buy something. But right now, Apple doesn’t allow that, instead forcing many (most?) users to Google “how to cancel subscription iphone” and similar queries before they find out that they have to open either the App Store or Settings to cancel a subscription that they started in a specific app. Then it becomes “oh, I’ll just do it tomorrow,” and then it rebills, rinse, repeat.

Since Apple’s taking a cut, Apple makes it easy to start giving them money and difficult to stop. That’s sleazy.

Edit: Speaking of which, why do you think Apple waited until a PR firestorm erupted to start cracking down on apps that charge $9.99 a week for a simple PDF scanner app? I thought they thoroughly review apps in the App Store.

Or something.

All your subscriptions in one place? If one has 25 subscriptions seeing them in one place is sleazy? I guess convenience vs sleaze.

 

[Rob_2811]

Who is most? For what Apple provides i dont have a problem and I’ll wager “most “don’t either. Does one greedy dev? Yep.

You're a shareholder not a developer this is why you don't have a problem with it 👍

By the way one greedy dev is pure comedy, there have been several complaints from high profile devs

 

[jonblatho]

All your subscriptions in one place? If one has 25 subscriptions seeing them in one place is sleazy? I guess convenience vs sleaze.

Did I say the undiscoverable (by design) paths through the App Store and Settings apps had to go away?

 

[jonblatho]

Web app. Completely free from Apple's walled garden.

That’d be a great option if Apple weren’t woefully behind basically every other mobile or desktop OS — including macOS — on implementing PWA features in iOS and “iPadOS.”

 

[macfacts]

Forcing Apple to drop the in-app payment exclusivity will change nothing - hopefully (I don't want iOS cracked open, insecure and not protecting my privacy.)
As a developer I'm happy to continue using Apple's payment system. 15% seems like a lot but it isn't. PayPal takes 6%.
On top of that I don't have to deal with people wanting refunds and users get a better purchase experience using Apple's payment system because it is full integrated into iOS. 15% is worth it I think.
I also think the users will probably convert better with apps that continue to use Apple's payment system because of this.
If they bust open iOS for any payment in-app I won't be switching.

How does someone buying fortnight money on a web site have the potential to violate your privacy?

 

[Seoras]

Only tiny developers. The cutoff is $1M. I'd guess there are few organizations that employ even 5 people but don't make $1M.

Further, I'd guess that did virtually nothing to impact Apple's revenue from the App Store.

Tiny? If I was making just under $1M a year from App sales I'd be pretty pleased. 🤣
The vast majority are in the category of "small business program" as Apple calls it.
Where do you get your stats from?

Apple takes a 30% cut and not a 15% cut from you.

Nope. 15% buddy!

There's a lot of newbie posters chipping in on this thread who don't seem to like what's being said.
Just saying...

 

[ArPe]

People should own the devices they purchase, not corporations.

You own the hardware you purchase. You don’t own the OS and Apple has full responsibility for maintaining its security and stability for end users, otherwise they would be drowned in complaints and tech support calls every time an app or rogue developer ****s up your device, steals your data or hacks your money.

 

[Seoras]

I'm so sick of seeing this ^^: The 30% has always been just for the first year. After that it has been 15% for everyone, since the App Store first opened. Now it's 15% from the git-go for small devs.

I wish. It has always been 30%.
I've been earning off the app store for several years now. 30% the whole time plus the $99 per year membership.
Then in December I applied for the small business program and I'm now on 15%.

I think you might be confusing the subscription commission which was 30% for the 1st year which then drops to 15% if the user keeps the sub going past a year. That came in a couple of years ago.

 

[Alan Wynn]

What I am asking you and everyone, is what is the difference between MacOS and iOS.

On macOS, for historic reasons, the platform owner allows users to install software however they choose. On iOS they do not. In both cases it is (and should be) their choice. In neither case are users forced to buy these products and this is all known upfront. Until a product controls such a dominant share of the market (broadly defined) that users often have no choice, the platform owner should be able to do what it wants and users can vote with their dollars. In this country, iOS has been gaining market share because Apple has provided users what they want. Everyone understands that there are trade offs with every choice in life and can choose which options they prefer locked down walled garden or open with no real restrictions.

On iOS? The App Store is literally the only option.

Nope, you can sell web apps for iOS. Microsoft has shown that works.

 

[Abazigal]

I don't think you read the post I replied to, it's in the quote...

What I am asking you and everyone, is what is the difference between MacOS and iOS. On a Mac, I can sell my app in the Mac app store. I can sell it via SetApp. I can sell it via Steam. I can sell it on my own website. On iOS? The App Store is literally the only option.

Which raises the question - why should iOS be more like macOS in this regard? Could it not be the other way around, where macOS grows to mirror iOS more closely?

 

[I7guy]

You're a shareholder not a developer this is why you don't have a problem with it 👍

By the way one greedy dev is pure comedy, there have been several complaints from high profile devs

You’re making the point of a few high greedy earners that made their buck off of apples back and hard work.

And I maybe a shareholder and ex-dev but you got no skin in the game.

 

[I7guy]

Did I say the undiscoverable (by design) paths through the App Store and Settings apps had to go away?

I discovered it. It wasn’t that hard.

 

[ArPe]

What I am asking you and everyone, is what is the difference between MacOS and iOS.

Your question is wrongly framed.

You should be asking what is the difference between a computer and a phone.

The phone is constantly online and handles a lot of very sensitive communication data and financial applications. This is a device that needs twice or triple more protection than a desktop computer because phones are constantly being targeted by hackers and malware apps.

The desktop will eventually have the same issue because it will handle the same kinds of apps and data and will also be an ‘always on’ device. When that happens Apple and Microsoft will be responsible for making sure users are protected around the clock.

The engineers working on security have one of the toughest jobs in the world. They spend every day of their life looking out for cyber threats and trying to find ways to protect the operating system and user data. The best recommendation is getting apps from official channels and a well moderated vetted App Store.

Every other option increases risk. The only people who deny that are bat **** crazy libertarian conspiracy theorists who don’t understand security (or anything in life generally)

 

[ArPe]

How does someone buying fortnight money from Chinese mega corp Tencent in a game that collects user data have the potential to violate your privacy?

Fixed your post