Stripe, Square, Adyen and many other can come in and offer 0.5-3.5% so 10% is ridiculous and very opportunistic. It will only last for a very short term and for people who don't understand there are way better options. Even 5% is considered very high typically so 10% is stupidly high for an external payment gateway
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.
Paddle Plans to Launch Alternative In-App Purchase System on iOS That Circumvents Apple's Fees
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The time period of unlimited contractual freedom and unlimited capitalism is far behind us. There are contract laws, anti trust laws, competition laws, product liability laws, many economic torts, and so on. The simple argument “go somewhere else” doesn’t set aside any obligations and liabilities from a legal perspective and thus has no value anymore.
I am choosing to stay within the App Store. No guarantee of recourse if something goes wrong when circumventing the ecosystem.
Agreed. But the solution is in the first sentence. Other payment providers can enter the market, leading to lower commission fees. If Apple is the only party providing a system for app purchases, fees will not go down, as we have seen over the last 15 years.
Or present your antitrust claims and win, like developers are doing.
Stripe, Square, Adyen don't do the same as Apple nor this service. Stipe is probably used by Paddle to handle the payment part.
So, win in court in this case, but lose the battle as consumers still choose and prefer the integrated system. Next up, forced degradation or outright banning of the integrated system, destroying the value of the product to the consumers as we end up with just another junk device full of garbage and spam.
I’ll happily sign a form stating that I’m willfully buying into a closed system when I buy my next iPhone if that’s what it takes to stop it from becoming Android.
I think Paddle is more than a payment handler though. They provide license management services where by they distribute licenses to users and then apps use their APIs to verify validity etc of keys. I have stacks of Mac apps that use Paddle for the purchasing and with Little Snitch you can identify that the apps also use Paddle APIs ongoing too for activation checks. Things like discount codes, upgrade pricing etc too all seem to me to be managed via Paddle.
My impression of Paddle for some time has been it's closer to a software distribution platform in a sense similar to Steam, but it's one that doesn't require you to actually register with Paddle direct or install any software of theirs but operates somewhat seamlessly for users but is fairly tightly integrated into apps and sales if you look closely.
In regards to arguments about friction. I personally find Paddle pretty good on Mac so far as non AppStore payments go. Usually you just need to provide an email address and payment method, but with Apple Pay being supported the payment can be made with just TouchID anyway. It's actually a pretty good experience that doesn't need any account registrations, redirection to other stores, or the like. Post purchase you do get a key that needs to be input into the app to activate the service which isn't as nice as IAP, mind you, but its not too onerous.
Of all the non Apple purchase options it may be my favourite, especially when coupled with Apple Pay.
As above, they are actually pretty commonly used by Mac apps sold outside the Apple App Store. They certainly aren't a niche. Looks like I have a dozen plus apps that went via them on Mac including some relatively well known ones like Better Touch Tool.
Last edited:
I don't have any feelings one way or another about Paddle, but I would really like to be able to buy books in the Kindle App on my iPhone like I can on my Pixel. The Kindle iOS user experience is worse than the Android one.
Yeah, we will see if any big players (like Amazon) updates their apps (say like Kindle Reader) to allow purchase links in the iOS apps.
I've seen the same behavior on apps purchased from 'bundle' deals. Every time I launch one of them, it phones home to checkout.paddle.(com) and v3.paddleapi.(com). Since these are perpetual licenses, there is no need for these to reverify the license on every launch. I suspect it's sending usage data. If I block the calls to paddle enough times, the apps will unlicense themselves until I allow them to check in. That's not how perpetual licenses should work. Not a fan of paddle.
Ya I wonder what extra fees Apple will start charging developers like Paddle. So basically what’s going to happen is a developer like a Paddle is going to spend money and time setting up and monitoring an alternate payment system but they are going to wind up paying the 30% in fees to Apple. They do understand this I hope lol!
This "we're allowed to sell your details to 3rd parties" in agreements needs to be made illegal.
Good point, I believe the judge’s ruling did not forbid Apple from charging a percentage on a purchase. They could still require Paddle and thereby the developer to pay some percentage. I wonder if Peddle will still be cheaper in that case.
This is a huge opportunity for Paddle competitors. Once Apple lawfully rejects them then Paddle’s competitors can jump in to fill the void and grab market share! They must be so excited about this.
Given the Dec 7, 1941, I mean 2021, launch date, with a 10% cut, I can see how some people will want to use it, but that will be undercut too.
The long term implications are that it won't take long for faux payment buttons to show up to just steal credit cards and information. Apple could kill it at any point by matching or beating the fees.
The long term implications are that it won't take long for faux payment buttons to show up to just steal credit cards and information. Apple could kill it at any point by matching or beating the fees.
Very true…Apple is like McDonalds vs Joe Hambuger Joint….not sure what you’ll get with Joe so I’ll pay the extra dollar thx…
It's DRM. And a perpetual license can be revoked at anytime, such as if you try to use DLC you haven't paid for or just if paddle goes under.
I'd love to permit developers access to my information on a case-by-case basis in order to get better support and generally support them if I am a fan. Privacy is not a concept where no one but Apple has your information, especially voluntarily.
You are not the target market. Developers are (because they are the ones implementing this in their apps), which is why Paddle has to make the terms attractive to them, in the form of more data and (presumably) more marketing opportunities.
Doesn't seem like that great a deal. 10% vs 15% that Apple currently charges smaller developers. Cost savings is small enough that it likely won't be passed down to the consumer. In the case of subscriptions, it probably won't be captured in the App Store app for me to monitor.
IAPs in games might be a viable target, but the increased friction may deter impulse purchases, cancelling out the extra earnings.
Assuming the developer doesn't have the option of not offering iTunes billing, and if the difference in app pricing is negligible, I really don't see any reason for me as a consumer to opt for alternative payments. I don't save any money, and potentially stand to lose in terms privacy and ease of use.
It also shoots down the oft-cited argument that Apple could lower their cut of app revenue to 10% or even 5%, when a third party is charging 10%, and this is without the added expenditure of having to operate and maintain the iOS App Store.
We may see competition further lower this in the future, but I see myself sticking with iTunes and possibly just absorbing any price difference.
Obviously. Not anyones market, have never used iTunes Store for music/video, nor have I ever bought an ap (iOS).
Soon as iTunes Store launched I called BS on their 30% cut and refused to support their racket.
Nothing has changed
I guess that's where the ability to generate burner email addresses in iOS 15 comes in handy.
It almost feels like Apple saw this likely scenario coming years ago and is building safeguards into their OS to counteract them.
The beauty of having a competititive market is that you're totally free to do just that. If many customers would rather pay more to do all the transactions through Apple then everyone is happy. All this will do is allow developers to cut out more middlemen out of the transactions.
Obviously this means Apple needs to rethink their model a little bit, they may end up splitting the developer plans into two, one where the developers agree to an additional requirement that they will use only Apple IAP, and one where they don't. The second of these two plans will likely involve fees for Apple cloud network bandwidth associated with the app, other fees like app review, perhaps optional marketing packages, etc.
I guess it's possible Apple will no longer legally have the option to make that requirement, due to the lawsuit, in which case I have no idea how I would expect them to change their fee structures.
My stance on all of this is that there should be regulations regarding the sale of devices capable of running user installable software. If your intention is to make such a device, then you must provide a way for users to install their own software on them. It doesn't have to be easy, but it must be doable completely offline, without interaction with the device manufacturer for things like code signing certificates. And yes, I believe this should also apply to gaming consoles. That way whatever becomes the most popular marketplace on such devices is playing fairly. I think it's fair to allow the manufacturer to pre-load their own app marketplace for that, that's their perk for building the device. Dictating what software runs on the device is not a perk that device manufacturers should be allowed in my opinion, unless it's ONLY that software, then it becomes a different class of device.
I think this ruling is great, but I don't think it goes far enough, I will consider Apple completely fair when they allow sideloading. I will continue to use their App Store anyway for pretty much everything except open source software which I think will then be distributed through something similar to Androids F-Droid marketplace, but at that point in time we will know that the free market can actually do its thing with regards to ensuring the fee structures are fair.
Last edited: