For some apps (Spotify) they never existed in the first place because of Apple's rent-seeking.
For others (Patreon) you pay less if you don't use in-app purchase.
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.
Patreon Planning iOS App Update to Skirt In-App Purchases
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For others (Patreon) you pay less if you don't use in-app purchase.
I suspect Apple will try and require IAP alongside link out, not sure if they’ll be allowed to do so, but they aren’t allowed to prevent devs from showing a lower price for on the web purchase which is nice.
Because the IAP system does not need to go away. It just needs to not be mandatory.
Developers can (and should be able to) choose to continue using IAP and paying the 30% fee. Small time developers would absolutely have a good reason to do this.
But when your model starts profiting from purchases that have literally nothing to do with your platform, other than that someone wrote an app that runs on phones that use that platform, you're just being greedy.
It's also arbitrary. Notice they don't require Amazon to pay 30% of goods you buy on the Amazon store... except they do require it for Kindle books, since those are "digital" goods. (I bet Apple would love to be able to charge 30% of any money that changes hands via an iOS device, but I guess even they realize there's a limit.) Note that the Kindle infrastructure is entirely maintained by Amazon - Apple is literally doing a single thing (payment processing) for this, they're not even providing hosting. And they forbid Amazon from offering their normal payment system on iOS. Same applies for Spotify/Netflix/etc. subscriptions - Apple is doing literally nothing other than payment processing. Fine, charge a premium over other processors - 4% or something - but 30% is an arbitrary number that has very little relevance in today's market, and exists only because "that's what we've always charged".
What value does Apple bring to Patreon that is worth Apple taking 30% of all subscriptions paid to creators indefinitely that just happen to occur within the iOS app?
You could argue the value is Apple brings "the customers", but really it's just convenience - you can subscribe within the app. But that's literally it. The real issue for me has always been that Apple forbids you from even telling your customers they can purchase outside the app. (And also, didn't they at one time say you could not charge more via IAP than you do for outside-the-app purchases? Maybe that got dropped, but still.)
Remember that money that Patreon is collecting to give to creators is mostly going to those creators. Patreon collects 5% of your subscription revenue - and that's including providing the platform, payment processing, etc. Collecting 30% on top of that to just give it to Apple for... payment processing? That's completely ridiculous. 30% is just an arbitrary figure Apple came up with back in 2008 and they're trying desperately to cling to it since the shareholders definitely love that sweet pure profit.
And that's a good excuse to extort your partners? "You wouldn't be anywhere without me! I'll take 30% of all income! Oh, and if you even tell anyone that there's another way to pay, I'll kick you to the curb!" Cartels know all about tactics like this.
Apple should charge a fair amount based on what they provide. What are they providing to the average app? Hosting, metrics, advertising and exposure (maybe - if the algorithm is nice to you - often you're still advertising outside the store anyway), and payment processing. For purchasing an app, you could maybe make a case for a 30% cut of that initial sale. But we're talking about IAPs - and especially IAP subscriptions where the company offering the subscription is already running on very thin margins. Patreon, for example, only keeps 5% of all subscription fees. I think it was Spotify who said they were running at like 2% profit based on the licensing they have to pay to run their service. There is absolutely no plausible reason to tack on an extra 30% tax on this. Nobody is getting 30% worth of benefit from that fee - Apple's massive revenue and stock market value is the only thing benefiting.
Again, if they want to offer a payment system and charge 30%, I have no issue with that. My issue is their condition that you are forbidden from telling your customers they have other options.
For those who are arguing about insecure credit card processing, fine. I believe you should be free to pay 30% more if you believe Apple's system is more secure than any other payment system. That's completely fine. But by forbidding developers from even mentioning other payment options, you've basically eliminated competition within your space and you have zero incentive to ever reconsider your fee. The whole point of anti-monopoly policies is specifically to prevent a company from creating this scenario for themselves. Of course Apple wants to do that, but that's also a big part of why the judge ruled the way she did. (Also because Apple basically pulled a malicious compliance and figured out a workaround to still charge almost that 30% fee even if you process your own payments.)
Last edited:
Don't they? 30% for nothing is a lot.Yeah, because it's Apple wanting something for nothing.
Of course they had another option: they could not have created an app for the App Store. My whole point is that they chose to do so, demonstrating that Apple’s terms weren’t so onerous that it wasn’t still mutually beneficial.
Would people prefer to pay less for the same service? Of course they would! (How greedy!)
It is kinda sad because Apple will obviously have to pass the costs on users somehow. But to be completely honest Apple have done that to themselves by unleashing the subscription model across majority of apps. There are almost no more applications that are single time purchases. App Store is dying and competition, paired with those court rulings is killing it completely
Then Patreon should not have app at all in the first place, a website accessible thru Safari or any other browser of choice would be more than plenty. Buuut? But Patreon knows it will hurt their userbase and that applications are *somehow* still appealing to users. It is cheaper for them to freeride on Apple’s platform and keep their app there.
Or maybe it is high time for the AppStore to go. Most apps nowadays are just website wrappers with limited functionality. I am personally tired of visiting most websites and seeing nagging “app available” notifications. Somehow macOS still didn’t have so many apps as iPhone has, and iPhone nowadays is a powerful device not to rely on apps like Ikea, YouTube or Patreon.
There are only few specific apps that need apps for proper functionality – Shazam (already built-in control center), Instagram and Edits (filters, video editor, easy access to phone photo gallery for direct posting), pro apps (Garageband, iMovie, Pixelmator, Lightroom, VN or similar)
If they aren't getting anything from Apple, why make an iPhone app then? Seems silly to waste resources if you're getting nothing, right? Yup. Exactly.
Because people only (usually) buy one phone? If you are making an app for say, ticketing, banking, transit etc…, you have to target both platforms.
People wouldn’t buy iPhones without apps, but, no individual developer has the power to negotiate with Apple thus Apple has ensured that the rules don’t change to favour developers more than in the past.
When the iPhone first launched perhaps it was a good deal, but that was 17 year ago now, the world has moved on. Yet developers have less power than they did when the App Store was new because in helping Apple build the most successful mobile platform they lost negotiating power as all the other app platforms fell away. Blackberry, Symbian, Windows Phone, Palm, all lie dead.
The way Apple has incentivized the App Store has honestly made it worse than it was 17 years ago.
A lack of upgrade pricing being a large hindrance that Apple knows pushes people to a subscription monetization system which generates more money for Apple but prevents companies from offering users a better experience.
Something a lot of people get wrong on this is that it’s +43% to make the same amount after Apple’s 30% tax. It’s closer to +half than +third. And if you charged $14.30 for a $10 purchase, people will think you’re gouging because “it’s only 30%”.
1.43 * 0.7 = 1.00
1.3 * 0.7 = 0.91
I am guessing you mean Android?
The point is that when there were 6 players the market was not concentrated in just 2 players. The point is that when consumers are actively moving between platforms regularly and the market is still growing devs have more power. Today the smartphone market is essentially at saturation with very little growth potential in North America, Europe and Japan. In these markets people don't really leave their platform very regularly anymore. I know of just 1 person among my friend group that switched platforms in the last 5 years...
Most devs have no power to negotiate with Apple and if they want to ensure their product is widely available they must accede to Apple's terms. In 2008 only just over 50% of people even had a cell phone, never mind a smartphone. It's a radically different world.
Most indie developers would lose more than 30% in the billing overhead they would have to integrate into their systems. It would be especially fun for them trying to keep track of all the tax requirements in hundreds of jurisdictions.