Because storage and bandwidth are dirt cheap, and Apple already sells their app distribution service to developers for $99/year, which is more than enough to cover costs for 99% of apps.
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.
'Reader' Apps Can Now Add Links for Account Signups Outside of the App Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple would need to charge exhorbitant fees to make up for the lost revenue, bandwith is cheap, it would give more ammo to the sideloading debate. What kind of apps would be excempt from it? Remember, a kid with an iPad can now publish to the App Store via Playgrounds
Plus, Apple already has a pay-for-download program (Search Ads). Would Search Ads downloads be excempt from it?
How would they handle Educational downloads? They can't be disabled and it's not unheard of to have school districts download thousands of copies for an app that will be used by a dozen of students
All of this can be chalked up to...
Apple stumbled into WAY more revenue from the App Store (particularly gaming IAP) than they ever dreamed they would of...
...and they are don't want to disrupt that firehose of cash.
Apple stumbled into WAY more revenue from the App Store (particularly gaming IAP) than they ever dreamed they would of...
...and they are don't want to disrupt that firehose of cash.
Oh Apple doesn‘t have to host apps for free. Apple should simply offer different service contracts. Ever heard of AWS or Azure - those platforms charge you money for services. But it isn‘t mandatory to use those services.
You can clearly see the problem. Apple is allowed to charge 30% for its InApp payment service, no problem. But at the same time Apple closes the gates to its platform for a competing e.g. PayPal InApp payment service that would only charge 3%. But this is an anti competitive behaviour and calls the EU for regulation.
Why can't a dev just charge $59.99 for the game? Instead of .99c this or $4.99 per "thingy" to use in the game?
Everyone wants to make money. IAP was another way to move from getting paid once to forever. Should Apple have said "No, you can have all that IAP money, we only want to charge for those one time cost downloads.... yeah!".
This rule is mind boggling. If we use the entitlement, we must "Not offer in-app purchases on iOS or iPadOS while using the External Link Account Entitlement". WHY?! We want to allow in-app purchase and we also want to allow people to purchase on our website. For us, it's not about the money. In-app purchase is convenient and we're willing to pay Apple's cut. But we also allow purchases on our web site, where we can have sales, promotions, coupons, gift certificates, etc., that we can't do with in-app purchase. Some of our puzzle books are also available as downloadable PDFs, which we can't support through the app.
What is Apple's logic here?
What is Apple's logic here?
Second time today we’re seeing Apple capitulate. Excited to see what’s next.
How about they should provide it for free because they force you to use them to do it? If Apple doesn't want to provide the service "for free" but still wants App Developers to support their platform, they could always just let them host their own apps and let their users install it from other places.
They do to attract more developers to the platform. If they are willing to give away the app in return for Ad revenue.
The dev annual fee is cheap so anyone (almost) could create apps and have it published on the store.
They built those platforms with that structure in mind. Apple built the store "differently". Two completely different approaches.
We are talking about just the cost of a card/chip swipe. The rest of it is Apple's to collect for doing everything else. And from all the court/govt' decisions so far. ALL have allowed Apple to continue to collect their fee. If they want to charge 29.999% they are allowed to do so.
I will agree that Apple's stance has been to not allow a developer to contact an end user is unfair. If you have an account with Netflix or Epic. I don't see any reason for them not to be able to contact you on other means of getting the app (on other platforms) or payment methods. By email, text, etc that you opt into. However, I don't agree they should be able to advertise that fact within Apple's or Googles "store". Just like any other physical store wouldn't go for that.
Again I stress that I believe these gov't are punishing Apple for being successful. If they swindled there way to the top. I would have no issue with them being nailed to the cross for it. But, they haven't. They took a risk, and it paid off. They should be rewarded for that, not punished.
I don’t see the issue, as payment services like PayPal can afford to charge only 3% precisely because they don’t have to deal with the costs of running and maintaining an App Store.
I am not against allowing other payment options in the App Store, but I do feel that Apple should still be entitled to a cut or the revenue nonetheless (like what they are proposing with the Netherlands dating app lawsuit).
But of course this will introduce its own moral hazard, as Apple has no way of tracking sales taking place outside of the App Store. Which in turn will entail auditing their books, which is more work both all parties entailed.
It doesn’t take a genius to see how iTunes remains the most streamlined and convenient payment option for all parties involved.
Last edited:
Hot take (probably) but I’m okay with apple requiring that apps like Netflix offer in app purchase options, even if that means pricing them higher. I’ve come to the conclusion that almost no streaming services are worth paying for 100% of the time, and I’ve switched to just subscribing to whichever ones I want at a given time. One month that may be HBO Max and Paramount, the next month it might be Netflix, Hulu, and Disney+, the month after that might be Discovery+, Hulu, and Paramount. But I don’t need all of them all the time, and cancelling an in app purchase subscription is about 20x easier than canceling through each service’s unique, intentionally confusing websites. The more of this I can manage through in app purchase subscriptions the better, bc even if it costs a few extra dollars, it’s still cheaper than when I realize I need to cancel a service the next month AFTER it charges me again so I’ve paid for it twice.
Also, f*** Netflix for constantly raising their prices (what is this, the 5th year in a row? $20 for 4K?!?!) and refusing to support the Apple TV’s up next feature.
Also, f*** Netflix for constantly raising their prices (what is this, the 5th year in a row? $20 for 4K?!?!) and refusing to support the Apple TV’s up next feature.
Is a cut of 3rd party app revenues the only way Apple can fund the cost of running the App Store? What about apps that don’t offer IAP? I think the 30% commission is less about the cost of running the App Store and more about Apple believing they’re partially responsible for the success of 3rd party apps and therefore deserve a cut of their sales. Except of course for big name apps that Apple needs (or compete with) like Netflix and Spotify. Then they create an arbitrary new app category to exempt those apps. If you’re big and powerful (or something Apple didn’t anticipate when they first introduced IAP, like Uber) you can get around the 30% otherwise too bad, pay up.
But you also said you’re OK with them raising their prices in order to give Apple a cut… And you expect them to support Apple TV unique features while being forced to give Apple an unjustified cut of revenue?
I don’t really blame any company that isn’t fully supporting Apple TV features. It’s a niche platform with hardware that is totally over priced.
Get mad at Apple about Apple TV features and support.
They can choose to force everybody to adhere to certain guidelines but they may have nobody on their platform if they do that.
So the high profit margins on all iOS devices and the $99 yearly developer fees aren't enough for Apple, they should get more from the developer's who helped make their platform a success and so that apple could sell them in the first place???
This is Apple's greed pure and simple.
$$$
Apple likes to see what they can get away with and for how long before they're forced to stop.
This is the only logical change I see that was needed in the App Store. Apps and developers use so much of Apple's technology and training videos for free. Microsoft's developer platform for example, costs over $1000, per developer, per year. And the training videos of Microsoft is laughable by comparison. Apple's business model of giving it all for free, and only charging a percentage of the sales, is what led to the App and startup revolution that we live in today.
This falls apart for reader apps. For example, the money Netflix spends on it's content, far far exceeds the App development and platform benefits they receive from Apple. Apple getting a 30% cut there is unfair.
As an independent developer, I want Apple to take a cut from my app sales. That way our interests are aligned, and Apple puts more and more developer and language features. If Apple does not take a cut, they are not much incentivized to do all this support for developers. Ya, iPhone sales gives them some incentives. But I certainly won't have all the tools, API's and training I have today without Apple taking a cut.
This falls apart for reader apps. For example, the money Netflix spends on it's content, far far exceeds the App development and platform benefits they receive from Apple. Apple getting a 30% cut there is unfair.
As an independent developer, I want Apple to take a cut from my app sales. That way our interests are aligned, and Apple puts more and more developer and language features. If Apple does not take a cut, they are not much incentivized to do all this support for developers. Ya, iPhone sales gives them some incentives. But I certainly won't have all the tools, API's and training I have today without Apple taking a cut.
You are basically arguing that Apple is somehow expected to subsidise the App Store with hardware profits and operate it for free.
To me, how profitable their hardware is has zero bearing on whether Apple is justified in collecting a cut from developers, be it 15% or 30%. If companies like Sony and Nintendo can justify this, and are allowed to block third party app stores from their own platform, I feel that Apple should not be an exception. This is true regardless of whether hardware like the Nintendo switch or Sony PS5 is sold at a loss or at a profit.
Just as $99 probably doesn’t come anywhere near to covering the cost of support and operating the App Store. It’s like claiming that just because I have paid an entrance fee to get into Disneyland, I should be allowed free rides and free food.
I agree that Apple makes more than enough money to absorb the costs of running the App Store. I disagree that they should be expected to do so. Apple made the App Store, they aggregated the best customers by virtue of the iphone, they make it easy for customers to buy apps while reducing the incidence of piracy (since sideloading is blocked). All this come together to help developers sell more apps than they otherwise would have.
I feel Apple is justified in being financially rewarded for the role they play in growing the overall pie for the developer.
Do you understand the term "offer different service models"? One model could be to leave everything as it is now.
Apple has to reinvent itself within the next years. Smartphones have become an important platform for all people. Nor Apple neither Google can be the gatekeepers of those platforms.Those platforms have become a part of the market, so they have to be free, accessible and play by the rules.
The same thing happened to Google some time ago. Google (Alphabet) is the owner of Google Search but it is not allowed to show only its own services in Search and it isn't allowed to show its services in the first place (what it was trying to).
Same thing happens to Apple now. Ist just isn't possible to be platform owner, gatekeeper und competitor at the same time in a free market. So all countries start to regulate Apple, there is no way out for Apple. It has gotten to big.
I know that a lot of Apple Fans hate this, but Apple has to change. A service company should be the goal and xxxOS is the place where you can offer services - I don't know if Tim, Phil and Co are still flexible enough to lead Apple into the future. I highly doubt it.
Last edited:
Actually, it has never been completely free. Every developer has to pay € 99 a year for a developer account.
You could always get another smartphone. no one is forcing the iPhone/ios on you.
I never understood a company charging its own company for things like this. It’s wasteful. It’s the same company. Plus, are we sure the don’t capture this on their financial sheets?
PayPal is just the credit card fee. Apple is a whole lot more.
there’s android for that. How about those who want sideloading should just go use android? No one is forcing you to use iOS.
YES!!! it’s literally the only app that doesn’t. I forget about Netflix shows half the time because all my other apps do support it. Netflix requires an extra step or two. Oh, and they support interactive content on iOS but not the Apple TV and that baffles me.
You are talking the Apple TV hardware. @bg1419 is talking the app that is hardly niche as it’s built in to iOS, iPadOS, tvOS, and macOS. And syncs across all* of these. It’s glorious. I add “The Dropout” to my ”Up Next” on my iPad? It’s instantly there on my iPhone and Apple TV.
*macOS only supports Apple TV, iTunes content and and Apple TV Channel because the other apps are websites
Large businesses (looking at you IBM) often have internal budgets and ledgers and accounts.
I don’t doubt that Apple has the same.
You forgot… And Apple spending billions on development, every year.
And try reading… this is to allow direct links to access the devleoper’s website so you can sign up for an account. You can already access your account from any app, there’s never been a limitation on that.