South Korean Bill That Could Allow Third-Party Payment Methods on the App Store Gains Support Ahead of Vote

[_Spinn_]

I absolutely do not want other payment options in apps. I don’t want to give my payment info to every app under the sun and risk potential data leaks where my credit card number gets stolen. I trust Apple to keep my payment info secure. That’s why I don’t buy much online. I limit my purchasing to Amazon (since if they were hacked everyone would be screwed) and websites that take Apple Pay or PayPal (which is a pain to use). I don’t give my credit card numbers out anywhere else.

If Apple could require apps to provide both Apple’s and 3rd party IAP I guess that wouldn’t be too bad. I doubt Apple would be allowed to do that though - most courts would probably see this as an abuse of their market position.

I’m mostly worried about apps that only support 3rd party IAP. While many have pointed out that I can just ignore those apps, what happens when there is one that I actually need (not just want)? The next logical step is making Apple allow third party stores. I could potentially see larger devs like say Google forcing users to install their App Store to get their apps (based off what they did with Windows Phone this doesn't seem that far off). Or what if some government like Russia forcing all apps installed in their country to go through their App Store?

As a consumer I already have options for what payment method actually backs Apple's IAP - whether that be a credit card (Visa, MasterCard, Discover, etc.), PayPal via linked AppleID account, or cash via purchased gift cards. This isn't really about consumers, this is about devs that don't want to give Apple a cut of the payments. I highly doubt prices would be lower with 3rd party IAP - Apple already lowered their commission from 30% to 15% for most apps and I'm not aware of any that have lowered their prices to pass the savings onto the consumer.

Physical stores already limit what payment methods consumers can use. Visa and MasterCard are accepted pretty much everywhere though Costco only accepts Visa. I've already been to places that won't accept my Discover card and American Express has an even lower acceptance rate than Discover. Some stores don’t even accept credit cards. There are even stores that will give you discounts for using their store loyalty/credit card. Should they be forced to accept all credit cards?

Again this isn’t about consumers. This is about devs being greedy and wanting a free ride off Apple’s infrastructure.

 

[Morgenland]

I would not have thought that South Korea is so unworldly...
But in every country there are some oddballs who think it's funny to mix things up.
Most of the time, however, they don't make it through the home stretch.

 

[vipergts2207]

Consumers are not going to pay lower prices. Devs are going to pocket the difference and Apple gets cut out.

The status quo requires everybody to pay the same rate, I don't know where you believe anyone is subsidizing anyone else. Only someone from inside Apple would know that.

Apple should raise fees in other areas to compensate. This means the barrier for entry will be higher and innovation will drop. And sure, both of us are singing "hypotheticals r us".

At any rate, what will happen will happen. I don't have to be for it though.

What exactly does 'devs pocketing the difference' mean to you? Surely some will use it to pad their bottom line, no doubt. (Same thing Apple does by the way. They also increased their dividend this year.) However, others will use the additional revenue to hire more coders and employees, spurring more of the innovation you were so worried about losing earlier. Apple isn't the only innovator out there.

The apps bringing in the big sales are subsidizing those that don't. The argument people like you love to use is that Apple's app store ecosystem and development software costs Apple substantial sums of money. That developers shouldn't be able to get 'free rides' off of Apple's costs and hard work. Who's paying for those substantial costs to Apple? Developers like Epic or the developer with a single app that costs 99 cents and has 17 sales per year? They both have access to the same ecosystem and development software, yet it costs Epic substantially more to utilize them.

 

[I7guy]

What exactly does 'devs pocketing the difference' mean to you? Surely some will use it to pad their bottom line, no doubt. (Same thing Apple does by the way. They also increased their dividend this year.) However, others will use the additional revenue to hire more coders and employees, spurring more of the innovation you were so worried about losing earlier. Apple isn't the only innovator out there.

I don't think that will happen en-masse. As far as Apple "pocketing the difference". They should. They give devs access to make hundreds of millions of dollars for almost no upfront risk to the dev.

The apps bringing in the big sales are subsidizing those that don't.

I don't know where you are getting this conclusion from. It's only an opinion...as you don't know Apples' thinking on the matter.

The argument people like you love to use is that Apple's app store ecosystem and development software costs Apple substantial sums of money.

People like you? Generalized nonsense. And what is the argument that you use...to make baseless generalizations / characterizations of posters who don't believe this is the ecosystems' best interest?

That developers shouldn't be able to get 'free rides' off of Apple's costs and hard work. Who's paying for those substantial costs to Apple? Developers like Epic or the developer with a single app that costs 99 cents and has 17 sales? They both have access to the same ecosystem and development software, but yet it costs Epic substantially more to utilize them.

What cost Epic substantially more? Epic's development costs are irrelevant to the existing system. It costs Epic $399 (or so) to Apple per year to make hundreds of millions dollars. Apple doesn't charge extra above the yearly dev fee per download, for management reports on revenue etc.

 

[WiseAJ]

I really can't wait for this to inevitably backfire on all these whiny developers.

Eventually I'm sure one of these governments will win out and Apple will unfortunately be forced to open up. When this happens I'm sure those developers will long for the days of the easy $99/ yr dev fee and 70/30 (or 85/15 in some cases) sale split. Apple will definitely make up the lost revenue somewhere and I'm sure developers won't like it.

 

[DevNull0]

Apple should charge by the download, say $10,000 per download. Basically they are forcing apple and google to give developers a free ride on their ecosystem. Maybe instead they should force grocery chains to give away (free) groceries, telco companies to provide unlimited, high speed bandwidth for free, etc.

Then you're arguing for multiple App stores and breaking down Apple's ecosystem entirely.

The customers own the phones they have purchased. When a dev and a customer want to conduct a transaction using the customer's own phone, why should Apple be able to force the dev to use their infrastructure and force the dev to pay whatever fee Apple wants? When I buy a computer, I can run any software I wish to on it (so long as I have permission from the dev), the computer maker has zero input into that. When I buy a Sony TV, Sony should not get a cut of any content I watch on it, it's my TV and that's between me and the content owner.

After all, without me owning a TV, content makers would have zero way to sell me any content. The TV makers literally created the entire industry and content makers make hundreds of billions of dollars because people own those TVs. Why shouldn't the TV makers be entitled to a cut?

For your example of free groceries, it would be like if you buy a house the home builder can force you to only ever buy groceries from the store that the builder owns at whatever prices the home builder wishes to charge. It's ludicrous for groceries, and equally so for software.

 

[vipergts2207]

I don't think that will happen en-masse.

Uh oh, that sounds like an opinion. Not that it matters, since that's what ~90% of anyone here says is.

As far as Apple "pocketing the difference". They should. They give devs access to make hundreds of millions of dollars for almost no upfront risk to the dev.

I don't know where you are getting this conclusion from. It's only an opinion...as you don't know Apples' thinking on the matter.

People like you? Generalized nonsense. And what is the argument that you use...to make baseless generalizations / characterizations of posters who don't believe this is the ecosystems' best interest?

What cost Epic substantially more? Epic's development costs are irrelevant to the existing system. It costs Epic $399 (or so) to Apple per year to make hundreds of millions dollars. Apple doesn't charge extra above the yearly dev fee per download, for management reports on revenue etc.

You're referring to cost in a uselessly literal sense when it clearly also refers to the 30% they lose out on when Apple takes their cut from their app sales. I'm obviously not referring to Epic's costs for coders, etc here. Being intentionally obtuse is far from a sign of having a winning argument. If Apple were to make only the $101.52 per year from every developer, would Apple's existing business model for the app store be sustainable? Apple has something around 500k active developers. That would equate to around $51 million per year in revenue for Apple for the app store at $101.52 per dev. In 2020 the app store had $64 billion in revenue. Apple's cut of that would've been orders of magnitude higher than $51 million. Additionally, the top 2% of developers generate 95% of the revenue.

Apple skims millions of dollars per year from devs like Epic for access to a market and dev tools while simultaneously skimming only a couple hundred dollars per year from smaller developers for access to those same tools and market. There's no other way to look at this other than a few developers subsidizing Apple's costs for everyone else, at great benefit to Apple. Everyone is so fond of the terrible physical retail analogies that don't apply in the digital world, let me try one. What if Walmart charged Frito-Lay $1000 for floor space in their stores, but only charged a regional chip manufacturer $50 for that same space? They both have access to the same customers and tools, but the former is paying substantially more just because they have a more popular product.

This wouldn't even be an issue if Apple didn't limit access to half the market while simultaneously requiring payments for access to that half of the market go through them.

 

[I7guy]

Uh oh, that sounds like an opinion. Not that it matters, since that's what ~90% of anyone here says is.

Yup.

You're referring to cost in a uselessly literal sense when it clearly also refers to the 30% they lose out on when Apple takes their cut from their app sales. Being intentionally obtuse is far from a sign of having a winning argument. If Apple were to make only the $101.52 per year from every developer, would Apple's existing business model for the app store be sustainable? Apple has something around 500k active developers. That would equate to around $51 million per year in revenue for Apple for the app store at $101.52 per dev. In 2020 the app store had $64 billion in revenue. Apple's cut of that would've been orders of magnitude higher than $51 million. Additionally, the top 2% of developers generate 95% of the revenue.

If every app went free and no IAP do you think Apple would can the App Store? I don't (which is an opinion). Therefore I don't buy the entire large developers subsidize the smaller developers opinion.

Apple skims millions of dollars per year from devs like Epic for access to a market and dev tools while simultaneously skimming only a couple hundred dollars per year from smaller developers for access to those same tools and market. There's no other way to look at this other than a few developers subsidizing Apple's costs for everyone else, at great benefit to Apple. Everyone is so fond of the terrible physical retail analogies that don't apply in the digital world, let me try one. What if Walmart charged Frito-Lay $1000 for floor space in their stores, but only charged a regional chip manufacturer $50 for that same space? They both have access to the same customers and tools, but the former is paying substantially more just because they have a more popular product.

Apple doesn't skim anything. They charge a fee for the tools, the support and the right to upload to the app store and to have unlimited downloads and management reporting. It's cheap at the price. In return there is a back-end commission involved.

As far as your grocery store analogy, it's probably accurate the way shelving fees work.

 

[vipergts2207]

Yup.

If every app went free and no IAP do you think Apple would can the App Store? I don't (which is an opinion). Therefore I don't buy the entire large developers subsidize the smaller developers opinion.

Apple doesn't skim anything. They charge a fee for the tools, the support and the right to upload to the app store and to have unlimited downloads and management reporting. It's cheap at the price. In return there is a back-end commission involved.

As far as your grocery store analogy, it's probably accurate the way shelving fees work.

Your conclusion relies a complete nonsensical fantasy (all apps going free) to support the idea that subsidization isn't happening. Of course you don't buy it, you're not operating in reality. Also not a sign of a winning argument. And the 'back-end commission' is where the problem lies. Apple forces you to go through them and pay that commission or you don't get market access. If Apple either didn't gatekeep access or didn't profit from said access, there wouldn't be an issue. However, Apple has everything setup for maximum profit extraction.

 

[I7guy]

Your conclusion relies a complete nonsensical fantasy (all apps going free) to support the idea that subsidization isn't happening.

As opposed to just making up that some devs support other devs?

Of course you don't buy it, you're not operating in reality. Also not a sign of a winning argument.

There is no winning argument. Just a bunch of opinions.

And the 'back-end commission' is where the problem lies. Apple forces you to go through them and pay that commission or you don't get market access.

True and it's operating for 13 years in basically the same manner. (And frankly I hope Epic gets shot down in the current court case)

If Apple either didn't gatekeep access or didn't profit from said access, there wouldn't be an issue. However, Apple has everything setup for maximum profit extraction.

There's nothing wrong with that. They should make every nickel they are entitled to make.

As I said at the end of the day, it will be what it will be. I don't have the opinion it's a good thing for the ecosystem or the devs.

 

[MikeZTM]

Developers don't need Apple, Apple needs developers. Would you buy an iPhone right now if it only contained stock apps???

If every developer pulled their apps from the app store right now, whose business would suffer more, theirs or Apple's?

Those developers would build their own app store or move their apps to Android.

If Google tried to get cute, users already have multiple ways to install apps and other content.

It's not about developer. It's about user.

User need Apple because only Apple can say NO to facebook.

Just imagine if facebook could allow you to download their app from their website directly.

That's not a new option for user, that's a nightmare. If they could build a rootkit on iOS they will.

 

[MikeZTM]

Then you're arguing for multiple App stores and breaking down Apple's ecosystem entirely.

The customers own the phones they have purchased. When a dev and a customer want to conduct a transaction using the customer's own phone, why should Apple be able to force the dev to use their infrastructure and force the dev to pay whatever fee Apple wants? When I buy a computer, I can run any software I wish to on it (so long as I have permission from the dev), the computer maker has zero input into that. When I buy a Sony TV, Sony should not get a cut of any content I watch on it, it's my TV and that's between me and the content owner.

After all, without me owning a TV, content makers would have zero way to sell me any content. The TV makers literally created the entire industry and content makers make hundreds of billions of dollars because people own those TVs. Why shouldn't the TV makers be entitled to a cut?

For your example of free groceries, it would be like if you buy a house the home builder can force you to only ever buy groceries from the store that the builder owns at whatever prices the home builder wishes to charge. It's ludicrous for groceries, and equally so for software.

It's because some Dev are large enough to force you to use their software.
Usually it's not your wish to install messenger/whatsapp.

You can not say No to them and they will put whatever malware on your phone if Apple did not stop them.
In a perfect world when every dev are kind and ignores your money/value then yeah I like more options.

But the reality is we need someone to say NO to the evil devs and force them to be kind to us users.
If those evil dev can workaround Apple then this protection will be useless.

 

[tongxinshe]

Even if Apple is forced to allow 3rd party payment methods, nothing will change. Developers will still be changed a fee by Apple, per user purchase, just separately.

The new rule will be something like: “You may use 3rd party payment methods however they must go through “ThirdPartyPaymentKit””, which Apple can then keep track of purchases and amounts.

No, it’s more likely Apple will start charging fees against the free apps, and another premium fee against all apps supporting in-app purchase.

 

[falkon-engine]

Obviously whatever apple doing is legal if the there has to be laws made to counter Apples' business model.

And there goes innovation. The government is adept at screwing up all sorts of things it has no business regulating. See for example the breakup of ATT; the best example of how consumers didn't reap any benefit.

Of course, we'll all have our opinions, but I'll believe all of this hubris when I see either alternate app stores or alternate IAP payment options or so-called sideloading.

It’s not obvious that what Apple is doing is legal, that’s why there’s the Epic lawsuit. The judgement will make it clear whether or not it’s legal… my belief is anti trust law wasn’t written for digital storefronts so existing laws around the world may be ambiguous as to which of Apple’s App Store polices are legal and which are not.

Regarding the breakup of at&t not being a good thing, I’m using Verizon now, which has excellent FIOS service. You may not know this, but Verizon is a derivative of the original AT&T, it grew out one of the baby bells (Bell Atlantic) that were formed when AT&T was broken up. I’d argue there was a benefit of breaking it apart; FIOS is dope. I’m getting 1gbps up and down for only $50 a month. I find it hard to believe that the original AT&T would’ve been offering such good internet speeds at such a low cost.

Competition is good. Just like competition for in-app payment processing as well as alternative app stores will be good. The existence of alternatives and the risk to lost profits (if consumers abandon Apple’s in app purchase system or its app store) will incentivize Apple to lower its prices and /or provide a compelling reason for its customers to not use alternatives.

You speak as if you support capitalism and choice. Well Apple’s restrictive polices prohibit choice. It’s not very capitalist if no other app stores or payment processing systems are allowed to exist. Apple gets to collect all profits, no other players can enter the market (for App Store operators and in-app payment processors). Why is that good for society?

 

[I7guy]

It’s not obvious that what Apple is doing is legal, that’s why there’s the Epic lawsuit.

It's a civil not a criminal lawsuit.

he judgement will make it clear whether or not it’s legal… my belief is anti trust law wasn’t written for digital storefronts so existing laws around the world may be ambiguous as to which of Apple’s App Store polices are legal and which are not.

The judgment will probably be on the contract aspect of it.

Regarding the breakup of at&t not being a good thing, I’m using Verizon now, which has excellent FIOS service. You may not know this, but Verizon is a derivative of the original AT&T, it grew out one of the baby bells (Bell Atlantic) that were formed when AT&T was broken up. I’d argue there was a benefit of breaking it apart; FIOS is dope. I’m getting 1gbps up and down for only $50 a month. I find it hard to believe that the original AT&T would’ve been offering such good internet speeds at such a low cost.

Cell service in the US ranks as the middle of the pack. You may not be aware, but Verizon reneged on it's commitment to build out the tri-state area with FIOS. Why didn't the government make laws requiring Verizon do what it said it would do. The break-up of ATT many years later was not consumer friendly and didn't turn telecommunications in America into a utopia.

Competition is good. Just like competition for in-app payment processing as well as alternative app stores will be good.

Competition is good, which is great that there is android. Competition is never good when Monday morning quarterbacks (the government) level the playing fields with laws disenfranchising the original companies.

The existence of alternatives and the risk to lost profits (if consumers abandon Apple’s in app purchase system or its app store) will incentivize Apple to lower its prices and /or provide a compelling reason for its customers to not use alternatives.

Lower prices through disenfranchising won't happen, imo. This has all the indicators of a fail the size of the ATT breakup.

 

[vipergts2207]

It’s not obvious that what Apple is doing is legal, that’s why there’s the Epic lawsuit. The judgement will make it clear whether or not it’s legal… my belief is anti trust law wasn’t written for digital storefronts so existing laws around the world may be ambiguous as to which of Apple’s App Store polices are legal and which are not.

Regarding the breakup of at&t not being a good thing, I’m using Verizon now, which has excellent FIOS service. You may not know this, but Verizon is a derivative of the original AT&T, it grew out one of the baby bells (Bell Atlantic) that were formed when AT&T was broken up. I’d argue there was a benefit of breaking it apart; FIOS is dope.

Could you imagine if AT&T had never been broken up and were able to wield that market power and accumulate even more power over the intervening decades? I don't want to know what that telecommunications market would look like today, but it would be ugly. Today AT&T and Verizon control around 74% of the market. If AT&T had never been broken up they'd probably have bought up the major cable companies long ago as well.

The break-up of ATT many years later was not consumer friendly and didn't turn telecommunications in America into a utopia.

Is that because breaking them up was a bad idea or because the company that was originally broken up into 7 pieces has been allowed to re-agglomerate over the years into AT&T and Verizon? You're claiming how bad it is today while ignoring that the breakup has largely been reversed. I know! Allowing AT&T and Verizon to merge would fix everything right??

 

[I7guy]

Could you imagine if AT&T had never been broken up and were able to wield that market power and accumulate even more power over the intervening decades? I don't want to know what that telecommunications market would look like today, but it would be ugly. Today AT&T and Verizon control around 74% of the market. If AT&T had never been broken up they'd probably have bought up the major cable companies long ago as well.


Is that because breaking them up was a bad idea or because the company that was originally broken up into 7 pieces has been allowed to re-agglomerate over the years into AT&T and Verizon? You're claiming how bad it is today while ignoring that the breakup has largely been reversed. I know! Allowing AT&T and Verizon to merge would fix everything right??

The point is about the seemingly bad way when government gets involved "for the people" it doesn't turn out for the betterment of those they are serving. In my opinion, this is more of the same. Every downside no upside...except to mega-conglomerate developers.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Competition is good, which is great that there is android. Competition is never good when Monday morning quarterbacks (the government) level the playing fields with laws disenfranchising the original companies.

Exactly.

I always thought the competition was between the platforms... iOS vs Android.

Or competition among the apps in the store... my calendar app vs your calendar app.

I see their point about there only being one app store on iOS. But I'm not entirely sure the problems would magically disappear if there were additional app stores on iOS... Apple App Store vs Samsung Galaxy Store vs Google Play vs Amazon Appstore, etc.

It probably wouldn't help the people... because it would still be competition between the big hitters... Apple, Samsung, Google, Amazon.

And is anyone complaining about app prices being too high? This is an amazing time for software.

Could developers get a better deal than Apple's current 15% or 30% cut? Possibly. But then there's the extra hassle of having to upload and maintain your apps on multiple stores and managing multiple developer accounts. That's more work for the developer.

And then there's the possibility that most iOS users won't use an alternative store... so developers will have to keep their apps in the official Apple App Store to get any kind of traction.

I guess there could be competition between payment systems. But payments are only a small part of Apple's fee. I don't see that radically changing the game for anyone.

Even if Apple allowed 3rd-party payment processing... developers are still gonna have to pay Apple something for everything else they offer. All stores get some kind of cut.

Epic charges 12% for developers to sell their games in the Epic Games Store.

So maybe Apple should charge 12% in their store too. Would that fix all of this?

 

[cmaier]

Exactly.

I always thought the competition was between the platforms... iOS vs Android.

Or competition among the apps in the store... my calendar app vs your calendar app.

I see their point about there only being one app store on iOS. But I'm not entirely sure the problems would magically disappear if there were additional app stores on iOS... Apple App Store vs Samsung Galaxy Store vs Google Play vs Amazon Appstore, etc.

It probably wouldn't help the people... because it would still be competition between the big hitters... Apple, Samsung, Google, Amazon.

And is anyone complaining about app prices being too high? This is an amazing time for software.

Could developers get a better deal than Apple's current 15% or 30% cut? Possibly. But then there's the extra hassle of having to upload and maintain your apps on multiple stores and managing multiple developer accounts. That's more work for the developer.

And then there's the possibility that most iOS users won't use an alternative store... so developers will have to keep their apps in the official Apple App Store to get any kind of traction.

I guess there could be competition between payment systems. But payments are only a small part of Apple's fee. I don't see that radically changing the game for anyone.

Even if Apple allowed 3rd-party payment processing... developers are still gonna have to pay Apple something for everything else they offer. All stores get some kind of cut.

Epic charges 12% for developers to sell their games in the Epic Games Store.

So maybe Apple should charge 12% in their store too. Would that fix all of this?

The same logic that says “apple has to allow others to sell to Apple’s customers on Apple’s operating system” is a very short walk from the logic that says “apple has to allow competitors to install iOS on their devices.”

 

[RedRage]

Yup, without hesitation. The iPhone and stock Apps are much higher priority to me than 3rd party apps. I can use the web for most other things. Do I like some other apps? Sure. But they would be useless without the iPhone, not the other way around.

If the iPhone only had stock apps most people would leave. The average person isn't gonna sit there and use the web when they can go to Samsung/Android and have apps.

Don't sit here and act like most people wouldn't leave if Apple didn't have apps. They would.

 

[cmaier]

If the iPhone only had stock apps most people would leave. The average person isn't gonna sit there and use the web when they can go to Samsung/Android and have apps.

Don't sit here and act like most people wouldn't leave if Apple didn't have apps. They would.

@Krizoitz very specifically was talking about his own usage and needs. Where did he “act like most people wouldn’t leave?”

 

[freedomlinux]

Apple skims millions of dollars per year from devs like Epic for access to a market and dev tools while simultaneously skimming only a couple hundred dollars per year from smaller developers for access to those same tools and market. There's no other way to look at this other than a few developers subsidizing Apple's costs for everyone else

I think this is a major problem for the App Store - we have no idea what it actually costs to run. The $99/yr + 30% idea doesn't make sense because of these situations where the 30% needs to subsidize unrelated costs.

Certainly Apple has a right to be compensated for providing developer tools and running the App Store. However the $99/yr basic fee is open for a lot of abuse for "Free" apps that are covered with ads or otherwise avoid IAPs. The solution to this is ... charge huge developers for their actual use of App Store services!

• An app with 100 million downloads should pay more than an app with 100 downloads
• An app with a 100MB download should pay more than an app with 1MB download
• An app that needs updates reviewed every day should pay more than an app that updates once a month

(Of course, there should be some threshold for smaller developers that is covered by the basic fee)

 

[cmaier]

I think this is a major problem for the App Store - we have no idea what it actually costs to run. The $99/yr + 30% idea doesn't make sense because of these situations where the 30% needs to subsidize unrelated costs.

Certainly Apple has a right to be compensated for providing developer tools and running the App Store. However the $99/yr basic fee is open for a lot of abuse for "Free" apps that are covered with ads or otherwise avoid IAPs. The solution to this is ... charge huge developers for their actual use of App Store services!

• An app with 100 million downloads should pay more than an app with 100 downloads
• An app with a 100MB download should pay more than an app with 1MB download
• An app that needs updates reviewed every day should pay more than an app that updates once a month

(Of course, there should be some threshold for smaller developers that is covered by the basic fee)

Ok. Now tell me what you do for a living and I will make a bunch of rules about what sort of compensation scheme you are entitled to.

 

[Michael Scrip]

The solution to this is... charge huge developers for their actual use of App Store services!

• An app with 100 million downloads should pay more than an app with 100 downloads
• An app with a 100MB download should pay more than an app with 1MB download
• An app that needs updates reviewed every day should pay more than an app that updates once a month

(Of course, there should be some threshold for smaller developers that is covered by the basic fee)

But isn't that why the flat 30% fee makes more sense?

The more you use... the more you pay. Seems simple to me!

If your app file is so huge and it gets 10 million downloads every week... or you bang on Apple's servers every minute with constant IAP payments... then you should pay more than a hobbyist developer in their bedroom who barely gets any downloads.

And that's exactly how it works now.

The problem is with those huge developers who sell a BILLION DOLLARS worth of gems or gold or VBucks or whatever... and they're upset that they're "losing" $300,000,000 to Apple. That's who is complaining about it.

Another option... Apple could charge a flat monthly rental fee like a store in the mall... does $10,000,000 a month sound good? And you get to keep all the money you make after that?

Epic could afford that... and they'd take that deal in a heartbeat!

But you just eliminated every small developer. There's no way some guy will create the next great calculator app if there is a $10 million buy-in. Per month.

So now we're back to the usage/percentage model. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Or there could be, like you say, some dividing line between small/medium/large developers. But that will certainly generate controversy, too. It's a mess.

I don't have the answers. But I'm afraid Apple will have to... or be forced to... do something to change their App Store policies. There's too much heat on them. Every week there's some new company complaining about Apple... or some new government investigating Apple.

Dark times...

 

[Krizoitz]

If the iPhone only had stock apps most people would leave. The average person isn't gonna sit there and use the web when they can go to Samsung/Android and have apps.

Don't sit here and act like most people wouldn't leave if Apple didn't have apps. They would.

The fact that people could leave in droves for Android if the iPhone stopped having/supporting 3rd party apps proves there’s no anti-trust issue here. Literally nothing is preventing people from dropping the iPhone today if they don’t like the iPhone approach.

Plus, aside from the fact that users ALREADY have freedom of choice, there’s no way every app developer drops the iPhone anyway, it’s a ridiculous supposition to begin with. Others would hop in to fill the void left by the first group leaving. Why? Because the iPhone creates a valuable environment for developers to target. Developers are free to target that market if they want, but none are forced.
These attempts to force Apple to change are asinine and take away the real choice that users should have, which model they prefer, open or closed. Android or iPhone. Everyone is free to make that choice.