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.
Telegram CEO Accuses Apple of Destroying Dreams and Crushing Entrepreneurs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Actually, some do have clauses that require additional payments based on revenue volumes.
30% is not unreasonable. I remember the old days, when you had to develop, market, manufacture, and hope a distributer would take your product and a store stock and sell it. You could have a considerable investment before even making a dime, and if you did you were lucky to get 30% of the final price.
Apple removed almost all of the up front costs and risks, while giving developers access to a huge marketplace. 30%, which is a markup so developers get to set the amount they want to collect, is a bargain. I suspect, if Apple is forced o do some things people seem to want, small developers will find themselves much worse off and the big ones will happily pocket the 30% Apple used to get, while screaming when Apple does things to makeup for the loss of the 30% markup. I suspect EPIC, Telegram, etc. if Apple charged per download or had a sliding fee for signing an app so side loaded ones could access all of iOS' data.
The App Store is very profitable.
There is no need for them to gouge the amount of profit they are talking when they are already making 30-40% margins on the hardware.
This is exactly why they are getting so much regulatory scrutiny.
As above. 78% margins is much more that 'covering costs'.
It’s their prerogative.
No, it’s because through use of innovation and giving the people what they want, they have legally grown the business and gave people a better choice than the competition so they are more powerful than government - whom are afraid of them.
Maybe your wages should be regulated - I don’t know if they are but you’d be singing a different tune.
🙄🙄🙄
Here we go again.
The irony is that the App Store was the eventual result of entrepreneurship. Maybe he should quit whining and spend the rest of his life developing his own hardware, mobile OS, and app store and then he can set whatever commission he likes. Oh, but it's so much easier to whine.
Here we go again.
The irony is that the App Store was the eventual result of entrepreneurship. Maybe he should quit whining and spend the rest of his life developing his own hardware, mobile OS, and app store and then he can set whatever commission he likes. Oh, but it's so much easier to whine.
What is acceptable? Should a developer be forced to drop prices if their margins gets too high? After all, the marginal costs of selling one more copy is essentially zero, so once they make an acceptable return on their time and money be required to price the product at some markup over the actual cost of maintaining it?
Exactly. Or maybe Adobe's terms should be they get 30% of all revenue from all their users who use Acrobat, Illustrator, etc., for profit? Of course, if you don't like those terms, you could use different PDF or graphics software that has different terms (or no terms at all), but not in the Apple-ecosystem -- only one place to get apps for the device that *I* paid for.
Let regulators decide.
Nobody is going to say "you are only allowed to make x profit margin.." but if you are making large profits and forcing third parties to use your payment systems from which you take a cut you shouldn't be surprised if that practice is banned at some point.
Hardly an excellent point. It's a nonsensical one. A car (and driving it to work) is not analogous to a software advertising and distribution platform. Your money isn't being made from the use of the car itself, but from your job. Nor did you voluntarily agree to terms and conditions from Audi that said they would take an x% commission from your salary during the time you utilized their vehicle to get to work.
Agreed. But if developers don't want Apple to transact a purchase and they want to transact it themselves, shouldn't they be able to? There's a million ways to take money electronically these days. Forcing apps to use Apple's payment system seems, well, forced.
I hate analogies, but imagine a grocery store in your town (only 1 of 2 and the other is far away, and doesn't have quality food), but the good store only takes their own Grocery Bucks. Before you can pay for anything you have to buy Grocery Bucks where $1 gets you 70 cents of Grocery Bucks. Basically everything costs you 30% more. Given the opinion of many here, they'd be perfectly happy paying 30% more instead of going further away and buying lesser quality goods. Their store, their rules. Don't like it, go to the lousy store. That's fair?
Apple knows if they didn't force people to use it most wouldn't, which speaks volumes.
Wrong analogy. Purchases from within the apps have nothing to do with the App Store. It has to do with Apple forcing apps to use Apple's payment system. If someone sells an app from the App Store, then Apple should take a cut, just like a big box store.
If you make money from anything purchased from the big box store, should the store get a 30% cut?
It does speak volumes. It says a lot about how much an App Store is really needed! If iPhones could load apps directly from a website link, imagine how many fewer people would use the App Store. Sure, it could still exist as a "safe place" for apps, and that's a choice of developers if they want to offer it there, on Apple's terms, but right now, there is no choice.
Apples tracking is way less nefarious and Google being the default search engine doesn't mean you are forced to be tracked while using safari.
It is not companies like Apple that need to be regulated, what needs to be regulated is making it illegal for companies like Facebook, Google and such to turn consumers into the product and building databases to track EU citizens.
The digital markets act is written so fools will cheer on as companies are forced to allow more tracking, all to enrich the politicians and tracking companies.
Those focusing on the cut are out of their minds and have very little understanding businesses work when there are items to sell. The cut is an expense just like personal property tax, real estate tax, rent, utilities, employees, licenses, professional fees, etc. You set your price based on your expenses and the profit you want. If the pricing does not work then you figure out a different product to sell. The 30% cost is known upfront so it’s no surprise.
Another way of looking at this is that you have to negotiate to sell your product at a retailer. If they don’t like the price you are offering then you have to bend. If you want to be in Walmart (or any store) then they set the rules and price. If your products don’t sell you might be relegated to the bottom shelf in a dark corner or have to buy the excess stock back. You also might have to provide the product for free and be reimbursed as sales happen.
Also there are very few, if any, businesses that provide you with the tools for free in order to make your product.
Another way of looking at this is that you have to negotiate to sell your product at a retailer. If they don’t like the price you are offering then you have to bend. If you want to be in Walmart (or any store) then they set the rules and price. If your products don’t sell you might be relegated to the bottom shelf in a dark corner or have to buy the excess stock back. You also might have to provide the product for free and be reimbursed as sales happen.
Also there are very few, if any, businesses that provide you with the tools for free in order to make your product.
Then that should change because that seems to be everyone's defense of Apple's forced practices. Maybe Apple should charge for their tools. Maybe there shouldn't be free apps (because, as you say, there are very few, if any, businesses that give away free stuff). That would be a more traditional model (which everyone here attempts to analogize).
My concern is they will make decisions without really thinking through the consequences.
I suspect some companies screaming for Apple to be opened up will scream if the rules require them to open up their products. I wonder how Epic will react if all of a sudden they have to let 3rd parties create and sell in game items without them getting a cut.
Apple may wind up shifting how it charges for access to the App Store and iOS, resulting in more upfront costs. Aple could, for example, simply charge a percentage of an apps total revenue, when it execeeds a certain amount, for placement on the App Store, requiring developers to provide audited sales numbers. You want access to betas, etc? Pay the new developer fee, based on revenue.
I suspect what the big companies want is free access to the App Store and its user base, while not having to share any revenue they derive from it.
I know we like to pretend that the American dream is some kind of libertarian capitalism without rules and limits and where commercial success justifies basically everything, but we both know that this isn't actually true. There's plenty of regulation to mitigate the worst effects and companies are in no way free to do whatever they want. It's not always successful or fit for purpose, but it exists. Plus a whole world exists outside of the US that really doesn't have to care about the American dream.
Breaking up Apple would be the nuclear option and I'm not claiming this is definitely going to happen (though it wouldn't surprise me). There will be lots of regulation before that will try to prevent Apple (and others) from using their market position to dominate basically everything.
Imagine if Verizon announced tomorrow that from now on only the Verizon Phone will run on its network. AT&T and T-Mobile realise this is a gold mine and do the same and so do most of the other providers. Your iPhone is now a very sophisticated paperweight unless you have wifi. That's totally fair, though, because it's their network and they should be totally free to do with it whatever they want.
No? Did not think so.
This is a really good point. If there is only one place to go, discoverability issues aside, if you want an app you go to one store. I only need to trust Apple with my credit card.
Many of us have bought into the Appleverse because it is a walled garden. Everyone else that bought into the ecosystem knew it was a walled garden. Those that dont like that can move out of the gated community.
From Business of Apps
"Even with less than 15 percent market share, iOS has led the way in revenue generation for app developers. This is partly due to iPhone being more popular in regions with high income, such as Japan and the United States, which also tend to spend more on apps."
"App and game revenues for iOS increased by 17.7% in 2021 to $85.1 billion. iOS was responsible for 63% of total app revenue in 2021."
App Revenue Data (2025)
App Revenue Key StatisticsMobile Ad SpendApp and Game RevenuesiOS App and Game RevenueGoogle Play App and Game RevenueGaming App RevenuesiOS Gaming App RevenueGoogle Play Gaming App RevenueApp RevenuesiOS App RevenueGoogle Play App RevenueApp Revenue by RegionSubscription App RevenueiOS...
www.businessofapps.com
Developing for the Apple App Store is far more profitable than developing for Android.
I don't think Apple should be expected to provide any service for free as long as there is an option to just not use it.
By all means, charge what you want for the App Store as long as you let others run their own stores or install stuff just like you would on the Mac.
Take a cut when people use your payment services as long as you are not forced to use it. Take a percentage of Apple Pay as long as you make the NFC available to other payment providers. Etc etc
The problem is that Apple's argument is somewhat circular: they have to take a cut to leave the lights on, and they have to leave the lights on because they need to provide a service, and they need to provide that service because it's the only way, and the reason it's the only way is because they are forcing you to use it.
That approach is perfectly fine as long as you're a small market participant with a small but loyal user base that buys your premium products just for that.
It becomes slightly more problematic if you own half or more of the market and you grow your services and other market opportunities just because no one else is allowed to play.
As I keep saying, it's heavy-handed regulation waiting to happen.
And Apple further expects to make 15-30% on in app purchases. If you go an buy one product from a vendor on which they make a healthy margin do they need to provide others at a lower margin or at a cost to them?
The 30% is a great sound bite. Reality is that most small developers only pay 15%.
There are millions of free apps in the App Store, subsidized by those that are pay Apple a commission. If the App Store were forced to have the App Store stand on its own, it may cost small developers a lot of money to host their "free" apps. The App Store has generated hundreds of billions in revenue. It has created a market place never seen in history (along with Google).
Really? You paid the entire cost to develop the iPhone and iOS? Impressive! What do you do with the rest of your billions?