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.
U.S. Developers Can Now Offer Non-App Store Purchasing Option, But Apple Will Still Collect Commissions
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How come there’s no anti-steering rule for Xbox, PlayStation and Nintendo? They operate in the exact same way.
Nowhere near as big a market, nowhere near as essential services.
I don’t know, do vbucks count as an essential service? It’s a bit of a stretch if you ask me.
That’s closer, but in case of Epic vs. Apple it’s more like HP giving away the printer for free at Walmart, but Walmart in turn taking a cut from the toner sales. But now HP goes to court and says that that’s not fair.
And now the court has decided that it is indeed fair to take that cut, but the sales of the toner cartridges don’t have to go through Walmart, but can go directly through HP as long as HP pays the commissions.
Not disagreeing there. I'm just providing examples of things that Apple provides for low or no cost. Of course, they benefit from having apps available, which is why I don't think they'd actually charge for API usage. There's a balance.
My basic point was simply that if the commission went away (whether by law, court ruling, or otherwise), there are ways that Apple can make up for it. The most realistic options IMO are a higher annual fee for companies (vs individuals) or even a tiered program like how it used to be, and charging for hosting, perhaps only after a certain number of downloads or bandwidth or some other metric. Both of these would be defensible legally and from a PR perspective because you are directly paying for what you actually use.
This is not really about what one side or the other should get if they legally agree to something but rather discussions on whether it's reasonable (based on what may go on elsewhere in retail) for Apple to seek commissions even if a purchase is done outside their App Store. I think one reason Apple can (try to) get away with this is because of its dominance in mobile OS as part of a duopoly with Google/Android.
Cellular infrastructure, cell phones, air, electricity, food distribution are the essential services. An iPhone is a layer atop services that are essential services.
I suspect we will see challenges from both legislative and judicial. As this looks, this isn’t even legal.
Yes as cell phones go you have a choice of Apple or Google pretty much in terms of the software your phone runs on.
Comparatively much fewer need a PS5 or a Nintendo switch to run their business or live their life.
Yep we definitely need to enact legislation that ensures that more than just iOS and Android are available on mobile phones.
We definitely need to enact legislation that ensures that Apple and Google don't abuse their market power.
No, as cell phones go there are hundreds of manufacturers. An iPhone or galaxy s23 is not an essential service. The ability to engage in personal and commerce is dependent on core essential services.
I can check Facebook or send emails on literally hundreds of phones.
Okay, you have veered off the point.
The point is Smartphones much more essential to most people than games consoles. Thus much more regulatory scrutiny on the major players in mobile compared to gaming.
No, I was pointing out that an iPhone isn’t an essential service. As a PlayStation isn’t an essential service. The ability to perform e-commerce remotely and is facilitated by cellular airwaves and that is the objective. A smartphone isn’t even needed for that it happens to be a convenient form factor though.
Having found that Apple does not hold a monopoly (a finding upheld through appeals), the court meant that Apple could charge whatever commission rate it chooses. Apple chose 27%.
Of interest is the fact that the documents also indicate that Apple is only paying 1-2% to payment processors. As allowing subscriptions outside the AppStore is going to cost Apple additional overhead not already covered by the current commissions, and only saving Apple the 1-2% transaction fee, it seems giving a 3% discount is a bit of a gift.
That looks to me like they're not trying to maintain their revenue, but they're acknowledging that the costs will be higher to devs that use other payment processors and they're keeping the cost to devs constant at the expense of their own revenue.
I agree. Many people are trying to define the market too narrowly (content in iOS apps). This seems to be a constant issue and people seem to be unwilling/unable to learn how to properly define the market.
This is why card payment processing is a regulated market (because card payment processing is a broad enough market) and the iOS app market is not regulated (because it’s too narrowly defined). Notice in the card payment processing market it isn’t ‘the Visa card payment processing market’ that is regulated.
The app market might be as narrow as you can possibly define this market, but that means the market includes the iOS App Store, the Google play store, the internet, the Microsoft App Store, the Nintendo App Store.
When people see a problem they want to deal with, defining the market to fit around the problem is never going to work because that’s just making the evidence fit the supposed crime.
Last edited:
Ok. What would be the best IP license example similar to the app/app store, physical good/retail store situations being discussed here?
Ok but you are hyperfocussing on products v the market they exist in. There is no comparison to be made between Apple and Google influence on digital commerce v Sony or Nintendo.
There is a reason regulators are scrutinising Apple/Googles business practices.
You stated that "it's also how Apple license its IP." How does Apple license its IP similar to the app/app store, physical good/retail store situations being discussed here?
Then this little doozy dropped….
Supreme Court Rejects Apple’s Bid for Epic App Store Review (1)
The US Supreme Court refused to consider Apple Inc.’s appeal in an antitrust suit challenging its lucrative App Store, a decision that will likely affect billions of dollars in revenue for the iPhone maker.
Meant to replay to this yesterday but could not get to my computer to break it down right.
Apple choose to do the reviews and if someone is submitting that many apps Apple tend to down and ban them pretty fast for abuse as it goes against TOS. Again that is app store related and side loading would not matter here.
Apple maps has their own limitation and Googles limitation only kick in when you leave Android and choose to still use it. It behaves the exact same when you are using the native built in maps in the app so not an issue there.
Again allow side loading. Apple has chosen to ban side loading so this is on them. If you want to use the store so be it for all that but there is no alternative so this falls under cool story allow side loading.
again falls back under no other choice. If side loading was allowed this is an nice feature for the store but we are back to no other choice.
Yeah they have it but going to be honest. Apple part here sucks and the last ditch to use. All the other crash reporting and analytics choices out there blow apple out of the water. A big reason is Apple analytics and crash reporting is mostly limited to roughly 5% of the users that allow it. It is pretty poor and hard to get a good read unless it a major crash issue. Your data is still based on the small a very VERY small handful of people who allow it which is why most developers choose to install something like firebase/ crashlytics, New relic eta. They are all better and provide much better and more accurate data. I can get the data I need both faster and easier with those system in terms of
just small break down of things. Most of falls back to side loading is not allowed so no way for someone to make another choice or the app system is more of a hack work around to their own limitation like Testflight. Sign in with Apple as I pointed out not a good example. It would more or less be dead if Apple did not require it because it is such a huge pain in the ass to setup, test and keep working. The privacy side of sign in with Apple is a non issue it is just making the damn thing work.
Apple choose to do the reviews and if someone is submitting that many apps Apple tend to down and ban them pretty fast for abuse as it goes against TOS. Again that is app store related and side loading would not matter here.
Apple maps has their own limitation and Googles limitation only kick in when you leave Android and choose to still use it. It behaves the exact same when you are using the native built in maps in the app so not an issue there.
Again allow side loading. Apple has chosen to ban side loading so this is on them. If you want to use the store so be it for all that but there is no alternative so this falls under cool story allow side loading.
Testflight is more of a hack work around due to the fact apple blocks sideloading. It really was Apple buying up another company then killing there android offering. Honestly Testflight is a poor substituted to thing like MS App center but with out the restriction of registered devices. Basically saying it is not a good option.
Allow side loading and again can be done not in the app store.
Ok it allows that but honestly a mess. Most devs go go to a 3rd party to manage it them all any how that tie back in but the sandbox part does not work as well as you think.
Ok that is a nice to have but seperate from allow side loading part. Again those have API restrictions on them if you call them to much apple demands payment per api which is fair
Yeah not a good example Apple sign in honestly sucks and only reason developers use it is because Apple demands it be used for approval. Apple Sign in is by far the biggest pain and by far the worse to implement and test. If it was not required most would drop it.
again falls back under no other choice. If side loading was allowed this is an nice feature for the store but we are back to no other choice.
Xcode is not the greatest IDE. It is to much you have to do Apples way or the high way. nice to have but Xcode is mostly updated to encourage more developers to do the work so they can sell more iPhones.
Yeah they have it but going to be honest. Apple part here sucks and the last ditch to use. All the other crash reporting and analytics choices out there blow apple out of the water. A big reason is Apple analytics and crash reporting is mostly limited to roughly 5% of the users that allow it. It is pretty poor and hard to get a good read unless it a major crash issue. Your data is still based on the small a very VERY small handful of people who allow it which is why most developers choose to install something like firebase/ crashlytics, New relic eta. They are all better and provide much better and more accurate data. I can get the data I need both faster and easier with those system in terms of
just small break down of things. Most of falls back to side loading is not allowed so no way for someone to make another choice or the app system is more of a hack work around to their own limitation like Testflight. Sign in with Apple as I pointed out not a good example. It would more or less be dead if Apple did not require it because it is such a huge pain in the ass to setup, test and keep working. The privacy side of sign in with Apple is a non issue it is just making the damn thing work.
Which is exactly why Apple has pushed the subscription pricing model. To the consumers detriment.