Well yeah.. which is why regulators in half of the developed world are giving Apple the side eye
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
Well yeah.. which is why regulators in half of the developed world are giving Apple the side eye
That's the beauty of it. The owner can decide for themselves how the commission is calculated. They're allowed to discriminate.
It's the same for an author of a book.
The price of the book can be based on number of pages, number of words, weight, how many words you read, free, free if you're a library, a percentage of your income etc.
If Apple were to do anything differently at this point, people would then point a finger and say that this is due to a guilty conscience, that Apple knew what they were doing was wrong all along.
In this case, I doubt I would have done any differently where I in Apple's shoes. Just continue to do what I feel is right, see where the dice may land with regards to all the potential lawsuits and accusations coming my way, and then deal with the problems as they arise. If it's a fight the legislators want, then bring it on by all means.
As it turned out, the Epic lawsuit ultimately worked out in Apple's favour over Epic (as I predicted it would back in 2020). And with this victory, Apple will feel emboldened by its victory and will rigidly defend its practices even more. There will be zero incentive for Apple to make any further concessions to developers because its legal victory will stand as a symbol of its unassailable authority on iOS.
So a lawsuit may not necessarily end up being a bad thing for Apple in the long run.
Maybe, one theory behind the malicious compliance approach from Apple here is if DOJ has any meaningful dirt, a surrender to reality would buy DOJ an easy win.
in the USA not the EU.
and if they try some kind of BS list of rules they will get smacked down so hard that will make the concord look slow.
Apple is already doing the same thing in the Netherlands. We'll see how DMA deals with the problem but I'm not sure it disallows this behaviour completely.
Yup, this discussion is about Apple in the US. I remain of the belief that unless something changes radically (eg: Congress coming together to pass new laws specifically targeting Apple's ecosystem, like what the EU has done with the DMA), there really isn't much risk to Apple because I feel that as per a strict interpretation of US antitrust laws, Apple hasn't really broken any rules or done anything wrong here.
And the sooner people recognise and accept this, the sooner we can all stop acting shocked and surprised every time Apple does something they are legally allowed to do.
Agree. Within what the law allows (which seems pretty liberal in the U.S.).
I would not call that a licensing fee for the use of of Apple's IP though.
It's not really a use-based fee or commission.
It's just a rather arbitrary and, yes, discriminatory fee.
As you said earlier:
What Apple are really charging for, is (economic) access to customers that they're "gatekeeping".
(Which, to be clear, they so far seem to be entitled to in the U.S.)
Last edited:
So instead of paying 15% commission to Apple, Tim Sweeney has managed to:
- Get Fortnite removed from the App Store for more than 1.5 years now;
- Waste millions on lawsuits that he mostly lost;
- Squeeze out a "win" that would force him to pay more per transaction than he did before;
- Perhaps create a possible scenario in which on some devices in some countries people may install an alternative app store (which we know isn't the holy grail he intends it to be, look at Android, and we don't know the restrictions of that yet) - something with most Fortnite player's parents are not going to want to do anyway.
You are assuming that it all ends up a big win for Apple. Sure they won that case.
DHH on Twitter put it best
So far it doesn't have seem to hurt Apple's business. It did hurt Epic's business.
I think most developers are fine with 15%. Epic is apparently making a loss at 12%. That makes 15% a small fee to pay for access to one of the biggest app stores and every advantage that comes with it.
No it didn't hurt MS either until the anti trust trial and then mobile.
Gates has admitted the antitrust suit cost MS in mobile.
All this furor about a 30% cut when you use free tools and APIs supplied by Apple to make your product.
Why not move to Android and sells your apps there? Oh wait, they charge 30% too. And their customers only want free ‘stuff’ and ‘free’ phones.
Whiners.
You’re on a platform that has invested countless billions to merge hardware and software in a way that has attracted the wealthiest customers with the most disposable income.
Suck it up, stop complaining, and devote that energy to developing a world-class application that pays off because it sells well.
Why not move to Android and sells your apps there? Oh wait, they charge 30% too. And their customers only want free ‘stuff’ and ‘free’ phones.
Whiners.
You’re on a platform that has invested countless billions to merge hardware and software in a way that has attracted the wealthiest customers with the most disposable income.
Suck it up, stop complaining, and devote that energy to developing a world-class application that pays off because it sells well.
I did the math and it turns out those developers are paying an even higher 100% on their $0 charge to their customers!!! 😃
That seems a truly massive oversimplification of why Windows Phone failed. Microsoft were always about "developers, developers, developers" (just ask Steve) and it certainly seemed like there was a fair bit of support. The Windows CE to Metro to Windows Phone transition made it seem like they were sure pen would work and then scrambled to transition the interface to touch when iOS took off.
But (ironically, considering this thread) I'd say the real Windows Phone killer was the App Store that made it simple to find (but mainly, market) applications. Microsoft was even later to a store, and didn't do it nearly as well, likely because they didn't want to upset existing developers. Almost anyone who developed prior to the App Store will tell you it was a paradigm shift and changed independent development from something you did for customers in your city into something you could do internationally for almost no cost, just a 30% cut of any gross sales you could get. That was a truly amazing thing. Funny how it is the large developers now trying to change that process. I wonder why. I realize there are probably some small developers that now think getting 70% of the gross is a bad deal for them (though if they really are small, they are getting 85%), but that is because they probably don't recall the bad old days. Hopefully they won't have to return to them, but the way the world is going, we shall see.
Ah, the "everyone else does it so it must be okay" argument.
Explain why it’s not. You know if developers don’t like it there’s a whole other phone system they can write their apps for.
Give me one example of someone able to go into someone else’s store setup shop and sell items for free.
Apple is all but saying FU to the courts, as well. They do NOT want either the courts or legislators saying, "Fine, you won't make a substantial change when you were found in the wrong, we'll make it for you." And then making Apple cap its cut at 5%, just to slap them down. That would be a completely self-induced wound by Apple that would have far-reaching effects.
It has nothing to do with developers. The argument people are making is if Sony or Microsoft charges 30% that makes it right. Which is like saying "because other people drink and drive and don't get stopped, I shouldn't get stopped either." "Because someone else does it!" is not a valid argument, when the other "someone" isn't necessarily right for doing it either.
Not at all. The judge acknowledged that Apple was entitled to continue collecting a license fee in the decision.
"First, and most significant, as discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple’s intellectual property. Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission."