U.S. Developers Can Now Offer Non-App Store Purchasing Option, But Apple Will Still Collect Commissions

[bgillander]

My sensing is that smaller developers generally have no issues with the App Store cut, either because their app is already free, or they qualify for the small developer programme and need only pay 15%.

It’s really the larger companies like Facebook, Netflix, Spotify and Epic who want more control over the App Store. They are not doing this to benefit or empower smaller creators.

For example, Epic wants their own App Store on iOS where they can then host other developers’ apps and charge them a cut. Microsoft wants a game streaming platform where they can host other developers’ games and charge them a cut. Facebook wants to be able to skirt around App Store rules so they can better track their users. Spotify is circling the drain and I don’t know what they have up their sleeve, but I doubt it will help them stave off bankruptcy.

And notice how the aforementioned companies don’t even pay a cent in App Store fees anymore?

I really don’t see how a union is supposed to work when developers come from all over the world.

I wish I could give this comment ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️.

I will also throw in a 💔 that some people seem to think that this is somehow a fight for the small developer. This is a fight for a large company that does not want to be forced to use Apple's store, so that they can instead sign as many exclusives as possible to force you to use their store. And yet some do not see that as hypocrisy.

 

[Abazigal]

I wish I could give this comment ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️.

I will also throw in a 💔 that some people seem to think that this is somehow a fight for the small developer. This is a fight for a large company that does not want to be forced to use Apple's store, so that they can instead sign as many exclusives as possible to force you to use their store. And yet some do not see that as hypocrisy.

To add on,

If Epic had truly cared about the App Store ecosystem at large, they would not have flaunted the App Store rules so flagrantly from the start. Instead, these companies should have joined the smaller developers in supporting and encouraging the slow but measured trajectory of change along which Apple was moving along.

Instead, Epic took on this reckless gamble because Epic believed that for them, the payoff was worth it if they had won - the ability to sideload their own App Store, keep 100% of IAPs while also charging other developers a fee. Other developers have no such skin in the game. They are happy to make a decent app, receive 70%/85% of earnings, and get on with their lives.

Now, Apple is no saint by any means, but prior to the lawsuit, there was at least still the threat of a potential lawsuit hanging over Apple's head that would have made management amenable to introducing small concessions here and there. While I am sure Apple's legal team would have advised them of their chances of winning, there was likely still this "I would rather not F around and find out if I could avoid it" mentality.

But now that Epic has lost the lawsuit, the consequences will be dire for the entire app ecosystem, and for all app developers at large. The one thing that Apple had previously feared (the likelihood of them losing the lawsuit) is no more. As I predicted back in 2020, Apple will feel emboldened by its victory and will rigidly defend its practices. In addition, once the precedent of a developer suing Apple over anti-trust concerns and losing has been set, the 30% fee will never ever go away or be reduced. Why should it?

There is zero incentive for Apple to make concessions to developers because its legal victory will stand as a symbol of its unassailable authority on iOS, as even the courts have decided that they are not going to police how Apple governs their App Store, or how much to charge developers.

The enemy of your enemy is not your friend here.

 

[bcortens]

Again, you seem to see things with an amazingly backwards Bizarro view. Developers do not pay Apple 30%, Apple pays them 70% (actually 85%, unless you sell over $1,000,000) of the price that Apple collects. Feel free to go to a retail store and demand more than 70% of the price they sell your product for and let me know how that goes for you. And ask for health insurance and benefits while you are at it.

This is where you're only right on a technicality in that the money flows through Apple. Fundamentally though when I buy an App I don't think of the idea that I'm paying Apple. I think I am a customer of that App Developer. Apple isn't paying them 70%. Their customers are paying them that money. The App has value to the Apps customers. These customers are also Apple customers (they bought iPhones).

I don't have a problem with Apple taking a commission, I have a problem with unequal application of the commission. I have a problem with Apple arguing that they deserve a similar commission when the people sell the app outside of their store as to when they sell inside the store.

 

[bgillander]

This is where you're only right on a technicality in that the money flows through Apple. Fundamentally though when I buy an App I don't think of the idea that I'm paying Apple. I think I am a customer of that App Developer. Apple isn't paying them 70%. Their customers are paying them that money. The App has value to the Apps customers. These customers are also Apple customers (they bought iPhones).

I don't have a problem with Apple taking a commission, I have a problem with unequal application of the commission. I have a problem with Apple arguing that they deserve a similar commission when the people sell the app outside of their store as to when they sell inside the store.

Well, that "technicality" is actually how stores work. You buy from the store and the store pays their suppliers. You can think you are a customer of Frito-Lay all you want, but if you are buying at Target, you are a customer of Target. Doritos do have a value to me, but I know there is a supply chain and they are not selling directly to me. I guess you do not think Apple has any costs simply based on the fact that you think this is a technicality?

Unless I misunderstand the described process, Apple is only getting that commission if you make the purchase using the iOS app or store, so developers can still do what Spotify and Audible do, and just have you purchase outside the app or app store, which is actually "selling outside the store". But if you want to have purchasing links available within the app, you are using Apple's iOS frameworks and have to pay the commission. You can now skip the credit processing fee by setting up a link and processing it yourself, but Apple was as likely to skip the commission as Target is likely to allow Frito-Lay to put up signs on Target's shelves directing you to Frito-Lay's website to buy direct and save some cash. I welcome you to set up a store and pay your vendors all the proceeds, but warn you that you will likely lose money unless you are able to have no expenses, at which point you will at least be able to break even.

Out of curiosity, are you actually an iOS developer, or is this simply an ethics conversation?

 

[bcortens]

Well, that "technicality" is actually how stores work. You buy from the store and the store pays their suppliers. You can think you are a customer of Frito-Lay all you want, but if you are buying at Target, you are a customer of Target. Doritos do have a value to me, but I know there is a supply chain and they are not selling directly to me. I guess you do not think Apple has any costs simply based on the fact that you think this is a technicality?

I do think Apple has costs, when apps are hosted by their store there should be a commission. I however think that Apple is entirely ridiculous in how it applies and sets up this commission. It does not apply it uniformly or fairly to all developers who sell through their store.

If the commission is because of their costs to run the store, then the reader exemption makes no sense because they still have those costs associated with review, hosting etc... with reader apps, the only cost they don't have is the credit card processing which is assumed to be around 3%. More on this later...

Unless I misunderstand the described process, Apple is only getting that commission if you make the purchase using the iOS app or store, so developers can still do what Spotify and Audible do, and just have you purchase outside the app or app store, which is actually "selling outside the store". But if you want to have purchasing links available within the app, you are using Apple's iOS frameworks and have to pay the commission. You can now skip the credit processing fee by setting up a link and processing it yourself, but Apple was as likely to skip the commission as Target is likely to allow Frito-Lay to put up signs on Target's shelves directing you to Frito-Lay's website to buy direct and save some cash. I welcome you to set up a store and pay your vendors all the proceeds, but warn you that you will likely lose money unless you are able to have no expenses, at which point you will at least be able to break even.

The new commission (12/27%) is for all apps that direct customers to make a purchase using an in-app link to web portal rather than using IAP.

The problem with your argument is two-fold:

1. You are using Apple's iOS frameworks whether you offer an in-app link or not.

2. The in-app link is also not like posting a sign inside Target. Instead it is like having a message inside the box of the product that you don't see till you take it home - telling you about buying more features for the product.
Target is not able to pull commission from those kinds of things and I think we would think it ridiculous if they were. At this point the product has been taken home and now the customer has a relationship with the product itself.


Again this mostly reinforces the hypocritical nature of Apple's payment structure. Apple seems to want to keep Netflix and Amazon happy so they setup rules that make sure they don't have to charge them commission but for smaller developers that don't have that kind of clout they enforce the rules far more rigidly.

If the commission is about funding iOS development then:
1. The reader exemption shouldn't exist
2. Apps that take a commission of sales for purchasing real goods should also pay a commission
3. Ad based ads should pay a commission

If the commission is about paying for App Store expenses the above 3 still apply to any apps hosted in the App Store but apps sold outside the App Store should pay no commission.

Out of curiosity, are you actually an iOS developer, or is this simply an ethics conversation?

Yes I am an iOS dev.

My main issue is that the rules are not setup in an ethical way. Apple doesn't actually treat the commission as a funding source for iOS API dev because if they did then all apps would be required to pay it and there would be no exemptions. If it is a hosting fee then that is fine but again, apps that make money should still have to pay it and there shouldn't be exemptions.

 

[bgillander]

I do think Apple has costs, when apps are hosted by their store there should be a commission. I however think that Apple is entirely ridiculous in how it applies and sets up this commission. It does not apply it uniformly or fairly to all developers who sell through their store.

If the commission is because of their costs to run the store, then the reader exemption makes no sense because they still have those costs associated with review, hosting etc... with reader apps, the only cost they don't have is the credit card processing which is assumed to be around 3%. More on this later...

Technically, they also take 30% commission on the billing they do with reader apps, which is $0. They take 100% of the billing actually.

The new commission (12/27%) is for all apps that direct customers to make a purchase using an in-app link to web portal rather than using IAP.

The problem with your argument is two-fold:

1. You are using Apple's iOS frameworks whether you offer an in-app link or not.

2. The in-app link is also not like posting a sign inside Target. Instead it is like having a message inside the box of the product that you don't see till you take it home - telling you about buying more features for the product.
Target is not able to pull commission from those kinds of things and I think we would think it ridiculous if they were. At this point the product has been taken home and now the customer has a relationship with the product itself.

Again, they are not "home", they are still on iOS which is Apple.

Again this mostly reinforces the hypocritical nature of Apple's payment structure. Apple seems to want to keep Netflix and Amazon happy so they setup rules that make sure they don't have to charge them commission but for smaller developers that don't have that kind of clout they enforce the rules far more rigidly.

If the commission is about funding iOS development then:
1. The reader exemption shouldn't exist
2. Apps that take a commission of sales for purchasing real goods should also pay a commission
3. Ad based ads should pay a commission

If the commission is about paying for App Store expenses the above 3 still apply to any apps hosted in the App Store but apps sold outside the App Store should pay no commission.

1) The reader exemption is a strange issue to me because, as I said, there is no charge, so what commission would you have them take?
2) What apps take a commission of sales of real goods? Do you mean something like Amazon, where you buy something that is shipped to you? That would be interesting, but margins on physical products are too slim to make that workable... no retail sales business gets anywhere near 70 to 85% like iOS developers, so those apps would just disappear.
3) I'm not even sure what you mean by that one. Do you mean apps that have ads in them should pay commission on their ad revenue? If you think Apple isn't already taking a huge cut of that advertising payout they are providing, I hate to burst your bubble. If you mean the third party ads, I can't disagree with you, as I'm not sure how those even work. Have you had experience with them?

Yes I am an iOS dev.

My main issue is that the rules are not setup in an ethical way. Apple doesn't actually treat the commission as a funding source for iOS API dev because if they did then all apps would be required to pay it and there would be no exemptions. If it is a hosting fee then that is fine but again, apps that make money should still have to pay it and there shouldn't be exemptions.

Okay, that's cool. I truly figured no developers would be complaining about this unless they were selling over $1,000,000 and just didn't like the 30%, or they were very young and have never had to try to sell software on their own and just didn't realize how great 70% margin seems and how 85% would be almost inconceivable to anyone that ever has. I'm still thinking you must be pretty young, just based on your apparent strong belief in ethics (not meant as a slam, because if you are older than me and have managed to keep that view in this world, you deserve major kudos, as I'm usually critiqued for being too worried about ethics, but apparently am much more jaded than you), but I think you are drawing the funding ethics line way too tight, as things are seldom exactly the same. That said, apps that make money do pay commission, so I'm not exactly sure where you think this inequity is. If you give a specific example, maybe it will make more sense to me.

 

[bcortens]

Technically, they also take 30% commission on the billing they do with reader apps, which is $0. They take 100% of the billing actually.


Again, they are not "home", they are still on iOS which is Apple.

1) The reader exemption is a strange issue to me because, as I said, there is no charge, so what commission would you have them take?

This is another issue I have conflicted feelings about but think our current setup is too friendly to corporations and that is the idea that after you buy something the item doesn't really belong to you anymore. I understand that there is always going to have to be some licensing agreement in order to receive future software updates and a commitment not to misuse the product however right now the companies that sell us things have far too much power over that and I think investigations into them are going to push us back in the right direction.

For example, right now a company can "sell" you a movie through Apple TV, pull their licensing agreement with Apple, and the movie will disappear from your library. That should not be legal and there should be consumer protections to ensure that movie and music libraries aren't killed when businesses go bust (portability of the library).

As to the rest of the commission complaint:

If an app links to their website from within the app they have to pay 27% commission to Apple. If that same app requires a subscription but doesn't link to their website they pay nothing to Apple. This is fundamentally what I take issue with. Apple is doing 27% commission on billing that they do not have anything to do with. The billing has nothing to do with Apple. If you say that the app still exists on iOS, so does Netflix. I almost never use the Netflix website except to manage my subscription.

2) What apps take a commission of sales of real goods? Do you mean something like Amazon, where you buy something that is shipped to you? That would be interesting, but margins on physical products are too slim to make that workable... no retail sales business gets anywhere near 70 to 85% like iOS developers, so those apps would just disappear.

Indeed they would disappear, and many iOS apps have disappeared because there isn't enough money to be made at the margins. The problem with this is that there is no reason this argument should stop at retail apps. Any app that integrates a third party toolset or library that itself has a commission based payment system is going to be giving up some percentage of their margin. If selling something shippable is not profitable enough to pay Apple a 27/12% commission why should apps that have to also pay commission to Unreal or Unity or OpenAI, or Google Firebase, etc... not be legitimately able to bring the same complaint?

3) I'm not even sure what you mean by that one. Do you mean apps that have ads in them should pay commission on their ad revenue? If you think Apple isn't already taking a huge cut of that advertising payout they are providing, I hate to burst your bubble. If you mean the third party ads, I can't disagree with you, as I'm not sure how those even work. Have you had experience with them?

If Apple believes that they need a commission to run the App Store and build the future of iOS they should take commission from apps that make money via third party ads within their apps. Apple takes no commission on an app that uses google ads, or Facebook ads in their app. Why not? If it's because these apps aren't profitable enough does that mean we should have the commission paid to Apple be based on profitability?

Okay, that's cool. I truly figured no developers would be complaining about this unless they were selling over $1,000,000 and just didn't like the 30%, or they were very young and have never had to try to sell software on their own and just didn't realize how great 70% margin seems and how 85% would be almost inconceivable to anyone that ever has. I'm still thinking you must be pretty young, just based on your apparent strong belief in ethics (not meant as a slam, because if you are older than me and have managed to keep that view in this world, you deserve major kudos, as I'm usually critiqued for being too worried about ethics, but apparently am much more jaded than you), but I think you are drawing the funding ethics line way too tight, as things are seldom exactly the same. That said, apps that make money do pay commission, so I'm not exactly sure where you think this inequity is. If you give a specific example, maybe it will make more sense to me.

The problem is that not all apps that make money pay commission.

Suppose, for example, I subscribe to Netflix, and I pay them $14.99 a month. If I do all of my watching on iOS or tvOS devices should Apple not be entitled to 27%/12% of that revenue? After all Apple is providing the platform on which I do all of my watching. The only thing Netflix's actual website front end has to do for me is billing (because they are not allowed to do that in app and still maintain their reader exemption). Of course Netflix has a large server architecture they have to maintain but that is also true of many non-reader apps such as large online games or (League of Legends Wild Rift etc...).

Similarly YouTube, I do all of my YouTube watching on iOS, why does Apple not get 27/12% of the ad revenue Google makes on my YouTube viewing habits? If Google sells me a YouTube premium subscription why would apple not be entitled to a portion of that revenue as well?

Apps that make money outside of Apple's payment processing system pay nothing, Native iOS applications have a great deal to do with why I watch Netflix and YouTube. If there was no YouTube app I would use it less. If there was no Netflix App I would use it less.

 

[bcortens]

I wish I could give this comment ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️.

I will also throw in a 💔 that some people seem to think that this is somehow a fight for the small developer. This is a fight for a large company that does not want to be forced to use Apple's store, so that they can instead sign as many exclusives as possible to force you to use their store. And yet some do not see that as hypocrisy.

I actually agree with everything you wrote here. My issue is that Apple has already put a great deal of effort into appeasing these big devs and done so at the expense of the small dev. If the commission is what pays for App Store and iOS development then small developers are bearing the burden right now while big devs get to free-ride on their backs. These new app linking rules won't help with that at all.

 

[I7guy]

I actually agree with everything you wrote here. My issue is that Apple has already put a great deal of effort into appeasing these big devs and done so at the expense of the small dev. If the commission is what pays for App Store and iOS development then small developers are bearing the burden right now while big devs get to free-ride on their backs. These new app linking rules won't help with that at all.

Until apple starts charging for physical assets and removing the exemption for reader apps and Uber nothing you allude to will change.

Not likely to change either.

 

[I7guy]

This is another issue I have conflicted feelings about but think our current setup is too friendly to corporations and that is the idea that after you buy something the item doesn't really belong to you anymore. I understand that there is always going to have to be some licensing agreement in order to receive future software updates and a commitment not to misuse the product however right now the companies that sell us things have far too much power over that and I think investigations into them are going to push us back in the right direction.

For example, right now a company can "sell" you a movie through Apple TV, pull their licensing agreement with Apple, and the movie will disappear from your library. That should not be legal and there should be consumer protections to ensure that movie and music libraries aren't killed when businesses go bust (portability of the library).

[…]

This is about the only valid, to me, issue I can agree with. There may be others but yeah.

 

[BaldiMac]

This is fundamentally what I take issue with. Apple is doing 27% commission on billing that they do not have anything to do with. The billing has nothing to do with Apple.

Which is why your argument is fundamentally flawed. You're taking a completely normal business practice and claiming that it is unfair because you don't acknowledge that Apple is simply charging for the use of its property. They aren't just a storefront taking a retail cut on sales.

Disney sells tickets for Disney World. If I buy tickets from a third-party, Disney still gets their money. They charge different prices to different groups and ages. Some people get in for free. There are example after example of this type of arrangement.

 

[bcortens]

Which is why your argument is fundamentally flawed. You're taking a completely normal business practice and claiming that it is unfair because you don't acknowledge that Apple is simply charging for the use of its property. They aren't just a storefront taking a retail cut on sales.

Disney sells tickets for Disney World. If I buy tickets from a third-party, Disney still gets their money. They charge different prices to different groups and ages. Some people get in for free. There are example after example of this type of arrangement.

That was responding to a narrow specific case where the argument was that Apple gets the commission because they are involved in the billing. As the rest of my post pointed out if Apple takes commission from apps that have an in-app link why not also take commission from apps that would otherwise be indistinguishable except that they do not have an in-app link?

 

[BaldiMac]

I actually agree with everything you wrote here. My issue is that Apple has already put a great deal of effort into appeasing these big devs and done so at the expense of the small dev. If the commission is what pays for App Store and iOS development then small developers are bearing the burden right now while big devs get to free-ride on their backs. These new app linking rules won't help with that at all.

Which is nonsense, of course. Something like 95% of App Store revenue comes from the top 2% of developers. More than 85% of developers pay Apple nothing more than the annual developer fee. Another 13% make less than $1 million per year and only pay 15% commission.

 

[BaldiMac]

That was responding to a narrow specific case where the argument was that Apple gets the commission because they are involved in the billing.

Except you said it was "fundamentally what I take issue with." And you have repeatedly brought it up outside of that "narrow specific case".

As the rest of my post pointed out if Apple takes commission from apps that have an in-app link why not also take commission from apps that would otherwise be indistinguishable except that they do not have an in-app link?

Because they chose those terms. It doesn't need to be any more than that.

 

[bcortens]

Except you said it was "fundamentally what I take issue with." And you have repeatedly brought it up outside of that "narrow specific case".

In the context of the rest of the conversation my "fundamentally" was referring to the hypocrisy... if you look at the rest of what I was saying I was not trying to say that Apple doesn't deserve a commission.

Because they chose those terms. It doesn't need to be any more than that.

It doesn't need to, but the more they make different rules for different developers the more likely they are to get in trouble. As long as phones are as important as they are they are going to invite regulatory scrutiny when they make decisions and put forward arguments that are not consistent.

 

[bcortens]

Which is nonsense, of course. Something like 95% of App Store revenue comes from the top 2% of developers. More than 85% of developers pay Apple nothing more than the annual developer fee. Another 13% make less than $1 million per year and only pay 15% commission.

Just because 2% of devs pay most of the fees does not mean that Netflix, google, etc... should pay nothing.

 

[BaldiMac]

It doesn't need to, but the more they make different rules for different developers the more likely they are to get in trouble.

Kind of, but you're missing the differentiating factor. One reason Google lost their case and Apple mostly didn't is that Google created exceptions for specific developers. Apple creates broad rules that apply to developers equally. For example, the reader exception doesn't just apply to large companies, but any company that qualifies.

They absolutely should get in trouble if they are found to be choosing winners and losers or favoring their own apps in any market.

As long as phones are as important as they are they are going to invite regulatory scrutiny when they make decisions and put forward arguments that are not consistent.

Absolutely, regulation is a wild card. I have no problem with people who say that they want the government to force Apple to do what they want. I disagree with them, but at least they are honest.

It's all these made up justifications that it is really for the greater good that make me roll my eyes.

For example, almost every time you see someone lobbying for sideloading, they say it's about competition. What they really mean most of the time, is that they want access to emulators, piracy, and the ability to modify other people's software.

Or when they argue for alternative payment processors, what they really mean is they want to avoid paying Apple for use of its property. Even when they get what they claimed to want, it's not what they actually wanted.

 

[BaldiMac]

Just because 2% of devs pay most of the fees does not mean that Netflix, google, etc... should pay nothing.

1. I was just refuting your claim that small developers are footing the bill.
2. Again, any company has access to the same reader designation as Netflix as long as they follow the same rules.

 

[Joe The Dragon]

let see apple run there own movie theaters and say we will take 30% of each ticket and see how far that gets them.

 

[Student of Life]

let see apple run there own movie theaters and say we will take 30% of each ticket and see how far that gets them.

You do realize in the movie industry it's 50% commission to the theater and 50% to the film. In this example you are giving them 70% of the ticket sales. Not a good example at all.

 

[bcortens]

1. I was just refuting your claim that small developers are footing the bill.
2. Again, any company has access to the same reader designation as Netflix as long as they follow the same rules.

1. That's fair.
2. The reader designation is itself what I am taking issue with, if Apple is going to put forth the argument that the IAP commission is used to fund iOS development then there is no logical reason that Reader apps should be exempt.

 

[bcortens]

Kind of, but you're missing the differentiating factor. One reason Google lost their case and Apple mostly didn't is that Google created exceptions for specific developers. Apple creates broad rules that apply to developers equally. For example, the reader exception doesn't just apply to large companies, but any company that qualifies.

They absolutely should get in trouble if they are found to be choosing winners and losers or favoring their own apps in any market.

If you cannot subscribe to Netflix from within their app but you can subscribe to AppleTV+ from within their App that could be said to be favouring their own apps.

The also don't treat all developers equally as many complaints posted to the internet over the years can attest to.

For a recent example, Netflix is currently violating the rules by providing a subscription gaming service while no one else is allowed to do so.

Absolutely, regulation is a wild card. I have no problem with people who say that they want the government to force Apple to do what they want. I disagree with them, but at least they are honest.

It's all these made up justifications that it is really for the greater good that make me roll my eyes.

For example, almost every time you see someone lobbying for sideloading, they say it's about competition. What they really mean most of the time, is that they want access to emulators, piracy, and the ability to modify other people's software.

Or when they argue for alternative payment processors, what they really mean is they want to avoid paying Apple for use of its property. Even when they get what they claimed to want, it's not what they actually wanted.

I'm trying to form an argument around the notion that there should be a consistent reasoning for the commission and that it should be applied uniformly. I don't think treating different categories differently has much logical rational behind it. I know it is Apple's prerogative to treat them differently but I disagree if the argument is that the commission is based around the idea of supporting further iOS development.

I think emulators should be allowed in the App Store actually as they are usually legal and a perfectly valid way to run old software.

Yeah I know many people want to to avoid paying Apple anything and I can kind of see why they might want that but that isn't what I'm trying to say. I think part of the reason iOS development is is so much faster and better than macOS development is because iOS is more lucrative not just from hardware sales but also the App Store commission does contribute to it.

 

[bgillander]

This is another issue I have conflicted feelings about but think our current setup is too friendly to corporations and that is the idea that after you buy something the item doesn't really belong to you anymore. I understand that there is always going to have to be some licensing agreement in order to receive future software updates and a commitment not to misuse the product however right now the companies that sell us things have far too much power over that and I think investigations into them are going to push us back in the right direction.

For example, right now a company can "sell" you a movie through Apple TV, pull their licensing agreement with Apple, and the movie will disappear from your library. That should not be legal and there should be consumer protections to ensure that movie and music libraries aren't killed when businesses go bust (portability of the library).

I absolutely agree with you here, more than you would even expect, as I have a few movies I paid for widescreen HD versions that were converted to full-frame SD versions after the movie holder rights changed hands in Canada. If I have to pay extra to not get the crap version of the movie, Apple's contract with the rights holder should include a clause that this is the version they have to keep available. I have not lost any movies that I have noticed, so far.

 

[bgillander]

As to the rest of the commission complaint:

If an app links to their website from within the app they have to pay 27% commission to Apple. If that same app requires a subscription but doesn't link to their website they pay nothing to Apple. This is fundamentally what I take issue with. Apple is doing 27% commission on billing that they do not have anything to do with. The billing has nothing to do with Apple. If you say that the app still exists on iOS, so does Netflix. I almost never use the Netflix website except to manage my subscription.

If the link is in the app or app store, Apple does very much have something to do with it. If you think they don't have anything to do with it and add no value, simply remove the link.

Indeed they would disappear, and many iOS apps have disappeared because there isn't enough money to be made at the margins. The problem with this is that there is no reason this argument should stop at retail apps. Any app that integrates a third party toolset or library that itself has a commission based payment system is going to be giving up some percentage of their margin. If selling something shippable is not profitable enough to pay Apple a 27/12% commission why should apps that have to also pay commission to Unreal or Unity or OpenAI, or Google Firebase, etc... not be legitimately able to bring the same complaint?

It has nothing to do with profitability, that was just an observation. It has to do with the actual source of the revenue, and making a purchase for anything that is physically shipped to you is excluded, as far as I know. I do not believe you can purchase downloads from Amazon within their app, but feel free to correct me. I think it would be easier to argue that service apps such as Uber be charged, but again, if these are consistent exclusions, I cannot see the government taking issue with it. If you had to pay shipping, driver, and gas costs to deliver your service, I would be more sympathetic to this argument, but the development costs of the product being delivered are complete by the time you deliver your app, and the delivery costs are shouldered by Apple, so the commission does not potentially come out of money that is actually consumed by some other further expense to the delivery of that service.

The solution to not paying commissions to ALL these companies is to just do it all yourself, not to complain that you have to pay to use someone else's work.

If Apple believes that they need a commission to run the App Store and build the future of iOS they should take commission from apps that make money via third party ads within their apps. Apple takes no commission on an app that uses google ads, or Facebook ads in their app. Why not? If it's because these apps aren't profitable enough does that mean we should have the commission paid to Apple be based on profitability?

How should Apple charge that commission? Isn't that paid directly from Google or Facebook, and why some apps ask you to click on the allow tracking so they can track what you are doing, supposedly just so they can pay the programmer directly. That would mean Apple doesn't even know if you are getting paid, let alone how much. Allowing tracking takes it outside of Apple's control.

The problem is that not all apps that make money pay commission.

Suppose, for example, I subscribe to Netflix, and I pay them $14.99 a month. If I do all of my watching on iOS or tvOS devices should Apple not be entitled to 27%/12% of that revenue? After all Apple is providing the platform on which I do all of my watching. The only thing Netflix's actual website front end has to do for me is billing (because they are not allowed to do that in app and still maintain their reader exemption). Of course Netflix has a large server architecture they have to maintain but that is also true of many non-reader apps such as large online games or (League of Legends Wild Rift etc...).

Similarly YouTube, I do all of my YouTube watching on iOS, why does Apple not get 27/12% of the ad revenue Google makes on my YouTube viewing habits? If Google sells me a YouTube premium subscription why would apple not be entitled to a portion of that revenue as well?

This might make sense if they actually charged you per minute for each stream you viewed, but I don't want to give Netflix any more monetizing ideas. When I subscribed to Netflix, I watched it mainly on my TV. Do you you want a monthly questionaire asking what percentage you watched on each device, so they can pay commission to each device manufacturer? Again, they charge you $0 inside the app, and provide 30% of that $0 to Apple.

Apps that make money outside of Apple's payment processing system pay nothing, Native iOS applications have a great deal to do with why I watch Netflix and YouTube. If there was no YouTube app I would use it less. If there was no Netflix App I would use it less.

I really don't get your concern with Netflix, as they are being treated exactly the same as you. If they put a link in the app, they would pay because they would be using the app as a purchase mechanism, same as you. If you think that in-app purchasing has no value to you, take it out of your app. It is for that value which you are paying.

Asking Apple to charge for subscription purchases made outside their app is the opposite of what you were arguing in the "note in box purchased from Target" example earlier, and definitely would not be possible and makes no sense. You are again thinking backwards to the true situation and asking them to treat Netflix and any other reader apps differently, not the same, and to charge something above and beyond a commission on in-app purchases. But again, 100% of the $0 they charge is $0.

Yeah, Netflix has the size to not need the links, but that would be the part about life not always being fair that I was mentioning earlier, as Netflix built that size largely without using Apple's technology, and if you can do that, you can do the same. There are lots of things unfair in life, but getting 85% or even 70% of the gross of a sale when a company sells a product for you, well, that is not one of them.

 

[mrochester]

Is ‘malicious compliance‘ code for ‘poorly worded laws’?

If the intent of a law is to make it so that Apple can’t collect a commission, why doesn’t the law just say Apple can’t collect any commission? I don’t understand all this *****-footing around ‘links to external payment providers’ if the actual desired outcome is ‘Apple collects no commission’.