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

[redheeler]

It’s not an absurd fee. That the fundament problem some people have here, compared to other industries its on par and not absurd at all. The closest analogy which is still imperfect would be a console system, they get 30% commission and no one bats an eye. The Epic game store was losing money by the millions in the hope to get any traction which indicated that 12% was not sustainable unless one is trying to go out of business.

Comparing physical stores to app stores is like saying that Walmart should get 30% of every software purchase made using an iPhone because the original owner purchased the iPhone at Walmart. If that’s not the argument you’re trying to make then the two aren’t comparable.

 

[webkit]

So its ok for Target to post sign inside of Walmart stating their prices are lower?

That's not necessarily what’s happening here. It's more like HP putting information on packaging of its toner cartridges sold in Walmart stores that a customer can (instead) buy HP toner from hp.com. However, Apple still wants to get a cut even if the purchase is done outside the App Store.

 

[jdphoto]

Putting it to you as well:

Add Paddle, Fastspring, Stripe and co. - to stop the disingenuity.

(We're talking in-app purchasing here, from within a developer's app that the consumer already downloaded, installed and opened up. There's no "platform" hosting or outside marketing involved as run and done by Epic, Nintendo, Sony etc. - or a brick & mortar store).

If Apple only charged fees on the initial download, EVERY app would just become free and prompt you to make an in-app purchase before the app would be useable. It'd be a very easy loophole to exploit, charging the commission wether the developer wants their user to pay up front or via IAPs given the developer flexibility based on what their app does/what makes sense for the user AND ensures Apple gets paid.

 

[atoqir]

I could understand this discussion back in the day.

But come on, in 2024 even my grandma knows that signing up for Spotify, Netflix or other stuff is always cheaper on the website of the service provider and not some middle man. Link or no link in the app.

Most people are not so dumb anymore not to check the best deal for things these days. And those who are, jokes on them.

 

[jdphoto]

That's not necessarily what’s happening here. It's more like HP putting information on packaging of its toner cartridges sold in Walmart stores that a customer can (instead) buy HP toner from hp.com. However, Apple still wants to get a cut even if the purchase is done outside the App Store.

Your analogy is wrong as well. The developer still uses Xcode, the App Store hosting, thousands of APIs, app vetting team, etc. Those things cost billions of dollars annually (a couple thousand engineer salaries, global content delivery networks and cloud hosting resources, the costs of putting on WWDC, etc.)

In your analogy it'd be like Walmart providing HPE with the factory to make the ink and the packaging for it, the shelf to put it on, but then HPE want to pay them nothing for that because you use their payment processing when you leave the store.

 

[alchemistmuffin]

Epic Games‌ CEO Tim Sweeney criticized Apple's ‌App Store‌ changes and said that Epic plans to contest Apple's "bad-faith compliance plan" in District Court.

Yeah, good luck trying to contest that. At this point, Epic is just being absolute troll here. This is clear and shut case for Apple here if they try to even contest it.

At this point, Apple needs to file some kind of restraining order to permanently ban Epic from any Apple platform for life. I stand 100% with Apple and will not play Fortnite ever in my lifetime.

 

[Michael Scrip]

I like that the headline included the word "commission"

For years... people thought that the App Store charged 30% as a payment processing fee. That was incorrect. Apple charged 30% for what should be called the "everything fee" that included payment processing among other things like API access, developer tools, distribution, collecting worldwide taxes, etc.

Thanks to the attention brought by the "Dutch Dating App" cases... people are finally understanding that the 30% is actually 3% for payment processing and 27% for Apple's commission. Developers can process their payments elsewhere... but they still owe a commission fee to Apple.

So the question is... can a platform charge a commission fee?

Again... it's not a payment fee... it's for much more than that.

Think of all the work Apple does just to have their platform exist in the first place. Shouldn't Apple get something for all that work? Perhaps a percentage of sales?

I don't have the answers to these questions. But I love the discussion.

 

[AppliedMicro]

If Apple only charged fees on the initial download, EVERY app would just become free and prompt you to make an in-app purchase before the app would be useable. It'd be a very easy loophole to exploit, charging the commission wether the developer wants their user to pay up front or via IAPs given the developer flexibility based on what their app does/what makes sense for the user AND ensures Apple gets paid.

There are tons of apps that „exploit that loophole“. My online banking app, my travel/hotel booking app. My ridesharing app or my food delivery app. Even the Amazon app.

Microsoft or Mozilla aren’t charging commissions when I use Edge or Firefox and their APIs to make such purchases or transactions. Neither does my phone company when I‘m ordering a taxi.

They‘re making an otherwise arbitrary distinction for „digital goods“ - just because they can. Because they have leverage. Even when they aren’t providing any service - or any other API than for free apps.

That freeloading by Apple needs to stop. And the arbitrary discrimination of digital goods/services needs to stop. And it will, by legislation. Apple charges developer fees and they charge enough for their hardware. They are well compensated. It would even be fair if they charged download fees (just have to make sure they don‘t deter developers from pushing security updates in time).

 

[1129846]

Basically a joke and a completely slap in the face. It is not offering anything.

Apple is still demanding their cut for being even less of a payment processor. It is showing pretty clear what it really cost Apple to collect the payments 3% which is in line with a payment processor.

How about collect a reasonable fee of 5% instead and still allow outside links.

Apple knows anti trust is coming down and they are milking it as long as possible.

 

[1129846]

I like that the headline included the word "commission"

For years... people thought that the App Store charged 30% as a payment processing fee. That was incorrect. Apple charged 30% for what should be called the "everything fee" that included payment processing among other things like API access, developer tools, distribution, collecting worldwide taxes, etc.

Thanks to the attention brought by the "Dutch Dating App" cases... people are finally understanding that the 30% is actually 3% for payment processing and 27% for Apple's commission. Developers can process their payments elsewhere... but they still owe a commission fee to Apple.

So the question is... can a platform charge a commission fee?

Again... it's not a payment fee... it's for much more than that.

Think of all the work Apple does just to have their platform exist in the first place. Shouldn't Apple get something for all that work? Perhaps a percentage of sales?

I don't have the answers to these questions. But I love the discussion.

Apple chooses to block the ability to side load so that ground is more loss. If Apple allowed side loading with the same setup that is done on MacOS a lot of those grounds is more reasonable.

 

[rafark]

The apps are literally built out of Apple’s proprietary APIs using their Xcode developer tools. Why should a developer be able to use their “building blocks” for free? This is what most people fail to understand. The 30% was never for payment processing or web hosting.

I though the iPhone was $1k because you’re paying for it’s development. If devs are paying for the development of iOS, then why is the iPhone so expensive consider the hardware costs a fraction of the final price?

“Why should a developer be able to use their “building blocks” for free?”

First and foremost, the “building blocks” are used by Apple to develop the whole OS and stock apps.

Secondly, the way I see it it should be the other way around. Why are devs paying Apple to use iOS APIs if their apps make the platform extremely attractive to end users. You know what would happen to the iPhone if it had no third party apps? Ask Microsoft what happened to windows phone. Nobody used it because it had no apps.

Windows is by far the most popular OS in the planet because it has more apps than any other OS.

Python (the programming language) is one of the most popular languages right now not because it’s the best but because it has a lot of useful libraries.

And I’m not even an app developer but is the community that matters, not the platform.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Apple chooses to block the ability to sideload so that ground is more loss. If Apple allowed side loading with the same setup that is done on MacOS a lot of those grounds is more reasonable.

Sideloading would just move the download from the App Store to another store or website or whatever.

Could Apple still collect a commission fee, though? That's the question.

The developer would still be using Apple's APIs, iCloud hooks, and whatnot in their actual apps... regardless of where the user downloads it from.

 

[Chuckeee]

That's not necessarily what’s happening here. It's more like HP putting information on packaging of its toner cartridges sold in Walmart stores that a customer can (instead) buy HP toner from hp.com. However, Apple still wants to get a cut even if the purchase is done outside the App Store.

An aside:
I get your point but considering HP previous and on-going issues with toner cartridges and printer ink, you might want to consider another example

 

[AppliedMicro]

Again... it's not a payment fee... it's for much more than that.

Think of all the work Apple does just to have their platform exist in the first place. Shouldn't Apple get something for all that work? Perhaps a percentage of sales?

I recently ordered furniture worth a few thousands of dollars. That I configured in 3D using browser apps/APIs on my iPad. And could even visualise in my new apartment as augmented reality using the manufacturer’s app.

Did Apple even earn a cent commission „for all that work“ (beyond the 99$ yearly developer fee)? Probably not.

Is it fair then, that game developers are charged 15 or 30% for content that they created on their own? The discrimination of digital content needs to stop.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Is it fair then, that game developers are charged 15 or 30% for content that they created on their own?

Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo sure think so...

 

[bradman83]

12% is 20% lower than 15%.

The term in finance is "basis points" - it's 3 basis points lower.

 

[armandxp]

View attachment 2337369

Exactly!!! Good for Apple!!!

 

[AppliedMicro]

The apps are literally built out of Apple’s proprietary APIs using their Xcode developer tools. Why should a developer be able to use their “building blocks” for free? This is what most people fail to understand. The 30% was never for payment processing or web hosting.

Why can Amazon, Booking.com or Expedia, UBER, my bank and investment broker, the train company etc. all use Apple’s APIs and developer tools for frees (besides the developer subscription) - while I‘m spending thousands of dollars through their apps every year?

 

[bg1419]

Well that’s bold lol

 

[AppliedMicro]

Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo sure think so...

To be fair, their consoles are or used to be subsidised.
Developers could develop for PCs instead - but then, they‘d be at greater risk of software piracy.
In a way, they’re paying for DRM and a walled garden - not every iOS app developers wants or needs that though.

Also, video games and their markets rank lower in importance to society, countries‘ greater economies - and legislators and regulators to regulate.

 

[bradman83]

Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo sure think so...

Just because others do it doesn't make it right.

"But officer, that other guy was speeding too!"

 

[arlomedia]

Think of all the work Apple does just to have their platform exist in the first place. Shouldn't Apple get something for all that work?

They get an annual developer program fee from every developer, and they get a platform that is more attractive to buyers of their hardware because of all the software available for it.

I surveyed the users of one of my apps and found that 45% had bought a tablet specifically to run my app on. So by Apple's logic, I should get a 30% commission from every iPad those users buy. But I'd be happy just going back to the old days where hardware and software makers worked together toward their mutual benefit, rather than hardware makers deciding they could skim from software makers.

 

[Michael Scrip]

To be fair, their consoles are or used to be subsidised.

If Sony can collect a commission fee from a game sold at Walmart... then Apple can collect a commission fee from an app downloaded from a website.

 

[I7guy]

Why can Amazon, Booking.com or Expedia, UBER, my bank and investment broker, the train company etc. all use Apple’s APIs and developer tools for frees (besides the developer subscription) - while I‘m spending thousands of dollars through their apps every year?

That info is in the developer materials.

 

[I7guy]

They get an annual developer program fee from every developer, and they get a platform that is more attractive to buyers of their hardware because of all the software available for it.

I surveyed the users of one of my apps and found that 45% had bought a tablet specifically to run my app on. So by Apple's logic, I should get a 30% commission from every iPad those users buy. But I'd be happy just going back to the old days where hardware and software makers worked toward their mutual benefit, rather than hardware makers deciding they could skim from software makers.

It used to be in the old days, retailers took a 30% cut to sell your software. Is that mutual benefit?