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

[Michael Scrip]

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

Alright... so no commission fees? Anywhere?

Apple can't charge commission fees.
Google can't charge commission fees.
Sony can't charge commission fees.
Microsoft can't charge commission fees.
Nintendo can't charge commission fees.

That'll be interesting...

 

[Joe The Dragon]

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.

with in app sales stores don't take 30% of each sale and best buy does not lock down your tv and make netflix pay they 30% of each sub fee.

 

[bradman83]

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.

They also get, you know, hardware sales. That's the incentive to develop your platform when you're a hardware maker, to get people to buy your hardware.

 

[bradman83]

Alright... so no commission fees? Anywhere?

Apple can't charge commission fees.
Google can't charge commission fees.
Sony can't charge commission fees.
Microsoft can't charge commission fees.
Nintendo can't charge commission fees.

That'll be interesting...

I 100% support this.

You can charge a payment processing fee.
You can charge a hosting service fee (based on download volume)
You can charge individual developers higher fees to cover chargeback losses

You can charge fees to cover operating expenses which should be clearly transparent, but platform owners shouldn't reap profits off of others works.

 

[JapanApple]

12% is 20% lower than 15%

Well, it's better than less then 2% or 0%

 

[1129846]

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.

Apple makes the tools for themselves. Apple the one who requires you to use Xcode. Of the major IDEs out there Xcode is pretty bad. I use it because I have to but honestly its lack of customization and ability to add plug ins is really bad.

Windows does not require you to pay a commission to develop for it. Nor does developing for .Net. MacOS does not require it and using the MacOS apis.

iCloud is paid for by the users of it. So not anything there as you the app user is covering the iCloud fees. Plus by more developers using those tools means more people are willing to pay for the iCloud service.
Apple sees a **** ton of iPhone because of the non Apple developers. Tell me how much would you use the iPhone if the only apps on it was first party Apple apps nothing else. Tell me how many of the apps on your phone are not made by Apple. I expect the answer is most of them.

Where is the fees Apple is paying developers for all the iPhone sold because the apps non Apple employees made.

 

[B-Mc-C]

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.

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?

Those are the rules. Don’t like them? Nothing is stopping you from building your own phone and ecosystem, and then you can make the rules.

 

[Rogifan]

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.

Except the vast majority of apps in the App Store are free to download and free to use (with ads).

 

[1129846]

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.

It is not piracy at why they don’t develop for PC and most privacy can be combated and the effort to get around it is high.

The bigger reason for consoles is just more people play on consoles than pcs any more. Consoles are cheaper than building a gaming rig, last longer than a gaming rig and easier to move around and put in a center for families to play.

 

[Sciomar]

Having all the subscriptions working through the app store sure makes things less complicated when I like to cancel or upgrade a sub. Choices can be good for the consumer, and I sometimes support that, as long as it does not affect the original/simple way it was designed to work.

 

[Michael Scrip]

I 100% support this.

You can charge a payment processing fee.
You can charge a hosting service fee (based on download volume)
You can charge individual developers higher fees to cover chargeback losses

You can charge fees to cover operating expenses which should be clearly transparent, but platform owners shouldn't reap profits off of others works.

I like it!

I wonder what those fees would add up to?

Right now Spotify doesn't use Apple's In-App Purchases anymore. They don't pay the "Apple Tax" anymore. So they don't pay anything to Apple besides the small yearly developer fee.

But if Spotify updates their app twice a month... and 100 million people download the updated app... I wonder what Spotify would have to pay in downloading and hosting fees?

🤔

 

[Rogifan]

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.

And should an ISP or cellular provider get a cut because without the internet none of this would work?

 

[1129846]

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

And even in the old days you could always go outside of retailers to sell your stuff and avoid the cut.

Tell me how can you do that on iOS? Oh yeah you can not so not a valid comparison. Just like you refuse any comparison with MacOS on side loading this is an even bigger difference you are trying to argue with.

 

[HiVolt]

Like Microsoft in the 90s, but worse.

That always made me chuckle, the huge deal that was made about Microsoft. The iron grip today's tech giants have (including Microsoft themselves) its hilarious in comparison.

Apple is by far the worst on the mobile, because they are a gatekeeper to EVERYTHING, you can't even have an alternative browser engine, payment systems, nevermind the ability to sideload.

Google for all their faults, at least allows alternative app stores and sideloading.

 

[Michael Scrip]

iCloud is paid for by the users of it. So not anything there as you the app user is covering the iCloud fees. Plus by more developers using those tools means more people are willing to pay for the iCloud service.

I was talking about CloudKit.

Here is a list of other things you get included with Apple's commission fee:

- we developers get up to 1 petabyte of user storage via CloudKit 100% free. Bear notes app does this and they manage 0 servers for their subscription-paid users.
- we could submit 1000 app and app updates in a year which translates to Apple paying about 1000 man-hours worth of paychecks at about $30/hr or ~$30k for app review
- we have free access to using Apple Maps instead of paying Google tons of money to use their mapping API keys (for those high volume users). this saves Yelp and Facebook a ton of money as well as small developers.
- we get many more new features every single year via the SDK compared to Android (like ARKit, Core ML, SwiftUI, Vision, etc... just to name a few).
- we get global distribution for free (including China, you know, where Google Play doesn't exist. also developers generally have to setup their own servers in China because of the great firewall, but if you used CloudKit, it just works without any extra setup).
- we get app store curated editorial with a chance to reach front page in front of 500 million customers a week.
- we have no credit card fees or international taxes to worry about
- Apple provides support to customers asking for refund for an app and app store support in general
- Testflight service is free (for public and private testing)
- app store automatically creates many different binaries of our app and distributes device-optimized versions to each customer. a 1 gigabyte app with many different permutations of versions across hundreds of servers around the world means Apple is hosting about several terabytes in the cloud for us from one single app
- push notifications/push notification sandbox servers
- Web SDK version of cloudkit/mapkit so that you can use it for a web version of your app
- Apple sign in
- Mac notarization service which improves trust by the user for downloading an app from the web
- yearly major releases of Xcode with new features
- analytics dashboard and crash reporting
- and the list goes on and on.

(from MacRumors forum user farewelwilliams)

 

[harvester32]

In the same article, we have these two statements: "likely at a discounted price" and "Apple will still collect commissions".

Because of one...I doubt the other.

That part out of the way...a developer won't see a single cent out of me outside of the App Store. As long as the App Store remains a purchasing option, then that's not a problem. If it stops being an option...sorry, no money from me anymore!

Agree...the App Store keeps us safer than Android. Why not just allow a store like...say...Cydia...what could go wrong?

 

[QuarterSwede]

View attachment 2337369

Physical stores don’t make 30%. Their margin varies WILDLY depending on what type of good you’re buying. Commodities like food are low, some are at close to cost (like lumber), some are crazy like cabinets (last I saw it was 300-400%), and clothing (absurd levels).

However, I do agree that for digital stores 30% is basically standard. The rub there is Apple started that too.

 

[CarAnalogy]

View attachment 2337369

OK now do the math on running your own website and using something like Paddle for payments.

Seriously. In a lot of cases it might be better to just let Apple or whomever take their cut. Not in all cases. But Apple shouldn’t get to decide that.

And this is why sideloading is a completely different matter. And as I have said many times, due to this entitlement system design, may not make any difference anyway.

What if I don’t want to use a store at all? What if I just want to download and run an app? Or download source and compile one?

Maybe that doesn’t matter on an accessory like an iPhone, but what if that is the only kind of computer there is?

 

[gaximus]

So Apple is admitting the 30% was always about them believing revenue a developer earns is because of Apple and therefore they deserve a cut. Even though many developers say Apple is not steering customers to them, doesn’t promote them on the App Store, etc. You could maybe make this argument for apps that are iOS only but apps that are cross-platform and available on the web…why does Apple deserve a cut of their business?

Google just strengthened Apples legitimacy here, by losing a case, because they were essentially bribing apps to their App Store with lower fees.
Apple has a strong case to say that the only reason for other apps to be on other apps stores is because either Google bribes them, or because they do so well on Apple AppStore that they can afford to be on the other stores.

Im not agreeing with that, but studies have shown, that there are way more paying customers on iOS than other platforms.

 

[chatin]

The ruling by SCOTUS actually overturns the appeal Apple won over EPIC.

 

[Chuckeee]

Apple makes the tools for themselves. Apple the one who requires you to use Xcode. Of the major IDEs out there Xcode is pretty bad. I use it because I have to but honestly its lack of customization and ability to add plug ins is really bad.

So true. It is truly painful at times

 

[I7guy]

And even in the old days you could always go outside of retailers to sell your stuff and avoid the cut.

You had to duplicate the disks etc. even if you sold it yourself. Which wasn’t a likely possibility. So there always was a fixed cost even if you hawked your software on the corner of 12th st and vine.

Tell me how can you do that on iOS? Oh yeah you can not so not a valid comparison. Just like you refuse any comparison with MacOS on side loading this is an even bigger difference you are trying to argue with.

Seems like the comparison is valid. A more modern comparison is to create a web app bypassing the App Store.

 

[jdphoto]

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).

From all I understand of the current legal landscape from all the recent court cases, and understanding of law in general; Apple is (currently) allowed to effectively "subsidize" certain categories of applications (that they deem strategic, they want those bank/travel/food/etc. apps on their devices for their iOS user's convenience). The could NOT though "play favorites" for specific corporations/entities within a market category ex. allow Uber to not pay commission but then charge Lfyt, or charge Chase commission but not Barclays, etc.

Your phone company have chosen to take their cuts a different way. That "business" telephone line (or Internet plan) sure costs A LOT more per month than a "consumer" plan, while using 95% of the same infrastructure. What you use the service for does impact price, just at a less granular level. Traditional phone (service) companies don't have a method to track purchases (taxi cabs) going over the wire if they did I'm sure they'd get in there to take a cut. Microsoft charges for their OS by licensing it to OEMs (which they pass on to consumers+markup) and direct to customers and part of those charges include the upkeep of Edge. Hundreds of millions of PC shipments each year is very lucrative for Microsoft. Mozilla being a 501c non-profit gets their funding via donations and has no shareholders to appease so it's not an accurate comparison.

If you really want Apple to stop(or lower?, can't tell your stance fully), the money will come a different way. That $99 developer fee will get a lot larger (and/or they'll start charging add-ons to use various APIs, etc.) and as you eluded to bandwidth and the cloud storage hosting fee for hosting your app. Phones themselves would also get more expensive, Apple's margins on them aren't that outlandish compared to the likes of Samsung and Google; and Apple would want to keep their overall margins the same or risk a lot of shareholder backlash. And it's been often proven that where Apple goes (no headphone jack, no charger in the box, etc.), others will follow and smart phone prices would climb across the board.

 

[Verified Whiskey]

Learn more about the entitlement. In accordance with the entitlement agreement, the link may inform users about

I love that they named it “Entitlement”. 😂 Definitely seems to be a nod to how entitled these app devs are, thinking they should be able to have a free ride on the merits of another company. Years and millions of dollars worth of development from said company.

 

[Shirasaki]

No redirecting, intermediate links, or URL tracking parameters are allowed.

So essentially only Apple can track, everyone else no.

Hardly surprising but I don’t see any point for this “entitlement” to exist. App developers still can’t collect a single more dime that Apple does not approve.

Epic literally wasted 2 years for basically nothing, and literally nothing has changed before and after.

Also, I can clearly foresee how other issues would eventually play out just by looking at this so-called “entitlement”.

Malicious compliance doesn’t go much further than this.