So, do you think Apple doesn’t deserve compensation for cresting and maintaining the platform that these people use to make money?
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
As long as Apple has the right to charge a fee of their choosing (and the courts say they do) then they also have the right to protect that revenue. Even with the ruling to allow alternative payment systems the court will side with Apple on their implementation simply by them saying the mechanism was necessary to prevent developers from circumventing the fee.
Your celebration might be premature. The court told Apple to allow external links for the payments. The court did not tell the app developers to pay to Apple. Apple is going to try their best to keep the gravy train coming, we'll see if they succeed. We can expect another lawsuit and trial regarding the fees soon. Apple has been losing their court battles lately left and right. There is a good chance they will lose again.
Last edited:
I'm all for a company making money for a product they sell. I'm all for a company having a subscription service.
I'm not wanting to pay more for a company making a product or subscription more expensive because they want a cut for doing nothing. Apple isn't adding anything to it by forcing a higher price to offset the commission.
I'm not wanting to pay more for a company making a product or subscription more expensive because they want a cut for doing nothing. Apple isn't adding anything to it by forcing a higher price to offset the commission.
The court did explicitly say in the ruling:
So the court didn't say Apple must charge a commission, but it said they were entitled to and Apple is choosing to.
Whatever court battles Apple is losing, they keep winning this particular one over and over again.
Consider these:
1) When Apple opened the app store, it expected no more than 500 apps to ever exist. That was not going to be a lot of money. So when they started, they weren't planning on making a whole lot of money.
2) This business model that Apple started, is what enabled the entire App ecosystem that has changed our world. Entire start ups can start without paying any developer fees, which was unheard off at that time.
3) $75 Billion is an unofficial number of total App Store sales. If it's true, Apple is taking 15-30% of that. Granted that's a lot of money. But this is not a simple software tool we are talking about. We are talking about entire programming languages and the likes. Apple's expenses are climbing high too. But it's true Apple is making profits here. Not arguing that. But do you think Microsoft which is charging $1000 per year per developer to access Windows developer tools is not making money out of that? Or even Epic for that matter. This is just a different business model.
4) Most of the apps are not paying a dime to Apple. For example, Google maps, Robin hood, Amazon, Uber... These apps make so much money, while using Apple's developer tools by paying Apple nothing. Even major ad revenue businesses like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube... Apple sees nothing of those ad $. This is not a 30% tax on all businesses as some put this out to be.
Yes, Apple does handle money processing. They manage relationships with over 53 countries and their conversions/exchange rates, taxes, etc none of which the Developers have to deal one cent about. All reports Apple generates and your tax account has very little work to do and you don't need an accounting team for sales transactions.
It would be good to see developers put their money where their mouth is to test that theory.
The reality is, an individual developer is not important to Apple but Apple is very important to an individual developer. Developers would have to take collective action to make Apple take any sort of notice, which probably means they need to unionise (which I believe they tried to do, but failed to get any traction, I suspect because most developers are probably very happy with their relationship with Apple).
Sometimes you just have to admit that what you think is a really big issue just isn’t a problem for most other people.
Last edited:
Imagine creating one of the biggest software in the world, but people demand it should be free. iOS is not a free or open source project and it has to be paid for.
I don’t think they’ve ever said otherwise.
A what now?? Doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue.
The rules are okay, since Apple is entitled to protect its brand by preventing shady characters from using their payment systems to run scams.
But the 27% charge is never going to fly.
Why? Because we’ve seen it before.
Back in the day, Microsoft used to charge OEMs a Windows license for every machine they sold – whether Windows was installed on it or not.
This – and the fact you needed to be a sysadmin to use it – was the reason that Linux never got any traction on the desktop.
Apple’s new set up feels very much like that.
Interesting points of view all around.
I personally think apple can charge what they want, and they should. Just because they have so much money in the bank is not an excuse for developers to get everything apple provides for free.
Sure you can argue that without developers apple wouldn't be as big as they are today but you can easily argue the reverse.
In any case I would rather pay the extra 15% (or 30%) and be able to control everything from within apple then having to sign up to multiple different sites giving them all my info that could potential be leaked.
Also from everyone saying apple shouldn't charge or should charge less I have two questions;
I personally think apple can charge what they want, and they should. Just because they have so much money in the bank is not an excuse for developers to get everything apple provides for free.
Sure you can argue that without developers apple wouldn't be as big as they are today but you can easily argue the reverse.
In any case I would rather pay the extra 15% (or 30%) and be able to control everything from within apple then having to sign up to multiple different sites giving them all my info that could potential be leaked.
Also from everyone saying apple shouldn't charge or should charge less I have two questions;
- How much less should they charge and what reasoning do you have to support this.
- Or what alternative methods should be used to charge developers for api, servers, support ect for usage if you support no 15%/30% charge?
Last edited:
Does Apple charge developers who don’t make apps for their OS? I can’t say I’ve ever heard of Apple charging developers for making Android, windows or Linux apps.
Not for apps or services that are cross-platform and also available on the web. But if it’s about that then why does Apple allow some apps to bypass compensating them? Why doesn’t this compensation scheme apply to Uber or Lyft or food delivery services?
Because Apple decided not to structure the commission like that? There doesn’t have to be any particular reason or logic for the way decides to charge for its IP other than that’s the way Apple decided to do it.
They tell you what - but not how that’s fair.
We know what’s stopping me: lack of resources and talent. And scale. Modern consumer software platforms and their operating systems are natural monopolies (or duopolies). Consumer converge on one, two, maybe three OS - and that’s it.
That’s why the government should regulated access to them.
You can still choose whether to subscribe to everything through Apple - or elsewhere. It’s just that Apple shouldn’t be the only one where you can make subscriptions. They‘re should be choice and competition - more than having to jump over the costly barrier to switch to „just using Android“.
Just as you may feel „forced“ to use certain subscriptions or subscription apps, others may feel „forced“ to use iOS - or not use Android - for reasons unrelated to app
Incremental app updates can be very small. In the kilobytes even, for changes in code. Or maybe a few MB, if you’re also updating a couple of graphics. So less than the data usage for an hour of music streaming.
They don‘t. They’re paying a yearly developer fee.
3% is very (too) low for what they’re providing. Even without „developer tools, APIs etc“, I doubt it covers cover the costs of doing payments and the tax handling in all of the countries.
It’s a tax on those businesses that Apple sees fit. Namely digital goods and services.
Well, this is new, just to apply for a feature in an iPhone app you have to send a form to District Court?!
Apple is begging for side-loading to be court-ordered. Maybe that was the plan all along.
According to some of the logic I’m reading in these threads, Windows and MacOS should also employ a walled payment environment because “without Microsoft there would be no ecosystem for selling applications”.
Why am I free to install whatever I want on my $1500 Macbook personal computer, yet I am forbidden from installing whatever I want on my $1500 iPhone which is also effectively a personal computer? I’m tired of doing the mental gymnastics to see Apple’s side of fhe argument - it’s my device, let me do what I want with it.
According to some of the logic I’m reading in these threads, Windows and MacOS should also employ a walled payment environment because “without Microsoft there would be no ecosystem for selling applications”.
Why am I free to install whatever I want on my $1500 Macbook personal computer, yet I am forbidden from installing whatever I want on my $1500 iPhone which is also effectively a personal computer? I’m tired of doing the mental gymnastics to see Apple’s side of fhe argument - it’s my device, let me do what I want with it.
I wouldn’t be 100% confident that Apple won’t charge a commission regardless of where the app is installed from.
Windows and MacOS could have employed the same payment mechanism for apps, but they were monetised in different ways.
It’s not villainous to charge for your product 😛
Apple has still found a way to get it's cake and eat it. If Apple tries this entitlement rubbish on it's app stores in the EU they will most probably find they will be back in EU court again.
It is nothing but a scam in my opinion for Apple to still get money from off site links/purchases by telling developers they will need to apply for a StoreKit External Purchase Link Entitlement, obviously it is something that Apple is charging developers to use hence why the commission costs.
All the app developers want to do is provide an in app link to their own websites but Apple said no until the governments got involved and took Apple to court. Now Apple are saying app developers can provide an in app link to their website BUT it's going to cost them because they have to use Apple's newly introduced 'StoreKit External Purchase Link Entitlement' which means every time the link is used, Apple get's paid for it's use. It's a downright disgrace what Apple has done.
It is nothing but a scam in my opinion for Apple to still get money from off site links/purchases by telling developers they will need to apply for a StoreKit External Purchase Link Entitlement, obviously it is something that Apple is charging developers to use hence why the commission costs.
All the app developers want to do is provide an in app link to their own websites but Apple said no until the governments got involved and took Apple to court. Now Apple are saying app developers can provide an in app link to their website BUT it's going to cost them because they have to use Apple's newly introduced 'StoreKit External Purchase Link Entitlement' which means every time the link is used, Apple get's paid for it's use. It's a downright disgrace what Apple has done.
I think developers need to be clear about what they want as the message appears to be getting muddied somewhere.