Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
It’s a tax on those businesses that Apple sees fit. Namely digital goods and services.
Same as developing a game for Epic or Xbox platform. Or opening a restaurant inside Disneyland. If you are going to create a digital good or service, using the technology the Apple created, in a platform that Apple maintains, it's fair you pay a cut to Apple. What I don't agree with is a 30% cut on content consumption or digital store front apps... Like Music streaming services, or selling e-Books. Because the biggest cost for these apps are content production, not app development. I think Apple has already agreed to Japanese government to reduce the cut for such apps.
For such content, Apple should still take a cut. Buy may be it should be around 3 to 5%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlphaCentauri
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?

Why wouldn't they? Walmart makes money when you buy a Funko Pop from their store they did nothing to promote that business.
 
What I don't agree with is a 30% cut on content consumption or digital store front apps... Like Music streaming services, or selling e-Books.
Especially since Apple is in direct competition with these services with Appel Music and TV.

After the latest move I am pretty sure they already have plans to expand "Licensing Fees" for other business types. They are going to milk this cow (=> customers) hard.
 
What I don't get is why Apple feels they're at all entitled to a percentage of a transaction that doesn't even happen through them.

This is unmitigated greed on their part and I hope it's challenged.
It should be: If you want to use your own means of in-app payments, your app must be priced at least $1.99 in the AppStore. This covers the dev tool chain, app reviews and store hosting/download.
 
I wonder how that is even legal (I don’t think it would be legal here) like if I am paying with my credit card or PayPal or whatever outside of the AppStore, how can Apple even know that, what I bought or that it’s actually been processed unless they gain access to the developers revenue streams for some reason.

I guess it’s basically like a Google Ads affiliate link under the disguise of privacy? Pay per Conversion so to say

Don't be silly of course it's legal. The internet is run on affiilate commissions via cookies. Half or more of what you purchase you'll have given a commission to someone else for linking you there - if you had any sense you'd be taking the commission yourself with cash back sites.
 
I was pretty much on Apple's side in this fight, but this is bad faith. For once, Sweeney is right.

They need to abide by the rulings and not try and dance around them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WarmWinterHat
For such content, Apple should still take a cut. Buy may be it should be around 3 to 5%.

To be fair - i'm sure most people that subscribe to Spotify do so on the web first in which case Apple gets nothing. It's not that hard for companies to run their own subscription service and then you just log in on iOS.

I love the app store managing my subscriptions for 3rd party apps though, it's so much easier to cancel stuff when they turn out to be junk - you know back in the day cancelling would have been impossible through their own website.
 
Like the old days, it’s still an opt-in program though.
Kind of ... iOS is the biggest mobile platform by revenue and the only way to distribute apps there is through Apple ... so you don't get to opt out of using Apple distribution unless you opt out of the majority of the mobile app business.
$75 Billion is an unofficial number of total App Store sales. If it's true, Apple is taking 15-30% of that.
To clarify, $75 billion is Apple's cut (per year). That's based on Apple's reporting of their payouts to developers, multiplied by an estimate of the average commission rate. Those were the numbers from 2022 but you get the idea.
So, do you think Apple doesn’t deserve compensation for cresting and maintaining the platform that these people use to make money?
I don't think anyone is saying that. But I would feel better about developing for Apple's platforms if the fees they charged were more in line with the value they offered, and acknowledged the value that developers provide to Apple by making their hardware more useful. If the mobile platform business were competitive, platforms would push each other to offer better deals. As it is, Apple just picks the commission rate they want and the other platforms copy them.

Also, I'm surprised that claiming a cut of all the revenue generated by a tool, rather than simply charging for the tool, gets no discussion. Does any other business work this way? What if Adobe charged graphic designers a percentage of all their design revenue to use Photoshop? Or if Home Depot charged builders a percentage of all their construction revenue to use their hammers? Or if Google claimed a percentage of all the online sales made through its web browser? Can anyone defend Apple's approach without endorsing those scenarios? I'd say Apple's scenario is the least defensible because it's the only one where alternative tools are not allowed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dk001
I was pretty much on Apple's side in this fight, but this is bad faith. For once, Sweeney is right.

They need to abide by the rulings and not try and dance around them.

Ah... just like how Epic knew Apple's terms and conditions but still violated them anyway?

Epic was on stage at the original iPad introduction... in 2010... so they were well aware of the rules.

And you can bet Sweeney was happy making $1,000,000 per day from the App Store. But then he decided to go to war. Something something don't bite the hand that feeds you.

:p
 
Kind of ... iOS is the biggest mobile platform by revenue and the only way to distribute apps there is through Apple ... so you don't get to opt out of using Apple distribution unless you opt out of the majority of the mobile app business.

To clarify, $75 billion is Apple's cut (per year). That's based on Apple's reporting of their payouts to developers, multiplied by an estimate of the average commission rate. Those were the numbers from 2022 but you get the idea.

I don't think anyone is saying that. But I would feel better about developing for Apple's platforms if the fees they charged were more in line with the value they offered, and acknowledged the value that developers provide to Apple by making their hardware more useful. If the mobile platform business were competitive, platforms would push each other to offer better deals. As it is, Apple just picks the commission rate they want and the other platforms copy them.

Also, I'm surprised that claiming a cut of all the revenue generated by a tool, rather than simply charging for the tool, gets no discussion. Does any other business work this way? What if Adobe charged graphic designers a percentage of all their design revenue to use Photoshop? Or if Home Depot charged builders a percentage of all their construction revenue to use their hammers? Or if Google claimed a percentage of all the online sales made through its web browser? Can anyone defend Apple's approach without endorsing those scenarios? I'd say Apple's scenario is the least defensible because it's the only one where alternative tools are not allowed.

It’s called the Royalty model. It’s a perfectly normal way to run a business.

 
------------------- CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT-------------------------------


Let's stop excusing Apple's bull$#!t because we ALL know it is.


It's time consumers/ Apple users start bring up lawsuits against Apple corporations anti-consumer practices.

Feel NO pity for a multi-TRILLION dollar corporation and let's stop the 'Boling frog of acceptance'



IF 'RIGHT TO REPAIR' things canb be done by small business uniting against Apple, so can consumer action be done when consumer/Apple users unite against Apple.


BREAK Apple's iOS wall garden right open.


Consumer freedom and choice >>>> Corporate 1% shareholder profit & stocks
 
I guess it kind of makes sense because the app was discovered on the App Store, therefore they feel entitled to charging commission, even if it was purchased elsewhere. It's kind of an attribution model, albeit it comes across as ghastly money grab. It's causing devs to resent them but they simply don't care - they prioritise reporting revenue growth whatever it takes.
i discover most apps on google and i imagine that’s not uncommon

maybe apple should give google a cut too…oh wait
 
  • Like
Reactions: arlomedia and ifxf
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.
In the old days you paid 40-50% to store that sold your software.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chuckeee
I guess it kind of makes sense because the app was discovered on the App Store, therefore they feel entitled to charging commission, even if it was purchased elsewhere. It's kind of an attribution model, albeit it comes across as ghastly money grab. It's causing devs to resent them but they simply don't care - they prioritise reporting revenue growth whatever it takes.
I never use the app store to discover apps. The search function is very bad, you search forcan app by name and you get half dozen other apps and the app you want is down on the list. Any new app I download is due to links or recommendations from non Apple websites.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arlomedia
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.
For the simple reason that Nintendo gets to charge game developers 30% for games sold through their App Store, while also preventing users from (officially) sideloading whatever apps they want on their Nintendo Switch consoles.

Apple built it that way, and so they get to dictate the rules of their platform. This is why Apple won the lawsuit against Epic, while Google lost, because even if Apple is for some reason deemed a monopolist, US laws maintain that Apple retains the right to monetise their IP (which is what this 30% cut is). Second, a monopolist has no duty to deal with any other company, which means that Apple has the right to tell any developer who refused to play by their rules to essentially F off (which is what they did to Epic). And not once since the inception of the App Store has Apple changed the rules.

As such, Apple has been very clear from day one about its lock-in, and not only are consumers aware of this, it can also be argued that the overwhelming majority of iOS users choose the iPhone specifically because of said lock-in. That the iPhone is deemed an indispensable aspect of modern society is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Unless US lawmakers do what the EU did and come up with new laws specifically aimed at tearing apart Apple's ecosystem, I maintain that Apple has done nothing wrong as far as US antitrust law is concerned.
 
So, do you think Apple doesn’t deserve compensation for cresting and maintaining the platform that these people use to make money?

Are you saying you would still buy an iPhone if no non Apple app could be installed.

Where is my former employers 30% from Apple for the 10 of thousands of iPads that bot only to run its app.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arlomedia
So, do you think Apple doesn’t deserve compensation for cresting and maintaining the platform that these people use to make money?

They make huge margins on the hardware, without the hardware there is no reason for the software to exist.

Do you think people would still buy iPhones if they couldn't run Instagram/Tik Tok etc on them? Some would but millions wouldn't. So does Apple owe Meta and Tik Tok a cut of the profits from iPhone sales, or does it only work one way?

Third party developers have provided a huge amount of value to Apples ecosystem. Look at any of the Vision Pro threads countless posts waiting for third party devs to make apps that actually make the thing useful.
 
Hosting, development of the frameworks and APIs that apps use, technical support for developers, tools (Xcode, etc). They're not providing absolutely nothing. Whether that's worth the fee they're charging is a different question.

They could go the "fair" route and everyone pays for exactly what they use. Everyone gets a monthly bill for hosting, bandwidth (paid per gigabyte), and a licensing fee for whatever Apple frameworks you use.
The problem is that as you point out, it isn’t fair. One of the biggest earners (Netflix) pays nothing.

Apple doesn’t need this money for API development, if they were fair about it you might have a point but the thing is, Apple needs developers just as much as they need Apple. An iPhone without apps isn’t a success. It’s a symbiotic relationship and if Apple wants a cut of developer revenue then developers should also get a cut of Apple’s revenue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arlomedia
Just typical Apple greed. 30% is extortion and if they had done it 5% then nobody would have challenged it. Apple have billions sitting there so this isn’t about trying to make a company profitable, it’s just greed. I think I’m going to eventually go back to Linux and Android for my phone and computer as Apple are just taking the piss.
Greed? How much money does Apple make from the (mostly 15%, not 30%) fees? What are their margins? Someone testifying for Epic said it was more than 70% but Apple said that wasn’t accurate; the judge in the trial said it was around that but we don't have the specific number. What margin is too much? Is 20%? 10%? 70%? Is that too much? Are developers making money? Are developers making too much or too little money?

Why is a 5% commission appropriate? That would almost certainly lose Apple money, considering Epic’s 12% doesn’t make them any money; it's expensive to run the App Store. How do I know 5% would lose them money? I don’t, but we can make some educated estimates.

Apple's services’ gross (not net) margins are about 70%. Let's just assume the App Store is at a 70% margin (there’s a claim it’s higher but we’ll go with what we know about Apple’s services margins). With an assumed 70% margin and a 30% fee (most developers are not paying that much), Apple gross "break even" point is a 9% fee. That's gross margin though and would in reality lose Apple money. Apple’s overall net margin is about 60% of gross margins. If Apple needs a 9% fee to break even with gross margin on the App Store, Apple needs about a 13% fee to make money. That fits with Epic’s supposed loss at 12%.

Most developers pay 15% fees. Let's assume Apple still makes money on that and is grossing a 70% margin (which isn't likely because the higher fees bring in much more money from the big companies -- most developers pay the 15% fee but most money comes from the minority paying the higher fees). In any case, Apple’s gross "break even" point is a 4.5% commission. Again, that's not net, so a 4.5% commission would lose Apple money. Again Apple, while charging most developers a 15% fee, collects most of the money from the companies paying 30%, which means Apple margins likely come from the bigger developers who will subsidize the smaller ones paying lower fees.

In any case, what this means is 5% will lose Apple money. 10% might only be a break even point (again, Epic reportedly loses money with a 12% fee). This means that Apple charging 15% to most developers and 30% to others, allows Apple to make money. Apple would likely have App Store profitability if everyone paid 15%, but profits would take a considerable hit.

Can Apple only charge a fee if it loses them money? Can Apple only break even? Is Apple only allowed a small margin? What is an appropriate margin for Apple?
 
Last edited:
So its ok for Target to post sign inside of Walmart stating their prices are lower?
This is not the right analogy, the right analogy is if I bought a video game at target (who facilitated the transaction and made it possible) and then target felt entitled to a portion of all future in game purchases and dlc purchase revenue.
 
Isn't this essentially a (forced) affiliate link? Not that strange for the linkee to compensate the linker.

The forced part is not so nice, and I was wondering how Apple would get around this. It'll make investors less unhappy about this EU thing for sure.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.