4 ms·

I don't think you do. Stripe and PayPal are only payment processors. If Apple now has to allow other payment processors then they're either going to charge fees

I don't think you do. Stripe and PayPal are only payment processors. If Apple now has to allow other payment processors then they're either going to charge fees for hosting the files or they're going to charge fees for the other services that people are using (OTA updates, reviews, localization, etc.). All that stuff will still have to be in place so it'll just be an issue of whether or not these companies will have to stand up their own versions of this (or if they even can) and whether or not it'll be as seamless for the end user.

ethbr0 5y ago
Yes. And good. The more Apple and Google are forced to line item their charges for users, showing what each charge is for, the closer we get to a free market. The central evil of all of this has been the bundling of everything together, so that nothing can be independently valued. "30% is fair, in exchange for all the things we provide you", etc. Edit: As an example, in the US this is mandated for home mortgages. "These are services you can shop for" + "These are charges for each service". Any platform having to offer the equivalent of a Closing Disclosure / HUD-1 doesn't seem like such a bad world.
- Spivak 5y ago
  I mean you also assume that it will be line-item'd instead of "give us 30% of your revenue made through iOS" in the ToS to publish an app which has any paid features or content.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    At least then, we'd be honest that it's extortion.
- ChrisLomont 5y ago
  >The more Apple and Google are forced to line item their charges for users, showing what each charge is for, the closer we get to a free market. Historically line itemization makes it harder, not easier, for users to understand what they're being charged for. Compare Verizon versus Google fi statements, for example. The complexity hidden in all those fees confuses people, and let's Verizon (and others) claim monthly fees are X in ads, then listing that fee as X, then tacking on a lot of line items that make the actual payment much more. Be careful what you wish for.
colinmhayes 5y ago
I'm not sure apple is interested in destroying user experience to spite developers. IPhone will still make incredible amounts of money with lower app store margins because it's still the best product on the market. Pissing off users isn't how they built the best product.
- dpkonofa 5y ago
  They're not pissing off users. Users overwhelmingly approve of the App Store process that Apple has in place and developers overwhelmingly benefit from the value of the customers Apple provides them. It's not about the lower margins, it's about recouping the costs that Apple spends to provide the end-to-end experience that they do.
manquer 5y ago
Sure they can and should charge for all the other "services" they provide transparently. Many of those services not dependent on my DAU, or the kind of usage users have via IAP. This is none of Apple's business they don't need to provide me any services(if i don't use their payment) if my user uses 5 IAP transactions a day or one. As a developer I get to choose which model makes more sense for me and in turn pass on benefits of that to my user, right now there is no choice and this ruling allows only for that.
- hardolaf 5y ago
  Since Apple doesn't provide you any services, I guess you'll no longer be distributing your app updates through the App Store?
summerlight 5y ago
> If Apple now has to allow other payment processors then they're either going to charge fees for hosting the files or they're going to charge fees for the other services that people are using (OTA updates, reviews, localization, etc.) Why? Apple has been arguing that iPhone, iOS, Safari and App stores are so tightly integrated in that they are in fact an essentially indivisible single business. With this logic, all the revenue comes from iPhone/iPad hardware can subsidize operation costs for App store right?
- tshaddox 5y ago
  Why should revenue from iPhone hardware subsidize third-party iPhone app developers?
  - easton 5y ago
    Because Apple doesn't break out the money from the App Store from the rest of their software/services business, and iOS isn't free, it's licensed with the purchase of a iOS device. If money from every iPhone sold goes into the software/services budget, one could conclude there's enough money coming into that budget from device sales to pay for their CDN/developers/etc.
    - tshaddox 5y ago
      You answered why there might be enough money to subsidize developers. Apple has a lot of money, there's no question about that, but I was asking why they should subsidize developers (or why we should expect them to).
      - summerlight 5y ago
        I think you don't understand the answer. When customers buy iPhone, they already paid a plenty amount of money for accessing third party apps via App Store since it's so essential and inherently indivisible value from iOS and iPhone, in favor of Apple's argument. Apple may not be obligated to subsidize developers with direct cash, but to pay operational expenses for App Store since there is no alternatives. Otherwise, it would be a textbook example of abusing monopolistic power.

ethbr0 5y ago

Yes. And good. The more Apple and Google are forced to line item their charges for users, showing what each charge is for, the closer we get to a free market. The central evil of all of this has been the bundling of everything together, so that nothing can be independently valued. "30% is fair, in exchange for all the things we provide you", etc. Edit: As an example, in the US this is mandated for home mortgages. "These are services you can shop for" + "These are charges for each service". Any platform having to offer the equivalent of a Closing Disclosure / HUD-1 doesn't seem like such a bad world.

Spivak 5y ago
I mean you also assume that it will be line-item'd instead of "give us 30% of your revenue made through iOS" in the ToS to publish an app which has any paid features or content.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  At least then, we'd be honest that it's extortion.
ChrisLomont 5y ago
>The more Apple and Google are forced to line item their charges for users, showing what each charge is for, the closer we get to a free market. Historically line itemization makes it harder, not easier, for users to understand what they're being charged for. Compare Verizon versus Google fi statements, for example. The complexity hidden in all those fees confuses people, and let's Verizon (and others) claim monthly fees are X in ads, then listing that fee as X, then tacking on a lot of line items that make the actual payment much more. Be careful what you wish for.

colinmhayes 5y ago

I'm not sure apple is interested in destroying user experience to spite developers. IPhone will still make incredible amounts of money with lower app store margins because it's still the best product on the market. Pissing off users isn't how they built the best product.

dpkonofa 5y ago
They're not pissing off users. Users overwhelmingly approve of the App Store process that Apple has in place and developers overwhelmingly benefit from the value of the customers Apple provides them. It's not about the lower margins, it's about recouping the costs that Apple spends to provide the end-to-end experience that they do.

manquer 5y ago

Sure they can and should charge for all the other "services" they provide transparently. Many of those services not dependent on my DAU, or the kind of usage users have via IAP. This is none of Apple's business they don't need to provide me any services(if i don't use their payment) if my user uses 5 IAP transactions a day or one. As a developer I get to choose which model makes more sense for me and in turn pass on benefits of that to my user, right now there is no choice and this ruling allows only for that.

hardolaf 5y ago
Since Apple doesn't provide you any services, I guess you'll no longer be distributing your app updates through the App Store?

summerlight 5y ago

> If Apple now has to allow other payment processors then they're either going to charge fees for hosting the files or they're going to charge fees for the other services that people are using (OTA updates, reviews, localization, etc.) Why? Apple has been arguing that iPhone, iOS, Safari and App stores are so tightly integrated in that they are in fact an essentially indivisible single business. With this logic, all the revenue comes from iPhone/iPad hardware can subsidize operation costs for App store right?

tshaddox 5y ago
Why should revenue from iPhone hardware subsidize third-party iPhone app developers?
- easton 5y ago
  Because Apple doesn't break out the money from the App Store from the rest of their software/services business, and iOS isn't free, it's licensed with the purchase of a iOS device. If money from every iPhone sold goes into the software/services budget, one could conclude there's enough money coming into that budget from device sales to pay for their CDN/developers/etc.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    You answered why there might be enough money to subsidize developers. Apple has a lot of money, there's no question about that, but I was asking why they should subsidize developers (or why we should expect them to).
    - summerlight 5y ago
      I think you don't understand the answer. When customers buy iPhone, they already paid a plenty amount of money for accessing third party apps via App Store since it's so essential and inherently indivisible value from iOS and iPhone, in favor of Apple's argument. Apple may not be obligated to subsidize developers with direct cash, but to pay operational expenses for App Store since there is no alternatives. Otherwise, it would be a textbook example of abusing monopolistic power.