6 ms·

> how far will they take it Apple's been consistent: digital goods and services. The debate with Facebook reported in WSJ back in August (https://www.wsj.com

> how far will they take it Apple's been consistent: digital goods and services. The debate with Facebook reported in WSJ back in August (https://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-the-apple-vs-facebook-privacy-fight-11660317376 https://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-the-apple-vs-facebook-pr...) Apple was saying "boosts" are a service to raise the profile of your dating profile or media posts, while FB was saying they were ads to avoid paying for them. All other apps (TikTok and the dating apps) consider it a service, only FB/Insta were playing this game. This clarification shouldn't have been necessary, FB was playing a game, and Apple closed the loophole. > unbelievably high It's not unbelievably high, go have a look at what any platform charges. Also, remember the rate drops in year two, and for those making less than a threshold, etc. etc., so it's not 30%, it's considerably less overall. They'll take it as far as necessary to to make the same off providing app store services any platform makes for distribution, such as Steam makes off providing Steam. The problem with IAP is that at 0% for the app itself, Apple cannot offset the costs of the platform they are providing for distribution. So if they take their cut off app sales, then apps give themselves away for free, and charge the price as an IAP, Apple's stuck. They have no choice but to take it off IAP.

robertlagrant 4y ago
> Apple's been consistent: digital goods and services. Transferring money between banks accounts via an app seems like a digital service. How is it not?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Kerrick 4y ago
  Transferring money between bank accounts is not a service you pay for.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    You make a good point.
  - Rebelgecko 4y ago
    My bank charges for wire transfers, I think that's pretty standard in the US. Or feel free to stub in an example from a brokerage app, eg selling shares of a mutual fund that charges an early redemption fee.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Terretta 4y ago
  As noted in the reporting, Apple does not take a % for services that happen entirely outside of the app. Instructing your bank to wire money to another bank, you use the app to communicate to your bank for free, then the service is entirely between non digital entities entirely outside of the app and outside of the app's backend. This distribution fee, the writer of the post and the reader of the post it got distributed to are both in the app. . . . > Transferring money between banks accounts via an app seems like a digital service. How is it not? My prior job, I spent a billion dollars working to make that digital. If you look around, you'll see that across the entire banking system it's still almost entirely not. Even when it is end-to-end electronic, it doesn't at all happen "in the app". The app is a glorified front-office teller and tellers don't charge you a fee. The money movement service happens in the back office, and may have a fee.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    > Even when it is end-to-end electronic, it doesn't at all happen "in the app". This delineation still seems unclear. I might write something in an app, and someone else read it in the same app, but it doesn't all happen in the app either. There's a backend, and the app is a glorified typist.
markdown 4y ago
Does your bank take 30% of your money every time you transfer it between accounts? > It's not unbelievably high Stockholm syndrome?
- parkingrift 4y ago
  I think it’s high, but it’s also industry standard. Steam is pretty beloved in PC gaming, and they take 30%. Microsoft and Sony take an equivalent percent for any game to run on their respective consoles. Google takes 30% from the Play Store for anything over $1M. There is some nuance and discounts for all these platforms depending on volume but the economics are mostly the same. 30% goes to the platform. We should all be scratching our heads and wondering how the entire industry seems to have coalesced around 30% or how competition isn’t driving it down at all. Hmmm.
  - JKCalhoun 4y ago
    85% used to be the industry standard when it was book publishers or floppies. I would love to see competition on that 30% rate … but there’s a reason we have phrases like “industry standard”.
  - SXX 4y ago
    Competition does driving it down on PC where competition exist. Steam now takes 25% for revenue after first $10,000,000 and 20% after $50,000,000.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > Steam is pretty beloved in PC gaming, and they take 30%. > 30% goes to the platform. The platform is Windows, not Steam. (Or arguably the platform is Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc., but in any case not Steam.) You don't need to be on Steam to be on PC. The issue isn't the App Store cut per se, the issue is having to be in the App Store to be on the iPhone. You never had to do that on Windows or Mac.
    - parkingrift 4y ago
      >The platform is Windows, not Steam. When it's the only distribution channel, I disagree. It's a pedantic point, either way. >The issue isn't the App Store cut per se, the issue is having to be in the App Store to be on the iPhone. You never had to do that on Windows or Mac. ...but you do have to do it with Xbox, Playstation, and Switch. You technically don't have to do it on Android, but only technically. In reality you have to be in the Play Store for market reasons. Truly the only exception here is desktop operating systems.
fassssst 4y ago
So it’s a 30% tax on the digital economy? The first iPhone didn’t even have an App Store, it can be a viable business without all this.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  No, it is a 30% price for using their service. The digital economy is not completely owned by Apple. I get that the article called it a tax, but Apple isn't a state, they respond to market pressures, if people don't like it they can do business elsewhere.
  - concinds 4y ago
    That's what Apple's lawyers argue. The 30% is to pay for Xcode and the APIs. It's BS; Apple's providing an iPhone SDK willingly in order to make the iPhone a viable product. The argument completely falls apart when you consider that Windows devs don't need to pay Microsoft a per-unit sale tax, beyond paying for Visual Studio Enterprise licenses (which are completely optional; there's many other IDEs). Microsoft charging devs for Windows APIs would be nonsensical. Running the App Store is just a cost of doing business. Again, nobody forced Apple to. It benefits them tremendously, and benefits users as well. Why gouge devs?
    - bee_rider 4y ago
      I don't buy the argument really that it is "to pay for" Xcode. It is just another revenue stream and they charge what they can get. Microsoft would charge for their product if people were willing to pay for it.
      - concinds 4y ago
        Sure. The Xcode argument is Apple's.
      - randomdata 4y ago
        > It is just another revenue stream No different than the iPhone itself. Apple has already paid for the iPhone out of their coffers before you buy it. Your purchase is nothing more than another source of revenue that replenishes those coffers. It is just a colloquialism to say that the money you spent was to pay for the iPhone, as it is for Xcode in this case.
Zerverus 4y ago
So consistent it took 14 years for them to extend it to ads boosts that existed this long on the platform.
lapcat 4y ago
> Apple cannot offset the costs of the platform they are providing for distribution. Well, there's the $40 billion in iPhone hardware sales last quarter...
Quarrelsome 4y ago
the consistent part about Apple is that they always exploit their leverage to the hilt in pretty much any B2B or B2C relationship they have. Absolutely monstrous IMHO and I have no idea how they appear to avoid half the flak M$ got for being just like this in the 90s.
concinds 4y ago
> This clarification shouldn't have been necessary, FB was playing a game, and Apple closed the loophole. That's objectively untrue. This is a new rule, and as The Verge correctly says, "it’s the first time Apple has directly taxed advertising in iOS apps". Facebook's app was charging advertisers directly for years, without IAP, and Apple approved it. They simply never had an issue with it. Now, they're forcing FB to comply with a brand new rule. The notion that Facebook was exploiting a loophole is outright Apple PR-speak. Apple was forced to frame is as a brand new policy, otherwise they'd face scrutiny for letting Facebook supposedly "evade" the previous rules. And that WSJ article documents a disturbing trend of Apple trying to use their leverage to destroy Facebook. Hurting Facebook ads, and then actively pressuring Facebook to switch to a subscription model that Apple would take 30% from, is very dodgy.
- piyush_soni 4y ago
  I've bought "digital gold" quite a few times from apps (in India). So they could demand 30% out of that as well? Apple's greed is now getting to ridiculous levels.
  - Terretta 4y ago
    Again, 30% is market rate across the board. You can find analysis on what a quality marketplace trusted by users costs, it's much more than people think. And the benefit to an app of being in a trusted market is high. In the US, public companies have a fiduciary obligation to shareholders to earn. It's unclear to me why Apple should keep money out of the pockets of teachers and firemen invested in them through pension funds, just to charge below market rates for the most trusted marketplace where devs make (by far) the most money.
- Terretta 4y ago
  > at's objectively untrue. This is a new rule, and as The Verge correctly says, "it’s the first time Apple has directly taxed advertising in iOS apps". Whole point is that is not objective, it's subjective, and FB is in the minority for considering it true. It's bad reporting by Verge to report it so, but good for their clicks and controversy. There's no story otherwise. The Verge sentence is the untrue statement, if the position is that a user boosting the user's reach is a service, not an ad. It never occurred to me that tapping to give my post more visibility was an ad, but rather distribution or shelf space. Goods in a grocery store, brands can pay for shelf space. If you see one mayo placed at eye level, vs. one by the floor, is that an ad? I'd argue it is not. The thing in the TV or magazine or back of your receipt is an ad. Similarly the "pay for play" radio payola scandal was not considered ads, it was considered unfair/deceptive/monopolistic, but not ads. Apple is doing none of the things Verge tossed out as clickbait, or you allege as bad faith. After pressing FB to behave, for a while, they eventually closed a loophole. This happens in business contracts routinely. This is why almost all legalese is a Chesterton's Fence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_fence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_...
ouid 4y ago
>It's not unbelievably high, go have a look at what any platform charges. That's because they are all monopoloies and that's the monopoly rate. I would gladly host a competing app store to apple or steam where I took less than a 30% cut. In fact, I would do it at cost. So what's preventing me? Don't you dare say that apple doesn't have a monopoly here.

robertlagrant 4y ago

> Apple's been consistent: digital goods and services. Transferring money between banks accounts via an app seems like a digital service. How is it not?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Kerrick 4y ago
Transferring money between bank accounts is not a service you pay for.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  You make a good point.
- Rebelgecko 4y ago
  My bank charges for wire transfers, I think that's pretty standard in the US. Or feel free to stub in an example from a brokerage app, eg selling shares of a mutual fund that charges an early redemption fee.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Terretta 4y ago
As noted in the reporting, Apple does not take a % for services that happen entirely outside of the app. Instructing your bank to wire money to another bank, you use the app to communicate to your bank for free, then the service is entirely between non digital entities entirely outside of the app and outside of the app's backend. This distribution fee, the writer of the post and the reader of the post it got distributed to are both in the app. . . . > Transferring money between banks accounts via an app seems like a digital service. How is it not? My prior job, I spent a billion dollars working to make that digital. If you look around, you'll see that across the entire banking system it's still almost entirely not. Even when it is end-to-end electronic, it doesn't at all happen "in the app". The app is a glorified front-office teller and tellers don't charge you a fee. The money movement service happens in the back office, and may have a fee.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  > Even when it is end-to-end electronic, it doesn't at all happen "in the app". This delineation still seems unclear. I might write something in an app, and someone else read it in the same app, but it doesn't all happen in the app either. There's a backend, and the app is a glorified typist.

markdown 4y ago

Does your bank take 30% of your money every time you transfer it between accounts? > It's not unbelievably high Stockholm syndrome?

parkingrift 4y ago
I think it’s high, but it’s also industry standard. Steam is pretty beloved in PC gaming, and they take 30%. Microsoft and Sony take an equivalent percent for any game to run on their respective consoles. Google takes 30% from the Play Store for anything over $1M. There is some nuance and discounts for all these platforms depending on volume but the economics are mostly the same. 30% goes to the platform. We should all be scratching our heads and wondering how the entire industry seems to have coalesced around 30% or how competition isn’t driving it down at all. Hmmm.
- JKCalhoun 4y ago
  85% used to be the industry standard when it was book publishers or floppies. I would love to see competition on that 30% rate … but there’s a reason we have phrases like “industry standard”.
- SXX 4y ago
  Competition does driving it down on PC where competition exist. Steam now takes 25% for revenue after first $10,000,000 and 20% after $50,000,000.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > Steam is pretty beloved in PC gaming, and they take 30%. > 30% goes to the platform. The platform is Windows, not Steam. (Or arguably the platform is Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc., but in any case not Steam.) You don't need to be on Steam to be on PC. The issue isn't the App Store cut per se, the issue is having to be in the App Store to be on the iPhone. You never had to do that on Windows or Mac.
  - parkingrift 4y ago
    >The platform is Windows, not Steam. When it's the only distribution channel, I disagree. It's a pedantic point, either way. >The issue isn't the App Store cut per se, the issue is having to be in the App Store to be on the iPhone. You never had to do that on Windows or Mac. ...but you do have to do it with Xbox, Playstation, and Switch. You technically don't have to do it on Android, but only technically. In reality you have to be in the Play Store for market reasons. Truly the only exception here is desktop operating systems.

fassssst 4y ago

So it’s a 30% tax on the digital economy? The first iPhone didn’t even have an App Store, it can be a viable business without all this.

bee_rider 4y ago
No, it is a 30% price for using their service. The digital economy is not completely owned by Apple. I get that the article called it a tax, but Apple isn't a state, they respond to market pressures, if people don't like it they can do business elsewhere.
- concinds 4y ago
  That's what Apple's lawyers argue. The 30% is to pay for Xcode and the APIs. It's BS; Apple's providing an iPhone SDK willingly in order to make the iPhone a viable product. The argument completely falls apart when you consider that Windows devs don't need to pay Microsoft a per-unit sale tax, beyond paying for Visual Studio Enterprise licenses (which are completely optional; there's many other IDEs). Microsoft charging devs for Windows APIs would be nonsensical. Running the App Store is just a cost of doing business. Again, nobody forced Apple to. It benefits them tremendously, and benefits users as well. Why gouge devs?
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    I don't buy the argument really that it is "to pay for" Xcode. It is just another revenue stream and they charge what they can get. Microsoft would charge for their product if people were willing to pay for it.
    - concinds 4y ago
      Sure. The Xcode argument is Apple's.
    - randomdata 4y ago
      > It is just another revenue stream No different than the iPhone itself. Apple has already paid for the iPhone out of their coffers before you buy it. Your purchase is nothing more than another source of revenue that replenishes those coffers. It is just a colloquialism to say that the money you spent was to pay for the iPhone, as it is for Xcode in this case.

Zerverus 4y ago

So consistent it took 14 years for them to extend it to ads boosts that existed this long on the platform.

lapcat 4y ago

> Apple cannot offset the costs of the platform they are providing for distribution. Well, there's the $40 billion in iPhone hardware sales last quarter...

Quarrelsome 4y ago

the consistent part about Apple is that they always exploit their leverage to the hilt in pretty much any B2B or B2C relationship they have. Absolutely monstrous IMHO and I have no idea how they appear to avoid half the flak M$ got for being just like this in the 90s.

concinds 4y ago

> This clarification shouldn't have been necessary, FB was playing a game, and Apple closed the loophole. That's objectively untrue. This is a new rule, and as The Verge correctly says, "it’s the first time Apple has directly taxed advertising in iOS apps". Facebook's app was charging advertisers directly for years, without IAP, and Apple approved it. They simply never had an issue with it. Now, they're forcing FB to comply with a brand new rule. The notion that Facebook was exploiting a loophole is outright Apple PR-speak. Apple was forced to frame is as a brand new policy, otherwise they'd face scrutiny for letting Facebook supposedly "evade" the previous rules. And that WSJ article documents a disturbing trend of Apple trying to use their leverage to destroy Facebook. Hurting Facebook ads, and then actively pressuring Facebook to switch to a subscription model that Apple would take 30% from, is very dodgy.

piyush_soni 4y ago
I've bought "digital gold" quite a few times from apps (in India). So they could demand 30% out of that as well? Apple's greed is now getting to ridiculous levels.
- Terretta 4y ago
  Again, 30% is market rate across the board. You can find analysis on what a quality marketplace trusted by users costs, it's much more than people think. And the benefit to an app of being in a trusted market is high. In the US, public companies have a fiduciary obligation to shareholders to earn. It's unclear to me why Apple should keep money out of the pockets of teachers and firemen invested in them through pension funds, just to charge below market rates for the most trusted marketplace where devs make (by far) the most money.
Terretta 4y ago
> at's objectively untrue. This is a new rule, and as The Verge correctly says, "it’s the first time Apple has directly taxed advertising in iOS apps". Whole point is that is not objective, it's subjective, and FB is in the minority for considering it true. It's bad reporting by Verge to report it so, but good for their clicks and controversy. There's no story otherwise. The Verge sentence is the untrue statement, if the position is that a user boosting the user's reach is a service, not an ad. It never occurred to me that tapping to give my post more visibility was an ad, but rather distribution or shelf space. Goods in a grocery store, brands can pay for shelf space. If you see one mayo placed at eye level, vs. one by the floor, is that an ad? I'd argue it is not. The thing in the TV or magazine or back of your receipt is an ad. Similarly the "pay for play" radio payola scandal was not considered ads, it was considered unfair/deceptive/monopolistic, but not ads. Apple is doing none of the things Verge tossed out as clickbait, or you allege as bad faith. After pressing FB to behave, for a while, they eventually closed a loophole. This happens in business contracts routinely. This is why almost all legalese is a Chesterton's Fence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_fence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_...

ouid 4y ago

>It's not unbelievably high, go have a look at what any platform charges. That's because they are all monopoloies and that's the monopoly rate. I would gladly host a competing app store to apple or steam where I took less than a 30% cut. In fact, I would do it at cost. So what's preventing me? Don't you dare say that apple doesn't have a monopoly here.