7 ms·

The next logical step is for Apple to demand a 30% cut of the revenue when you order physical goods on Amazon from your iPhone, or 30% of money you send to peop

The next logical step is for Apple to demand a 30% cut of the revenue when you order physical goods on Amazon from your iPhone, or 30% of money you send to people with Venmo. If you don't think those behaviors would be okay, how can you think this is okay?

jabbany 4y ago
Pretty sure there's a carve ot specifically for those. Ref: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#in-app-purchase https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#in-...
- shagie 4y ago
  There's also a carveout there specifically for NFTs > Apps may use in-app purchase to sell and sell services related to non-fungible tokens (NFTs), such as minting, listing, and transferring. Apps may allow users to view their own NFTs, provided that NFT ownership does not unlock features or functionality within the app. Apps may allow users to browse NFT collections owned by others, provided that the apps may not include buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than in-app purchase. (emphasis mine)
- josephcsible 4y ago
  There is for now. I'm saying I can see their next step being to remove that.
madrox 4y ago
Apple wants a 30% on fees, not the good itself. This is consistent with the rest of their policies. Arguably that still isn't ok, but this is not an encroachment.
- rdtwo 4y ago
  So 30% of the eBay fees and 30% off the Amazon marketplace fees should be fair game
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
    That doesn't seem to hold up. If I buy something on eBay it's not any different from, e.g., buying stock on Robin Hood. There is an agreement between two parties, neither of whom are the people distributing the app, to make an exchange of money to [the eBay item] or stocks. Apple does not claim a cut of the exchange of stocks, but they do claim a cut of the transaction fees for the exchange of stocks. If eBay or Amazon charged a transaction fee to facilitate their transactions, that would be an in-app purchase of which Apple would claim 30%.
    - rdtwo 4y ago
      But they do, all eBay transactions have a 5-15% fee and Amazon 3rd part is the same
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
        I see. In that case, I'd agree these fees should be fair game by the same logic. That does make me curious what's different here, if anything.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - awinder 4y ago
      “Apple does not claim a cut of the exchange of stocks, but they do claim a cut of the transaction fees for the exchange of stocks.” Are you sure / how? I’m not going to sign up for robinhood to confirm but my brokerage transacts with my bank, not in-app purchasing, pretty sure robinhood is the same. I’m pretty sure the differentiation is that stocks aren’t considered digital goods. And neither is coinbase’s mainline business which is allowed to facilitate buying & selling crypto without paying fees, even on their transaction fees, which users pay.
- ldoughty 4y ago
  should they get 30% of my Amazon Prime fee? If not.. Could Coinbase Wallet offer Coinbase Wallet Prime for. $100 that provides free transactions on qualifying orders? All these rules feel arbitrary to carve out as much money as they can from "lesser people" without upsetting the larger players that have a budget to afford a lawsuit.
  - halostatue 4y ago
    If your Amazon Prime fee were paid via in-app purchase, why not? The Coinbase thing is happening because it’s an all-digital purchase. There’s no physical benefit being transferred to the customer, as NFTs are wholly digital. Apple has been consistent about the fee being applied to all digital-only purchases, including for virtual yoga classes. One can argue whether 30% is still an appropriate amount (compared to 15 years ago, it’s still a steal where pre-iPhone App Store models would take 50–75% of the revenue), but people should stop arguing in bad faith on this.
- Dma54rhs 4y ago
  Next is profit fees and transaction fees form your banking app. Hey not salary, after all Apple is providing the platform for banks. Peasants can always ask their salary in cash ir build their own platform.
- makestuff 4y ago
  Robinhood gets paid for order flow should apple get 30% of that each time a trade is executed on the platform? Apple should also take a fee from all trading apps that charge a fee on options trades in this case.
  - foogazi 4y ago
    The 30% cut is only for digital goods sold in app That’s why Kindle doesn’t sell directly in the ios app Coinbase could do the same thing - sell it on the website
arcticbull 4y ago
App Store rules have never required a cut of physical transactions, only digital.
- tyingq 4y ago
  So, kindle books then?
  - shagie 4y ago
    Exactly kindle books. And audible books. And Netflix shows. Which is why none of those companies offer the ability to purchase them directly through an app that is on the App Store.
    - tyingq 4y ago
      Ah. It does sort of highlight why a simple policy like this gets silly, and isn't great for consumers.
  - matthewowen 4y ago
    Yes, which is why you can’t buy ebooks in either the Amazon app or the Kindle app. It’s not great.
    - foogazi 4y ago
      That’s Amazon’s choice because THEY also take a cut of the transaction on that book sale
      - fragmede 4y ago
        https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ and scroll to 3.1.3(a) It's not their choice, Amazon isn't allowed to by Apple's rules. A very careful reading of the rules for reader apps reveals you're not allowed to sell content on your reader app at all.
tacker2000 4y ago
Exactly, where does it stop? Will apple also take a cut when i buy public transport tickets or flight tickets? What about hotels or airbnb? This shit has to be stop now! Free up the app stores and see if the customers and app devs will be still willing to fork over these extortionate fees. And this security argument is just complete BS, a typical “Totschlagargument” that gets thrown around as needed.
- Y_Y 4y ago
  > Totschlagargument For others just learning this gorgeous word (literally "killing-blow argument") Wikipedia says: > A thought-terminating cliché (also known as a semantic stop-sign, a thought-stopper, bumper sticker logic, or cliché thinking) is a form of loaded language, often passing as folk wisdom, intended to end an argument and quell cognitive dissonance.
  - actionablefiber 4y ago
    I prefer "thought-stopper" better. I would say Totschlagargument sounds like it could just be a really compelling argument that leaves the other side speechless and "kills" the discussion with a victory; but the point is not that the argument is compelling but rather it tries to block substantive thought and discussion.
tshaddox 4y ago
I think it’s bizarre to say that’s “the next logical step” when in fact that things have all been explicitly addressed and exempted for the entire history of the App Store. It’s not as if Apple is slowly discovering new things they can take a cut from and they just haven’t discovered Amazon purchases yet.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  It's bizarre to call any of it logical when 15 years ago this wasn't a problem. The App Store is at the center of this, and if Apple refuses to cede power it will be a long winter for them.
  - matwood 4y ago
    What do you mean? 15 years ago other phone app stores charged insane fees if you could even get on the store. At the time, 30% was seen as a huge win for developers.
    - chrisco255 4y ago
      Imagine if a desktop environment had the same restrictions. Would you accept them?
      - tshaddox 4y ago
        I'd buy from a different company if the restrictions bothered me.
        chrisco255 4y ago
        Switching phones or OS or computer is not cheap or free for consumers. It's anticompetitive and should be flagged by the FTC. But they're toothless in the current era.
        tshaddox 4y ago
brookst 4y ago
That is the next “logical” step for people to claim without regard for whether it’s true or not. People will believe anything that confirms their biases.
make3 4y ago
30% of your bank with an app on interests on loans xD
influx 4y ago
You actually can't order Kindle books on any Amazon iOS App.
- halostatue 4y ago
  Because Amazon doesn’t want to give up the 30% IAP fee. Fair enough.
  - postalrat 4y ago
    Isn't that circumventing apples payment system and against their rules?
    - halostatue 4y ago
      No. They also cannot direct people to the Amazon website to buy the books, which would be against the rules. That’s likely to change with the recent changes and upcoming legislative requirements.
    - jacobr1 4y ago
      It isn't a circumvention - you can't buy the products in the app. If you try to go to the product page of a digital product it redirects you to a browser - but importantly you can't actually even see the product in the app so it isn't redirecting a _purchase_.

jabbany 4y ago

Pretty sure there's a carve ot specifically for those. Ref: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#in-app-purchase https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#in-...

shagie 4y ago
There's also a carveout there specifically for NFTs > Apps may use in-app purchase to sell and sell services related to non-fungible tokens (NFTs), such as minting, listing, and transferring. Apps may allow users to view their own NFTs, provided that NFT ownership does not unlock features or functionality within the app. Apps may allow users to browse NFT collections owned by others, provided that the apps may not include buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than in-app purchase. (emphasis mine)
josephcsible 4y ago
There is for now. I'm saying I can see their next step being to remove that.

madrox 4y ago

Apple wants a 30% on fees, not the good itself. This is consistent with the rest of their policies. Arguably that still isn't ok, but this is not an encroachment.

rdtwo 4y ago
So 30% of the eBay fees and 30% off the Amazon marketplace fees should be fair game
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
  That doesn't seem to hold up. If I buy something on eBay it's not any different from, e.g., buying stock on Robin Hood. There is an agreement between two parties, neither of whom are the people distributing the app, to make an exchange of money to [the eBay item] or stocks. Apple does not claim a cut of the exchange of stocks, but they do claim a cut of the transaction fees for the exchange of stocks. If eBay or Amazon charged a transaction fee to facilitate their transactions, that would be an in-app purchase of which Apple would claim 30%.
  - rdtwo 4y ago
    But they do, all eBay transactions have a 5-15% fee and Amazon 3rd part is the same
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
      I see. In that case, I'd agree these fees should be fair game by the same logic. That does make me curious what's different here, if anything.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - awinder 4y ago
    “Apple does not claim a cut of the exchange of stocks, but they do claim a cut of the transaction fees for the exchange of stocks.” Are you sure / how? I’m not going to sign up for robinhood to confirm but my brokerage transacts with my bank, not in-app purchasing, pretty sure robinhood is the same. I’m pretty sure the differentiation is that stocks aren’t considered digital goods. And neither is coinbase’s mainline business which is allowed to facilitate buying & selling crypto without paying fees, even on their transaction fees, which users pay.
ldoughty 4y ago
should they get 30% of my Amazon Prime fee? If not.. Could Coinbase Wallet offer Coinbase Wallet Prime for. $100 that provides free transactions on qualifying orders? All these rules feel arbitrary to carve out as much money as they can from "lesser people" without upsetting the larger players that have a budget to afford a lawsuit.
- halostatue 4y ago
  If your Amazon Prime fee were paid via in-app purchase, why not? The Coinbase thing is happening because it’s an all-digital purchase. There’s no physical benefit being transferred to the customer, as NFTs are wholly digital. Apple has been consistent about the fee being applied to all digital-only purchases, including for virtual yoga classes. One can argue whether 30% is still an appropriate amount (compared to 15 years ago, it’s still a steal where pre-iPhone App Store models would take 50–75% of the revenue), but people should stop arguing in bad faith on this.
Dma54rhs 4y ago
Next is profit fees and transaction fees form your banking app. Hey not salary, after all Apple is providing the platform for banks. Peasants can always ask their salary in cash ir build their own platform.
makestuff 4y ago
Robinhood gets paid for order flow should apple get 30% of that each time a trade is executed on the platform? Apple should also take a fee from all trading apps that charge a fee on options trades in this case.
- foogazi 4y ago
  The 30% cut is only for digital goods sold in app That’s why Kindle doesn’t sell directly in the ios app Coinbase could do the same thing - sell it on the website

arcticbull 4y ago

App Store rules have never required a cut of physical transactions, only digital.

tyingq 4y ago
So, kindle books then?
- shagie 4y ago
  Exactly kindle books. And audible books. And Netflix shows. Which is why none of those companies offer the ability to purchase them directly through an app that is on the App Store.
  - tyingq 4y ago
    Ah. It does sort of highlight why a simple policy like this gets silly, and isn't great for consumers.
- matthewowen 4y ago
  Yes, which is why you can’t buy ebooks in either the Amazon app or the Kindle app. It’s not great.
  - foogazi 4y ago
    That’s Amazon’s choice because THEY also take a cut of the transaction on that book sale
    - fragmede 4y ago
      https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ and scroll to 3.1.3(a) It's not their choice, Amazon isn't allowed to by Apple's rules. A very careful reading of the rules for reader apps reveals you're not allowed to sell content on your reader app at all.

tacker2000 4y ago

Exactly, where does it stop? Will apple also take a cut when i buy public transport tickets or flight tickets? What about hotels or airbnb? This shit has to be stop now! Free up the app stores and see if the customers and app devs will be still willing to fork over these extortionate fees. And this security argument is just complete BS, a typical “Totschlagargument” that gets thrown around as needed.

Y_Y 4y ago
> Totschlagargument For others just learning this gorgeous word (literally "killing-blow argument") Wikipedia says: > A thought-terminating cliché (also known as a semantic stop-sign, a thought-stopper, bumper sticker logic, or cliché thinking) is a form of loaded language, often passing as folk wisdom, intended to end an argument and quell cognitive dissonance.
- actionablefiber 4y ago
  I prefer "thought-stopper" better. I would say Totschlagargument sounds like it could just be a really compelling argument that leaves the other side speechless and "kills" the discussion with a victory; but the point is not that the argument is compelling but rather it tries to block substantive thought and discussion.

tshaddox 4y ago

I think it’s bizarre to say that’s “the next logical step” when in fact that things have all been explicitly addressed and exempted for the entire history of the App Store. It’s not as if Apple is slowly discovering new things they can take a cut from and they just haven’t discovered Amazon purchases yet.

smoldesu 4y ago
It's bizarre to call any of it logical when 15 years ago this wasn't a problem. The App Store is at the center of this, and if Apple refuses to cede power it will be a long winter for them.
- matwood 4y ago
  What do you mean? 15 years ago other phone app stores charged insane fees if you could even get on the store. At the time, 30% was seen as a huge win for developers.
  - chrisco255 4y ago
    Imagine if a desktop environment had the same restrictions. Would you accept them?
    - tshaddox 4y ago
      I'd buy from a different company if the restrictions bothered me.
      - chrisco255 4y ago
        Switching phones or OS or computer is not cheap or free for consumers. It's anticompetitive and should be flagged by the FTC. But they're toothless in the current era.
        tshaddox 4y ago

brookst 4y ago

That is the next “logical” step for people to claim without regard for whether it’s true or not. People will believe anything that confirms their biases.

make3 4y ago

30% of your bank with an app on interests on loans xD

influx 4y ago

You actually can't order Kindle books on any Amazon iOS App.

halostatue 4y ago
Because Amazon doesn’t want to give up the 30% IAP fee. Fair enough.
- postalrat 4y ago
  Isn't that circumventing apples payment system and against their rules?
  - halostatue 4y ago
    No. They also cannot direct people to the Amazon website to buy the books, which would be against the rules. That’s likely to change with the recent changes and upcoming legislative requirements.
  - jacobr1 4y ago
    It isn't a circumvention - you can't buy the products in the app. If you try to go to the product page of a digital product it redirects you to a browser - but importantly you can't actually even see the product in the app so it isn't redirecting a _purchase_.