6 ms·

Apple... what the heck is wrong with you? This is not the time to be strengthening the rules. You've got the Digital Markets Act already entering force in Euro

Apple... what the heck is wrong with you? This is not the time to be strengthening the rules. You've got the Digital Markets Act already entering force in Europe which is going to most likely break App Store dominance over there in just a year or two. The US has senators eyeing the Open App Markets Act again after Elon's threat (and if it doesn't pass now, when senators see an open Europe and a closed US, what about then?). You've got antitrust investigations opened in the UK. This is time to be giving concessions hoping to keep power - not doubling down! Edit: If Apple's claims about it being "privacy and security" are true, here's how to keep power. Drop the 30% cut, make a $25-$50 fee every time a new version comes out for a quality app review from a 3rd party independent board, drop some of the more onerous restrictions, and maybe then regulators would be willing to allow the App Store to remain. Instead...

cocacola1 4y ago
I wonder if they think the hammer is going to fall either way? If so, it makes sense they’ll take while the takings good.
- thatguy0900 4y ago
  But they can't even take here. Obviously coin base can't give them 30% revenue even if they were willing to. That would be like asking for a 30% cut for deposits from the bank apps. This just seems like spite for the new rules.
  - nick238 4y ago
    I don't think in banking apps you're purchasing anything while using the app (in-app purchases). If you buy an NFT in an app, you are purchasing it in the app, no?
    - thatguy0900 4y ago
      No, you're purchasing it but it's not in the app. And you can absolutely pay bills in a lot of banking apps, or even use zelle to buy things in a store. The whole point of the nft is that you can trade it outside of the app. If I buy a physical limited edition poster on etsy does Apple get 30% of that sale?
      - shagie 4y ago
        > 3.1.3(e) Goods and Services Outside of the App: If your app enables people to purchase physical goods or services that will be consumed outside of the app, you must use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect those payments, such as Apple Pay or traditional credit card entry. https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#goods-and-services-outside-of-the-app https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#goo... It isn't an in app purchase. It doesn't pay a cut to Apple.
      - xkqd 4y ago
        Yeah. Does this apply to forex fees I incur via my banks?
  - brookst 4y ago
    Coinbase PR got you. Apple is asking for 30% of fees charged, not amounts exchanged. It’s like if a bank app charged you $1 to deposit $100; Apple would want $0.30, not $30. Still debatable and I’ve got no sympathy for Apple, but this kind of OMG they want to take 30% of all cash flows response is exactly the misleading PR people are trying to gin up. EDIT: here is what Coinbase themselves say: Apple’s claim is that the gas fees required to send NFTs need to be paid through their In-App Purchase system
    - baq 4y ago
      Should they also take 30% of exchange fees in your Fidelity app?
      - nickthegreek 4y ago
        there is no digital good in this scenario.
    - jakelazaroff 4y ago
      Coinbase isn't actually taking any cut of the transaction. The gas fee goes directly to the blockchain network itself. That fee varies depending on the total number of transactions, so as far as I understand it's actually not possible to have it go through Apple's in-app purchase system. I'm not supporting Coinbase here, though, and I wouldn't be mad if this policy were actually just a tacit way to ban cryptocurrency transactions in the App Store. But your analogy doesn't fit.
      - deadbunny 4y ago
        Coinbase absolutely take fees that are unrelated to network fees. When you buy $COIN from Coinbase you don't touch the network at all they just note in their database that you bought 0.5 of $COIN for $10 total, $2 which was their fee. It doesn't hit the network till you withdraw it. This is the fee Apple is talking about.
        jakelazaroff 4y ago
sam0x17 4y ago
I completely agree, but the real problem here is they are dependent on, nay, addicted to the revenue they get from that 30% cut. Only way to fix this is regulation and I believe that Apple's quarter-based short-sightedness will essentially ensure that they keep pushing until they get regulated. If someone's OKR is based on quarterly revenue from App store, they aren't going to care until regulation is literally at their doorstep. That's next quarter, not this quarter. Next quarter that person could retire or quit.
- Y_Y 4y ago
  Dependent? From over here it just seems like they're Walter White with such a huge pile of cash that life itself becomes meaningless.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    I think App Store revenue is pretty close to hardware revenue at this point, which is absolutely mind-boggling once you consider the volume/margins of the iPhone. 80-odd billion dollars of Developer Program subscriptions and 30% cuts, what a racket.
    - sharkjacobs 4y ago
      > App Store revenue is pretty close to hardware revenue at this point, Fiscal 2022 Services revenue is 77 million and iPhone revenue is 220 million, so it's not there yet, but it's beating iPad (29 million) and Mac (40 million) combined which is nothing to sneeze at. I don't think that Apple discloses App Store revenue separate from Services revenue https://sixcolors.com/post/2022/11/apples-fiscal-2022-in-charts/ https://sixcolors.com/post/2022/11/apples-fiscal-2022-in-cha...
      - EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago
        Hmm, I thought it's traditional media feature to confuse millions with billions, didn't expect that on HN.
      - deleted 4y ago
__derek__ 4y ago
This seems like a consistent application of existing in-app purchase rules: purchasing a digital good to enjoy within the app requires IAP support for everyone else, so why not Coinbase? It's not clear (to me) that Apple is doubling down or strengthening the rules here. If anything, I suspect that Coinbase intentionally violated the rules with this update so that it can sign on with Epic and Twitter in the fight against Apple.
- CharlesW 4y ago
  > This seems like a consistent application of existing in-app purchase rules… Exactly, the dumb/risky thing to do would be to make a special exception for Coinbase. This is no different from a consumer buying Robux to spend on a 3rd-party game.
  - pcthrowaway 4y ago
    This would only be comparable if Coinbase sold BaseBux through the app or something, which gave access to features within the app. This is more like your stock broker app letting you buy a stock, although "cryptocurrencies aren't securities, they're speculative assets". So maybe more like buying art via an app.
  - baq 4y ago
    If crypt ever gets treated as securities, you’ll see Apple backing off the same minute.
- shagie 4y ago
  (I haven't gone trawling through captures) but its been there for at least a month. https://web.archive.org/web/20221030193939/https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://web.archive.org/web/20221030193939/https://developer... (search for NFT in the page).
- Y_Y 4y ago
  What if I buy AAPL in my trading app or USD with my forex broker? I bet they're not taking 30% on that.
bilekas 4y ago
As much as I believe companies can decide for themselves whatever they want to do within the law, this seems incredibly stupid. They're pushing the limits of their customer base, even the Apple fanatics.. I can't fathom why this decision was made.
acomjean 4y ago
There is nothing wrong with them. They're maximizing profits. They will get away with it, they are so big. (The biggest?) People will still support them, as long they can have the fastest phones/laptops. I started on a mac clone in the mid 90s (they almost went under), but I finally moved away last year, though I still have an iphone. The Linux desktop works great for developing. Its a societal and network effect problem. This isn't new. We've been warned. We've chosen to ignore.
Despegar 4y ago
Neither the Open Markets Act or the Digital Markets Act will do anything about Apple's commission. You can have alternative app stores, sideloading, whatever. It doesn't change anything about using Apple's intellectual property and having to pay for it. All it will do is make the products worse for users. But developers aren't going to get the outcome they want, which is to ride the rails for free.
- gjsman-1000 4y ago
  Right - but those pushing for external app stores assume it will work that way. Instead... Apple's probably going to make some forms and demand manual reporting and commission payments. However, it would be so contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of the law that I expect any such attempts would quickly gain antitrust scrutiny and new legislation declaring that APIs and software included in a device may only be monetized at point-of-sale (with the exception of subscription plans marketed toward consumers). It is possible that a court would even see it as such a violation of the law's intended effect that they would step in.
  - Despegar 4y ago
    No government is going to expropriate Apple's intellectual property just to move some money from Apple to developers. It also wouldn't get passed courts.
    - EMIRELADERO 4y ago
      The whole point of the DMA EU regulations is that one should be able to make and distribute an iOS app without entering into a contractual relationship with Apple at all
- EMIRELADERO 4y ago
  How is me making an app that makes API calls to iOS an "use of Apple's intellectual property"? I'm not distributing any IP besides my own, all I'm doing is telling the API to execute in a certain way inside the hardware the user already posseses. A good analogy would be me making a new control panel for a mechanical machine, where the panel has metal arms and rods that connect to the machine's original mechanisms to bring about a certain result that the machine itself would be incapable of bringing on its own. You wouldn't say I can't distribute that new panel I made because the original machine is patented, right?
hesdeadjim 4y ago
It would be the silliest legal move to make any concessions until forced to by a court. If they indicate that they don't need that full 30% in enough different contexts, it will lend credence to a larger argument against 30% at all. Disagree with it or not, were I Apple Legal, I would never in a million years allow a concession without a fight.
- midjji 4y ago
  Microsoft is preemptively cooperating, and will likely not be forced to create a separate OS for the eu. Apple will be forced to create a EU specific one, one which not just lets people install other Appstore's, but which will ask the user if they want the google Appstore or a free one, or the apple one, the first time you start it. Knowing when to lose is quite valuable. Microsoft learned that the hard way last time.
chrismarlow9 4y ago
Apple is about 6.5% of holdings in SPY. It's economic suicide to hit them hard and they know it. Especially with impending recession and a heavy bear year.
warcher 4y ago
I mean, just make it 30%, or whatever, of stuff that uses their in-built app store payment. If you don't want to use their payment infra, you don't pay and you make whatever arrangements with the user both parties agree to. It forces them to justify their cut other as more than just rent-seeking. Netflix doesn't need any help getting a CC number. Or delivering apps, frankly. Apple inserts themselves as a middleman in that capacity for their benefit and theirs alone.
midjji 4y ago
At this point apple is just in denial. The eu alone will force them to make every user pick the default appstore on first install from alternatives including both something free and google, and probably samsung, and force them to provide easy to use api for everyone else. Its hilarious to see the difference between apple, google and microsofts reactions. Two of them went we will fight tooth and nail, microsoft who tried that last time instantly went we are dropping the fees instantly, unless you want more? and will work with regulators to make open access ...

cocacola1 4y ago

I wonder if they think the hammer is going to fall either way? If so, it makes sense they’ll take while the takings good.

thatguy0900 4y ago
But they can't even take here. Obviously coin base can't give them 30% revenue even if they were willing to. That would be like asking for a 30% cut for deposits from the bank apps. This just seems like spite for the new rules.
- nick238 4y ago
  I don't think in banking apps you're purchasing anything while using the app (in-app purchases). If you buy an NFT in an app, you are purchasing it in the app, no?
  - thatguy0900 4y ago
    No, you're purchasing it but it's not in the app. And you can absolutely pay bills in a lot of banking apps, or even use zelle to buy things in a store. The whole point of the nft is that you can trade it outside of the app. If I buy a physical limited edition poster on etsy does Apple get 30% of that sale?
    - shagie 4y ago
      > 3.1.3(e) Goods and Services Outside of the App: If your app enables people to purchase physical goods or services that will be consumed outside of the app, you must use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect those payments, such as Apple Pay or traditional credit card entry. https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#goods-and-services-outside-of-the-app https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#goo... It isn't an in app purchase. It doesn't pay a cut to Apple.
    - xkqd 4y ago
      Yeah. Does this apply to forex fees I incur via my banks?
- brookst 4y ago
  Coinbase PR got you. Apple is asking for 30% of fees charged, not amounts exchanged. It’s like if a bank app charged you $1 to deposit $100; Apple would want $0.30, not $30. Still debatable and I’ve got no sympathy for Apple, but this kind of OMG they want to take 30% of all cash flows response is exactly the misleading PR people are trying to gin up. EDIT: here is what Coinbase themselves say: Apple’s claim is that the gas fees required to send NFTs need to be paid through their In-App Purchase system
  - baq 4y ago
    Should they also take 30% of exchange fees in your Fidelity app?
    - nickthegreek 4y ago
      there is no digital good in this scenario.
  - jakelazaroff 4y ago
    Coinbase isn't actually taking any cut of the transaction. The gas fee goes directly to the blockchain network itself. That fee varies depending on the total number of transactions, so as far as I understand it's actually not possible to have it go through Apple's in-app purchase system. I'm not supporting Coinbase here, though, and I wouldn't be mad if this policy were actually just a tacit way to ban cryptocurrency transactions in the App Store. But your analogy doesn't fit.
    - deadbunny 4y ago
      Coinbase absolutely take fees that are unrelated to network fees. When you buy $COIN from Coinbase you don't touch the network at all they just note in their database that you bought 0.5 of $COIN for $10 total, $2 which was their fee. It doesn't hit the network till you withdraw it. This is the fee Apple is talking about.
      - jakelazaroff 4y ago

sam0x17 4y ago

I completely agree, but the real problem here is they are dependent on, nay, addicted to the revenue they get from that 30% cut. Only way to fix this is regulation and I believe that Apple's quarter-based short-sightedness will essentially ensure that they keep pushing until they get regulated. If someone's OKR is based on quarterly revenue from App store, they aren't going to care until regulation is literally at their doorstep. That's next quarter, not this quarter. Next quarter that person could retire or quit.

Y_Y 4y ago
Dependent? From over here it just seems like they're Walter White with such a huge pile of cash that life itself becomes meaningless.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  I think App Store revenue is pretty close to hardware revenue at this point, which is absolutely mind-boggling once you consider the volume/margins of the iPhone. 80-odd billion dollars of Developer Program subscriptions and 30% cuts, what a racket.
  - sharkjacobs 4y ago
    > App Store revenue is pretty close to hardware revenue at this point, Fiscal 2022 Services revenue is 77 million and iPhone revenue is 220 million, so it's not there yet, but it's beating iPad (29 million) and Mac (40 million) combined which is nothing to sneeze at. I don't think that Apple discloses App Store revenue separate from Services revenue https://sixcolors.com/post/2022/11/apples-fiscal-2022-in-charts/ https://sixcolors.com/post/2022/11/apples-fiscal-2022-in-cha...
    - EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago
      Hmm, I thought it's traditional media feature to confuse millions with billions, didn't expect that on HN.
    - deleted 4y ago

__derek__ 4y ago

This seems like a consistent application of existing in-app purchase rules: purchasing a digital good to enjoy within the app requires IAP support for everyone else, so why not Coinbase? It's not clear (to me) that Apple is doubling down or strengthening the rules here. If anything, I suspect that Coinbase intentionally violated the rules with this update so that it can sign on with Epic and Twitter in the fight against Apple.

CharlesW 4y ago
> This seems like a consistent application of existing in-app purchase rules… Exactly, the dumb/risky thing to do would be to make a special exception for Coinbase. This is no different from a consumer buying Robux to spend on a 3rd-party game.
- pcthrowaway 4y ago
  This would only be comparable if Coinbase sold BaseBux through the app or something, which gave access to features within the app. This is more like your stock broker app letting you buy a stock, although "cryptocurrencies aren't securities, they're speculative assets". So maybe more like buying art via an app.
- baq 4y ago
  If crypt ever gets treated as securities, you’ll see Apple backing off the same minute.
shagie 4y ago
(I haven't gone trawling through captures) but its been there for at least a month. https://web.archive.org/web/20221030193939/https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://web.archive.org/web/20221030193939/https://developer... (search for NFT in the page).
Y_Y 4y ago
What if I buy AAPL in my trading app or USD with my forex broker? I bet they're not taking 30% on that.

bilekas 4y ago

As much as I believe companies can decide for themselves whatever they want to do within the law, this seems incredibly stupid. They're pushing the limits of their customer base, even the Apple fanatics.. I can't fathom why this decision was made.

acomjean 4y ago

There is nothing wrong with them. They're maximizing profits. They will get away with it, they are so big. (The biggest?) People will still support them, as long they can have the fastest phones/laptops. I started on a mac clone in the mid 90s (they almost went under), but I finally moved away last year, though I still have an iphone. The Linux desktop works great for developing. Its a societal and network effect problem. This isn't new. We've been warned. We've chosen to ignore.

Despegar 4y ago

Neither the Open Markets Act or the Digital Markets Act will do anything about Apple's commission. You can have alternative app stores, sideloading, whatever. It doesn't change anything about using Apple's intellectual property and having to pay for it. All it will do is make the products worse for users. But developers aren't going to get the outcome they want, which is to ride the rails for free.

gjsman-1000 4y ago
Right - but those pushing for external app stores assume it will work that way. Instead... Apple's probably going to make some forms and demand manual reporting and commission payments. However, it would be so contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of the law that I expect any such attempts would quickly gain antitrust scrutiny and new legislation declaring that APIs and software included in a device may only be monetized at point-of-sale (with the exception of subscription plans marketed toward consumers). It is possible that a court would even see it as such a violation of the law's intended effect that they would step in.
- Despegar 4y ago
  No government is going to expropriate Apple's intellectual property just to move some money from Apple to developers. It also wouldn't get passed courts.
  - EMIRELADERO 4y ago
    The whole point of the DMA EU regulations is that one should be able to make and distribute an iOS app without entering into a contractual relationship with Apple at all
EMIRELADERO 4y ago
How is me making an app that makes API calls to iOS an "use of Apple's intellectual property"? I'm not distributing any IP besides my own, all I'm doing is telling the API to execute in a certain way inside the hardware the user already posseses. A good analogy would be me making a new control panel for a mechanical machine, where the panel has metal arms and rods that connect to the machine's original mechanisms to bring about a certain result that the machine itself would be incapable of bringing on its own. You wouldn't say I can't distribute that new panel I made because the original machine is patented, right?

hesdeadjim 4y ago

It would be the silliest legal move to make any concessions until forced to by a court. If they indicate that they don't need that full 30% in enough different contexts, it will lend credence to a larger argument against 30% at all. Disagree with it or not, were I Apple Legal, I would never in a million years allow a concession without a fight.

midjji 4y ago
Microsoft is preemptively cooperating, and will likely not be forced to create a separate OS for the eu. Apple will be forced to create a EU specific one, one which not just lets people install other Appstore's, but which will ask the user if they want the google Appstore or a free one, or the apple one, the first time you start it. Knowing when to lose is quite valuable. Microsoft learned that the hard way last time.

chrismarlow9 4y ago

Apple is about 6.5% of holdings in SPY. It's economic suicide to hit them hard and they know it. Especially with impending recession and a heavy bear year.

warcher 4y ago

I mean, just make it 30%, or whatever, of stuff that uses their in-built app store payment. If you don't want to use their payment infra, you don't pay and you make whatever arrangements with the user both parties agree to. It forces them to justify their cut other as more than just rent-seeking. Netflix doesn't need any help getting a CC number. Or delivering apps, frankly. Apple inserts themselves as a middleman in that capacity for their benefit and theirs alone.

midjji 4y ago

At this point apple is just in denial. The eu alone will force them to make every user pick the default appstore on first install from alternatives including both something free and google, and probably samsung, and force them to provide easy to use api for everyone else. Its hilarious to see the difference between apple, google and microsofts reactions. Two of them went we will fight tooth and nail, microsoft who tried that last time instantly went we are dropping the fees instantly, unless you want more? and will work with regulators to make open access ...