59 ms·

US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

• virgildotcodes 3y ago
  Apologies for the maimed title. The maximum title length for submissions is too restrictive IMO.
  • throwaway2037 3y ago
    Why was this downvoted? It is a good comment. Thank you to clarify.
• Wowfunhappy 3y ago
  This list of requirements to save 3 percentage points is absurd. Approximately no one is going to use this. Which I'm sure is the point.
  • maronato 3y ago
    You know what else is usually close to 3%? Credit card fees.
  • pmontra 3y ago
    I'm sure about that. I forecast that there will be plenty of money spent to remove those hurdles and to defend them. Lawyers rejoice!
  • az226 3y ago
    r/MaliciousCompliance
• 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  [flagged]
• meteor333 3y ago
  wow! Looks like Apple finally caved. This is a huge win for the developers, despite that pesky warning. They can still ask users to circumvent apple pay/in-app purchases and get away by not giving a revenue cut to Apple.
  • lxgr 3y ago
    [flagged]
  • danpalmer 3y ago
    Contractually, developers are still required to pay 27% commission to Apple (or 12% for the small business programme). i.e. Apple are only removing a 3% payment processing fee here. They say it'll be hard to actually audit this, and it will, and many developers may manage to get around it, but technically that's a breach of contract and they could be removed from the store for it, so I'm sure many won't risk it.
    • jrks11o 3y ago
      What about sketchy apps with subscriptions, are those still managed via Apple? As an end user, I like the fact I can just cancel through Apple instead of having to find my way around a 3rd party site that is trying its best to prevent me from unsubscribing.
      • danpalmer 3y ago
        This change means that users could go and subscribe externally, including to scam subscriptions, and you would no longer be able to cancel via Apple. That's probably part of the motivation for why they don't want to implement this sort of thing.
        • MBCook 3y ago
          That’s been one of their arguments against it. You’re right. And honestly they’re not wrong. It wouldn’t surprise me if using a non-Apple payment system quickly became a very good way to figure out if you were about to get scammed by a random third party. If it’s a company that I already know and trust, I might be willing (though Apple payments will still be more convenient). Rando company? No way. Honestly this whole thing is probably going to prove their point. Even if they don’t exactly deserve the win.
• EMIRELADERO 3y ago
  This is in response to them losing that part of the Epic lawsuit and exhausting all appeals (SCOTUS denied cert yesterday). It's not a voluntary decision.
  • lxgr 3y ago
    It's also not a concession in any way. Depending on the payment method used, they might just make a profit on this (e.g. some cards charge more than 3% of interchange alone, and there's other fees on top).
    • steve_taylor 3y ago
      There’s also chargeback risk, which I imagine is quite high for digital purchases.
      • lxgr 3y ago
        True, although I’m not sure if Apple doesn’t pass that through to developers anyway (at least in terms of losing the purchase, if not the fees as well).
• nerdawson 3y ago
  They want a 27% commission on sales made from those links and the right to audit companies' accounts for compliance. https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1747406430054097099 https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1747406430054097099 It's beyond a joke. Between that and the payment processing fees, you're no better off. In fact, you get all of the same costs but none of the benefits of Apple's app store native payment infrastructure.
  • danenania 3y ago
    It seems a lot more egregious that anything Microsoft did in the 90s. While MS tried to push their own products and lock out competitors, they never tried to take a massive cut of all the software on their OS. The level of sheer FU everyone chutzpah is pretty impressive. They're indeed making quite a joke out of antitrust at this point.
    • karlshea 3y ago
      I'm not sure that's a direct comparison. Back then sure you could get shareware but mostly the market was paid boxed software. I can't find a direct source but I remember hearing brick-and-mortar retailers would take even more than 30% of sales. And Visual Studio sure wasn't free. Everything was different though, you'd be paying for your OS upgrades too which doesn't happen on iOS. I agree 30% is crazy, but the market on iOS they're enabling has to get paid for somehow. That source of revenue was different for Microsoft in the 80s/90s but it still existed.
      • danenania 3y ago
        "I remember hearing brick-and-mortar retailers would take even more than 30% of sales" I'd say the key difference there is that Microsoft didn't own all those retail stores.
        • chihuahua 3y ago
          Right, and anyone could open a retail store and sell software with a lower mark-up.
• lxgr 3y ago
  So Apple will be collecting 27% (instead of 30%) for... what exactly? They might just get away with something as crass in a vacuum, but given that the DMA will go into effect very soon, there will be a point of reference in a similar economy, and I don't think it'll be pretty for Apple. US regulators (federal or state; I could see something equivalent to GDPR and CCPA) will be taking a very close look.
  • danpalmer 3y ago
    > So Apple will be collecting 27% (instead of 30%) for... what exactly? Off the top of my head... - Bandwidth - Running the App Store for users - Marketing the App Store - App review - Security efforts to keep malware off the store - Making App Store optimisation tools for developers There's a lot of moving parts to this. You could argue that none of this is necessary if you sideload, but distribution is worth a lot in general to businesses, and I think it's clear that the App Store is a good distribution channel in many ways – easy to use for sellers (vs via traditional publishers, or physical retail), and easy to use for buyers.
    • lxgr 3y ago
      If that's true (and I even believe that it is to a large extent!), there should be no problem for Apple to let its value proposition stand for itself and allow some competition. Besides that, that list is very bundled. What if I e.g. want the convenient subscription payment processing, but want to (or need to) bring my own CDN for most content? What if I want their marketing and am willing to pay for it, but prefer my own payment processing?
      • danpalmer 3y ago
        I agree, although I think this is doing that to some extent. Sure there's some scary text in the popup that I think could be toned down, but I'm not an expert, and to be fair there are risks going externally. Allowing other app stores would be the big win in competition here, properly forcing Apple to win on value proposition. The DMA could force this, but I'm not certain about the details.
• sprite 3y ago
  https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitlement-us/ https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitl... They are taking 27%, between that and processing fees you might as well use In App Purchases. "Apple’s commission will be 27% on proceeds you earn from sales (“transactions“) to the user for digital goods or services on your website after a link out (i.e., they tap “Continue” on the system disclosure sheet), provided that the sale was initiated within seven days and the digital goods or services can be used in an app. This includes (a) any applicable taxes and (b) any adjustments for refunds, reversals and chargebacks. For auto-renewing subscriptions, (i) a sale initiated, including with a free trial or offer, within seven days after a link out is a transaction; and (ii) each subsequent auto-renewal after the subscription is initiated is also a transaction.] If you’re a participant in the Small Business Program, or if the transaction is an auto-renewal in the second year or later of an auto-renewing subscription, the commission will be 12%. These commission rates apply to all amounts paid by each user net of transaction taxes charged by you. You will be responsible for the collection and remittance of any applicable taxes for sales processed by a third-party payment provider. If you adopt this entitlement, you will be required to provide transaction reports within 15 calendar days following the end of each calendar month. Even if there were no transactions, you’re required to provide a report stating that is the case. If the cadence changes, we will update this page. To learn about the details that will need to be included in the report, view example reports. In the future, if Apple develops an API to facilitate reporting, you will be required to adopt such API within 30 days with an update of your app and follow the timing and requirements provided."
  • echelon 3y ago
    [flagged]
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• kderbyma 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• TobyTheDog123 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• newprint 3y ago
  My feeling is that this is a half measure and any half measure allow for the "freedom of interpretations". AAPL will put a lot of road blocks around external purchase links (result of recent ruling). I expect apps that will use external purchase links to be scrutinize a lot more, unexpectedly take off from the AAPL app store for made-up reasons and myriad of other road blocks around the ruling. You know, AAPL needs it's 30% cut.
  • MBCook 3y ago
    They’ll try. That’s who Apple is. But court has also found their required to do this. So if there are roadblocks are onerous you know someone’s going to go running to the court to try and get that fixed. They could end up in big trouble if they try and fight it too hard. But they’re also not gonna roll over. Expect the same exact thing with the DMA changes in the EU.
• danpalmer 3y ago
  This is not new. The 27% fee has been around for over a year now I think, may have been announced in 2021 even, for markets outside the US that already mandate this. I've seen these screens already in apps.
  • Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago
    It seems like according to Sweeny the 27% rate itself is not new but it only went into effect today.[0] [0] https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1747280541362102287 https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/174728054136210228...
    • danpalmer 3y ago
      I think this is still just a US announcement. This was announced for dating apps in the Netherlands in Feb 2022, I think Korea also has had similar changes. https://www.computerworld.com/article/3649111/apple-begins-the-great-app-store-cost-negotiation.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/3649111/apple-begins-t...
    • MBCook 3y ago
      In the US. As GP mentioned it has been in effect for a while in Holland and maybe Korea or a few other places for at least certain kinds of apps due to local laws. Interesting note: this only applies to the US. I know the EU is forcing changes as well, but those are EU only. So South America, Asia, Australia, Africa, Canada, Mexico, and others haven’t changed one bit and likely still require 30%.
  • lxgr 3y ago
    It's been mandated for dating apps in the Netherlands, to my knowledge. It being allowed for all apps in the US is arguably still news.
    • throwaway2037 3y ago
      > mandated for dating apps in the Netherlands In this scenario, is there something specific that we should know/understand about (a) dating apps or (b) the Netherlands?
• mortenjorck 3y ago
  Demanding a 27% commission for transactions taking place entirely outside of Apple infrastructure is obviously a finger in the eye, but I'm not entirely sure whose eye yet. Epic? The court? The FTC? The developer community? All of the above?
  • cyral 3y ago
    I love how apple has provided suggested language, such as "To get [X%] off, go to [X]", knowing damn well that a discount would only be offered if they weren't collecting a commission. Add to that that the link can only be displayed on a single page (not a modal or popup) and cannot be part of a purchase flow (where else would it go?). Certainly a huge slap in the face to all developers and the court's intent. They also say that using parameters in the URL is a privacy concern, when the real reason is they don't want you to use some kind of one-time-link to log the user in. They want the user to have to log in again, making it as painful (and least likely to convert) as possible.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • tick_tock_tick 3y ago
    All of the above for sure.
• themerone 3y ago
  A 27% cut will make a 3rd party payment service a non starter for all but the biggest app. For small players a 3% savings isn't worth the administrative overhead of paying apple separately. Apple is begging for another lawsuit over this.
  • yakz 3y ago
    Is there a 3% savings there or is that just covering the typical fee from the payment processor?
    • dns_snek 3y ago
      The latter, Stripe charges a 2.9% + 30c fee in the US for example.
  • tommymachine 3y ago
    [dead]
  • sircastor 3y ago
    Remember that Apple charges 15% for everyone making less than 1M in revenue. And the range applied for external processing is going largely correlate with Apples offerings. Apple doesn’t see their cut as “payment processing and hosting”. They see it as the cost of selling for their platform.
• tommymachine 3y ago
  This appears to be a huge boon, due to the fact that developers can now send their external marketing directly to their own online landing/checkout pages. Apple appears to be only charging commission for traffic sent there and that checks out within 7 days of clicking the in app link. In other words, a developer can have a Facebook ad or similar go directly to the checkout page and buy the app there, bypassing the app store commission for traffic the developer is bringing to the app store themselves. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this. This being the case, any recommendations for carts / processing services / etc that would be ideally positioned for this kind of use are MASSIVELY welcome!!!
• radley 3y ago
  There's a strong chance this will be shot down as "bad-faith" compliance. Rumor is Epic will quickly contest it [Update: confirmed] https://twitter.com/timsweeneyepic/status/1747408147260571730?s=61&t=m0AaMhvzMjn6qiSFg9E4lg https://twitter.com/timsweeneyepic/status/174740814726057173...
  • qarl 3y ago
    I'd love to hear your reasoning for why there is a strong chance this will be struck down. The court didn't rule against the Apple Tax, just on the monopoly for payment provider. I understand that many people misunderstand this point, but that does not change it.
    • bluefirebrand 3y ago
      The Apple Tax is very clearly tied to the app store though. By trying to make it apply to apps purchased on other stores, they are essentially saying they have a right to add a commission fee to any transaction involving Apps that happens on an Apple Device, which seems like an overreach to me.
      • qarl 3y ago
        I think you misunderstand - there are no other app stores. Only different payment processors.
        • bluefirebrand 3y ago
          Maybe I misunderstood the whole point of this. This whole lawsuit is because Epic wanted to avoid the Apple Tax by processing in-game purchases via their own payment provider, bypassing Apple App Store or Apple Pay or whatever other thing Apple forces everyone to use on iOS. So Epic is now allowed to use their own payment processer for in-game purchases, but Apple is saying that they will still have to pay the Apple Tax for those purchases. In this case the "store" is not an app store but an in-game store, sure. Have I got that right so far?
• lacker 3y ago
  These conditions are onerous enough that the Kindle app probably still cannot handle in-app purchases. It's really pretty annoying that I have to leave the Kindle iOS app and go to the Kindle web app to make a purchase. Obviously it wouldn't cost either Apple or Amazon anything to allow this, it wouldn't be insecure or unsafe in any way, and it would be nice for consumers. So the fact that Apple and Amazon haven't made a deal to allow this indicates to me that Apple is putting its competitive interests ahead of its users interests. Hopefully they all figure something out eventually to allow Kindle purchases from the app.
  • karmasimida 3y ago
    I found myself actually able to use browser to purchase Kindle books on iPhone now, is it because of this lawsuit?
    • lxgr 3y ago
      Do you mean an in-app browser in the Kindle app, or just amazon.com in Safari? I don't see how Apple would prohibit me from visiting a website, and they've allowed use of content/subscriptions purchased elsewhere in iOS apps for a while now. What has not been allowed (at least until today) is to directly link to that external website.
    • radley 3y ago
      Apple can't control browser content, only capabilities, so you could always make purchases via Safari, Chrome, etc.
    • ncallaway 3y ago
      No, in a regular browser you can make purchases on Amazon like normal. If you attempt to purchase a kindle book from within the kindle app, you will not be able to. Nor will there be any messaging explaining how to make a purchase (because apple does not allow such messaging). You’ll just be mysteriously confused about why you can’t buy a book.
      • LeafItAlone 3y ago
• bradgessler 3y ago
  Am I getting this right? Say I use Stripe as my payment processor. Stripe takes 2.9% + $0.30, then Apple takes 27% so I'm at 29.9% + $0.30 being taken out of however much I charge for my app? For a $10 app, $0.30 is 3% putting the fee at 32.9%. For the privilege of paying 2.9% more, my users get to see a scary privacy message and when I bill the customer a year later for a subscription, there's a 20-30% chance that their credit card will have expired. If this isn't a monopoly abusing its dominate market position, then what is?
  • jacquesm 3y ago
    Oh absolutely it is. But all app store developers are complicit in enabling that monopoly. What should happen is that all app store developers withdraw their apps until Apple sees the light. But that won't happen because every app store developer will be pitted against their competition in a race to the bottom who will accept the highest fees that Apple is going to impose and sooner or later you'll be back at that 30% or you'll go without income. Solidarity is what drives change, without solidarity you're without a chance.
    • aaomidi 3y ago
      Victim blaming and expects a mass market behavior change is not good, or realistic.
      • jacquesm 3y ago
        Victims don't normally collaborate with their abuser. edit: here's one of the 'victims': https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39022303 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39022303
        • mindwok 3y ago
          Actually yes, they do. That's what makes it abusive - the victim doesn't have the power, control, or will, to simply walk away.
• MobileVet 3y ago
  I am curious if any businesses operating with the ‘pay Apple their cut’ on outside sales actually do? Does Apple have the manpower to chase every developer for that fee? Do they really expect to collect it or is it more of a threat? Any HN people with first hand knowledge of a business paying that fee?
  • pests 3y ago
    If Apple can track your outside sales they can just deduct it from any Apple Store payments. So maybe not exactly a chase for that portion of it.
  • judge2020 3y ago
    Apple likely has a pretty good idea of how many downloads you have, and if users enable "Share with Apple Developers" in settings -> privacy -> analytics, their App Store Connect database definitely has usage and open analytics. Mobile app games likely won't be able to claim "we only made $30k this month on iOS" if they have >1M downloads a month or 100k app opens a day, for example.
    • MobileVet 3y ago
      Good point. Forgot that they have all the data…
  • clarle 3y ago
    It is more for the other bigger corporations that will have more to lose, and will be flagged via outside auditors, that will pay it accurately.
  • kmeisthax 3y ago
    Given the zeal Apple has for their 30%, they absolutely will be demanding fully open books and tracking for that outbound link. There's no firsthand knowledge because this is the first time Apple's actually had to chase companies for the fee. In fact, their whole argument against Epic was that banning steering made it easier on both parties to attribute revenue.
• madeofpalk 3y ago
  People are focusing on the 27% cut, but a page worth of restrictions on how you’re allowed to link to your own website is just complete bullshit. > In accordance with the entitlement agreement, the link may inform users about where and how to purchase those in-app purchase items, and the fact that such items may be available for a comparatively lower price The fact that you must apply for permission to tell your users that you even have off-app purchase items is bullshit. Apple’s welcome to make the rules of their own platform (within reason), but it’s garbage that developers aren’t even able to say the rules exist. If Apple believes they’re so right and just, why must they leave users uninformed? What’s the good faith argument for any of this? I want to see Craig Federighi on stage at WWDC announcing and this revolutionary new "link" API, demoing how great the scary warning screens are.
• llm_nerd 3y ago
  This feels like a straw that breaks the camel's back kind of moment. Apple has gotten away with a tremendous amount (being an astonishingly greedy company. All companies are de facto greedy, but Apple is just next level in its egregious entitlement), but there is simply zero way this stands. And FWIW, I'm an Apple fan and find Tim S a completely unsympathetic character. But seeing the hilariously absurd lengths that people will go to justify Apple's outrageous greed grows old.
  • stevage 3y ago
    Zero way? This will totally stand for a few years at least.
  • lolinder 3y ago
    The details of the process of getting approval for links may be out of line, but the idea that simply using a different payment processor would remove the entirety of the 30% commission was always a pipe dream. Apple has always been adamant that the fee is for the service of using the App Store, not the payment processor, and that you owe them for sales made regardless of whether they're able to take the money directly out of your revenue stream. That part of this outcome was inevitable, and I don't think any court will rule against it. It was even anticipated in the original ruling: > First, and most significant, as discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple’s intellectual property. Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission.
    • aCoreyJ 3y ago
      That's precisely what gets them in trouble though. Every bank, credit card, giant corporation has an app and has to pay Apple nothing but indie game developers subsidize them
      • Spivak 3y ago
        Because the fee is only charged for digital goods yada yada Apple legalese. It's not 30% of every time money moves when an iPhone is involved. Indie devs are still processing credit card payments so I don't think this argument follows.
• app_boi92 3y ago
  Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this. Consider the following scenario: Developer puts out ads on Facebook (or some other way of getting traffic). Traffic flows to the developer's checkout page, where they buy access to in app content on an external website. Then they are linked to the app store where they can download the app and access the content. Apple is paid no commission on this transaction. They only require commissions paid when the customer is sent to the website FROM the app store and checks out within 7 days. If this is in fact true, then payment / support service recommendations would be great to hear right now!!
  • az226 3y ago
    I think 30% commissions for Apple are fair if the customer found the app through the app store. If they clicked a deep link that took them to the app directly, the commission should be much lower like 10%. And in categories where Apple has competing digital services it should always be 3% to not be anti-competitive.
• ksec 3y ago
  What a bloody pile of mess. In order to guard their interest, and everyone wants a pieces of it, now we have an Apple ecosystem that is... just ugly. And it is only gong to get worse. I often wonder had Apple lowered their In-App purchase to 10% would we still have the same problem.
• Hikikomori 3y ago
  If you are are ok with this you should also be ok with Apple taking a cut on anything you buy with their browser, why not also take a fee for any data going in and out of your phone.
  • smoldesu 3y ago
    Don't threaten Apple with a profitable idea.
  • klabb3 3y ago
    I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. If the web was invented today browsers would never be allowed on the App Store. Not even a dumbed down version without advanced scripting capabilities. The fact that they have a browser and allow “3p browsers” is only because the web was already established and customers wouldn’t have bought in without it. iPhones and iPads are not general purpose computing devices. Not by tech, but by policy.
    • srcreigh 3y ago
      Keeping in mind what a browser could have been in 2024 if Apple hadn't disallowed/slowed innovation, it's fair to say browsers aren't allowed on the App Store.
    • radley 3y ago
      Technically, third-party browsers are NOT allowed. The only browsers allowed are built using Apple's "open-source" WebKit.
      • willsmith72 3y ago
        TIL chrome on ios uses webkit...
        • xcdzvyn 3y ago
          Firefox too.
      • 3y ago
• cubefox 3y ago
  Meanwhile: https://www.macrumors.com/2024/01/15/app-store-to-be-split-in-two/ https://www.macrumors.com/2024/01/15/app-store-to-be-split-i...
• dzader 3y ago
  [dead]
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• matt3210 3y ago
  I’m not leaving the app to pay…
  • kevingadd 3y ago
    Apple already forces you to sometimes, for example if you want to buy a Kindle e-book.
    • riscy 3y ago
      Amazon forces their users to leave the app, not Apple.
      • pompino 3y ago
        It's understandable they don't want to pay the mafia.
        • riscy 3y ago
          The trillion-dollar Amazon is also the mafia of online shopping. No reason to give them any sympathy.
          • pompino 3y ago
            touche!
• GeekyBear 3y ago
  At this point, it's worth remembering that one of the points on which Epic lost was Apple's right to take a cut of transactions. I found this discussion of the Apple v. Epic ruling to be informative: > as discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple’s intellectual property. Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission. Indeed, while the Court finds no basis for the specific rate chosen by Apple (i.e., the 30% rate) based on the record, the Court still concludes that Apple is entitled to some compensation for use of its intellectual property. https://stratechery.com/2021/the-apple-v-epic-decision/ https://stratechery.com/2021/the-apple-v-epic-decision/ The judge hinted here and there that Epic should have sued over the size of Apple's cut, not it's right to take a cut.
  • threeseed 3y ago
    > Epic should have sued over the size of Apple's cut, not it's right to take a cut Epic charges 5% for Unreal Engine. Apple offers developers significantly more than just a games engine.
    • throwaway290 3y ago
      The most famous Epic game is (or was until this legal battle) played on iOS more than on any other platform, that's in Epic's own complaint. So who built iOS? Why so many people use it? How come they are willing to pay for games instead of pirating them? Looks like whoever developed iOS and all the hardware it runs on and the ecosystem that makes it appealing for rich users is actually providing Epic a ton of value and profit, but Epic doesn't want to pay for it. I wonder who's greedy here (Also it's insane how we just accept that Epic with its massive profits and margins is the one who wants to get a discount from Apple, if anything they should be charged double what small business single person devs pay.)
      • mvdtnz 3y ago
        I've seen you make this claim twice in this comment section. Fortnite is not on iOS.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• mvdtnz 3y ago
  This is absolutely outrageous. I simply cannot believe people still support this awful company.
• kemayo 3y ago
  This is the same strategy that Apple pursued for dating apps in the Netherlands, after a court there forced them to allow third-party payments a year or two ago. Their argument is that the 15/30% is a general fee for use of their infrastructure (App Store, etc), and so they'll subtract the approximate cost of payment processing if you're handling it yourself but you'll still have to pay the rest of the fee to them. Although I think this sounds extremely petty-bullshit of them, in part because that flat 3% is basically calculated to make this cost more for developers who do this overall, the court in the Netherland did go along with it. So we'll have to see how it'll work out under US courts now. (I feel that them charging some sort of fee for the App Store isn't entirely unreasonable, though this seems too high -- we can debate the actual amount that'd be acceptable. It's the lack of an alternative via sideloading that makes this egregious.)
  • onethought 3y ago
    What’s the egregious bit? Because Apple were so successful with their product they should have a cap on how much they capitalise? Do you get upset at business class in airlines? Or cinema food being so expensive? Isn’t this the point of capitalism?
    • kemayo 3y ago
      Leaving aside the potential for a critique of capitalism as a whole... it depends on what you compare it to, right? (Or, I don't get upset at the existence of business class, but I do get upset at excessive nickel-and-diming with fees in coach.) I'd tend to think of the Mac as the most-direct comparison point, where there's the App Store but also where a developer who wants to handle everything themselves can.
      • onethought 3y ago
        That’s why I took it to another industry that is clearly charging a fee that is unrelated to its costs. Capitalism says: the market will figure it out. Given Apple does not have a monopoly. I don’t see how any of this is a problem. If they want you to sacrifice your first born child in order to publish an app on their App Store. That’s okay. Just don’t publish your app to their phone.
• the_gastropod 3y ago
  It really feels like Apple keeps making these unforced errors. While they're working to hype up their new product launch coming up, giving prominent tech journalists early access / hands-on demos to stir up some good press, they pull shit like this completely destroying any good feelings people may have about the brand. I don't get it. Absolutely greedy and (seemingly?) short-sighted.
• siliconc0w 3y ago
  I hope the US copies EU regulation and puts a stop to this BS. Imagine a world where the companies hoarding capital and talent have to actually compete rather than sit back and collect rent.
• jsyang00 3y ago
  Why not just force apps to collect payment through a money order sent on the 2nd Thursday of each month between 1 and 2pm. Sounds about as compelling.
• rkagerer 3y ago
  What we need is a third-party appstore, for BOTH platforms (iOS and Android), that offers curated titles and filtering options users actually want (e.g. like by "ad-free" and "no in-app purchases"). If something like that had been in incubation and available for lawyers to draw on for their arguments I wonder if it would have impacted the case (especially when judge says things like "failed to prove the existence of substantially less restrictive alternatives").
• poundofshrimp 3y ago
  To see why Apple’s mandatory commissions are absurd, compare phones to desktop computers. There is no fundamental difference between the two. So, why is it okay to install whatever you want and pay for it directly on desktops, but on phones it is not? The “better security” argument just doesn’t make sense in this context.
  • charcircuit 3y ago
    >So, why is it okay to install whatever you want and pay for it directly on desktops, but on phones it is not? On desktop you have similar stores like Steam. The store takes a 30% cut from all sales on the platform and they require apps on the platform to use their payment processing so that they can take that cut. The difference between Windows and iOS here is that third party stores can be installed without being limited to PWAs or requiring hacky workarounds like AltStore. Why does Apple have the sole app store on the device? Well it's because it ensures they have a closed platform that they fully control. They made this app platform so it's up to them to decide how open it should be from a range of first party only to fully open to any app from the internet. It's up to Apple to decide what kind of openness will allow them to provide the most value to users. Apple designs their app platform from the hardware all the way up to the operating system and libraries for developers to use. Apple has created a great app platform that brings value to a lot of users.
    • sundvor 3y ago
      PC platform: Steam doesn't care if (case in point) Eagle Dynamics allows direct downloads from their website of DCS World - in fact they embrace it, by offering account linking APIs. So on PCs, unlike on iOS, users can buy their content as they choose. And it's not as if Microsoft forces everyone to use their (exceptionally crappy) store either.
      • xyzzy_plugh 3y ago
        Indeed there are many free-to-play games on Steam with micro-transactions that are not required to give Valve a cut.
• jbverschoor 3y ago
  Exactly what I thought. Makes total sense.. 3% for payments. I’m surprised anyone is surprised as this is what was discussed many times
• nsagent 3y ago
  I've got to say, Apple definitely lost me on this one. This feels bad enough that despite having an iPhone since the iPhone 3G, I'll likely jump ship when I need to upgrade unless they make a U-turn on this move. EDIT: Wow, getting downvoted for saying Apple is losing me as a customer with this move is surprising. I don't understand how people on Hacker News of all places want conformity of thought. I switched from using Microsoft products to Apple when Vista came out. Microsoft lost my trust by that point and Macs were a viable alternative. Despite having a Macbook, iPhone, and an Apple Watch it seems like Apple is starting to lose me with this move.
  • samtheprogram 3y ago
    You haven’t daily driven Android since at least the iPhone 3GS, according to your comment. There’s a reason they’re able to charge 30%, have a dominant market position in the US, and people continue to release apps for iOS (and prioritize launching there over Android). You’re also not the customer in this situation — you’re talking not as a developer but as an end-user without any mention of a subscription service that you pay more for because you’re on iOS, or mention of an app you want to side load. And, you might switch back to iOS after experiencing Android. Your comment says basically nothing, except that you got rattled by reading the news. It doesn’t have to do with “conformity of thought”. Also, editing to complain about downvoting is just asking to get more downvotes.
    • _gabe_ 3y ago
      > There’s a reason they’re able to charge 30%, have a dominant market position in the US, and people continue to release apps for iOS (and prioritize launching there over Android). I keep seeing this line of thinking in the comments (some may say these comments are conforming to a specific line of thought). When is the last time you used a modern android (Galaxy, Pixel, etc)? And really used it, not just tried to use your friend’s Android for a few minutes and then gave up? I kept reading all these comments about how superior iPhones are on Hacker News. So after having used a MacBook (and being very happy with it over the past year) I bought an iPhone 14 to see if the iPhone also lived up to the hype. It doesn’t. It’s literally the same as an Android. There are no significant differences. The gestures are a difference, but I kind of hate that about iPhones. You’re just supposed to somehow know these from tribal knowledge or reading something from some random thread (just violently shake the phone to undo typing, very intuitive!). After a couple months of use, I’m finally almost as good at using an iPhone as I was at using my Android. And once again, there are no significant differences. Of course, there’s a learning curve when you switch. But that should be expected. Give it 2 months, and then the devices will feel identical. They’re different, but in the end, they’re pretty much the same. Edit: and btw, the same exact line of thinking can be used for Android. There’s a reason Google sets their App Store fee at 30%, and Android leads the market globally, and people continue to launch apps on Android.
• turquoisevar 3y ago
  People seem to be very poorly informed and are up in arms over the 27%. This is directly part of the underlying court decisions. While the courts haven’t explicitly stated a percentage, and the initial judge questioned the percentage, it was made clear by both the district court as well as the appeals court that Apple can still charge a commission even when payment takes place outside of Apple’s IAP system. The courts consider it payment for Apple’s IP that’s directly tied to the sales, not IAP: “In essence, Apple uses the DPLA to license its IP to developers in exchange for a $99 fee and an ongoing 30% commission on developers' iOS revenue.” The district court even went as far as to outright state Apple’s entitlement to a commission, despite hemming and hawing about the exact rate (and ultimately not making a decision on it): “Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission” “Indeed, while the Court finds no basis for the specific rate chosen by Apple (i.e., the 30% rate) based on the record, the Court still concludes that Apple is entitled to some compensation for use of its intellectual property.” “Apple is entitled to license its intellectual property for a fee, and to further guard against the uncompensated use of its intellectual property. The requirement of usage of IAP accomplishes this goal in the easiest and most direct manner, whereas Epic Games' only proposed alternative would severely undermine it. Indeed, to the extent Epic Games suggests that Apple receive nothing from in-app purchases made on its platform, such a remedy is inconsistent with prevailing intellectual property law.” “Suffice it to say, IAP is not merely a payment processing system, as Epic Games suggests, but a comprehensive system to collect commission and manage in-app payments.” The appellate court echoed these sentiments, if not outright making stronger statements about this, while at the same time complaining between the lines that the district court wanted its cake and eat it too by insisting that the anti-steering provisions are not kosher while simultaneously stating that it would be too cumbersome for Apple to retroactively audit sales to collect their commission. Either way, the long and short of it is that Apple collecting a commission from developers using third party payment processors has the blessing of the courts. Even when the district court in particular isn’t entirely happy with the rate of the commission while simultaneously not willing to make an official determination on the rate because Epic never fought the rate, rather the existence of the commission itself. Now that SCOTUS has declined to look at it, this situation, including the blessing to collect a commission even when using third party payment processors, is the law of the land.
• jjcm 3y ago
  So I'm about to embark on a submission process for an iOS app that has a subscription currently, and I'm wondering if any app store pros can give advice, especially in light of this. The app is a reddit-like site where you subscribe for an amount you choose (say $10/mo), the site takes a $1 cut, and the remaining $9 gets distributed between everything you upvote that month (creators get sent this money into their stripe connect account). How much does Apple take as part of this? Do they take 27% of the $1/mo server fee, or 27% of the $10/mo total (thus taking away from money users would be sending from each other)? It's a weird situation because it ends up being a subscription-based digital wallet, and I'm unsure how these are treated or what the right approach is when submitting the app.
  • jagged-chisel 3y ago
    Until you hit $1million in revenue, it’s 15%. And it’s 15% on all the money you collect. Because these are digital services and not physical products, Apple takes their cut. You will need to factor that into your business model. It doesn’t matter how you distribute the money on your end. While you can definitely reflect the exact amounts involved to your customers, it might be wise to convert incoming money to something else, perhaps simply “credits.”
• thrdbndndn 3y ago
  For me, the glaring issue here is not whether 27% is fair or not. Rather, it's the absence of an alternative method to do so without relying on Apple's "services." Naturally, there can be endless debates about whether this is acceptable or not. However, the reality is that there is a striking disparity between the iOS's model and that of Android, PC, or even Mac.
  • ijhuygft776 3y ago
    The main problem is censorship by apple on the "app" store... everything else is smoke and mirrors, including money.
  • bearjaws 3y ago
    Its far worse than that. Apple clearly abuses its market place "railroads" to control shipments of apps "oil" from its competitors, mainly Kindle and Spotify. Of course while offering the same apps at a much higher margin for themselves. It's literally the same problem that led to antitrust in 1890.
• jongjong 3y ago
  I always hated native apps and found them to be very high friction, both as a user and as a developer. I have no idea what's wrong with people. Why are people so keen to install untrusted, intrusive software onto their devices when they can access them in the safety of their browser without downloading anything. When I was younger, people were very careful about what software they installed on their machines, you'd have to be insane to opt to install some software if you could just run it directly from a browser. Aside from a few niche use cases where the app needs access to device sensors, it really doesn't make sense. With Apple, I feel like people are under some kind of spell. I cannot relate to their behavior. It's ironic that they've become exactly what they were claiming to be working against in their 1984 advert. It's has become some kind of big brother mind control operation.
  • brandon272 3y ago
    App makers (and often users!) want dedicated buttons for services or apps they use on their phone home screens or menus. Apple has put considerable effort into having a standardized workflow that most users understand when it comes to installing a mobile app on their device: you access it through their App Store. I would love for Progressive Web Apps to be normalized, and PWAs can do a lot, and you can also get a button for a PWA on your home screen, but the process to do so is odd/cumbersome, requires explanation for inexperienced users, which is not something that most companies that want a well-positioned mobile app are willing to tolerate. And while PWAs on iOS can access some sensors, the API support is limited[0] and in some cases not supported at all. Not being able to capture links to properly direct users into installed PWAs, not being able to provide install prompts, background sync, etc. are considered serious limitations to people who are used to those luxuries available to actual iOS apps. [0] https://firt.dev/notes/pwa-ios/ https://firt.dev/notes/pwa-ios/
  • isurujn 3y ago
    iOS user and a developer here. I actually feel the opposite. With native apps, there are OS level restrictions to accessing certain resources and sensors on the device so I feel safer in a native app than a browser.
• kazinator 3y ago
  How is it non-app store purchasing if Apple still gets the commission? If Apple gets commission, the sale took place on Apple's cyberturf, all of which can be identified as being their app store. The user's Apple device where they made this purchase is effectively a branch location of the that store.
  • az226 3y ago
    It's malicious compliance. It's non-app store purchase but Apple still gets to keep a 27% net cut. Had Apple made no commissions on those sales it would have still been super onerous but at least then people can "buy" the degraded experience if there is a savings to be had for the customer.
    • kazinator 3y ago
      > malicious compliance Nice term; it is fortuitously applicable in another ongoing HN thread.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• apple4ever 3y ago
  Utterly ridiculous for Apple to do this. It's so consumer unfriendly.
• chubs 3y ago
  One interesting thing to me is that apple has now put a price tag on their payments processing: 3% (being the discount of this 27% vs the normal 30%). Their payments are pretty convenient, i'm surprised they don't consider it worth eg 4-5%. So they're basically saying that their SDKs (+ distribution) are worth 27% of sales. I wonder if one could make the argument in court that if you don't use their SDK, eg you use react native or flutter, you shouldn't pay 27%. Yes, i know those frameworks still use apple's SDKs, but they commoditise them such that you might make the argument these SDKs aren't worth any more than any other sdk such as android. (I'm skipping distribution in my argument too, for simplicity's sake)
• dang 3y ago
  Related ongoing thread: US Supreme Court declines to hear appeals in Apple-Epic Games legal battle - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39014642 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39014642 - Jan 2024 (162 comments)
• belter 3y ago
  "Supreme Court rebuffs Apple's appeal on app payments" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39021897 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39021897
• toasterlovin 3y ago
  Some perspective: we sell on Amazon as a 3rd party seller. Amazon takes about 9% of the sale price of our products as their commission (it’s actually 12%, but includes credit card processing). To which you might be inclined to reply, “Ah, but 9% is a reasonable commission, so that’s okay.” But we sell physical goods, which cost money to produce. It’s typical for our products to have 20-25% gross margins. So as a share of what’s left after accounting for the cost to produce and transport our products, Amazon’s commission is similar to Apple’s App Store fee. Just something to think about if you want to argue that a 30% commission is too much for facilitating a high trust purchasing environment with customers who are ready to spend money. Oh yeah, and you’ll never guess what Amazon’s policy is about steering customers off of Amazon.
  • mikercampbell 3y ago
    Are they toasters? Because I hear there might be some competition. But genuinely, your comments enrich this sort of thing. I love your input.
  • malshe 3y ago
    I know a few vendors who sell on Amazon. With advertising, they end up paying close to 60% of the selling price to Amazon.
    • stefandesu 3y ago
      How can Amazon pricing be so competitive if the cut is so large for third-party vendors?
      • csomar 3y ago
        Because these third-party vendors are, most of the time, selling third-party China manufactured stuff at 1/10 of the price they are selling it to you. The problem is that China can't communicate well enough. At least not for niche products.
      • Almondsetat 3y ago
        1. Because you don't know how much vendors actually pay for the products 2. Because some products might be sold at breakeven price to attract and retain customers 3. Because some products might be loss leaders to attract and retain customers
• jijji 3y ago
  And Apple wonders why Android has 70% market share (and growing)
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • woutr_be 3y ago
    Do you have a source for the growing numbers? On all accounts it seems to have plateaued, and even slightly down in the past 5 years - https://www.techrepublic.com/article/ios-vs-android-market-share/ https://www.techrepublic.com/article/ios-vs-android-market-s...
    • jijji 3y ago
      the link you provided also clearly shows android global market share over 70% by 2022 estimates.... here is another research report that claims Android at 81% market share [0] [0] https://www.counterpointresearch.com/insights/global-smartphone-os-market-share/ https://www.counterpointresearch.com/insights/global-smartph...
• backtoyoujim 3y ago
  Does apple still charge people annually to develop apps for apple ? Because charging people to charge them again to make Apple useful seems abusive.
• bmitc 3y ago
  I don't understand this at all. How is this an improvement? This is effectively an in-app purchase just done through the browser instead. There seems to be no difference.
• janalsncm 3y ago
  As an end user this isn’t great. One of the great things about Apple subscriptions is how easy it is to see them all in one place and to cancel them.
• xyst 3y ago
  Once side loading finalizes (couple of years?) the predatory 27-30% fee will come down really fast. F Apple for this monopoly bs. From the anti-repair shenanigans to their locked down ecosystem. It’s all designed to pump as much money from the consumer AND developers inside the wall.
  • etchalon 3y ago
    I am willing to make a bet that even when side-loading becomes available, it does change much. You can side-load on Android, and the Play Store's commissions are on par with Apple's. The mistake here is believing that either Store is competing for developers. They are not. The stores compete for users, and they charge developers a fee for access to those users. Most users prefer the safety and convience of Play, or Steam, or Apple's iOS store. So long as user's are primarily using Apple's store, either through defaults, habits or choice, Apple won't have to change much.
  • modeless 3y ago
    There's no way Apple will capitulate on sideloading in the US. It's clear they are going to go every inch as far as the law allows to guarantee their 30%. They will strictly geofence sideloading to the EU, and they may even try to resist even more strongly by challenging DMA enforcement in court as long as they can before complying. And they'll probably pull more shenanigans like this to try to impose the 30% even on third party app stores.
  • kelnos 3y ago
    Why would they? Most iPhone users still won't install third-party stores, so, in practice, if you want to exist, you need to sell through the App Store. Google allows third-party stores and side-loading, but they're still able to charge a 30% cut on the Play Store. I personally make use of third-party stores and side-loading on Android, but I don't personally know anyone else who does.
• throw03172019 3y ago
  Are there any details of how Apple actually collects that money? Self reporting? Only Apple Pay? What’s the process like?
  • FateOfNations 3y ago
    Self-reporting. The developer will pay Apple periodically and is agrees to be subject to audit to verify compliance.
• 6510 3y ago
  I'm kinda confused so I asked bing >The difference between self employed and employed is that123: > Self-employed workers work for themselves as sole proprietors or independent contractors, while employees work for an organization under a contract of service. > Self-employed workers have more control over their work, but also more risks and responsibilities, while employees have more stability and benefits, but also more restrictions and obligations. > Self-employed workers pay their own taxes and expenses, while employees have their taxes withheld and their benefits provided by their employer. Apple also withholds VAT for the "employee". Don't get me wrong, legally they are not employees. The interesting thing is how much it is like employment. You work for a single company, you have to do as told, they can fire you at any moment. When that happens you wont be able to sell to your customers because they are not your customers.
• encoderer 3y ago
  Apple does provide a lot of value with the App Store. But when I compare it to my business (saas), adding stripe + aws is about 12% of sales. I feel for my App Store brethren. It would be hard to accept 30%
  • w10-1 3y ago
    Unless you make over $1M/year, the commission for small business is 15%.
  • brcmthrowaway 3y ago
    What is your business?
• David_FF 3y ago
  Maybe I missed it But how will they actually know how much money developers are making via external web purchasing? Audits? In my opinion working with both Apple and Google's billing libraries is pretty painful. Many developers use third parties to make it easier like Qonversion or RevenueCat. These all have to go through Apple and Google respectively If you can just have a web page to do it, that seems easier actually. You can just save if the user is paid or not directly in your backend after they make a purchase
  • semiquaver 3y ago
    > Developers are required to provide a periodic accounting of qualifying out-of-app purchases, and Apple has a right to audit developers' accounting to ensure compliance with their commission obligations and to charge interest and offset payments.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
• talldatethrow 3y ago
  Can someone give me the TLDR of this questions answer.. If I have a web based saas currently where I charge customers $300 a month.. if I were to make an iOS app for them to use, would apple want a % of that?
  • tebbers 3y ago
    If you allow them to subscribe in the iOS app, then yes. Just don’t offer that option.
  • ISO-morphism 3y ago
    As I couldn't find the nice page about the IAP policy that I read and found quite clear ~4 years ago (you should verify, don't trust people on the Internet): the old rules prior to the Epic and other court cases would say "Only for those users that set up payment while using the app." From what I gather, the current rules would be more lax, but the old can then serve as an upper bound. The main rules were: 1) A user making a payment that has any effect on app functionality (this is very broad) from inside your app must go through Apple IAP (paying 30% commission). There were some exceptions, but mainly think buying physical goods - Apple isn't forcing the use of IAP for EBay or Amazon retail. 2) You may not link to, or even mention other payment methods. Really it comes down to: if there is any difference in what the app will do for a user before and after they pay money then that money paying must go through Apple and then Apple will give it to you (minus 30%). So what a lot of apps did is just open to a login screen. No sign up button, no link to your homepage, heck, no links anywhere. The downside is that users have to know about your app from at least one more channel than searching on the App Store, but that's not a very high bar. Probably less common if you're B2B, but for B2C a lot of them would pay their subscription through Apple if possible, the experience is great: one central place in system settings showing all your subscriptions with easy cancellation buttons and enforced standard refund/proration semantics.
  • dns_snek 3y ago
    In my limited experience, payments for such services are handled outside the iOS app. Simultaneously you're prohibited from directing users to make a purchase on your website and it's up to you to fit this square peg in a round hole, usually through cryptic messages which vaguely remind your users that they have to buy the subscription elsewhere, wink wink.
• sidkshatriya 3y ago
  Amazon sells its Kindle books outside the Apple App Store. Once purchased, the book is available to view in your Kindle app. My guess is that Amazon doesn't pay Apple any $ for books sold there. How is this current practice of Amazon consistent with the (new?) rules in which all sales taking place even outside the store will attract commision from Apple ? It is because Kindle does not offer ANY sales at all through its own Apple app ? Some other reason ?
  • furyofantares 3y ago
    To me it reads that you can place a link in-app to the out-of-app purchase, and purchases made through that route are subject to the fee.
  • gene91 3y ago
    Based on my reading, Apple’s cut of non-IAP purchase only applies if you sign up for the new StoreKit External Purchase Link Entitlement, and the cut only applies for purchases through the Entitlement link.
• riscy 3y ago
  The Play Store takes exactly same 15%/30% commission from their developers as the App Store that everyone here is venting about. The key thing is how their payment processing discounts work. The Play Store offers a 4% discount on the commission for alternate payment processing only in India or South Korea [1]. In comparison, Apple is doing a 3% discount, but only in the US. Perhaps this will expand further to compete for discounts between the two stores? [1] https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/112622 https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
• andersa 3y ago
  It's incredible that there are actually people in this thread arguing in favor of Apple. You don't need to defend the trillion dollar company. They are not your friend, they do not care about you, your work or your life. All they do is steal 30% from society that could be used for more productive purposes than make a few people who already have everything even richer.
  • remus 3y ago
    I also think apple's 30% cut is excessive, but I don't think this line of argument helps. We should discuss the points on their merits, not based on who's making them and how much money they have.
    • pompino 3y ago
      > We should discuss the points on their merits, not based on who's making them and how much money they have. Its not based on how much money they have. Its how they've managed to accumulate the money - by gouging devs.
      • kridsdale1 3y ago
        [flagged]
        • pompino 3y ago
          >Why do you get to run a business off it for free? There isn't a divine commandment as to what rights we "should" have. We vote, fight, protest and get to make up our own rights. >They spend hundreds of millions on SWE salaries to make a nice SDK for you to use. They’re also operating all the servers. Your $100 does not cover it. It’s a symbiotic relationship. At least see it and acknowledge it. I don't feel like paying for an Apple executives BMW car payment. But you do you.
          • Ma8ee 3y ago
            > There isn't a divine commandment as to what rights we "should" have. We vote, fight, protest and get to make up our own rights. Not in America. The only venue to change you have is to spend, or not spend money somewhere. Since people think they profit more from developing apps for iOS than not developing apps for iOS, Apple’s profit is “right”. And a century or so of indoctrination has made most Americans believe that this is just the natural order of things.
• squigglydonut 3y ago
  I'm an app designer and was able to get my PWA to look very native. This is my way to avoid the app store fees which are absolutely ridiculous. Apps take up too much storage space anyways.
  • kridsdale1 3y ago
    I’m extremely familiar with the iOS native components (I even made some of them originally). I’d like to see your PWA to see if your claim is true.
    • squigglydonut 3y ago
      Sure thing but you have to buy my product first! My approach was blending iOS and Android. For example I like the hamburger menu for user adoption (very Android) but I like SF symbols light forms and weight. So there is a blending of forms. Modals and context menus behave as you would expect. I didn't do any blurred backdrops. Lastly, a pwa in fullscreen mode removes the URL bar even through it runs with chrome!
      • whoknowsidont 3y ago
        Paste the link to your product?
        • squigglydonut 3y ago
          Sure it's www.petpages.app
  • eviks 3y ago
    What did you miss in functionality vs a native app?
    • squigglydonut 3y ago
      Definitely. No haptics sadly. I didn't do any blurred backdrops or glassmorphic surfaces. I didn't implement material ripple effects. I increases tap targets beyond native iOS and Android specs.
• TheCapeGreek 3y ago
  Caveat: I am not a mobile dev, I don't really have skin in the game here. I stay away because App & Play store sound like nightmare environments to do business with faceless entities and automated bans without appeal. It really seems to me the best way around this is: - Don't sell on the Apple store at all with no alternative (likely same for Google if your particular gripe is the 30%). Stick with web. - Push more PWAs to your customers. Sounds like Apple is finally opening up a bit on that front? Maybe the EU antitrust will open the doors wider. - Sell ONLY on Apple (and again Google), then 15-30% is your norm, and you won't feel the "loss" of not having a middleman. The argument about 30% being standard and OK to me only makes sense without the $99/yr license in place, and if only comparing to other locked down platforms. E.g. with Steam, there's plenty of ways to distribute via Steam and still have them take a lower cut, or you have other stores you can sell on. It's only the consoles that have the same kind of locked-down environment, but even then those are explicitly niche devices whereas phones are general-purpose.
  • eviks 3y ago
    You have skin in the game as a consumer
• deadbabe 3y ago
  Why not merely raise prices if the cut Apple takes bothers you so much?
• 55555 3y ago
  Google should update the Chrome TOS so that they get 30% of all sales placed through Chrome, regardless of payment processor used. They're missing out on trillions of dollars and all they have to do is update their TOS!
  • Hamuko 3y ago
    Apple has thankfully figured out that there's good money in online sales so they'll in fact get a cut if you buy stuff on Safari, although only if you use Apple Pay and even then they only get a miniscule 0.15% (or less) cut. I imagine this is because they don't have the technology to skim off all transactions yet and laws prohibiting excessive processing fees.
    • riscy 3y ago
      Does there exist a payment processor that takes zero cut?
      • rahkiin 3y ago
        In the Netherlands there are payment processors with a fixed cut like 15 cents.
        • pcammeraat 3y ago
          Mollie?
          • rahkiin 3y ago
            Yes for ideal. Not for CC of course because of the duopoly of visa/mastercard
        • virgilp 3y ago
          That's only cheaper for payments in excess of 100EUR
      • ixaxaar 3y ago
• lemax 3y ago
  All this to allow you to process the payment yourself. This is just the industry standard 3% payment processing fee.
• IceHegel 3y ago
  Yes, there's a very real sense in which the world is better for having had Apple than not. They have made technological life more beautiful. For that reason, people seem strangely committed to defending them through their rent-seeking period. Apple cannot be both a good company and a monopoly. As their users, we should not accept the false framing and false choice their management presents of either monopolistic control of the mobile ecosystem or endless spam and a Wild West free-for-all. I do not understand why people's hearts are still drawn to Apple as the company of Steve Jobs, when it is clearly something very, very different today.
  • wvenable 3y ago
    > Apple as the company of Steve Jobs, when it is clearly something very, very different today. What? Tim Cook has done a great job of keeping up the Apple philosophy. What significantly has changed?
• DeathArrow 3y ago
  So as a customer, if you give Apple lots of money for a phone, you also give them the right to milk you more through app store and commissions. Developers aren't bringing money from home to pay Apple, they are paying Apple from what end users pay. I hope Apple will be forced to allow third party app stores and sideloading apps.
• todd3834 3y ago
  It’s very interesting to read through the threads. I’m seeing two sides of the argument but clearly the majority here are not happy about what Apple is doing or anyone who tries to stick up for it. I hope people continue to share their perspective. Even if it is not popular to the HN crowd because I appreciate a balanced discussion.
• laktak 3y ago
  If Apple collects a commission here, then why doesn't it collect one on advertising in the app?
• blackqueeriroh 3y ago
  For everyone who thinks Google is some paragon of cooperation and openness as compared to Apple, they just got slammed in court effectively attempting to call their platform open while paying off companies to stay in the Play Store in a very similar case to Epic v. Apple. In fact, this was Epic v. Google. Why did Google lose and Apple largely win? Because Apple had always said their platform was closed and were up front about it. Google, on the other hand, called their platform open and then engaged in anti-competitive behavior to get the benefits of a closed ecosystem. You might not like Apple’s approach, but at least they’re up front and honest about it. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/alphabet-loses-google-play-antitrust-fight-with-epic-games https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/alphabet-loses-googl...
  • kelnos 3y ago
    I don't judge people's policies and actions based on what they say about them. I judge based on the policies and actions themselves. Apple is demonstrably more closed (which IMO makes them worse) than Google on this axis. What they've both said about their platforms is irrelevant to me.
  • dns_snek 3y ago
    This is pointless whataboutism, they're both bad. Google is more open as a platform, but sucks in many other ways and Apple doesn't get points for being anti-competitive to begin with. There's nothing "honest" about deceiving your customers and hiding a 30% fee with NDAs.
  • SLJ7 3y ago
    Apple specifically forbids developers from mentioning the 30% cut in their apps. That means either the users pay more, the developers lose money, or they do what Netflix did and just force the user to figure out how to sign up (because you can't direct people to the site either). Apple has completely draconian rules that very specifically leave users in the dark about how app store revenue works. They are in no way transparent with 99% of their customers.
    • rustcleaner 3y ago
• pritambarhate 3y ago
  I think all developers should start charging 30% more (op top of the price for which it sells on website.) if user is purchasing via In App Purchases. Slowly all users will come to know that if you buy on web generally it's cheaper and they will change their behaviour and IAP sells will drop significantly.
  • tommica 3y ago
    And I'd guess Apple would make a clause for that, if they don't have it already to ban that kind of behaviour.
  • az226 3y ago
    but that might not happen because of how onerous the rules are for non-IAP. it's an awful user experience, 1) the link isn't where you normally buy, 2) you are warned about leaving, 3) you get switched to a different app, 4) you then got to log in, 5) you got to find what you wanted to buy because no such information was carried, and 6) you got to fill out your card and billing information. Unless you are buying something very expensive, it simply won't be worth it. Especially for subscriptions.
• lofaszvanitt 3y ago
  The first thing that should be regulated is the app search functionality. Randomized results for a given query, max. 1 ad supported first entries per page.
• DeathArrow 3y ago
  Unfortunately we only have to pick between iOS and Android devices. Android devices are generally less expensive and maybe you have more freedom in some particular situations. Apple devices have better CPUs. What I would like to see instead is more competition in the OS market and the hardware to be like PCs: you buy whatever device you like and install whatever software you want from wherever you want.
  • CatWChainsaw 3y ago
    Sadly Apple's competition in computer OS is Microsoft, and Microsoft saw everything Apple has been doing and thought it was a great idea...
• gigel82 3y ago
  I used to get all riled up about these assholes but then took a step back, looked at my own usage (which I believe is typical for the majority) and realized I didn't purchase an app (or did an IAP) in over 5 years. So let them burn through their goodwill and suck the gambling whales dry, why do I need to get my blood pressure up over their greed...
• thih9 3y ago
  This feels absurd to the point of comedy. The only thing missing is a monkey’s paw curling its finger and some ominous voice “Epic, be careful what you wish for”.
• Gareth321 3y ago
  > Links cannot be placed directly on an in-app purchase screen or in the in-app purchase flow. This and the other rules amount to effective evasion of the ruling. If the link isn’t allowed under almost all circumstances, it’s hard to see how Apple is complying in good faith.
• Gareth321 3y ago
  It’s clear that countries are going to need to legislate this. Existing anti-trust laws are insufficient.
• d3vmax 3y ago
  This made sense earlier when the app store started, now with abundant bandwidth and reduced cost of hosting, and increase in number of developers/apps and other player/markets, they should reduce it to 5%. It is like how we treasured 5 mb internet on mobile devices, now we use that in a sec.
• Sungdonalson 3y ago
  [flagged]
• bob1029 3y ago
  The solution is very simple for me. Stop participating in the native app ecosystems. The way I see it, you get 2 major pieces of value out of these. First, they serve as a B2C marketing channel. Second, they provide access to certain native hardware features & OS integration. The first point is difficult to contend with, but HN and Twitter seem to serve as a fine counterpoint. For native hardware access, I'd recommend just trying it in your browser right now. You'd likely be surprised what works in 2024 on iOS/Safari clients. We've been shipping just a webapp to our customers for the last 3-4 years now. We do 2D barcode scanning, signature capture, etc. without any difficulty these days. You DO NOT need a native app to access camera, location, etc. you may find some friction with the web, but you just have to work through it and have patience. Watching founders obsess over App Store presence and its requisite taxation is a bit of a red flag for me regarding the effectiveness of their business model. The open web exists - why haven't you even tried it yet? Seems to me it's easier to complain about how unfair things are on twitter than it is to iterate into a viable business.
  • bdcravens 3y ago
    The question isn't whether founders have tried the open web, but whether they can reach their customers there. Myself, I feel that as a developer and a power user I'm far enough removed from "regular" users that I don't know the answer to the question, I only know it's important to ask it.
  • gajnadsgjoas 3y ago
    I think it's not that easy, Telegram tried very hard but got forced into apple restrictions in web browsers, you can read many complaints about it from the founder
    • bob1029 3y ago
      Exactly how was telegram forced? Are they trying to operate in both pools at the same time? I am under no legal contracts with Apple, aside from any EULAs I may have clicked through for iOS, etc.
      • 3y ago
• ken47 3y ago
  Imagine a world where laws forced Apple to enable feature an Apple-compatible version of the Play Store alongside the App Store and vice versa. Likewise with Kindle and any other developer that wants to adhere to a legally mandated App Store API. How would that not be a net positive for the mobile device ecosystem?
• gigatexal 3y ago
  Apple will continue to collect 12 to 27 percent comissions ... Apple is the best / ultimate troll. Hilarious.
• 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
  "Entitlement" Interesting terminology.
• CodinM 3y ago
  This thread has a lot of weird turns I'd not expect. "All they do is steal 30% from society" - objectively it's for providing a service, an infrastructure, a very solid user market, a very solid developer experience (you have to build for a limited number of iOS versions, you don't have to test on a gazillion devices with different flavors of Android), a slightly higher income userbase, and a few others. Seeing the whole thing simply as "theft" boggles my mind, especially coming from people working in or around this industry.
• Sungdonalson 3y ago
  [dead]
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• ken47 3y ago
  I see lots of comments about potential alternatives to 30%. But the only way to really find new optima is to mandate App Store competition. Force Apple and Google to expose the exact API that their app stores are using and allow the laws of economics to determine the outcome. Even under these conditions, only mega corporations and organizations could compete with Google and Apple, so it’s not utopia, but way better than what we’ve got.
• sashank_1509 3y ago
  Yes Apple is obviously engaging in rent seeking behavior to profit off developers. But do they deserve to do so? First they invented the smart phone and App Store. That gives them a right to rent seeking by most people’s standards for a particular period of time. It’s why we have patents. Perhaps you think 16 years is a long time but then Mickey Mouse’s patent expired recently. Second they managed to stave off competition and still maintain a large market share. Smartphones had a large number of companies get into this business, including all of big tech at one point (remember fire phone?) and yet Apple has not barely managed to survive, instead it dominated. That has to count for something. The real problem is this society instinctively sides for the little guy and against the big guy. Sometimes that makes sense, but just like you wouldn’t try to change the rules to reduce the amount Roger Federer earns, there’s no sense in trying to hobble a winning dominant company like Apple. Even as a developer (who’s never worked for Apple), I think developers should just deal with it even if it sucks because I prefer a society where winners get to win. If your product is good enough, you can make users work to pay you and still be a market leader (think Netflix or Kindle store, both of which I buy from my browser).
  • sschueller 3y ago
    "First they invented the smart phone and App Store" No they did not. The first iPhone was released on June 2007 and Apple had no intent to give anybody else the ability to develop any app for their phone. In fact Steve Jobs was vehemently against any app store. Apple only introduced app store on the second year of its first iPhone launch, one day before release of new iPhone 3G. Other types of smart phones and app stores existed before Apple. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_Communicator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_Communicator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Mobile_2003 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Mobile_2003 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Marketplace https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Marketplace
  • majani 3y ago
    For me the issue is that in a perfect scenario, you would be able to adjust your pricing to 30% more and see whether the market could bear it. But Apple ties developers to fixed pricing tiers which doesn't allow this. Maybe the battle should be for removal of these fixed tiers
• amelius 3y ago
  This only shows that users still don't fully own their phone.
• InsomniacL 3y ago
  > "...the StoreKit External Purchase Link Entitlement (US) to include a link to the developer’s website that informs users of other ways to purchase digital goods or services." https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitlement-us/ https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitl... I'm guessing Apple were required to provide developers with Alternative Payment options and not 'a link to a webpage that informs users'...
• mattdesl 3y ago
  Can’t a developer just add a message to their website to circumvent this link tax? “Open this again in any regular browser to receive a 27% discount.” I don’t see anything that prohibits this: https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitlement-us/ https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitl... Apple cannot (or, per antitrust law, should not) tell a developer how to design and sell their merchandise in their web based storefronts.
  • ing33k 3y ago
    Yeah, but will it matter ? It's a mobile native world. That's why distribution matters.
    • mattdesl 3y ago
      If that messaging is allowed, it is a huge change from before, where external links for taking payment was not allowed at all within an app. A lot of users will probably opt for the 27% discount if given the choice.
  • HDThoreaun 3y ago
    I think if what youre selling is just app based content apple could sue and force an audit. Like if the product is just a subscription to the mobile app they could claim that all revenue received from that is subject to the fee. But if youre selling a more general subscription that can be used on different platforms I think this would work.
• markonen 3y ago
  Apple's policies for external purchases are hilarous. The only goal is to be punitive. For the External Link Account Entitlement that "reader” apps can use to link to purchase flows off-app, Apple forbids offering IAP in the same app. Why? Because they think this will discourage adoption. For the new StoreKit External Purchase Link Entitlement that other apps can use for the same exact thing, Apple requires an IAP alternative. Why? Because they think this, too, will discourage adoption.
• secondcoming 3y ago
  Apple isn't a company, it's an economy
• aleksandrvin 3y ago
  ‪Should Apple let an alternative way to install ios ipados app first, and then mention about devs benefiting from their user base? ‬
• Mutjake 3y ago
  Probably an unpopular opinion, but as an Apple user it is okay for me to pay 30% extra (which I often do instead of using Android and getting certain apps for free), so I avoid having to sideload Epic/Facebook/whatnot stuff from their own mandatory app store + having the hassle of figuring out if there's a subscription model and how difficult it is to terminate, how to handle refunds, what darkpattern analytics are included in the appstore binary etc. etc. If you need certain amount of money per user for the product to be profitable, raise the price to account for Apple's cut. But please do not force me to install app stores from companies which have their lifeblood in data brokering my life. At least I have an understanding with Apple that if they go haywire with that stuff (like it was close with the whole CSAM scanning debacle which damaged my trust in Apple and I started considering alternatives) they will lose my hardware purchases as well.
  • rustcleaner 3y ago
    This is such a common talking point, the "hassle of side-loading app stores and the insecurity of trusting them (for permissions enforcement)," that I wonder if some PR firm out there was hired and this talking point is showing up everywhere so people subconsciously think it's consensus and start parroting it themselves (why I'm now seeing it and responding)! The application security model is at the OS level and not the app store level (which is really just a dressed up branded package manager, and has been done forever in GNU-land).
• Mikho 3y ago
  The real problem with the Apple Tax — it ruins value-chain and makes it uneconomical For every value created a customer receives there is value captured by a company paid by this customer. Let's say a company creates a service valued as 1X by the customer and the customer pays 1X for that. This balance guarantees accessibility and interest among many customers. Apple tax demands for a customer to pay 1.43X for the same value of 1X (0.43 = 30% of 1.43). It means that the balance is ruined and customers do not get enough value for what they pay. In value, they still get 1X despite paying for 1.43X. There is a price elasticity curve that measures how many clients a company loses after each step of the price increase. In other words, a company gets significantly fewer customers due to the increased price at the same time, it’s unable to benefit from an additional 0.43X customers paid. A drop in the revenue is significant. At the same time, the company needs to increase its marketing budget effectively decreasing its margin even more. That makes business unsustainable. Imagine what a decrease in purchases a product gets if its price is increased by 43%. This ruins all economic assumptions of a business. Not to mention that if it has any network effect, significantly fewer users result in a degraded experience for all users. I'm considering using PWA for the next mobile app and not investing in native iOS development. Even 50% fewer users due to PWA installation is better than being a lifetime slave to Apple which extorts 43% of what a company gets after Apple TAX from a user.
  • MagicMoonlight 3y ago
    “Supermarkets ruin the value chain, consumers should pay only the grain price”
  • SilverBirch 3y ago
    To be honest it sounds like you've swallowed an econ 101 textbook along with a few libertarian talking points. I was just waiting for you wheel out Deadweight loss. The problem with modelling this as a tax is that... it's not a tax in a pure sense. Apple has partly built the product that you're selling. You're building on their hardware with their libraries and their APIs and their servers and their quality control. They want compensation for that. Now you can argue what level of compensation is fair, and as you point out, its a free market and you even have an option to use a different technology to build you product. The alternative is that Apple doesn't collect this cut of the profits and you have to actually engage in what that means. Why would they build APIs for you? Why would they distribute your app at all. What happens for example if we pass a law tomorrow saying "Sorry Apple, you can only collect enough for credit card fees". Well one option is Apple just closes the store, hires a couple hundred high quality developers and builds out their own library of Apps, take 100% of the revenue. No tax in that situation! But I'm not sure it's a better outcome for developers.
• joshspankit 3y ago
  There’s a lot to talk about but I’m calling this out as trivial, easy, and in bad faith: > No redirecting, intermediate links, or URL tracking parameters are allowed. It’s 100% clear to me that the link they let you use will be a redirected intermediate link through Apple’s servers, probably with tracking params (and at the very least with OS-level tracking).
• ThinkBeat 3y ago
  I am not that happy with this. From a legal perspective and the size of Apple I understand why this happened and for the most part I fully agree with the legal arguments. I went with Android for a well over a decade and it was fun. So many things I could do with it and so many ways to fiddle with it even rooting it. My nerd in me like that. I had an iPhone for a while and the lack of customizations and fiddling was quite annoying, switched back, then a few years ago I went and got an iPhone for reals (I mean fully knowing what I was giving up). I was tired of all the Android problems. I didn't enjoy fiddling anymore I had no longer an interest in rooting it. and I was pissed off about 6000 different Android implementations and how older phones lost Android updates quickly leaving plausible security vulnerabilities. (I suppose Google phones get all the updates for a long time). and usually, one vendor would make their own "enhancements" to the OS anyways. I became the enemy and embraced the walled garden, the shitty game of move your new app icon around and around to try to fit it where you want it, more expensive hardware/cables etc. In my opinion there is less shit in the app store as well. As long as the sideloading and whatever else does not impact my phone as long as I dont do it myself I am fine with it. It it leads to more vulnerabilities and other problems for everyone I dont like it. It is not the 100% great mobile phone. (hello my classic BB), and at times inconvenient but I prefer a nice walled garden and limits on what I can do. I also prefer all my family and friends to be on the iPhone, if and only if I know I will be providing endless technical support "uh you need to fix my cellphone!" > ok.,. what phone do you have? Well its a model XXX from YYY company about 4 years old. > Do you know what version of Android its running? ¹ Sure its the VVV version customized for YYY but it has not been updated for over year. > Buy an iPhone. another day "uh you need to fix my cellphone!" > ok.,. what phone do you have? " uh it is an iPhone 10" > great. > what is the problem? ¹ In real life there is no way the people I provide with unwilling endless technical support would have even a small inkling of what OS it is running. but it fit the made-up dialog.
• mzs 3y ago
  Apple just admitted that 3% is the reasonable cost for bandwidth and service related to an online storefront and that their margin is huge.
  • SLJ7 3y ago
    No, 3% is just Apple accounting for credit card processing fees. It will end up costing developers roughly the same whether they use alternative payment methods or not, which is obviously Apple's plan.
• nojvek 3y ago
  The browser paradigm may be the most open platform we have. I can go to any website, download whatever I want and not pay tax to some central authority. I can inspect the dom, scripts run on my device, the network. Set adblockers and script filters. None of those freedoms are available on smartphone apps. As a dev you pay the trillion dollar mega corps, as a consumer you also pay to them. The app paradigm could have been as open as the web, but we voted with our dollars for a walled garden with 30% tax.
• 1letterunixname 3y ago
  And you wonder about the corrosive influence of billionaires giving lavish vacations to SCOTUS judges and senators who accept gold bars from foreign governments affects legal rulings or legislation presented spoon-fed by lobbyists. Of course the Apple mafia will still get a cut of something they don't deserve because the law and the legislature are on their side.
• beretguy 3y ago
  People should completely abandon app development and make PWAs instead.
• squigglydonut 3y ago
  I designed and built my PWA. You just have to define a manifest and set an empty service worker. Boom now your mobile responsive app is a PWA. PWA can look exactly like native app if you are careful with the design. There are navigation patterns that users expect. Make sure to dial in the information hierarchy and design modals correctly. Use familiar iconography and use type that works at small point sizes. This is basic mobile design regardless of platform. Firefox hooks into the Android type display settings. I would like to see chrome support this. It really adds to the app feel. When you make a PWA you have to remake native components. Material Design 3 Web Components is not done yet. Apple has nothing for you so just set your border radius to 17px or whatever they use. Backdrop filter blurs. You don't get the advertising from the app and play store. You don't get discoverability. However, discoverability is a marketing function. If your acquisition costs are under 30% of your product fees then there is no reason why you can't drive users to your mobile optimized website.
  • sccxy 3y ago
    Some recent iOS PWA bugs: Dark/light mode switching does not work Wake Lock API does not work These features work in browser.
    • squigglydonut 3y ago
      No, dark and light mode does work. I haven't used wake lock api so can't check.
      • sccxy 3y ago
        Dark/light mode is broken from iOS 17.2+ https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=266853 https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=266853
  • mentos 3y ago
    Curious to know what frameworks you are using?
    • 3y ago
• politician 3y ago
  > [3% discount] > Apps that use the StoreKit External Purchase Link must continue to offer in-app purchases as an option. This is worthless. I cannot believe a court allowed Apple to get away with such a useless remedy.
• kesavvaranasi 3y ago
  I don't understand why Apple is asking for a commission if the developer is implementing their own payment flow. If Apple is still mandating that you offer in-app purchase as an option alongside a custom payment flow, then Apple charging a commission for both options seems excessive.
• chucke1992 3y ago
  I think DOJ lawsuit will be interesting.
• CountSessine 3y ago
  At some point I guess Apple will have to give up the 30% and instead charge more directly for their costs associated with running the App Store, namely hosting costs (probably very small) and the cost of testing and reviews (probably larger). If there are competitive App Store's, that where all of the free software will wind up.
• anonymous344 3y ago
  How is an has been okay all this time for example Trello in the app store? Users subsribe to it's paid-tiers only from their website
• insane_dreamer 3y ago
  I see the App Store no different than any retailer. If you want to sell your products in WalMart, then you agree to their terms (which happen to be quite onerous), and they set the price that they want. If you don't like it, you don't have to sell your product in Walmart. You can still sell it at Target (if you agree to their terms), etc., or you can try to open your own store and try to reach your target customers directly (and incur the related costs of doing so).
  • iknowstuff 3y ago
    Not analogous at all. Amazon is the online equivalent of that. You the consumer can go to a different store any time on a whim. You can shop anywhere online with a click. Not the App Store, which controls what and how over half of Americans can access, and the barrier to switching OS-es is fucking huge. How is this remotely the same
  • 015a 3y ago
    This is the problem with metaphor; eventually their legs run out. The more correct metaphor is: Walmart sells you a coloring book. In the back of that coloring book there's a mail-in coupon: send it in, $5 for a second coloring book. Walmart now not only expects to make a cut on that initial coloring book sale; they expect to make a cut on that mail-in sale. One might say: Wait a second, if I'm going to buy that second coloring book, its probably because the first one was so good. If I'm going to buy a book from Kindle, its probably because that book was surfaced to me in the Kindle app. Walmart and Apple didn't exactly have a large hand in making that second sale happen; my product clearly had a much larger hand in it. Apple would, of course, disagree; because they have a god complex.
    • insane_dreamer 3y ago
      I understand what you're saying but the original metaphor still stands. In-app purchases are like other related products produced by your company, which you are still selling through Walmart -- it's just that you're not using Walmart's payment system for purchases.
• vonwoodson 3y ago
  This discussion always drives my mind back to what it's like to be a "Corporate Citizen" Like, when the free market has completely taken over: What is it actually going to be like. I think Apple is the closest to serving many of the "essential government functions" of my life: Health Records, Credit Card and currency (in Apple Cash), Identification Card/Drivers License... I don't see this trend going away as time moves on, either. In this light, I see what Apple is doing to Epic as totally legit: It's like any other government taxing a business within it's borders. Apple needs to take a cut to make sure that the infrastructure for all these services it provides to us citizens is funded. I'd be happy with a 95% income tax on The 1%: why wouldn't I be happy with a 20-something% tax on Epic? Epic going to the Supreme Court is similar to them asking to not have to pay taxes in my 'Nation of Apple' and I'm not sure that I want that. Of course, this is from a certain frame of thought, and may not actually be how I genuinely feel about this. More of a thought experiment.
• dpc_01234 3y ago
  I wish Apple could do 90% cut. Serves their users and developers right. If you don't think it's worth it, no one is forcing you to use it or developer your software for them. :)
  • visarga 3y ago
    101% cut FTW