8 ms·

There is simply no way around the fact that Apple demanding a cut of sales on an external platform is ridiculous. Steam does not do this. Google does not do thi

There is simply no way around the fact that Apple demanding a cut of sales on an external platform is ridiculous. Steam does not do this. Google does not do this. This would be absolutely absurd for anyone else in any market to do, and this will likely be exhibit C at Apple's inevitable antitrust trial. Edit: Re-reading, and I wish that the article was longer. Of course Apple doesn't want to allow side-loading, but they're going to have to eventually, so why not do it proactively and in a way that allows third-party apps to be extra-sandboxed or reviewed? Oh right, because they're Apple. I appreciate the methodology, but a touch of openness will not kill their profits or trust level.

PeterStuer 3y ago
Yep, it is exactly like Microsoft charging for every computer PC produced, regardless of wether it ran a MS operating system.
rmbyrro 3y ago
I'm in no way defending Apple's stance, but this is a misrepresentation. They're only demanding a cut if the lead resulting in an external sales comes from the App. If you market your app on a website and sell there, you don't have to pay Apple anything. If you market inside the appstore, attract leads there and sell, you have to pay Apple.
- rpmisms 3y ago
  That's not quite true, if the user clicked that link in the last 7 days, Apple wants a cut. That's still ridiculous, and it's still an external platform.
- mixmastamyk 3y ago
  Sounds like an Amazon (or any other) affiliate program. However, I doubt anyone is/has been paying 27% for a lead.
- LunaSea 3y ago
  If Apple forbids non-Apple Store app stores, how can this legitimately be considered to be lead generation by Apple? That's like saying that highschools are doing lead generation for universities. Sure, kids going to university do indeed come from highschool but on the other hand it's not like there was much of a choice or effort by the school involved. Can't say Apple is doing any effort really.
- smileybarry 3y ago
  The bigger problem (in my opinion) is that the new policy is practically paying for a single link with full-blown transparency. Other than paying for those leads, you have to: > (a) still offer Apple’s IAP for those items; (b) pay Apple its adjusted 27/12 percent commissions on web sales that come from inside iOS apps; (c) send Apple sales data monthly and submit to audits of their sales; and (d) follow Apple’s stringent design edicts for these in-app links to the web. Disclosing sales data and submitting to random audits is fairly invasive and has wide anti-trust implications. E.g.: Apple can see how effective external linking is compared to IAP and use that metric. Or they can use that metric from a similar app and guesstimate your customer base, and adjust their speed building a competing service. Not to mention the added cost of compliance, suddenly an indie developer who could withstand a Shopify/Stripe payment processing setup won’t dare to bother linking, out of fear for messing up a report and getting randomly audited. (I mean, I get the reason for doing this, since a % of companies will fudge numbers to pay less commission, given the chance. But it’s still just a can of worms.)
- leereeves 3y ago
  > If you market your app on a website and sell there ...then you still have to put your app on the App Store and pay Apple a commission, because they don't allow sideloading. Which clearly proves that you aren't paying Apple for marketing or lead generation, you're paying for access to the app market. If current antitrust law (mostly written a hundred years ago) doesn't cover that, it's time to update the laws.
- djfdat 3y ago
  I would argue that, once the app is installed, the lead for the purchase is being generated by the app, not by Apple or the App Store, and therefore Apple should not be taking a commision for the lead. They could still charge a transaction fee if using Apple Pay. And if users were able to purchase things through the App Store (Apps or Items in the App), then I would consider those to be leads generated by Apple, and applicable to their commission terms. It's crazy to think that anything you do inside your app between you and your customer is subject to Apple forcefully inserting themselves into the relationship, and then demanding payment. Apple's marketplace is inside the App Store, not inside the apps that are developed independent of them. You could argue that the apps are not developed independently, as they could (not by choice) use Apple's APIs, but I feel that that is what the $99/yr developer fee entitles the developer to use. To the general problem; I really hope Apple stops being anti-consumer and anti-developer using these landlord tactics. The (second?) richest company in the world does not need to take these extra commissions. Without these developers, there would be no App Store, and it's in Apple's best interest for them to thrive. Apple is making the calculated decision of how much they can take off the top while still having developers make good products for their platform. Yes, their investors will not be happy that a source of income is being lost, but it's up to Apple to convince them that the good will from consumers and developers will provide more value through other means than that loss of income.
  - kanbara 3y ago
    apple designed and built the OS, hardware, APIs, servers for building and hosting your app, payment systems, subscription APIs, developer support etc. i'd be fine with apple saying "we take 0%, but then you have to do literally everything yourself, have fun" and then you can see how it will work. i don't understand the entitlement. don't develop for iOS then, or make your own phone. it's not easy and costs a lot of money. 12% doesn't seem like a bad deal to reach billions of people and make money enough to be a mobile developer fulltime.
    - djfdat 3y ago
      Sure, they built those things. But is this the place to extract value? Do they not extract value for their work at many other stages in their relationship with both users of their devices and developers of software for their devices? They already make money: 1. Selling the hardware. 2. Subscription for their own software/storage systems. 3. Yearly developer fees. 4. Apple Pay Transaction fees. Also, a lot of these developers are suggesting they do everything that Apple allows them to do themselves by themselves, and Apple still wants to take a huge cut? If Apple were to say, have the exact same policy but only take a 5% cut, maybe people would balk less? Some of the largest apps on the platform are free. These companies are using these resources more than smaller developers, but Apple has no way to extract money from these large companies. In that sense, these smaller developers that are subsidizing the platform for these large companies. I'd argue that this isn't the correct structure for the platform to have the apps using the most resources paying their cost. You say you don't understand the entitlement, and then go on to say 12% is the amount that developers are paying to Apple? Why do you feel the need to use the lowest possible amount rather than the regular going rate? It's 30%. 30% if you use Apple Pay in your app. 27% + 3% transaction fee when using the web and doing as much as are allowed to do by yourself, by yourself. Please tell me what edge case the 12% applies to, and if we can know how many transactions fall under that slim category. Apple owns a huge computing platform, and has it locked down so that all commerce must go through them, and takes a huge cut of each transaction. I don't care who else is doing it, but this practice, done to this extent, is damaging to the users and developers for that platform.
- asadotzler 3y ago
  If your app is already installed and your app (not the Apple App Store) directs you to a payment on the web, Apple will demand its cut. This case isn't an App Store referral, this the app doing the referral. The app has already achieved installation, the App Store is no longer relevant here. Yet, Apple demands a cut.
dmitrygr 3y ago
Do you also have objections to contracting websites having terms that don’t allow you to cut them out of the equation and directly engage with people you find there?
- dboreham 3y ago
  Not parent, but: yes! All such restrictive practices are wrong.
- rpmisms 3y ago
  Usually those exist for a single contract length, and after that you are free to engage however you'd like. That's essentially a headhunting fee and is valid. That arrangement existing in perpetuity is immoral, and that's what Apple is doing.
ajmurmann 3y ago
> Steam does not do this. It feels like this comparison only holds for the Steamdeck where Valve would have comparable control and you are staying within their offering/hardware regardless. There is of course no sensible equivalent for the desktop client which sees like 99% of the usage. A better comparison might be regular video game consoles which allow none of this.
- smileybarry 3y ago
  Steam is a valid comparison because they used to have IAP-style enforcement: EA’s original dispute and split to their own launcher was because they snuck a DLC store into Dragon Age 2, but used their own billing and paid zero fees. IIRC they tried to justify it by implying the DLC is not downloaded from Steam CDNs, ergo no platform cost, but it got DA2 delisted and EA left (for several years). To this day I think you can’t sell DLC from outside Steam while in a Steam version — i.e. the in-game UI must use a Steam store API — but you can share DLC, currency, etc. bought elsewhere with the Steam version through your account system. (E.g.: Overwatch 2 credits and content is cross-platform, Sims 4 DLC is cross-launcher, Apex Legends currency and content is cross-launcher, etc.) I’m not sure if it’s an oversight or if Valve and the developer sort of handle it monetarily behind the scenes in some form.
  - mr_toad 3y ago
    I was wondering how the new App Store rules apply to in-game currencies that are bought on external websites with no in-app links. Presumably these work the same way Kindle or Netflix purchases do?
    - smileybarry 3y ago
      Currencies are shared across PC and mobile, but some games have restrictions on how you can obtain it: * In Genshin Impact: if your account was first played / created on mobile, you can only purchase currency on mobile (either platform). Clicking the same button on PC throws an error saying you can only do this on mobile. Other way around (first played on PC) results in an account that can buy currency on all platforms. * In Hearthstone: There doesn't appear to be a platform limitation for buying in-game packs or stuff; pricing may be different due to regional currency reasons but you can buy on either platform freely. (e.g.: Blizzard's PC marketplace has a handful of currencies but iOS has tens of them with different template prices) The developer for Genshin is frequently featured by Apple and even has some iOS-exclusive features (e.g.: 120Hz/120FPS is iOS-only), so I assume this was a sort-of privately-negotiated revenue sharing situation.
lolinder 3y ago
The comparison Apple made in the court case was not primarily to Steam or Google, it was to the consoles. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo all take a 30% cut of all of Epic's transactions across their respective platforms. Apple argued, and persuaded the judge, that Epic's targeting of Apple specifically for it's 30% share was unreasonable given that Epic was happily paying the fee to all the other platforms: > Indeed, for example, Epic Games has agreed to such a rate on all Fortnite transactions via the Microsoft (Xbox) Store, the PlayStation Store, the Nintendo eShop, and Google Play. Epic Games has also agreed to extra payments for certain platform holders above and beyond the standard 30% commission rate. For example, for all Fortnite transactions via the PlayStation Store, Epic Games agreed to make additional payments to Sony above this commission rate based on the amount of time that PlayStation users play Fortnite cross-platform. The judge forced Apple to allow transactions to take place off of the platform, but she explicitly noted that Apple would still be entitled to a commission on said sales. Apple sees their App Store arrangement as similar to Upwork, Rover, or any number of other marketplaces, which all have policies preventing users from meeting through the system but transacting outside of it. From their perspective, if they hooked you up with the sale, then they're entitled to a commission. If you think you can do better without their sales, you're welcome to pull out of their marketplace, and if they find that you're abusing their marketplace they'll hasten you to the door. That is, as far as the judge was concerned, perfectly legal, and I'm having a hard time not seeing it as a reasonable position to take. [0] https://casetext.com/case/epic-games-inc-v-apple-inc-2 https://casetext.com/case/epic-games-inc-v-apple-inc-2
- rpmisms 3y ago
  This is a fair point, but I would note that physical distribution exists for the consoles, which necessitates an alternative marketplace — the used market.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    The judge's comments were about the electronic stores of each platform. The distribution costs are only different for physically purchased games, Apple has to distribute just as many devices per customer as Nintendo does.
jbverschoor 3y ago
Google does this. Epic does this. Nintendo does this. Sony does this. Microsoft does this. Uber does this. Amazon does this. Deliveroo does this. Airbnb does this. Walmart does this. Target does this. Every frikkin company charges a margin.
freetime2 3y ago
> Steam does not do this. If I download a free-to-play game from steam and then make an in-app purchase (DLC, loot box, etc) - does Steam not take a cut of that in-app purchase? Serious question, as I haven't used Steam in a while.

PeterStuer 3y ago

Yep, it is exactly like Microsoft charging for every computer PC produced, regardless of wether it ran a MS operating system.

rmbyrro 3y ago

I'm in no way defending Apple's stance, but this is a misrepresentation. They're only demanding a cut if the lead resulting in an external sales comes from the App. If you market your app on a website and sell there, you don't have to pay Apple anything. If you market inside the appstore, attract leads there and sell, you have to pay Apple.

rpmisms 3y ago
That's not quite true, if the user clicked that link in the last 7 days, Apple wants a cut. That's still ridiculous, and it's still an external platform.
mixmastamyk 3y ago
Sounds like an Amazon (or any other) affiliate program. However, I doubt anyone is/has been paying 27% for a lead.
LunaSea 3y ago
If Apple forbids non-Apple Store app stores, how can this legitimately be considered to be lead generation by Apple? That's like saying that highschools are doing lead generation for universities. Sure, kids going to university do indeed come from highschool but on the other hand it's not like there was much of a choice or effort by the school involved. Can't say Apple is doing any effort really.
smileybarry 3y ago
The bigger problem (in my opinion) is that the new policy is practically paying for a single link with full-blown transparency. Other than paying for those leads, you have to: > (a) still offer Apple’s IAP for those items; (b) pay Apple its adjusted 27/12 percent commissions on web sales that come from inside iOS apps; (c) send Apple sales data monthly and submit to audits of their sales; and (d) follow Apple’s stringent design edicts for these in-app links to the web. Disclosing sales data and submitting to random audits is fairly invasive and has wide anti-trust implications. E.g.: Apple can see how effective external linking is compared to IAP and use that metric. Or they can use that metric from a similar app and guesstimate your customer base, and adjust their speed building a competing service. Not to mention the added cost of compliance, suddenly an indie developer who could withstand a Shopify/Stripe payment processing setup won’t dare to bother linking, out of fear for messing up a report and getting randomly audited. (I mean, I get the reason for doing this, since a % of companies will fudge numbers to pay less commission, given the chance. But it’s still just a can of worms.)
leereeves 3y ago
> If you market your app on a website and sell there ...then you still have to put your app on the App Store and pay Apple a commission, because they don't allow sideloading. Which clearly proves that you aren't paying Apple for marketing or lead generation, you're paying for access to the app market. If current antitrust law (mostly written a hundred years ago) doesn't cover that, it's time to update the laws.
djfdat 3y ago
I would argue that, once the app is installed, the lead for the purchase is being generated by the app, not by Apple or the App Store, and therefore Apple should not be taking a commision for the lead. They could still charge a transaction fee if using Apple Pay. And if users were able to purchase things through the App Store (Apps or Items in the App), then I would consider those to be leads generated by Apple, and applicable to their commission terms. It's crazy to think that anything you do inside your app between you and your customer is subject to Apple forcefully inserting themselves into the relationship, and then demanding payment. Apple's marketplace is inside the App Store, not inside the apps that are developed independent of them. You could argue that the apps are not developed independently, as they could (not by choice) use Apple's APIs, but I feel that that is what the $99/yr developer fee entitles the developer to use. To the general problem; I really hope Apple stops being anti-consumer and anti-developer using these landlord tactics. The (second?) richest company in the world does not need to take these extra commissions. Without these developers, there would be no App Store, and it's in Apple's best interest for them to thrive. Apple is making the calculated decision of how much they can take off the top while still having developers make good products for their platform. Yes, their investors will not be happy that a source of income is being lost, but it's up to Apple to convince them that the good will from consumers and developers will provide more value through other means than that loss of income.
- kanbara 3y ago
  apple designed and built the OS, hardware, APIs, servers for building and hosting your app, payment systems, subscription APIs, developer support etc. i'd be fine with apple saying "we take 0%, but then you have to do literally everything yourself, have fun" and then you can see how it will work. i don't understand the entitlement. don't develop for iOS then, or make your own phone. it's not easy and costs a lot of money. 12% doesn't seem like a bad deal to reach billions of people and make money enough to be a mobile developer fulltime.
  - djfdat 3y ago
    Sure, they built those things. But is this the place to extract value? Do they not extract value for their work at many other stages in their relationship with both users of their devices and developers of software for their devices? They already make money: 1. Selling the hardware. 2. Subscription for their own software/storage systems. 3. Yearly developer fees. 4. Apple Pay Transaction fees. Also, a lot of these developers are suggesting they do everything that Apple allows them to do themselves by themselves, and Apple still wants to take a huge cut? If Apple were to say, have the exact same policy but only take a 5% cut, maybe people would balk less? Some of the largest apps on the platform are free. These companies are using these resources more than smaller developers, but Apple has no way to extract money from these large companies. In that sense, these smaller developers that are subsidizing the platform for these large companies. I'd argue that this isn't the correct structure for the platform to have the apps using the most resources paying their cost. You say you don't understand the entitlement, and then go on to say 12% is the amount that developers are paying to Apple? Why do you feel the need to use the lowest possible amount rather than the regular going rate? It's 30%. 30% if you use Apple Pay in your app. 27% + 3% transaction fee when using the web and doing as much as are allowed to do by yourself, by yourself. Please tell me what edge case the 12% applies to, and if we can know how many transactions fall under that slim category. Apple owns a huge computing platform, and has it locked down so that all commerce must go through them, and takes a huge cut of each transaction. I don't care who else is doing it, but this practice, done to this extent, is damaging to the users and developers for that platform.
asadotzler 3y ago
If your app is already installed and your app (not the Apple App Store) directs you to a payment on the web, Apple will demand its cut. This case isn't an App Store referral, this the app doing the referral. The app has already achieved installation, the App Store is no longer relevant here. Yet, Apple demands a cut.

dmitrygr 3y ago

Do you also have objections to contracting websites having terms that don’t allow you to cut them out of the equation and directly engage with people you find there?

dboreham 3y ago
Not parent, but: yes! All such restrictive practices are wrong.
rpmisms 3y ago
Usually those exist for a single contract length, and after that you are free to engage however you'd like. That's essentially a headhunting fee and is valid. That arrangement existing in perpetuity is immoral, and that's what Apple is doing.

ajmurmann 3y ago

> Steam does not do this. It feels like this comparison only holds for the Steamdeck where Valve would have comparable control and you are staying within their offering/hardware regardless. There is of course no sensible equivalent for the desktop client which sees like 99% of the usage. A better comparison might be regular video game consoles which allow none of this.

smileybarry 3y ago
Steam is a valid comparison because they used to have IAP-style enforcement: EA’s original dispute and split to their own launcher was because they snuck a DLC store into Dragon Age 2, but used their own billing and paid zero fees. IIRC they tried to justify it by implying the DLC is not downloaded from Steam CDNs, ergo no platform cost, but it got DA2 delisted and EA left (for several years). To this day I think you can’t sell DLC from outside Steam while in a Steam version — i.e. the in-game UI must use a Steam store API — but you can share DLC, currency, etc. bought elsewhere with the Steam version through your account system. (E.g.: Overwatch 2 credits and content is cross-platform, Sims 4 DLC is cross-launcher, Apex Legends currency and content is cross-launcher, etc.) I’m not sure if it’s an oversight or if Valve and the developer sort of handle it monetarily behind the scenes in some form.
- mr_toad 3y ago
  I was wondering how the new App Store rules apply to in-game currencies that are bought on external websites with no in-app links. Presumably these work the same way Kindle or Netflix purchases do?
  - smileybarry 3y ago
    Currencies are shared across PC and mobile, but some games have restrictions on how you can obtain it: * In Genshin Impact: if your account was first played / created on mobile, you can only purchase currency on mobile (either platform). Clicking the same button on PC throws an error saying you can only do this on mobile. Other way around (first played on PC) results in an account that can buy currency on all platforms. * In Hearthstone: There doesn't appear to be a platform limitation for buying in-game packs or stuff; pricing may be different due to regional currency reasons but you can buy on either platform freely. (e.g.: Blizzard's PC marketplace has a handful of currencies but iOS has tens of them with different template prices) The developer for Genshin is frequently featured by Apple and even has some iOS-exclusive features (e.g.: 120Hz/120FPS is iOS-only), so I assume this was a sort-of privately-negotiated revenue sharing situation.

lolinder 3y ago

The comparison Apple made in the court case was not primarily to Steam or Google, it was to the consoles. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo all take a 30% cut of all of Epic's transactions across their respective platforms. Apple argued, and persuaded the judge, that Epic's targeting of Apple specifically for it's 30% share was unreasonable given that Epic was happily paying the fee to all the other platforms: > Indeed, for example, Epic Games has agreed to such a rate on all Fortnite transactions via the Microsoft (Xbox) Store, the PlayStation Store, the Nintendo eShop, and Google Play. Epic Games has also agreed to extra payments for certain platform holders above and beyond the standard 30% commission rate. For example, for all Fortnite transactions via the PlayStation Store, Epic Games agreed to make additional payments to Sony above this commission rate based on the amount of time that PlayStation users play Fortnite cross-platform. The judge forced Apple to allow transactions to take place off of the platform, but she explicitly noted that Apple would still be entitled to a commission on said sales. Apple sees their App Store arrangement as similar to Upwork, Rover, or any number of other marketplaces, which all have policies preventing users from meeting through the system but transacting outside of it. From their perspective, if they hooked you up with the sale, then they're entitled to a commission. If you think you can do better without their sales, you're welcome to pull out of their marketplace, and if they find that you're abusing their marketplace they'll hasten you to the door. That is, as far as the judge was concerned, perfectly legal, and I'm having a hard time not seeing it as a reasonable position to take. [0] https://casetext.com/case/epic-games-inc-v-apple-inc-2 https://casetext.com/case/epic-games-inc-v-apple-inc-2

rpmisms 3y ago
This is a fair point, but I would note that physical distribution exists for the consoles, which necessitates an alternative marketplace — the used market.
- lolinder 3y ago
  The judge's comments were about the electronic stores of each platform. The distribution costs are only different for physically purchased games, Apple has to distribute just as many devices per customer as Nintendo does.

jbverschoor 3y ago

Google does this. Epic does this. Nintendo does this. Sony does this. Microsoft does this. Uber does this. Amazon does this. Deliveroo does this. Airbnb does this. Walmart does this. Target does this. Every frikkin company charges a margin.

freetime2 3y ago

> Steam does not do this. If I download a free-to-play game from steam and then make an in-app purchase (DLC, loot box, etc) - does Steam not take a cut of that in-app purchase? Serious question, as I haven't used Steam in a while.