5 ms·

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

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.

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.