3 ms·
1. If you want to include a link to an website for payment of digital goods, you have to request an entitlement from Apple. 2. As part of that entitlement, you
by etchalon 3y ago
1. If you want to include a link to an website for payment of digital goods, you have to request an entitlement from Apple.
2. As part of that entitlement, you agree to pay Apple a 27% commission on any purchases made when users click those links, for up to 7 days after the link is clicked.
3. You agree to send Apple monthly sales reports.
4. You agreed to give Apple a right to audit your books at anytime.
That's the meat of it. It's a self-reported cost-per-conversion, which isn't exactly unheard of. Developers are in arms because they don't believe Apple deserves any money for distributing their app on their App Store.
That's the heart of the disagreement.
Apple believes they have a right to charge developers a fee for access to the users who shop through the App Store.
There are developers who believe that the App Store should exist as a free-thing Apple provides to developers, to encourage them to write software for the iPhone. They're willing to accept a nominal processing fee, but anything more is "anti-competitive".
- NoPedantsThanks 3y ago"you agree to pay Apple a 27% commission on any purchases made when users click those links, for up to 7 days after the link is clicked." So if the publisher says, "Click here for a renewal reminder and a 10% discount" and then sends a renewal E-mail on the 8th day, they're in the clear.
- etchalon 3y agoRAW, yes.
- arrosenberg 3y ago> Developers are in arms because they don't believe Apple deserves any money for distributing their app on their App Store. Rephrased - Developers are up in arms because the cost of distribution on iOS is artificially high. It's artificially high because the cost is not subject to market forces. It's not subject to market forces because Apple has a vertical monopoly on hardware and software distribution. Vertical integration is illegal.
- robertlagrant 3y agoThe cost is subject to market forces if you believe that other phones exist.
- dkonofalski 3y agoThat's not true in the slightest, though. Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, and Steam all take 30% for distribution and hosting, same as Apple. It's not artificially high if it's in line with the rest of the tech industry and if you want to try and claim that it's because of some monopoly, vertical or otherwise, then you have to explain why the other storefronts are also monopolies. It's not a monopoly. Other phones and ecosystems exist.
- arrosenberg 3y ago> Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, and Steam all take 30% for distribution and hosting, same as Apple. > It's not a monopoly. I believe you have accurately described a cartel, however.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoCartel =/= same rate. It requires more than just price matching. this is why gas stations and grocery stores aren't cartels either.
- arrosenberg 3y agoThere are absolutely antitrust issues with grocery stores - Kroger/Albertsons is being contested right now! It's a major contributor to food deserts. It's not a cartel because the main players aren't acting in concert, but they are attempting to monopolize regionally. Walmart has also concentrated way too much power, but that's the 800 lb gorilla no one wants to touch. That said, gas stations and grocery stores deal in commodity products. The video game companies are much more integrated with many games that will only run on one system, stores will only run on one type of hardware, and games are not transferrable between competitor systems. Competition is extremely restrained because of these exclusive and limited distribution agreements. The fact that they all maintain the same line on prices is a very clear signal of cartel behavior when you take the context into account - they are using control of a distribution chokepoint to control competition and pricing power. That's the essence of why antitrust laws passed in the first place.