Live data from Hacker News

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

macrumors.com

111–120 of 1001 posts

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

#111
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You can probably include development of SDKs and documentation as well.

> You can probably include development of SDKs and documentation as well.

With limited exceptions, platform vendors (Microsoft, IBM, Sun/Oracle, etc) are generally not in the business of paywalling their development documentation, tools, and SDKs, otherwise it makes their platform far less attactive to third-party developers that they absolutely need in order to.

...and ever and never-mind that Apple's documentation is sub-par[1], even with the billions of dollars they're raking in. It boggles the mind because nothing is stopping Apple from hiring the people it needs to ensure decent documentation and DX, which can be paid-for directly from the $99/yr developer membership fee.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25046691

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

#114
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/

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.

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

#116
post #103

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.

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…

Technically, third-party browsers are NOT allowed. The only browsers allowed are built using Apple's "open-source" WebKit.

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

#117

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…

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.

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

#119
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.)

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

#120

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 t…

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…

This is a weird take. It’s similar to saying workers pre unionisation and labour movements were complicit in enabling poor working conditions.
Post reply on HN