[flagged]
Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases
21–30 of 408 posts
Re: Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases
#22Can anyone provide a link to context on what OP is talking about, for those who don't know it? I don't understand what Apple is actually doing from this tweet/thread. Are they are somehow managing to force even payment links from ordinary web sites in an ordinary web browser (Safari?) to go through them as payment processor? (How?) Or is this a new rule for app store apps (what is the new rule?) Or a new payment stru…
No. They’re allowing alternate payment processing with a link from an an iOS app to a webpage, and reducing their commission to either 12 or 27% representing a 3% discount for not doing the payment processing themselves. They’re basically following the ruling based on some California law being applied nationally that the Supreme Court declined to hear on appeal. The judge said Apple would have to allow links out to alternate payment and would be required to collect their commission, which she suggested might be a bit high, but didn’t order any changes because everyone else also charges 30%, too. They are basically trying to act as an affiliate or partner with commission, which is pretty much the way it was before, but accounting gets more complicated now. (The judge was okay with Apple continuing to collect commission on sales.)
Apple is still requiring they also make Apple in-app purchases available for the same digital goods. And also being pretty restrictive on how to link out. I have no idea if that is in the spirit of the ruling, but I think so, because the law that was cited had to do with allowing links to app publisher’s site for alternate payment, and that Apple couldn’t deny apps including such links.
Re: Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases
#23Feels like Apple is really tempting fate at this point. They essentially won v. Epic (as of yesterday, SCOTUS rejected the appeal). I'm not sure why they feel so emboldened to add a 27% tax on web purchases as well. Completely wild, but I guess shareholder value must always go up.
Because this isn't a tax on web purchases. As a developer you need to pay the 30% commission similar to how if you're using Unreal Engine you need to pay 5%. You can legitimately argue this fee is way too high but the courts have already said that they are allowed to charge it.
I don't think the issue is how high the fee is, the issue is Apple forcing developers to use their payments platform. Apple is within its right to charge whatever they want. Unreal Engine is free to charge whatever fee they want. But you're not forced to use UE. You are forced to use Apple IAP system, or their alternative now, is to allow you to use your own system, but still pay them a ridiculous fee, for what exactly?
Re: Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> This is two big corporations arguing over which one makes more profit from you. This slightly oversimplifies the situation, as Apple's policy is pretty clearly anti-competitive and, more importantly, anti-developer. As a developer, you have to bump your prices because of the Apple tax. (And even as a consumer, prices are pushed up. Let's say you want to sell X for $10; too bad: you now have to sell it for $12 if yo…
When you view it so narrowly, all developer costs are anti-developer. My desire to charge less for my app isn't reason I should have to pay less at the grocery store, though.
Re: Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that option is important to you, why deeply embed yourself in an ecosystem that doesn't have it when others exist?
Apple's hardware is unmatched unfortunately.
My user experience on a Pixel 6 Pro was better than on the iPhone 15 Pro Max (had to switch for family reasons).
I do not take away from Apple that their customer service is top notch and for many users that matters as much as how good the SW is.
Re: Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases
#26Can anyone provide a link to context on what OP is talking about, for those who don't know it? I don't understand what Apple is actually doing from this tweet/thread. Are they are somehow managing to force even payment links from ordinary web sites in an ordinary web browser (Safari?) to go through them as payment processor? (How?) Or is this a new rule for app store apps (what is the new rule?) Or a new payment stru…
Tim Sweeney is mad about having to pay Apple's App Store commission. Developers for many years believed that by having their own "payment processing" they could pay nothing to Apple. However the district court ruled that Apple is entitled to collect a commission because it wasn't just for "payment processing," it was for its intellectual property. They are just doing it in a convoluted and less efficient way as a result of the one claim Epic won in Epic v. Apple.
Re: Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases
#27Feels like Apple is really tempting fate at this point. They essentially won v. Epic (as of yesterday, SCOTUS rejected the appeal). I'm not sure why they feel so emboldened to add a 27% tax on web purchases as well. Completely wild, but I guess shareholder value must always go up.
> I'm not sure why they feel so emboldened to add a 27% tax on web purchases as well.
Because the judge's ruling still left the option open for Apple to continue to charge a commission fee for external payment processors.
Over 2 years ago, observers correctly predicted that Apple would still charge 30% for external payments. Example story:
https://9to5mac.com/2021/09/14/apple-can-still-charge-its-ap...
So Apple's new policy in 2024 is no surprise and the only difference is that Apple is charging 27% instead of the predicted 30%.
Re: Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases
#28Feels like Apple is really tempting fate at this point. They essentially won v. Epic (as of yesterday, SCOTUS rejected the appeal). I'm not sure why they feel so emboldened to add a 27% tax on web purchases as well. Completely wild, but I guess shareholder value must always go up.
[deleted]
Re: Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases
#29Can anyone provide a link to context on what OP is talking about, for those who don't know it? I don't understand what Apple is actually doing from this tweet/thread. Are they are somehow managing to force even payment links from ordinary web sites in an ordinary web browser (Safari?) to go through them as payment processor? (How?) Or is this a new rule for app store apps (what is the new rule?) Or a new payment stru…
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".
Re: Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases
#30Feels like Apple is really tempting fate at this point. They essentially won v. Epic (as of yesterday, SCOTUS rejected the appeal). I'm not sure why they feel so emboldened to add a 27% tax on web purchases as well. Completely wild, but I guess shareholder value must always go up.
> I'm not sure why they feel so emboldened Because they feel like they own the relationship between the user and the developer by virtue of it happening on a device they made, regardless of how much their contribution, if any, was to the formation of that relationship in the first place.
the same could be said of any game developed on Unreal and required to pay an (admittedly lower) percent to Epic