Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 408 posts

Re: Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases

#81

Post by dangus »

peterallport wrote: post #61

Apple must allow alternate payment modes without imposing a gatekeeper tax. It must be consistent without exceptions (i.e. not just Amazon). The issue is not the gratuitous fee, it is the lack of choice. iOS is more ubiquitous than macOS yet more restrictive--it cannot last. This entitlement is so restrictive -- it just seems vindictive. Apple's market share and success means additional responsibility. The argument t…

The courts specifically took this issue off the table. It sounds shocking and unfair, but if you read what they said they point out that this is a pretty standard practice among similar industries. The App Store isn’t just a payment processor. It’s giving you access to Apple IP (e.g., development tools, standard libraries, etc). Apple wrote libraries like SwiftUI and UIKit that are all proprietary code. That SDK saves you the effort of writing all that code yourself as the app developer.

The court from the start basically declared that this is what everyone else does. Epic themselves operate this way - check out the licensing model for Unreal Engine.

There was no antitrust issue being litigated here. We can all believe that there should be, but there isn’t, and this isn’t the right type of court for that issue.

Technically, the court granted Epic’s wish, Apple is now giving you the freedom to choose a different payment processor and deducting the market rate cost of doing so. The only bit left to resolve is whether Epic’s argument that Apple’s compliance is not in good faith sticks.

Re: Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases

#82

Post by robertlagrant »

usea wrote: post #77
lolinder wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuinely curious: why should Apple be forced to host apps that don't pay them while Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft continue to extract 30% of all sales on their consoles?

Apple isn't forced to host anything. Console manufacturers shouldn't be allowed to extract those fees either.

No one is forced to sell on Apple either, if that's your logic.

Re: Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases

#83

Post by robertlagrant »

a_wild_dandan wrote: post #64
threeseed wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because iOS apps talk to the Notarisation Service on launch. So they know total app installs as well as the installs purchased from the App Store.

That metric doesn't work accurately even in the simplest case (buying an app), let alone for more nuanced transactions -- in-app purchases, subscription tiers, etc. It's unclear how how Apple-the-middle-man can insert itself to effectively rent seek from customers/developers now.

It's not rent seeking.

Re: Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases

#84

Post by aeturnum »

Apple's fees are too high, and I also don't find this particularly persuasive.

- Apple charges a ~30% fee to publish on their store. It's a high fee! I also understand people make money there (more than on stores with lower fees).

- Apple also has a pretty sophisticated set of financial products you can use through your account with them. It makes sense you wouldn't be able to use those in the same with with another payment processor.

- Apple also doesn't want this to be an avenue for leaking personal details.

My read of the support link[1] are that you owe apple 0% of any purchased that are not made "...after a link out (i.e., they tap “Continue” on the system disclosure sheet)...". Presumably, if your app is on multiple platforms, users can use another platform to buy things. It doesn't appear that you would owe apple money for those purchases[2] though of course you must still charge the same price to every platform.

Fundamentally I disagree with how apple runs their iOS platform so I don't own any devices that on it. Choosing not to own iOS devices is occasionally annoying but it doesn't seem like a real disadvantage to me. However I also think that the concerns Apple has about their user experience (information leaks, compromises, etc) are real and that they genuinely do better than most other players.

I think the case that Apple must allow side-loading is much stronger than the case that all of this behavior is somehow wrong in essence. As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, Epic takes 5% of all revenue (over $1m). Would they drop all their objections if Apple just dropped their fees?

[1] https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitl...

[2] I am not a lawyer

Re: Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases

#86

Post by lolinder »

peterallport wrote: post #61

Apple must allow alternate payment modes without imposing a gatekeeper tax. It must be consistent without exceptions (i.e. not just Amazon). The issue is not the gratuitous fee, it is the lack of choice. iOS is more ubiquitous than macOS yet more restrictive--it cannot last. This entitlement is so restrictive -- it just seems vindictive. Apple's market share and success means additional responsibility. The argument t…

This argument has been repeatedly made over the past 24 hours with a lot of emotion but little justification.

The judge forced Apple to unbundle their payments. Apple's solution to that is probably overly restrictive. And I suspect that you're right that 27% is too large a cut to survive.

With both of those points granted, though, your argument seems to be that Apple should be obliged to host, distribute, and market apps (including the burden of moderation and malware prevention) for free. That any commission is too much of a commission.

Can I ask you to elaborate on why you believe that Apple should be singled out and mandated to perform a service for free?

Re: Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases

#87

Post by robertlagrant »

arrosenberg wrote: post #59
etchalon wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 int…

The cost is subject to market forces if you believe that other phones exist.

Re: Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases

#89

Post by robertlagrant »

blibble wrote: post #42
xivzgrev wrote: post #39

I mean I gotta give respect to Apple. They seem to have done the minimal technical compliance with the order. Users can make a purchase for their app outside of the App Store. But at the same time they put in as much friction as they could, including reframing the charge to developer as a lead commission - and the net cost to developer is HIGHER than using Apple. Of course epic is going to challenge the spirit of the…

> I mean I gotta give respect to Apple. They seem to have done the minimal technical compliance with the order. it's borderline contempt of court > I can respect though how they approached a potentially large setback for their business. I'd be pretty mad if I was the judge, they might like my 2nd ruling even less

Hopefully the judge isn't like that. Bit of a silly character trait for a judge.

Re: Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases

#90

Post by [deleted] »

aeturnum wrote: post #84

Apple's fees are too high, and I also don't find this particularly persuasive. - Apple charges a ~30% fee to publish on their store. It's a high fee! I also understand people make money there (more than on stores with lower fees). - Apple also has a pretty sophisticated set of financial products you can use through your account with them. It makes sense you wouldn't be able to use those in the same with with another…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN