Apple Blocks Facebook Update That Called Out 30% App Store 'Tax' (theverge.com) 107
Apple blocked Facebook from informing users that Apple would collect 30 percent of in-app purchases made through a planned new feature, Facebook said. From a report: Apple said the update violated an App Store rule that doesn't let developers show "irrelevant" information to users. The feature lets Facebook users buy tickets for online events directly through the app. Apple's rules say that purchases of digital content have to use the App Store's payments system, giving Apple 30 percent of the total. Facebook says it asked Apple to waive this fee so that all of the revenue could go to event organizers, but Apple refused. The feature is now available, but without the message about Apple's 30-percent cut. Earlier this month, Facebook released an image showing what the message would look like in the app. The planned message on Android was expected to read "Facebook doesn't take a fee from this purchase." According to Reuters, that message doesn't show up in the version of the app downloaded through Google Play, either.
Apple = Mafia (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Apple = Mafia (Score:5, Insightful)
I think Apple is working like a closed community with a strict HOA.
Like HOA communities. They often look nice and are pleasant to live just as long as you pay your dues and follow all the rules. If you want more freedom then be sure to move to a different neighborhood. Perhaps a Right to Farm area. Where you can basically do what you want with your property, but you will also have to deal with your neighbors Roosters, using loud equipment at any time of the day or night, smelling manure.... And if sometimes an eyesore outside your windows.
I have recently switched from an iPhone to a Samsung. Other than getting use to how Android is setup, I find that I can do a lot more tetchy things in Android vs iOS. Because I can get Apps that Apple will reject, mostly because they may be too low level and allows you to look under the hood of iOS. However I have to be much more careful on what I try to download and run on my device. As Apps may not be compatible with my device, or just be malware. Also on Android I have found Ads to be much more aggressive and common, as well many of the default apps are loaded with Ads which apples default Apps are not.
It seems that because Apple is actively reviewing software and their updates and we haven't yet had a major security issue with iOS devices that spread rapidly. That 30% fee could be considered justified (however I still think it is very high, 5% would seem fair to me) As you would want the App maker to be making at least 20% margin on their product. Having Apple take 30% of the top, means they are raising prices on these serveries. And the same price is being pushed towards Android
Re: (Score:2)
You can eliminate most ads by installing DNS66, a free (as in beer) VPN that filters out most ad requests and doesn't require root privileges. It also blocks ads from your web browser apps - you can disable ad-blocking for specific apps if you need/want to see those ads.
https://f-droid. [f-droid.org]
Re: Apple = Mafia (Score:2)
Re:Apple = Mafia (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Apple = Mafia (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
If you buy a condo, you'll be asked to sign your actual signature on the Homeowner Association agreement.
Buying an iPhone isn't like that. To the contrary, Apple is aggressively trying to hide the terms that their customers have agreed to. You can protest that the agreement is between Apple and an app developer, but you can't plausibly claim that the 30% cut doesn't affect the price customers pay, or that iPhone customers aren't stakeholders, or that the app developer is not in a wildly inferior bargainin
Re: Apple = Mafia (Score:1)
It's a feature so we can recognize the iDiots.
Re: Apple = Mafia (Score:1)
Re:Apple = Mafia (Score:4, Insightful)
Even a few weeks ago I was on the fence for whether regulation was necessary to prevent predatory business activity on the Apple App Store, but in merely a week or two Apple has made me feel stupid for even thinking the status quo is acceptable. Claiming an itemized breakdown of what someone is being charged is irrelevant information is ridiculous. When I am buying theater tickets online or really anything anywhere I want to know what fees I am paying in the transaction, primarily so I can know if the convenience is worth the extra cost. Otherwise I'll buy elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
???
Facebook isn't threatening a lawsuit. They're just disclosing the portion of the proceeds that go to Apple so that their users don't think that Facebook is swallowing 30% on top of whatever they charge. This is certainly not "irrelevant" detail to the people setting up the event, and I would argue that in most cases, it isn't irrelevant to the participants, either. If I knew that the people running a benefit concert would get 30% less if I watched the concert via Facebook on iOS, I would use my Andro
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought price fixing was a crime under federal and state laws.
You don't know what price fixing means
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it's pricing I would consider predatory, but that's a whole different set of laws and regulations to delve through. (ianal)
Apple and Facbook race to hire Blackwater... (Score:2)
Loser has to take the BOP goons.
stop using Facebook (Score:2, Interesting)
Why would you want Facebook to know what events you're attending?
Re:stop using Facebook (Score:4, Informative)
Your comment has merit but is off topic. The issue is that Apple is skimming 30% but does not want its users to know.
Re: (Score:1)
Except the users know and we want it this way.
t. bootlicker
Re: (Score:1)
Except the users know and we want it this way. We also want Facebook to stop being a little bitch about it.
The users of Slashdot no. The users of Tiffany's Makeup and Nail Tricks blog probably don't
Re: (Score:1)
"The users of Slashdot know"....
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So in other words you want Facebook to give a whole bunch of money to Apple?
Right or Wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Right or Wrong... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple represents 10% of the US GDP.
Is Apple headquartered in the U.S.?
Will they block Ticketmaster? as well or just let (Score:2)
Will they block Ticketmaster? as well or just let them roll the apple tax into there fees?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ouroboros (Score:1, Interesting)
While people might be tempted to point fingers at Apple, this is the eventual end point of all publicly traded companies(and all companies with more than one owner). Apple's skyrocketing stock price represents not it's present earnings, but the expectation that it's earnings will continue to grow with exponential inflation forever. The only way this can continue is to find new sources of revenue. In this case, creating artificial scarcity where users only have one vendor they can install apps from.
Today, it
Re: (Score:2)
That's not true capitalism. True capitalism has never been tried.
Any true Scotsman would attempt true capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
True socialism has never been tried as well?
This is Capitalism, that those who have more(capital) get more(capital). One can have all kinds of sophisticated theories about efficient and free markets where there is equal competition and complete information. However, efficient markets and complete information require regulatory bodies and equality in competition requires equality in wealth and power. Your "true capitalism", meaning free markets, can only exist within a socialist framework. While what you see
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Ouroboros (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All publicly traded companies have one of three fates.
The end result? All publicly traded companies eventually get hooked into the socialist money printing scheme.
What about the ones that grow until they reach a market saturation point and then redirect their excess profits to dividends rather than continued growth?
Re: Ouroboros (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Things like Coca-Cola Co, Campbell Soup Company or Procter and Gamble. Large companies in established markets that don't have a ton of room for growth.
But people still want to buy soda and soup and soap so the businesses remain profitable.
This is a good look. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Margin (Score:5, Insightful)
I do think a middleman is providing a service, in this case, Apple is providing a secure platform and programming APi's and other things that empower the eCommerce to occur, but there's a few things here that I'm noodling on that I think are concerning.
1. 30% is a huge number, especially at scale. What competition is there in the marketplace to ensure this number is not reinforced and maintained by monopoly power? Absence of competition, is regulation appropriate?
2. Can you fucking imagine in Microsoft did this way back in the 90s with the Windows OS? Holy god the absolute shitfit Apple would've thrown at the time. Imagine the concept that Microsoft Windows OS required you to go through their payment processor and charge a fee. that just seems wrong.
3. If that's wrong, then the solution is Apple is forced to allow other payment processors on its platform for competition.
30% is reasonable HOWEVER (Score:2)
Retail does that and more ALL the time; however, when Apple extended that to anything done through their phone is when they became like a credit card processor with insane % fees. It might have seemed reasonable coming from a retail perspective and then getting away with it.
The time to stop Apple would have been to boycott them at the beginning of this over reach. Now the credit cards have to be thinking of raising their rates
Is Apple TRYING to dig their own grave? (Score:3)
Apple now decides what information is relevant to users? Users obviously need that information so that they can make an educated decision. Apple has taken aim directly at their foot with this one.
Re: (Score:2)
To an certain point, the policy of not permitting apps to display irrelevant information to users makes sense.
In particular, and most obviously, it makes sense to not allow apps which present information to users as truth that could, on closer examination, be shown as intending to deceive users in some way, or present opinions about Apple as a company which might misrepresent themselves as factual.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Is Apple TRYING to dig their own grave? (Score:3)
Competing app stores and sideloading are not allowed on iOS devices.
Re: (Score:2)
That's certainly true.
"They can set what ever rules they want."
Not legally. There are rules of commerce and consumer protection laws for a reason, and those must be followed.
"If you don't like it make your own store."
Sounds great, but that's part of the economic utopia of Free Market Economy, something that doesn't actually exist. You can't make your own store to sell apps for Iphones. Apple won't let you. Not too mention the difficulty and cost
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not. At this point the 30% fee used by App store payment systems is both common knowledge as well as irrelevant to the user.
As for Streisand Effecting it... Apple could learn a bit in that department.
Re: Is Apple TRYING to dig their own grave? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple now decides what information is relevant to users? Users obviously need that information so that they can make an educated decision. Apple has taken aim directly at their foot with this one.
At this point I am sure Apple believe Apple users want what Apple want.
Re: (Score:2)
jump on the bandwagon (Score:1)
and no everyone piles on Apple to try to look like the good guy. fuck apple, fuck facebook, fuck epic, fuck microsoft, fuck all of them.
Okay, this is ridiculous. (Score:5, Insightful)
I am totally on Apple's side of things about them having exclusive control over the applications that can be distributed through the app store for their own platform (which while having a sizable percentage of users, is nothing anywhere close to a monopoly on the mobile app market), and I've previously suggested that Facebook and Epic were just whining about Apple's policies not letting them conduct business the way they wanted to when dealing with Apple's customers.
However, I cannot for the life of me understand why they would want to exclude an application that displays "irrelevant" information to users, unless such information was somehow intended to deceive users, or if it was simply misrepresentative of reality. It is plainly obvious that neither is the case here.
Secondly, the information isn't even irrelevant. If people are spending their own money, why *SHOULDN'T* they be entitled to be told where their money is going to?
I mean, notwithstanding that a user might have to have been living under a rock or something since the app store came out to not realize that Apple took a 30% cut of everything that is sold on the app store, but there's no bloody way that information about what is going to happen to money that the user himself might spend should be considered "irrelevant".
Re: (Score:3)
It's worse than that. This fee doesn't fall under any of the 4 categories under which Apple should collect.
The fee isn't for a consumable that is used in the App.
The fee isn't for a recurring subscription of a service.
The fee isn't for a non-recurring subscription of a service.
The fee isn't for a one off purchase for content expanding the App or viewed in the App.
Honestly this doesn't look different from the eBay or Amazon store here.
Mind you it could very well be the problem that the App store payment syst
Re: (Score:3)
The events are virtual (e.g. a live streaming concert), so it actually is content viewed in the app. That doesn't mean Apple isn't wrong for preventing Facebook from disclosing what percentage of your concert fees actually reach the charity that is hosting the benefit. Apple doesn't want people to price shop for the best deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yeah. And Apple's users *should* form a negative opinion about Apple for this. I know I certainly have one as a result of Apple's shenanigans over the past couple of months. Apple's behavior lately is pure bulls**t. I'm not trying to excuse it—not by a long shot.
But requiring that fee to be paid is consistent with Apple's rules. The rules are wrong, IMO, but charging the fee is a technically correct interpretation of those bad rules.
Re: (Score:2)
The events are virtual (e.g. a live streaming concert), so it actually is content viewed in the app.
Right that makes more sense. Thanks for the clarification.
Re: (Score:2)
Where a person's money is going is not irrelevant, regardless of what Apple believes.
I can all but guarantee that Apple's deliberate obfuscation of such information by not allowing applications to mention it is against the law in multiple jurisdictions.
This would only still be enforceable in such jurisdictions where the developers have signed an NDA.
Of course, the knowledge that Apple takes a 30% cut of every purchase made through apps on the app store is not a secret, and you cannot legally prohi
Re: (Score:2)
>distributed through the app store for their own platform
If I purchased the iphone, it's my platform, not theirs.
Re: (Score:2)
First, it's your device, not your platform. You own only what you bought, not the entirety of the Apple iOS platform.
Second, if you don't like the terms of the app store, don't use it.
Any inconvenience this might cause you as you chase hacks in an attempt to circumvent the app store for getting apps on your device is not Apple's problem. Presumably, if this inconvenience is great enough, you will either give up trying or simply switch devices. Apple is counting on the former, but the latter is alway
Re: (Score:2)
>or simply switch devices
That happened over a year ago. Jumped to Fi and got a headphone jack back.
Apple should concede... (Score:2, Interesting)
Right after Facebook tells everyone how much it is making off of the same transaction.
Or how much it is making selling your personal information.
Or how much your "free account" actually costs...
If Facebook will give us any of this stuff, then Apple absolutely should let FB say "oh, yeah, Apple is taking 30% of this too..."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well considering that Facebook publish this information in their quarterly earnings report I guess Apple should concede.
Billionaires fighting over scraps (Score:2)
No more, no less.
Popcorn Time! (Score:2)
Best entertainment in the world. Two assholes slugging away at each other. A+++++
Doesn't facebook have a website? (Score:2)
Doesn't Facebook have a website? (Yes, they do.) It seems like this Facebook app probably isn't very important anyway. If they simply just didn't have one for iOS, how bad would that be? The last time I looked, iOS's web browser seemed reasonably good (not as nice as Firefox on a desktop, but not bad) and I bet its users are quite comfortable using it.
Of course, the main catch is that since There Can Be Only One browser on iOS, Apple could send a Safari update that filters the view of Facebook's website to
Gangster on Gangster Violence (Score:2)
Pass the popcorn.
Irrelevent? (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple skimming 30% right off the top seems pretty fucking relevant to me.
Irony (Score:1)
Apple is doing to Facebook what Facebook does to users that say things Facebook doesn't like.
I wonder ... (Score:2)
When Target and Walmart sell a spatula, do they add a 30% store tax to the wholesale price? More?
As far as I know retail markup has a pretty broad range of 5% to 500%. A cell phone has a tiny markup, shoes have a huge markup, lettuce is somewhere in the middle on the lower end.
Re: (Score:2)
Do Target or Walmart kick you out of the store if you mention the existence of the mark up?
I don't know, I never tried to make Target sell my stuff. Maybe if I was trying to go through a retail supply chain and demanded Target sign a contract for some other amount of markup than what they were used to they might push back. If I were a total ass about it I'm guessing they'd not deal with me at all.
tagged: whataboutism
Speaking of being an ass about something... If you can't argue a point then just walk away. If you think my rhetoric at drawing parallels is off-topic or distracting, then say so.
Re: (Score:2)
When Target and Walmart sell a spatula, do they add a 30% store tax to the wholesale price? More?
As far as I know retail markup has a pretty broad range of 5% to 500%. A cell phone has a tiny markup, shoes have a huge markup, lettuce is somewhere in the middle on the lower end.
When you post a classified ad in the newspaper, advertising the sale of your car (or house), does the newspaper take 30% of the transaction?
Re: (Score:2)
When you post a classified ad in the newspaper, advertising the sale of your car (or house), does the newspaper take 30% of the transaction?
Newspaper didn't give me anywhere to park my car. At least Apple's store hosts downloads.
I'm not sure where you're going with this analogy. You don't have to use Apple's store to sell applications if you really don't like the terms of the arrangement. Although since there isn't another way to load non-web programs into their smartphones you're a bit over a barrel if you own one of their devices already. The whole enterprise probably violates some EU consumer protection laws.
Re: (Score:1)
A war is afoot! (Score:1)
Simple, show the price you pay. (Score:2)
Email invoice (Score:1)
Why not comply with Apple's policies but then send out the invoice for the transaction via email?
It would itemise the 30% Apple tax and also clearly indicate that it was Apple that prevented them from mentioning it up-front.
I don't think even Apple would be brazen enough to say you were not allowed to send invoices to your customers.