Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Facebook Iphone Apple

Apple Blocks Facebook Update That Called Out 30% App Store 'Tax' (theverge.com) 107

Posted by msmash from the there-is-no-line dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Blocks Facebook Update That Called Out 30% App Store 'Tax' More

Apple Blocks Facebook Update That Called Out 30% App Store 'Tax'

Comments Filter:

  • Apple = Mafia (Score:2, Insightful)

    by peppepz ( 1311345 )
    Extortion and silence.

    • Re:Apple = Mafia (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Friday August 28, 2020 @09:45AM (#60449362)

      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

      • You eventually learn to review all the info about the apps before installing them. Most "free" apps are only free because they come with ads and it clearly says "Contains Ads." Most apps you pay for, don't include ads.

        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:5, Insightful)

        by peppepz ( 1311345 ) on Friday August 28, 2020 @10:27AM (#60449532)
        I could agree with you if Apple's fee were reasonable, but a 30% fee on every kind of transaction is unacceptable in any way, shape or form. It's reasonable to think that the mafia asks less in protection money from its victims. And then the obligation to silence, how can such a thing be justified? Doesn't the payer have all good reasons to know where his own money is going to? Whether it's going to the person he's willing to pay, or almost a third of it will be intercepted by someone else who will use it for building spaceship campuses? Sorry, this is unacceptable and something has to be done about it.

      • Re:Apple = Mafia (Score:4, Interesting)

        by jythie ( 914043 ) on Friday August 28, 2020 @11:58AM (#60449956)
        Huh. Comparing Apple's to an HOA is actually a pretty good way of putting it, both the good and the bad. Both are kinda this weird mix of authoritarian and anarchist ideology, highlighting how messy things can get when freedoms collide and people wanting to maximize their freedom even when it means less for others, even within systems that one voluntarily joins and can exit at any time.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Qwertie ( 797303 )

        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:4, Insightful)

      by ranton ( 36917 ) on Friday August 28, 2020 @11:44AM (#60449898)

      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)

      by jythie ( 914043 )
      See, in this example I would describe Facebook as being more mafia like. Apple's got a nice little ecosystem they want to profit off of, but unless they get 'special treatment' Apple might start experiencing 'accidents' like lawsuits.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        ???

        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

  • Loser has to take the BOP goons.

  • stop using Facebook (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Kohath ( 38547 )

    Why would you want Facebook to know what events you're attending?

  • Right or Wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ddtmm ( 549094 ) on Friday August 28, 2020 @09:17AM (#60449282)
    Generally speaking these events are on track to not end well for Apple. These big companies are making big efforts to show Apple to be as greedy and unfair as they can. Eventually Apple will need to relent somehow, whether they are right or wrong.

  • Will they block Ticketmaster? as well or just let them roll the apple tax into there fees?

  • Ouroboros (Score:1, Interesting)

    by BytePusher ( 209961 )

    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

    • All publicly traded companies have one of three fates.

      1. Grow until they become part of the government. Driven by the mechanism mentioned above, where profits must grow exponentially forever.
      2. Grow until they get bought by a larger company, or merge to become a larger company. That larger company also must grow their profits forever.
      3. Go bankrupt and get bought by another company. Also driven by the above mechanism. Companies that go public and fail to grow their income get defunded.

      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?

  • Welcome to the app store; where the terms and conditions are so good we'll expel you for talking about them!(tm)

  • Margin (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JeffSh ( 71237 ) <jeffslashdot@m[ ].org ['0m0' in gap]> on Friday August 28, 2020 @09:51AM (#60449390)

    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.

    • 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

  • Apple said the update violated an App Store rule that doesn't let developers show "irrelevant" information to users.

    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)

      by mark-t ( 151149 )

      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.

    • 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.

    • Apple said the update violated an App Store rule that doesn't let developers show "irrelevant" information to users.

      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.

  • jump on the bandwagon (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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)

    by mark-t ( 151149 ) <marktNO@SPAMnerdflat.com> on Friday August 28, 2020 @09:58AM (#60449426) Journal

    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".

    • 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)

        by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        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)

          by mark-t ( 151149 )
          Except nothing about disclosing the app store's 30% cut for Apple suggests to people that any better deals even necessarily exist. It is simply an unbiased statement of fact, made only to bring to forefront of a user's mind how the money they may be about to spend will be allocated. *IF* that should cause some people to form a negative opinion about Apple, then isn't that Apple's own fault for having that policy in the first place?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dgatwood ( 11270 )

            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.

        • 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.

    • >distributed through the app store for their own platform

      If I purchased the iphone, it's my platform, not theirs.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mark-t ( 151149 )

        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

  • 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..."

    • From the summary: 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." I think that qualifies as any of the above!

    • Well considering that Facebook publish this information in their quarterly earnings report I guess Apple should concede.

  • Best entertainment in the world. Two assholes slugging away at each other. A+++++

  • 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

  • Irrelevent? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by The Bod ( 18970 ) on Friday August 28, 2020 @11:50AM (#60449924)

    Apple skimming 30% right off the top seems pretty fucking relevant to me.

  • Irony (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Apple is doing to Facebook what Facebook does to users that say things Facebook doesn't like.

  • 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)

      by alexo ( 9335 )

      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?

      • 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.

    • Not the same thing. If Target were to charge you 30% of what they paid you to sell in there store would be a closer analogy.
  • If you weren't aware of it, read about it here: https://payam.minoofar.com/202... [minoofar.com]
  • And then show an ad showing the price you could have paid if you were on Android. If this is blocked by Apple then it is using it's market position to stifle competition. Simple.

  • 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.

Slashdot Top Deals

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Close