Apple Proposes 27% Commission in Dutch App Store Dispute (theverge.com) 83
Apple plans to charge developers of dating apps a 27 percent commission on any in-app purchases made via alternative payment systems in the Netherlands, the company has announced. From a report: The change comes in response to an order from Dutch competition regulator, the Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM), which has demanded that Apple allow dating app developers -- and only dating app developers -- to use alternatives to Apple's in-app payment system in the country. Twenty-seven percent represents a reduction of only 3 percentage points compared to the 30 percent commission Apple typically charges for developers using its own payment system. The announcement follows Google's proposal to reduce its commission by 4 percentage points for developers using alternative payment systems in South Korea, Reuters reports.
Most Likely Response. (Score:2)
No.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Credit Cards really aren't a thing in the Netherlands, though. So that 3% is probably what they save by not actually needing to use Credit Cards to begin with...
Wouldn't that be funny.
But the ACM is generally not known to do 'deals'. If you break the law, you break the law, and they're not going to do a deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Credit Cards really aren't a thing in the Netherlands, though. So that 3% is probably what they save by not actually needing to use Credit Cards to begin with...
Wouldn't that be funny.
But the ACM is generally not known to do 'deals'. If you break the law, you break the law, and they're not going to do a deal.
Apple wouldn't be breaking a Law. They would be simply ignoring an ex Parte Agency Administrative Ruling. One where Apple wasn't really afforded any real, substantive Due Process.
Kinda different; but the effect is the same, I guess.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
One where Apple wasn't really afforded any real, substantive Due Process.
Poor trillionaire....
Really?
Parties are only to be afforded Due Process in inverse proportion to their Stock Price?
Re: Most Likely Response. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Should their employeesâ
Of course. As any human being.
¦ erm, I mean their stockholders (often the same group).
Ahaha, you mean, should someone's fat pocket have rights?
While there are some rules that apply to pockets, no matter fat or not, they are nowhere at the levels of protection of individuals.
Because, at least officially, we claim that humans are much more important than things. And things include disgusting filthy corporations like Apple or Amazon.
Re: (Score:2)
One where Apple wasn't really afforded any real, substantive Due Process.
Poor trillionaire....
Oooooh. Got it... Legal rights end at some arbitrary (defined by you) dollar figure.
You better not be located in the US, Canada, or the EU. 'cause if you are, you're probably in the 1% (globally). Fuck you and your rights.
Re: (Score:1)
Oooooh. Got it... Legal rights end at some arbitrary (defined by you) dollar figure.
You better not be located in the US, Canada, or the EU. 'cause if you are, you're probably in the 1% (globally). Fuck you and your rights.
Dear rude, pro trillionaire stranger.
I'm located in EU. Which is in the process of finding ways to tackle ABUSIVE ASSHOLES like Apple.
The "due process" that was "not afforded" argument was pulled right from someone's dumb ass. There are good reasons why very different rules apply to individuals and corporations. Are you too dumb to see the obvious? Oh, no wonder.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems fair. The outside CC processing firms will change 3% processing fees. The rest goes to Apple to maintain App infrastructure. That has always been the arrangement since inception.
That is exactly what I was thinking.
But of course, nothing but “Free” will do
Re:Most Likely Response. (Score:5, Insightful)
As of 2018 Apple had 20 million registered developers [techcrunch.com]. They charge each of those developers $100 a year to have access to the App Store. That's $2 billion they take from developers before a single App Store sale even occurs. So if Apple took literally nothing from every App Store sale, you'd still be $2 billion dollars away from "free".
Re: (Score:2)
As of 2018 Apple had 20 million registered developers [techcrunch.com]. They charge each of those developers $100 a year to have access to the App Store. That's $2 billion they take from developers before a single App Store sale even occurs. So if Apple took literally nothing from every App Store sale, you'd still be $2 billion dollars away from "free".
They do take literally nothing from hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Free (as in Beer) Apps. And every single one of those Apps costs Apple actual dollars. $99/yr probably doesn't even quite make up for the resource costs in Approving and Listing any App (let alone any additional Updates thereto).
As for Freemium Apps, Keep in mind that, for every Fortnite, there are many Freemium Apps that have little more to no Subscribers/Premium-Purchasers; yet they still cost Apple to Approve, Host, and Mainta
Re: (Score:2)
Your back of the envelope guess is way way off. Since Apple doesn't break out the App Store numbers in their financials, let's look at Netflix. In 2021, according to Netflix's financial statement [stocklight.com] on page
Re: (Score:2)
Your back of the envelope guess is way way off. Since Apple doesn't break out the App Store numbers in their financials, let's look at Netflix. In 2021, according to Netflix's financial statement [stocklight.com] on page 28, Netflix spent $1.8 billion dollars on technology and development. That's all their streaming infrastructure, payroll for developers, QA, R&D, computer hardware and software expenses, etc. All of it. That's $200 million less than Apple took from developers before a single App Store sale.
If you think the App Store somehow costs more money to run than all of Netflix I really don't know what to say. Yeah, the same Netflix that consumes roughly 15% of all internet traffic [statista.com].
So where are my Netflix Developer Tools?
Where are the Approval and Updating Services?
Not the slightest bit equivalent.
And if those figures are true, my Netflix Subscription (which now costs me about 150% of an Apple Developer License), should be more like $2 per month. Instead, it just went up. Again.
Afterall, when considering the number of Subscribers, $24 per year should be about a thousand times more than Netflix's Published Development and Infrastructure Costs.
Oh, and don't get me started on the fact th
Re: Most Likely Response. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix doesnâ(TM)t pay for bandwidth anymore. ISPs give them in-network rack space to host their content and avoid the peering fees. Read more about their box and apply for one here: https://openconnect.netflix.co... [netflix.com]
An even greater reason why my Netflix Subscription should be $2 per month ($20/year)!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Most Likely Response. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Most Likely Response. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They charge each of those developers $100 a year to have access to the App Store.
Don't forget buying Apple's hardware to do development. That realistically works out to something like $400 a year.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They charge each of those developers $100 a year to have access to the App Store.
Don't forget buying Apple's hardware to do development. That realistically works out to something like $400 a year.
Considering you can buy a Mac mini for $600 (often cheaper On Sale), and it will likely be supported by OS Updates for over a Decade, your "Estimate" was extracted from your posterior.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering you can buy a Mac mini
Developing on Mac Mini is a pain. You realistically need a mid-level Mac Book at least ($2000) and depreciating it over 5 years gets you $400 per year.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering you can buy a Mac mini
Developing on Mac Mini is a pain. You realistically need a mid-level Mac Book at least ($2000) and depreciating it over 5 years gets you $400 per year.
Pain for you, perhaps. But that's a non-sequitur.
And you can get a nice M1 MacBook Air for $1k.
Next bullshit "objection"?
Re: (Score:2)
We get it, you're a Mac apologist.
And we get it, too; you are a COWARD.
Now, Log In and Fight Like a Human.
Or, simply STFU and FOAD.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget buying Apple's hardware to do development. That realistically works out to something like $400 a year.
Considering you can buy a Mac mini for $600 (often cheaper On Sale), and it will likely be supported by OS Updates for over a Decade, your "Estimate" was extracted from your posterior.
You think you can develop a phone app without the phone to test it on? Preferably several? I'm a rinky-dink independent dev, but I spend several times $400 a year on Apple stuff. (I'm not complaining, just pointing out the reality of it.)
Theoretically, yes you can Develop an iPhone App without an iPhone, using the Emulator in XCode. Theoretically. But as an Embedded Developer myself, I know that only goes so far. . .
But the same would be true in reverse if I wanted to Develop Android Apps.
So, do you have an actual point, here?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're presenting the presumably lowest cost option whereas the parent clearly talked about realistic. If you think most, or the average, developer, is going with your scenario, you're totally right.
Actually, it all depends on what type of Apps/Applications (e.g. recipe minder vs. 3D CAD), and for what Platform(s) (iOS, iPadOS, TVOS, WatchOS and/or macOS) you are targeting.
But, especially with the Apple Silicon Macs, there is a much smaller Delta in performance from the bottom to the top of the line (that will change when the iMac 27" and Mac Pro get transitioned to ASi); so especially right now, Developing on an M1 Mac Mini, MacBook Air, iMac or even MacBook Pro is more about desired form factor than
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Registered developers != paying developers
Re: (Score:3)
If that's what it costs Apple to run their app infrastructure, the best thing the Dutch could do would be to require Apple to allow users to install apps outside the App Store. Digital storefronts for software have been around long before the Apple App Store (for ex. Digital River [wikipedia.org]), and the standard percentage for the storefro
Re: Most Likely Response. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When the government says a $3 trillion dollar company is ripping people the fuck off with its monopoly practices, this is not the correct response.
Excuse me, COWARD; but Apple isn't ripping "the people" off. It is charging Contractees (business partners) a Fee that they agreed-to in writing before the very first transaction between the Parties To The Private Contract , ever took place.
The "people", IMHO, actually have little to no standing; as they are not being harmed by Apple's Terms and Conditions. The Dutch citizenry is in no way required to purchase Apple Products; nor use any if their Paid Services. Are they?
This is nothing more than egregious G
Re: (Score:2)
But isn't it so that if you (as a developer) wish to make something , there is no other option than the Apple contracts for you to sign? Lack of choice is a great way to push whatever onto your contractees.
If Apple wants 30% from developers to put stuff in Apple's store, fine. Apple not allowing any other store to exist on their platform, eliminating choice for developers and customers alike.
Well, than the 30% fee is rather high. Developers have simply no choice, so that is a lot of repeat business for Appl
Re: (Score:2)
But isn't it so that if you (as a developer) wish to make something , there is no other option than the Apple contracts for you to sign? Lack of choice is a great way to push whatever onto your contractees.
I'm sorry; I was unaware that there was a Right to Develop, really, anything; with you being the sole arbiter of Terms and Conditions.
If Apple wants 30% from developers to put stuff in Apple's store, fine. Apple not allowing any other store to exist on their platform, eliminating choice for developers and customers alike.
Wrong.
See "No Right", above.
Well, than the 30% fee is rather high. Developers have simply no choice, so that is a lot of repeat business for Apple.
It sounds more and more like Apple want it's cake and eat it too. Apple is going out of it's way to make sure everyone else but Apple isn't playing on a level playing field.
You're right! Publishers with less than $1 Million in Sales only pay 15% Commission, as well as Subscribers past the first year. A very few Publishers do get Sweetheart Deals; but those are few and far between, and definitely benefit Apple's Userbase. Oh, and Apps that offer only Services, including giants such as Uber, pay ZERO.
Not level. Not leve
Re: (Score:2)
Except that since it's all digital distribution, the actual costs involved should see fees much closer to CC processing fees, not the traditional physical distribution fees. App stores in general, not just Apple, charge obscenely high rates for what they actually do. Consider Apple is estimated to have earned 70+ billion in gross revenue from the app store in 2020. Their 30% cut would be around 30 billion, out of which they presumably pay for storage costs, bandwidth, and support. Then consider F-Droid,
Re: (Score:2)
Except that since it's all digital distribution, the actual costs involved should see fees much closer to CC processing fees, not the traditional physical distribution fees. App stores in general, not just Apple, charge obscenely high rates for what they actually do. Consider Apple is estimated to have earned 70+ billion in gross revenue from the app store in 2020. Their 30% cut would be around 30 billion, out of which they presumably pay for storage costs, bandwidth, and support. Then consider F-Droid, run by volunteers, has about a $30,000 yearly budget, according to their donations page.
So, if F-Droid had just one paid IT person, Developer, App Approver, Secretary, Janitor or fucking anything, it would probably about triple their Operating Expenses?!?
Now, think of how many of each if those Apple has to have, and perhaps you will see just how ridiculous your comparison really is!
Sure, Apple has to spend more to maintain a larger infrastructure, but I can guarantee But isn't it so that if you (as a developer) wish to make something , there is no other option than the Apple contracts for you to sign? it doesn't actually cost them a million times more than F-Droid to do so - most of that is pure profit.
Citation, please.
How about a different model? (Score:1)
Instead of a commission, charge the developers a "cost plus profit" fee on things like data storage on Apple's servers, data transit to and from Apple's servers, and so on.
If I download the app, the app developer gets billed a small amount.
If I do anything in the app that hits Apple's servers, the app developer gets billed a small amount.
And so on.
Set this at some reasonable markup over cost, and it should keep the regulars happy. The "devil is in the details" of course, since Apple is very unlikely to sha
Re: (Score:1)
That IS the fee they are charging. They are charging for upkeep of the App Store, vetting, chargebacks, bank transfers, fronting the whole cost etc.
Compared with other stores, Apple is relatively cheap too.
Re: (Score:1)
They are charging for upkeep of the App Store
Oh boy...
I think you miss my point (Score:1)
If you and I both publish apps that each cost Apple $1000/year to host, including all transaction costs, etc., but my app is free or low-cost but yours is a high-cost app with high-cost in-app purchases, Apple will get more from you than from me since they use a commission model.
If you shifted to a "cost of providing a service plus reasonable profit" model, we would both pay Apple something above $1000/year but not outrageously more.
As I said though, the devil is in the details: Apple gets to pick how they
Re: (Score:2)
It goes without saying that there is, how shall I put it, "an opportunity for abuse" here.
Saying there is "an opportunity for abuse", is very different from a showing of actual abuse.
IOW, "Talk is Cheap".
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, but then you would complain that you couldn't publish your cheap app because you would never make a profit, you'd probably be in debt until (or only if) your app took off big time. You'd complain about artificial barriers to protect big businesses that can afford the $1000 upfront cost.
Whatever model you pick, people will complain and it will always favor someone. The 'fairest' solution is a flat tax which is what Apple went with.
This is bargaining. (Score:4, Insightful)
Since Apple is bargaining, the Dutch state should present a counter offer such as, "0% and we will be charging Apple with a crime". From here, they can negotiate down to "0% and Apple can fuck off".
Re: (Score:2)
Since Apple is bargaining, the Dutch state should present a counter offer such as, "0% and we will be charging Apple with a crime". From here, they can negotiate down to "0% and Apple can fuck off".
Fine.
And then, Apple can say "Your entire country represents .00012% of our gross sales and services income. It is not economically viable for Apple to Develop,Test and Maintain a country-specific App Store Payment System for this small of a market. We therefore are withdrawing completely from your country. Have a Nice Day."
Then, the Dutch will have just how many Mobile Ecosystems to choose from?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And then the EU parlement can say "We have this law, called "Digital Single Market", that says you can't block access for a service in one member state, while providing access to it in another". And then Apple will have to choose: comply, or withdraw from all 28 EU member states.
Mmm. Sounds Monopolistic to me. . .
Re: (Score:2)
LOL! You just got owned.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL! You just got owned.
LOLWUT?
Re: (Score:2)
And then the EU parlement can say "We have this law, called "Digital Single Market", that says you can't block access for a service in one member state, while providing access to it in another". And then Apple will have to choose: comply, or withdraw from all 28 EU member states.
Then the EU as a whole should set a fee structure for Apple to take-or-leave across the whole of the EU, not leave it to individual nations to set varying fees.
Re: (Score:2)
EU is not a nation state, nor does it have power to do any such thing. Member nation states are the ones with this power.
Re: (Score:2)
Thus the problem with the EU as a whole enacting a take-it-or-leave-it "Digital Single Market, that says you can't block access for a service in one member state, while providing access to it in another" as the above poster alleged.
If member states want to regulate separately, then they should face the consequences of that regulation separately, not fall back on the "you must service all of us" policy of the EU as-a-whole.
I'm not against Apple being regulated... this just sounds like a "have your cake and e
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty common for people not versed in politics to think this. It's grounded in fundamental lack of understanding of EU, because EU is a very novel political organisation that is not a nation state, and doesn't have any sovereignty, but has some powers granted to it by sovereign member states.
EU can act on things where member states all agree to concede sovereignty to it on that specific issue. It cannot act on things that it hasn't been granted sovereignty over. The only very remote and bad analogy I
Re: (Score:2)
I understand what you are saying... but it is irrelevant to my point.
By implementing an UNFAIR trade regulation on a foreign company, it becomes a matter of international politics.
This regulation is unfair, because Apple is not given the opportunity to decline to do business under the national regulations, as the EU requires an all-or-nothing service.
Apple is an American corporation, therefore the US government is required to defend their interests in international dealings.
The US trade representative has t
Re: (Score:2)
You failed to outline what makes it unfair. Sovereign nation states have every right to police things like regional monopolization, and WTO charter gives everyone a right to do so. WTO charter is signed by both US and Netherlands.
What Netherlands are doing here is fair according to the charter signed by US. You will have to actually explain how that which they are doing is unfair if you want to argue this further.
Re: (Score:2)
It would appear you're referring to yourself with that first statement, as "fair" is in fact a well defined concept in WTO trade negotiations.
It's in fact one of the cornerstones of the charter.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple just thought it was a Dutch auction and hasn't lowered the price yet and is waiting to see if there are any takers at 27%.
8^)
Forced switch from single store to mall owner (Score:2)
As mall owner the platform provider can set requirements for app behaviour, but it must be the same for all stores even the platform provider's ow
Re: (Score:2)
OK, we'll charge all stores 30% of their revenue, including ourselves. It's easy for our accountants to move numbers between different accounts.
Re: (Score:2)
Platform providers can only set app payment conditions inside their own store.
Yes it means that the Platform provider's store is probably always going to be top and most prominent of the Mall list & metaverse.
World class negotiators (Score:2)
The Netherlands doesn't stand a chance.
Sounds about right (Score:2)
Typical merchant processing fees are under 3% so this sounds about right, unless Iâ(TM)m missing something?
Re: (Score:1)
That apple isn't processing the payment, or taking part in any part of the sale, and is yet charging 27% for nothing.
Remember the issue isn't stuff hosted in the App store, or sales there. It is unrelated sales not on the App store, that isn't using Apple resources that is currently charged 30% (which is also 30% over what charged on Android, xbox, and any other service, nobody else is charging a fee for something they have no part in at all).
If it isn't an App available from the App Store, then why would they think they have to pay Apple anything? For that matter, why would this ruling be about in-app purchases?
These dating services specifically wrote native apps as a way to acquire a wider array of customers. If there was literally no value, they'd just be advertising people to go to their website.
Android and Xbox (plus Playstation, Nintendo, Microsoft, Steam and Epic) also charge fees for buying games/apps and for in-app purchases such as DLC
Are these fruit guys begging? (Score:2)
27% is rent terms? Seriously, the landlord doth protest too much. DEVS should have a FEE AAPL pays to compile their code down to is OS’n then.
F$&#@/+% monopolistas
Re: (Score:1)
p>F$&#@/+% monopolistas
Only a retard thinks Apple has a monopoly on anything.
3% Reduction it is Not. (Score:2)
>Twenty-seven percent represents a reduction of only 3 percentage points compared to the 30 percent commission Apple typically charges
27 is a 10% reduction from 30.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My point is that 27 is a 10% reduction from 30. Did you not read what I wrote?
Re: (Score:2)
So the IAPs are not being handled by Apple in any way, shape or form, yet the app developers have to create a separate binary for distribution in the Netherlands and then report sales to Apple for the privilege of being charged a 27% commission? For what purpose exactly? Seems to me the appropriate commission to Apple here is 0% - or Apple can wear charges for racketeering and start putting C-level executives in jail until they comply.
They would still doing everything they always have, minus Payment Processing.
And you think they are now magically due nothing?!?
You can fuck right off!
No Racketeering here. You are an idiot.