Apple Revises App Store Rules To Let Developers Link To Outside Payment Methods (9to5mac.com) 152
Apple has announced changes to its U.S. App Store, allowing developers to link to alternative payment methods, "provided that the app also offer purchases through Apple's own In-App Purchase system," reports 9to5Mac. The change comes in light of the Supreme Court declining to hear Apple's appeal in its legal battle with Epic Games. From the report: The guideline says that developers can apply for an entitlement that allows them to include buttons or links directing users to out-of-app purchasing mechanisms: "Developers may apply for an entitlement to provide a link in their app to a website the developer owns or maintains responsibility for in order to purchase such items. Learn more about the entitlement. In accordance with the entitlement agreement, the link may inform users about where and how to purchase those in-app purchase items, and the fact that such items may be available for a comparatively lower price. The entitlement is limited to use only in the iOS or iPadOS App Store on the United States storefront. In all other storefronts, apps and their metadata may not include buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than in-app purchase."
According to Apple, the link to an alternative payment platform can only be displayed on "one app page the end user navigates to (not an interstitial, modal, or pop-up), in a single, dedicated location on such page, and may not persist beyond that page." Apple has provided templates that developers can use for communicating with customers about alternative in-app payment systems [...]. Apple has also confirmed that it will charge a commission on purchases made through alternative payment platforms. This commission will be 12% for developers who are a member of the App Store Small Business Program and 27% for other apps. The commission will apply to "purchases made within seven days after a user taps on an External Purchase Link and continues from the system disclosure sheet to an external website." Apple says developers will be required to provide accounting of qualifying out-of-app purchases and remit the appropriate commissions. [...] However, Apple also says that collecting this commission will be "exceedingly difficult and, in many cases, impossible." [...]
The other anti-steering change that Apple is required to make is to allow developers to communicate with customers outside of their apps about alternative purchasing options, such as via email. Apple made this change in 2021 as part of its settlement of a class-action lawsuit brought on by small developers.
According to Apple, the link to an alternative payment platform can only be displayed on "one app page the end user navigates to (not an interstitial, modal, or pop-up), in a single, dedicated location on such page, and may not persist beyond that page." Apple has provided templates that developers can use for communicating with customers about alternative in-app payment systems [...]. Apple has also confirmed that it will charge a commission on purchases made through alternative payment platforms. This commission will be 12% for developers who are a member of the App Store Small Business Program and 27% for other apps. The commission will apply to "purchases made within seven days after a user taps on an External Purchase Link and continues from the system disclosure sheet to an external website." Apple says developers will be required to provide accounting of qualifying out-of-app purchases and remit the appropriate commissions. [...] However, Apple also says that collecting this commission will be "exceedingly difficult and, in many cases, impossible." [...]
The other anti-steering change that Apple is required to make is to allow developers to communicate with customers outside of their apps about alternative purchasing options, such as via email. Apple made this change in 2021 as part of its settlement of a class-action lawsuit brought on by small developers.
way to limmted to say it's not anti-steering at le (Score:3)
way to limited to say it's not anti-steering at least yet them post it on more then 1 page.
also if they try limited stuff like this in EU they will get fined big time.
"Greedy Fucks" (Score:5, Insightful)
...is how I would characterize Apple at this point:
It's as if any cookie jars sold now had Tim Cook's hand built into it!
27% commission fee?! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Supreme Court really doing the American public a disservice by not reining in Apple's ever growing list of anticompetitive behaviors. Wonder how much Apple bribed them, or if they're just continuing to fuck over the country for free.
The courts can't do anything until a prosecutor brings charges or a litigant brings a lawsuit.
That said, this appears to prima facie be a pretty flagrant violation of a court ruling, so I would expect this to be back in court by week's end — a month, tops.
Re: (Score:2)
That said, this appears to prima facie be a pretty flagrant violation of a court ruling, so I would expect this to be back in court by week's end — a month, tops.
What is a "pretty flagrant violation" of a court ruling?
Re: (Score:2)
That said, this appears to prima facie be a pretty flagrant violation of a court ruling, so I would expect this to be back in court by week's end — a month, tops.
What is a "pretty flagrant violation" of a court ruling?
Allowing third-party store systems in a manner carefully priced to make it nearly impossible for third-party store systems to actually compete in practice.
Re: (Score:2)
Allowing third-party store systems in a manner carefully priced to make it nearly impossible for third-party store systems to actually compete in practice.
Please describe how Apple made it "nearly impossible" with details. The guidelines seems detailed however I do not see how it imposed impossible conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
Allowing third-party store systems in a manner carefully priced to make it nearly impossible for third-party store systems to actually compete in practice.
Please describe how Apple made it "nearly impossible" with details. The guidelines seems detailed however I do not see how it imposed impossible conditions.
For a competitor to be viable, it would have to provide everything that Apple payments provide while charging under 3% on average. For micropayments, that's a tall order.
And because it can only be provided in the form of a link to a website, you can't tightly integrate it with the product in the same way that your Apple sales can be integrated. Between that and the inability to turn off payment through Apple, it will be exceedingly difficult to get a large enough percentage of sales to go through extern
Re: (Score:2)
For a competitor to be viable, it would have to provide everything that Apple payments provide while charging under 3% on average. For micropayments, that's a tall order.
So your definition of "impossible" is that a competitor to Apple must be competitive to what Apple offers? First of all, how is that remotely the responsibility of Apple on what a competitor offers?
And because it can only be provided in the form of a link to a website, you can't tightly integrate it with the product in the same way that your Apple sales can be integrated.
Please show me where in the court order that directed Apple to tightly integrate competing payment systems with their systems? I do not remember reading that anywhere in the court orders.
Between that and the inability to turn off payment through Apple, it will be exceedingly difficult to get a large enough percentage of sales to go through external payment systems to be worth the effort of setting it up, much less enough to get the sorts of favorable payment terms that come from high volume.
Woah, woah. Your complaint is that Apple is not automatically turning off their payment system that works which leaves all the
Re: (Score:2)
For a competitor to be viable, it would have to provide everything that Apple payments provide while charging under 3% on average. For micropayments, that's a tall order.
So your definition of "impossible" is that a competitor to Apple must be competitive to what Apple offers? First of all, how is that remotely the responsibility of Apple on what a competitor offers?
Because Apple is choosing to declare that only 3% out of that 15% or 30% is the credit card processing portion of their fee.
And because it can only be provided in the form of a link to a website, you can't tightly integrate it with the product in the same way that your Apple sales can be integrated.
Please show me where in the court order that directed Apple to tightly integrate competing payment systems with their systems? I do not remember reading that anywhere in the court orders.
The court shouldn't have to order specific details like that. It should be blindingly obvious to anyone with half a brain that deliberately stacking the deck in ways that makes every other payment processor inherently less competitive is per se anticompetitive behavior.
Between that and the inability to turn off payment through Apple, it will be exceedingly difficult to get a large enough percentage of sales to go through external payment systems to be worth the effort of setting it up, much less enough to get the sorts of favorable payment terms that come from high volume.
Woah, woah. Your complaint is that Apple is not automatically turning off their payment system that works which leaves all their developers with no other choices. Then you complain that because it takes effort for a developer to set up another payment system, developers may not do it.
Nothing to do with Apple turning anything off. Apple isn't allowing developers to turn it off. They can provide sal
Re: (Score:2)
Because Apple is choosing to declare that only 3% out of that 15% or 30% is the credit card processing portion of their fee.
That IS the average of what most payment processors charge? Again how is that on Apple to make sure what other payment systems offer?
The court shouldn't have to order specific details like that. It should be blindingly obvious to anyone with half a brain that deliberately stacking the deck in ways that makes every other payment processor inherently less competitive is per se anticompetitive behavior.
Yes it does. Court orders ARE very specific. It's like lawyers draft them or something.
Nothing to do with Apple turning anything off. Apple isn't allowing developers to turn it off. They can provide sales through their own system, but only if they also sell the same goods through Apple's payment system.
And developers do not have to use it. Geez, that is some world class whining there. "Wah. . . Apple still allows me to use their payment system. Wah."
Epic already announced that they *are* filing a complaint.
And you admitted it wasn't "impossible" as you claim. You are just whining that it is difficult.
It is per se anticompetive behavior by Apple. That's "so what".
You are complaining that Apple is ensuring th
Re: (Score:2)
Because Apple is choosing to declare that only 3% out of that 15% or 30% is the credit card processing portion of their fee.
That IS the average of what most payment processors charge?
For processing. Without providing all the customer service, web storefront/purchasing UI, subscription support, etc. that Apple provides. Not really an apples-to-apples comparison there.
The court shouldn't have to order specific details like that. It should be blindingly obvious to anyone with half a brain that deliberately stacking the deck in ways that makes every other payment processor inherently less competitive is per se anticompetitive behavior.
Yes it does. Court orders ARE very specific. It's like lawyers draft them or something.
Rolling my eyes here. They were busted for unlawful competition, and they're still taking very deliberate steps to massively stifle competition by ensuring that competitors cannot provide equivalent levels of integration, thus guaranteeing a worse experience. Not the brightest thing to do.
Nothing to do with Apple turning anything off. Apple isn't allowing developers to turn it off. They can provide sales through their own system, but only if they also sell the same goods through Apple's payment system.
And developers do not have to use it.
Yes, they most certainly do. Wh
Congress made the Sherman Act (Score:4, Informative)
Congress already made competition law, starting with the Sherman Act. It's up to the courts to determine how each set of facts interacts with the statute.
Malicious compliance (Score:5, Insightful)
"Apple has also confirmed that it will charge a commission on purchases made through alternative payment platforms. This commission will be 12% for developers who are a member of the App Store Small Business Program and 27% for other apps."
This is textbook malicious compliance — the sort of behavior that gets companies multi-billion-dollar fines.
They took the approximate amount that an average business would spend for a third-party payment provider, declared that to be the portion of their fees that goes towards payment processing, and declared the rest to be a "commission". This is, of course, utter bullshit, because by doing that, you're gaining none of the benefits that Apple's payment system provides (e.g. easy subscription cancellation through the UI), but paying all of the costs as if you did, even though you'll end up implementing all of that yourself.
More importantly, Apple is rigging the game so that consumers continue to pay utterly extortionate 15% to 30% fees on in-app purchases, which is absolutely not what anyone, including various judges, antitrust commissions, etc. would consider to be allowing true competition on the platform. It amounts to using Apple's market power to artificially inflate the price of goods and services, and doing so in an incredibly transparent fashion. If Apple wants to face federal prosecution for antitrust violations, this is quite possibly the quickest and easiest way for them to ensure such an outcome.
I have very little doubt that Apple will pay for these sorts of shenanigans, and pay dearly. Judges almost universally take a very dim view of this sort of behavior, and, more to the point, tend to consider it contempt of court. These actions give the clear impression that Apple is thumbing their nose at the law, and that they consider themselves to be above the law. They are not, and such actions never end well.
Re: (Score:2)
"They took the approximate amount that an average business would spend for a third-party payment provider, declared that to be the portion of their fees that goes towards payment processing, and declared the rest to be a "commission". This is, of course, utter bullshit"
If it's not commission then what is it? We all know payment processing is only a few percent so clearly the rest is commission. Sure, if you set up your own payment system you're getting less for that commission than if you stuck with Apple,
Re: (Score:2)
They took the approximate amount that an average business would spend for a third-party payment provider, declared that to be the portion of their fees that goes towards payment processing, and declared the rest to be a "commission".
And the alternative is? Apple modifies the commission per transaction basis: "For this developer for this payment processor, they were charged 2.5% but using a different processor it was 3.5% . . . "
Apple's way of saying (Score:5, Insightful)
Go ahead, use your (cheaper) external payment method. We'll charge you the difference anyway! And if you don't comply, we'll ban you from the App Store.
This is corporate greed at its worst. Apple literally lost at the Supreme Court. But rather than back down, they came up with a solution that complies with the letter of the court ruling, but completely flouts the spirit of that ruling.
Re: (Score:2)
Go ahead, use your (cheaper) external payment method. We'll charge you the difference anyway!
I'm not sure you've thought through what you just said. Pretend that a restaurant was forcing its patrons to buy a slice of apple pie with every meal. Pretend that the courts ordered them to stop forcing people to buy apple pie slices with every meal. Does that mean you're entitled to free meals? Of course not. The restaurant would still charge you the "difference" for the appetizers or entrees you consumed, as you'd expect.
In short, decoupling a service doesn't change the fact that you still need to pay fo
Re: (Score:2)
The remaining part of the fee is likely intended to cover typical retail or cloud service costs like hosting, listing, publishing, accounting, marketing, API ...
Yes. Not only that, but those are just Apple's costs. The trouble for developers here is that Apple has built EVERYTHING about the iPhone/iPad platform from the ground up... there does NOT exist a Competitor who has developed a set of runtime libraries to execute apps on Apple's hardware. The inconvenient fact for devs does not mean you get
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Not only that, but those are just Apple's costs. The trouble for developers here is that Apple has built EVERYTHING about the iPhone/iPad platform from the ground up...
And users paid for that when they bought the device. Requiring users to buy something else as a condition of sale is a tying agreement, and is generally considered a per se antitrust violation.
The software required to develop apps to run on an iOS device, and the Operating System, OS interfaces, and Runtime libraries that apps running on iOS device link to and have to utilize are All Apple IPS you need to license as a dev.
Only because Apple deliberately prevents developers from doing anything else.
Take a look at the Unity Game engine; the folks that were planning to charge all Game developers $0.20 per install to use the engine's runtime -- end-users installs obviously don't cost the dev tool maker each time. But obviously Perfectly legal, And without them having to provide any end user hardware interface or server infrastructure as part of the deal.
The company that makes the Unity game engine doesn't sell hardware to consumers, and doesn't mandate the use of their game engine on that hardware. The situations are therefore not comparable. One involves the developer choosing to use tha
Re: (Score:2)
Key word here is specialized. The iPhone is a general-purpose computing device. So even if you somehow assume that game hardware manufacturers do have that right, that doesn't automatically imply that a phone developer does.
No.. an iPhone is described as a Smart Phone - the specialization is in the name; Apple markets the devices on their own website for communicaton, shopping, taking pictures, listening to music, news, navigation, browse the web, etc, they aren't even marketed as general-purpose compute
Re: (Score:2)
Your analogy misses the mark in one important way. You focused on the restaurant patrons. To match what Apple is actually doing here, we need to focus on the company that *makes* the dessert that the restaurant is selling. And the restaurant would need to be such a large chain, that it owns 60% of all restaurants in the US, meaning that the dessert maker can't afford NOT to sell its desserts through Apple Restaurants.
So, to fix your analogy, Apple Restaurants says to the dessert maker, "You can sell your de
Re: (Score:2)
Your analogy misses the mark in one important way. You focused on the restaurant patrons. To match what Apple is actually doing here, we need to focus on the company that *makes* the dessert that the restaurant is selling. And the restaurant would need to be such a large chain, that it owns 60% of all restaurants in the US, meaning that the dessert maker can't afford NOT to sell its desserts through Apple Restaurants.
While your suggested changes may be valid in a broader discussion about markets and monopolies, Apple prevailed on nine of the ten rulings in this particular case, including some that cover the topics you’re attempting to highlight (e.g. Apple was found to not be a monopoly, was found to not be exerting undue influence in the way your analogy would suggest, etc.), so I’d argue that “fixing” the analogy like this actually distorts the court’s rulings by introducing factors that
Re: (Score:2)
Apple only does all those things because it demands to do all those things, not because customers (app developers) want all those services.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why there’s a valid argument to be made that they be forced to decouple more of those services, but until they do you shouldn’t expect a free pass for services rendered.
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing that forces the hand of a tyrant, like depriving them of their ill-gotten gains. Yes, I DO expect Apple to stop charging for those so-called "services" that developers don't actually want.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I DO expect Apple to stop charging for those so-called "services" that developers don't actually want.
So, you don’t want your app listed in the App Store? You don’t want hosting? You don’t want your app to be discoverable? You don’t want API documentation? You don’t want them providing user support for subscriptions and purchases?
You keep saying devs don’t want these services, and while I’m sure there are some who’d prefer to spin their own, suggesting “developers” don’t want them is a gross overstatement. Having a vertically integrated syste
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Epic (and others) want their app in the app store.
No, they do not want Apple-provided hosting, or Apple-provided payment processing, or Apple-provided customer service (as if they had any of that!).
If some developers want all that stuff, sure, they can pay Apple for those services. For those that don't, Apple shouldn't force them to pay for things they don't want.
Re: (Score:2)
If some developers want all that stuff, sure, they can pay Apple for those services. For those that don't, Apple shouldn't force them to pay for things they don't want.
Agreed, but should and should not be allowed are two very different things, and it sounded like you were arguing the latter earlier. Hence much of my disagreement with what you've said. When it comes to should, I suspect you and I are more aligned than you think, though there will still be disagreement in some areas.
I'm in camp "they should be forced to decouple payment processing, but most of the rest is up to them". That includes the App Store itself. I don't believe they should be compelled to allow comp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, we mostly agree. I *do* think Apple should be forced to allow third-party app stores, just as Microsoft currently allows third-party app stores on Windows (or more commonly, direct sales to customers, bypassing any app store).
As for the Shark Tank thing, you hit on one area where anti-trust law makes a distinction between small companies, and large ones that control a market. It's completely legal and ethical for Shark Tank to demand such royalties, because Shark Tank doesn't control the investor m
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, but at least as the market was defined by the court in this case, Apple didn’t meet those criteria. The judge provided some color in her ruling to suggest that they were close to doing so, but that they did not quite cross the line. So while we may think she got it wrong (I’m admittedly a bit ambivalent on the topic), her ruling still stands.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me help you understand this with an illustration.
Epic has an iOS app. Epic wants to have their app in the App Store. So Epic pays Apple to have its app listed in the app store. No problems there.
Epic does its own hosting. It doesn't need Apple for anything other than distribution of its APP. It doesn't need Apple for *hosting* of its games or its online marketplace, in any way whatsoever. It directly sells its games to gamers, Apple is not involved in this process in any way. Apple doesn't provide hosti
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, Epic will never be allowed to become an iOS developer ever again. And they own Apple some $70 million. Sucks to be so invested in them.
Re: (Score:2)
But this is about Epic not wanting to pay for services Apple provides.
No, it is not. Apple wants Epic to pay for services Apple does *NOT* provide, but are instead provided by a competitor or by Epic itself. This is not about App Store fees, this is about things Epic sells within its app, that have nothing to do with the App Store.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Aha! I see you have no answer for my actual argument, based on the correction to your analogy.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's an analogy for you: You are like an stupid idiot, only dumber.
Re: (Score:2)
I see, so you have no actual logic, just insults. Got it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You did have something to do with it. Quoting you:
Stop using analogies, you really suck at it even more than other hateboyz.
But you didn't list any specific ways at which I "suck at it" or what was wrong with my analogy, you just accused me of "hate." That's not very convincing or useful. Your continued insults and lack of an actual response, only reflect on your inability to engage in an intelligent discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
Aha! I see you have no answer for my actual argument, based on the correction to your analogy.
Pointing out it wasn't my analogy, you behaved your usual self. You sir, are an imbecile of truly Epic proportions. Go do us all a favor, and turn yourself into an institution where you can get the help you quite obviously need.
Re: (Score:2)
I like that, Epic proportions!
You still have said absolutely nothing of substance, just insults. Apparently, that is all you are capable of doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is 30% reasonable? Let's do the math.
How much does it cost to maintain a payment system? How much does it cost to maintain an account system (so users can re-download apps and such). Now, how much does it cost to keep both up to date with the latest security patches as well as ensuring they don't get hacked?
Sure, it's all cheap, maybe a couple of hours a week should be more than enough to keep up with updates and changes caused by those updates.
What about tech support? Apple provides a ton of tech support f
Re: (Score:2)
Is 30% reasonable? Let's do the math.
Like I already did in the post you responded to? You'll note that I wrote:
The remaining part of the fee is likely intended to cover typical retail or cloud service costs like hosting, listing, publishing, accounting, marketing, API development, documentation, developer support, editorial content, maintenance, app reviews, and even litigation (among many others, including a profit margin).
So, it's fair to say I'm already aware of "the math", and yet I still said that the 30% fee is usurious. Why do you think I'd do that if I was already aware of the services Apple provides?
I say that because Apple's own math proves it to be true.
If Apple needed the 30% cut to cover all of the costs we listed, then I'd agree that it's reasonable, of course. But if that were true, Apple also wouldn't be able to accept less without reduci
Re: (Score:2)
Apple needs all that money for one and only one thing: to pay shareholders.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/0... [cnbc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Apple needs all that money for one and only one thing: to pay shareholders.
If that were true, why does the cash stockpile continue to grow, even after Apple engaged in the largest share buyback in world history over the last decade?
Simple: Apple doesn't fund their share buybacks with cash, they fund them with outside financing. That's how they've done each and every one since, I believe, at least 2012.
Why? One reason: they can't touch the cash. When I last checked a few years ago, the vast majority (80-90%) of that cash is located outside the US. While there are lots of things the
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so three things then, instead of just one:
1. pay shareholders
2. accumulate cash
3. avoid contributing their fair share to society (i.e., pay taxes)
Got it. That huge percent commission has nothing to do with paying for the "services" Apple "offers" (demands) it supply to app developers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sweet, thanks for the info. I clearly missed that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I’m honestly not sure what point you’re (unnecessarily aggressively) trying to make.
I do think it’s incongruous that Apple collects fees on payments made outside the app...but not for advertising-based apps. Does that mean free app should go away? Absolutely not. Truly free apps should be subsidized as a benefit for everyone. Does it mean free with ads apps should pay their fair share? In my opinion, yes, but that’s Apple’s choice. Does it mean Apple should introduce these same
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple literally lost at the Supreme Court.
That is a rather distorted take on reality. SCOTUS: "We are not going to hear this case." You: "SCOTUS says Apple lost!"
But rather than back down, they came up with a solution that complies with the letter of the court ruling, but completely flouts the spirit of that ruling.
And what part flouts the spirit of the ruling? District Court: "You must allow other payment systems." Apple: "Okay"
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the real point was to allow developers to choose a cheaper alternative. Apple didn't exactly say "OK" to that. Instead, they said "OK, you can use your cheaper (3%) alternative, but we'll still charge you the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
No the order was Apple has to allow other payment systems. Other systems might be cheaper but that is not the issue. The issue of choice was what the court ruled on.
Also, 3% is an average cost for most payment systems. They can be higher as many small businesses will tell you and that is why many of them do not accept American Express. Apple has said they are lowering commission to 27% or 12% for enterprises that opt out. Visa and Mastercard averages between 1.5% and 2.5% for many transactions so some devel
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I know what the order said. It complied with the letter of the ruling, but not the spirit.
Epic is certainly not happy, and will contest Apple's "bad faith" compliance with the ruling. https://techcrunch.com/2024/01... [techcrunch.com]
Epic, and other developers that want to handle their own payment processing, aren't looking for a reduction from 15% to 14.5%, they're looking to get rid of the entire amount and get their own processing, so the difference is 15% vs. 2.5%. That's a pretty huge difference, even for those de
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I know what the order said. It complied with the letter of the ruling, but not the spirit.
And what is your solution that would be in "in the spirit"? No part of the order said that Apple must lower overall costs to the developer.
Epic is certainly not happy, and will contest Apple's "bad faith" compliance with the ruling. https://techcrunch.com/2024/01 [techcrunch.com]... [techcrunch.com
Which is their right however I do not see them succeeding as most of their previous legal arguments to me was them basically throwing a tantrum over and over: "but it's unfair to US". That is why they failed on 9 of 10 counts.
Epic, and other developers that want to handle their own payment processing, aren't looking for a reduction from 15% to 14.5%,
If Epic and developers want to start their own payment processing system, go ahead. Having worked in a small part of that industry, that is a very
Re: (Score:2)
What is the spirit of the order? Epic didn't sue Apple because they wanted, in a narrow sense, to use another payment processor. Their issue was that Apple charges 5x market rates for payment processing, so Epic wanted to go with another option to avoid that unnecessary cost.
It is unethical for Apple to charge developers for services that are being provided by a third party. That is in effect what their new fee structure is doing.
Epic and others don't need to create their own payment processing system. Ther
Re: (Score:2)
What is the spirit of the order? Epic didn't sue Apple because they wanted, in a narrow sense, to use another payment processor. Their issue was that Apple charges 5x market rates for payment processing, so Epic wanted to go with another option to avoid that unnecessary cost.
Citation needed. Please show where Apple charges 5X in payment fees. 3% is average for a payment processor. It can be less but it also can be more.
It is unethical for Apple to charge developers for services that are being provided by a third party. That is in effect what their new fee structure is doing.
Um what? You do realize Apple is lowering their commission to not include the payment processing fee, right?
Epic and others don't need to create their own payment processing system. There are many options in existence, most of which charge 3% or less.
Epic is free to pursue whatever payment system they want. The cheapest option for large companies is to develop their own payment system.
That's pure, unadulterated BS. If Apple is diverting payment processing fees to "maintain the entire system" they need to fix their fee structure, and charge what it actually costs to maintain their "entire system" for those who use that service. The fees for payment processing should be used to fund...payment processing.
What you talking about? You do know that Apple has an App Store right? Running an App Store is not zero cost. Apple is s
Re: (Score:2)
The article at the top of this thread is all the citation needed. It says Apple is charging 15% (3% of which goes to the actual payment processor, 12% to Apple). 15% is 5x of the typical 3% merchant fee.
Um what? You do realize Apple is lowering their commission to not include the payment processing fee, right?
So you think a commission that is 4x the amount of the transaction fee itself, is warranted?\
The App Store incurs no costs when an outside firm processes payments. The argument that Apple should surcharge those payments to fund its own app store is, on its face, ridiculous. Apple should charge fees for app s
Re: (Score:2)
The article at the top of this thread is all the citation needed. It says Apple is charging 15% (3% of which goes to the actual payment processor, 12% to Apple). 15% is 5x of the typical 3% merchant fee.
Do you understand what a commission is? Again 12% is the commission. 3% is the payment fee.
So you think a commission that is 4x the amount of the transaction fee itself, is warranted?
The court ruled Apple has a right to charge commission to run their massive infrastructure.
The App Store incurs no costs when an outside firm processes payments. The argument that Apple should surcharge those payments to fund its own app store is, on its face, ridiculous.
Again what are you talking about? When a sale is made, Apple takes their commission. That is the fee structure. Epic has the exact same structure. Epic charges a smaller percentage but they still charge commission per sale.
Apple should charge fees for app store hosting, and be done with it.
Dead lord, what do you think a commission is for? Do you understand that Apple funds the store with the c
Re: (Score:2)
Do you understand what a commission is? Again 12% is the commission. 3% is the payment fee.
Yes, I understand that a commission is a fee paid to someone who sells something on your behalf. In this case, Apple didn't sell payment processing to a third party, nor does it sell the products or services paid for by those payments. The developer went out and found a payment processor with no help from Apple. Apple isn't entitled to a commission for a transaction they are not part of.
Even if Apple were deserving of a commission, it is not customary for commissions to dwarf the amount of the actual sale.
The court ruled Apple has a right to charge commission to run their massive infrastructure.
T
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I understand that a commission is a fee paid to someone who sells something on your behalf. In this case, Apple didn't sell payment processing to a third party, nor does it sell the products or services paid for by those payments. The developer went out and found a payment processor with no help from Apple. Apple isn't entitled to a commission for a transaction they are not part of.
Jesus Fucking Christ. The commission is for sale of THE APP. The commission is not for the payment. How do you not understand that?
Even if Apple were deserving of a commission, it is not customary for commissions to dwarf the amount of the actual sale.
WTF are you talking about? The commission is a percentage of the sale of THE APP. THE APP.
The court ruled no such thing. It did not rule that Apple could charge a commission on payments that have nothing to do with the app store.
How do you not understand the commission is not on the payment?
The App Store is about distributing apps. It's not about distributing, say, video content or books or games or other products offered inside those apps. Those sales are between the app developer and the customer.
The commission was always on the sale of THE APP. How you misinterpreted it to be commission on the payment, I have no idea.
Just as Apple has no right to charge a commission on books Amazon sells you through its store (whether via its app or its website or Android app), or sandwiches Chick-Fil-A sells you through its store (regardless of platform), Apple has no right to charge a commission to Epic for games Epic sells to its customers.
WTF are you talking about? Apple is charging Apple customers on sale of iOS APPS on the Apple Store.
Re: (Score:2)
The commission is for sale of THE APP. The commission is not for the payment.
You are incorrect. The article linked in the above story https://9to5mac.com/2024/01/16... [9to5mac.com] references this previous article https://9to5mac.com/2021/09/01... [9to5mac.com] explaining what the 15% commission is about.
[Apple:] To ensure a safe and seamless user experience, the App Store’s guidelines require developers to sell digital services and subscriptions using Apple’s in-app payment system.
The company confirmed to the press on Wednesday that as part of the settlement with the JFTC, developers will be able to tell users that they can sign up and manage service subscriptions through an external website. The company emphasizes that this includes apps that offer content subscriptions for digital magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, and video.
Previous to this agreement, Apple had required app developers to use the Apple payment system, and pay commissions, for these digital services.
This is clearly not about users purchasing THE APP. This is about users buying things or buying services inside an already-installed app.
Re: (Score:2)
You are incorrect. The article linked in the above story https://9to5mac.com/2024/01/16 [9to5mac.com]... [9to5mac.com] references this previous article https://9to5mac.com/2021/09/01 [9to5mac.com]... [9to5mac.com] explaining what the 15% commission is about.
It does not. Please cite specifically where it says in that article what you mean.
The company confirmed to the press on Wednesday that as part of the settlement with the JFTC, developers will be able to tell users that they can sign up and manage service subscriptions through an external website. The company emphasizes that this includes apps that offer content subscriptions for digital magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, and video.
This statement is NOWHERE in the article. Did you make it up?
By the way, the first PDF says specifically: "The Court did not enjoin Apple’s core business model of monetizing the App Store by charging a percentage commission rate on sales of digital goods and services facilitated by its platform. Instead, it found that “under all models, Apple would be entitled to a commission or licensing fee, even if IAP was optio
Re: (Score:2)
Quote #1 link: https://9to5mac.com/2021/09/01... [9to5mac.com].
[Apple:] To ensure a safe and seamless user experience, the App Store’s guidelines require developers to sell digital services and subscriptions using Apple’s in-app payment system.
If you are using Chrome or Edge, the browser will literally highlight the quoted text by clicking on that link.
Quote #2 link: https://9to5mac.com/2021/09/01... [9to5mac.com].
The company confirmed to the press on Wednesday that as part of the settlement with the JFTC, developers will be able to tell users that they can sign up and manage service subscriptions through an external website. The company emphasizes that this includes apps that offer content subscriptions for digital magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, and video.
Yes, I realize this article is about a settlement with the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC). The point of these quotes is to provide documentation that Apple has been forcing developers to use Apple's payment system for in-app purchases.
By the way, swearing doesn't really help your case. It's general
Re: (Score:2)
Quote #2 link: https://9to5mac.com/2021/09/01 [9to5mac.com]... [9to5mac.com]. The company confirmed to the press on Wednesday that as part of the settlement with the JFTC, developers will be able to tell users that they can sign up and manage service subscriptions through an external website. The company emphasizes that this includes apps that offer content subscriptions for digital magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, and video.
This article does not contain this highlighted text. The actual text in which you omitted many many sentences:
The company confirmed to the press on Wednesday that as part of the settlement with the JFTC, developers will be able to tell users that they can sign up and manage service subscriptions through an external website. To ensure a safe and seamless user experience, the App Store’s guidelines require developers to sell digital services and subscriptions using Apple’s in-app payment system. Because developers of reader apps do not offer in-app digital goods and services for purchase, Apple agreed with the JFTC to let developers of these apps share a single link to their website to help users set up and manage their account. Although Apple mentions that the changes only affect “reader” apps, the company emphasizes that this includes apps that offer content subscriptions for digital magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, and video.
Why would you omit clarifying sentences? The omitted sentences simply reinforce the current policy: Purchases outside the app are not charged. In Japan. In an article written two years ago.
Yes, I realize this article is about a settlement with the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC). The point of these quotes is to provide documentation that Apple has been forcing developers to use Apple's payment system for in-app purchases.
1) If you realize that you are talking about Japan, you realize that what Apple in that case may not apply to what Apple in the US? 2) Have you only been talking about out of app purchases this ENTIRE time witho
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry you're unable to see the highlighted text. It works fine for me, even now when I go up the thread and click the links I posted.
If a consumer purchases items outside an app, does Apple charge commission? No.
This is addressed in the article referenced in the Slashdot summary. https://9to5mac.com/2024/01/16... [9to5mac.com]
Apple has also confirmed that it will charge a commission on purchases made through alternative payment platforms. This commission will be 12% for developers who are a member of the App Store Small Business Program and 27% for other apps.
The commission will apply to “purchases made within seven days after a user taps on an External Purchase Link and continues from the system disclosure sheet to an external website.”
To help ensure collection of Apple’s commission, developers are required to provide a periodic accounting of qualifying out-of-app purchases, and Apple has a right to audit developers’ accounting to ensure compliance with their commission obligations and to charge interest and offset payments.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is already using the exact same procedure for third-party payment in the Netherlands and South Korea for over a year, and nobody there (apart from whiners like you) thinks they violate the spirit of the ruling. What makes you think the judge in the US didn't consider exactly that and decided that they'd be fine with what Apple would predictably do, else they would have mentioned that if would violate the spirit of the ruling in the ruling itself?
Apple could have done it simpler (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Want an app which sells outside of AppStore, no problem, pay Apple for every app download, every update, every app submission, etc - retroactively if you want to add it later.
I cannot imagine how much of a nightmare that would be to manage. The current system is a flat fee. Charging per action would unleash so many disputes. Developer: "Hey I did not push these updates. I should not be charged." Apple: "The logs says you did on . . .” Developer: "Oh I forgot about those. And they were bug fixes so they should not count as updates. . . ."
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, the old flat fee and ApplePay-only-system always available. Now nobody has a case in court, either use Apple Store for free an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Downside (Score:5, Informative)
According to the description, payment through Apple _has_ to be allowed as well, so anyone who doesn't want to deal with outside sites doesn't have to.
Re: Downside (Score:3)
Shhhhhh. The Kool-Aid drinkers have to find a way to make consumer choice a bad thing, to convince themselves Apple wasn't in the wrong the whole time.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
After reading many of these arguments my reading is that Apple users think of themselves as a Gentlemen's club. Not only they enjoy to follow the specific membership rules and practices, but it also hurts their feelings if some members of the club are let (allowed) to not follow the club rules. Not that it affects them in any way, just part of the Apple experience is the feeling of belonging to the club, based on exhibiting their (religiously kept) practices that enable the members of their elite club to di
Re: (Score:2)
After reading many of these arguments my reading is that Apple users think of themselves as a Gentlemen's club. Not only they enjoy to follow the specific membership rules and practices, but it also hurts their feelings if some members of the club are let (allowed) to not follow the club rules. Not that it affects them in any way, just part of the Apple experience is the feeling of belonging to the club, based on exhibiting their (religiously kept) practices that enable the members of their elite club to distinguish themselves from the commoners.
Erm... in modern parlance a "gentleman's" club is a strip club and/or brothel.
I think you meant an exclusive club but your point stands. They want to think of themselves as exclusive and superior but in reality anyone can join, even people on welfare can get an Iphone for £30 a month. Its as exclusive and aspirational as a Toyota Corolla, only with fewer features and less functional.
Re: (Score:2)
Well noted, I'll use "private social club" next time I need.
Re: (Score:2)
i dont know a single "apple user" (are you retarded) that has even one second thought about their phone.
I know several: commenters on slashdot, I am referring to the discussions about making Apple allow non-Apple app stores, or now making Apple admit non-Apple payment methods. There is no rational reason for Apple / slashdot users to oppose these changes as it does not affect *them* the slightest way. They just have to NOT allow the sideloading on their phone, and NOT use other payment methods. The only way it affects them (the slashdot commenters who oppose the change) personally is through the idea that *so
Re: (Score:2)
Real choice would be to allow Apple to exclude from its App Store any app that doesn't use it for payments.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Consumers have the choice of multiple phone platforms and can choose the one that best meets their needs.
As a side note, billions of people have chosen Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Now try consumer choice.
So... forcing vendors to include something is "consumer choice"... You keep using that word, it does not mean what you think it means.
Also willing to bet that there is another great bit of "consumer choice" that stipulates any non-Apple method of payment cannot be less than payment via Apple (this, sadly is not illegal otherwise we'd have to haul Mastercard and Visa up on charges).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Downside (Score:4, Insightful)
According to the description, payment through Apple _has_ to be allowed as well, so anyone who doesn't want to deal with outside sites doesn't have to.
That is by far the least offensive part of this story. Nothing prevents developers from charging 17.6% more or 42.9% more for the Apple-sold version to make up for the fees, and as long as they're allowed to advertise the lower price, consumers aren't really harmed by that option being available, for users who truly are willing to pay for a little bit of extra safety.
The problem is that Apple created a set of rules in which, assuming I understand correctly, every time the user clicks to their website from the app, the company becomes responsible for paying fees on any transactions made by that user over the next week that wipe out any potential savings. So unless companies can find a way to coerce users into bookmarking the website and going to it directly (with what can only be described as user-abusive behavior), it won't actually be possible for developers to lower their fees for direct purchases at all, in practice.
In effect, Apple rigged the game so that they can keep doing business as usual while presenting the illusion that they're following the law.
IMO, there's almost zero chance that this doesn't end up in court again, and almost zero chance that Apple won't lose again, likely with treble damages this time for deliberately violating the intent of a court order.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's within reason that they could link to their website without any referral codes or anything. Or better yet, just list the website in text like netflix does. Apple only let netflix get away with it because they were too popular to block at the time that netflix stopped allowing in-app purchases for a subscription. When they do that, there's no way to say whether the purchase was for use on an idevice, android, or pc.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's within reason that they could link to their website without any referral codes or anything.
It's entirely within reason logically, but the summary appears to state pretty clearly that the new rules still don't allow that.
Re: (Score:2)
While I'm not really a fan of how Apple is handling this, the fact is the ruling doesn't say Apple isn't entitled to their commission. Only that alternate payment methods must be allowed.
Apple obviously needs to have some way to see when transactions are happening so that it can charge its commission. A week seems egregious but the general idea of tracking links and tying together transactions makes sense. I'm not sure how else they would do it.
Re: (Score:3)
A week seems egregious but the general idea of tracking links and tying together transactions makes sense.
This whole commission thing is part of a contract and software entitlement licensing agreement at that between Apple and the dev So Apple can put whatever the heck they want as a licensing fee, as long as it's not penalizing and preventing competition.
They could technically put "30% of your company's gross sales obtained through any internet domain ever linked from your app always and forever"
Just l
Re: (Score:2)
While I'm not really a fan of how Apple is handling this, the fact is the ruling doesn't say Apple isn't entitled to their commission. Only that alternate payment methods must be allowed.
Well, yes and no. It is entirely possible to allow something in a way that effectively prevents it. For a competing payment provider to exist on the platform would require that their average fee per transaction be less than 3%.
Competing payment processors would also have to provide all of the subscription cancellation features that Apple provides, along with similar customer service for accidental purchases, etc.
That's going to cost way more than 3%. And that's before you factor in the losses from gift c
Re: (Score:2)
In effect, Apple rigged the game so that they can keep doing business as usual while presenting the illusion that they're following the law.
It's no illusion, And they can be following the law. It is not Anticompetitive for Apple to charge a fee on the runtime License for the use of their native app development tools for the commercial exploitation of their development software, and the Fee is a percentage of All sales of Apps and all sales of Features or Content referred from apps produced with the iOS S
Re: (Score:2)
It is not Anticompetitive for Apple to charge a fee on the runtime License for the use of their native app development tools for the commercial exploitation of their development software, and the Fee is a percentage of All sales of Apps and all sales of Features or Content referred from apps produced with the iOS SDK.
I disagree. It is anticompetitive, because it effectively forces Apple's in-app payment system in lieu of all others by setting a percentage bar that is so low that no one else will be able to beat it enough to make up for the huge overhead, particularly give that developers would then be required to maintain two separate store setups (because they can't remove Apple payments) and two separate customer service systems.
The updated rules of Apple can apply the Fees fairly regardless of how the apps are distributed/installed and regardless of whether the transactions conducted with apps use Apple's payment system or not.
No, not really. In effect, it is using Apple's large market share to distort the free ma
Re: (Score:2)
https://techcrunch.com/2022/06... [techcrunch.com]
You see, actually doing what the judge tells you to is not "rigging the system".
Re: (Score:2)
You misspelled Appletologist.