'Apple Tax is Dead in the USA' (arstechnica.com) 100
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has almost entirely upheld a scathing April ruling that found Apple in willful violation of a 2021 injunction meant to open up iOS App Store payments in its long-running legal battle against Epic Games. A three-judge panel affirmed that Apple's 27% fee for developers using outside payment options had a "prohibitive effect" and that the company's design restrictions on external payment links were overly broad.
The appeals court also agreed that Apple acted in "bad faith" by rejecting viable, compliant alternatives in internal discussions. One divergence from the lower court: the appeals court ruled that Apple should still be able to charge a "reasonable fee" based on its actual costs to ensure user security and privacy, rather than charging nothing at all. What qualifies as "reasonable" remains to be determined.
Epic CEO Tim Sweeney told reporters he believes those fees should be "super super minor," on the order of "tens or hundreds of dollars" every time an iOS app update goes through Apple for review. "The Apple Tax is dead in the USA," he wrote on social media. Sweeney also alleged that a widespread "fear of retaliation" has kept many developers paying Apple's default 30% fees, claiming the company can effectively "ghost" apps by delaying reviews or burying them in search results.
The appeals court also agreed that Apple acted in "bad faith" by rejecting viable, compliant alternatives in internal discussions. One divergence from the lower court: the appeals court ruled that Apple should still be able to charge a "reasonable fee" based on its actual costs to ensure user security and privacy, rather than charging nothing at all. What qualifies as "reasonable" remains to be determined.
Epic CEO Tim Sweeney told reporters he believes those fees should be "super super minor," on the order of "tens or hundreds of dollars" every time an iOS app update goes through Apple for review. "The Apple Tax is dead in the USA," he wrote on social media. Sweeney also alleged that a widespread "fear of retaliation" has kept many developers paying Apple's default 30% fees, claiming the company can effectively "ghost" apps by delaying reviews or burying them in search results.
Meanwhile (Score:1)
Re:What was the test to say 27% was unreasonable? (Score:4, Insightful)
If it was reasonable I presume companies wouldn't be complaining because it would be as cheap as or cheaper than setting up their own payment system.
Re: (Score:3)
Epic also charged 30% until roughly a month or two *after* they filed a lawsuit against Apple.
Now Epic charges about half their previous percentage (12%)
Epic still charges $100 per submission, just like Apple.
Where the fuck did you get this idea from?
https://web.archive.org/web/20... [archive.org]
They've been charging 12% since they had a store at all. And as of recently, they don't charge any commission at all for the first $1,000,000 worth of sales.
Just making something up and treating it as fact is rsilvergun level retardation.
Re: (Score:2)
Epic has never charged anyone for using outside payment services. I hate them as much as the next guy but your comment shows you don't know what is being discussed, and even if we were discussing the actual sales fees it would still be wrong. Epic literally launched their platform entirely on the premise of 12% and ran it that way for 2 years before the lawsuit.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:What was the test to say 27% was unreasonable? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't like the tax then don't use their app store.
This has the same feeling as, "if you don't like the laws then get out of the country!" How about a compromise? We get rid of the tax and you go fuck yourself?
Why is it so difficult for some people to break out of those false dichotomies? If you're playing Monopoly at a friends house and they say, "these are the house rules; If you don't like them, you don't have to play," you still have another option - change the rules! They (almost certainly) have changed the standard rules already, just as Apple made up these rules, so the rules are provably malleable. And now there are more of us in their house than their family has in the house (eg. more Apple customers than there are Apple employees and shareholders), so how about we work this out?
Re: (Score:2)
The ruling explicitly says Apple should get a cut, and that current cut is too big, but not even any real guidance on what "reasonable" is... the ruling is garbage
Precisely!
Re: (Score:3)
The clear guidance for what is unreasonable is any amount above what
There was plenty of information given during the case to show that 27% was not a reasonable fee for linked-out purchases based on Apple’s “actual costs” to “ensure user security and privacy." So they can charge something, but it can't be a profit center. Apple will be given an opportunity to show the cost of maintaining the Apple Store and keeping it secure, which of course will be scrutinized.
My guess is it will be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The "actual costs" are all Apple's servers... so if Apple needs to segment these people into sandboxed physically separated servers for "security" then "reasonable" could be easily $100K / month.
Apple's servers aren't involved at all for in-app purchase payments through third party payment processors. And no sane person would consider such sandboxing to be reasonable for a server that just provides downloads of app binaries, because the server is not doing anything more than loading bytes from disk and sending them out over HTTPS. So that would get smacked down by the courts in a quarter of a second.
Competent lawyers do not play games like that, because they know that doing so is the surest way t
Re: (Score:2)
The "actual costs" are all Apple's servers... so if Apple needs to segment these people into sandboxed physically separated servers for "security" then "reasonable" could be easily $100K / month.
Apple's servers aren't involved at all for in-app purchase payments through third party payment processors. And no sane person would consider such sandboxing to be reasonable for a server that just provides downloads of app binaries, because the server is not doing anything more than loading bytes from disk and sending them out over HTTPS. So that would get smacked down by the courts in a quarter of a second.
Competent lawyers do not play games like that, because they know that doing so is the surest way to incur treble damages for willful violation of court orders.
Blah, Blah, Bonk Bonk on the head!
Lots of blathering and convenient lack of detail; but no guidance.
Re: (Score:2)
The "actual costs" are all Apple's servers... so if Apple needs to segment these people into sandboxed physically separated servers for "security" then "reasonable" could be easily $100K / month.
Apple's servers aren't involved at all for in-app purchase payments through third party payment processors. And no sane person would consider such sandboxing to be reasonable for a server that just provides downloads of app binaries, because the server is not doing anything more than loading bytes from disk and sending them out over HTTPS. So that would get smacked down by the courts in a quarter of a second.
Competent lawyers do not play games like that, because they know that doing so is the surest way to incur treble damages for willful violation of court orders.
Blah, Blah, Bonk Bonk on the head!
Lots of blathering and convenient lack of detail; but no guidance.
You actually expect me to give actual guidance on how Apple could get away with violating antitrust law without getting caught? I use their devices. I have zero incentive to do that.
Re: (Score:3)
There was plenty of information given during the case to show that 27% was not a reasonable fee for linked-out purchases based on Apple’s “actual costs” to “ensure user security and privacy." So they can charge something, but it can't be a profit center.
This. When Steve first introduced the App Store, he said they weren't trying to make a profit off of it. That was quickly proven to be a lie, because the economies of scale brought the costs way down, but the fees never decreased.
And the fact of the matter is that the decision to make apps go through the app review process is a decision made by Apple primarily for their benefit, not for the user's benefit. No other general-purpose platform (as opposed to game-only platforms like primitive cell phones and
Re: (Score:2)
This. When Steve first introduced the App Store, he said they weren't trying to make a profit off of it. That was quickly proven to be a lie, because the economies of scale brought the costs way down, but the fees never decreased.
It seems to be more or less universal that when a for-profit company says "we're not looking to profit from X," that's either a lie when it's uttered, or an unrealistic expectation that fails to hold up.
Elon Musk saying Tesla would not profit from charging fees or repair parts is a fairly good example. Streaming services and their endless rounds of "buy this and there's no commercials!" "Oops, that has commercials now, but perhaps if we built a large wooden badger..." Also the countless companies discuss
Re: (Score:2)
The clear guidance for what is unreasonable is any amount above what
There was plenty of information given during the case to show that 27% was not a reasonable fee for linked-out purchases based on Apple’s “actual costs” to “ensure user security and privacy." So they can charge something, but it can't be a profit center. Apple will be given an opportunity to show the cost of maintaining the Apple Store and keeping it secure, which of course will be scrutinized.
My guess is it will be less than 5%, unless Apple does a good enough job lobbying.
Your guess is very wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
The test says it is unreasonable to limit any business to business transaction of another company. That is the foundation of antitrust law. It doesn't matter if it is 27% or 1%. You can charge for your services, but you can't charge someone for using someone else's services.
That's the unreasonable part of it.
If you think otherwise please note that in order to respond to me you agree to pay me $1 per letter in your response.
Re: (Score:2)
That would only be fair if Epic/Unreal had a large enough market share of the gaming industry, and significant ability to lock their gaming customers into only Epic/Unreal gaming platforms, to be considered as much of a competitive concern as Apple's App Store. Neither of those are true.
Re: (Score:1)
Epic has ~25% of the market and YES the studios that built on their engine a very locked. https://www.reddit.com/r/gamed... [reddit.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Apple's worldwide marketshare in mobile phones is ~25%.
A swing and a miss!
Apple has 100% marketshare for iOS app distribution.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple's worldwide marketshare in mobile phones is ~25%.
U.S. courts could not give two s**ts about worldwide market share. Apple has more than 58% of U.S. market share for cellular phones.
I'm still missing why Apple needs to bend the knee (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not an Apple fan and I've pretty much avoided their ecosystem. I'm not a fan of walled gardens but I can recognize why some people will be fine with the arrangement.
With that said, Apple builds the handset, the OS and the store. It's all their proprietary stuff, obviously sitting on top of BSD (still legal). Given they have no monopoly on cellphones, I don't really see why they can't set their market place fee to what they want. If a developer doesn't want to pay the price, they can go make an app for someone else. Apple doesn't owe anyone access to their ecosystem.
It's not like you must have an Iphone to get work done. Android is a huge ecosystem with the same stuff.
Someone feel free to break it down to me why Apple can't set it's own price policies.
Re: (Score:2)
After all, it's their OS. They don't owe anyone access to their ecosystem.
Does Samsung take 30% of your steaming bill? Does (Score:2)
Does Samsung take 30% of your steaming bill? Does Samsung control and review the movies you are allowed to view on an TV?
Re: (Score:2)
I've no idea as I run an open source media center connected to a receiver and a projector for my media viewing experience. I control most of my media viewing outside of live sports.
I also don't have a single subscription for software on my phone. I had one briefly for a couple weeks in the past. Maybe it was 30% more but I didn't HAVE to buy that subscription. I choose to and I did so at the price listed. Not seeing the issue here.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Yeah, I agree that Microsoft should be able to do this. It's a strategic decision to be locked down or open. Playstation/XBox/Nintendo are locked down. iOS is locked down. Automaker OSes are locked down. It's not like Apple is some crazy exception here, and Android is an alternative that's more popular than iOS. I've never understood why, from a legal perspective, what the game console companies do is legal and what Apple does isn't. The argument that consoles lose money on hardware and make it up on softwa
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I agree that Microsoft should be able to do this. It's a strategic decision to be locked down or open. Playstation/XBox/Nintendo are locked down. iOS is locked down. Automaker OSes are locked down. It's not like Apple is some crazy exception here ...
Actually, it is. Cars don't generally allow third-party apps at all. They're an embedded system. Therefore, those are entirely moot.
Gaming systems are largely limited to games, and to a limited extent, media consumption (e.g. Netflix), which makes them a much more specialized system than an iPhone.
And gaming systems don't need to be a single tool that serves all of a user's needs in the way that a cell phone does. Cell phones are something you carry with you all day, and generally require a monthly cell
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I agree that Microsoft should be able to do this. It's a strategic decision to be locked down or open. Playstation/XBox/Nintendo are locked down. iOS is locked down. Automaker OSes are locked down. It's not like Apple is some crazy exception here, and Android is an alternative that's more popular than iOS. I've never understood why, from a legal perspective, what the game console companies do is legal and what Apple does isn't. The argument that consoles lose money on hardware and make it up on software is a social argument, not a legal one. And while you can argue console makers "just make games," it's a $60B-$70B/year software industry.
Apple makes luxury iPhones that no one needs but lots of people want. It's not a utility, it's not a monopoly. It's just that they extract money from developers that developers don't want to pay. And developers have made the decision that, despite Apple taking 30% from them, it's more important to be on iOS than to forgo it. That's life. And in every single country that has ruled against Apple, no country is willing to say how much profit is too much profit. The world doesn't do that. No one wants to tell Apple, "You can't keep more than 5% from digital sales" because governments don't want to decide that they really can tell industries how much profit is permissible. They want Apple to play ball and lower their fees to levels developers are happy with so that governments don't have to decide. Apple isn't doing it. It's fascinating to watch.
Every single word of this is Golden!
Mods: Why isn't this at +5 Insightful?!?
Re: (Score:2)
A closer argument would be for the Sony Playstation and MS Xbox. They both charge 30% of revenue for app developers. The exact same arguments can be used against them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think if people use windows, they deserve what they get. Linux work just fine for all my needs. I'm actually constantly surprised the world tolerates Microsoft and doesn't punish them by leaving the platform.
But legally speaking, I don't see a problem with what you wrote out.
Especially given how much worse things were with Windows and Microsoft in the 90s. They actually had a real monopoly at that point and were definitely abusing their position with hardware vendors (dell, hp, compaq). Apple has no monop
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In the
You can replace Microsoft Windows with another OS (Score:2)
If there were a law that forced Apple and any other computer maker to open their hardware to other OSs, I wonder how that would shift things.
Re: (Score:3)
If I sell any kind of product that is used on or supported by a mobile device, I really have no choice but to support Apple users. I can't be a bank or a retailer or a streaming provider or all kinds of things unless I support Apple users. Look at how many people swear they will never buy a GM automobile because they don't support Apple Carplay. So this isn't limited to developers, its Apple wedging themselves in between my customers and my business, whatever that business might be.
It's a new kind of pro
Re: (Score:1)
If I sell any kind of product that is used on or supported by a mobile device, I really have no choice but to support Apple users. ... this isn't limited to developers, its Apple wedging themselves in between my customers and my business, whatever that business might be./p>
Of course you can choose not to support Apple. You've correctly determined you'll make more money, despite Apple's 30% tax, supporting Apple users.
Apple isn't wedging themselves between your customers and your business. Your business is dependent on another company making hardware and software that you can develop on. You don't have a business that can exist independently. If I make hats, I can sell them, even if no clothing store will stock them or even if no clothing stores exist. You don't have that kind
Re:I'm still missing why Apple needs to bend the k (Score:4, Informative)
you're misunderstanding
Here's a real world example: Apple forced Patreon to give Apple 30% of the money that supporters wanted to give to artists, under threat of having their app removed entirely from Apple devices. https://news.patreon.com/artic... [patreon.com]
Why is Apple entitled to anything here? Patreon doesn't want to use Apple's services but they have no choice.
Re: (Score:2)
you're misunderstanding
Here's a real world example: Apple forced Patreon to give Apple 30% of the money that supporters wanted to give to artists, under threat of having their app removed entirely from Apple devices. https://news.patreon.com/artic... [patreon.com]
Why is Apple entitled to anything here? Patreon doesn't want to use Apple's services but they have no choice.
Patreon should have just immediately pulled their app from Apple's store. They're a website. There's no obvious benefit to doing things in an app versus a website.
That said, nothing inherently prevents Apple from maliciously making it harder for Patreon's website to work on iOS. Apple controls the only web browser engine that is allowed to run on the platform.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is, or at least, a eather large advanrage to having yje transaction going via an app. The apple wallet ( I cant remember if using wallet/apple pay from safari was avalable on ips from the start or mot.
Credit card autofill has worked in Safari since iOS 7 (before Wallet). Wallet added the ability to scan cards. I can only assume that the functionality was tied together from the very beginning, since Safari's feature predated Wallet by a year. For sure, the integration has worked in Safari for as long as I've used it, which would have probably been a few months after the Apple Card came out in 2019.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no obvious benefit to doing things in an app versus a website.
Clearly you don't understand how the app ecosystem works. These companies don't develop apps for nothing, they develop them because it gives them considerable boosts in market share.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no obvious benefit to doing things in an app versus a website.
Clearly you don't understand how the app ecosystem works. These companies don't develop apps for nothing, they develop them because it gives them considerable boosts in market share.
I'm part of the app ecosystem and I *still* don't understand why people develop half the apps that they develop, rather than making their websites work like the app does and having a button to save a bookmark on the home screen.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm part of the app ecosystem and I *still* don't understand why people develop half the apps that they develop, rather than making their websites work like the app does and having a button to save a bookmark on the home screen.
You don't understand why not participating in a system which promotes your app / service and is the primary location people go to look for ways to use your product could potentially reduce your customer base?
I really hope you being part of the app ecosystem isn't your day job. Because damn are you missing the obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
Because you do have a choice, just like Apple has a choice in what to charge.
No, objectively Apple does not have a choice in what to charge you dealing with someone else. The USA is only the latest in a string of regions which have ruled Apple is breaching the law in this regard.
If you think otherwise, great, I will charge you a fee for every character you type into the Slashdot comment window, so think carefully about what you write.
Re: (Score:2)
you're misunderstanding
Here's a real world example: Apple forced Patreon to give Apple 30% of the money that supporters wanted to give to artists, under threat of having their app removed entirely from Apple devices. https://news.patreon.com/artic... [patreon.com]
Why is Apple entitled to anything here? Patreon doesn't want to use Apple's services but they have no choice.
Apple has NEVER removed an already installed App from a User Device!
Apple Removes them from the App Store; but as long as you have it Installed, an App will remain and generally Usable.
Case in point: The ICE-Tracking Apps that were (wrongly, IMHO) Removed from the iOS App Store. People who had already Installed those Apps can use them to this day!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes the ICE tracking app is a bit tricky in the trump era, in pricipal ICE is law enforcement, and any app that interferes with legitimate law enforcement ( if you don't like ghe laws on the books work to change them ), but when you have a convited criminal, thst seames tomsdmire and want to emulste desopots ocupuimg the oval offuce... yea it's a tricky one all right. And before you say " but trump was elected in a free and open election " yes I know, that's the scary part, who votes for a convicted cry fot fge highest office in the land, I still dont get that part
At the risk of “getting something started”, IMHO, the primary Bug we have found is that the Vaunted Checks and Balances are, unfortunately, distressingly, Voluntary. . .
Re: (Score:2)
Can Apple users not open a web browser and go to your website? I ask sincerely as on Android, I can just open a web browser and go directly to the website. No extra support required.
It also doesn't sound like you would have a business if not for Apple developing a cellphone market place platform for you to sell your app on. If Apple shuts down their iphone, then what do you do?
At the end of the day though, you choose how to interact with your customers. It's not on Apple to make your life easier. I'm still
Re: (Score:2)
Can Apple users not open a web browser and go to your website? I ask sincerely as on Android, I can just open a web browser and go directly to the website. No extra support required.
It also doesn't sound like you would have a business if not for Apple developing a cellphone market place platform for you to sell your app on. If Apple shuts down their iphone, then what do you do?
At the end of the day though, you choose how to interact with your customers. It's not on Apple to make your life easier. I'm still curious why they can't use a web browser and skip the whole app in the first place.
In fact, iOS was the first Mobile OS to support WebApps; which have zero App Store involvement!
And although largely ignored for several years, Apple has in the past few years, actually been beefing-up PWA Support and removing some access restrictions for PWAs:
https://www.macrumors.com/how-... [macrumors.com]
https://www.wikihow.com/Instal... [wikihow.com]
https://boundlessscreen.com/pr... [boundlessscreen.com]
https://brainhub.eu/library/pw... [brainhub.eu]
https://www.tapsmart.com/featu... [tapsmart.com]
So now what? Not an answer for everything; but certainly a possibility for an increasin
Re: (Score:2)
If I sell any kind of product that is used on or supported by a mobile device, I really have no choice but to support Apple users. I can't be a bank or a retailer or a streaming provider or all kinds of things unless I support Apple users. Look at how many people swear they will never buy a GM automobile because they don't support Apple Carplay. So this isn't limited to developers, its Apple wedging themselves in between my customers and my business, whatever that business might be.
It's a new kind of problem that doesn't easily work in analogies or parallels to older scenarios. I'm glad that the EU and now the US to some degree are coming up with new solutions for it.
There are plenty of Apps and Hardware Products that do not support iOS.
Re: (Score:3)
Given they have no monopoly on cellphones ...
They, in fact, have 58% of the U.S. cellular phone market, which is more than enough control over the market to regulate them under antitrust law.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, it is around that figure here in Australia too, putting me in the smug minority!
I guess that kills off the question, "why don't they just build their own phone instead of whining?"
I'm not a heavy gamer but I'd consider buying a foldable phablet running Steam OS. I could respect them borrowing an OS from Arch and KDE with a Plasma Mobile dialer. App support? partner with one of the LineageOS forks.
Re: (Score:3)
Given they have no monopoly on cellphones
Not this again.
The legislation isn't anti- monopolies, it's anti-trust. Are Apple big enough to have a distorting effect on the market? Yes. Do they make use of that for profit? Yes.
You don't need an absolute monopoly to be guilty of anti-trust violations.
Someone feel free to break it down to me why Apple can't set it's own price policies.
If Apple were one of 10 equal sized players, and demanded 30% fees, developers would leave. Because of their size developers canno
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm happy for the ruling.
The chief difference between Apple and Android is there is NO WAY to sideload apps on the iPhone. If you don't like Android's store, and can get people to find a url to your app, they can install it directly. That has never been the case with Apple, and they can arbitrarily deny store access.
The chief difference between Apple and Sony/MS game consoles is the Playstation and Xbox hardware are sold at or below their COGS. So their cut of the store is al the revenue they get for those products. Apple on the other hand profits handsomely on every iPhone, in addition to the cut they require of every app.
To people that say Apple can do what they want or people can switch to Android if they don't like it... Apple intentionally makes it difficult to leave their ecosystem, with lockin between their phones and computers and online services. They've also acted anticompetitively by make common services (such as cellular texting, in the case of iMessage) appear worse to and from Android phones.
As an app developer, it's obvious that Apple's rules have benefitted them more financially than the developers providing apps for the iPhone, and am for a more equitable split of consumer dollars based on the effort and value each side provides. Apple is entitled to their share for providing and supporting their platform, and listing on their store. But the cost of that compared to development and marketing costs by developers is far less than 30%.
Offer your App as a PWA, and thumb your nose at Apple's Capitalist Pig App Store completely!!!
https://www.macrumors.com/how-... [macrumors.com]
https://www.wikihow.com/Instal... [wikihow.com]
https://boundlessscreen.com/pr... [boundlessscreen.com]
https://brainhub.eu/library/pw... [brainhub.eu]
https://www.tapsmart.com/featu... [tapsmart.com]
Re: I'm still missing why Apple needs to bend the (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You mention a "marketplace fee". That's antithetical to the idea of free-market capitalism, if you care about that.
Free. Markets.
Re: (Score:2)
You mention a "marketplace fee". That's antithetical to the idea of free-market capitalism, if you care about that.
Free. Markets.
Free, as in Speech; not Beer.
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking about a market where goods/services are bought and sold at a price, so this is beer.
Additionally, our legal system equates money with speech. Restrict someone's money and you restrict their speech. While I have serious problems with some of the implications of that perspective, at least the courts are being consistent here, in a case where that interpretation actually does something good for the public (and incidentally the market).
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking about a market where goods/services are bought and sold at a price, so this is beer.
Additionally, our legal system equates money with speech. Restrict someone's money and you restrict their speech. While I have serious problems with some of the implications of that perspective, at least the courts are being consistent here, in a case where that interpretation actually does something good for the public (and incidentally the market).
Well, other than the $99/yr for a Publisher-Level (Not the real title) Apple Developer License, Publishing and Maintaining a Freeware App on the iOS App Store costs the Developer Nothing. I do not know if Apple waives their ($100?) App Submission Fee for Freeware Publishers.
Re: (Score:2)
> Apple builds the handset, the OS and the store
Remember, when iPhone came out there was no App Store.
That was a separate business that came later, competition was prohibited, and by prohibiting competition rents were extracted.
This is called "illegal tying" in the law.
Re: (Score:2)
> Apple builds the handset, the OS and the store
Remember, when iPhone came out there was no App Store.
That was a separate business that came later, competition was prohibited, and by prohibiting competition rents were extracted.
This is called "illegal tying" in the law.
Not for WebApps!!!
https://www.macrumors.com/how-... [macrumors.com]
https://www.wikihow.com/Instal... [wikihow.com]
https://boundlessscreen.com/pr... [boundlessscreen.com]
https://brainhub.eu/library/pw... [brainhub.eu]
https://www.tapsmart.com/featu... [tapsmart.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not an Apple fan and I've pretty much avoided their ecosystem. I'm not a fan of walled gardens but I can recognize why some people will be fine with the arrangement.
With that said, Apple builds the handset, the OS and the store. It's all their proprietary stuff, obviously sitting on top of BSD (still legal). Given they have no monopoly on cellphones, I don't really see why they can't set their market place fee to what they want. If a developer doesn't want to pay the price, they can go make an app for someone else. Apple doesn't owe anyone access to their ecosystem.
It's not like you must have an Iphone to get work done. Android is a huge ecosystem with the same stuff.
Someone feel free to break it down to me why Apple can't set it's own price policies.
This is exactly the Crux of The Biscuit!
Whatever happened to Freedom of Choice? If I wanted Android's App-Model, I'd have an Android.
Believe me: If Apple Users in any significant numbers wanted things different, it would have already happened. Apple knows when to Listen and Change when their Userbase starts bitching; but that simply hasn't happened. . .
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, the same thing holds for almost anyone else running a platform that functions as a middleman between buyers and sellers.
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the point spectacularly for a number of reasons. Let's address them in order:
1. The presence of an alternative does not prevent a walled garden from existing: See Android. The user can have the choice.
2. Apple doesn't need a monopoly. No one does. Monopoly is not a requirement for any anti-trust law. To be in violation of the law you need to "monopolise" which is the use of market power to limit or unduly affect competition. Apple absolutely have an insane amount of market power both in the cell
It's weird to see antitrust law enforced (Score:1)
You will be shocked to learn McDonald's isn't passing those savings on to consumers.
The Biden administration was knee deep in preparing antitrust actions before they lost the election. So
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Also in other news Democrats really really really suck at messaging...
That's because you are their spokesperson.
Re: (Score:2)
Grocery store margins are less then 3%. The grocery store is not gouging you.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess that we'll see how impressed Trump was with that glass statue thing that "Tim Apple" gave him earlier this year.
Tim probably should have given him a private jet like Qatar did, then Trump would let them charge whatever commission they wanted.
What's a reasonable fee? (Score:3)
Okay so 27% feels like malicious compliance (and it is). But what is a reasonable fee, who decides what that is?
Re: (Score:2)
The EU had the same question when limiting credit card processing fees. They simply looked at what the costs were and how much profits those companies were reporting from that part of the business.
Re: (Score:2)
The reasonable fee is 0%. You can't charge a fee for your customer engaging in business with another company. Apple are free to charge whatever the fuck their want for their own service, but they can't charge or restrict you for using a different one (and that's fundamentally the point of antitrust laws and this case here).
apple can claim they need $1000+ to review at app (Score:2)
apple can claim they need $1000+ to review at app at whale level + $200 hourly rate for 1-5 days (based on all over size of the game / app) (not that the worker gets that but that can be an all in rate).
Add say $500 in shop admin fees
And still endup way under 27% of all sales in an high use game.
Hell even let an reviewer take 2 weeks just to review 1 game and you still end up with a bill that for an big game is reasonable fee.
Lemmings! (Score:1)
such scummy practices, and yet they're regarded by their fandom as such paragons. crazy disconnect, there.
the really alarming thing is the number of people who seem not to recognize immediately that this is scummy behaviour which should have no role in human society, and want to quibble and defend it, usually because they're reserving the right to treat others like shit/like they've been treated when it's their turn on top.
Accepting unacceptable behaviour is the weird thing, yutzes. Don't lemming yourself
Re: (Score:2)
You are not required to associate with Apple in anyway. If you choose to develop an app that runs on Apple's technology stack, then you have to play by their rules. Don't like the rules? Take your ball and go home. They don't owe you anything.
I personally don't like the idea of a walled garden and that drives me away from the Apple platform. It doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to have a walled garden, just that I am choosing not to bother with them.
No one is forcing you to deal with Apple. They are ju
Re: Lemmings! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What you are missing is that the barrier to switch platforms is nontrivial. Consumers would have to buy a whole new phone and lose any purchased apps. Apple is able to leverage this to act anticompetitively and extort more fees from consumers than they normally would be able to in a completely free market. Thus, the government must step in to balance the scales.
App Compatibility is a thing for Mobile Switchers in both directions.
But there are tools aplenty for Exfiltrating and Migrating Data. That hasn't been a real problem for years.
Re: (Score:2)
You are not required to associate with Apple in anyway. If you choose to develop an app that runs on Apple's technology stack, then you have to play by their rules. Don't like the rules? Take your ball and go home. They don't owe you anything.
I personally don't like the idea of a walled garden and that drives me away from the Apple platform. It doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to have a walled garden, just that I am choosing not to bother with them.
No one is forcing you to deal with Apple. They are just another corporation and they aren't even a monopoly.
This.
Re: (Score:2)
such scummy practices, and yet they're regarded by their fandom as such paragons. crazy disconnect, there.
the really alarming thing is the number of people who seem not to recognize immediately that this is scummy behaviour which should have no role in human society, and want to quibble and defend it, usually because they're reserving the right to treat others like shit/like they've been treated when it's their turn on top.
Accepting unacceptable behaviour is the weird thing, yutzes. Don't lemming yourself off the cliff just cuz there's something shiny down there... just because the courts say it's ok doesn't make it ok! Or do you want to say you are fine with all the supreme court's recent decisions? Fine with legally mandated backdoors too I suppose, bloody embarrassing is what it is.
Shut The Fuck Up.
The Answer Predates the iOS App Store, and has absolutely no App Store Involvement Whatsoever!
WebApps.
E.g:
https://www.macrumors.com/how-... [macrumors.com]
https://www.wikihow.com/Instal... [wikihow.com]
https://boundlessscreen.com/pr... [boundlessscreen.com]
https://brainhub.eu/library/pw... [brainhub.eu]
https://www.tapsmart.com/featu... [tapsmart.com]
Maybe they'll stop featuring freemium crap... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
don't exploit people's mental vulnerability
Then who remains to buy iCrap?
Bye Bye free Apps. (Score:2)
I would expect "developers fees" to be considered at some stage
I would expect the consideration of "validation fees" to get applied to both the initial App and for updates.
30% is a reasonable fee for Apps on their store, payments for 3rd party streaming services, not so much.
For some context, I can buy Electrical cable etc wholesale, I get up to 84% discount off retail
I
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. And no.
Free apps will continue. As long as they are actually free. Anything that owes (owed?) Apple that 27% of in-app sales or other revenue sources is either not free. Or written by a very generous developer. Apple gots ta' get paid.
I would expect "developers fees" to be considered at some stage
What do you think the current 27% fee is? Maybe replaced with a fee for Apple Store server space and installation bandwidth. That's what the now defunct Apple Tax supposedly covered. But the in-app sales revenue stream doesn't necessarily run through Apple systems. And p
Re: (Score:2)
And you just KNOW there will be no decrease in the cost of software , so the consumer wins ZERO.
Now go after (Score:2)
every store that charges 30%, it's absolutely ridiculous for most every listing service that charges that amount. You would think that an online listing would be somewhere in the 5% range. Hosting doesn't cost that much for software. Reviewing content and scanning apps for viruses, yeah that's a little more work.
There is a reason these companies are the richest on the planet, because they don't provide value, they provide a monopoly over their users.
Epic is a power whiner (Score:2)
Or should I say "an epic whiner"? (Thank you, I'll be here all week. Tip your waitresses.)
Seriously, where do people think the funding for development of the ecosystem comes from?
That said, Apple and Google clearly want developers to embrace the subscription business model because it wouldn't take much to allow paid app upgrades.
Re: (Score:2)
...if you don't like it make your own phone and your own app store.
Or just make a PWA:
https://www.macrumors.com/how-... [macrumors.com]
https://www.wikihow.com/Instal... [wikihow.com]
https://boundlessscreen.com/pr... [boundlessscreen.com]
https://brainhub.eu/library/pw... [brainhub.eu]
https://www.tapsmart.com/featu... [tapsmart.com]
No App Store ANYTHING!
So can we hope for a giga fine and prison time? (Score:2)
That's what should follow from a finding of 'bad faith' - a fine of well over $10bn and a few executives enjoying government hospitality. Only if both happen will things really start to change.
Wrong Facts in story (Score:2)
Apple killed the 30% fee years ago. As of November 2020, Apple only charges 15% fees for developers on the IOS app store, until they sell $1m worth of stuff. Then the fees increase. But 90% of developers never sell $1m worth of apps in the app store.
What grinds my gears is that Apple's 30% fee was identical to fees charged by Google, Microsoft, Sony, and Steam. Apple was targeted by Epic who was at the time earning $1m per day in the Apple App store; court cases were never extended to include other companie