Apple Wants to Charge Developers Up to 15 Percent for Linking Outside the App Store (macrumors.com) 51
Apple is proposing to charge U.S. developers up to 15% when users leave an app through an external purchase link, with lower rates of 10% or 5% for certain programs and smaller developers. The proposal follows years of litigation with Epic Games and a contempt ruling that temporarily barred Apple from collecting any link-out fees. A federal judge will now decide what commission, if any, is reasonable. MacRumors reports: These proposed fees are what developers would pay when someone uses their app, taps a link in the app, and then makes a purchase on the website in the link. So if someone using the Spotify app clicked a link in the app to go to the Spotify website and then purchased a subscription, Spotify would owe Apple a 15 percent fee. Apple says the fees were calculated based on expert analysis, and they are lower than the link-out rates Google is charging in the Epic v. Google case.
Apple submitted the proposal to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has been tasked with determining a reasonable fee for Apple to charge for its intellectual property. The appeals court suggested the commission could be limited to the direct costs of facilitating link-outs, and under that approach, the fee would be zero. Apple says a zero commission would not reflect the value that it provides developers, and its suggested commission gives it fair compensation for the App Store platform.
Apple submitted the proposal to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has been tasked with determining a reasonable fee for Apple to charge for its intellectual property. The appeals court suggested the commission could be limited to the direct costs of facilitating link-outs, and under that approach, the fee would be zero. Apple says a zero commission would not reflect the value that it provides developers, and its suggested commission gives it fair compensation for the App Store platform.
First question (Score:3)
Re: First question (Score:2)
Re: First question (Score:1)
What's funny is the appeals court ruling gives the judge wide discretion to do exactly that. Apple royally fucked up in assuming they could just brush off a judge, especially THAT judge considering her history.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all for giving up on theft. Sounds great.
Re:First question [sans solutions] (Score:2)
So my standard reaction, both to the story and your FP, is "Who's gonna tell us the truth?" (About anything these years? (Going for Funny?))
But as regards this specific situation, I think there is a truthful solution. It would be funny if Apple had already implemented it and I just don't know because I'm on the Android side. So I'm in some kind of paradoxical position here? This is a speculative solution and I'd love to hear that it's already there in Apple world in some form.
I think that Apple should try t
Re: First question [sans solutions] (Score:1)
Apple is already forbidden from requiring any special tracking links, or anything similar, and can't restrict outside links or add scare screens in any way at all. The appeals court didn't change any of the injunction, with the sole exception of saying that apple could charge a fee for whatever it costs them for a user to click a link.
What that amount is, is entirely at the judge's discretion. They've already done a pretty good job showing this judge that they're totally willing to blatantly lie to the cour
Re: (Score:2)
I'm trying to suggest a higher-level solution approach that should even mesh with Apple's claims that they are trying to protect the customers from scammers. I think that is a legitimate concern, but Apple is largely using it as camouflage.
Your focus on the legal abuses strikes me as a different aspect of the financial scams that drive the modern "economic" systems. The key there is the Borking of monopoly law so that it focuses on a simple price metric. In the kind of double-sided economic model that has e
Re: First question [sans solutions] (Score:1)
monopoly law so that it focuses on a simple price metric
There aren't any "monopoly" laws per-se, and there never were. It's not against the law to have a monopoly, what is against the law is abusing a market position in a few different ways specified in the Sherman antitrust act, which you can do without even necessarily having a monopoly. While t It isn't and never was about pricing, though pricing (or really basically anything) can be used as a form of antitrust remedy.
You're probably thinking the ruling feels punitive, and that's because it is. The 9th circui
Re: (Score:2)
Can't even decide whether or not we agree on any of the philosophic principles here. Seems to me that you sound like a lawyer playing word games and I could spend a lot of time trying to guess about what context you want to use next.
So I'm just going to plead innocent by reason of mootness. The Slashdot clock effectively moots each topic after a day or so, and this story is already that old. Not sure what kind of innocence I'm pleading. However I suppose innocence of comprehension seems to be the easiest pl
Re: (Score:2)
Apple already requires an app owners to submit financial records which would show the source of revenue related to the link outs.
Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
What service is Apple offering in this instance that is worth a 15% contribution?
Re: (Score:1)
the hosting and distribution of the application, dumbfuck.
Which surely has been already paid by the app developer as a result of publishing their app in the App Store? I read this as an additional charge for using a payment system not controlled by Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
If Apple thought their users would fall for it, they would charge a fee for every hypertext link a user clicks.
Re: Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
The $100/yr for a developer doesn't come close to covering publishing costs.
Spotify doesn't charge for their app, they provide subscriptions, and have a large install base. Downloading a million apps when there is an update for instance isn't free for Apple.
I think they are very generous with the small developers. And the way to keep doing that is to have the successfully community pay its share of costs. We all benefit from it. (And it's Nicole and dimes for the big players)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The $100/yr for a developer doesn't come close to covering publishing costs.
Agreed. It should be more like $25. $100 is _way_ too much.
Also don't forget having to use Apple hardware to do the development.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's an easy fix for that. If someone distributes a free app and that app receives more than a certain (high) number of downloads per month, then charge them a fair fee for hosting the download, where that fee reflects the actual costs of hosting that app plus a small markup for Apple to get some profit.
This is defensible because Apple is recovering actual costs here. Not just piggybacking on someone's subscription service.
Re: Why? (Score:2)
That free app increases the value of Apple's devices. The developer should be paid, not charged.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, I think it's mutually-beneficial. If Spotify didn't have an Apple app, their revenues would decrease. And I'm only saying that free apps that get a lot of downloads should be billed extra... like maybe 200K downloads per month or so.
Re: (Score:3)
There's an easy fix for that. If someone distributes a free app and that app receives more than a certain (high) number of downloads per month, then charge them a fair fee for hosting the download, where that fee reflects the actual costs of hosting that app plus a small markup for Apple to get some profit.
This is defensible because Apple is recovering actual costs here. Not just piggybacking on someone's subscription service.
False. It is still indefensible, because it is a problem of Apple's own creation. If Apple wants to charge for it, that's fine, but only if they also allow their devices to download apps from somewhere other than Apple.
For in-app purchases of content, it already works that way, of course, but I'm assuming this isn't what is being discussed here, because it would be particularly heinous of Apple to want to charge up to a 15% tax on content that it had no involvement either in payment for or distribution of
Re: (Score:2)
The $100/yr for a developer doesn't come close to covering publishing costs.
Yes it is.
Spotify doesn't charge for their app, they provide subscriptions, and have a large install base.
Of which, Apple deserves nothing.
Downloading a million apps when there is an update for instance isn't free for Apple.
This is a problem of their own making and has many different solutions.
I think they are very generous with the small developers.
No. They really aren't.
We all benefit from it.
What benefits exactly? Because Apple offers nothing outside of hosting and distribution.
Re: (Score:2)
"The $100/yr for a developer doesn't come close to covering publishing costs."
Sounds like an Apple problem. Apple makes the rules, they decided on a percentage of free.
Fraud? (Score:2)
the hosting and distribution of the application, dumbfuck.
So what's the exiting dev hardware costs, yearly dev account fees, and existing 15%/30% purchase Apple tax for then?? I smell fraud, dumbfuck.
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing you're posting as AC.
Re: (Score:2)
According to the developer agreement, the 15% does not imply apple has any kind of obligation to host and distribute the app. In fact, it says the opposite. Apple can stop distribution without cause for any reason and does not refund the developer any part of this 15% when it does.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is a pretty bold claim given this is specifically targeting devs/publishers who don't want to use their walled garden but have no choice if they want an audience of more than a few dozen hardcore geeks.
Never mind "under that approach, the fee would be zero" - Under that approach, the fee should be negative! People are actively trying to work around Apple's lock-in. I can't speak for everyone, but I usually don't go ou
You have money and they want it (Score:2)
That's the justification.
Usually people charge for services rendered. (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
they don't provide service but market access. the whole point of the iphone app ecosystem is mercantilism. if people are only interested in creating apps to rake in money then i don't find it really outlandish that the market access provider charges whatever fees he can justify to get a cut, including having to pay for the privilege of developing in the first place (!!!). wether the provider can get away with it or not is something i'll leave entirely to the whales, sharks and sharklets in the ecosystem to
Re: (Score:2)
"...they don't provide service but market access..."
They only provide app distribution service. Apps are a feature that the devices provide, a feature that sells the devices. Apps are a benefit to Apple and a requirement for them to compete.
"the whole point of the iphone app ecosystem is mercantilism. "
False. It's almost as though you don't know what a computer is.
"if people are only interested in creating apps to rake in money then i don't find it really outlandish that the market access provider charge
Re: (Score:2)
apps don't need any "distribution service". they can be (and do so on many devices) downloaded from anywhere and installed by the user, and promoted by a zillion ways. the entire "appstore" concept is basically hijacking that freedom and plurality by concentrating the market on a single point to exploit the control of that market access once that concentration is established. as i said, that's ok for me because i just don't partake. everybody else can do as they see fit, crying rivers afterwards is not requ
feels like it belongs to contract law (Score:3)
For example, if you run Google ads, you are paying a rate of anywhere from 66 cents to 5 dollars per click. If you don't like it, then you don't get to use Google's platform. That's a difficult think for a business to avoid though, so larger businesses are paying for at least the lower tiers of sponsored links.
Apple is, as part of the agreement to use their platform, expecting a cut of the links that users are clicking on that app developers are collecting. It all ties back to advertising and who is getting paid.
Unfortunately for Apple, they did poorly with their case with Epic Games. And have a burden that no other major tech company has to deal with. The law is being inconsistently applied, and I believe the way it is applied to Apple is unreasonable and confusing compared to how the rest of the tech industry is treated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a lot of expensive shit that is basically mandatory for your business these days: Google, AWS, Quickbooks, MS 365, Cloudflare, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem lies where you call the phones that people bought and paid for "Apple's platform". Apple didn't do "poorly with their case with Epic Games". They made the same mistake of thinking they can sell something and keep their control over it. Developers are allowed to use other "platforms" for payment and Apple is not owed a percentage of revenue generated through other platforms. The reason you think that Apple is somehow singled out is that nobody else even has such a monopolistic control over "their
Re: feels like it belongs to contract law (Score:2)
They made their platform mandatory, that's tying and it's normally illegal
Re: (Score:2)
"Apple is, as part of the agreement to use their platform, expecting a cut of the links that users are clicking..."
No they're not. I don't know why you're tying this to ad revenues.
Also, their "platform" is the App Store, not the device itself. Not that you said otherwise, but can anyone imagine a computer manufacturer entitled to collect a few on every hyperlink following using a device they sold?
Re: (Score:2)
autocorrect is unbelievably infuriating
How do Apple customers put up with that shit? (Score:5, Insightful)
To cross the bridge you must pay the troll (Apple is here).
*worst* way (Score:3)
Apple is just as evil as anyone else, just in a different way.
"Apple is just as evil as anyone else, just in a worst way."
There FTFY.
"Think different" (Score:2)
Apple is just as evil as anyone else, just in a different way.
"Think different", indeed.
Fees for what? (Score:2)
Why does developers must pay a fee to link to an external payment service? Developers are not using anything from Apple. The app wasn't sold for a penny, it was free. They are not using the App Store for a global distribution of their apps. Not using Apple's SDK to develop the app. Not using any of Apple's security tools. Not using Apple's code validation and safety. Not using Apple's tech support for the OS and hardware. Not using Apple's update on the users' devices. Not using Apple's hardware to earn an
Yean, no (Score:2)
Fuuuuck that.
Apple already charges $100/yr solely to publish to the App Store. They have a minimum of 3 million iOS developers that must go through the App Store for distribution. Everything Apple does with the App Store costs them waaaay less than $3 million/yr. They provide nothing of value that justifies taking any kind of additional cuts. This is simply them trying to double dip (again) while providing nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
$300 million/yr*
Mafia Capitalism (Score:1)
"A federal judge will now decide what commission, if any, is reasonable."
Normalizing theft. Paid developer accounts are $99/yr for individuals; $299/yr for enterprise. Apple (like a slick snake oil salesman), keeps total paid developers a secret. They keep how much they get annually from paid developer accounts a secret. They combine the figures they get from the paid developer accounts with the mafia extortion tax they collect for each sale (which is a combined total of about 109 billion dollars? for hosti
Teach them a lesson (Score:2)
Stop developing apps for the Apple platform.
This is why I donâ(TM)t buy Apple products (Score:3)
Can't take no for an answer (Score:1)