This structure was literally offered by the judge in the Epic case. The judge said that Apple is entitled to the fees whether the transactions are completed by Apple or not as long as they originated on the platform that Apple maintains and grows.
It’s a commission for access to a lucrative market that Apple created. Apple gives away the developer tools and charges an extremely modest annual App Store fee, which also covers the review process and hosting. It’s been common for platform creators to charge third-party developers in some capacity for many decades. Some do it by charging high costs for the developer tools, others by charging a commission based on sales. I don’t think any strategy is necessarily better or worse than the other on a legal or moral basis; they’re just business decisions. Previously Apple has combined the commission and payment processing costs into one fee. Apple made a decision on what they wanted to offer developers on that platform and Epic wasn’t satisfied with it. They got a court to agree on what is ultimately a minor technical point in how Apple’s deal is packaged so Apple is offering an alternative that they don’t want to but complies with the law. It’s, ultimately, a worse deal for the developer. Developers don’t have a right to demand that some arbitrary percentage is the right one, tough. Apple offered a deal: take it or leave it. Developers are perfectly free to leave it.
No, we are discussing services not sold through their store and not using their payment provider. That is literally the topic of the post.
Third-party console game developers paid money to the console maker even for physical sales.
Third party console games don’t literally pay money to not use services.
The payment service is 3%; the commission is the other 27%. That’s what a commission is. It’s for access to the market.
And that doesn’t strike you as patently fucking insane? 27%? For doing literally fucking nothing? For literally providing no added value beyond which you as a developer have already paid for?
No, we are discussing services not sold through their store and not using their payment provider. That is literally the topic of the post.
This is about purchases of virtual goods made by users of the app either directly in the app (30% combined commission and payment processing fees), or who click a link in the app to make the purchase using an external payment provider (27% commission). In all cases, these are sales originating from within the app.
Third party console games don’t literally pay money to not use services.
I’m not sure if there have been any changes in the last few years (I doubt it), but developers paid Nintendo, Microsoft, or Sony a 15% “licensing” fee for physical media games sold for their consoles. That has been the basic business model for all consoles for decades.
In all cases, these are sales originating from within the app.
But the latter example is about an application not developed by Apple processing payments with mechanisms also not made by apple. In what world is it fair to be forced to give Apple another 27% when they didn’t contribute shit beyond what you’ve already paid for.
What next? Paying Microsoft 27% for releasing a paid for app on Windows?
I’m not sure if there have been any changes in the last few years (I doubt it), but developers paid Nintendo, Microsoft, or Sony a 15% “licensing” fee for physical media games sold for their consoles. That has been the basic business model for all consoles for decades.
I’m not sure if you’re aware, but games consoles are a completely different market with completely different laws and standards governing them. Game consoles are not general purpose devices. They are closed platforms where you gotta sign lengthy NDAs and pay thousands just to get yourself a fucking dev kit.
Comparing the smartphone market to the games console market just proves you know fuck all about either.
I’m not sure if you’re aware, but games consoles are a completely different market with completely different laws and standards governing them. Game consoles are not general purpose devices. They are closed platforms where you gotta sign lengthy NDAs and pay thousands just to get yourself a fucking dev kit.
iPhones are a closed platform. Ditto for iPad and Apple Vision Pro. They are essentially an app console. They have never been sold to consumers or presented to developers as anything else. For what it’s worth, almost all of the in-app revenue at the center of this discussion is gaming revenue. Everything else is a rounding error.
Not like consoles, they are not. Anyone can develop for them, the only barrier is a small license fee and a Mac. Nintendo, Sony and MS will straight up not sell you an SDK if you are not an established gaming or educational organisation.
They are essentially an app console. They have never been sold to consumers or presented to developers as anything else.
They have been sold as general purpose devices that, like I said, anyone can develop for. Again, they are nothing like consoles.
For what it’s worth, almost all of the in-app revenue at the center of this discussion is gaming revenue. Everything else is a rounding error.
How is that extra fee not getting struck down by courts? Developers already paid the fee to be on the app store.
No one has brought an action regarding it, yet. That’s all.
This structure was literally offered by the judge in the Epic case. The judge said that Apple is entitled to the fees whether the transactions are completed by Apple or not as long as they originated on the platform that Apple maintains and grows.
It’s a commission for access to a lucrative market that Apple created. Apple gives away the developer tools and charges an extremely modest annual App Store fee, which also covers the review process and hosting. It’s been common for platform creators to charge third-party developers in some capacity for many decades. Some do it by charging high costs for the developer tools, others by charging a commission based on sales. I don’t think any strategy is necessarily better or worse than the other on a legal or moral basis; they’re just business decisions. Previously Apple has combined the commission and payment processing costs into one fee. Apple made a decision on what they wanted to offer developers on that platform and Epic wasn’t satisfied with it. They got a court to agree on what is ultimately a minor technical point in how Apple’s deal is packaged so Apple is offering an alternative that they don’t want to but complies with the law. It’s, ultimately, a worse deal for the developer. Developers don’t have a right to demand that some arbitrary percentage is the right one, tough. Apple offered a deal: take it or leave it. Developers are perfectly free to leave it.
Which Apple already got their money for. Or did you think those $1k iPhones were at cost?
A review process they themselves mandate. You also forget they also charge 30% for anything sold through their store. Which they also mandate you use.
Not for services they aren’t providing, it isn’t.
Again, these are for services that are being provided. Apple is charging people to not use their own payment service.
That’s literally what we’re discussing.
Third-party console game developers paid money to the console maker even for physical sales.
The payment service is 3%; the commission is the other 27%. That’s what a commission is. It’s for access to the market.
No, we are discussing services not sold through their store and not using their payment provider. That is literally the topic of the post.
Third party console games don’t literally pay money to not use services.
And that doesn’t strike you as patently fucking insane? 27%? For doing literally fucking nothing? For literally providing no added value beyond which you as a developer have already paid for?
This is about purchases of virtual goods made by users of the app either directly in the app (30% combined commission and payment processing fees), or who click a link in the app to make the purchase using an external payment provider (27% commission). In all cases, these are sales originating from within the app.
I’m not sure if there have been any changes in the last few years (I doubt it), but developers paid Nintendo, Microsoft, or Sony a 15% “licensing” fee for physical media games sold for their consoles. That has been the basic business model for all consoles for decades.
But the latter example is about an application not developed by Apple processing payments with mechanisms also not made by apple. In what world is it fair to be forced to give Apple another 27% when they didn’t contribute shit beyond what you’ve already paid for.
What next? Paying Microsoft 27% for releasing a paid for app on Windows?
I’m not sure if you’re aware, but games consoles are a completely different market with completely different laws and standards governing them. Game consoles are not general purpose devices. They are closed platforms where you gotta sign lengthy NDAs and pay thousands just to get yourself a fucking dev kit.
Comparing the smartphone market to the games console market just proves you know fuck all about either.
iPhones are a closed platform. Ditto for iPad and Apple Vision Pro. They are essentially an app console. They have never been sold to consumers or presented to developers as anything else. For what it’s worth, almost all of the in-app revenue at the center of this discussion is gaming revenue. Everything else is a rounding error.
Not like consoles, they are not. Anyone can develop for them, the only barrier is a small license fee and a Mac. Nintendo, Sony and MS will straight up not sell you an SDK if you are not an established gaming or educational organisation.
They have been sold as general purpose devices that, like I said, anyone can develop for. Again, they are nothing like consoles.
Spotify would disagree.