Snapchat says it's happy to pay Apple 30%, wouldn't exist without iPhone

Posted:
in General Discussion edited May 2021
Snapchat CEO Evan Spiegel says the company is happy to pay Apple its 30% commission thanks to advancements in technology and software.

Snapchat is happy to pay Apple's 30% commission
Snapchat is happy to pay Apple's 30% commission


Apple has been on trial against Epic Games over how it does business with the App Store and its control of the market. One recurring problem Epic has with Apple is the commission fee it charges on every sale or in-app purchase made on the platform.

During an interview with CNBC, Snapchat CEO Evan Spiegel discussed the popular app's relationship with Apple. When asked about the 30% commission, he said Snapchat wouldn't exist without the iPhone.

"In that sense, I'm not sure we have a choice about paying the 30% fee." Spiegel said. "And of course, we're happy to do it in exchange for all of the amazing technology that they provide to us in terms of the software but also in terms of their hardware advancements."

Apple CEO Tim Cook says that Apple uses its in-app payment system to collect the 30% fee. Epic argues that Apple should allow alternate payment methods, but Cook says this would require Apple to collect fees another way.

Spiegel says Apple has been a great partner for Snapchat, and even the privacy changes with iOS 14.5 and App Tracking Transparency were welcome. Snapchat is moving to Apple's new ad tracking network that doesn't violate user privacy, and the transition has gone smoothly according to Spiegel.

The Epic Games versus Apple trial could affect the way Apple does its business depending on the outcome. If the judge sides with Epic, Apple could be compelled to allow alternate payment options or make other changes. Apple has already tried to assuage regulators with its small business program, but it may not be enough.

Stay on top of all Apple news right from your HomePod. Say, "Hey, Siri, play AppleInsider," and you'll get the latest AppleInsider Podcast. Or ask your HomePod mini for "AppleInsider Daily" instead and you'll hear a fast update direct from our news team. And, if you're interested in Apple-centric home automation, say "Hey, Siri, play HomeKit Insider," and you'll be listening to our newest specialized podcast in moments.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 52
    BeatsBeats Posts: 3,073member
    Snapchat using common sense. Kind of surprising after reading about all the entitled as*holes.
    chaickaqwerty52jony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 52
    byronlbyronl Posts: 366member
    Spiegel says Apple has been a great partner for Snapchat, and even the privacy changes with iOS 14.5 and App Tracking Transparency were welcome. Snapchat is moving to Apple's new ad tracking network that doesn't violate user privacy, and the transition has gone smoothly according to Spiegel. 
    apple has a new ad tracking network? did u guys report on this news? how does it work?
    edited May 2021 watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 52
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,099member
    Finally some common sense.  

    Apparently Sweeney has selective memory loss.  We on the other hand remember the days of boxed software, and all the overhead to get to that shelf.  30% for Apple is chump-change compared to those days where we had to do everything ourselves.

    Whining developers are just spoiled brats.
    edited May 2021 BeatsbaconstangchaickaDogpersonjony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 52
    silvergold84silvergold84 Posts: 107unconfirmed, member
    No one understand what all this is about. if someone is not happy then can go to create apps only for other products. No one force to create apps for iPhone. Who want make money without pay nothing through the Apple’s platform should not have that possibility. Its private property developed by Apple, not a public open source service. 
    Beatsbaconstangchaickajony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 52
    gc_ukgc_uk Posts: 110member
    Nobody seems to understand what a monopoly is. Just because there are other phones doesn’t mean Apple isn’t engaging in a monopoly. 
  • Reply 6 of 52
    BeatsBeats Posts: 3,073member
    gc_uk said:
    Nobody seems to understand what a monopoly is. Just because there are other phones doesn’t mean Apple isn’t engaging in a monopoly. 

    Wal-Mart has a monopoly on Wal-Mart. That doesn’t mean Coca Cola has the right to change their rules. 
    chaickaDogpersonqwerty52jony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 52
    9secondkox29secondkox2 Posts: 2,781member
    byronl said:
    Spiegel says Apple has been a great partner for Snapchat, and even the privacy changes with iOS 14.5 and App Tracking Transparency were welcome. Snapchat is moving to Apple's new ad tracking network that doesn't violate user privacy, and the transition has gone smoothly according to Spiegel. 
    apple has a new ad tracking network? did u guys report on this news? how does it work?
    Whoa. Seriously. That’s HUGE. 

    and sneaky...
  • Reply 8 of 52
    9secondkox29secondkox2 Posts: 2,781member
    Beats said:
    gc_uk said:
    Nobody seems to understand what a monopoly is. Just because there are other phones doesn’t mean Apple isn’t engaging in a monopoly. 

    Wal-Mart has a monopoly on Wal-Mart. That doesn’t mean Coca Cola  has the right to change their rules. 
    That’s not a monopoly. 

    A thing cannot monopolize itself. It must monopolize a market. 

    Apple has zero monopoly anywhere on any market. 

    Case closed. 
    chaickaqwerty52viclauyycFileMakerFellerjony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 52
    BeatsBeats Posts: 3,073member
    Beats said:
    gc_uk said:
    Nobody seems to understand what a monopoly is. Just because there are other phones doesn’t mean Apple isn’t engaging in a monopoly. 

    Wal-Mart has a monopoly on Wal-Mart. That doesn’t mean Coca Cola  has the right to change their rules. 
    That’s not a monopoly. 

    A thing cannot monopolize itself. It must monopolize a market. 

    Apple has zero monopoly anywhere on any market. 

    Case closed. 

    And I agree. But people wanna move the goalposts to IP being a monopoly. Like Nintendo having a monopoly on Mario. 
    chaickaqwerty52jony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 52
    gc_ukgc_uk Posts: 110member
    Beats said:
    gc_uk said:
    Nobody seems to understand what a monopoly is. Just because there are other phones doesn’t mean Apple isn’t engaging in a monopoly. 

    Wal-Mart has a monopoly on Wal-Mart. That doesn’t mean Coca Cola has the right to change their rules. 
    Thanks for proving my point so succinctly. 
    Beats
  • Reply 11 of 52
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Beats said:
    gc_uk said:
    Nobody seems to understand what a monopoly is. Just because there are other phones doesn’t mean Apple isn’t engaging in a monopoly. 

    Wal-Mart has a monopoly on Wal-Mart. That doesn’t mean Coca Cola  has the right to change their rules. 
    That’s not a monopoly. 

    A thing cannot monopolize itself. It must monopolize a market. 

    Apple has zero monopoly anywhere on any market. 

    Case closed. 
    There is a market for iOS apps, iOS apps are not exclusively owned or created by Apple and yet Apple runs the only store.  Case reopened.
    gc_ukmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 12 of 52
    gc_ukgc_uk Posts: 110member
    crowley said:
    Beats said:
    gc_uk said:
    Nobody seems to understand what a monopoly is. Just because there are other phones doesn’t mean Apple isn’t engaging in a monopoly. 

    Wal-Mart has a monopoly on Wal-Mart. That doesn’t mean Coca Cola  has the right to change their rules. 
    That’s not a monopoly. 

    A thing cannot monopolize itself. It must monopolize a market. 

    Apple has zero monopoly anywhere on any market. 

    Case closed. 
    There is a market for iOS apps, iOS apps are not exclusively owned or created by Apple and yet Apple runs the only store.  Case reopened.
    Spot on. 
  • Reply 13 of 52
    qwerty52qwerty52 Posts: 367member
    crowley said:
    Beats said:
    gc_uk said:
    Nobody seems to understand what a monopoly is. Just because there are other phones doesn’t mean Apple isn’t engaging in a monopoly. 

    Wal-Mart has a monopoly on Wal-Mart. That doesn’t mean Coca Cola  has the right to change their rules. 
    That’s not a monopoly. 

    A thing cannot monopolize itself. It must monopolize a market. 

    Apple has zero monopoly anywhere on any market. 

    Case closed. 
    There is a market for iOS apps, iOS apps are not exclusively owned or created by Apple and yet Apple runs the only store.  Case reopened.

    Not agree.

    Wal-Mart in its own stores, it’s also not exclusively owner of the drinks made by Coca Cola, but because Coca-Cola is willing to sell their drinks through Mal-Mart, it is more than a normal, that therefore Coca-Cola has to pay a commission. If not agree with the commission, Coca-Cola is free to go to other markt places.
    Everyone willing to sell his own app through the iOS market is doing this volunteerly, after considering all the financial PROS and CONS of if doing this. Apple did not threaten him with a gun in order to push him into the AppStore.
    He is entirely free to go to a different apps markets or to establish his own one, after first creating his own platform (very easy to do it and cost nothing, according some people). Why complaining then?

    Case again closed.
    edited May 2021 lkruppBeatsJanNLjony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 52
    The other option for developers is taking on the risk of creating their own platform and ecosystem, nurture it for 40 years, build the goodwill and customer base, compete with other multi-billion dollar companies, while exhibiting technical, design and financial discipline to become successful.
    BeatsJanNLFileMakerFellerjony0watto_cobraDetnator
  • Reply 15 of 52
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    qwerty52 said:
    crowley said:
    Beats said:
    gc_uk said:
    Nobody seems to understand what a monopoly is. Just because there are other phones doesn’t mean Apple isn’t engaging in a monopoly. 

    Wal-Mart has a monopoly on Wal-Mart. That doesn’t mean Coca Cola  has the right to change their rules. 
    That’s not a monopoly. 

    A thing cannot monopolize itself. It must monopolize a market. 

    Apple has zero monopoly anywhere on any market. 

    Case closed. 
    There is a market for iOS apps, iOS apps are not exclusively owned or created by Apple and yet Apple runs the only store.  Case reopened.

    Not agree.

    Wal-Mart in its own stores, it’s also not exclusively owner of the drinks made by Coca Cola, but because Coca-Cola is willing to sell their drinks through Mal-Mart, it is more than a normal, that therefore Coca-Cola has to pay a commission. If not agree with the commission, Coca-Cola is free to go to other markt places.
    Everyone willing to sell his own app through the iOS market is doing this volunteerly, after considering all the financial PROS and CONS of if doing this. Apple did not threaten him with a gun in order to push him into the AppStore.
    He is entirely free to go to a different apps markets or to establish his own one, after first creating his own platform (very easy to do it and cost nothing, according some people). Why complaining then?

    Case again closed.
    You disproved your own point, iOS apps cannot reasonably be sold anywhere other than the iOS App Store.  If the Apple App Store is WalMart in your analogy, who is CostCo, or Target, or any other competition?  There is no "different app market" and no one can establish their own one.  No one else can sell iOS apps in any way that consumers can reasonably access, so there is no competition.  Even if you consider jailbreaking as an alternative (I do not, at least not a reasonable one), the market share there is so low that Apple would still qualify as a monopoly.
    gc_ukmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 16 of 52
    hammeroftruthhammeroftruth Posts: 1,319member
    Monopolies are not illegal, at least not in the US.

    There are many out there and I’m not going to rehash them. 

    The point of this case was Epic wasn’t happy about paying 30% all of a sudden. I get that now Fortnite is very popular and rakes in millions, but the actions of Epic were not in good faith when they just decided to break their agreement with Apple and bypass in app purchases. That is not acting in good faith.

    In business law, acting in good faith, or bona fide, as it is sometimes also referred to by the courts, refers to the concept of being sincere in one’s business dealings and without a desire to defraud, deceive, take undo advantage, or in any way act maliciously towards others. 

    Once Epic has stopped acting in good faith, any actions they have taken will be seen as acting in bad faith, even if the intention was noble. 

    TLDR: You cannot act in bad faith in order to prove another party is participating in an unfair monopoly. 
    BeatsJanNLrandominternetpersonjony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 52
    NaiyasNaiyas Posts: 107member
    crowley said:
    gc_uk said:
    Unfortunately neither of you seem to understand that iOS is not a “market”. The market is actually “Mobile Applications” of which iOS is a part of. Therefore Apple cannot have a monopoly because the mobile app market is far bigger than just iOS.

    Epic’s argument for Apple having a monopoly is even more flawed as they refer to the Gaming market which includes consoles and computers.

    To re-establish the definition of a market down to the iOS level (which you have to do in order to argue a monopoly exists) the unintended consequence is that anyone can define a market however they wish. For example, Epic games App Store could be defined as a market by your definition to which they would have monopoly control over. It’s fundamentally flawed and will have a mountain of unintended consequences across more than just the tech industry.
    BeatsrandominternetpersonFileMakerFellerjony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 52
    realisticrealistic Posts: 1,154member
    crowley said:
    Beats said:
    gc_uk said:
    Nobody seems to understand what a monopoly is. Just because there are other phones doesn’t mean Apple isn’t engaging in a monopoly. 

    Wal-Mart has a monopoly on Wal-Mart. That doesn’t mean Coca Cola  has the right to change their rules. 
    That’s not a monopoly. 

    A thing cannot monopolize itself. It must monopolize a market. 

    Apple has zero monopoly anywhere on any market. 

    Case closed. 
    There is a market for iOS apps, iOS apps are not exclusively owned or created by Apple and yet Apple runs the only store.  Case reopened.
    Apple does not control a majority of the mobile marketplace. so case closed. A monopoly has to have   control a given market. Ford, HP, GM...  like Apple controls the market for their given products but none are a monopoly.
    Beatswatto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 52
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Naiyas said:
    crowley said:
    gc_uk said:
    Unfortunately neither of you seem to understand that iOS is not a “market”. The market is actually “Mobile Applications” of which iOS is a part of. Therefore Apple cannot have a monopoly because the mobile app market is far bigger than just iOS.
    It depends if you consider mobile applications to be interchangeable, with no or minimal barriers to transition.  There certainly aren't no barriers, a user would need to invest in a replacement device, and apps are not transferable across platforms so existing purchases would need reinvestment, and apps are not always equivalent across platforms either.  I don't think there is a single answer to whether there are minimal barriers.  Tech savvy audiences may find it fairly simple, less tech savvy audiences may not.  Generally Android customers stick with Android and iPhone customer stick with iPhone for these sorts of reasons.

    I think there's a significant argument that iOS apps constitute a market to themselves due to an effective lock in.  And you can't credibly gatekeep what is and isn't a market without giving a rationalisation for making that claim.  
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 20 of 52
    qwerty52qwerty52 Posts: 367member
    crowley said:
    qwerty52 said:
    crowley said:
    Beats said:
    gc_uk said:
    Nobody seems to understand what a monopoly is. Just because there are other phones doesn’t mean Apple isn’t engaging in a monopoly. 

    Wal-Mart has a monopoly on Wal-Mart. That doesn’t mean Coca Cola  has the right to change their rules. 
    That’s not a monopoly. 

    A thing cannot monopolize itself. It must monopolize a market. 

    Apple has zero monopoly anywhere on any market. 

    Case closed. 
    There is a market for iOS apps, iOS apps are not exclusively owned or created by Apple and yet Apple runs the only store.  Case reopened.

    Not agree.

    Wal-Mart in its own stores, it’s also not exclusively owner of the drinks made by Coca Cola, but because Coca-Cola is willing to sell their drinks through Mal-Mart, it is more than a normal, that therefore Coca-Cola has to pay a commission. If not agree with the commission, Coca-Cola is free to go to other markt places.
    Everyone willing to sell his own app through the iOS market is doing this volunteerly, after considering all the financial PROS and CONS of if doing this. Apple did not threaten him with a gun in order to push him into the AppStore.
    He is entirely free to go to a different apps markets or to establish his own one, after first creating his own platform (very easy to do it and cost nothing, according some people). Why complaining then?

    Case again closed.
    You disproved your own point, iOS apps cannot reasonably be sold anywhere other than the iOS App Store.  If the Apple App Store is WalMart in your analogy, who is CostCo, or Target, or any other competition?  There is no "different app market" and no one can establish their own one.  No one else can sell iOS apps in any way that consumers can reasonably access, so there is no competition.  Even if you consider jailbreaking as an alternative (I do not, at least not a reasonable one), the market share there is so low that Apple would still qualify as a monopoly.

    No, I disapprove nothing. 
    For example:
    I don’t want to sell my own production of potatoes in any other store.
    I want to sell my potatoes ONLY  in my own store, which I built it by my self.
    If you want me to sell your own production of potatoes, tomatoes or whatever in my store, you need of course to pay me a commission, but your products in my store are still your property and you can take them back anytime you want.
    And because I am very aware of the reputation of my store, and because I want to sell only high quality products in it, I may refuse to accept your tomatoes in my store if the quality of them is lower then the criteria I use in order to keep the good name of my store.
    So if you think my commission is to high, you are free to go to another store, beloning to someone else, or to built your own one.

    Beatsrandominternetpersonwatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.