Apple makes it clear it will get its app commission regardless of payment method

AppleInsider

Despite being forced into providing alternative payment systems to dating apps in the Netherlands, Apple has made it perfectly clear with developer documentation that it will still collect its App Store commission from developers.

On Saturday, Apple announced it will comply with an order from the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) to allow dating apps in the country to use alternative systems than the existing in-app purchases platform. In explaining the changes, Apple also reveals it doesn't intend on missing out on the commission it would normally take.

The developer support page for "Distributing dating apps in the Netherlands" Apple explains the affected apps have three options covering payment systems. Along with the existing IAP system, developers can also use an in-app link pointing users to a website to complete the purchase, or to use a third-party payment system within the app.

While two of the methods use transactions that Apple doesn't directly monitor or profit from, Apple does still say it wants its commission.

"Consistent with the ACM's order, dating apps that are granted an entitlement to link out or use a third-party in-app payment provider will pay Apple a commission on transactions," writes Apple. It doesn't say how much the commission is, but does say that more information will be "available shortly."

Tim Cook has specifically said that Apple would collect from developers before. During Apple's trial with Epic in May, Apple CEO Tim Cook defended the convenience and security of the App Store, but also its commission. "We would have to come up with an alternate way of collecting our commission," said Cook, before proposing Apple would have to work out how to track the transactions and invoice developers properly, as a "process that doesn't need to exist."

In a December brief, Apple attorneys continued the company line, stating that if Apple were to permit alternative in-app payments under an injunction, "Apple could charge a commission on purchases made through such mechanisms."

Still, discussions have continued online since that statement about Apple not getting any payment at all, based on assumptions about how the system would work.

Read on AppleInsider

Cesar Battistini Maziero

Very fair, they developed an audience and a platform people trust, they deserve a cut. 

Every online store gets a cut from sales.

It's already bizarre that they can't control their own store.

avon b7

Cesar Battistini Maziero said:

Very fair, they developed an audience and a platform people trust, they deserve a cut. 

Every online store gets a cut from sales.

It's already bizarre that they can't control their own store.

Nobody controls their own store. Before you can even open one there are huge amounts of rules and regulations to deal with. 

On the face of it, this comment by Apple does not appear to be in the spirit of the rule but we'll have to see how it plays out. 

At the end of the day all of this is basically part of a bigger puzzle and no one knows what it's going to look like yet. 

waveparticle

Apple is perfectly entitled to collect the commission. Without Jobs invented the iPhone there is no developer app ecosystem. Developers need to thank Apple providing this opportunity to get rich quickly. 

foregoneconclusion

avon b7 said: At the end of the day all of this is basically part of a bigger puzzle and no one knows what it's going to look like yet. 

It's a very simple puzzle: iPhone users have access to the App Store AND the internet. You can pay for things in the App Store. You can pay for things on the internet. You can get information in the App Store. You can get information on the internet. You can use apps from the App Store. You can use web based apps on the internet. 

Pretending that iPhone users don't have access to the internet and can't do all the things that they obviously CAN do on the internet doesn't really seem like a great choice for a regulatory environment. 

rob53

avon b7 said:

Cesar Battistini Maziero said:

Very fair, they developed an audience and a platform people trust, they deserve a cut. 

Every online store gets a cut from sales.

It's already bizarre that they can't control their own store.

Nobody controls their own store. Before you can even open one there are huge amounts of rules and regulations to deal with. 

On the face of it, this comment by Apple does not appear to be in the spirit of the rule but we'll have to see how it plays out. 

At the end of the day all of this is basically part of a bigger puzzle and no one knows what it's going to look like yet. 

Looks like plenty of stores control their stores. I don’t know of any store that allows vendors to use a store’s space for free. Apple provides the store, provides access to it by developers and they have to be paid just like any other store. 

GeorgeBMac

rob53 said:

avon b7 said:

Cesar Battistini Maziero said:

Very fair, they developed an audience and a platform people trust, they deserve a cut. 

Every online store gets a cut from sales.

It's already bizarre that they can't control their own store.

Nobody controls their own store. Before you can even open one there are huge amounts of rules and regulations to deal with. 

On the face of it, this comment by Apple does not appear to be in the spirit of the rule but we'll have to see how it plays out. 

At the end of the day all of this is basically part of a bigger puzzle and no one knows what it's going to look like yet. 

Looks like plenty of stores control their stores. I don’t know of any store that allows vendors to use a store’s space for free. Apple provides the store, provides access to it by developers and they have to be paid just like any other store. 

All true!

But an additional wrinkle is that one function Apple currently performs -- interfacing with the developer for complaints and refunds -- won't be happening with third party payment systems.

So, perhaps their commission will need to be adjusted for that.

But, it is very important for the user/buyer to know that they lose Apple's protection when they choose a third party payments method.  They need to know that they're swimming naked as the tide goes out.

carnegie

avon b7 said:

Cesar Battistini Maziero said:

Very fair, they developed an audience and a platform people trust, they deserve a cut. 

Every online store gets a cut from sales.

It's already bizarre that they can't control their own store.

Nobody controls their own store. Before you can even open one there are huge amounts of rules and regulations to deal with. 

On the face of it, this comment by Apple does not appear to be in the spirit of the rule but we'll have to see how it plays out. 

At the end of the day all of this is basically part of a bigger puzzle and no one knows what it's going to look like yet. 

I don't see where Apple's comment is contrary to the spirit of the Netherlands ACM's decision. Whether Apple could continue to collect a commission for, among other things, the use of its IP wasn't at issue. The summary of the decision doesn't even mention Apple's commission. Apple's commission isn't what the ACM concluded was problematic.

If the ACM meant to prevent Apple from collecting the commission, its failure in the summary to mention the commission and explain why it's problematic would seem conspicuous. But the reality is this decision isn't about the commission. Whether or not the Netherlands would like to prevent Apple from collecting that commission, it likely understands that it probably can't. Doing so would probably violate international intellectual property agreements.

StrangeDays

avon b7 said:

Cesar Battistini Maziero said:

Very fair, they developed an audience and a platform people trust, they deserve a cut. 

Every online store gets a cut from sales.

It's already bizarre that they can't control their own store.

Nobody controls their own store. Before you can even open one there are huge amounts of rules and regulations to deal with. 

Of course merchants control their own stores. You’re confusing control with regulation, but they’re not mutually exclusive. You can control your store, and also be regulated with things you cannot control. 

cropr

waveparticle said:

Apple is perfectly entitled to collect the commission. Without Jobs invented the iPhone there is no developer app ecosystem. Developers need to thank Apple providing this opportunity to get rich quickly. 

Do you realize that according to marketing research 90% of the apps are not profitable for the developer?   The only one who is getting rich quickly, is Apple

2old4fun

cropr said:

waveparticle said:

Apple is perfectly entitled to collect the commission. Without Jobs invented the iPhone there is no developer app ecosystem. Developers need to thank Apple providing this opportunity to get rich quickly. 

Do you realize that according to marketing research 90% of the apps are not profitable for the developer?   The only one who is getting rich quickly, is Apple

If the developers are not making money then why are they developing?  

stuke

Cropr…have them raise the price of their app!  It’s not Apple that keeps them from
making money, it’s the market of free choices. Make a better app and move into the hypothetical 10% you imply develop AND make money. 

avon b7

carnegie said:

avon b7 said:

Cesar Battistini Maziero said:

Very fair, they developed an audience and a platform people trust, they deserve a cut. 

Every online store gets a cut from sales.

It's already bizarre that they can't control their own store.

Nobody controls their own store. Before you can even open one there are huge amounts of rules and regulations to deal with. 

On the face of it, this comment by Apple does not appear to be in the spirit of the rule but we'll have to see how it plays out. 

At the end of the day all of this is basically part of a bigger puzzle and no one knows what it's going to look like yet. 

I don't see where Apple's comment is contrary to the spirit of the Netherlands ACM's decision. Whether Apple could continue to collect a commission for, among other things, the use of its IP wasn't at issue. The summary of the decision doesn't even mention Apple's commission. Apple's commission isn't what the ACM concluded was problematic.

If the ACM meant to prevent Apple from collecting the commission, its failure in the summary to mention the commission and explain why it's problematic would seem conspicuous. But the reality is this decision isn't about the commission. Whether or not the Netherlands would like to prevent Apple from collecting that commission, it likely understands that it probably can't. Doing so would probably violate international intellectual property agreements.

I haven't followed the case beyond what it was based on which is anti competitive behaviour under EU regulations and Dutch consumer protections. 

Apple basically coming out and saying 'we'll get our cut one way or another' flies against the spirit of the decision at a very basic level. 

But that's why I said we'll have to see how it plays out. As it is right now, according to AI, the Dutch authorities are studying Apple's proposal to see if it is acceptable. 

avon b7

StrangeDays said:

avon b7 said:

Cesar Battistini Maziero said:

Very fair, they developed an audience and a platform people trust, they deserve a cut. 

Every online store gets a cut from sales.

It's already bizarre that they can't control their own store.

Nobody controls their own store. Before you can even open one there are huge amounts of rules and regulations to deal with. 

Of course merchants control their own stores. You’re confusing control with regulation, but they’re not mutually exclusive. You can control your store, and also be regulated with things you cannot control. 

Regulation is control. You control your store in line with regulations. 

avon b7

rob53 said:

avon b7 said:

Cesar Battistini Maziero said:

Very fair, they developed an audience and a platform people trust, they deserve a cut. 

Every online store gets a cut from sales.

It's already bizarre that they can't control their own store.

Nobody controls their own store. Before you can even open one there are huge amounts of rules and regulations to deal with. 

On the face of it, this comment by Apple does not appear to be in the spirit of the rule but we'll have to see how it plays out. 

At the end of the day all of this is basically part of a bigger puzzle and no one knows what it's going to look like yet. 

Looks like plenty of stores control their stores. I don’t know of any store that allows vendors to use a store’s space for free. Apple provides the store, provides access to it by developers and they have to be paid just like any other store. 

Irrelevant. 

Your control is limited to what regulations allow for. You don't have a free ride to do whatever you want. 

It is to be seen just how much control Apple can exercise without falling foul to regulations. 

davidw

cropr said:

waveparticle said:

Apple is perfectly entitled to collect the commission. Without Jobs invented the iPhone there is no developer app ecosystem. Developers need to thank Apple providing this opportunity to get rich quickly. 

Do you realize that according to marketing research 90% of the apps are not profitable for the developer?   The only one who is getting rich quickly, is Apple

The top 1% of developers (publishers) accounts for 93% of app stores revenue (both Google Play and Apple App). That leaves 99% of them accounting for just 7% of app stores revenue. It doesn't matter how you do the math, Apple is not quickly getting rich from the 90% of developers not making any profit. 

https://sensortower.com/blog/top-one-percent-downloads


And consider this, Apple commission for developers making less than $1M is 15% and not making any profit counts as less than $1M. If a developer isn't making a profit by keeping 85% of sales revenue, then it's not Apple fault. Apple do not tell the developer how much to charge. Plus if an app is not profitable for a developer because no one is buying it, then how is Apple quickly getting rich off that? 

longfang

avon b7 said:

carnegie said:

avon b7 said:

Cesar Battistini Maziero said:

Very fair, they developed an audience and a platform people trust, they deserve a cut. 

Every online store gets a cut from sales.

It's already bizarre that they can't control their own store.

Nobody controls their own store. Before you can even open one there are huge amounts of rules and regulations to deal with. 

On the face of it, this comment by Apple does not appear to be in the spirit of the rule but we'll have to see how it plays out. 

At the end of the day all of this is basically part of a bigger puzzle and no one knows what it's going to look like yet. 

I don't see where Apple's comment is contrary to the spirit of the Netherlands ACM's decision. Whether Apple could continue to collect a commission for, among other things, the use of its IP wasn't at issue. The summary of the decision doesn't even mention Apple's commission. Apple's commission isn't what the ACM concluded was problematic.

If the ACM meant to prevent Apple from collecting the commission, its failure in the summary to mention the commission and explain why it's problematic would seem conspicuous. But the reality is this decision isn't about the commission. Whether or not the Netherlands would like to prevent Apple from collecting that commission, it likely understands that it probably can't. Doing so would probably violate international intellectual property agreements.

I haven't followed the case beyond what it was based on which is anti competitive behaviour under EU regulations and Dutch consumer protections. 

Apple basically coming out and saying 'we'll get our cut one way or another' flies against the spirit of the decision at a very basic level. 

But that's why I said we'll have to see how it plays out. As it is right now, according to AI, the Dutch authorities are studying Apple's proposal to see if it is acceptable. 

Spirit of the rules count for squat. If it’s so important for Apple to miss out on commissions then write it down in the rules rather than “imply” it.

macplusplus

avon b7 said:

rob53 said:

avon b7 said:

Cesar Battistini Maziero said:

Very fair, they developed an audience and a platform people trust, they deserve a cut. 

Every online store gets a cut from sales.

It's already bizarre that they can't control their own store.

Nobody controls their own store. Before you can even open one there are huge amounts of rules and regulations to deal with. 

On the face of it, this comment by Apple does not appear to be in the spirit of the rule but we'll have to see how it plays out. 

At the end of the day all of this is basically part of a bigger puzzle and no one knows what it's going to look like yet. 

Looks like plenty of stores control their stores. I don’t know of any store that allows vendors to use a store’s space for free. Apple provides the store, provides access to it by developers and they have to be paid just like any other store. 

Irrelevant. 

Your control is limited to what regulations allow for. You don't have a free ride to do whatever you want. 

It is to be seen just how much control Apple can exercise without falling foul to regulations. 

That was so under Franco's regime. 

In the modern world, regulations do not "allow", they just "disallow" some limited, countable cases.

Stabitha_Christie

cropr said:

waveparticle said:

Apple is perfectly entitled to collect the commission. Without Jobs invented the iPhone there is no developer app ecosystem. Developers need to thank Apple providing this opportunity to get rich quickly. 

Do you realize that according to marketing research 90% of the apps are not profitable for the developer?   The only one who is getting rich quickly, is Apple

I think that number is probably a little misleading. For example I have an app for my bank on my phone. My bank makes nothing off the app, it is free and has on IAP but while they don't make a profit off of the app they are still a profitable entity. I personally have a host of apps like this on my phone. They are free apps with no IAP but they are linked to something else that is profitable (Garmin, Slack, Philips Hue, ecobee, United Airlines, Avis, various hotels, USA Triathlon, local rail). So yeah a ton of apps don't make a profit or even generate revenue in app but it doesn't mean the developer doesn't make money. 

avon b7

macplusplus said:

avon b7 said:

rob53 said:

avon b7 said:

Cesar Battistini Maziero said:

Very fair, they developed an audience and a platform people trust, they deserve a cut. 

Every online store gets a cut from sales.

It's already bizarre that they can't control their own store.

Nobody controls their own store. Before you can even open one there are huge amounts of rules and regulations to deal with. 

On the face of it, this comment by Apple does not appear to be in the spirit of the rule but we'll have to see how it plays out. 

At the end of the day all of this is basically part of a bigger puzzle and no one knows what it's going to look like yet. 

Looks like plenty of stores control their stores. I don’t know of any store that allows vendors to use a store’s space for free. Apple provides the store, provides access to it by developers and they have to be paid just like any other store. 

Irrelevant. 

Your control is limited to what regulations allow for. You don't have a free ride to do whatever you want. 

It is to be seen just how much control Apple can exercise without falling foul to regulations. 

That was so under Franco's regime. 

In the modern world, regulations do not "allow", they just "disallow" some limited, countable cases.

Allow or disallow, it is still control. 

Just how Paquito Medallas got in there is perplexing. 

avon b7

longfang said:

avon b7 said:

carnegie said:

avon b7 said:

Cesar Battistini Maziero said:

Very fair, they developed an audience and a platform people trust, they deserve a cut. 

Every online store gets a cut from sales.

It's already bizarre that they can't control their own store.

Nobody controls their own store. Before you can even open one there are huge amounts of rules and regulations to deal with. 

On the face of it, this comment by Apple does not appear to be in the spirit of the rule but we'll have to see how it plays out. 

At the end of the day all of this is basically part of a bigger puzzle and no one knows what it's going to look like yet. 

I don't see where Apple's comment is contrary to the spirit of the Netherlands ACM's decision. Whether Apple could continue to collect a commission for, among other things, the use of its IP wasn't at issue. The summary of the decision doesn't even mention Apple's commission. Apple's commission isn't what the ACM concluded was problematic.

If the ACM meant to prevent Apple from collecting the commission, its failure in the summary to mention the commission and explain why it's problematic would seem conspicuous. But the reality is this decision isn't about the commission. Whether or not the Netherlands would like to prevent Apple from collecting that commission, it likely understands that it probably can't. Doing so would probably violate international intellectual property agreements.

I haven't followed the case beyond what it was based on which is anti competitive behaviour under EU regulations and Dutch consumer protections. 

Apple basically coming out and saying 'we'll get our cut one way or another' flies against the spirit of the decision at a very basic level. 

But that's why I said we'll have to see how it plays out. As it is right now, according to AI, the Dutch authorities are studying Apple's proposal to see if it is acceptable. 

Spirit of the rules count for squat. If it’s so important for Apple to miss out on commissions then write it down in the rules rather than “imply” it.

It counts for more than 'squat' but I agree that it is impossible to know for sure how things will go until the relevant departments have reviewed things.