Elon Musk wants Apple to bend more App Store rules for X

AppleInsider

An X post from Elon Musk tells creators he'd like to give them more money, but Apple's 30% App Store commission prevents that. He hopes a conversation with CEO Tim Cook will change things.

The app formerly known as Twitter

Apple's controversial 30% take makes the headlines regularly, and today Elon Musk wants the spotlight. He hopes to talk with Apple CEO Tim Cook about adjusting how the company calculates its 30% commission, specifically for X creators.

According to the post, Musk says X will not take a percentage of creators' income until their payout exceeds $100k. After that, the company would take 10%.

The original policy of one free year is still in place. So, the $100k rule goes into effect after that.

There's just one pesky problem -- Apple. Any in-app purchase made on the platform will take up to 30% commission for Apple. Musk would like Apple to change that to taking the commission as usual, but only on money paid to X, not the artist.

Super Important to Support Creators!

If you can afford it, please subscribe to as many creators on this platform as you find interesting.

People from every corner of the world post incredible content on , but often live in tough circumstances, where even a few hundred

-- Elon Musk (@elonmusk)

August 2, 2023

Since X is a company that earns more than $1 million per year, its default commission to Apple is 30% per transaction. However, since super follows are subscriptions, anyone who holds onto a subscription for more than a year will only have a 15% commission on that specific payment.

Musk isn't the first and won't be the last to want Apple to rethink its commission system. Some would prefer no commission or the ability to bypass Apple's payment platform entirely.

Try as he might, Musk likely won't be the one to bend Apple's will on this. Epic Games famously took Apple to court and lost on this exact issue. The only way to avoid Apple's commission is to prevent iPhone app users from subscribing in the app and instead only allow subscriptions to take place on the web.

Read on AppleInsider

lorca2770

Meanwhile he would love to lower the prices of Tesla....

chasm

Dear Elon:

If this bugs you that much, simple remove Xitter from the App Store outright. Voila! No commissions at all!

I for one won’t miss it.

anilu_777

And Mr. Charity takes to the interwebz again. What a hypocrite. 

shamino

If anybody really cares, I'm sure they can subscribe via the web site and avoid the mobile app altogether.

And if not, why not?

glennh

And how would Tim Cook explain this transfer of wealth away from Apple’s shareholders to the X’s shareholders? 

This ain’t gonna happen!!!

cpsro

Cook knows better than to let Musk's mistakes become his mistakes.

mattinoz

"Apple's controversial 30% take makes the headlines regularly, and today Elon Musk wants the spotlight."

Like most media headlines. The controversy here is not Apple it is all the people like Musk who bring it in the headline to suit their own agenda that is not in the consumer interest. 

williamlondon

This is a non-starter for several reasons, not the least of which is the nightmare accounting situation it'd create, but also because he's a moron if he thinks a bunch of people are going to volunteer to pay extra money just so they can allocate it to people who's content they view (while he skims off the top), all out of the kindness of their hearts?? He does realise of course the blue tick subscription scam was a total bust, so of course people will flock to volunteering to pay even more just so they can do what he should do, and that is pay the content creators (who are the real value of the system) him-fucking-self. Plus he still wants to advertise and keep all that for himself too. It's like a paid movie service that also wants you to watch commercials.

What a maroon.

marvin

glennh said:

And how would Tim Cook explain this transfer of wealth away from Apple’s shareholders to the X’s shareholders? 

This ain’t gonna happen!!!

One thing Apple could do is have an API for resellers. Currently if a business resells content of its users, they get billed on the aggregate of all the sales making some types of business harder to work.

Say an app lets users host artwork similar to ArtStation and allows other users to tip the artists. The app developer is the one who gets the aggregate revenue but they are then paying those tips out to each artist separately.

If 10,000 artists each received $200 in tips, this would cross Apple's threshold for 30% but the app developer and artists would be making much less than the threshold each.

If Apple had an API where a developer could assign a unique in-app purchase identifier to a purchase button (including proxy payments like in-app currency), they'd know how many separate recipients there were and bill based on the amounts that each recipient was making.

The app developer would have to provide accounting details to prove that they were making the payments they said they were.

Then they could have consistent fees that didn't conflict with other app developers who are keeping 100% of their app revenue. If any developer is caught misusing the in-app purchase identifiers, they can be blocked from selling in the store.

This could apply to apps like Spotify where the musicians are the recipients and would each get a unique identifier. They'd assign subscription payments based on streams to each artist and that can get billed separately. To make accounting easier, any unique user below a threshold like $300/month can get 0% fee. Then 15% up to $1m, 30% over $1m.

The way it works now is if an app developer took in $2m in payments = $200 for 10,000 users and the app developer took a 10% profit, Apple would take 30% of the total, the developer would take 10% and the content creators would get 60% (of $200).

If instead a reseller system tagged each user separately, the app developer would take 10% ($200k) and each creator would get 90% of $200 = $180. Apple would then charge 0% of the $180 for each creator and 15% of the $200k of the app developer.

stabitha_christie

Marvin said:

glennh said:

And how would Tim Cook explain this transfer of wealth away from Apple’s shareholders to the X’s shareholders? 

This ain’t gonna happen!!!

One thing Apple could do is have an API for resellers. Currently if a business resells content of its users, they get billed on the aggregate of all the sales making some types of business harder to work.

Say an app lets users host artwork similar to ArtStation and allows other users to tip the artists. The app developer is the one who gets the aggregate revenue but they are then paying those tips out to each artist separately.

If 10,000 artists each received $200 in tips, this would cross Apple's threshold for 30% but the app developer and artists would be making much less than the threshold each.

If Apple had an API where a developer could assign a unique in-app purchase identifier to a purchase button (including proxy payments like in-app currency), they'd know how many separate recipients there were and bill based on the amounts that each recipient was making.

The app developer would have to provide accounting details to prove that they were making the payments they said they were.

Then they could have consistent fees that didn't conflict with other app developers who are keeping 100% of their app revenue. If any developer is caught misusing the in-app purchase identifiers, they can be blocked from selling in the store.

This could apply to apps like Spotify where the musicians are the recipients and would each get a unique identifier. They'd assign subscription payments based on streams to each artist and that can get billed separately. To make accounting easier, any unique user below a threshold like $300/month can get 0% fee. Then 15% up to $1m, 30% over $1m.

The way it works now is if an app developer took in $2m in payments = $200 for 10,000 users and the app developer took a 10% profit, Apple would take 30% of the total, the developer would take 10% and the content creators would get 60% (of $200).

If instead a reseller system tagged each user separately, the app developer would take 10% ($200k) and each creator would get 90% of $200 = $180. Apple would then charge 0% of the $180 for each creator and 15% of the $200k of the app developer.

Part of Apple’s justification for the 30% is that it has to create and maintain APIs for developers. Your suggestion completely runs counter to what Apple has been saying.

anome

The most surprising thing here is that Musk/X/The Platform formery known as Twitter are only taking 10%.

robin huber

“An X post”? Just call it a tweet and stop humoring this nincompoop. 

edited August 2023

alex_v

Countdown: 81 days (of three months) Counting down the days until the X brand and logotype are shelved, and the Twitter brand, logotype and symbol are restored.

termsofuse

In exchange for allowing CarPlay in Teslas?

blastdoor

Just make it a web app. There’s really no need to have it be a native app. 

blastdoor

Marvin said:

glennh said:

And how would Tim Cook explain this transfer of wealth away from Apple’s shareholders to the X’s shareholders? 

This ain’t gonna happen!!!

One thing Apple could do is have an API for resellers. Currently if a business resells content of its users, they get billed on the aggregate of all the sales making some types of business harder to work.

Say an app lets users host artwork similar to ArtStation and allows other users to tip the artists. The app developer is the one who gets the aggregate revenue but they are then paying those tips out to each artist separately.

If 10,000 artists each received $200 in tips, this would cross Apple's threshold for 30% but the app developer and artists would be making much less than the threshold each.

If Apple had an API where a developer could assign a unique in-app purchase identifier to a purchase button (including proxy payments like in-app currency), they'd know how many separate recipients there were and bill based on the amounts that each recipient was making.

The app developer would have to provide accounting details to prove that they were making the payments they said they were.

Then they could have consistent fees that didn't conflict with other app developers who are keeping 100% of their app revenue. If any developer is caught misusing the in-app purchase identifiers, they can be blocked from selling in the store.

This could apply to apps like Spotify where the musicians are the recipients and would each get a unique identifier. They'd assign subscription payments based on streams to each artist and that can get billed separately. To make accounting easier, any unique user below a threshold like $300/month can get 0% fee. Then 15% up to $1m, 30% over $1m.

The way it works now is if an app developer took in $2m in payments = $200 for 10,000 users and the app developer took a 10% profit, Apple would take 30% of the total, the developer would take 10% and the content creators would get 60% (of $200).

If instead a reseller system tagged each user separately, the app developer would take 10% ($200k) and each creator would get 90% of $200 = $180. Apple would then charge 0% of the $180 for each creator and 15% of the $200k of the app developer.

Here’s a homework problem for Elon:

Amazon is a reseller. Amazon has an app. People can buy things through the app. Does apple get 30%? 

marvin

Stabitha_Christie said:

Marvin said:

glennh said:

And how would Tim Cook explain this transfer of wealth away from Apple’s shareholders to the X’s shareholders? 

This ain’t gonna happen!!!

One thing Apple could do is have an API for resellers. Currently if a business resells content of its users, they get billed on the aggregate of all the sales making some types of business harder to work.

Say an app lets users host artwork similar to ArtStation and allows other users to tip the artists. The app developer is the one who gets the aggregate revenue but they are then paying those tips out to each artist separately.

If 10,000 artists each received $200 in tips, this would cross Apple's threshold for 30% but the app developer and artists would be making much less than the threshold each.

If Apple had an API where a developer could assign a unique in-app purchase identifier to a purchase button (including proxy payments like in-app currency), they'd know how many separate recipients there were and bill based on the amounts that each recipient was making.

The app developer would have to provide accounting details to prove that they were making the payments they said they were.

Then they could have consistent fees that didn't conflict with other app developers who are keeping 100% of their app revenue. If any developer is caught misusing the in-app purchase identifiers, they can be blocked from selling in the store.

This could apply to apps like Spotify where the musicians are the recipients and would each get a unique identifier. They'd assign subscription payments based on streams to each artist and that can get billed separately. To make accounting easier, any unique user below a threshold like $300/month can get 0% fee. Then 15% up to $1m, 30% over $1m.

The way it works now is if an app developer took in $2m in payments = $200 for 10,000 users and the app developer took a 10% profit, Apple would take 30% of the total, the developer would take 10% and the content creators would get 60% (of $200).

If instead a reseller system tagged each user separately, the app developer would take 10% ($200k) and each creator would get 90% of $200 = $180. Apple would then charge 0% of the $180 for each creator and 15% of the $200k of the app developer.

Part of Apple’s justification for the 30% is that it has to create and maintain APIs for developers. Your suggestion completely runs counter to what Apple has been saying.

Apple uses 15% up to $1m, 30% above and 15% for subscriptions. The developer would still be charged this, as would any other recipients who made more than the thresholds, they are just treated separately. Rather than it being 1 developer, aggregate revenue, it's 1 reseller developer + x content creators with split revenue.

blastdoor said:

Here’s a homework problem for Elon:

Amazon is a reseller. Amazon has an app. People can buy things through the app. Does apple get 30%? 

Physical goods are different from digital because of margins. Apple's fees are on revenue, charging 30% on physical goods wouldn't be possible. Apple makes 30-40% margin on their own products so they know that charging 30% for physical goods and services wouldn't be viable.

Even though digital content has costs too, the margins can be much higher and there's way more price flexibility. In-app currency can be any price the developer wants. 15% is a reasonable fee for pretty much every digital content developer as is 30% for millionaires/billionaires.

With reseller apps, there's a clearer cost of goods/services that is part of the developer's revenue. A new API can accommodate this business model.

stabitha_christie

Marvin said:

Stabitha_Christie said:

Marvin said:

glennh said:

And how would Tim Cook explain this transfer of wealth away from Apple’s shareholders to the X’s shareholders? 

This ain’t gonna happen!!!

One thing Apple could do is have an API for resellers. Currently if a business resells content of its users, they get billed on the aggregate of all the sales making some types of business harder to work.

Say an app lets users host artwork similar to ArtStation and allows other users to tip the artists. The app developer is the one who gets the aggregate revenue but they are then paying those tips out to each artist separately.

If 10,000 artists each received $200 in tips, this would cross Apple's threshold for 30% but the app developer and artists would be making much less than the threshold each.

If Apple had an API where a developer could assign a unique in-app purchase identifier to a purchase button (including proxy payments like in-app currency), they'd know how many separate recipients there were and bill based on the amounts that each recipient was making.

The app developer would have to provide accounting details to prove that they were making the payments they said they were.

Then they could have consistent fees that didn't conflict with other app developers who are keeping 100% of their app revenue. If any developer is caught misusing the in-app purchase identifiers, they can be blocked from selling in the store.

This could apply to apps like Spotify where the musicians are the recipients and would each get a unique identifier. They'd assign subscription payments based on streams to each artist and that can get billed separately. To make accounting easier, any unique user below a threshold like $300/month can get 0% fee. Then 15% up to $1m, 30% over $1m.

The way it works now is if an app developer took in $2m in payments = $200 for 10,000 users and the app developer took a 10% profit, Apple would take 30% of the total, the developer would take 10% and the content creators would get 60% (of $200).

If instead a reseller system tagged each user separately, the app developer would take 10% ($200k) and each creator would get 90% of $200 = $180. Apple would then charge 0% of the $180 for each creator and 15% of the $200k of the app developer.

Part of Apple’s justification for the 30% is that it has to create and maintain APIs for developers. Your suggestion completely runs counter to what Apple has been saying.

Apple uses 15% up to $1m, 30% above and 15% for subscriptions. The developer would still be charged this, as would any other recipients who made more than the thresholds, they are just treated separately. Rather than it being 1 developer, aggregate revenue, it's 1 reseller developer + x content creators with split revenue.

blastdoor said:

Here’s a homework problem for Elon:

Amazon is a reseller. Amazon has an app. People can buy things through the app. Does apple get 30%? 

Physical goods are different from digital because of margins. Apple's fees are on revenue, charging 30% on physical goods wouldn't be possible. Apple makes 30-40% margin on their own products so they know that charging 30% for physical goods and services wouldn't be viable.

Even though digital content has costs too, the margins can be much higher and there's way more price flexibility. In-app currency can be any price the developer wants. 15% is a reasonable fee for pretty much every digital content developer as is 30% for millionaires/billionaires.

With reseller apps, there's a clearer cost of goods/services that is part of the developer's revenue. A new API can accommodate this business model.

I understand your concept. I pointing out that your concept is in direct conflict with what Apple is saying. You thinking it’s a good ideas doesn’t negate that your suggestion is in conflict with what Apple says it’s charging for..  I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with Apple’s stance. I’m just pointing out the obvious. 

foregoneconclusion

Inane complaint from Musk. Amazon, Netflix and Spotify were all wildly successful in moving subscription payments to the internet instead of offering them through the app. Surprisingly enough, smartphone users are aware that their phones provide access to the internet AND that things can be purchased on the internet. 

williamlondon

foregoneconclusion said:

Inane complaint from Musk. Amazon, Netflix and Spotify were all wildly successful in moving subscription payments to the internet instead of offering them through the app. Surprisingly enough, smartphone users are aware that their phones provide access to the internet AND that things can be purchased on the internet. 

Plus he already charges more for the moron's tick mark if you subscribe via IAP on Apple devices.