When it comes to offering apps for sale outside of the App Store, it seems like Macpaw may have figured out how to do this with their Setapp subscription service that includes iOS apps in addition to macOS apps. All of the iOS apps available through Setapp are free to download and include in app purchases or subscriptions to unlock the full version of the app. To unlock the full versions via your Setapp subscription you just have to scan a QR code from the Setapp “store” with your iPhone or iPad and it unlocks the full app. You still get the apps from the App Store, the full version is just unlocked via a QR code from Setapp vs an in app purchase through the App Store. If Macpaw and the developers that put their apps on Setapp are able to do this and get around paying Apple’s 30% why couldn’t any developer sell full versions of their apps via their own web store or another 3rd party? It seems like this would be worse for Apple because they’re still hosting the app on the App Store, having to approve updates (man power hours for whatever isn’t automated) but are losing out on their 30% cut. I hope Apple doesn’t stop Setapp from offering this because it’s great getting access to the full versions of apps like Ulysses, Soulver, MindNode, Craft, NotePlan, Spark, etc. included with my Setapp subscription.
Well, despite Tim Sweeney being a crook, you can't deny that this case helped developers.
Now they can advertise prices where they get 100% of the income, maybe we will even get cheaper options now.
That (i.e. developers keeping 100% of income) doesn't seem likely, at least not in most circumstances where they weren't already able to keep 100% of income.
This injunction doesn't abrogate Apple's right to collect a commission for, among other things, the use of its IP. Developers will still have to use the App Store to distribute their apps and still be bound by the terms of Apple's developer agreements, minus the specific terms which Apple can no longer enforce. Unless Apple decides otherwise, they'll still be required to pay a commission on certain kinds of digital sales - whether Apple processes the payments or not.
Apple might decide to change some of its (still legal) terms or lower its commissions under certain circumstances, but it doesn't seem likely to me that it will reward those developers who decide to direct users to other payment options by completely doing away with the commission requirements that currently apply to certain kinds of digital sales.
Some developers may find ways to cheat and not pay all the commission which they owe, but in doing so they would be risking Apple figuring that out and terminating their developer accounts for breach of contract.
Google already figured this out. With Google, the developers who want to use their own payment system might have to give their customers the choice of either to pay with their Google account or pay using the developers choice of payment system. Google will still collect their 30% when customers chooses t pay with their Google account, but Google will only collect a 26% commission if the customer elect to pay using the developers payment system. But that 26% seems to be negotiable, as what Spotify seem to have done.
This will probably be more the norm, with both Google and Apple app store purchases, as soon as the kinks are worked out. But like Cook said, Apple will get their commission, one way or another. And so far no country government has ever stated that Apple or Google don't deserve a commission. Some might indicate that 30% might be high, but not illegal. They (Apple and Google) just have to figure out how to collect it. Not even the EU are saying that Apple and Google must give away their IP, for everyone to use for free, while still having to maintain, update and upgrade it.
This might be the norm even in third party app stores. After all, if Apple is not allowed to "steer" customers into using Apple own payment system, why should any developer be able to "steer" customers into using theirs? Choice is always good for the consumers ... right?
When it comes to offering apps for sale outside of the App Store, it seems like Macpaw may have figured out how to do this with their Setapp subscription service that includes iOS apps in addition to macOS apps. All of the iOS apps available through Setapp are free to download and include in app purchases or subscriptions to unlock the full version of the app. To unlock the full versions via your Setapp subscription you just have to scan a QR code from the Setapp “store” with your iPhone or iPad and it unlocks the full app. You still get the apps from the App Store, the full version is just unlocked via a QR code from Setapp vs an in app purchase through the App Store. If Macpaw and the developers that put their apps on Setapp are able to do this and get around paying Apple’s 30% why couldn’t any developer sell full versions of their apps via their own web store or another 3rd party? It seems like this would be worse for Apple because they’re still hosting the app on the App Store, having to approve updates (man power hours for whatever isn’t automated) but are losing out on their 30% cut. I hope Apple doesn’t stop Setapp from offering this because it’s great getting access to the full versions of apps like Ulysses, Soulver, MindNode, Craft, NotePlan, Spark, etc. included with my Setapp subscription.
Never heard of it and won't trust it and certainly won't subscribe to them which is a problem with many online software businesses seem to think there is a pot of gold with a vast pool of endless people waiting to pay monthly payments but there isn't, which is why the world of steaming music/video's is falling apart (unprofitable).
When the larger companies spin off their Apps into a Appstore and they are no longer in the Apple Store proper the numbers of people clicking over to their store will drop significantly as Epic found out on Android, many small to medium size software companies if they stay in the Apple Appstore won't miss having their app on display next to Google, Autodesk, Adobe, Microsoft or Meta apps, and aside from the Adobe store I won't see the other four stores in their digital form.
Looks like the App Wild West is over nothing good happens to the little guy when the City Slickers move in more rules and higher prices.....Digital Zoning.
Well, despite Tim Sweeney being a crook, you can't deny that this case helped developers.
Now they can advertise prices where they get 100% of the income, maybe we will even get cheaper options now.
Nope. Apple will still require the developers to pay, at a slightly reduced rate. I believe it is 25%. Apple will require documentation from the developers and right to audit. Developers get a zero win here
You should have just changed your model to subscriptions. Apple's take at this point would be only15% for most of your players. Shot yourself in the foot. And maybe that Apple never lets you back in the App Store world-wide
Updated agreements just came out stating that a link to alternative ways to pay is now allowed in app for any US App Store listings. Won’t be long before the change becomes global I’m sure.
Why didn’t Sweeney go after or even mention Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft? Don't those consoles have exclusive app stores too?
He would. No. Excuse me.
TENCENT WOULD.
IF Apple fell to their ruse.
After the biggest player folded, the digital red army would pull up on Nintendo, Sony, etc. and they’d all fall in order due the the incredibly criminal precedent blessed by the US justice system.
So Apple has to allow companies to say "you go to <company's website URL> to subscribe", but Epic and other companies don't have a right to their own app stores?
With Epic, in was never about opening their own app store on iOS. it was about finding ways to weasel out of paying Apple any commission for profits made from using Apple IP. Epic could have notified all their game playing customers of getting a discount on Fortnite Bucks on their own website, by using the email they already have on all their account holders. Apple only banned Epic from advertising this inside Epic free iOS app or from the email address they got from customers paying with their iTunes account. Epic didn't need to advertise this in their app, in order to inform their customers. What Epic really wanted was a direct link to their own payment system, without the customer having to leave the game and log on to their account on Epic's web site. This as an attempt to avoid paying Apple a commission on IAP, using the free app on iOS that users downloaded from the Apple App Store.
Epic already knows that opening their own app store in iOS would never be as profitable as having their games in the Apple App Store and paying Apple their 30% commission. They know this from Android, as profits from games from their own app store on Android is/was never as profitable as having their games in the Google Play Store (even after Google's commission). They know that for what ever reasons, the vast amount of users will never use a third party app store, no matter how trusted the developers are. Otherwise Fortnite would still be as profitable (and popular) on Android (after being kicked out of the Google Play Store) as it was when it was available in the Google Play Store. If this were the case,, Epic would had had no reason to sue Google for kicking them out of the Google Play Store. But Epic much rather have their apps in the Google Play Store and not have to pay Google their 30% commission. Google 30% commission was Epic main reason for suing Google for abusing the monopoly they have with the Google Play Store on Android.
a big reason is to stiff Apple their just earnings and keep it for themselves.
But that’s not all.
Another reason is to be ever-present in the mindshare of the most loyal consumers.
But even more so, we’d be staring down the barrel of tiktokish license agreements before too long, where the CCP would end up having your personal data at their disposal via TenCent.
In spite of all the hard earned progress, there are those, not only in the seedy world of epic and TenCent, but elements within the justice system that would have us thrust back into the Wild West days of the internet, circa 1998.
Well, despite Tim Sweeney being a crook, you can't deny that this case helped developers.
Now they can advertise prices where they get 100% of the income, maybe we will even get cheaper options now.
They never get 100% of sales (it’s not income). Apple takes care of everything for them. But now, they will have to maintain a sales site, not just a information site. That’s costs money. They now have to do none of their accounting for sales as Apple does it. But with this, they will have to do their own. The costs continue. I’ll bet that in the end they will get about the same percentage after all those added in costs are accounted for.
what has been so easily forgotten is that when Apple first announced the App Store and spoke about the 30% and what developers were getting for it, they were dancing in the streets because other stores were charging between 40 - 60% and developers had to do all of their own accounting, marketing, etc. Apple’s low charges changed the industry and forced others to follow. But people forget the old world and begin to get greedy. I’ve read a number of times over the years that of the 30 cents Apple gets on every dollar of sales, they get 5 cents of profit. The rest is spent in software development of the store, marketing of products, accounting for themselves and developers products, and of course, the fact that about 2/3rds of what’s in the store is free where Apple gets nothing for downloads. Those free downloads cost Apple plenty and they have to be paid for through the paid apps.
so when developers started to sell things through their apps, such as extra features, loot for games and such, Apple decided they should get a cut. The fact that most of these sales were coming from “free” apps, most of which weren’t really that useful without the extra paid for features, it’s understandable that Apple would want a cut. These developers were really getting around the rules with this. If they all had it that way, Apple would only be getting the yearly $99 developers fee. That’s nowhere near enough to cover even part of the App Store costs. So I can understand Apple wanting to staunch the bleeding. Some of these companies are really blatantly arrogant. They want their store within Apple’s store without paying them anything, all the while getting paid for goods sold in their own stores. That’s too much!
I do agree with Apple allowing them to point to other sources for products though. That does make sense.
I would argue there is some benefit to developers not paying the 30% cut, they wouldn't have been protesting so hard if it was so clear cut as you said.
According to my knowledge, Stripe or other merchants take only 3-5% which is a lot less than Apple. Big developers don't really have to worry about accounting as they already had those divisions and in the future will not utilise them more. Small developers will probably stick with Apple.
Less than 3% of developers (that makes money selling apps or from IAP) pays a 30% commission And many are only paying 15% on subscriptions over a year. Over 97% of developers either pay 0% because they distribute free apps or 15% because they make less than $1M a year selling apps. The top 1% of Apple App Store developers (mostly with games apps), accounts for over 90% of Apple App Store revenue. (These numbers are also true with the Google Play Store).
So essentially, Epic just got a "tax" break for the wealthiest 3% app developers that are making 10's of millions of dollars, if not billions, with their apps in the Apple App Store. (and like Epic, most of them are making massive profits from selling digital goods that cost them nearly nothing to produce.) Plus many that are making less than $1M a year, do not have the resources to set up their own payment system. For them, a 15% commission is a bargain and they would hate to see that go up because the wealthiest of wealthy developers don't want to pay their "fair share". This would be like if the government lowered the top marginal tax bracket from 39% to 35% because the top 5% bought the politicians that voted for it. Over 95% of the tax payers will not see much benefit, if any at all and they would not be the ones complaining about the 39% top marginal tax bracket in the first place.
Analyzing
revenue widens the gap even more between the top 1 percent of
publishers and the rest of the cohort. In the first half of 2022, the
top 1,800 publishers collectively held 91 percent market share of
overall revenue, or approximately $42 billion. The remaining 183,000
publishers shared 9 percent of market share, or $4 billion.
Among both game and non-game publishers, Tencentwas the top grosser with approximately $3.3 billion revenue generated
in the first half of 2022. This was 153 percent more than the
second-highest performing publisher, ByteDance, which generated $1.3 billion. With a portfolio that includes perennial chart toppers such as Honor of Kings and PUBG Mobile,
including the Chinese localization Game for Peace/Peacekeeper Elite,
Tencent alone generated more than 7 percent of worldwide consumer
spending in apps during 1H22.<
Gee, guess who owns 40% of Epic Games and have their hands up Sweeney ass and using him like a hand puppet? That's right .... Tencent. If you actually think Sweeney was looking after the developers ...... I think you can still find some one willing to sell you that bridge in Brooklyn, that you've been looking at.
There's only about 1000 iOS developers that are subject to a 30% commission on their app sales or from IAP.
Well, despite Tim Sweeney being a crook, you can't deny that this case helped developers.
Now they can advertise prices where they get 100% of the income, maybe we will even get cheaper options now.
That (i.e. developers keeping 100% of income) doesn't seem likely, at least not in most circumstances where they weren't already able to keep 100% of income.
This injunction doesn't abrogate Apple's right to collect a commission for, among other things, the use of its IP. Developers will still have to use the App Store to distribute their apps and still be bound by the terms of Apple's developer agreements, minus the specific terms which Apple can no longer enforce. Unless Apple decides otherwise, they'll still be required to pay a commission on certain kinds of digital sales - whether Apple processes the payments or not.
Apple might decide to change some of its (still legal) terms or lower its commissions under certain circumstances, but it doesn't seem likely to me that it will reward those developers who decide to direct users to other payment options by completely doing away with the commission requirements that currently apply to certain kinds of digital sales.
Some developers may find ways to cheat and not pay all the commission which they owe, but in doing so they would be risking Apple figuring that out and terminating their developer accounts for breach of contract.
Google already figured this out. With Google, the developers who want to use their own payment system might have to give their customers the choice of either to pay with their Google account or pay using the developers choice of payment system. Google will still collect their 30% when customers chooses t pay with their Google account, but Google will only collect a 26% commission if the customer elect to pay using the developers payment system. But that 26% seems to be negotiable, as what Spotify seem to have done.
This will probably be more the norm, with both Google and Apple app store purchases, as soon as the kinks are worked out. But like Cook said, Apple will get their commission, one way or another. And so far no country government has ever stated that Apple or Google don't deserve a commission. Some might indicate that 30% might be high, but not illegal. They (Apple and Google) just have to figure out how to collect it. Not even the EU are saying that Apple and Google must give away their IP, for everyone to use for free, while still having to maintain, update and upgrade it.
This might be the norm even in third party app stores. After all, if Apple is not allowed to "steer" customers into using Apple own payment system, why should any developer be able to "steer" customers into using theirs? Choice is always good for the consumers ... right?
your post made me think of something.
If this is actually about fairness and consumer choice, then Epic should also be forced to add iOS and Mac App Store links to all software/games that are available on Apple app stores in addition to Epic games store.
That way, a customer doesn’t feel trapped into buying from Epuc. They can use Apple’s superior, more trusted system instead.
Epic benefits from discovery by being on the App Store even if a customer buys from their site. So Apple should also benefit from discovery by someone starting out using the Epuc games store.
Why didn’t Sweeney go after or even mention Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft? Don't those consoles have exclusive app stores too?
They did and during both trials. But is was the same lame excuse, that because game console makers were selling their hardware at a loss and making up the loss with software sales, Epic had no problem with paying MS, Sony and Nintendo their demanded 30% commission. While Apple and Google were making massive profits from their ecosystem, that they have no right to gouge app developers with a 30% commission, that they claim was/is only to pay for the 3% payment transaction cost.
But in reality, Epic did not sue any of the console makers because over 70% of Fortnite players were using a game console. While only about 12% of them played Fortnite on mobile devices. Plus Epic knew that a good percent of the players that played on mobile devices, also owned a game console from which they can still play Fortnite on. And the revenue numbers were more like close to 80% of their revenue from Fortnite, came from players on game consoles.
So no way that Sweeney was going to pull off his plan of ... getting kicked out of an app store for the massive PR, for an already planned lawsuit against the 30% commission ... with a game console maker. Epic could not afford to lose the profits from any one of the game console makers, if they got kicked out of their app store(s). Mobile on the other hand was worth the risk as many would just continue to play Fortnite on their game console anyway and sideloading was still available on Android. And we know that Epic got kicked out for the PR over profits because if they had just sued Apple (and Google) in the first place and not violate any app store policies, that alone would not have gotten them kicked out of the Apple App Store.
Plus Sony owns about 5-7% of Epic Games. And MS went out of their way to kiss Sweeney's ass and provided supporting documents and testimonies at both trials.
Well, despite Tim Sweeney being a crook, you can't deny that this case helped developers.
Now they can advertise prices where they get 100% of the income, maybe we will even get cheaper options now.
Nope. Apple will still require the developers to pay, at a slightly reduced rate. I believe it is 25%. Apple will require documentation from the developers and right to audit. Developers get a zero win here
I believe that's the expected charge Apple will apply for sideloaded apps, not for content purchases. Content purchases via the web are allowed right now and no commission for Apple is applied. The only change is that developers are allowed to signpost it within the app now.
And thank goodness, the store ban on signposting was ridiculous.
Well, despite Tim Sweeney being a crook, you can't deny that this case helped developers.
Now they can advertise prices where they get 100% of the income, maybe we will even get cheaper options now.
They never get 100% of sales (it’s not income). Apple takes care of everything for them. But now, they will have to maintain a sales site, not just a information site. That’s costs money. They now have to do none of their accounting for sales as Apple does it. But with this, they will have to do their own. The costs continue. I’ll bet that in the end they will get about the same percentage after all those added in costs are accounted for.
what has been so easily forgotten is that when Apple first announced the App Store and spoke about the 30% and what developers were getting for it, they were dancing in the streets because other stores were charging between 40 - 60% and developers had to do all of their own accounting, marketing, etc. Apple’s low charges changed the industry and forced others to follow. But people forget the old world and begin to get greedy. I’ve read a number of times over the years that of the 30 cents Apple gets on every dollar of sales, they get 5 cents of profit. The rest is spent in software development of the store, marketing of products, accounting for themselves and developers products, and of course, the fact that about 2/3rds of what’s in the store is free where Apple gets nothing for downloads. Those free downloads cost Apple plenty and they have to be paid for through the paid apps.
so when developers started to sell things through their apps, such as extra features, loot for games and such, Apple decided they should get a cut. The fact that most of these sales were coming from “free” apps, most of which weren’t really that useful without the extra paid for features, it’s understandable that Apple would want a cut. These developers were really getting around the rules with this. If they all had it that way, Apple would only be getting the yearly $99 developers fee. That’s nowhere near enough to cover even part of the App Store costs. So I can understand Apple wanting to staunch the bleeding. Some of these companies are really blatantly arrogant. They want their store within Apple’s store without paying them anything, all the while getting paid for goods sold in their own stores. That’s too much!
I do agree with Apple allowing them to point to other sources for products though. That does make sense.
I would argue there is some benefit to developers not paying the 30% cut, they wouldn't have been protesting so hard if it was so clear cut as you said.
According to my knowledge, Stripe or other merchants take only 3-5% which is a lot less than Apple. Big developers don't really have to worry about accounting as they already had those divisions and in the future will not utilise them more. Small developers will probably stick with Apple.
They’re protesting because they can. Most developers have been happy with the cut. But once a big developer decides they’re not happy with it, others begin to think that they shouldn’t be happy either. It’s easy to convince someone that an idea that will apparently make them more money is a good idea. The problem is that most of these smaller developers aren’t good business people. That hasn’t mattered when Apple takes care of everything other than writing the app itself. So do they all understand the implications, no, they don’t. Besides, under some pressure, Apple did cut the fees to 15% for developers under a million bucks a year. That’s the vast majority of developers. I don’t see how anyone can seriously complain about a 15% fee. Stripe and a number of others have a very low cost structure as they don’t, and can’t offer what Apple does. They’re just stores, really. Apple spends billions a year on their store, plus the developer’s kit and nany other services.
Comments
Never heard of it and won't trust it and certainly won't subscribe to them which is a problem with many online software businesses seem to think there is a pot of gold with a vast pool of endless people waiting to pay monthly payments but there isn't, which is why the world of steaming music/video's is falling apart (unprofitable).
When the larger companies spin off their Apps into a Appstore and they are no longer in the Apple Store proper the numbers of people clicking over to their store will drop significantly as Epic found out on Android, many small to medium size software companies if they stay in the Apple Appstore won't miss having their app on display next to Google, Autodesk, Adobe, Microsoft or Meta apps, and aside from the Adobe store I won't see the other four stores in their digital form.
Looks like the App Wild West is over nothing good happens to the little guy when the City Slickers move in more rules and higher prices.....Digital Zoning.
You should have just changed your model to subscriptions. Apple's take at this point would be only15% for most of your players. Shot yourself in the foot. And maybe that Apple never lets you back in the App Store world-wide
Brutal
IF Apple fell to their ruse.
>Top 1 Percent by Revenue: All Apps
Analyzing revenue widens the gap even more between the top 1 percent of publishers and the rest of the cohort. In the first half of 2022, the top 1,800 publishers collectively held 91 percent market share of overall revenue, or approximately $42 billion. The remaining 183,000 publishers shared 9 percent of market share, or $4 billion.
Among both game and non-game publishers, Tencent was the top grosser with approximately $3.3 billion revenue generated in the first half of 2022. This was 153 percent more than the second-highest performing publisher, ByteDance, which generated $1.3 billion. With a portfolio that includes perennial chart toppers such as Honor of Kings and PUBG Mobile, including the Chinese localization Game for Peace/Peacekeeper Elite, Tencent alone generated more than 7 percent of worldwide consumer spending in apps during 1H22.<
Gee, guess who owns 40% of Epic Games and have their hands up Sweeney ass and using him like a hand puppet? That's right .... Tencent. If you actually think Sweeney was looking after the developers ...... I think you can still find some one willing to sell you that bridge in Brooklyn, that you've been looking at.
There's only about 1000 iOS developers that are subject to a 30% commission on their app sales or from IAP.
https://sensortower.com/blog/million-dollar-publishers-2021
And thank goodness, the store ban on signposting was ridiculous.