Absolutely stunned.
You might not have noticed it, but the big Apple vs. Epic case was resolved recently. While much of the petitions were discarded, one stuck: Apple now has to allow outside payment options for apps on their store. And, Apple being Apple, they plan to do so in the most Apple way possible.
By requiring a 27% cut of those transactions.
In my view, Apple’s decision to charge up to 30 percent for external transactions is an overextension of its marketplace control. Such a high fee reduces the viability for developers to offer products outside the App Store, effectively limiting market competition and innovation. As a developer in this field, opting for Apple’s ecosystem under these conditions would require careful consideration of cost-benefit analysis. The hassle and expense might lead to seeking alternative platforms for better returns and freedom.
Mervyn O’Callaghan, CameraMatics developer and CEO, speaking to Lifewire
Outside purchases could be pretty much anything you imagine in relation to the app store. Say, ebooks from rival platforms, in-game points, music. Notably, this also includes purchases from a developer or artist’s personal site; something that was previously forbidden by Apple. The courts basically told Apple to cut it out with the whole “anti-steering” thing.
And so they’ve followed the letter of the ruling, though not the spirit thereof. If you wish to link to such an outside store, you have to apply for an “entitlement” to do so. Said link must also conform to their style guidelines, as well as be on a separate page from the regular in-app purchases, which are required.
Oh, and don’t forget that they’re demanding 27% of those out-of-app purchases, too. And they plan to get theirs. Because another requirement of using this “entitlement” is that the developer must send them a monthly sales report, pay on time or face an increasing 1% per month interest fee, and agree to be audited by them at any time. Developers are also responsible for their own credit card transaction fees, and are required to collect their own sales tax. They very clearly want people to stick to the comparatively less frustrating walled garden.
If this seems like déjà vu, you shouldn’t be surprised. This is roughly the exact same thing the company did when Dutch regulators required them to allow alternate payment systems for dating apps. This has managed to piss off many, including those that have spent a lifetime in Apple’s corner. People such as Apple-focused tech blogger John Gruber, who said this of their “compliance” with the ruling on his Daring Fireball site:
My argument remains that Apple should not be pursuing this plan for complying with the anti-steering injunction by collecting commissions from web sales that initiate in-app. Whatever revenue Apple would lose to non-commissioned web sales (for non-games) is not worth the hit they are taking to the company’s brand and reputation — this move reeks of greed and avarice — nor the increased ire and scrutiny of regulators and legislators on the “anti-Big-Tech” hunt.
John Gruber
And it makes that walled garden look inviting by comparison. What could be easier than letting Apple handle all of the Tax-related issues, credit card processing, and exchange rates? While it’s nothing unusual for other platforms (Steam takes a 30% cut, but offers an insane amount of benefit in return, much in excess of Apple), the problem might be more along the lines of the fact that Apple rules it with an iron fist. If they don’t like something, it doesn’t happen, or isn’t allowed in the garden.
The sad thing is, very stupid people have turned Apple into a luxury brand, rather than the (in my opinion shitty) tech and service brand they currently are. I guess you get what you ask for; shame so many developers have to suffer for it.
Source: Lifewire
About Author
