Google Now Lets Apps Use Third-Party Billing in EU, Apple Yet to Announce Plans

[coolfactor]

It's a bit like the company that builds the road not only charging you a toll for using it but permitting only their own brand of car to use it. If it's just one backroad then it's a minor problem but if the company happens to build half the roads in the country then it does become a major problem.

And then, to compound the problem, they insist on charging you for using third party fuel.

That's not a great analogy. Consumers currently have choice. They don't need to use Apple at all, and can still have access to the full internet and a full library of apps.

A better analogy is if Apple sold a car that could only be fueled up at Apple's own gas stations. As a user, er driver, you are guaranteed to get premium fuel and great service every time, but Apple is profiting off of every fill.

Choose to go to another gas station and Apple can't promise that you'll get the same level of service, and can't protect you from nefarious stations or attendants.

So the real question is — what is your privacy worth?

 

[Vjosullivan]

You're making it sound like all developers get for that 30% is the payment system. It's far more than that so a 3% cut is fair.

"It's far more than that so a 3% cut is fair."

You can use your phone to buy stuff from Amazon via the web but Apple want a cut if you go via the app. What's the "far more" that you're getting?

 

[Appleman3546]

I am surprised that Google wants to litigate the EU on whether it can still charge 12% for third party payment processors, since it arguably “prevents” third party payment processors due to the additional reporting requirements. But hey, Google’s gotta give their lawyers something to do

 

[Unregistered 4U]

See.... like, there has never been a market, there hasn't been a market to decide anything. There never was an ios app market, it's always been a monopoly there are no other choices than the app store to get apps from without a JB.

Ah, you’re using an absurd term to define a market! iOS(tm)? That’s something that didn’t exist until Apple created it, so of course they have full control over anything that goes on with it. The market is smartphones, and the smartphone market has decided that there’s an Android way of doing things (with all that entails) and a non-Android way of doing things (with all THAT entails).

The problem is that there’s a lot of people that don’t like that the smartphone market was decided this way. I’m guessing they’re really miffed that Windows Phone didn’t pan out OR that their Blackberry just isn’t the bees knees anymore.

 

[webkit]

More like “companies provide hardware with certain features and services that, if customers/developers LIKE those features and services, they will invest in the products that allow those features and services”.

And you’re right, there absolutely SHOULD be more smartphone competition, more app store competition, more OS competition. However, the way to foster more competition is by continuing to make it beneficial for companies, say, like Apple, to create new platform experiences. Mildly tweaking one platform experience does not bring a single new smartphone or smartphone OS to life. It just solidifies the preeminence of the platform that’s being tweaked.

There are some Apple fans that would LOVE for the iPhone to be the #1 phone worldwide. It is quite the strange world we live in that those people that claim to NOT be Apple fans are pretty much advocating for the same…

Given how OS markets seem to settle into two major players (e.g., Windows and macOS on desktop/laptop, Android and iOS on mobile), another notable mobile OS competitor appears unlikely at this point.

Opening up iOS to more app store, browser engine, etc. competition doesn't prevent Apple from still offering the same hardware and services including Safari (with Webkit), the Apple App Store, Apple Pay, etc. to consumers and developers. Maybe by being opened up more, it will force Apple to put even greater effort and money into making some of their offerings better, more competition, more secure, etc.

I have confidence in Apple's ability to be able to open iOS and still keep it safe and secure for those that still want to use it as it is now while giving those that want a choice of app stores, browser engines, payments systems, etc. that option as well. While they may be reluctant to do so for financial reasons, the legislation in the EU seems to be the vehicle that will start that ball rolling.

 

[webkit]

Seriously? This is your attempt to debate in good faith? There is a massive difference between the iOS app store being a single source for iOS apps and Amazon being the only retailer for any and all goods. Try harder and be better.

Apple does not have a monopoly on mobile apps, there are others.

Please explain to me the consumer benefits of alt-stores and alt-payment processors? Be specific. Will it be cost of apps? Will it be better data harvesting and tracking protections? Will it be better protection for our payment information? Or will it be none of the above and just massive exploitation by the likes of Amazon, Meta, Epic, Microsoft and others?

I'll wait but not hold my breath for you to provide anything of substance.

The truth is no one will benefit from alt-stores except the likes of Epic, do you enjoy cheerleading for the likes of top 20 developers? They are the only winners here.

Your argument was essentially that the "consumer convenience" of having a single location for apps, single payment system, etc. is worth allowing a company like Apple to restrict access to other app stores or payment systems on their dominant (iOS being part of a duopoly) platform. I disagree and used an Amazon scenario to show why connivence is NOT worth allowing dominant companies to control markets. Again, convenience is nice but I think competition and choice can be more beneficial not only for consumers but manufacturers, vendors, etc. whether it be due to wider selections, more competitive pricing or other types of potential incentive/perks, etc.

I have confidence in Apple's ability to be able to open iOS and still keep it safe and secure for those that still want to use it as it is now while giving those that want a choice of app stores, browser engines, payments systems, etc. that option as well. While they may be reluctant to do so for financial reasons, the legislation in the EU seems to be the vehicle that will start that ball rolling.

 

[Ethosik]

Right so don't download them then? No one is making you keep these apps on your phone. Play another game get another social media app. Tell Apple to make better apps if you want to be locked into the app store. Or make your own apps.

I don't get why people think developers should have to cater to them. Epic should need to pay 30% of their transactions to Apple just because you want it that way and don't want to sideload? Nonsense. If they want to lose customers that way it should be there choice. Not Apples.

Why do people always resort to this counter argument? So it ALWAYS shifts from “nothing will change” to “well don’t use the apps then!”

Thanks, didn’t know not using an app was an option.

The original argument applies, and looks like you advocates for this have nothing to counter it other than “just don’t use app then lolz”. Things WILL change. Popular Apps like Facebook, WhatsApp, SnapChat and more WILL leave the App Store. Epic WILL create their own store hand put up exclusives.

If you tell me I should just not download an app I have been using for years, then you don’t need alternative stores or payments. Oh right, it’s the “I get my choice so who cares about yours” mentality.

 

[svish]

Apple too will be following this new requirement real soon.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Given how OS markets seem to settle into two major players (e.g., Windows and macOS on desktop/laptop, Android and iOS on mobile), another notable mobile OS competitor appears unlikely at this point.

Huh, I could have SWORN that there was another major OS, starting with Lin ending in ux and and being but to use in markets all over the world. But, no, if your idea is that it’s either Windows or macOS and NO OTHER OS that’s running servers all around the world, then it’s not up to me to disavow you of this notion.

Oh, I agree another mobile OS competitor is ABSOLUTELY unlikely to appear especially since any company that plans to enter the market can see now IF they gain the kind of WILD popularity that gets them accepted by a large number of new users and even gets users to transition from the current leaders, organizations and governments around the world will attempt to take over what they’ve created.

I’m glad folks like you weren’t in control awhile back. We’d still be using some form of Nokia phone.

Opening up iOS to more app store, browser engine, etc. competition doesn't

create any new smartphone competition at all. But, of course, it’s not ABOUT competition.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The EU has great regulations regarding payment processing, requiring a verification code for most transactions, so your point applies mostly to the US–which is behind as usual.

Your risk calculation also forgets to include that if all Apple users are forced to use Apple's payment services, then it becomes the largest single target for hacks, meaning that when Apple does get hack, billions of people will be impacted.

Agreed, however I trust Apple far more than I trust some discount service an indie dev chooses in order to save 1%.

So why isn’t Apple using Apple Pay then? The info never leaves your phone. Tokenism etc.

And in Eu the merchant fee isn’t 1-3% but 0.6% capped. This is also why we barely have cashbacks

 

[Sophisticatednut]

They are options ONLY if the app provides it as an option. IF an app ONLY provides a third party option, then, if the user wants the functions of the app, they have no option to use Apple’s more secure and infinitely more tested solution.

Now, if Apple are allowed to REQUIRE that for every third party option that’s provided, they have to also offer the Apple option, then that would be competition. THAT would be an INCREASE of choice. If they flip from Apple’s solution to some other solution, that doesn’t increase choice or options. Or competition.

It is allowed. Remember how Apple was forced to allow their payment option next to a 3d party one? Even though apple tried to keep it separate

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The Mac App Store is a waste land. It was introduced long, long after the "alternate" (primary) method existed, and it has never gained traction. At all. It's a perfect example of what could happen to the iOS App Store, and that would be a terrible result for users.

It’s a perfect example of what happens when you fail to innovate and off a horrible service.

Mac AppStore is just a horrible store. Steam I believe have 5 times more Mac games than Mac App Store, and that’s because it’s developer hostile
Microsoft store in currently growing exponentially and it just barely became a thing in window 11. And allows free hosting, 3d party payment etc but not for games

 

[Macative]

It’s a perfect example of what happens when you fail to innovate and off a horrible service.

Mac AppStore is just a horrible store. Steam I believe have 5 times more Mac games than Mac App Store, and that’s because it’s developer hostile
Microsoft store in currently growing exponentially and it just barely became a thing in window 11. And allows free hosting, 3d party payment etc but not for games

It's not developer hostile other than the fact that they take a cut of your sales, so you make less money selling it through the store than you do on your own website. And not enough for most apps to justify the exposure of the store front. If there was any advantage to losing 15-30% of each sale, developers would do it.

It really only makes sense for the smallest indie dev in existence who doesn't want to deal with any part of distribution. Hence 99% of the apps on the Mac Store are exactly that kind of app. The real apps are found elsewhere.

 

[Havoc035]

"It's far more than that so a 3% cut is fair."

You can use your phone to buy stuff from Amazon via the web but Apple want a cut if you go via the app. What's the "far more" that you're getting?

Apple doesn’t take a cut on physical goods. And of course developers like Amazon or Spotify can also build web apps or just not offer subscription through the app and not pay Apple anything. Plenty of options.


As for some other benefits and services that are part of or related to the App Store:
- Deliver great developer tools and APIs
- Provide access to a trusted store with a low barrier for purchase
- Reviewing apps so that they can be trusted
- Use the 30% (actually 15% for many) as a subsidy to keep costs low for small developers of free apps
- Marketing and editorial content for apps
- Hosting
- DRM and anti piracy

 

[webkit]

Huh, I could have SWORN that there was another major OS, starting with Lin ending in ux and and being but to use in markets all over the world. But, no, if your idea is that it’s either Windows or macOS and NO OTHER OS that’s running servers all around the world, then it’s not up to me to disavow you of this notion.

I wouldn't call Linux a major player. From a usage standpoint, Linux is a fairly small player with maybe 2% to 3% of the global desktop/laptop OS market.

I’m glad folks like you weren’t in control awhile back. We’d still be using some form of Nokia phone.

Why would that be? I’m for more competition, not less. I am opposed to a dominant player having too much control of a market but that doesn't mean these companies can't still have unique hardware or software for their devices.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

It is allowed. Remember how Apple was forced to allow their payment option next to a 3d party one? Even though apple tried to keep it separate

Apple is allowed to force developers to use their payment processor?

 

[Unregistered 4U]

I wouldn't call Linux a major player. From a usage standpoint, Linux is a fairly small player with maybe 2% to 3% of the global desktop/laptop OS market.

Linux is massive in the server market and there are enormous numbers of servers in the world of every type using it and developers developing for it. You can ignore the server market if you like, but if you eliminate the server market, there’s a VERY good chance that you wouldn’t be typing these words onto this website. If the question is “which OS is required by the most people daily”, just judging by social media sites, we’d find that Linux is the most critical OS to your average person, even if they don’t realize it.

Why would that be? I’m for more competition, not less. I am opposed to a dominant player having too much control of a market but that doesn't mean these companies can't still have unique hardware or software for their devices.

Why? Because your type would have been saying “It’s very unlikely anyone else is going to enter the market because no one can beat Nokia, so we just need to make them change their OS to what we want it to be.” How much imagination does have to NOT have to think that Apple, as limited as it is, is the be all?

And no, you’re not for competition because you’re not for anything that’s going to increase smartphone competition. You’re just for Apple and Google. More competition would require incentivizing those who would want to compete against Apple and Google, not continuing to prop Apple and Google up. Maybe even subsidizing them until they’re profitable, IF the goal is TRULY to create more competition. There’s a profitable potential market in a non-Apple phone that also isn’t monetizing data like Google. None of the people talking about “competition” are doing anything about increasing the number of smartphone OS’s in the market.

Haven’t seen anything in this thread that would, in any way, create competition for Apple and Google.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I can't wait until all the developers start whining about instead of paying $100 a year to make apps and have to start paying thousands of dollars a year. All those "free" tools will go away...

I have some bad news for you. There is hundreds of free tools you can use to develop iOS games/apps. Apple is only forcing you to use Xcode. Apple banned alternatives years ago.

Epics Unreal Engine 5 is free until your first million.

Take a look at history on how Epic is handling their store on the PC space. There will be exclusives. Also if you think apps like Facebook will remain you are not involved with how these companies operate. They will leave so they don’t need to disclose what they track.

And if you actually used the epic store and steam you would discover barely 1% are exclusive for a time period.

And EU liked apples privacy so much they have implemented it partially in the Digital service act and have more on the table. But as a hard requirement, Facebook isn’t getting away with it

It’s not monopolistic. Monopolistic would be to have significant control of the smartphone market in a way that people are unable to acquire any alternatives. For Apple to have control of the Apple device market is pretty much how business is run. It really is just as simple as “go Android”.

They are monopolistic. The market isn’t smartphones. The relevant market is iOS. Devices where Apple have 99.99% market share.

Cydia is a third party AppStore and all its apps work only on iOS, and can’t run on android even if they wanted to.

Both iOS and android are software run on smartphone devices but not compatible.

Same way airplanes and cars are both a transport vehicle.

UNLESS/UNTIL something happens to make the Android market disappear.

Well if google have anything to say about it will be very soon with Fuchsia Os

 

[Sophisticatednut]

So your on record for dev distribution freedom trumps consumer convenience and protections.

Via the Apple store:

• All apps are in one place, easy to view competing apps :: consumer convenience
• All apps are required to report data collection practices :: consumer protection
• All app purchases and IAP run through a single payment processor :: consumer convenience and protection
• App updates happen through a single app store experience :: consumer convenience

Via alt-stores/alt-payment processors:

• Apps are scattered to countless individual sites or smaller stores :: not convenient at all, my PC and Mac app experience sucks compared to iOS

Multi store homing. Meaning you can exit on two or more store fronts simultaneously.
Microsoft, epic and steam stores all share 90%+ of games

• Apps are no longer required to detail data collection practices :: protections lost

EU is forcing apples data policy:: protection returned.

• App purchases and IAP are scattered amongst countless processors :: protections lost

Eu have a strict processor regulatory body.
Properly verified payment processors exist for apple to allow. :: protection returned

• App updates will be scattered to multiple web sites or multiple store apps like Steam, Amazon, Microsoft, etc.

Or you just stay with one storefront. I don’t buy games from 4 different stores. It sounds like you don’t have personal autonomy. :: consumer choice is granted.

None of the alt-store experiences seem consumer friendly to me. Devs are also free to not product apps for iOS, if they want distribution freedom the write for Android, PC or Mac.

Deva aren’t free to do x, they must ask for permission to provide anything to people using ios.

For some reason you want to remove consumer and developer liberties and give apple 100% control

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Apple is allowed to force developers to use their payment processor?

Yes they are. As long as a third party option is also allowed.
Apple can’t force developers not to use apple iAP mechanism next to a competitor.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Not sure I'm totally understanding your question but yes I disagree that developers should be treated like 2nd class citizens for the benefits the users.

I'm simply saying that Apple shouldn't be allowed to dictate the only way to distribute their apps.

I also don't think they will all vanish from the app store either as many in here seem to think. Some might but most won't because users are so entrenched in it and won't go elsewhere.

I feel like most would just offer discounts via sideloading or third party app store and then ios users can choose if they rather get a discounted version that way or pay more to acquire them through the app store.

If they completely pull from the app store it will anger people but it should be their choice. Then grown ups have to behave like grown ups and decide if its worth going through sideloading or a third party apps store or do away with the app. Again I still think most app developers are very unlikely to completely pull support from the app store but only one way to find out.

If developers pull out it would be in my mind a testament to how terrible the store really is. And would show how critically it needed competition

 

[I7guy]

If developers pull out it would be in my mind a testament to how terrible the store really is. And would show how critically it needed competition

Competition in the App Store space means:
- porn and vape apps will be allowed
- it will be a race to the bottom for fees for commonplace apps and copycat apps
- scamware and malware will flourish
- your credit card info will be in the hands of untrusteds

Of course, I could be wrong and it could be worse.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

They are monopolistic. The market isn’t smartphones. The relevant market is iOS. Devices where Apple have 99.99% market share.

Cydia is a third party AppStore and all its apps work only on iOS, and can’t run on android even if they wanted to.

Both iOS and android are software run on smartphone devices but not compatible.

Same way airplanes and cars are both a transport vehicle.

Defining a market including a company’s trademarked name is definitely a way to describe a market, it’s just an absurd way.

McDonald’s has 100% market control over the Big Mac. Do we need to make sure others are able to make Big Mac?
Nike has 100% market control over Air Jordan’s. Is there an effort to ensure that other companies can break into that market?

No, because defining a market as “Nike Air Jordan’s” is as absurd as defining a market as “Apple’s iOS App Store”. “shoes” and “smartphone app stores” is perfectly fine as neither includes a company’s trademarked name. “Airplanes” is another good one, but, again, no one seriously considers defining a market as “Boeing 737 planes”. No one is attempting to ensure Kia doesn’t have market control over the “Kia K5” market. WAIT Cydia has 100% control over the Cydia store!!! We’ve GOT to break that up IMMEDIATELY!!!!!

Only in THIS area are folks focused on using the absurd to prop up any regulatory ideas. And, that’s primarily because the absurd is the only route to take. Apple doesn’t control the future of smartphones, they don’t control the future of mobile payments, they don’t control the future of App distribution. Apple ONLY has control over things that did not exist BEFORE Apple created them. One is left with the opinion that these folks just don’t like Apple for some reason. Could be, they just don’t like success when it comes about from simply making a product that people like and enjoy and willfully purchase.

 

[webkit]

Linux is massive in the server market and there are enormous numbers of servers in the world of every type using it and developers developing for it. You can ignore the server market if you like, but if you eliminate the server market, there’s a VERY good chance that you wouldn’t be typing these words onto this website. If the question is “which OS is required by the most people daily”, just judging by social media sites, we’d find that Linux is the most critical OS to your average person, even if they don’t realize it.

I was referring to the traditional consumer desktop/laptop OS market in which Linux has a small share. The two largest players are Windows and OS X/macOS.

Why? Because your type would have been saying “It’s very unlikely anyone else is going to enter the market because no one can beat Nokia, so we just need to make them change their OS to what we want it to be.” How much imagination does have to NOT have to think that Apple, as limited as it is, is the be all?

My comment was reflecting on what has happened in the market, not necessarily my preference. I would have NO problem with a company introducing and achieving success with a new desktop/laptop OS or mobile OS. There is at least some competition via various custom Android skins/ROMs but I would welcome other (non-Android) OS competition.

And no, you’re not for competition because you’re not for anything that’s going to increase smartphone competition. You’re just for Apple and Google. More competition would require incentivizing those who would want to compete against Apple and Google, not continuing to prop Apple and Google up. Maybe even subsidizing them until they’re profitable, IF the goal is TRULY to create more competition. There’s a profitable potential market in a non-Apple phone that also isn’t monetizing data like Google. None of the people talking about “competition” are doing anything about increasing the number of smartphone OS’s in the market.

Haven’t seen anything in this thread that would, in any way, create competition for Apple and Google.

And yes, I am for more competition… more competition in hardware, more competition in browsers and browser engines, more competition in apo stores, more competition in various types of software, etc.

Google (with Android) and Apple (with iOS) have dominant positions in mobile OS and I would like companies to have greater access to those platforms rather than see them too closed off and restricted from competition.

 

[I7guy]

[…]

And yes, I am for more competition… more competition in hardware, more competition in browsers and browser engines, more competition in apo stores, more competition in various types of software, etc.

[…]

We agree on something. I’m for more competion via disruption not governmental regulation.