Meta, Microsoft, X and Match Join Epic Games in Protesting Fees for Non-App Store Purchase Links

[jz0309]

Let there be competition and then the user gets to decide but there's only one iOS app store, aka monopoly.

No monopoly period. Even EU calls them “gatekeeper”

 

[Ed M.]

Couple of things… I haven’t read through all the comments as of yet and apologies if it’s been mentioned but all of this nonsense about wanting the tools resources and ability to *redirect* people using Apple’s platform and shopping at Apple’s store is akin to the ShopRite supermarkets in my area being forced to redirect customers to lower prices for the same goods at Target or Walmart. Imagine if Coke or Lay’s had big signs up in one store pointing customers to lower prices elsewhere. This is called “free riding”. These companies are beclowning themselves. They want the depth, breadth and reach of Apple’s customer base and the massive amount of “eyeballs” (and all the value that brings) for absolutely nothing.

As far as the 15/30 percent fees. Let me just point out that I have yet to hear any… And I mean *any* site mention the slotting fees that are used in the retail market. These companies are being disingenuous. They know they are already getting a great deal and they’re relying on the naive courts to provide a sympathetic ear. These companies should be treated no differently from the vendors like Lays, Coke and Proctor & Gamble that fill grocery shelves. And let me tell you… Those slots and shelf spaces are so important to these vendors that they get into bidding wars for access to those spaces. These companies like Epic should all be told to go pound sand.

 

[Ed M.]

What free ad? Netflix is a household name, I very very very strongly doubt that the reason someone downloaded Netflix from the App Store is because it is within the App Store.
If Netflix paid for an App Store ad to get their app placed higher that is even more reason that this isn't a free ad.

When was the last time you went to Best Buy and seen an ad or sign or got a notification when you approached an item you went shopping for that redirected you to a Walmart or PC Richards where it can be had for less? It doesn’t work that way at the supermarkets and it shouldn’t work that way on the digital app stores either.

People shop at ShopRite because they like and trust ShopRite and it’s not up to Lays or Coke to tell people that are in ShopRite shopping where to get their goods cheaper.

 

[Ed M.]

Let me try and be a bit more clear… Imagine you’re shopping at your favorite supermarket or electronics store or mall or sporting goods shop and just because you claim to be someone preferring Nike products or Coke products or Samsung gear that all or even 75% of your money should go to that company and nothing to the retailer hosting all these wares. These companies like Epic want the free ride, the eyeballs and the safely, the curation and the confidence people get from shopping at a store of their preference, while denying the platform they’re exploiting any cut. That’s not how it should work.

 

[bcortens]

When was the last time you went to Best Buy and seen an ad or sign or got a notification when you approached an item you went shopping for that redirected you to a Walmart or PC Richards where it can be had for less? It doesn’t work that way at the supermarkets and it shouldn’t work that way on the digital app stores either.

People shop at ShopRite because they like and trust ShopRite and it’s not up to Lays or Coke to tell people that are in ShopRite shopping where to get their goods cheaper.

Let's say this again since people can't get it through their heads. iOS itself is not a store, iOS itself is not a store. The screens in Spotify's app belong to Spotify not Apple. No one is asking to advertise inside the App Store, no one is claiming that Spotify or Epic should be able to, from within the App Store, advertise their services. They want to, within their own app, add a link, something trivial and easy.

Apple wants a license fee for its IP then they have to actually break that out and apply it uniformly and fairly - that is not what they are doing here.

 

[bcortens]

Couple of things… I haven’t read through all the comments as of yet and apologies if it’s been mentioned but all of this nonsense about wanting the tools resources and ability to *redirect* people using Apple’s platform and shopping at Apple’s store is akin to the ShopRite supermarkets in my area being forced to redirect customers to lower prices for the same goods at Target or Walmart. Imagine if Coke or Lay’s had big signs up in one store pointing customers to lower prices elsewhere. This is called “free riding”. These companies are beclowning themselves. They want the depth, breadth and reach of Apple’s customer base and the massive amount of “eyeballs” (and all the value that brings) for absolutely nothing.

As far as the 15/30 percent fees. Let me just point out that I have yet to hear any… And I mean *any* site mention the slotting fees that are used in the retail market. These companies are being disingenuous. They know they are already getting a great deal and they’re relying on the naive courts to provide a sympathetic ear. These companies should be treated no differently from the vendors like Lays, Coke and Proctor & Gamble that fill grocery shelves. And let me tell you… Those slots and shelf spaces are so important to these vendors that they get into bidding wars for access to those spaces. These companies like Epic should all be told to go pound sand.

No one is saying that for transactions Apple facilitates that they shouldn't get a commission, no one.

iOS is not a store, once I have the app, any transactions that happen within that app that don't use IAP are not occurring in Apple's store.

You might argue that the commission is to pay for iOS IP, fair enough, however I again call this nonsense for the following reason:
From the exemptions Apple provides to reader apps, software subscriptions like Adobe, and apps selling physical goods and services, we can already see that Apple also doesn't seem to think they deserve a commission from all monetized apps. The amount of IP used doesn't determine whether or not you pay a commission, nor does your profitability as a company, instead it is an arbitrary classification that seems antiquated in today's market that Apple is desperately clinging to for no fair reason. I acknowledge that they have business reasons, but these reasons are becoming increasingly convoluted as Apple tries to prop up its legacy of bad justifications instead of coming up with something more universal and modern.

 

[BuffaloTF]

There are no CTFs here. This is a U.S. case.

There are core technology fees, unless we’re being pointlessly pedantic on the terminology. They broke down the exact line items that comprised the 30% and struck out the payment processing. Platform fees was one of them.

 

[BuffaloTF]

Great - they can continue benefitting from that steal.

But why shouldn't they distribute through Microsoft or Epic for 12% or 15% instead - wouldn't that be an even bigger steal?

Well, Microsoft charges 30%. And Epic charges 5% just to license Unreal, then 12% for hosting, offers zero foreign exchange services, doesn’t pay your taxes, doesn’t cover the payment processing so you need your own merchant services account, doesn’t cover local payment processing upcharges and you walk away with less money.

 

[Stromos]

Who says it was marketed by Apple rather than me searching for it specifically because I knew I wanted to become a customer? If I search for it in the App Store and sign up Apple gets a cut, but if I search for it in Safari and sign up they don’t?

You can't possibly know this. To claim that the reason that someone downloads something like Netflix or Spotify is marketing by the App Store is just pure speculation, likely false pure speculation given how much of a household name Netflix is.

At this point who is downloading the Netflix app because of Apple marketing? Who was ever downloading it because of Apple’s marketing? The reason you’re downloading it from the App Store is because that’s the only way to get apps on iOS.

It doesn't matter they are a brand-new customer and guess how they chose to sign up? Not through a browser not through a app on their TV they chose to sign up via the app on their iPhone. So, there is obviously a level of convenience of pulling out the phone loading the app and signing up VS going to computer or pecking at a TV app. They could also do it from Safari on the phone.

 

[gatorvet96]

Even today, long after digital downloads became the norm, I can still release software on macOS and Windows without paying them a commission every time somebody buys my app or subscribes to my service.

Difference being that Apple isn't forced to go through Best Buy to get to me as a consumer. A developer cannot get to me on my iOS device without going through Apple.

But the developer would never even have an option sell (or in many case ever exist) to users if iPhone wasn’t developed by Apple. It is a symbiotic relationship. Apple was the reason for thousands of developers existing. Uber, TikTok, instagram, snapchat, WhatsApp and many many more would have never existed. They seem to forget that. Android wouldn’t even exist if not for iPhone. Android was like Blackberry until Google CEO was on Apple Board of directors and stole the idea.

 

[dmylrea]

Well if those companies don't like the policy, they can just all become phone manufacturers and set their own unfair policies, amirite fellow self-hating consumers?

And if Apple really hates developers, they can write all their own damn apps and charge an entry fee just to LOOK in the App Store!

Greed. Everywhere you look at Apple, there it is. It will be it's downfall.

 

[dmylrea]

It doesn't matter they are a brand-new customer and guess how they chose to sign up? Not through a browser not through a app on their TV they chose to sign up via the app on their iPhone. So, there is obviously a level of convenience of pulling out the phone loading the app and signing up VS going to computer or pecking at a TV app. They could also do it from Safari on the phone.

The point is, no one goes "window shopping" in the App Store and says "hey this Netflix app sure looks interesting. I think I'll read all the reviews and pay close attention to the stars rating before I get it." NO ONE. They get it from the App Store because it's the only place to get it. And if convenience is worth anything then Apple owes me a bunch of money because their iPhone and iOS frequently inconveniences the crap out me.

 

[bcortens]

It doesn't matter they are a brand-new customer and guess how they chose to sign up? Not through a browser not through an app on their TV they chose to sign up via the app on their iPhone. So, there is obviously a level of convenience of pulling out the phone loading the app and signing up VS going to computer or pecking at a TV app. They could also do it from Safari on the phone.

This doesn’t address the original point, which was that Apple was responsible for customer acquisition via App Store discovery. None of what you wrote matters to that point and is such irrelevant in the discussion you are replying to.

 

[bcortens]

This has been on the cards since it was announced, it is an excessive amount of commission - very clearly designed to put developers off from going outside the App Store.

But what I’m curious to understand is what is a better alternative? A higher up front cost for a developers kit access seems like an obvious answer but then how do you do that without penalising your start-ups and amateurs. Charge per seat? (do they do that right now?).

Curious to see what alternatives these companies would propose as totally free access to iOS and its toolset is arguably as unreasonable as the commission.

I am of two minds about this;

On the one hand I think Apple should be compensated for its IP and SDK and should charge all apps uniformly fairly and equally (and not artificially treat Apps differently and not grudgingly provide random exemptions for categories that are important like reader apps).

On the other hand I think that so long as Apple competes with apps on its platform (Music vs Spotify, iCloud vs Dropbox, Apple TV+ vs Netflix, Arcade vs XBox Pass, etc…) they should not be allowed to charge developers for SDK access on a per user or per download basis as it gives them a large competitive advantage. If they want to charge for SDK access they should be a neutral platform and get out of the music, game streaming, storage, and television business. They are leveraging their dominant position in the OS and App space into these other categories and I think that is likely going to get them into trouble.

They should make a choice if they want to make their money for iOS development by offering a platform that sells to developers, or a company that makes money selling services to customers.

Note:I’mnot super serious about the above as its just something that has been bouncing around in my head the last few days as this topic continues to be debated.

 

[paulovsouza]

I agree with them, in fact everyone involved should sign an agreement to eradicate all its anticompetitive efforts and unreasonable charges for other entities trying to profit off their platform.

 

[rjp1]

So if I go to Netflix’s website via Safari and sign up for a subscription Apple gets nothing but if I click a link in the app that takes me to their subscription page Apple gets 27%? Why?

It probably keeps Tim up at night trying to figure out how to send them a bill for exactly that.

 

[vipergts2207]

There are core technology fees, unless we’re being pointlessly pedantic on the terminology. They broke down the exact line items that comprised the 30% and struck out the payment processing. Platform fees was one of them.

Where is this, I must have missed it.

 

[vipergts2207]

It doesn't matter they are a brand-new customer and guess how they chose to sign up? Not through a browser not through an app on their TV they chose to sign up via the app on their iPhone. So, there is obviously a level of convenience of pulling out the phone loading the app and signing up VS going to computer or pecking at a TV app. They could also do it from Safari on the phone.

Huh, and somehow folks wonder why Apple is under so much pressure all over the world from its business practices.

 

[MacBH928]

a bit rich coming from a company that doesn't allow third party stores on xbox which Tim Sweeney seems to not want to fight because they can't risk all of their clients losing access to unreal engine on a major platform lmao

hypocrites

thats actually a good arguement. I wonder why no one filed an antri-trust lawsuit on Nintendo, Sega, Sony, and Microsoft that charged fees on game developers to sell games for their consoles. Now they are filing anti-trust lawsuit against Apple for charing a fee on their iphone "console"

 

[cbaca51]

These companies pretend they’re fighting against Apple for the people but they’re only doing this because they’re greedy and don’t want to share money with Apple. They want to use Apple’s App Store for free. That’s not how it works

 

[DoctorApple]

So if I go to Netflix’s website via Safari and sign up for a subscription Apple gets nothing but if I click a link in the app that takes me to their subscription page Apple gets 27%? Why?

Wow, think about it: Currently, when if someone visits Netflix on the App Store, they can click the “Developer Website” link and go directly to Netflix’s website, where they can sign up and Apple gets nothing. Isn’t it absurd?

Apple’s stance is now if you link out from an app, they’ll take a cut.

 

[bollman]

I agree with this. Think about a retail store like Target. If Target platforms Apple's products and they sell a pair of AirPods, would it be fair for them not to get a cut of that sale?

So, if you go into Target and look at a pair of AirPods, but then decide to order them from Apple online, Target should get a cut from Apple? Right? Right?

 

[bollman]

These companies pretend they’re fighting against Apple for the people but they’re only doing this because they’re greedy and don’t want to share money with Apple. They want to use Apple’s App Store for free. That’s not how it works

Oh, but it is, even proven in court, as the article says.

 

[SoldOnApple]

Apple should probably follow the law and do what they legally can to make the most money now, and then use that money to pivot into other money making areas for the future ready for a few years from now when all major governments force Apple to get to let them offer their apps and subscriptions for free. If VR/AR is the next big thing and if phone App Store laws don't apply to VR/AR, and if the VR/AR App Store is going to replace the phone App Store anyway, then why should Apple care if the government forces them to dry that well; it was going to be dry soon enough anyway. So Apple probably has a legal duty to their shareholders to pump the old well as fast as they can, so they can buy even bigger pumps for the new VR/AR well.

 

[dannyyankou]

So, if you go into Target and look at a pair of AirPods, but then decide to order them from Apple online, Target should get a cut from Apple? Right? Right?

No… And I wasn’t implying that with my analogy. I was talking about in app purchases only. In fact, maybe you missed my post 6 minutes before that one and it’s okay if you did, but I even sided with the developers when it comes to app steering-

If Apple feels like they should get a cut of in app purchases, I have no issue with that since those purchases enable new features, which rely on Apple's APIs. But companies should be able to direct customers to their website to sign up without any penalty.