Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Status
The first post of this thread is a WikiPost and can be edited by anyone with the appropiate permissions. Your edits will be public.

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
9,010
11,203
The advantage I was alluding to in terms of Apple Music, is that whilst Spotify's would have to give Apple 30% of its iOS revenue, Apple gets to keep 100% of it's revenue.
No, they don't. As we both agreed, they certainly spend money to maintain the platform. Far more than Spotify would. And Apple would also have to pay to be on the Play Store which covers most of the market.
 

mode11

macrumors 65816
Jul 14, 2015
1,452
1,172
London
No, they don't. They certainly spend money to maintain the platform. Far more than Spotify would.

Not sure I understand. Are you saying:

Apple have higher costs with Apple Music than Spotify do with their infrastructure?

That developing / maintaining the iOS platform has greater costs than Spotify's audio streaming platform?

That Apple spend more maintaining iOS than Spotify would if they ran iOS?

Something else?
 

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
9,010
11,203
Not sure I understand. Are you saying:

Apple have higher costs with Apple Music than Spotify do with their infrastructure?
Yes.

That developing / maintaining the iOS platform has greater costs than Spotify's audio streaming platform?
Yes.

That Apple spend more maintaining iOS than Spotify would if they ran iOS?
No.

You claimed that Apple keeps 100% of the revenue from Apple Music. That's obviously nonsense. They have expenses to maintain the platform.
 

mode11

macrumors 65816
Jul 14, 2015
1,452
1,172
London

Why does Apple have higher costs with Apple Music than Spotify does? Wouldn't that just imply poorer operational efficiency? If Apple Music has more customers, then its costs would scale somewhat, but its revenues would scale even more (it's clearly better to have more subscribers than less).



Obviously iOS costs more to maintain than Spotify. It's an operating system, that supports hundreds of services like Spotify. It's not a meaningful comparison.


You claimed that Apple keeps 100% of the revenue from Apple Music. That's obviously nonsense. They have expenses to maintain the platform.

Yes, obviously. My point was that Spotify have comparable expenses in terms of running a streaming service. It's just that whilst Apple gets to keep 100% of its Apple Music revenue, Spotify would have to give 30% of their income to Apple first. Surely its not a contentious point to argue this puts them at disadvantage?

Apple is merely hosting the app on their store; the streaming infrastructure is all Spotify's. Apple obviously deserves something for the overheads of running its store. But unlike e.g. Sony, who subsidise the cost of PS5 hardware and recoup it through software sales, Apple already makes huge profits of the iPhone itself. So their store cut doesn't need to be so greedy.
 

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
9,010
11,203
Why does Apple have higher costs with Apple Music than Spotify does? Wouldn't that just imply poorer operational efficiency? If Apple Music has more customers, then its costs would scale somewhat, but its revenues would scale even more (it's clearly better to have more subscribers than less).
Because Apple pays for the platform it runs on and Spotify does not.

Obviously iOS costs more to maintain than Spotify. It's an operating system, that supports hundreds of services like Spotify. It's not a meaningful comparison.
Not the point. The point is that Apple invests in the platform and Spotify benefits from that investment. It isn't unfair for them to compensate Apple.

Yes, obviously. My point was that Spotify have comparable expenses in terms of running a streaming service. It's just that whilst Apple gets to keep 100% of its Apple Music revenue, Spotify would have to give 30% of their income to Apple first. Surely its not a contentious point to argue this puts them at disadvantage?
Again, Apple doesn't keep 100%. The pay more for the platform that Spotify would by paying 30%. And again, they also pay the same as Spotify on android.

Apple is merely hosting the app on their store; the streaming infrastructure is all Spotify's.
No, they aren't "merely hosting the app". That's a disingenuous argument. Apple provides and invests in improving a platform and developer support.

Apple obviously deserves something for the overheads of running its store.
Apple has made it clear that the fees they charge aren't for "running its store." They're licensing fees to compensate them for their investment in creating and maintaining the platform, services, and developer tools.

But unlike e.g. Sony, who subsidise the cost of PS5 hardware and recoup it through software sales, Apple already makes huge profits of the iPhone itself. So their store cut doesn't need to be so greedy.
Apple making profits elsewhere in their business is completely irrelevant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kitKAC

mode11

macrumors 65816
Jul 14, 2015
1,452
1,172
London
Because Apple pays for the platform it runs on and Spotify does not.

This was in response to your assertion that “Apple have higher costs with Apple Music than Spotify do with their infrastructure”. You’re now conflating that with the costs of developing iOS itself, which as an OS, is likely to dwarf the costs of a streaming music service.

Not the point. The point is that Apple invests in the platform and Spotify benefits from that investment. It isn't unfair for them to compensate Apple.

Sure, the question is what’s a fair level of compensation.

Again, Apple doesn't keep 100%. The pay more for the platform that Spotify would by paying 30%. And again, they also pay the same as Spotify on android.

Not sure what you’re saying here.

No, they aren't "merely hosting the app". That's a disingenuous argument. Apple provides and invests in improving a platform and developer support.

They do a lot more than host an app, but there’s a lot of different costs and expenses getting mixed together. Developers pay fees. Customers pay a lot for iPhones. The App Store has adverts. Some level of store fee is obviously fair. There’s a danger of accounting for the same expenses multiple times though.

Apple has made it clear that the fees they charge aren't for "running its store." They're licensing fees to compensate them for their investment in creating and maintaining the platform, services, and developer tools.

Set aside how the fees break down for the moment. Why would you take Apple PR at face value? It’s irrelevant ‘what they make clear’; they’ve got substantial skin in the game here.

Apple making profits elsewhere in their business is completely irrelevant.

My point was that Apple’s cut is likely too high, and they haven’t got the excuse of cross-subsidy. They already make a killing on the iPhone itself.
 

AppliedMicro

macrumors 68030
Aug 17, 2008
2,839
3,738
Apple making profits elsewhere in their business is completely irrelevant.
…and so are their costs. Apple incurring costs elsewhere (for „creating and maintaining a platform, services, and developer tools“) in their business is completely irrelevant.

You can‘t have it both ways and ignore Apple‘s profits elsewhere (than the App Store) as irrelevant - and at the same time insist their costs elsewhere are so relevant that they shall be compensated through App Store commissions.

I mean… you can obviously hold and voice that opinion - but it makes for an inconsistent argument.
 
Last edited:

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
9,010
11,203
This was in response to your assertion that “Apple have higher costs with Apple Music than Spotify do with their infrastructure”. You’re now conflating that with the costs of developing iOS itself, which as an OS, is likely to dwarf the costs of a streaming music service.
Apple Platform Expenses: Billions
Spotify Platform Expenses: 15-30% of Revenue of memberships initiated through the iOS app

Why is this unfair?

Sure, the question is what’s a fair level of compensation.
Your implication seemed to be that any platform fees were unfair.

Not sure what you’re saying here.
I'm saying that Apple has different expenses than Spotify. Not zero expenses.

They do a lot more than host an app, but there’s a lot of different costs and expenses getting mixed together. Developers pay fees. Customers pay a lot for iPhones. The App Store has adverts. Some level of store fee is obviously fair. There’s a danger of accounting for the same expenses multiple times though.
None of that's a thing. There is no need for costs to justify pricing.

Set aside how the fees break down for the moment. Why would you take Apple PR at face value? It’s irrelevant ‘what they make clear’; they’ve got substantial skin in the game here.
That's just FUD. I didn't take non-existent PR at face value. I'm referring to court findings, specifically in the US and Dutch cases.

My point was that Apple’s cut is likely too high, and they haven’t got the excuse of cross-subsidy. They already make a killing on the iPhone itself.
The don't need an excuse related to costs.. As pointed out many times, Apple's pricing is justified by comparing it to the competition.
 

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
9,010
11,203
…and so are their costs. Apple incurring costs elsewhere (for „creating and maintaining a platform, services, and developer tools“) in their business is completely irrelevant.

You can‘t have it both ways and ignore Apple‘s profits elsewhere (than the App Store) as irrelevant - and at the same time insist their costs elsewhere are so relevant that they shall be compensated through App Store commissions.

I mean… you can obviously hold and voice that opinion - but it makes for an inconsistent argument.
All of that is irrelevant. Fair pricing doesn't have anything to do with costs or profits. Fair pricing is determined by comparing it to competition.
 

AppliedMicro

macrumors 68030
Aug 17, 2008
2,839
3,738
Fair pricing doesn't have anything to do with costs or profits
Of course it does - when there’s regulation that promotes (and partly regulates) fair pricing and economic terms - particularly with the argument of economies of scale that the DMA makes.

Fair pricing is determined by comparing it to competition.
When there’s no competition to compare to (e.g. other application software stores on the same platform), we can‘t know if pricing is fair.

We first have to regulate other stores into existence.
 

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
9,010
11,203
When there’s no competition to compare to (e.g. other application software stores on the same platform), we can‘t know if pricing is fair.

We first have to regulate other stores into existence.
Nonsense. There are plenty of other platforms that charge platform fees.
 

mode11

macrumors 65816
Jul 14, 2015
1,452
1,172
London
Apple Platform Expenses: Billions
Spotify Platform Expenses: 15-30% of Revenue of memberships initiated through the iOS app

Why is this unfair?

You keep comparing the expenses of a single app / service (Spotify) to the costs of the whole iOS platform. I don't see the point of this, other than to make Apple look good. It would be more relevant to compare the total expenses of iOS to the total revenue brought in via apps / subscriptions - which is likely orders of magnitude higher. It's not like Apple has to create a new App Store for each app - the costs are clearly spread over the marketplace as a whole.


None of that's a thing. There is no need for costs to justify pricing.

Yet you have repeatedly justified Apple's developer tax in terms of how much it costs to run their platform. No one is saying Apple doesn't deserve to earn money - or even a lot of money. It's a question of how much is fair.

Ultimately, the argument boils down to whether one believes the market alone is able to determine a fair tax for selling apps / services on Apple's iOS platform. It's primarily a concern for developers and services, not consumers.

Apple's products are highly desirable to consumers, especially those with greater disposable income, so the App Store is likewise very desirable to sell into - by revenue, it has 2/3 of mobile app sales and 3/4 of mobile subscriptions. This means Apple can charge developers high commissions, with the only limit being that if they squeeze too hard, developers would gradually leave the platform. And if consumers could no longer get their favourite apps / services, iPhone sales would fall.

Some would say that because Apple has created a high quality product, which (rich) consumers overwhelmingly prefer, they deserve to milk every cent they can from developers - the spoils of their success. Those on the other side would argue that individual developers are in a weak position, because if they left, they'd only be ceding business to competitors. The only way they could have serious influence at this point would be to get together and threaten to leave iOS en masse (unionise, essentially). The problem with this a) this level of coordination is unlikely to happen, and b) even if it did, moving exclusively to Android would simply transfer the whip hand to Google. Hence the need for legislature to reduce the stranglehold of either platform provider by allowing for multiple marketplaces (amongst other things).


That's just FUD. I didn't take non-existent PR at face value. I'm referring to court findings, specifically in the US and Dutch cases.

FUD's an acronym, and doesn't apply here. The PR is absolutely existent - you said "Apple has made it clear that the fees they charge aren't for "running its store"". Not that a court had agreed this is the case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AppliedMicro

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
9,010
11,203
You keep comparing the expenses of a single app / service (Spotify) to the costs of the whole iOS platform. I don't see the point of this, other than to make Apple look good. It would be more relevant to compare the total expenses of iOS to the total revenue brought in via apps / subscriptions - which is likely orders of magnitude higher. It's not like Apple has to create a new App Store for each app - the costs are clearly spread over the marketplace as a whole.
The point is that I am comparing the cost of creating the platform with the costs of accessing the platform. You keep saying that Apple has zero expenses for the platform (e.g. Apple keeps 100% of revenue.)

Yet you have repeatedly justified Apple's developer tax in terms of how much it costs to run their platform.
Absolutely not. I don't think costs justify pricing. I've said that repeatedly. My reference to costs was in response to your claim that Apple has no comparable costs to a potential Spotify commission.

No one is saying Apple doesn't deserve to earn money - or even a lot of money. It's a question of how much is fair.
There are a lot of people arguing that Apple charging a platform fee outside of a transaction fee is unfair. Your argument about Spotify certainly implied as much.

Ultimately, the argument boils down to whether one believes the market alone is able to determine a fair tax for selling apps / services on Apple's iOS platform. It's primarily a concern for developers and services, not consumers.

Apple's products are highly desirable to consumers, especially those with greater disposable income, so the App Store is likewise very desirable to sell into - by revenue, it has 2/3 of mobile app sales and 3/4 of mobile subscriptions. This means Apple can charge developers high commissions, with the only limit being that if they squeeze too hard, developers would gradually leave the platform. And if consumers could no longer get their favourite apps / services, iPhone sales would fall.
Exactly. And the way to determine if Apple's platform fee is fair is to compare it to other platform fees. Where they are certainly competitive.

Some would say that because Apple has created a high quality product, which (rich) consumers overwhelmingly prefer, they deserve to milk every cent they can from developers - the spoils of their success. Those on the other side would argue that individual developers are in a weak position, because if they left, they'd only be ceding business to competitors. The only way they could have serious influence at this point would be to get together and threaten to leave iOS en masse (unionise, essentially).
I've think that a developer union would be a great response.

The problem with this a) this level of coordination is unlikely to happen, and b) even if it did, moving exclusively to Android would simply transfer the whip hand to Google. Hence the need for legislature to reduce the stranglehold of either platform provider by allowing for multiple marketplaces (amongst other things).
They could open their own store outside of Google's control on Android.

FUD's an acronym, and doesn't apply here.
I disagree. You stated that my claim was based on PR to create doubt. It was not.

The PR is absolutely existent - you said "Apple has made it clear that the fees they charge aren't for "running its store"". Not that a court had agreed this is the case.
And Apple made it clear through the courts, not PR.
 

AppliedMicro

macrumors 68030
Aug 17, 2008
2,839
3,738
Exactly. Which shows that Apple's pricing is consistent with pricing for platforms that don't have "gatekeeping power".
30% commission vs. Paddle's, Fastspring's, Microsoft's or Epic's 10-15% range suggests it is not.

There are plenty of other platforms that charge platform fees.
None of them is a general-purpose operating system in a monopoly or duopoly market.

Gaming consoles aren't handhelds used by banks, transit companies and governments to provide services. And they aren't used for productivity applications in businesses.
 
  • Sad
  • Like
Reactions: I7guy and dk001

mode11

macrumors 65816
Jul 14, 2015
1,452
1,172
London
The point is that I am comparing the cost of creating the platform with the costs of accessing the platform. You keep saying that Apple has zero expenses for the platform (e.g. Apple keeps 100% of revenue.)

Absolutely not. I don't think costs justify pricing. I've said that repeatedly. My reference to costs was in response to your claim that Apple has no comparable costs to a potential Spotify commission.

Apple Music and the iOS platform are entirely separate entities. Spotify competes with Apple Music. Like Spotify, Apple Music's costs revolve around licensing and content delivery.

The costs of iOS platform development are a separate matter. As you say yourself, costs have nothing to do with pricing. It might be that e.g. a 5% tax on Spotify would cover Apple's costs; they charge 30% because they can.

What if iOS development and App Store costs were 100% (or more) covered purely from the profit of selling iPhone hardware? Would that change your position at all? Or would it still boil down to the fact that Apple is a business, and should maximise profits through all avenues?


There are a lot of people arguing that Apple charging a platform fee outside of a transaction fee is unfair. Your argument about Spotify certainly implied as much.

What's the practical difference between a 'platform fee' and a 'transaction fee' anyway? What's a transaction fee for, ultimately, other than helping to pay for the platform? It's all money into the same pot; the accounting is a bit academic.


Exactly. And the way to determine if Apple's platform fee is fair is to compare it to other platform fees. Where they are certainly competitive.

It's true that many stores take 30%, but the business models aren't necessarily comparable. For example, games console vendors charge licensing fees, but that's partly to offset the hit they take on selling subsidised hardware; there's no suggestion that's the case with iPhones. And even there, there's plenty of choice - console games are sold on new / second hand disks as well online. In fact, when Microsoft tried to make the Xbox One download-only (from a single MS store), it was a PR disaster, as customers recognised the obvious potential for being ripped off. Sony were quick to capitalise, and the XBone never recovered.


I've think that a developer union would be a great response.

Why would you prefer this to legislation? Because you think it's less likely to actually happen?


They could open their own store outside of Google's control on Android.

We're talking about iOS here. Whilst moving solely to Android is the sort of choice a consumer can make, it's harder for a developer that needs to make a living.


I disagree. You stated that my claim was based on PR to create doubt. It was not.

Whatever way you cut it, you cannot imagine that Apple is unbiased. You would surely concede that regardless of the truth, Apple's lawyers would make exactly the same case?


And Apple made it clear through the courts, not PR.

How, by their lawyers making the claim in court? That's a distinction without much of difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AppliedMicro

vantelimus

macrumors 6502
Feb 16, 2013
359
594
Happy? Users, most users, had no clue about this until it became a talking point.
It hasn’t become a talking point except among those who want to lower the quality of the Apple experience so they can slip their mediocre phishing and privacy violating software on to Apple devices. Most Apple users like not having to worry about being tracked by DoubleClick and the myriad of other electronic dossier companies who trade on personal information surreptitiously collected on computers and phones.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: dk001

dk001

macrumors demi-god
Oct 3, 2014
11,142
15,496
Sage, Lightning, and Mountains
It hasn’t become a talking point except among those who want to lower the quality of the Apple experience so they can slip their mediocre phishing and privacy violating software on to Apple devices. Most Apple users like not having to worry about being tracked by DoubleClick and the myriad of other electronic dossier companies who trade on personal information surreptitiously collected on computers and phones.

No matter what direction you turn, you are being tracked. Even Apple does it.
A walled garden does not stop tracking.

Users kind of know, but kind of ignore, that there is only one place to purchase iOS apps.
”Walled Garden” is still a pretty much unknown term.

btw - from Apple’s lawyers, iOS users using Apple core apps have no expectation of privacy.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0437.jpeg
    IMG_0437.jpeg
    189.8 KB · Views: 37

mode11

macrumors 65816
Jul 14, 2015
1,452
1,172
London
It hasn’t become a talking point except among those who want to lower the quality of the Apple experience so they can slip their mediocre phishing and privacy violating software on to Apple devices. Most Apple users like not having to worry about being tracked by DoubleClick and the myriad of other electronic dossier companies who trade on personal information surreptitiously collected on computers and phones.

The main talking point outside of the MacRumors forums seems to be US iPhone users, dismayed they're missing out on the advantages of their EU counterparts. Perhaps it'll turn out to be a case of 'be careful what you wish for', but the regular consumer only sees upsides to increased freedom of choice.

Personally, I'm confident that Apple has the ability to implement the facility for multiple app stores, without iOS's security falling apart. I see no reason to doubt them, though they'll obviously resist doing so first.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dk001

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
9,010
11,203
30% commission vs. Paddle's, Fastspring's, Microsoft's or Epic's 10-15% range suggests it is not.
If you cherry pick numbers that support your point, it doesn't really suggest anything other than you cherry-picked numbers.

And you're comparing store fees to platform fees.
 
  • Like
Reactions: I7guy

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
9,010
11,203
Apple Music and the iOS platform are entirely separate entities. Spotify competes with Apple Music. Like Spotify, Apple Music's costs revolve around licensing and content delivery.

The costs of iOS platform development are a separate matter. As you say yourself, costs have nothing to do with pricing. It might be that e.g. a 5% tax on Spotify would cover Apple's costs; they charge 30% because they can.
You're arguing semantics here.

What if iOS development and App Store costs were 100% (or more) covered purely from the profit of selling iPhone hardware? Would that change your position at all?
What if? I assume that's already true.

Or would it still boil down to the fact that Apple is a business, and should maximise profits through all avenues?
I never suggested Apple should maximize profits through all avenues.

What's the practical difference between a 'platform fee' and a 'transaction fee' anyway? What's a transaction fee for, ultimately, other than helping to pay for the platform? It's all money into the same pot; the accounting is a bit academic.
It's just a description of the value received by the developer. Obviously, a fee for simply processing a transaction is going to less than a platform fee, because the value received is less.

It's true that many stores take 30%, but the business models aren't necessarily comparable. For example, games console vendors charge licensing fees, but that's partly to offset the hit they take on selling subsidised hardware; there's no suggestion that's the case with iPhones. And even there, there's plenty of choice - console games are sold on new / second hand disks as well online. In fact, when Microsoft tried to make the Xbox One download-only (from a single MS store), it was a PR disaster, as customers recognised the obvious potential for being ripped off. Sony were quick to capitalise, and the XBone never recovered.
Again, costs are irrelevant. Wasn't it you who said in this same post that the platform and the apps were completely separate?

Why would you prefer this to legislation? Because you think it's less likely to actually happen?
No, I prefer it because it addresses problems in a meaningful way with both parties making compromises. And I'm certainly not against regulation in general. I just think certain regulations in the DMA are ham-handed attempts to address the wrong problems that will have negative effects on the market with clear issues, particularly around security, that the EU simply hand waves away.

We're talking about iOS here. Whilst moving solely to Android is the sort of choice a consumer can make, it's harder for a developer that needs to make a living.
Is it? Maybe that because of the choices that Apple made, instead of in spite of them. If you can't make a living with 4 billion potential android customers...

Whatever way you cut it, you cannot imagine that Apple is unbiased. You would surely concede that regardless of the truth, Apple's lawyers would make exactly the same case?

How, by their lawyers making the claim in court? That's a distinction without much of difference.
No, I would not expect Apple's lawyers to lie in court. Nor would I expect the judge to put lies into the findings of fact.
 

mode11

macrumors 65816
Jul 14, 2015
1,452
1,172
London
You're arguing semantics here.


What if? I assume that's already true.


I never suggested Apple should maximize profits through all avenues.

OK, so you:

Assume that iPhone sales already cover Apple's iOS development and App Store costs.

AND

That Apple Music has higher costs than rivals such as Spotify because AM has to partly finance iOS development / App Store costs.

AND

That Apple should still charge 30% commission on Spotify subscriptions, yet reject the idea that Apple should simply maximise profits.

Some of these seem mutually exclusive.


It's just a description of the value received by the developer. Obviously, a fee for simply processing a transaction is going to less than a platform fee, because the value received is less.

OK fair play. Transaction fee = payment processing fee. I don't take the position that the only costs involved in running a store are in payment processing.


Again, costs are irrelevant.

To the price of things? So we're back to the idea that Apple should simply maximise profits. Fair enough, that's business 101, but you seem to bristle at this suggestion elsewhere.


No, I prefer it because it addresses problems in a meaningful way with both parties making compromises. And I'm certainly not against regulation in general. I just think certain regulations in the DMA are ham-handed attempts to address the wrong problems that will have negative effects on the market with clear issues, particularly around security, that the EU simply hand waves away.

Fair enough. I respect the concern around security. In my opinion it's being leant on hard by Apple for mostly commercial reasons, but there's pros and cons to every policy. I'm sure glad the Mac isn't as locked down as iOS, though care less about a phone OS, as I'm not going to be using it for work (aside from email / calendars etc.).


Is it? Maybe that because of the choices that Apple made, instead of in spite of them. If you can't make a living with 4 billion potential android customers...

You think any business would like to lose 2/3 of its revenue? For better or worse, the money is on iOS. Though I take your point that there's a reason iOS is more popular (primarily, that Android is made by the world's biggest advertising company, and treats your data accordingly).


No, I would not expect Apple's lawyers to lie in court. Nor would I expect the judge to put lies into the findings of fact.

C'mon, there's shades here. Accounting can be looked at from all sorts of perspectives. It's not perjury if Apple make a claim about the way they see it.

Also, which Dutch court case are you referring to? This one: https://www.lexxion.eu/en/coreblogp...in-the-netherlands-a-potential-game-changer/?

Where the finding was "Apple suffered a loss in the Netherlands where a national court in preliminary relief proceedings struck down its attempt to block the remedies imposed by the Dutch competition authority following a finding of abuse of dominance. As a result, as of last weekend, Apple is forced to accept third-party payment solutions implemented in (paid) dating apps in the Dutch storefront of the App Store."
 

AppliedMicro

macrumors 68030
Aug 17, 2008
2,839
3,738
And you're comparing store fees to platform fees.
No.

That's the point: Apple's 30% commission has always been a "store fee" for Apple acting as an agent or "commissionaire for the marketing and delivery of the Licensed Applications to end-users".

"Apple shall be entitled to the following commissions in consideration for its services as Your agent and/or commissionaire under this Schedule 2:

(a) For sales of Licensed Applications to End-Users, Apple shall be entitled to a commission equal to thirty percent (30%) of all prices payable by each End-User"


👉 Commission on sales. Not platform fee. That's what their developer agreement clearly says.

If you cherry pick numbers that support your point, it doesn't really suggest anything other than you cherry-picked numbers.
Picking some of the biggest, most well-known services that offer handling sales of downloaded software applications isn't cherry-picking.

Referring to limited-use gaming console platforms or brick & mortar stores is comparing apples to oranges.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dk001

vantelimus

macrumors 6502
Feb 16, 2013
359
594
No matter what direction you turn, you are being tracked. Even Apple does it.
A walled garden does not stop tracking.

Users kind of know, but kind of ignore, that there is only one place to purchase iOS apps.
”Walled Garden” is still a pretty much unknown term.

btw - from Apple’s lawyers, iOS users using Apple core apps have no expectation of privacy.
The difference, of course, being that Apple isn’t selling you the way Google and Facebook do.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.