> when every single business on the planet has to pay you 30% for access to mobile device users
That doesn’t describe Apple’s situation though. Most businesses don’t distribute software at all; those that do mostly don’t need to distribute native iOS apps; those that do mostly don’t need to pay App Store fees; those that do mostly have to pay 15%. It’s only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction that need to pay 30%.
This case only concerns Apple's App Store fees before 2020; it was a blanket 30% charge for paid apps until they introduced those changes following the whole Epic Games legal saga etc.
Apple are not paying a penalty for anything after 2020 when the new rules allowing those with lower turnover to pay 15% came into effect etc.
> It’s only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction that need to pay 30%
During the first 12 years of the App Store, everyone paid 30%.
> During the first 12 years of the App Store, everyone paid 30%.
This is still not correct. The original claim was “every single business on the planet”. That’s ridiculously overstated.
Even if you massively narrow the scope to only businesses that have iOS apps that make money directly through the app, it’s still not true. The 30% specifically applies to buying digital goods and services through iOS apps.
Take Uber, for instance. They make vast amounts of money through their iOS app. They do not have to pay Apple 30%, or 15%, or anything beyond the basic $99/yr developer account fee. They absolutely do not have to pay 30% for access to the platform.
> The 30% specifically applies to buying digital goods and services through iOS apps
This is not correct at all and grossly misrepresents how Apple collects revenues on the store - the 30% applied to the list price of any paid app as well.
Prior to 2020, if your app had a price tag on the app store, you paid 30% of said price to apple on every sale. There is no ifs, no buts, no lower rate for smaller players like today. You had a price tag, you paid 30%, whether you sold 100m copies or 5.
The decision taken by the CAT here concerns the fee for paid apps (what they call the distribution charge) as well as in app fees, the latter of which had some exemptions for specific transaction types from the likes of Amazon, Uber etc (but famously not Spotify or Epic Games, or the Amazon Kindle app etc etc...). The "distribution charge" did not.
What are you referring to when you say “all those percentages”? I only mention two; 15% and 30%. 30% wasn’t arbitrary; it was in line with what other platform providers like Nintendo and Sony were charging at the time. If you’re referring to the multiple fractions of fractions, then obviously a business that has nothing to do with software isn’t being coerced by Apple.
How do web pages accessed from (for example) Safari cost the publisher 30% of a subscription fee, when a subscription might be established off mobile first?
No? Websites are a subset of the software market, not the other way around. Apple can absolutely monopolize software distribution while providing a web browser.
Where does this meme come from? Spotify pays Apple nothing more than a $99 developer fee, and the streaming music business would not exist in its current form without iPhone.
I think you should aggregate by app installs, not distinct apps. The apps to make most impact, are most-installed apps. What if my app blows up to a tune of 1.2 mil? I'll be paying 400k Apple tax just because that's why?
Because the 30% is "opt-in" not automatic, the $1m threshold applies to all your apps and associated accounts apps combined, and $1m is just not a big target anymore considering 8400 people on $10/month subscriptions will get you over that line.
And of course, when they announced this big discount it was reported to apply to about 5% of actual IAP spending, which would make the average commission fee being paid around 29%.
That's a 2020 report,by 2023 Apple was saying the $1m+ developers had grown to 10% of developers and many small developers were now earning $1m+. Correlating of course with the subscription-ification of everything.
Yes. People always think about the law as if it is code. But code means it can be hacked (loopholes can be found, etc.) Therefore, better leave the law open to interpretation and let a judge sort it out.
The UK doesn’t even have a single sourced constitution. Just random things from random times in random documents. Parliament is essentially king and can just make any law it wants at anytime with a basic majority. Nothing is codified. There are no real standards.
The UK is one of the most arbitrarily defined places in terms of law. It’s why they can have and enforce a 2-tier system. “Stirring things up” is literally a charge a judge can arbitrarily rule on. Place is hilarious.
I don't know, but when every single business on the planet has to pay you 30% for access to mobile device users, it definitely isn't.
> when every single business on the planet has to pay you 30% for access to mobile device users
That doesn’t describe Apple’s situation though. Most businesses don’t distribute software at all; those that do mostly don’t need to distribute native iOS apps; those that do mostly don’t need to pay App Store fees; those that do mostly have to pay 15%. It’s only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction that need to pay 30%.
> those that do mostly have to pay 15%
This case only concerns Apple's App Store fees before 2020; it was a blanket 30% charge for paid apps until they introduced those changes following the whole Epic Games legal saga etc.
Apple are not paying a penalty for anything after 2020 when the new rules allowing those with lower turnover to pay 15% came into effect etc.
> It’s only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction that need to pay 30%
During the first 12 years of the App Store, everyone paid 30%.
> During the first 12 years of the App Store, everyone paid 30%.
This is still not correct. The original claim was “every single business on the planet”. That’s ridiculously overstated.
Even if you massively narrow the scope to only businesses that have iOS apps that make money directly through the app, it’s still not true. The 30% specifically applies to buying digital goods and services through iOS apps.
Take Uber, for instance. They make vast amounts of money through their iOS app. They do not have to pay Apple 30%, or 15%, or anything beyond the basic $99/yr developer account fee. They absolutely do not have to pay 30% for access to the platform.
Or Spotify, a common complainant, who pays Apple $0 because they only sign up accounts on their website.
> The 30% specifically applies to buying digital goods and services through iOS apps
This is not correct at all and grossly misrepresents how Apple collects revenues on the store - the 30% applied to the list price of any paid app as well.
Prior to 2020, if your app had a price tag on the app store, you paid 30% of said price to apple on every sale. There is no ifs, no buts, no lower rate for smaller players like today. You had a price tag, you paid 30%, whether you sold 100m copies or 5.
The decision taken by the CAT here concerns the fee for paid apps (what they call the distribution charge) as well as in app fees, the latter of which had some exemptions for specific transaction types from the likes of Amazon, Uber etc (but famously not Spotify or Epic Games, or the Amazon Kindle app etc etc...). The "distribution charge" did not.
All those percentages are arbitrary, none of them are set through natural competition.
Good on the UK for not backing down. 15% or 150%, Apple should not be exempted from participating in a true market economy.
What are you referring to when you say “all those percentages”? I only mention two; 15% and 30%. 30% wasn’t arbitrary; it was in line with what other platform providers like Nintendo and Sony were charging at the time. If you’re referring to the multiple fractions of fractions, then obviously a business that has nothing to do with software isn’t being coerced by Apple.
How do web pages accessed from (for example) Safari cost the publisher 30% of a subscription fee, when a subscription might be established off mobile first?
How are web pages analogous to installing mobile software, in this particular example?
> has to pay you 30% for access to mobile device users
is what the parent comment said, which overlooked web and assumed native app installs
In every single aspect of "business on the planet enabling access to mobile device users".
No? Websites are a subset of the software market, not the other way around. Apple can absolutely monopolize software distribution while providing a web browser.
Where does this meme come from? Spotify pays Apple nothing more than a $99 developer fee, and the streaming music business would not exist in its current form without iPhone.
Why do so many people quote the 30% number?
Only apps with more than $1,000,000 annual revenue are paying 30%. Most apps are smaller than that and are hit with a 15% fee.
I think you should aggregate by app installs, not distinct apps. The apps to make most impact, are most-installed apps. What if my app blows up to a tune of 1.2 mil? I'll be paying 400k Apple tax just because that's why?
Good point.
The percentage rate should go down the more you sell. That’s usually how scale works.
Because the 30% is "opt-in" not automatic, the $1m threshold applies to all your apps and associated accounts apps combined, and $1m is just not a big target anymore considering 8400 people on $10/month subscriptions will get you over that line.
And of course, when they announced this big discount it was reported to apply to about 5% of actual IAP spending, which would make the average commission fee being paid around 29%.
tldr; it's a weaselly discount.
> $1m is just not a big target anymore
Yes it is. The percentage of developers in the App Store who make more than $1 million per year is tiny.
According to this analysis[1], it's a single digit percentage. Hardly anybody pays 30%.
[1]:https://sensortower.com/blog/app-store-revenue-share-analysi...
That's a 2020 report,by 2023 Apple was saying the $1m+ developers had grown to 10% of developers and many small developers were now earning $1m+. Correlating of course with the subscription-ification of everything.
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2023/05/small-developers-on-t...
No, that's why courts and tribunals exist: to decide what's just in each specific case.
Yes. People always think about the law as if it is code. But code means it can be hacked (loopholes can be found, etc.) Therefore, better leave the law open to interpretation and let a judge sort it out.
The UK doesn’t even have a single sourced constitution. Just random things from random times in random documents. Parliament is essentially king and can just make any law it wants at anytime with a basic majority. Nothing is codified. There are no real standards.
The UK is one of the most arbitrarily defined places in terms of law. It’s why they can have and enforce a 2-tier system. “Stirring things up” is literally a charge a judge can arbitrarily rule on. Place is hilarious.