Meta would owe Apple 70M per year just for having Facebook on iOS(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Meta would owe Apple 70M per year just for having Facebook on iOS
https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/26/24051823/apple-third-party-app-stores-50-cent-fee
55 comments
Note (missing from sensational title): only if Meta moves to the agreement that allows their own marketplace on iOS. They can stay in the current agreement with no changes to them or what they pay
With the caveats that I:
* Don't use Facebook or any other social networking apps
* Don't really use very many apps, period
* Have the deepest disdain for every company involved in this
Apple's pricing plan doesn't strike me as crazy. Given the value that being on the App Store brings to Facebook, even if they choose not to monetize through it. If you asked them: would you rather pay $70MM or not have your app listed on the App Store, it feels like they would rush to pay the money, knowing that if they disappeared from the App Store it would be catastrophic. My naive understanding of pricing makes this seem like a fair trade.
Those for whom I have more sympathy are small app developers who would be punished by success under this model, especially the vanishingly few who release free (unmonetized) apps and could become so successful they went bankrupt under Apple's model. That failure makes me dislike the proposal. At that point, you'd be insane to release a good and free app, and that's not the world I want to encourage.
* Don't use Facebook or any other social networking apps
* Don't really use very many apps, period
* Have the deepest disdain for every company involved in this
Apple's pricing plan doesn't strike me as crazy. Given the value that being on the App Store brings to Facebook, even if they choose not to monetize through it. If you asked them: would you rather pay $70MM or not have your app listed on the App Store, it feels like they would rush to pay the money, knowing that if they disappeared from the App Store it would be catastrophic. My naive understanding of pricing makes this seem like a fair trade.
Those for whom I have more sympathy are small app developers who would be punished by success under this model, especially the vanishingly few who release free (unmonetized) apps and could become so successful they went bankrupt under Apple's model. That failure makes me dislike the proposal. At that point, you'd be insane to release a good and free app, and that's not the world I want to encourage.
I want to be convinced why, 10 years down the line, we won't just be using PWAs or an equivalent web-on-home-screen tech.
Is this one of the intentional roadblocks to prevent that?
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/64448312/use-the-web-sha...
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/64448312/use-the-web-sha...
One among many, they pushed back for years even allowing installs on iphones
Sure feels like Apple is doing their damnest to make that happen.
Oh a secure well established capable platform? That's what users want & the mighty service you provide? Yeah, well, uh, the rest of the world has a standardized one of those, it kind of rocks.
Oh a secure well established capable platform? That's what users want & the mighty service you provide? Yeah, well, uh, the rest of the world has a standardized one of those, it kind of rocks.
Then we'll finally realize Steve Job's original vision for third party applications on iPhones.
Agree 100%
Last two products we have built were PWA’s and platform risk is the biggest reason for that.
Last two products we have built were PWA’s and platform risk is the biggest reason for that.
I'd love to see how Apple justifies the 0.50 euro per person tax for third party app stores in the name of "security" or "protecting users" or if they abandon that pretense.
Oh no, how will Meta ever survive.
Their revenue last year was way over 100 BILLION. Paying 70M a year is a rounding error.
Their revenue last year was way over 100 BILLION. Paying 70M a year is a rounding error.
Seems pretty reasonable since they have paid nothing for a giant distribution mechanism for almost 15 years.
One of the chief complaints about the 15/30% fee has been that people like Meta pay nothing and are subsidized by everyone else.
One of the chief complaints about the 15/30% fee has been that people like Meta pay nothing and are subsidized by everyone else.
This seems like such an odd argument to me. The distribution mechanism is what sells luxury devices at a huge profit margin for Apple. It's a value add for Apple to have a walled garden store.
The iPhone sold at a huge profit margin before there even was a store so this is obviously false.
Only a few million iPhones were sold before the App Store (which was introduced in July 2008), as this chart shows:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/263401/global-apple-ipho...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/263401/global-apple-ipho...
So what?
You're right, it's a value add for Apple. If there were no non-Apple apps, I would not buy an iPhone.
Apple could individually negotiate with the top 1000+ apps. The question is of having a wide open marketplace with standardized rules. How many users need the long tail?
That's the opposite of a value add.
What you are describing is an unavoidable cost of doing business which Apple is entitled to charge developers for.
What you are describing is an unavoidable cost of doing business which Apple is entitled to charge developers for.
It is a two-sided market and Apple naturally wants a bite on both ends.
How's that reasonable? If it were possible they could have hosted the app on their own web site for next to nothing.
I'm seeing a 300 MB app (iOS) and 3B monthly active users. Perhaps 900,000,000 GB of data transfer per year between fresh installs and updates?
Using dumb file hosting on Backblaze this would cost somewhere near $9M (public pricing). A full app store would have additional costs but $70M still seems high.
Using dumb file hosting on Backblaze this would cost somewhere near $9M (public pricing). A full app store would have additional costs but $70M still seems high.
If you think that Apple's platform brings no value then sure.
They already have a giant distribution mechanism, the web. It's just that apple cripples the web experience in favor of their appstore, where they have control and get their cut.
0.5 per user per year by installs is significant for many apps, apart from apps from large companies, only subscription-based apps have the economics to justify this cost.
[deleted]
So you can either pay the Gatekeeper money or you can pay the Gatekeeper money
Or just dont use Apple. People make it a huge deal , but they can just vote with their wallet.
Apple will continue their anticompetitive a d abusive tactics als long as the market tells them that its OK (with their spending).
Apple will continue their anticompetitive a d abusive tactics als long as the market tells them that its OK (with their spending).
The alternative isn’t amazing either
As a merchant, you either pay to enter the walled garden, or you pay for user's bathroom passes so they can go to your shop outside.
I legitimately do not understand this line of questioning. Do people really think that developing an OS and all those fancy APIs is free? Part of the R&D costs have always been recouped by hardware sales, and part have always been recouped by fees from the store. Did people really expect Apple to start working for free? And no, I don’t think the usual “they make enough from hardware” is a valid counter argument. Anyone who makes anything is free to decide what to charge for it.
The problem is that there are really only a few large platforms: windows, Android, macOS and iOS. These are also owned by three mega corps. The issue here is that free market mechanisms break down in the small competitor count limit.
So your suggestion is to make it uneconomical to be a competitor in this market? sure, that'll help
So you think Apple will go broke if they have to compete with sideloaded apps?
Keep in mind, we already pay them for dev tools each year, just like how we pay Microsof for visual studio.
Keep in mind, we already pay them for dev tools each year, just like how we pay Microsof for visual studio.
What makes you competent to decide what someone else charges for their work? Unless it is your work, you get no say in how much it costs.
Ummm…might want to tell that to Apple. Check the guidelines.
If us devs were smart, we’d organize and have our apps go on a maintenance break until Apple and Google remember what a computing and platform is without 3rd party devs.
You’re already seeing that with car and headset though.
If us devs were smart, we’d organize and have our apps go on a maintenance break until Apple and Google remember what a computing and platform is without 3rd party devs.
You’re already seeing that with car and headset though.
We already pay them an annual fee, buy a bunch of hardware to test on, and pay to send people to their App Store where they sell ads on our trademarked names.
On the flip side, when’s the last time you’re seen a successful computing platform without 3rd party software?
Simply put, this should be a mutually beneficial relationship like it is on Mac and windows…but Apple and Google are trying to change the code of conduct for mobile so they can not only take their piece, but ours too.
Should you also have to pay each telco a fee to make your phone number reachable? Should Comcast be allowed to block traffic if you don’t pay them a toll?
On the flip side, when’s the last time you’re seen a successful computing platform without 3rd party software?
Simply put, this should be a mutually beneficial relationship like it is on Mac and windows…but Apple and Google are trying to change the code of conduct for mobile so they can not only take their piece, but ours too.
Should you also have to pay each telco a fee to make your phone number reachable? Should Comcast be allowed to block traffic if you don’t pay them a toll?
[deleted]
That trust in a distribution channel commands a price is fine. What is not is that no other distribution channel with equal access can exist on Apple devices.
This sentiment is obviously driving quite a lot of current regulatory action, but I'm not sure I really understand it.
Apple is large yes, but not remotely close to a monopoly. They have 25% smartphone marketshare, and there are numerous other major smartphone manufacturers.
If Apple abuses its power, there are plenty of alternatives that customers can switch to. They should otherwise be free to do with their products as they see fit no?
I presume you disagree with my last question, so I ask then where do we draw the line? Should Nike be forced to carry Adidas clothes? Should AWS be forced to allow customers to co-locate their own hardware? Should Tesla be forced to produce cars that can also be converted to internal combustion engines?
If I want the product to be different from the one being offered from vendor A, I simply go buy one from vendor B.
Apple is large yes, but not remotely close to a monopoly. They have 25% smartphone marketshare, and there are numerous other major smartphone manufacturers.
If Apple abuses its power, there are plenty of alternatives that customers can switch to. They should otherwise be free to do with their products as they see fit no?
I presume you disagree with my last question, so I ask then where do we draw the line? Should Nike be forced to carry Adidas clothes? Should AWS be forced to allow customers to co-locate their own hardware? Should Tesla be forced to produce cars that can also be converted to internal combustion engines?
If I want the product to be different from the one being offered from vendor A, I simply go buy one from vendor B.
> If Apple abuses its power, there are plenty of alternatives that customers can switch to
This is just not how the 3 party markets work. For there to be mobility, both the users and developers have to move. Good luck convincing users to move of their $1000+ purchase. Maybe developers should start a union and boycott the app stores
This is just not how the 3 party markets work. For there to be mobility, both the users and developers have to move. Good luck convincing users to move of their $1000+ purchase. Maybe developers should start a union and boycott the app stores
I don't follow: if third party developers only build for iOS, that is Apple's fault?
If Walmart doesn't carry Target products, I either buy a substitute or I shop at both stores.
If Walmart doesn't carry Target products, I either buy a substitute or I shop at both stores.
To apple, there are 2 customers. Device owners and developers. If device owners choose to buy ios, developers are forced to build for ios. There is no "just don't buy from apple" from the developers pov. A quick google says there are about 1.4 billion iphones. It is unrealistic to expect developers to just "not choose apple" on such a large market. Thus the digital markets act.
Walmart doesn't own the distribution channel of a platform with a double digit percentage of the world population on it.
Walmart doesn't own the distribution channel of a platform with a double digit percentage of the world population on it.
None of this is illegal. Walmart is absolutely make or break for a huge number of companies. Being big and powerful isn’t a crime.
> unrealistic to expect
That’s true, but it changes nothing. Developers absolutely do not have to develop for iOS. That would still leave 75% of the market. It is not a monopoly.
If the iPhone market is too lucrative to ignore, that’s not a competition issue. In fact it’s more supportive that Apple’s approach is pretty valuable to a lot of valuable people that developers want to sell to.
> unrealistic to expect
That’s true, but it changes nothing. Developers absolutely do not have to develop for iOS. That would still leave 75% of the market. It is not a monopoly.
If the iPhone market is too lucrative to ignore, that’s not a competition issue. In fact it’s more supportive that Apple’s approach is pretty valuable to a lot of valuable people that developers want to sell to.
> Developers absolutely do not have to develop for iOS.
Europe absolutely does not have to sell iPhones.
Europe absolutely does not have to sell iPhones.
Oh right sure, the millions of people who buy iPhones in Europe every year can pound sand. The bureaucrats know better.
They threatened doing it before:
> It was rumored in February that Apple may be planning to limit charging speeds and other functionality of USB-C cables that are not certified under its "Made for iPhone" program. […] In response to this rumor, European Commissioner Thierry Breton has sent Apple a letter warning the company that limiting the functionality of USB-C cables would not be permitted and would prevent iPhones from being sold in the EU when the law goes into effect.
https://www.macrumors.com/2023/05/04/eu-warns-apple-about-li...
> The bureaucrats know better.
Than the corporations? Yes.
> It was rumored in February that Apple may be planning to limit charging speeds and other functionality of USB-C cables that are not certified under its "Made for iPhone" program. […] In response to this rumor, European Commissioner Thierry Breton has sent Apple a letter warning the company that limiting the functionality of USB-C cables would not be permitted and would prevent iPhones from being sold in the EU when the law goes into effect.
https://www.macrumors.com/2023/05/04/eu-warns-apple-about-li...
> The bureaucrats know better.
Than the corporations? Yes.
So, what's the substitute for native apps or third-party browser engines? A webapp?
This exact line of logic is why we have arrived at legislation like the Digital Market Act. Apple goes out of their way to ensure reasonable substitutes don't exist, by controlling their own IP but also ruthlessly C&Ding reverse engineers, fan projects and security researchers. They operate an end-to-end plot that protects their bottom line, and certain jurisdictions should have the right to deny that behavior in their market.
This exact line of logic is why we have arrived at legislation like the Digital Market Act. Apple goes out of their way to ensure reasonable substitutes don't exist, by controlling their own IP but also ruthlessly C&Ding reverse engineers, fan projects and security researchers. They operate an end-to-end plot that protects their bottom line, and certain jurisdictions should have the right to deny that behavior in their market.
You’re skipping over the crux of my point: it’s Apple’s platform. They don’t have a monopoly, so why should you or I have any say in what they do?
There are plenty of alternatives. You and many other people saying the same things are ignoring the benefits of their walled garden. You might disagree and that’s fine. Vote with your wallet, not with regulation.
There are plenty of alternatives. You and many other people saying the same things are ignoring the benefits of their walled garden. You might disagree and that’s fine. Vote with your wallet, not with regulation.
It's Europe's market. They don't run the world, so why should Apple object to their standards?
There are plenty of alternatives. You and many other people saying the same things are ignoring the benefits of international business. You might disagree and that’s fine. Get out and vote, don't assume the market is right any more than it was with Sackler or Shkreli.
There are plenty of alternatives. You and many other people saying the same things are ignoring the benefits of international business. You might disagree and that’s fine. Get out and vote, don't assume the market is right any more than it was with Sackler or Shkreli.
A Walmart customer doesn’t invest $1100 for the pleasure to walk through their front door so they also shop at target, Amazon and direct.
There is no way to deliver native software to a users iPhone without the App Store…that’s the problem.
The judge cited switching cost in the epic v Google case and I slow clapped him by myself in my office like a weirdo…I was just so excited that the judicial system was picking up on where the control lies.
And by the way, we can go to google who use scare tactics for sideloading even when we are doing everything right.
Last I checked, you could only turn sideloading on or off…you should be able to whitelist sites like chrome does or support code signing like windows does.
In part, you’re right. It’s their product and they made the phone, but make no mistake, devs made it successful!
We have been moving away from native apps because the hassle just ain’t worth it. We have more control over our own destiny on the web so that’s where we are investing time.
I’ve been saying for years that Apple will regret treating us with such distain in the long run, and here we are where car makers don’t want their software, and devs are saying thanks but no thanks on their headset.
If enough devs move to pwa’s, that’s the ball game. May as well bring back the Firefox OS.
Here’s the thing that really bothers me about iOS. I’m forced to distribute through an App Store that doesn’t understand how to upgrade orgs, not individuals, doesn’t understand that org subscriptions don’t belong on an individuals Apple account, will deny updates even when you are completely compliant, sell ads on direct searches of our trademarked name…AND, we get borderline zero organic search traffic from App Store because it’s just not where our customers are looking for a solution. So, we spend money to send them to the iOS App Store!!! Not the other way around. With Mac, we quickly ditched the App Store and self distributed cause app review was such a pain.
With windows, which is much bigger than Mac for us, we self distribute with code signing.
And…if that’s not bad enough, we want to be able to deploy updates immediately when necessary. This is mission critical software for these businesses. Thankfully, we can roll out on desktop immediately but on phones, there was one time a couple years ago where we had to deny all Android access for 48 hours cause there was a bad bug over a public holiday weekend. So now, we won’t update the app around holidays. I will say, app review has gotten better over the years and most of ours go theough within 30 mins these days but every now and again it’ll take a couple days which keeps that spectre in the back of your mind.
There is no way to deliver native software to a users iPhone without the App Store…that’s the problem.
The judge cited switching cost in the epic v Google case and I slow clapped him by myself in my office like a weirdo…I was just so excited that the judicial system was picking up on where the control lies.
And by the way, we can go to google who use scare tactics for sideloading even when we are doing everything right.
Last I checked, you could only turn sideloading on or off…you should be able to whitelist sites like chrome does or support code signing like windows does.
In part, you’re right. It’s their product and they made the phone, but make no mistake, devs made it successful!
We have been moving away from native apps because the hassle just ain’t worth it. We have more control over our own destiny on the web so that’s where we are investing time.
I’ve been saying for years that Apple will regret treating us with such distain in the long run, and here we are where car makers don’t want their software, and devs are saying thanks but no thanks on their headset.
If enough devs move to pwa’s, that’s the ball game. May as well bring back the Firefox OS.
Here’s the thing that really bothers me about iOS. I’m forced to distribute through an App Store that doesn’t understand how to upgrade orgs, not individuals, doesn’t understand that org subscriptions don’t belong on an individuals Apple account, will deny updates even when you are completely compliant, sell ads on direct searches of our trademarked name…AND, we get borderline zero organic search traffic from App Store because it’s just not where our customers are looking for a solution. So, we spend money to send them to the iOS App Store!!! Not the other way around. With Mac, we quickly ditched the App Store and self distributed cause app review was such a pain.
With windows, which is much bigger than Mac for us, we self distribute with code signing.
And…if that’s not bad enough, we want to be able to deploy updates immediately when necessary. This is mission critical software for these businesses. Thankfully, we can roll out on desktop immediately but on phones, there was one time a couple years ago where we had to deny all Android access for 48 hours cause there was a bad bug over a public holiday weekend. So now, we won’t update the app around holidays. I will say, app review has gotten better over the years and most of ours go theough within 30 mins these days but every now and again it’ll take a couple days which keeps that spectre in the back of your mind.
What a shitty clickbate title.
[deleted]