Genshin Impact developer miHoYo has made two short-lived attempts since August to set up a payment system for iOS users, to avoid Apple's 30% App Store cut
and failed — twice to create its own micropayment system for iPhone users. But this might also herald future China trouble for Apple. https://thechinaproject.com/ ... Daniel Ahmad / @zhugeex : I spoke to @thechinaproj about how game publishers in China, miHoYo in this case, are looking to circumvent Apple's 30% revenue cut. A lot of interesting developments happened over the past few weeks:
Context & Ripple Effects
This sits in a longer Chinese dispute over Apple’s control of digital transactions: Apple had previously required WeChat and other social apps to disable in-app tipping functions it considered purchases subject to its commission.
The issue later broadened beyond one game publisher, with Apple reportedly pressing Tencent and ByteDance to close paths that routed creators to external payments. miHoYo’s unsuccessful experiments show how difficult it is for a major iOS publisher to bypass that control in practice.
First-order effects
- miHoYo’s two payment-system attempts failed, leaving its iPhone micropayments subject to Apple’s existing App Store purchase rules and commission structure.
- Apple retains control over the iOS payment path for Genshin Impact, while miHoYo loses the immediate opportunity to process those transactions itself.
Second-order effects
- Other Chinese app and game publishers have a concrete example of the operational and policy risk in trying to steer iOS users around Apple’s payment system; Apple’s later enforcement efforts against Tencent and ByteDance reinforce that signal.
- Alternative mobile ecosystems can use Apple’s fee as a competitive reference point: Huawei was reported to be discussing a roughly 20% in-app-purchase fee for HarmonyOS games, below the 30% cited here.
Third-order effects
- If publishers continue to test external-payment routes while Apple closes them, China’s large app market is likely to remain a focal point for negotiating platform payment terms rather than a market where developers can easily opt out unilaterally.
- The broader structural contest is over who owns the transaction layer: dominant mobile platforms can preserve gatekeeper leverage, but lower-fee alternatives and sustained publisher pressure may increase pressure for differentiated revenue-sharing models.
The trend: This is one instance of intensifying resistance to mobile-platform payment take rates and the gatekeeper control that enforces them.