Apple's seeming sense of entitlement to commissions from third-party iOS apps shows a confrontational stance, instead of seeking to lessen regulatory pressure
That take didn't last long. … Sweeney's description makes it sound as though Apple is demanding its commission from all web sales …
Daring FireballJohn Gruber
Context & Ripple Effects
The dispute extends a long-running fight over whether App Store access gives Apple a claim on transactions completed elsewhere. Earlier coverage noted that a court ruling left room for Apple to pursue a 30% fee even when developers use their own payments, while its Netherlands in-app-purchase proposal was criticized as potentially noncompliant.
The stakes are broader than a single payment flow: prior reporting found that developers paying Apple commissions were numerous even though they represented a small share of App Store revenue. That makes payment-policy enforcement a test of platform control as much as near-term revenue.
First-order effects
Developers seeking to direct iOS customers to web checkout face uncertainty over whether Apple will seek a commission on those sales, complicating the economics of alternative payments.
Apple’s position preserves its claim to compensation for access to iOS users, but makes its payment rules a more immediate focus of developer and regulatory challenge.
Second-order effects
Regulators assessing platform-payment remedies will scrutinize not just whether outside payments are allowed, but whether Apple’s fees and terms make them commercially viable—a concern raised by the criticized Netherlands IAP proposal.
Developers and payment providers have stronger incentives to compare the cost and control of web transactions against App Store billing, while rival platforms can present less restrictive terms as differentiation.
Third-order effects
If commission claims follow transactions beyond Apple’s own checkout, the policy debate shifts from payment choice to the boundaries of gatekeeper compensation for platform access.
The durable question is whether regulation can produce meaningful channel competition when a platform retains the ability to price access; outcomes will depend on how compliance standards treat fees as well as technical permissions.
The trend: This is one data point in the regulated-platform-take-rate trend, where payment choice is increasingly contested alongside the fees attached to platform access.
A quick summary of glaring problems we've found so far: 1) Apple has introduced an anticompetitive new 27% tax on web purchases...2) Apple dictates all aspects of these links and doesn't allow them in the app's ordinary payment flow... 3) Apple requires developers to open a gener…
2/2 Obviously, this measure does not enable greater competition nor fairness. So #Apple let be serious, let save us some time and work on something credible to comply with the #DMA @vestager @jnbarrot @RenewEurope @ThierryBreton @Ensemble_UE @appfairness
1/2 Very bad news from the US - Apple allows developers to sell their services outside the AppStore ...BUT still imposes a 27% fee on these transactions! This #AppleTax of 30% or 27% is both unfair and uncompetitive. https://www.wsj.com/...
The latest Apple nonsense highlights a basic principle: developers must be free to develop the best software they can. No platform maker should have the power to force them to develop intentionally bad software to protect the platform maker's unjust profit stream.
What I'm seeing from my perspective is younger iOS developers from around the world understand the Apple <> consumer <> developer relationship. They see and compare how much other backend companies are charging to get their services in front of customers. They also don't incorr…
People often ask us “why don't you just sue Apple then??”. Well, this is why. Apple now wants Epic to pay them $73m to cover their legal fees. You have to be a billion-dollar company not to be totally ruined, if you sue and only win in part. Just nuts. https://appleinsider.com/..…
This guy seems to pop up in my “For You” once a year saying the same things. What I find interesting about these folks is how they refuse to acknowledge that there are iOS developers who don't think like them. Also, consumers choosing iOS / Apple is always reframed by these peo…
No feelings here folks, just the invisible hand of the chipotle. Epic went to court because they had a duty to shareholders to try to maximize their profit. Apple requesting reimbursement is their equivalent duty to shareholders. Another day in America https://x.com/...
Apple has asserted this right with respect to its own software. Apple should respect it as a basic developer right. The current trend has iOS becoming an increasingly awful psychological experiment on users, unchecked by competition as Google does the same with Android.