Apple’s Response to Dutch Dating Apps

I’ve been beating the “this won’t end how you think it will” drum for a while.

Apple just fired it’s opening salvo:

Developer dot Apple dot com

storekit-external-entitlement/

TL:DR

You owe us 27% of your revenue flowing through the external payment link for App Store related purchases.

You now have to track it all at your expense.

We have the right to audit you and still kick you out of the Developer Program if you don’t comply.

And I expect this is just the first that we see if this and it will get broader over time.

What do you want to bet they will start looking at any revenue earned as a result of displaying content in an iOS app?

Facebook…we see that you’ve been selling and displaying ads to our customers for … how long now? 27% of that looks *really* good to your finance department.

I’ll draw your attention to this:

Commission and sales reporting

Consistent with the ACM’s order, dating apps that are granted an entitlement to link out or use a third-party in-app payment provider will pay Apple a commission on transactions. Apple will charge a 27% commission on the price paid by the user, net of value-added taxes. This is a reduced rate that excludes value related to payment processing and related activities. Developers will be responsible for the collection and remittance of any applicable taxes, such as the Netherlands’ value-added tax (VAT), for sales processed by a third-party payment provider.

Developers using these entitlements will be required to provide a report to Apple recording each sale of digital goods and content that has been facilitated through the App Store. This report will need to be provided monthly within 15 calendar days following the end of Apple’s fiscal month. To learn about the details that will need to be included in the report, view an example report. Qualifying developers will receive an invoice based on the reporting and will be required to remit payment to Apple for the amount invoiced within 45 days following the end of Apple’s fiscal month. In the future, if Apple develops technical solutions to facilitate reporting, developers will be required to adopt such technologies.

Please note that Apple has audit rights pursuant to the entitlement’s terms and conditions. This will allow Apple to review the accuracy of a developer’s record of digital transactions as a result of the entitlement, ensuring the appropriate commission has been paid to Apple. Failure to pay Apple’s commission could result in the offset of proceeds owed to you in other markets, removal of your app from the App Storeor removal from the Apple Developer program.

 

 

 

 

 

Conversation 11 comments

  • Dan

    05 February, 2022 - 10:42 am

    <p>They are a publicly traded company whose goal is profit. Success is determined by $ and they answer to shareholders.</p>

    • navarac

      05 February, 2022 - 1:16 pm

      <p>They (Apple Inc) also act the same as other thieves.</p>

    • anoldamigauser

      Premium Member
      05 February, 2022 - 3:05 pm

      <p>They are going to be answering to regulatory authorities again for this. Clearly, this is a hostile move that violates the intent of the original ruling against them. Apple is losing sight of who its opponent is in this fight. If one is going to put a shot across the bow, it is advisable not to pick on a battleship; and when a corporation wants to dick around with a nation that is what they are doing.</p><p>They could avoid all this trouble by simply changing their charges for in-app transactions to something in the single digit range, and allowing the app developers to communicate with customers through the app. It is still pure profit.</p>

      • wright_is

        Premium Member
        05 February, 2022 - 3:50 pm

        <p>While I don’t agree with what Apple is doing, the original decision, I believe, had more to do with privacy than the App Store vig.</p>

      • curtisspendlove

        07 February, 2022 - 2:56 pm

        <p><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">They are going to be answering to regulatory authorities again for this.&nbsp;</em></p><p><br></p><p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Yeah. This is essentially a big middle finger in response to the law. </span></p><p><br></p><p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">But I really don’t see how Apple (and the other companies win this). If they push back too far and end up being punitive to the Dutch authorities here; I can see them awaking the EU leviathan who will undoubtedly support their members. </span></p><p><br></p><p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">And I also don’t see how wont eventually spill into other similar markets like consoles.</span></p><p><br></p><p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I foresee several “breakpoints” where I think Apple will dig in and alter strategies. </span></p><p><br></p><p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I expect one of those is to at some point concede on “non game” transactions. They could lower most of those to a fraction of the 30% and then say “well, similar to other markets we charge 30% for games”. </span></p><p><br></p><p>I might be wrong, but I believe one of the discoveries was that they make a large portion of their money on game transactions. </p><p><br></p><p>And they got some pretty solid distinctions laid out as a result of the Epic hearing. </p>

  • Daishi

    Premium Member
    05 February, 2022 - 4:52 pm

    <p>Isn’t it great that our only choices for mobile platforms come from a data hoovering, privacy ignoring advertising company and a bunch of straight up mafiosos demanding protection money from developers.</p>

    • lvthunder

      Premium Member
      06 February, 2022 - 7:12 pm

      <p>It’s not protection money. It’s money to keep the app store and associated services running. The App Store is not a charity. The other option is to charge the developer for every download (or update) of their app.</p>

      • Daishi

        Premium Member
        07 February, 2022 - 12:45 am

        <p>Right, because “give us 27% of the money you made from transactions we had no part in or we’ll take your whole business away” is totally different to “its a lovely store you’ve got here. It would be a shame if something happened to it”.</p>

  • lvthunder

    Premium Member
    06 February, 2022 - 7:13 pm

    <p>This is what happens when the government (or any other authority figure) forces someone to do something they don’t want to do.</p>

    • curtisspendlove

      07 February, 2022 - 3:04 pm

      <p>I agree that it is Apple’s right to respond as they wish. And I believe they will be as abrasive as possible in response to being forced to do this. </p><p><br></p><p>But I also find it interesting (for instance, if you take a look at the sample transaction files Apple provides in this document) that the values in their columns owed are *very* similar to the VAT columns owed to the government taxes. </p><p><br></p><p>I can also foresee Apple responding with “well we have costs associated with the running of the App Store and supporting developers and customers of our platform…what, exactly do you, XYZ government supply in this equation?” </p><p><br></p><p>Obviously, at the moment, Apple doesn’t want to open these doors as I doubt they can prove it costs anywhere near what they charge to run and deliver their content networks. </p><p><br></p><p>But as they systematically lose ground; just keep in mind they have a history of being very vindictive. </p>

  • dftf

    07 February, 2022 - 3:40 pm

    <p>You can guarantee many <em>Apple </em>fans will still defend this though, somehow. Some vague argument about how this extra money will go towards extra staff-hours in checking the new code in the apps to facilitate such third-party payments or something I’d guess, or the old "because <em>Apple </em>invented the <em>iPhone, iPad</em> and accompanying <em>Store</em>, it’s only right they continue to receive a 30% cut until the end-of-time".</p><p><br></p><p>Yet when <em>Microsoft</em> added the "buy now, pay later" feature into <em>Edge </em>(which I agree is unnecessary) there was near-universal condemnation across the web. (Likewise you could mention <em>Amazon</em> who typically charge sellers a cut that is a lot-less than 30%, but clearly has increased costs on their-party for items they fulfil from their own warehouses).</p><p><br></p><p>I guess the moral is: make attractive-looking, shiny kit and everyone will just look-the-other-way?</p>

Windows Intelligence In Your Inbox

Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Thurrott © 2024 Thurrott LLC