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

by ratg13 • 2 years ago

17 52 2 years ago

kj995• 2 years ago

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.

mirsadm• 2 years ago

How's that reasonable? If it were possible they could have hosted the app on their own web site for next to nothing.

kj995• 2 years ago

If you think that Apple's platform brings no value then sure.

8organicbits• 2 years ago

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.

nightski• 2 years ago

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.

liotier2• 2 years ago

It is a two-sided market and Apple naturally wants a bite on both ends.

Panini_Jones• 2 years ago

You're right, it's a value add for Apple. If there were no non-Apple apps, I would not buy an iPhone.

kj995• 2 years ago

The iPhone sold at a huge profit margin before there even was a store so this is obviously false.

the_gipsy• 2 years ago

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.

dchftcs• 2 years ago

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.

Erratic65762• 2 years ago

So you can either pay the Gatekeeper money or you can pay the Gatekeeper money

xtracto• 2 years ago

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).

Erratic65762• 2 years ago

The alternative isn’t amazing either

TrianguloY• 2 years ago

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.

willsmith722• 2 years ago

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.

jauntywundrkind• 2 years ago

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.

consumer451• 2 years ago

Is this one of the intentional roadblocks to prevent that?

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/64448312/use-the-web-sha...

willsmith722• 2 years ago

One among many, they pushed back for years even allowing installs on iphones

curt152• 2 years ago

Then we'll finally realize Steve Job's original vision for third party applications on iPhones.

jc_dc5• 2 years ago

Agree 100%

Last two products we have built were PWA’s and platform risk is the biggest reason for that.

curt152• 2 years ago

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.

liotier2• 2 years ago

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.

qeternity5• 2 years ago

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.

ephemeral-life2• 2 years ago

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

dmitrygr3• 2 years ago

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.

tictacttoe• 2 years ago

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.

dmitrygr3• 2 years ago

So your suggestion is to make it uneconomical to be a competitor in this market? sure, that'll help

jc_dc5• 2 years ago

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?

rahkiin• 2 years ago

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

loeg2• 2 years ago

And also Meta has zero motivation to move to an alternative marketplace. They don't sell the app or use micropayments.

ImJamal• 2 years ago

They do have a motivation since Apple requires apps to list data collection/privacy related things.

walteweiss• 2 years ago

What a shitty clickbate title.

karaterobot• 2 years ago

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.

theshrike79• 2 years ago

Oh no, how will Meta ever survive.

Their revenue last year was way over 100 BILLION. Paying 70M a year is a rounding error.

Meta would owe Apple 70M per year just for having Facebook on iOS

Related Stories