As Apple tries to stay ahead of the oncoming regulatory wave, the compnay has refined its App Store rules, now allowing app developers to communicate with customers outside of the App Store (primarily through email) to inform them how they can make purchases outside of Apple’s in-app payment system. The 30% in-app take rate for large developers and 15% take rate for smaller developers remains unchanged.
Gene Munster and David Stokman for Loup Ventures:
The 30% in-app take rate for large developers and 15% take rate for smaller developers remains unchanged. Our bottom line is that from a consumer perspective, the value proposition of the App Store remains compelling, given the App Store makes it easier for users to manage multiple subscriptions, gives them frictionless payments, along with lowering the risk of malware and providing greater payment security. In the end, we believe it will have at most a fractional impact to App Store revenue.
This policy change will likely benefit smaller app developers given they are less likely to have a way to contact their users. Larger developers, like Netflix and Spotify, have already stepped away from Apple, prohibiting new users to sign up inside the App Store. Larger publishers have a strong enough brand to require new users to jump through the extra payment hurdle.
It’s important to note the change does not mean developers can advertise within their apps about alternative payment options. This is a moderation, not an elimination, of the anti-steering clause.
We’ve written previously that a likely outcome of Apple’s App Store regulatory battles is the removal of the anti-steering clause. Today’s announcement is a step toward that end. We see Apple’s adjustment as a win-win-win for all three parties involved: Apple, app makers, and lawmakers. That said, there’s more legal fights ahead.
MacDailyNews Note: So, Munster and Stokman have nicely and laid out how this will work:
• While using an app, the developer asks the user permission for Apple to share the user’s email with the developer. The developer must have an option for users to opt-out at a later date.
• Once a developer has the contact information, they can email the user and likely promote lower fees if they transact directly with the developer.
• The user would set up an account within the app, then login to the same account through a browser and make purchases to the account through the browser.
• When the user returns to the app, they can use their purchases.
The developers are being absolutely ridiculous. Not only can I not have shelf space in Walmart without offering Walmart a discounted wholesale price much lower than 30% of the sale price, but also I would not be able to choose how to get customers to pay for the item. Additionally, Walmart would not allow me to advertise my product on their shelf space while directing people to my website or Target to purchase the item at a lower cost.
I fail to understand why these simple facts escape people.
Maybe what Apple/Google/etc. should have had in mind for in-app purchases was the ‘magazine’ model. When you buy a magazine, it is not usually limited to a single outlet brand and in most magazines is a subscription card which a person can use and from which the outlet takes no subscription cost cut. That could be in a sense considered ‘in-app’ advertising that even Walmart or Target currently allows. Sometimes there are even free publications that have subscription cards if you want it delivered to your home instead of you having to go to the distribution point (store) yourself.
In App and free is killing the overall user experience, and at the same time killing small/mid level developers.
I don’t dispute that. Maybe the best solution is for Apple/Google to only have paid apps and allow for 3rd party App stores to service the free App community. As long as Apple refuses 3rd party App stores, the problem will remain.
You’re an idiot. Walmart can impose their terms in their store. They can’t prevent Tide Laundry detergent from being sold anywhere else.
That is the most nonsensical reply I’ve ever heard. Apple is not preventing apps from being sold anywhere else nor are they preventing anyone from accessing content bought elsewhere (i.e., Netflix and Kindle). Yet Walmart gets a cut if every cell phone subscription sold in their stores while everyone gets apoplectic when Apple adopts the same business practices.
The only difference I see is Apple not freely handing over consumer information to app subscribers. They made a bet on privacy. Consumers like it; sellers do not. That is the price of gaining access to a market that actually spends more money on apps than other mobile platforms.
It’s unfortunate then that you can’t test your assertion of Consumers ‘liking it’ by allowing the market to choose the App Store vs a 3rd party iOS App store simply because Apple doesn’t allow those types of stores to exist.
It will soon be all over, stunningly ignorant and stupid developers and bureaucrats will get their way, Apple will eventually get tired of losing money hand over fist and the App Store will close.
Shortly thereafter every device on the planet will die from Malware unless they never install anything.. Developers will whine because no one can buy their apps from a single easy place to buy.
Choc is right, dumb people with visions of getting more will soon have nothing by killing the golden goose.
Unless Apple allows sideloading or 3rd party App stores before closing their App Store, there will be no way to install Apps so your malware situation would be extremely unlikely for the average iOS user who will probably limit themselves to what was already installed. If the former is allowed then it is possible for malware but then your situation of developers whining about a single place to buy would be moot since it would be highly likely that a 3rd party would fill the void left by Apple.
“the compnay”
GET AN EDITOR.