Gaming apps. A huge majority of Apple's revenue (from IAP) came from gaming purchases. This would continue to be the case. A gaming app would have ads + options for purchases (none can survive without it) and Apple now earns both on downloads and IAPs. Many games cross the 1M threshold once they are popular enough. Gaming apps have low retention, and a power curve in paying users.
Only if the app makes a series of decisions that lead to that outcome.
They can either stick with the 15%/30% commission without install fees. Let’s assume it has a revenue of >$1m, so that would be 30%.
Or they can opt into the new EU offering.
Then they’re immediately subject to a €0.50/unique install in 12 months per install in the EU over they reach a 1M installs in the EU.
The baseline is just that, that install fee. Which Apple calls the Core Technology Fee (CTF), in other words a fee for using Apple’s IP in your app.
If they also choose to distribute via the App Store then they’ll pay a commission of 17% and if they also choose to use IAP then they pay an additional 3% in processing fees.
Ironically, the CTF pushes bigger devs to use alternative stores, assuming they will offer a lower commission rate than 17%.
But it’s definitely possible to only pay the CTF if so desired.
It makes sense for apps which have a high ARPU. In gaming and related sectors, the number is notoriously low, even for large developers. The flow is new user installs app -> fraction keeps the app -> even smaller fraction pays. Typically even for a 10% paying users for an app like fortnite. Apple earns more with new terms compared to older terms.
I agree devs dont have to go for new terms and could stay with existing terms. The whole convoluted way of introducing this is meant to have that effect.
> Only if the app makes a series of decisions that lead to that outcome.
Isn't that convenient, a series of (dis)incentives which ensure the house always wins, not just on average, but 100% of the time. Something that a certain piece of anti-trust regulation is intended to change?
As someone trying to contribute to an open source iOS app, an app store that doesn't require me to pay money to use the NFC entitlement, muck about changing bundle IDs to be able to build an open source app and run it on my own device, or build an app that I can use for longer than 7 days without publishing to an app store, I take issue with your framing of other app stores. The original app store is already shitty, this legislation will make it not worse, but it will not be the solution to my personal woes with the shitty app store.
Apple has successfully delayed an equivalent to F-Droid for iOS users for another year.
Plenty of useful apps like the Orca card reader (see your transit card balance by just tapping your card, no internet required), fun games like Antimine, and such where the devs will only target barrier free platforms as it's a passion project are missing in action on iOS.
Not with the Core Technology Fee, nor with the Apple app review process standing in the way. These are severe restrictions that prevent something like FDroid from being operated on iOS.
Gaming apps. A huge majority of Apple's revenue (from IAP) came from gaming purchases. This would continue to be the case. A gaming app would have ads + options for purchases (none can survive without it) and Apple now earns both on downloads and IAPs. Many games cross the 1M threshold once they are popular enough. Gaming apps have low retention, and a power curve in paying users.