Power

Apple defends its App Store tax ahead of antitrust hearings

Apple says its 30% App Store commission is industry standard — but Apple's the one that set that standard.

App Store icon

Apple's been criticized for charging app developers a high commission.

Image: Apple

Apple's App Store commission policies are completely fair, and valid, and no worse than anyone else's on the market. At least, that's what Apple thinks.

The company commissioned a study of digital marketplaces and found that its 30% tax is perfectly in line with the rest of the industry. The study, run by Analysis Group, looked at 38 marketplaces — for apps, video games, books and even hotel rooms and plane tickets — and found that commission rates vary widely. Much of the data is unsurprising: Ticket resellers have the largest fees, and retail like Amazon and Etsy tend to have the lowest. The study also found that "sellers generally earn a substantially lower share of total revenue from the distribution through brick-and-mortar stores and marketplaces than through digital marketplaces such as the Apple App Store."

The more interesting comparison is between Apple's App Store and others: the Google Play Store, the Samsung Galaxy Store, the Microsoft Store and the Amazon Appstore. In that case, there's remarkable consistency across the industry: All five charge a default of 30% commission on sales, with some small variance for one-off deals or subscriptions. For video games sellers like Xbox, PlayStation and Steam, the number is also 30%.

The standard's not a global one: Policies in China, for instance, tend to be very different. Tencent's Android app store charges a 55% commission for games, and the new Huawei AppGallery varies from 20% to 50% depending on the app type. But in the U.S., 30% is the magic number.

That number has become a hot topic in the tech world. Rep. David Cicilline recently called it "highway robbery, basically," and said that Apple is "bullying people to pay 30% or denying access to their market." These commissions are at the center of some of the antitrust debates currently facing Google and Apple. With a landmark hearing of tech CEOs — including Tim Cook — less than a week away, Apple may have wanted to get ahead of that line of questions. By commissioning the study, Apple's goal seemed to be to prove, to Cicilline and others, that at the very least it's not the only robber on the highway.

There's a reason 30% became the norm, though. And that reason is Apple. When Steve Jobs introduced the App Store in 2008, he ran through the revenue-split numbers. "When we sell the app through the App Store," he said, "the developer gets 70% of the revenues, right off the top. We keep 30% to pay for running the App Store." Jobs framed this as an extremely good deal, in fact "the best deal going to distribute applications to mobile platforms."

Actually, the 70/30 split actually goes back further than the App Store, to the iTunes Music Store. Apple split every 99-cent song download along the same lines. And just as with the App Store, the music industry complained for years that the terms were problematic, but that iTunes was so popular they couldn't afford to not play Apple's game. But when Apple applied it to apps, it took over the industry.

While Apple set the industry standard, it didn't necessarily invent the 30% app commission. The study's authors said they couldn't identify who used the number first, but that older stores from Nokia, BlackBerry and others charged commissions at least as high. Apple certainly popularized the terms, though.

Before the App Store, the mobile-software world was a mess of standards and prices, often negotiated individually or sold at brick-and-mortar-like markups. One early attempt to do better, though, was Qualcomm's BREW system. "The revenue split between all the companies is set up in advance," Dave Mock wrote in his book "The Qualcomm Equation," "but Qualcomm stipulates that the developer keeps the majority of the revenue from each download — usually 80% – while the carrier and Qualcomm split the rest."

Apple's one-size-fits-all approach simplified everything. In exchange for 30% of sales revenue, Jobs said in 2008, Apple would provide a number of services. "There are no credit card fees for the developer, we take care of all that. There are no hosting fees for us hosting the app, we take care of all that. There's no marketing fees." Later that year, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, he elaborated. "It costs money to run it. Those free apps cost money to store and to deliver wirelessly. The paid apps cost money, too. They have to pay for some of the free apps. We don't expect this to be a big profit generator. We expect it to add value to the iPhone. We'll sell more iPhones because of it."

Apple's justification for the commission has changed slightly since then. It now frames the App Store commission in part as an incentive for Apple to keep innovating. The Analysis Group economists said that Apple also provides developer tools and SDKs, but also things like custom chips, cameras and security features. Developers, in other words, are now helping pay for iPhone development.

As iPhone sales growth slows, apps are an increasingly important profit generator for the company. Apple proudly announced in June that the App Store ecosystem facilitated $519 billion in commerce in 2019, and it reported $13.3 billion in Services revenue in the most recent quarter, much of which comes from those App Store commissions. Instead of adding value to the iPhone, that 30% tax has become a big part of Apple's second-largest revenue stream. And developers say that as a result, Apple is tightening the screws to get more money out of them.

But as Apple has expanded into its own services, the terms have changed. Spotify's disagreement with Apple, for instance, is not that it charges a 30% tax but rather that it doesn't also charge Apple Music the same. The antitrust fight is only in part about the highway robbery charge — it's about who's getting robbed, and who gets let go.

A 'Soho house for techies': VCs place a bet on community

Contrary is the latest venture firm to experiment with building community spaces instead of offices.

Contrary NYC is meant to re-create being part of a members-only club where engineers and entrepreneurs can hang out together, have a space to work, and host events for people in tech.

Photo: Courtesy of Contrary

In the pre-pandemic times, Contrary’s network of venture scouts, founders, and top technologists reflected the magnetic pull Silicon Valley had on the tech industry. About 80% were based in the Bay Area, with a smattering living elsewhere. Today, when Contrary asked where people in its network were living, the split had changed with 40% in the Bay Area and another 40% living in or planning to move to New York.

It’s totally bifurcated now, said Contrary’s founder Eric Tarczynski.

Keep Reading Show less
Biz Carson

Biz Carson ( @bizcarson) is a San Francisco-based reporter at Protocol, covering Silicon Valley with a focus on startups and venture capital. Previously, she reported for Forbes and was co-editor of Forbes Next Billion-Dollar Startups list. Before that, she worked for Business Insider, Gigaom, and Wired and started her career as a newspaper designer for Gannett.

Sponsored Content

Great products are built on strong patents

Experts say robust intellectual property protection is essential to ensure the long-term R&D required to innovate and maintain America's technology leadership.

Every great tech product that you rely on each day, from the smartphone in your pocket to your music streaming service and navigational system in the car, shares one important thing: part of its innovative design is protected by intellectual property (IP) laws.

From 5G to artificial intelligence, IP protection offers a powerful incentive for researchers to create ground-breaking products, and governmental leaders say its protection is an essential part of maintaining US technology leadership. To quote Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo: "intellectual property protection is vital for American innovation and entrepreneurship.”

Keep Reading Show less
James Daly
James Daly has a deep knowledge of creating brand voice identity, including understanding various audiences and targeting messaging accordingly. He enjoys commissioning, editing, writing, and business development, particularly in launching new ventures and building passionate audiences. Daly has led teams large and small to multiple awards and quantifiable success through a strategy built on teamwork, passion, fact-checking, intelligence, analytics, and audience growth while meeting budget goals and production deadlines in fast-paced environments. Daly is the Editorial Director of 2030 Media and a contributor at Wired.
Fintech

Binance CEO wrestles with the 'Chinese company' label

Changpeng "CZ" Zhao, who leads crypto’s largest marketplace, is pushing back on attempts to link Binance to Beijing.

Despite Binance having to abandon its country of origin shortly after its founding, critics have portrayed the exchange as a tool of the Chinese government.

Photo: Akio Kon/Bloomberg via Getty Images

In crypto, he is known simply as CZ, head of one of the industry’s most dominant players.

It took only five years for Binance CEO and co-founder Changpeng Zhao to build his company, which launched in 2017, into the world’s biggest crypto exchange, with 90 million customers and roughly $76 billion in daily trading volume, outpacing the U.S. crypto powerhouse Coinbase.

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers crypto and fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Google Voice at (925) 307-9342.

Enterprise

How I decided to leave the US and pursue a tech career in Europe

Melissa Di Donato moved to Europe to broaden her technology experience with a different market perspective. She planned to stay two years. Seventeen years later, she remains in London as CEO of Suse.

“It was a hard go for me in the beginning. I was entering inside of a company that had been very traditional in a sense.”

Photo: Suse

Click banner image for more How I decided seriesA native New Yorker, Melissa Di Donato made a life-changing decision back in 2005 when she packed up for Europe to further her career in technology. Then with IBM, she made London her new home base.

Today, Di Donato is CEO of Germany’s Suse, now a 30-year-old, open-source enterprise software company that specializes in Linux operating systems, container management, storage, and edge computing. As the company’s first female leader, she has led Suse through the coronavirus pandemic, a 2021 IPO on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange, and the acquisitions of Kubernetes management startup Rancher Labs and container security company NeuVector.

Keep Reading Show less
Donna Goodison

Donna Goodison (@dgoodison) is Protocol's senior reporter focusing on enterprise infrastructure technology, from the 'Big 3' cloud computing providers to data centers. She previously covered the public cloud at CRN after 15 years as a business reporter for the Boston Herald. Based in Massachusetts, she also has worked as a Boston Globe freelancer, business reporter at the Boston Business Journal and real estate reporter at Banker & Tradesman after toiling at weekly newspapers.

Enterprise

UiPath had a rocky few years. Rob Enslin wants to turn it around.

Protocol caught up with Enslin, named earlier this year as UiPath’s co-CEO, to discuss why he left Google Cloud, the untapped potential of robotic-process automation, and how he plans to lead alongside founder Daniel Dines.

Rob Enslin, UiPath's co-CEO, chats with Protocol about the company's future.

Photo: UiPath

UiPath has had a shaky history.

The company, which helps companies automate business processes, went public in 2021 at a valuation of more than $30 billion, but now the company’s market capitalization is only around $7 billion. To add insult to injury, UiPath laid off 5% of its staff in June and then lowered its full-year guidance for fiscal year 2023 just months later, tanking its stock by 15%.

Keep Reading Show less
Aisha Counts

Aisha Counts (@aishacounts) is a reporter at Protocol covering enterprise software. Formerly, she was a management consultant for EY. She's based in Los Angeles and can be reached at acounts@protocol.com.

Latest Stories
Bulletins