source-codesource codeauthorDavid PierceNoneWant your finger on the pulse of everything that's happening in tech? Sign up to get David Pierce's daily newsletter.64fd3cbe9f
×

Get access to Protocol

I’ve already subscribed

Will be used in accordance with our Privacy Policy

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.

People

Expensify CEO David Barrett: ‘Most CEOs are not bad people, they're just cowards’

"Remember that one time when we almost had civil war? What did you do about it?"

Expensify CEO David Barrett has thoughts on what it means for tech CEOs to claim they act apolitically.

Photo: Expensify

The Trump presidency ends tomorrow. It's a political change in which Expensify founder and CEO David Barrett played a brief, but explosive role.

Barrett became famous last fall — or infamous, depending on whom you ask — for sending an email to the fintech startup's clients, urging them to reject Trump and support President-elect Joe Biden.

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers 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 Signal at (510)731-8429.

Politics

'Woke tech' and 'the new slave power': Conservatives gather for Vegas summit

An agenda for the event, hosted by the Claremont Institute, listed speakers including U.S. CTO Michael Kratsios and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

The so-called "Digital Statecraft Summit" was organized by the Claremont Institute. The speakers include U.S. CTO Michael Kratsios and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, as well as a who's-who of far-right provocateurs.

Photo: David Vives/Unsplash

Conservative investors, political operatives, right-wing writers and Trump administration officials are quietly meeting in Las Vegas this weekend to discuss topics including China, "woke tech" and "the new slave power," according to four people who were invited to attend or speak at the event as well as a copy of the agenda obtained by Protocol.

The so-called "Digital Statecraft Summit" was organized by the Claremont Institute, a conservative think tank that says its mission is to "restore the principles of the American Founding to their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life." A list of speakers for the event includes a combination of past and current government officials as well as a who's who of far-right provocateurs. One speaker, conservative legal scholar John Eastman, rallied the president's supporters at a White House event before the Capitol Hill riot earlier this month. Some others have been associated with racist ideologies.

Keep Reading Show less
Emily Birnbaum

Emily Birnbaum ( @birnbaum_e) is a tech policy reporter with Protocol. Her coverage focuses on the U.S. government's attempts to regulate one of the most powerful industries in the world, with a focus on antitrust, privacy and politics. Previously, she worked as a tech policy reporter with The Hill after spending several months as a breaking news reporter. She is a Bethesda, Maryland native and proud Kenyon College alumna.

Why Biden needs a National Technology Council

The U.S. government needs a more tightly coordinated approach to technology, argues Jonathan Spalter.

A coordinated effort to approach tech could help the White House navigate the future more easily.

Photo: Gage Skidmore/Flickr

The White House has a National Security Council and a National Economic Council. President-elect Joe Biden should move quickly to establish a National Technology Council.

Consumers are looking to the government to set a coherent and consistent 21st century digital policy that works for them. Millions of Americans still await public investments that will help connect their remote communities to broadband, while millions more — including many families with school-age children — still struggle to afford access.

Keep Reading Show less
Jonathan Spalter
Jonathan Spalter is the president and CEO of USTelecom – The Broadband Association.
Election 2020

Google says it’s fighting election lies, but its ads fund them

A new report finds that more than 1,600 brands, from Disney to Procter & Gamble, have advertisements running on sites that push pro-Trump conspiracy theories. The majority of those ads are served by Google.

Google is the most dominant player in programmatic advertising, but it has a spotty record enforcing rules for publishers.

Photo: Alex Tai/Getty Images

Shortly after November's presidential election, a story appeared on the website of far-right personality Charlie Kirk, claiming that 10,000 dead people had returned mail-in ballots in Michigan. But after publishing, a correction appeared at the top of the story, completely debunking the misleading headline, which remains, months later, unchanged.

"We are not aware of a single confirmed case showing that a ballot was actually cast on behalf of a deceased individual," the correction, which quoted Michigan election officials, read.

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky
Issie Lapowsky (@issielapowsky) is a senior reporter at Protocol, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University’s Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing. Email Issie.

Big Tech is cutting off political contributions. Here are the biggest losers.

Election objectors like McCarthy, Nunes, Jordan and Stefanik all took tech PAC money last year. But they're not the only ones losing out.

Some of tech's biggest critics in Congress have taken money from tech PACs. Now, they're getting cut off.

Photo: Darren Halstead/Unsplash

One day after Twitter banned President Trump and Google and Apple kicked the far-right social network Parler out of their app stores, New York Rep. Elise Stefanik dashed off a tweet: "If you think the American people will quietly accept #BigTechTyranny, You. Are. Wrong."

One detail Stefanik left out: She took $30,000 from corporate PACs linked to Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Intel in the last year alone, according to campaign finance records. During her tenure in Congress, she's raised nearly twice that much from those companies. And now, she's getting cut off.

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky
Issie Lapowsky (@issielapowsky) is a senior reporter at Protocol, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University’s Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing. Email Issie.
Latest Stories