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.

Fintech

Judge Zia Faruqui is trying to teach you crypto, one ‘SNL’ reference at a time

His decisions on major cryptocurrency cases have quoted "The Big Lebowski," "SNL," and "Dr. Strangelove." That’s because he wants you — yes, you — to read them.

The ways Zia Faruqui (right) has weighed on cases that have come before him can give lawyers clues as to what legal frameworks will pass muster.

Photo: Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post via Getty Images

“Cryptocurrency and related software analytics tools are ‘The wave of the future, Dude. One hundred percent electronic.’”

That’s not a quote from "The Big Lebowski" — at least, not directly. It’s a quote from a Washington, D.C., district court memorandum opinion on the role cryptocurrency analytics tools can play in government investigations. The author is Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui.

Keep Reading Show less
Veronica Irwin

Veronica Irwin (@vronirwin) is a San Francisco-based reporter at Protocol covering fintech. Previously she was at the San Francisco Examiner, covering tech from a hyper-local angle. Before that, her byline was featured in SF Weekly, The Nation, Techworker, Ms. Magazine and The Frisc.

The financial technology transformation is driving competition, creating consumer choice, and shaping the future of finance. Hear from seven fintech leaders who are reshaping the future of finance, and join the inaugural Financial Technology Association Fintech Summit to learn more.

Keep Reading Show less
FTA
The Financial Technology Association (FTA) represents industry leaders shaping the future of finance. We champion the power of technology-centered financial services and advocate for the modernization of financial regulation to support inclusion and responsible innovation.
Enterprise

AWS CEO: The cloud isn’t just about technology

As AWS preps for its annual re:Invent conference, Adam Selipsky talks product strategy, support for hybrid environments, and the value of the cloud in uncertain economic times.

Photo: Noah Berger/Getty Images for Amazon Web Services

AWS is gearing up for re:Invent, its annual cloud computing conference where announcements this year are expected to focus on its end-to-end data strategy and delivering new industry-specific services.

It will be the second re:Invent with CEO Adam Selipsky as leader of the industry’s largest cloud provider after his return last year to AWS from data visualization company Tableau Software.

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.

Image: Protocol

We launched Protocol in February 2020 to cover the evolving power center of tech. It is with deep sadness that just under three years later, we are winding down the publication.

As of today, we will not publish any more stories. All of our newsletters, apart from our flagship, Source Code, will no longer be sent. Source Code will be published and sent for the next few weeks, but it will also close down in December.

Keep Reading Show less
Bennett Richardson

Bennett Richardson ( @bennettrich) is the president of Protocol. Prior to joining Protocol in 2019, Bennett was executive director of global strategic partnerships at POLITICO, where he led strategic growth efforts including POLITICO's European expansion in Brussels and POLITICO's creative agency POLITICO Focus during his six years with the company. Prior to POLITICO, Bennett was co-founder and CMO of Hinge, the mobile dating company recently acquired by Match Group. Bennett began his career in digital and social brand marketing working with major brands across tech, energy, and health care at leading marketing and communications agencies including Edelman and GMMB. Bennett is originally from Portland, Maine, and received his bachelor's degree from Colgate University.

Enterprise

Why large enterprises struggle to find suitable platforms for MLops

As companies expand their use of AI beyond running just a few machine learning models, and as larger enterprises go from deploying hundreds of models to thousands and even millions of models, ML practitioners say that they have yet to find what they need from prepackaged MLops systems.

As companies expand their use of AI beyond running just a few machine learning models, ML practitioners say that they have yet to find what they need from prepackaged MLops systems.

Photo: artpartner-images via Getty Images

On any given day, Lily AI runs hundreds of machine learning models using computer vision and natural language processing that are customized for its retail and ecommerce clients to make website product recommendations, forecast demand, and plan merchandising. But this spring when the company was in the market for a machine learning operations platform to manage its expanding model roster, it wasn’t easy to find a suitable off-the-shelf system that could handle such a large number of models in deployment while also meeting other criteria.

Some MLops platforms are not well-suited for maintaining even more than 10 machine learning models when it comes to keeping track of data, navigating their user interfaces, or reporting capabilities, Matthew Nokleby, machine learning manager for Lily AI’s product intelligence team, told Protocol earlier this year. “The duct tape starts to show,” he said.

Keep Reading Show less
Kate Kaye

Kate Kaye is an award-winning multimedia reporter digging deep and telling print, digital and audio stories. She covers AI and data for Protocol. Her reporting on AI and tech ethics issues has been published in OneZero, Fast Company, MIT Technology Review, CityLab, Ad Age and Digiday and heard on NPR. Kate is the creator of RedTailMedia.org and is the author of "Campaign '08: A Turning Point for Digital Media," a book about how the 2008 presidential campaigns used digital media and data.

Latest Stories
Bulletins