Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Apple’s new policy to charge iOS developers a 27% commission on digital purchases made via external web links from apps, even when using third‑party payment processors, is provoking intense debate over platform power and “gatekeeper” fees. Commenters argue over whether this is a legitimate way for Apple to collect payment for its intellectual property and user base, or a bad‑faith attempt to circumvent court rulings and preserve an effective monopoly on iOS app distribution. The exchange widens into questions about sideloading, alternative app stores, the legitimacy of 30% platform cuts across the industry, and how much control owners should have over software on their devices.

Policy change & mechanics

  • Apple now allows US iOS apps to include a single link to an external payment webpage via a special entitlement.
  • Conditions:
    • Developer must apply for entitlement.
    • Apple charges a 27% commission on digital purchases made after users tap that link, for up to 7 days.
    • Developers must submit monthly sales reports and accept Apple’s right to audit.
    • Apps must still offer Apple’s in‑app purchase (IAP) for the same digital goods.
  • Many posters stress this is not a blanket tax on all web/Safari purchases, only those explicitly steered from the app via Apple’s mandated flow.

Legal backdrop & compliance

  • Courts held Apple’s IAP is mainly a way to collect a licensing fee for use of Apple’s IP, not just payment processing.
  • Rulings explicitly said Apple can still charge commissions and use auditing if external payments are allowed.
  • Some see Apple’s move as textbook, court‑sanctioned compliance; others call it “bad faith” or “borderline contempt” of the spirit of the anti‑steering order.

Fairness and antitrust views

  • Critics: 27–30% on all routed transactions is “rent-seeking”; iOS app distribution is a de‑facto monopoly/duopoly, so pricing isn’t subject to real competition.
  • Defenders: Smartphones are the relevant market, other platforms exist, and courts have not found Apple to hold an illegal monopoly; charging for access to its user base and IP is legitimate.
  • Dispute over whether “iOS app distribution” can be treated as its own antitrust market; thread notes recent cases treat Android/iOS differently here.

Comparisons to other platforms

  • Console makers and Steam commonly take ~30%; some argue this shows Apple’s rate is industry‑standard, others call it cartel‑like behavior.
  • Epic’s own terms (5% engine royalty, 12% store cut, free promos funded at a loss) are debated as either more developer‑friendly or just another power play that would change if it gained dominance.

Developer & user‑experience concerns

  • Several devs argue Apple’s IAP tooling is feature‑poor: no partial refunds, Apple‑controlled refund decisions, clumsy promo pricing and trials, historically awkward coupon support.
  • Others respond that the fee is primarily for IP, SDKs, tools, review, distribution, and fraud handling; many small developers only pay 15%, which some see as reasonable given low entry barriers.

Sideloading and device freedom

  • A major faction argues the root problem is lack of sideloading and alternative stores; users should be able to install any software or even other OSes on hardware they own.
  • Counter‑arguments emphasize security, anti‑fraud, ease of subscription management, and protection against dark patterns; some users explicitly value Apple as a trusted payment intermediary.

Lock‑in, ecosystems, and status

  • Discussion touches on ecosystem lock‑in (family, iMessage, iCloud), difficulty of switching for non‑technical users, and Apple’s “walled garden” as both strength and concern.
  • Some frame iPhone as a status‑signaling product whose premium pricing and control are part of what buyers intentionally pay for.