Review of Apple's billing rules... Smartphone games are ``outside the mosquito net'' (Naruhiro Kawamura)-Individual-Yahoo! News
Apple Inc. has announced that it will review the billing rules for app development companies in the "App Store" service for smartphones such as the "iPhone". How will it change? And will there be an impact on smartphone game billing?
◇Expansion of ways to avoid 30% fees, excluding smartphone games
In a nutshell, Apple's billing rules up until now may have touched on the Antimonopoly Act, and this will be resolved. ……about it. The Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) has been investigating since 2016. There is an offer from Apple to change the billing rules, and the JFTC concludes that the problem will be solved and finishes the investigation.
I will explain a little more specifically. Once the iPhone app has passed the screening process, it will be published and can be downloaded from the App Store. If you charge through the app, 30% of the sales will be Apple's commission. Small businesses with annual sales of less than $1 million and subscriptions will receive 15%.
However, there are cases where this fee is difficult for music and books where the burden of copyright fees is large. Therefore, there is a "reader app" that blocks in-app purchases, like Amazon's "Kindle". By making it possible to purchase content on the site outside the app, it is theoretically impossible to make in-app purchases, thereby avoiding Apple's fees.
The reason why we do such a complicated thing is that when billing by the reader app method, "outlinking", the act of adding a button or link that leads to billing within the app, is prohibited by Apple's guidelines. . It was said that this system would be disadvantageous to consumers and could violate the Antimonopoly Act.
The point this time is that it is now possible to outlink from the reader app. In other words, "For music, e-books, videos, and news, external payments have become easier and the path to avoiding 30% fees has been expanded". An employee of a leading publishing company revealed, "It was really difficult to make a profit on a manga app with a 30% commission, so I'm saved." However, what is disappointing about this decision is the smartphone game that is not covered.
Of course, nothing is absolute. Concerned about Apple's global influence, countries are marking it. There may be a "potential" for smartphone games to become a target in the future, but considering Apple's business structure, there may be a high barrier to "concession" to smartphone games.
[Reference] Handling of Suspected Antimonopoly Law Violations against Apple Inc. (Fair Trade Commission)
◇Dissatisfaction with the game industry that continues to smolder
The JFTC explained at a press conference why smartphone games were excluded from the scope.
The reason for this announcement is that it prioritizes the improvement of content that has a large copyright fee burden, such as music and books. However, conversely, smartphone games are like being placed “outside the mosquito net”.
In the first place, Apple seems to have made "concessions", and is "maintaining the status quo" for the smartphone game business, which it probably didn't want to change the most. It is said that about 70% of Apple's commission income is earned from smartphone games alone. Since you have protected that "sanctuary", isn't it "doing it"? The JFTC will also be evaluated as having pulled out Apple's "concessions", and there are "benefits" for both sides.
On another note, the industry that tends to benefit from this "concession" is the publishing and media industry, which has a strong voice and is "noisy". To put it bluntly, it looks like smartphone games have been turned into “scapegoats” as a result.
Naturally, the side that is placed "outside the mosquito net" is not a pile of things. ``What kind of theory is it that says that outlinking of leader apps is OK, but smartphone games are NG?'' I doubt it's a judgment" (employee of a major smartphone game company), "It's about hits in smartphone games.
Apple is in a lawsuit with US game company Epic over the pros and cons of commissions. The music distribution service "Spotify" has also questioned the relaxation of billing rules, saying, "This response is limited and does not solve all problems."
[Reference] Epic, Spotify et al., Apple tax, etc. Alliance formed for “improvement” of app store rules (ITmedia)
[Reference] Apple relaxes payment system requirements Agreement with Japan's Fair Trade (au web portal)
[Reference] End of Apple Fortnite trial, decision on app store change (Reuters)
However, if Apple accepts all the conditions, profits will be cut and it will not be viable as a business. Considering that the fee for small businesses is set at 15%, it seems that they want to keep the 30% fee for popular smartphone games with high profitability at all costs.
◇Abandon name for fruit
As a business, no amount of profit is a problem. The side that takes the fee does not want to lower the interest rate of the fee no matter how good the performance is. Of course, I want the side that is charged a fee to make it as cheap as possible. They should not be compatible with each other.
Apple's commission income is compared to a tax due to its scale and influence, and is called the "Apple tax". Considering the trend of the times, Apple has become too strong (GAFA, to be exact) and has been marked by various countries. Therefore, maintaining the "Apple tax" system was seen as difficult, and how to "compromise".
Considering what was gained from this announcement, it seems that Apple has given up its name (concessions to the Fair Trade Commission) and taken the fruit (maintenance of fees for smartphone games).
