In the ongoing lawsuit over Apple and Epic’s App Store fees, one important thing is that Apple has insisted on maintaining the 30% cut as the cornerstone of the store front.
But the newly disclosed Apple executive emails from the case show that the rules of the App Store are essential for the good of Apple’s economy to be carefully negotiated over time in such a way that Apple Don’t leave money on the table. ” “
The emails relate to a 2011 debate involving Apple software and services leader Eddy Cue about how Apple will handle subscription video applications on Apple TV. An important conversation, which has seen an increase in the popularity of streaming services. And while not much is being said about Apple’s current 30% fee for the Apple Store, it does show how reckless these rules were when it came to maximizing profits.
The company tested various options, including 40% one-time kits, 30% one-time kits, 30% ongoing fees, or more individual matters than services such as NBA and MLB.
An email content in a thread breaks down the various forms of partners who will be offering subscriptions on Apple TV. Because of this, there is a misconception as to which partnership will be fruitful in which (like new streaming services) kits will be sought and which things will not be the same (unlike “intricate” cable and satellite companies).
Apple’s team discussed the idea that any iTunes-based transaction or purchase should be subject to the same 30% cut as the App Store. But there is further debate over how the company will handle referrals, where Apple TV’s applications link to a service’s website in order for users to subscribe directly to the service.
The thread then discusses how the fee will work when Apple refers to a new subscriber. Should the company insist on 30% of the initial purchase? 30% of the first year? Just insist that all subscription applications are making users playful through the App Store? The concern is that Hollow Plus cannot afford such a cost. Q replied that Apple should demand 40% of the first year, but only if it needs to work on some deals first.
One of Apple’s concerns was to structure the new fees in such a way that they did not undermine the payment structure agreed upon in the App Store. “I don’t want to make a deal where we get less than 30%. That’s what’s on the App Store and we can’t make a different deal here. If that’s not possible, I want a one-time grace but we have to be very careful here. Need to stay so it doesn’t reach the App Store. (Emails are threaded in such a way that it’s hard to tell who is replying to whom.)
It is important to note that in 2011, Apple TV did not actually have an app store – only the individual apps on which Apple partnered. And this thread seems to emphasize the ad hoc nature of platform development here: Apple doesn’t come up with some kind of default idea that needs to make the platform a success, maximize profits and formulate rules. An ambiguous purpose. For the platform to achieve the best.