Overview

The era when the world suffered from the "Apple Inc tax" for a long time is about to become a thing of the past.

The so-called "Apple Inc tax" means that Apple Inc takes a 15% and 30% commission on digital content consumption of all applications on App Store. This sharing ratio has been controversial since the birth of App Store, and has attracted the attention of regulators and industry leaders around the world, including Zuckerberg and Musk successively shelling the "Apple Inc tax".

According to public media reports, Apple Inc will earn about $13.11 billion on Apple Inc tax alone in the first half of 2022, based on a 30% cut.

It is precisely because of this that in the past 10 years, Apple Inc, which stood at the forefront of public opinion crusade, remained unmoved. It was not until recent years that it began to loosen its mouth and adjust its App Store sharing policy to allow applications such as Netflix in specific countries and regions, bypass the intra-application payment mechanism, and reduce the proportion of application sharing.

What role has "Apple Inc tax" played in the development history of Apple Inc, what impact has it had on the mobile application market, and to what extent will Apple Inc's revenue be affected by the reduction of the percentage?

The other side of "Apple Inc tax": security gatekeeper

Liu Xingliang: the application of apple tax is divided into the past life and this life. how are these terms and conditions stipulated and how are they implemented?

Li Nan: before Apple Inc, there were many third-party app stores. When Apple Inc's first-generation mobile phone appeared, there was no App Store. Apple Inc also debated whether App Store should appear or not.

After a long period of chaos in app distribution, a large number of third-party stores began to appear and charge fees, and mobile phone brands gradually launched their own app stores. As a result of years of commercial competition, the final app store belongs to the brand that sells hardware-Huawei users are most likely to download products in Huawei's app store, as do Samsung users.

The most different thing about Apple Inc and Android is that Apple Inc is relatively expensive, while Microsoft Corp is the cheapest. When competing in the market, the most influential platforms charge the most expensive prices, and the weakest ones, such as 15% for Microsoft Corp and 30% for Android, but Android offers discounts, such as 15% for developers whose income does not exceed $1 million a year.

Apple Inc has been drawing 30 per cent for quite a long time, but recently there are similar discounts that encourage developers to innovate. But in the final analysis, it is with the strong position of the market, as well as the possession of hardware access, to promote higher rates.

Liu Xingliang: how much revenue has been contributed to Apple Inc since the birth of Apple tax? if this source of income is missing, what kind of problems will Apple Inc face?

Li Nan: Apple Inc's gross profit margin for non-hardware profit is about 71%.

Although many developers believe that Apple Inc's high rate is a "robber behavior", Apple Inc has also done a lot of work in application checking. The direct result is that the quality of App Store applications is definitely different from that of third-party downloads.

On the one hand, Apple Inc will conduct usability, integrity check, will not occur in the use of the application can not be used. On the other hand, Apple Inc restricted a large number of pornography, gambling and drug applications on the shelves, maintaining the cleanliness of the whole ecology. In addition, Apple Inc also put forward a lot of security requirements and completed a large number of checks to prevent users from downloading viruses.

In other words, Apple Inc is not only collecting money, but also managing and standardizing the application of ecology, which is beneficial to consumers.

Compared to Android App Store, you may download shell games, pirated games and recharge, which will not happen in Apple Inc App Store. Many people, including Zuckerberg and Musk, have questioned whether the "Apple Inc tax" should be charged.

First of all, we need to consider that we can not let the app store become an out-of-law place, sometimes minor users play mobile phones, there are pornographic apps to do? Therefore, it must be regulated, which will lead to the generation of costs.

If the rate is appropriately reduced to 15% in the future, I very much support it.

02 connects developers and users and suppresses innovation

Liu Xingliang: from the perspective of the development of the mobile Internet industry, what are the positive and negative effects of Apple tax?

Li Nan: I think if there is no apple tax, there will not be a very healthy App ecological environment.

I predict that once the European Union forces Apple Inc to open third-party stores, the impact of applications related to pornography, gambling and drugs will be a very high probability event.

Therefore, Apple Inc has protected a large number of users under the objective situation of strong management of the application market, especially today, smartphones have been popularized in the hands of "rookie" users and children. From this point of view, Apple tax definitely has positive significance.

Apple Inc App Store is a very centralized, large and relatively fair distribution platform, although the head app developers, even game developers, have the power to distribute and charge their own fees, but a large number of individual developers still have to rely on app stores to distribute and charge.

In this regard, objectively speaking, Apple Inc has contributed to the vigorous development of the whole application ecology, especially through strict norms to limit the abuse of technology.

There are two problems with technicians:

First of all, it is difficult for technicians to integrate closely with consumers. Apple Inc standardizes this, which makes mobile developers make today's mobile apps so useful.

Second, avoid technology abuse through a variety of interfaces and specifications, which is shared by many users who have experienced the era of Android App inexplicable pop-ups.

But today, Android is also learning from Apple Inc to a certain extent, so without the strong distribution channels and fee control like App Store, developers will not listen to Apple Inc, and there is no way to protect the implied application ecology.

With regard to the negative effects, I think the EU's Digital Market Act is reasonable, but it can only restrain gatekeepers-people who occupy important positions in the market. It has specific standards, such as an annual turnover of 8 billion euros in the European Economic area, a market capitalization of more than 80 billion euros, and more than 45 million monthly active users.

In addition, the European Union is also trying to encourage innovation, so it requires Apple Inc to open third-party app stores. From the EU's point of view, they believe that Apple Inc suppresses innovation in the application position.

When it comes to market impact, Apple Inc has a clear understanding of market goals and knows the foothold of his own market.

The United States, China and Europe are the three major markets of Apple Inc in the world, but there is nothing to be afraid of Apple Inc's small market, such as the Netherlands and South Korea.

Apple Inc, as a local company in the United States, will not worry about the relevant litigation issues, of course, the red line is antitrust provisions, European and Chinese regulators are different. The precedents of EU regulators will play a substantive and decisive role, and therefore have the most deterrent effect on Apple Inc.

The European Union often strikes a heavy blow at Apple Inc's judicial problems, with compensation starting at 10 billion US dollars.

03 third-party payment and side loading may be released one after another

Liu Xingliang: is Apple Inc suspected of monopoly? how do major countries and regions in the world identify monopoly? what adjustments and concessions did Apple Inc make?

Li Nan: I think the statement of the European Union is a very accurate description, not that Apple Inc monopolizes, but defines it as a gatekeeper, which is a very progressive definition.

Among public users, there is an one-sided perception that monopoly must do evil, but Apple Inc has proved with facts that he has done a lot of good things by relying on the monopoly position of ecology. For example, if minor users use iPhone, it will not get pornographic, gambling and drug applications.

So, the question is, when a platform is in an actual monopoly position, does it have to be a monopolist? Not necessarily. Therefore, using more neutral words to describe its market position, the gatekeeper is more objective and accurate. From the perspective of gatekeepers, it is very good to recognize the positive values of the past and the new requirements put forward based on market changes and government supervision. we can not only rely on monopolistic platforms to spontaneously rely on moral constraints on their own behavior, but also need the existence of market managers, both sides work together to build the market.

As for adjustment and concession, Apple Inc will definitely change the Lightning interface to Type-C interface next.

In terms of third-party payment, Apple Inc resisted a little bit, but there is no definite news yet.

In addition, the European Union also requires that users must be allowed to change the core engine of the browser. Although Apple Inc said that he would consider it, I think Apple Inc will not make a complete compromise in the end, but will reach a balance with the European Union.

If it involves more open and higher-level API, especially when it comes to changing the core engine of the browser, which is related to system security, it needs to be done step by step. After all, changing the browser's core engine means that it could be a personal data leak or network surveillance, and no one can accurately predict where this will go in the future.

Liu Xingliang: will the precedent of opening up third-party payments in a small number of countries and regions cause other countries and regions to follow suit?

Li Nan: I think maybe Apple Inc will be more persistent about some requirements related to the nuclear safety of the system. For example, it is required to change the core engine of the browser, because today the browser engine is already a very low-level logic of the system, and third-party applications will have security problems, such as changing the skin to disguise the virus as a popular game.

Compared with the above products, today's third-party online payment methods and anti-theft means have been relatively perfect, so this adjustment may be Apple Inc's next step to concede.

In addition, the liberalization of third-party payment will not have a great impact on Apple Inc's revenue, which is basically a single-digit profit impact.

Liu Xingliang: the discussion on the opening side of the EU's Digital Market Act is expected to have an impact on Apple Inc if it is liberalized.

Li Nan: for ordinary users, there is only one formal channel for iPhone to get applications-App Store. Open side loading means allowing downloads through third-party markets, including downloads on web pages, which means more channels for app distribution, which is good for big game companies, who have enough money and a large number of users.

A Japanese company once bought all the App on the free list and then added a store page to each App to link 100 games to each other to quickly get a highly active app store.

It can be predicted that if side loading is opened, in the relevant markets of the European Union, a large number of head game companies will gain higher benefits in the future, but Apple Inc will certainly do a little bit on these App, and the proportion may not be as high as before.

On the other hand, open side load not only greatly increases the stickiness of giant users, but also weakens the living environment of independent developers. based on this point of view, open side load is harmful to new applications, independent applications and personal applications. It is disadvantageous to its distribution volume and income.

Here, open side loading will certainly lead to the emergence of the market for pornographic, gambling and drug applications, which may not even require stores to have a web page to download, which may be the biggest adjustment facing the European Union in the future.

In addition, open side loading may also lead to a similar "cut-and-cut" model in the third-party app ecology, where you can get $100 for downloading an app, pulling people for a commission, which in turn leads to app ecological chaos.

Even if it is open side load, in this process, I think there is a bottom line Apple Inc to keep, that is, root. The highest system permissions of the system must not be released, so there is a certain degree of security, otherwise the user will be really "exposed" in danger.

04 users need to actively avoid risks

Liu Xingliang: users' privacy security may be impacted in the future. What suggestions are there for users to avoid risks?

Li Nan: first, continue to download apps through the official app store, don't care too much about how much it costs. Second, do not break out of prison, even in the case of open side loading, some applications may still be malicious, although its malice is limited and is limited to a sandboxie of Apple Inc system. Third, you must not store too much personal sensitive information such as ID card photos, bank card photos and passport photos on your mobile phone. Applications often have access to microphones and photo libraries. Finally, the user needs to judge the source of the application.

To sum up, I think Apple Inc's next "war" with the European Union is to promote the progress of the industry as a whole.

At the software level, I think both the EU and Apple Inc are right and wrong, but if the EU strongly uses fines to promote the opening up of Apple Inc, then the EU's regulatory measures need to keep up with in the future. otherwise, it will hurt some ordinary users who are not particularly familiar with science and technology. Because they have been protected by Apple Inc for too long, if this problem is not guaranteed, they will go through a period of labor pains.

If the EU goes further, such as the core engine of open browsers, it may really involve more core security, or even break through security, which requires more care.

Generally speaking, the great opening of the whole ecology enriches the diversity of the application environment, but it is bound to bring new risks, which need to be understood and dealt with by users themselves.

In addition, with regard to the European Union's "uniform charging Interface Act", I personally prefer that Apple Inc will be replaced uniformly, because even without the EU bill, Apple Inc knows that this is a backward technology, and the performance of the Type-C interface on iPad shows that Apple Inc's technical preparation is very mature.

Edit / lydia