Connect with us

Published

on

Tim Cook, chief executive officer of Apple Inc., center, arrives at U.S. district court in Oakland, California, on Friday, May 21, 2021.
Nina Riggio | Bloomberg | Getty Images

In the past few weeks, Apple has made several changes to its App Store rules, allowing a larger number of companies to access a lower commission rate or evade Apple’s mandatory 15% to 30% cut entirely.

But while the concessions can seem like a shift in Apple’s approach to App store policy, when examined in the history of the App Store, they are a clear continuation of strategy going back to 2008.

Apple has historically made small changes to its “guidelines,” a 13,000-word document that says what iPhone apps can and can’t do, while defending its core interests that Apple has the right to determine which software can operate on iPhones, and set its own financial terms for those developers.

Apple has also not yet changed its policy of taking 30% of in-app gaming purchases, which comprise the largest category of App Store revenue. Apple’s App Store grossed $64 billion or more in total sales in 2020, according to analysis based on Apple disclosures.

JPMorgan analyst Samik Chatterjee said in a recent note that he believed the financial impact on the company on one emailing change would be “modest” and other tweaks reducing Apple’s cut for some apps to 15% would be “minimal.”

The regulators and developers who criticize Apple’s App Store have a variety of complaints in the past decade: Its 30% cut is too high, its manual App Review process is arbitrary and powerful, the App Store depresses prices for software and teaches consumers that updates are free.

So Apple has carved out categorical exceptions to the 30% fee, allowed software makers the ability to appeal or challenge its rules, and changed single rules in response to lawsuits or media attention.

Events in the coming months may force Apple to tweak its policies again. A decision in a trial with Epic Games is expected in the coming weeks. The European Union is examining penalties and remedies after finding Apple violated antitrust laws after a Spotify complaint. South Korea recently passed a law that could force it to allow customers to use alternative billing systems.

But looking at App Store history, it’s likely that Apple will continue to push in private negotiations and public lobbying for smaller, non-structural changes to the App Store that address some complaints but does not change its control over iPhone software.

Controversial from the beginning

Apple’s App Store has faced controversy since its launch in 2008. A year after that, the FCC probed the company over its refusal to approve the Google Voice app.

Now there is more regulatory pressure from countries and developers around the world, and it is leading to more rule changes. Apple made some of the recent concessions because of settlements in a developer class action lawsuit in the United States and an agreement with Japan’s Fair Trade Commission, although Apple is applying the changes around the world.

Those tweaks essentially allow companies like Spotify and Tinder’s parent company Match Group to bypass Apple’s sometimes 30% cut of gross sales, addressing a standing complaint that dates back at least five years. Apple also reduced its take to 15% for news apps that participate in Apple News, its own news app.

Apple officials say they are meaningful changes that address key concerns from software makers.

Some of Apple’s opponents, even those that have petitioned for those changes, say that they don’t go far enough, and are part of a pattern of dividing its critics by placating some of them with one-off rule changes.

“Our goal is to restore competition once and for all, not one arbitrary, self-serving step at a time,” Spotify CEO Daniel Ek tweeted this week in response to Apple’s in-app linking rule change.

“Apple’s strategy is Divide and Conquer: carve off special deals for different developer segments,” Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney said last month in a statement to CNBC in response to Apple’s news app concession.

Epic Games is suing Apple seeking to be able to install its own app store on iPhones — which is the big change that Apple wants to fight off.

A history of Apple changing App Store rules

2009: Apple does not approve Google Voice, FCC investigates. A year after the App Store went live, the FCC started probing it over its refusal to approve the Google Voice app, which acted as a second phone number.

Apple responded to the FCC, providing many details about its app review process for the first time, and arguing that it had the right to reject entire categories of apps.

In its letter, Apple also detailed for the first time its Executive Review Board, a body headed by Apple executive Phil Schiller, which makes final decisions on “new and complex issues.”

The Google Voice app was eventually approved in late 2010.

2011: Apple requires in-app payments for digital goods, creates the “reader rule.” In-app purchases with a 30% fee were introduced in early 2009. But in February 2011, Apple significantly tightened its control over the App Store by announcing it planned to force companies to use Apple’s in-app purchase system if they offered digital subscriptions.

At first, Apple offered exceptions for products like Kindle or the New York Times, where users may have purchased e-books or digital subscriptions off-app. But companies still needed to implement in-app purchases with Apple’s cut, at the same price as their off-app subscriptions.

This didn’t work for many publishers, who wanted to retain their direct relationship with customers. By June, Apple had backtracked on some of its more draconian guidelines, allowing companies to pass on the 30% fee to customers or to, if they chose, not offer an Apple in-app purchase at all.

Shortly afterwards, Apple’s marketing chief Phil Schiller started to question Apple’s 30% fee, and suggested lower revenue sharing levels, such as 20%, according to an email released as part of the Epic Games trial.

This is when Apple started to put its first restrictions on redirecting users in-app to the publisher’s website, which were reversed in recent weeks.

2016: Apple reduces cut for 2nd year of subscriptions to 15%. By 2015, Spotify had publicly challenged tested Apple’s restrictions on subscriptions, first by emailing customers to tell them it’s less expensive to subscribe directly, instead of through the App Store. This was against Apple’s guidelines, and its one of the rules that was officially clarified as part of Apple’s concessions last month.

Shortly afterwards, Spotify removed Apple in-app purchases entirely and started a process of challenging Apple’s rules with government regulators.

In 2016, Apple announced that it would alter its revenue sharing agreement, specifically for subscription apps. Apple still charged 30% for the first year of a subscription, but subscribers who lasted more than 12 months would cost the app a lower, 15% rate of gross sales. Apple also opened subscription billing to all App Store apps and introduced search ads, which let developers pay for better placement on an App Store search page.

The announcement was also months after Schiller publicly took over oversight of the App Store, replacing services head Eddy Cue, although Schiller had been involved with App Store policy since the beginning.

Although Schiller is no longer a senior vice president at Apple, he remains an Apple employee with the title “fellow,” and continues to lead App Store policy.

2019: Apple backtracks on parental control apps, introduces appeals process. By the time Apple’s annual developer conference kicked off in 2020, the App Store had received considerable antitrust attention, specifically to its ability to reject apps, especially apps that competed with Apple features, such as parental control apps which gave users the ability to set screen time limits for kids.

Apple reversed some of its policies about parental control apps in 2019 after negative media attention, allowing some of them onto the store, and creating software tools that they could use to build their apps.

But the skirmish highlighted that Apple’s App Review process was arbitrary, and sometimes held up app updates over minor details or, worse, because the app didn’t comply with in-app purchase rules.

Developer protests over App Review continued to grow through 2020, and at Apple’s annual developer’s conference, Apple said that it would implement an appeals system for developers to challenge Apple’s rules, although many app makers say it hasn’t solved their complaints with the approval process.

2020: Apple reduces cut to 15% for small companies. Last November, Apple introduced the Small Business Program, a high-profile olive branch to lawmakers and app developers.

It reduced the take from 30% to 15% for any company making less than $1 million per year through the App Store. But because apps are a winner-take-most business, it didn’t hurt Apple’s finances too badly — one estimate at the time suggested the top 1% of app publishers generate 93% of App Store revenue. But it did cut the fees for the majority of individual app developers.

Documents from a settlement in 2021 said that the creation of the Small Business Program was because of a class-action lawsuit.

2021: Apple reduces cut to 15% for news apps that participate in Apple News, allows developers to direct users to alternative payment systems. Antitrust attention on the App Store heated up in 2021. Earlier this year, Apple CEO Tim Cook testified at a trial over App Store practices against Epic Games. Multiple states and the U.S. Congress saw bills introduced which could force Apple to allow alternative app stores.

In August, Apple reduced its subscription cut for any publisher from 30% to 15%, addressing a segment of developers who had fought off App Store changes back in 2011. There was a catch though — those news apps had to participate in Apple’s news aggregator.( News apps are not the main moneymaker on the App Store.)

Apple also settled a class-action lawsuit with smaller U.S. developers, paying $100 million and clarifying guidelines about apps emailing their own customers.

In September, Apple settled with the Japanese FTC and said that “reader” apps could link out to sign up customers for subscriptions on their own websites. All three of these changes addressed concerns that first popped up in 2011 when Apple created the reader rule.

Continue Reading

Technology

Hinge founder leaves CEO role to launch AI-powered dating startup

Published

on

By

Hinge founder leaves CEO role to launch AI-powered dating startup

Justin McLeod speaks during the Fast Company Innovation Festival 2025 on Sept. 18, 2025 in New York City.

Eugene Gologursky | Getty Images

Hinge founder Justin McLeod is stepping down as CEO of the dating app to launch a dating service powered by artificial intelligence.

McLeod will be replaced by Jackie Jantos, the dating app’s president and chief marketing officer, Hinge parent company Match Group announced on Tuesday.

“The company’s momentum, including being on track to reach $1 billion in revenue by 2027, gives me full confidence in where Hinge is headed,” said McLeod in a statement. He created the dating app in 2011.

McLeod will remain as an advisor to Hinge through March. Overtone, his new venture, will use AI and voice tools to “help people connect in a more thoughtful and personal way,” according to the announcement.

Along with a dedicated team, McLeod spent much of this year developing the startup with support from Match Group, which said it plans to lead Overtone’s initial funding round in early 2026.

Match Group, which also owns Tinder and various other dating apps, will hold a significant ownership position in Overtone. Match Group CEO Spencer Rascoff will join Overtone’s board.

“We’re proud to have incubated Overtone within Hinge and to now lead its funding round as he builds his next venture,” Rascoff said in a statement.

WATCH: Software could start benefitting from AI in 2026, says Intelligent Alpha CEO Doug Clinton

Software could start benefitting from AI in 2026, says Intelligent Alpha CEO Doug Clinton

Continue Reading

Technology

Oracle’s AI-fueled debt load has investors on edge ahead of quarterly earnings

Published

on

By

Oracle's AI-fueled debt load has investors on edge ahead of quarterly earnings

Oracle CEOs Clay Magouyrk and Mike Sicilia sit down with CNBC’s David Faber on Oct. 13, 2025.

CNBC

It’s been a rollercoaster year for Oracle investors, as they try to assess the strength of the software giant’s position in the artificial intelligence boom.

The stock is up more than 30% for the year even after a 23% plunge in October, which was its worst month since 2001. It’s recovered a bit in November, climbing almost 10% for the month as of Tuesday.

Heading into the company’s fiscal second-quarter earnings report on Wednesday, pressure is building on management — and newly installed CEOs Clay Magouyrk and Mike Sicilia — to show that Oracle can continue to finance the company’s aggressive infrastructure plans while simultaneously convincing Wall Street that the AI-fueled hypergrowth story remains intact.

In recent months, Oracle has emerged as a more central player in AI, largely due to a $300 billion deal with OpenAI, which came to light in September, an agreement that involves the AI startup buying computing power over about five years, starting in 2027.

Funding Oracle’s compute buildout is going to require mounds of debt. In late September, Oracle raised $18 billion in a jumbo bond sale, one of the largest debt issuances on record in the tech industry, and the company is now the biggest issuer of investment grade debt among non-financial firms, according to Citi.

“There is something inherently uncomfortable as a credit investor about the transformation of the sort we’re facing that is going to require an enormous amount of capital,” Daniel Sorid, head of U.S. investment grade credit strategy at Citi, said on a video call to investors on Friday, a replay of which was provided to reporters.

Oracle's new capacity lags behind competitors, says Rothschild's Haissl

Oracle has secured billions of dollars of construction loans through a consortium of banks tied to data centers in New Mexico and Wisconsin. Citi analyst Tyler Radke estimates Oracle will raise roughly $20 billion to $30 billion in debt every year for the next three years.

As of August, the company’s combined short-term and long-term debt, which includes lease obligations, sat at $111.6 billion, up from $84.5 billion a year earlier, according to FactSet, while cash and equivalents slipped over that stretch to $10.45 billion from $10.6 billion.

As Oracle aims to build out sufficient capacity to meet the rising demand its seeing from customers like OpenAI, the street is questioning whether company will tap sources other than the debt market.

“Oracle will be looking at all options out there — off-balance sheet facilities, raising debt, issuing equity or perhaps exploring interest from a foreign investor, i.e. a sovereign wealth fund,” said Rishi Jaluria, a software analyst at RBC Capital Markets, in an interview. Jaluria recommends holding the stock.

A credit investor who spoke to CNBC highlighted Meta’s $27 billion deal with Blue Owl Capital, a joint venture between the two entities, as one type of financing arrangement being used for AI data center development.

The market is also debating whether Oracle can use vendor financing options to reduce the amount of upfront capital required to stand up data centers, including securing favorable financing terms with suppliers like Nvidia, a credit investor told CNBC. However in that scenario, Nvidia’s chips would be used as collateral, raisings concerns around GPU depreciation.

An Oracle spokesperson declined to comment.

Growing skepticism

The discomfort that Sorid referenced has driven Oracle’s 5-year credit default swaps to new multi-year highs. Credit default swaps are like insurance for investors, with buyers paying for protection in case the borrower can’t repay its debt. Bond investors told CNBC that they’ve become a popular way to hedge the risk tied to the AI trade.

Credit analysts at Barclays and Morgan Stanley are recommending clients buy Oracle’s 5-year CDS. Andrew Keches, an analyst at Barclays, told analysts in a note last month that he didn’t see an avenue for Oracle’s credit trajectory to improve. And in late November, Morgan Stanley analysts said Oracle’s CDS had attracted not just typical credit investors but “tourists” who have less experience with this type of financial instrument.

Spools of electrical wires outside a series of assembly tents during a media tour of the Stargate AI data center in Abilene, Texas, US, on Tuesday, Sept. 23, 2025. Stargate is a collaboration of OpenAI, Oracle and SoftBank, with promotional support from President Donald Trump, to build data centers and other infrastructure for artificial intelligence throughout the US.

Kyle Grillot | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Oracle’s revenue growth and backlog of business will be closely monitored as investors try to gauge whether the company’s spending plans are justified. Analysts expect to see revenue growth in the latest quarter of 15% to $16.2 billion, according to StreetAccount.

Remaining performance obligations, a measure of contracted revenue that hasn’t yet been recognized, are expected to surpass $500 billion, StreetAccount says, which would mark a more than fivefold increase from a year earlier. Oracle’s disclosure in September that RPOs jumped 359% to $455 billion sent the company’s stock up 36%, its best single-day performance since 1992.

Since then, the stock has wiped out all of those gains and then some.

Gil Luria, an analyst at D.A. Davidson, said that beyond infrastructure, he’ll be closely watching Oracle’s core database business, which is a source of much higher margins. That will help determine how much flexibility the company has in going to the capital markets, he said.

“Oracle can handle the debt load,” said Luria, who recommends holding the stock. “But they need more cash flow to raise more capital from here.”

WATCH: Oracle has to talk execution, ‘not just promises’

Oracle has to talk execution, 'not just promises', says DCLA's Sarat Sethi

Continue Reading

Technology

Teachers’ union AFT slams crypto market bill, warns of ‘profound risks’ for America’s retirement plans

Published

on

By

Teachers' union AFT slams crypto market bill, warns of 'profound risks' for America's retirement plans

Sen. Gillibrand says 'nothing is holding up' progress on crypto market regulation: CNBC Crypto World

The American Federation of Teachers, the powerful labor union that represents 1.8 million members, is urging the Senate Banking Committee to reconsider its crypto market structure bill, the Responsible Financial Innovation Act, calling the proposed legislation “as irresponsible as it is reckless” in a letter exclusively obtained by CNBC.

In the letter that AFT president Randi Weingarten sent to Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott (R-SC) and Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), she wrote the union opposes the bill based on the “profound risks to the pensions of working families and the overall stability of the economy.”

“The legislation on crypto we have seen weighed by the committee over the last few months gives us deep concern,” Weingarten added.

The AFT is concerned that in passing crypto legislation, the government will open the floodgates to widespread fraud and unethical practices across retirement plans including AFT pensions.

“This legislation pretends that crypto assets are stable and mainstream, and they are not. Rather than just being silent on crypto, this bill strips the few safeguards that exist for crypto and erodes many protections for traditional securities. If passed, it will undercut the safety of many assets and cause problems across retirement investments,” Weingarten wrote.

A specific issue the AFT cited with the proposed legislation it allowing non-crypto companies to put their stock on the blockchain and evade existing securities regulatory framework. Wall Street has become interested in the idea of “tokenization” of all financial assets, with Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock, the largest asset manager in the world, a leader evangelist for the concept.

“This loophole and the erosion of traditional securities law will have disastrous consequences: Pensions and 401(k) plans will end up having unsafe assets even if they were invested in traditional securities,” Weingarten wrote.

She argued that the legislation being considered by the committee also does little to curb fraud, illegal activity and corruption that continues to be prevalent in crypto markets. Weingarten called the legislation “irresponsible” and “reckless.”

“We believe that if enacted, this bill has the potential to lay the groundwork for the next financial crisis,” she wrote.

NEW YORK, NEW YORK – AUGUST 28: Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), speaks during the March on Wall Street on August 28, 2025 in New York City.

Michael M. Santiago | Getty Images News | Getty Images

The AFL-CIO, the nation’s largest labor union, stated its opposition to the Senate Banking Committee over a draft of the crypto bill in October.

CNBC also confirmed that on Thursday, the CEOs of Bank of America, Citi and Wells Fargo, will be meeting with lawmakers to discuss the crypto market structure proposals.

The currently proposed legislation, which builds on a bill that passed the House of Representatives over the summer, is co-sponsored by key crypto backer Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming) and Senator Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio), alongside Chairman Scott. It aims to create structure for regulating digital assets, but also raises questions about tokenized securities that are not specifically cryptocurrencies.

Tokenization has been a key concern as the bill has gained momentum on Capitol Hill, and a hurdle to getting the support from Democrats that will be needed for passage. Previous CNBC reporting indicates that the Senate backers will need to attract votes from at least seven Democrats for the legislation to pass. At last week’s CNBC CFO Council Summit in Washington, D.C., Senator Mark Warner (D-Va.) told attendees, “I’m in crypto hell at this moment trying to get the market structure bill done.”

Warner is among a group of Democratic senators who met on Monday to review the Senate Banking draft and consider counter-offers, according to Politico.

Many Democrats, including Warren, have also been concerned about the balance of crypto regulatory oversight between the CFTC and the Securities and Exchange Commission. States, meanwhile, worry that their laws may be preempted by a new federal law, and the states left powerless to protect residents from fraud, a concern outlined by Massachusetts’ Secretary of State William Galvin in a letter to Senate Banking, writing that the “sweeping provisions that will exclude significant portions of the financial industry from state oversight. This is a recipe for disaster for millions of savers.”

Progress on the Senate’s version of a crypto market structure bill was stalled for weeks due to the longest government shutdown in U.S. history. Speaking on Tuesday morning at The Blockchain Association Policy Summit in Washington, D.C., Senator Lummis provided some insight into when the Senate’s version of a crypto market structure bill could be expected. She said her goal is to share a draft by the end of the week, then let the crypto industry as well as Republicans and Democrats vet it and proceed to markup next week.

CFTC announces listed spot crypto trading on U.S. regulated exchanges: CNBC Crypto World

Continue Reading

Trending