It seems like this might be Apple’s attempt at a version of alternative app stores, locked down by strict T&Cs.
I opened up the comments hoping to see discussion amongst the people here with strong feelings about Apple’s walled garden, but it seems I’m too early to the party.
“Apple has reached a new agreement with Tencent that will allow the company to process payments and collect a 15% commission on purchases made inside WeChat mini games and mini apps on the iPhone, establishing a major new revenue stream in China after over a year of negotiations, according to Bloomberg.”
Apparently, the apps in wechat aren't transacted via Apple today anyways, maybe some will choose to do so via apple but I can't imagine to be the majority.
I also think wechat have the upper hand in this relationship so Apple is unlikely to be able to do any real forcing function.
> A qualifying mini app within the Mini Apps Partner Program is one that’s put out by a person or entity that’s not directly or indirectly controlled by you, nor under common control with you.
I don't understand; if it's put out by someone else, how do I participate?
As I understand it: Your app is a virtual arcade, that supports “mini app” arcade games published by other developers, that run inside your virtual cabinet.
I make a game for your arcade, and players pay cash to add credits to my game.
The status quo: Player pays £1, Apple takes their 30% cut, you get 70p, take another 30% cut, and give me 49p
What this programme entails: player pays £1, Apple takes a 15% cut, you get 85p, and hopefully pass on some of that extra money to me too.
The gotchas are:
1. it has to be your app and my mini game. This is about lightening the load of all the intermediaries, not about you cheesing an extra 15%
2. It has to be the player buying credits for my game specifically. If you sell “ArcadeBux” redeemable for credits on any game at your arcade, you’re not an intermediary, you’re the vendor.
I have not had a chance (or, frankly, the desire) to read the full Ts&Cs, but I wouldn't be surprised if you (as an app host), will shoulder some of the accountability for bad mini-apps.
tldr: it will let Apple charge a commission (although at 15%, it's half the normal 30% rate for the app store) on popular web app games embedded in to WeChat for the Chinese market
Mini apps are way more than web games. For a lot of people in China, WeChat is effectively their operating system. The platform hosts _millions_ of mini apps covering a significant percentage of the use cases that a mobile developer elsewhere in the world might build a native app for.
As such, it seems like WeChat has historically gotten away with a lot of stuff kinda sorta on the edge of the policies that Apple enforces on everyone else.
Please don't fulminate on HN. The guidelines are clear that we're aiming for something better than this here. We've had to ask you repeatedly to avoid this style of conduct here. Please take a moment to read the guidelines and make an effort to observe them.
I'll try to keep this in mind. This comment clearly is just frustration (which I believe to be warranted, but still unwelcome here) and I'm sorry for that. Other recent posts related to the Apple ecosystem I think don't fall into this category, since they point out real issues with the systems and inform reader of topics.
I look at mobile devices, especially iOS, as “consoles” akin to a Nintendo Switch. It’s not a “real computer,” the definition of which requires the ability to run any code I want. It does whar it does pretty well and it is what it is.
FWIW this is how most informed consumers think as well. People buy iOS, consoles, etc because they want a walled garden. I think the real way out is getting consumers to see and value the benefits of leaving it.
I doubt most consumers would care if you could sideload apps on their iOS device or play PlayStation and Nintendo games on their Xbox. In fact most consumers would be all for it!
They buy these things because they find there's already enough value there.
I don't think so - the hugely negative perception of virus-laden wildlands on Android (which is somewhat true! most people could be tricked into bypassing the security prompts) makes people choose a safer option time after time.
You could absolutely make the case that users ought to be smarter, use technology as a power user, etc, but that's not the reality at the moment.
> the hugely negative perception of virus-laden wildlands on Android
I... don't see this in real life? There have always been San Bernadino-emboldened Apple customers that love to dunk on Android security, but recently that's gone away. Trojan horses are making it through[0] Apple's manual review, NSO Group has working exploits more often than not, the US government has wiretapped Push Notifications[1] and Apple has seemingly slowed their persecution of organized hacking groups.
iOS is in a post-Pegasus world. Android was perceived to be vulnerable if you downloaded the wrong app; iOS was proven to be vulnerable if you received an SMS payload from any user. And Apple has admitted that they cannot even really detect it[2] anymore. Neither educated users nor common people are associating Apple with security, especially now.
Non technical users are absolutely unable to discern security things or keep malware out. They’re sitting ducks.
If our OSes were not polished glorified 1970s Unix and had real security isolation we could allow more freedom, paradoxically. But given that our security is awful, freedom for non technical users means the freedom to get spyware and malware.
And where has such retreat led us? Rootable Androids are vanishing, Google is set to prevent side-loading entirely, and countless apps refuse to work on rooted devices.
You either force the companies to stop, to restore your control over your devices, or be dragged by the uninformed consumer masses into slavery.
> although at 15%, it's half the normal 30% rate for the app store
15% is the normal rate for the App Store. Only developers earning above $1MM/yr through the App Store have to pay 30%, the vast majority of developers only pay 15%.
It's not "normal", you have to "apply" (and get auto-accepted) but won't get the rate if you don't know to do that. You'll also get permanently booted from it if you do some things like transfer ownership of an account (if you want to sell an app you made, IIRC you lose access to this program, even if the app makes under a million).
Only for in app purchases of Robux. They are uniquely allowed to distribute their own app store (not based on HTML/JS applets) within the App Store, which is against the terms that every other Apple developer agrees to. And they are allowed to use a virtual currency that can be obtained elsewhere without an Apple Tax to pay for digital goods purchases inside an iOS app, bypassing the IAP system, again against the terms.
I expect this is also setting up for MCP marketplaces.
There was evidence of upcoming macOS and iOS updates adding MCP support at a system level across apps. The rules talk about "scripts", not only games or apps.
Another thing this is similar to is Google AMP, which provided predictible user experiences through heavy restrictions. I guess AMP is to Mini Apps what Google Glass is to Oculus.
We've banned this account. It's a repeat offender when it comes to breaching the guidelines, with several warnings over the years, and there's no way we can let a vile slur like this pass without consequence.
It seems like this might be Apple’s attempt at a version of alternative app stores, locked down by strict T&Cs.
I opened up the comments hoping to see discussion amongst the people here with strong feelings about Apple’s walled garden, but it seems I’m too early to the party.
> seems like this might be Apple’s attempt at a version of alternative app stores, locked down by strict T&Cs
Huh, I read it as them reüsing the code and contracts they built to partner with Tencent.
Could be. I’m not familiar with their Tencent contracts.
“Apple has reached a new agreement with Tencent that will allow the company to process payments and collect a 15% commission on purchases made inside WeChat mini games and mini apps on the iPhone, establishing a major new revenue stream in China after over a year of negotiations, according to Bloomberg.”
https://www.macrumors.com/2025/11/13/apple-deal-to-take-bill...
Oh ya, there's no way this isn't an extension of those agreements with Tencent.
Maybe I'm cynical, but what I'm wondering is which country's regulation led to Apple being forced to do this
> Maybe I'm cynical, but what I'm wondering is which country's regulation led to Apple being forced to do this
Not Europe, that’s for sure.
Most likely American “regulation” via cutthroat capitalism and attempt to copy WeChat’s success.
Isn’t this what competition is supposed to like?
How's this competition if it's still using apple's payment infrastructure in apps that are shipped via apple's app store?
Yes. You'll own nothing and be happy /s
Apple is going to profit tremendously off this. They did it in part because they will make billions from WeChat.
And Roblox
Yes but it is also a grab at WeChat, forcing them to transact through Apple with a new 15% cut
It’s also a grab at Grab, who just announced their mini apps a couple of weeks ago:
https://www.grab.com/sg/press/others/grab-launches-third-par...
Shouldn’t we presume that Grab was aware of any upcoming changes.
I think they call it commercial in confidence.
Grab would have voluntarily entered in to an agreement with Apple.
Are we ok with companies reaching an agreement to do business together on terms of their mutual agreement still?
Apparently, the apps in wechat aren't transacted via Apple today anyways, maybe some will choose to do so via apple but I can't imagine to be the majority.
I also think wechat have the upper hand in this relationship so Apple is unlikely to be able to do any real forcing function.
Presumably Tencent voluntarily entered in to a contract with Apple.
What’s this forced business?
k
No excitement here for any “discount” announcements—just cynicism about our device freedoms being restricted by two duopolies.
A duopoly
GP maybe meant EU + US in addition to the obvious Apple + Google?
Or MS + Apple on desktop.
> A qualifying mini app within the Mini Apps Partner Program is one that’s put out by a person or entity that’s not directly or indirectly controlled by you, nor under common control with you.
I don't understand; if it's put out by someone else, how do I participate?
As I understand it: Your app is a virtual arcade, that supports “mini app” arcade games published by other developers, that run inside your virtual cabinet.
I make a game for your arcade, and players pay cash to add credits to my game.
The status quo: Player pays £1, Apple takes their 30% cut, you get 70p, take another 30% cut, and give me 49p
What this programme entails: player pays £1, Apple takes a 15% cut, you get 85p, and hopefully pass on some of that extra money to me too.
The gotchas are:
1. it has to be your app and my mini game. This is about lightening the load of all the intermediaries, not about you cheesing an extra 15%
2. It has to be the player buying credits for my game specifically. If you sell “ArcadeBux” redeemable for credits on any game at your arcade, you’re not an intermediary, you’re the vendor.
I have not had a chance (or, frankly, the desire) to read the full Ts&Cs, but I wouldn't be surprised if you (as an app host), will shoulder some of the accountability for bad mini-apps.
You must submit all the apps for review.
You are the developer of an app. A "mini app" is content created by a 3rd party that you import into your app.
The linked program ("Mini Apps Partner") is for you, not for the developer of the mini app.
Roblox model.
This article explains this new program for those (like me) who had no idea what a "mini app" was and why it matters: https://www.macrumors.com/2025/11/13/apple-announces-mini-ap...
tldr: it will let Apple charge a commission (although at 15%, it's half the normal 30% rate for the app store) on popular web app games embedded in to WeChat for the Chinese market
Mini apps are way more than web games. For a lot of people in China, WeChat is effectively their operating system. The platform hosts _millions_ of mini apps covering a significant percentage of the use cases that a mobile developer elsewhere in the world might build a native app for.
As such, it seems like WeChat has historically gotten away with a lot of stuff kinda sorta on the edge of the policies that Apple enforces on everyone else.
This is a partnership the same way restaurants "partner" with the mob.
[flagged]
Please don't fulminate on HN. The guidelines are clear that we're aiming for something better than this here. We've had to ask you repeatedly to avoid this style of conduct here. Please take a moment to read the guidelines and make an effort to observe them.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I'll try to keep this in mind. This comment clearly is just frustration (which I believe to be warranted, but still unwelcome here) and I'm sorry for that. Other recent posts related to the Apple ecosystem I think don't fall into this category, since they point out real issues with the systems and inform reader of topics.
Many thanks. Critique is fine, we just don't want this place to be a rage fest.
I really detest Walmart too. OMG and Starbucks too. Amazon is the worst. And man oh man do I hate McDonald’s.
You know what I do?
I don’t give any of them a cent. Ever.
It’s cool we can choose what is and is not part of our lives.
Imagine if there were only two restaurants. You'd end up at McDonald's again.
There's more than two smartphone manufacturers.
And eg Huawei doesn't take part in the Google app store.
No. I’d cook at home.
I don’t have a phone.
Hats off to you. I bet you don't have Instagram induced ADD or crippling anxiety.
> bet you don't have Instagram induced ADD
I mean, they don’t have a phone. So probably not.
honestly, mad respect
Ah ... fine Caledonian cuisine ...
They are not forcing you to make apps and put them on the store. If you want their services, then pay them. If not, then good luck to ya.
Industry wide tax, even the mafia gave you a better vig.
[flagged]
Don’t buy iOS devices then.
I look at mobile devices, especially iOS, as “consoles” akin to a Nintendo Switch. It’s not a “real computer,” the definition of which requires the ability to run any code I want. It does whar it does pretty well and it is what it is.
FWIW this is how most informed consumers think as well. People buy iOS, consoles, etc because they want a walled garden. I think the real way out is getting consumers to see and value the benefits of leaving it.
This seems like a leap that consumers buy them
>"because they want a walled garden"
I doubt most consumers would care if you could sideload apps on their iOS device or play PlayStation and Nintendo games on their Xbox. In fact most consumers would be all for it!
They buy these things because they find there's already enough value there.
I don't think so - the hugely negative perception of virus-laden wildlands on Android (which is somewhat true! most people could be tricked into bypassing the security prompts) makes people choose a safer option time after time.
You could absolutely make the case that users ought to be smarter, use technology as a power user, etc, but that's not the reality at the moment.
> the hugely negative perception of virus-laden wildlands on Android
I... don't see this in real life? There have always been San Bernadino-emboldened Apple customers that love to dunk on Android security, but recently that's gone away. Trojan horses are making it through[0] Apple's manual review, NSO Group has working exploits more often than not, the US government has wiretapped Push Notifications[1] and Apple has seemingly slowed their persecution of organized hacking groups.
iOS is in a post-Pegasus world. Android was perceived to be vulnerable if you downloaded the wrong app; iOS was proven to be vulnerable if you received an SMS payload from any user. And Apple has admitted that they cannot even really detect it[2] anymore. Neither educated users nor common people are associating Apple with security, especially now.
[0] https://blog.lastpass.com/posts/warning-fraudulent-app-imper...
[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/apple-admits-to-...
[2] https://9to5mac.com/2025/02/20/apple-currently-only-able-to-...
Non technical users are absolutely unable to discern security things or keep malware out. They’re sitting ducks.
If our OSes were not polished glorified 1970s Unix and had real security isolation we could allow more freedom, paradoxically. But given that our security is awful, freedom for non technical users means the freedom to get spyware and malware.
And where has such retreat led us? Rootable Androids are vanishing, Google is set to prevent side-loading entirely, and countless apps refuse to work on rooted devices.
You either force the companies to stop, to restore your control over your devices, or be dragged by the uninformed consumer masses into slavery.
they actually backtracked on that because some nations require it
> although at 15%, it's half the normal 30% rate for the app store
15% is the normal rate for the App Store. Only developers earning above $1MM/yr through the App Store have to pay 30%, the vast majority of developers only pay 15%.
I assume WeChat is above the $1m/yr threshold
It's not "normal", you have to "apply" (and get auto-accepted) but won't get the rate if you don't know to do that. You'll also get permanently booted from it if you do some things like transfer ownership of an account (if you want to sell an app you made, IIRC you lose access to this program, even if the app makes under a million).
Telegram have a big mini-apps platform.
Chatbots are a major area to regulate. I don't see how it would be possible for Telegram (or Discord, or IRC clients...) to comply with this.
Forcing iPad support seems like tying. I wonder if this will finally get Instagram to release an iPad app.
They already did : https://www.inc.com/jason-aten/instagram-finally-gave-us-an-...
Commoditizing Roblox and keeping payments inhouse. Smart idea
Roblox still exempt, blatant favoritism continues
Roblox pays the full 30%.
Only for in app purchases of Robux. They are uniquely allowed to distribute their own app store (not based on HTML/JS applets) within the App Store, which is against the terms that every other Apple developer agrees to. And they are allowed to use a virtual currency that can be obtained elsewhere without an Apple Tax to pay for digital goods purchases inside an iOS app, bypassing the IAP system, again against the terms.
I expect this is also setting up for MCP marketplaces.
There was evidence of upcoming macOS and iOS updates adding MCP support at a system level across apps. The rules talk about "scripts", not only games or apps.
https://9to5mac.com/2025/09/22/macos-tahoe-26-1-beta-1-mcp-i...
Another thing this is similar to is Google AMP, which provided predictible user experiences through heavy restrictions. I guess AMP is to Mini Apps what Google Glass is to Oculus.
Try to find some high tensile analogies.
These ones are looking a little strained.
[flagged]
We've banned this account. It's a repeat offender when it comes to breaching the guidelines, with several warnings over the years, and there's no way we can let a vile slur like this pass without consequence.
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45922815 and marked it off topic.
HN has always been about how to monetize, not the hacker ethos. Successful business models get a free pass for being successful.