Facebook can refuse 30% of the commission and change the rules of the game throughout the market.

Yesterday, an amendment to the Facebook IPO application was given an important news for developers. It seems that the company plans to reduce the 30% commission that it charges from the sale of applications.

Here is what was announced yesterday:

We receive a commission of up to 30% of the cost of applications purchased by users from the developers of our Platform using our Payment Infrastructure. In the future, we will expand Payments for non-gaming applications, and the percentage that we get from developers may vary.
')
Previously, such information did not appear in the company's IPO bids or amendments to them. In addition, over the past three years, the company's position regarding a 30% share in profits has always been absolutely unshakable. The company also reports that for every Credits unit worth 10 cents, a commission of 3 cents is imposed, i.e. 30 percent.

If Facebook reduces the 30% commission on music or multimedia applications, it will allow the company to break away from other platforms. Today, Facebook, Apple, Amazon and Google are fighting for the status of the dominant provider of digital content in the network and mobile sphere.

Recall how things are with the commission from other competing companies: Apple gets a fixed commission in the same 30% of sales on its iOS; Google - 30% for Android, but only 5% for games on Google+; Amazon has an unusual order in which the company controls the pricing of applications, and keeps either only 30% of the amount for which the applications are sold, or 80% of the price set by the developer (whichever is less).

It should be noted that all these schemes do not divide applications into games, news applications, encyclopedias or any other classes and are the same for all similar products. If Facebook introduces a policy of different commissions, it will also change the pricing of applications according to their type. And this is something new.

Compare this option with Apple’s policy, which does not change the commission at 30% for any of its partners, even those whose net income is lower than others (for example, music and news apps developers who have to pay large royalties). Such an approach annoys Apple brands, such as The Financial Times, which managed to outwit the iTunes App Store and an Apple commission by developing a web-based application for tablets written in HTML5.

In fact, Apple now has no room for any serious maneuvers. The only defense of the company against antitrust matters by the Ministry of Justice regarding the formation of the price of e-books is the same 30% unified income tax on content. Two days ago, in an interesting column in the Wall Street Journal, Apple's senior vice president, Eddie Q, told Gordon Krovitz, a former publisher of the Wall Street Journal, the following: “I think you don't understand. We cannot treat newspapers or magazines in any way other than FarmVille. ”

Apparently, Facebook believes that newspapers and magazines should be treated differently than Zynga games. Facebook board members, such as Netflix CEO Reed Hastings and Washington Post CEO Don Graham, are likely to use this option with both hands, especially if they are going to sell subscriptions to their publications on Facebook in the future.

Lowering the commission will help Facebook get more content partners. If a company increases the diversity of its paid digital content, it will be able to persuade more users to pay for it. As Facebook said, of the existing 845 million active users per month, only 15 million users paid in Credits for any virtual purchases in 2011.

Experiments on the use of Credits outside the games have already been conducted. A number of musicians, including Widespread Panic and David Gray, gave their fans the opportunity to pay Credits for watching the online broadcast of their concerts. And David Guetta even sold his tracks for Credits. However, this is only the beginning.

Of course, the question of commissions from the sale of content is a delicate question. How to determine the "fair" commission for the sale of music content? And the sale of a digital subscription to The Washington Post? And what if you have a game, “inside” of which songs are sold?

If Facebook really refuses a single commission, they will launch a real wave in the sale of digital content online.