Back to Home11/14/2025, 12:41:08 AM

Apple Mini Apps Partner Program

soheilpro

116 points

67 comments

Mood

thoughtful

Sentiment

mixed

Discussion Activity

Very active discussion

First comment

29m

Peak period

Day 1

Avg / period

21.5

Comment distribution43 data points

Based on 43 loaded comments

Key moments

01Story posted
11/14/2025, 12:41:08 AM
5d ago
Step 01
02First comment
11/14/2025, 1:10:08 AM
29m after posting
Step 02
03Peak activity
42 comments in Day 1
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03
04Latest activity
11/15/2025, 11:51:23 AM
3d ago
Step 04

Generating AI Summary...

Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns

Discussion (67 comments)

Showing 43 comments of 67

daeken

5d ago

3 replies

> 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?

pdpi

5d ago

1 reply

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.

ChrisMarshallNY

5d ago

1 reply

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.

wahnfrieden

5d ago

You must submit all the apps for review.

paxys

5d ago

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.

bradly

5d ago

Roblox model.

jasongill

5d ago

3 replies

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

JimDabell

5d ago

2 replies

> 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%.

jasongill

5d ago

I assume WeChat is above the $1m/yr threshold

wahnfrieden

5d ago

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).

x0x0

5d ago

This is a partnership the same way restaurants "partner" with the mob.

jamesgeck0

5d ago

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.

wyre

5d ago

3 replies

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.

yen223

5d ago

2 replies

Maybe I'm cynical, but what I'm wondering is which country's regulation led to Apple being forced to do this

wahnfrieden

5d ago

1 reply

Apple is going to profit tremendously off this. They did it in part because they will make billions from WeChat.

xeonmc

5d ago

And Roblox

chronciger

5d ago

1 reply

> 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.

nandomrumber

5d ago

2 replies

Isn’t this what competition is supposed to like?

brazukadev

4d ago

Yes. You'll own nothing and be happy /s

riffraff

5d ago

How's this competition if it's still using apple's payment infrastructure in apps that are shipped via apple's app store?

wahnfrieden

5d ago

3 replies

Yes but it is also a grab at WeChat, forcing them to transact through Apple with a new 15% cut

JimDabell

5d ago

1 reply

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...

nandomrumber

5d ago

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?

nandomrumber

5d ago

1 reply

Presumably Tencent voluntarily entered in to a contract with Apple.

What’s this forced business?

wahnfrieden

4d ago

Aperocky

5d ago

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.

JumpCrisscross

5d ago

1 reply

> 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.

wyre

5d ago

1 reply

Could be. I’m not familiar with their Tencent contracts.

JumpCrisscross

5d ago

1 reply

“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...

wyre

5d ago

Oh ya, there's no way this isn't an extension of those agreements with Tencent.

polyomino

5d ago

1 reply

Forcing iPad support seems like tying. I wonder if this will finally get Instagram to release an iPad app.

havaloc

5d ago

They already did : https://www.inc.com/jason-aten/instagram-finally-gave-us-an-...

modeless

5d ago

1 reply

Roblox still exempt, blatant favoritism continues

Jaxkr

3d ago

Roblox pays the full 30%.

benatkin

5d ago

1 reply

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.

nandomrumber

5d ago

Try to find some high tensile analogies.

These ones are looking a little strained.

jim201

5d ago

1 reply

No excitement here for any “discount” announcements—just cynicism about our device freedoms being restricted by two duopolies.

lanna

5d ago

1 reply

A duopoly

Cockbrand

5d ago

1 reply

GP maybe meant EU + US in addition to the obvious Apple + Google?

fsflover

5d ago

Or MS + Apple on desktop.

leche

4d ago

Commoditizing Roblox and keeping payments inhouse. Smart idea

mappu

5d ago

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.

wahnfrieden

5d ago

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...

24 more comments available on Hacker News

View full discussion on Hacker News

ID: 45922550Type: storyLast synced: 11/16/2025, 9:42:57 PM

Want the full context?

Jump to the original sources

Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.

Read Article View on HN