They do not, at least not the majority, the issue is there is a very vocal minority, but in reality the average person does not care o know what ICEBlock was until it was on the news.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Accuses Epic Games of Wanting a 'Free Ride'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It’s pretty much 100% on.
It’s a game of weasel words to criticize Apple in selling their products at market rates:
You think the phones aren’t different? Don’t car companies that have been around for a hundred years do the same?
The cost to use iOS is part of the price, the same way you don’t pay extra for automotive software.
I am going to assume you are an adult with your full mental capacity.
The Apple App Store didn’t come about tell what 2009/2010. Sure Apple has made it harder to leave as the years go by, but it’s not impossible.
You as an adult made a conscious choice over the last 15 years to stay inside those moats.
I am not against people being able to do more with either the hardware/software of the phone they buy. I am against the government sticking their hands into the mess, as all they will do is make it even worse. The current US government situation is a clear example of why they shouldn’t be making choices that impact my life.
The DMA is also a prime example of unaware politicians.
They could have made the rules very simple:
1: if the electronic/computing device has the ability to search the internet, then the device needs to allow supported installation of software from the web via 1st and 3rd parties.
2: App developers have the right to choose to use ether the 1st party, a 3rd party or their own payment system, as long as those systems are secure to prevent harm to the end user.
3: the hardware/OS maker has a right to collect a small, fair and reasonable rate for the use of their IP from the developers.
(It’s not perfect, but a lot clearer then the DMA with a lot less vomit)
1. First Apple opted to expand its hardware market, not equivalent when you compete on something different. You don’t make a new phone/computer because you want to make a new browser. And the car analogy I would push for it to be a right they can’t violate the moment you purchase it. You would always have the right to go to any 3rd party paint repair shop.
Cydia existed before the AppStore.
2. Just about every device has their own store while the play store is overwhelmingly dominant. It’s Google Whois the one that locks Android down, and competition is indeed not just about price but services and functions that the store provides. And currently the AppStore has close to zero such pressure.
Epic tries to compete with steam and still they stay dominant. And it seems they have enough earning more than a million to keep it sustainable considering first everyone payed 10% and all the UE5 games that payed 5% royalties above a million. And if it doesn’t work they might exit the market or change their strategy.
Perhaps Apple could increase their standards instead of having all the gacha junk, scam gambling games and copied.
3. They had to increase the prices to cover the cost because they had to include IAP, because the fees were larger than their margins and the user ends up paying 27% more than they need.
Apple went and made their own modems, and still pay Qualcomm licensing fees for the technology. Apple effectively did an Epic and refused to pay but was protected by the courts so they could still sell devices.
And yes 30% is too much. Steam provides more value and services for their store than the AppStore does. And they hold more Mac games than the Mac AppStore because it’s also just better. So let them develop for iOS and not use the AppStore. It will only be positive for Apple to grow the iPhones features.
Apple can keep their AppStore as pure as they want, but I’m not amused by them going closer for googles behavior as the services becomes their main growth market.
4. This is true for every Android phone, they run googles store and don’t profit from it. They have their own store as well.
I don’t care about Facebook or Google earning money through advertisements and will demand that they respect my privacy, if others don’t want that then that’s their perogative. And also a big reason I have an iPhone so it’s incredibly irritating when they don’t have proper advertising blocking mechanisms
Rights being violated is them trying to maintain ownership over my device.
5. I don’t need to run my computer on maximum power at all time. I have an AMD processor with a GPU, then my 3080 for when it’s needed. When I need to upgrade I simply swap the GPU. The cpu, RAM or SSD isn’t needed to be swapped, and barely the cpu for probably a decade before it’s needed. I don’t need 1000w, I barely need 500w
The M1 or M2 is probably fine for 99.99% of people and cases if they just could use a dedicated GPU. And the fact the Mac Studio might be super efficient at 100w doesn’t mean much when the games largely just is unplayable because it still lacks the capacity to render it.
6. What the iPhone was designed for is largely irrelevant as it’s become the modern computer and an important feature. Apple should have the right to control the store, not the device itself as it should be up to the users. I can’t imagine what ”can of worms” that could possibly be opened.
Eu can’t make any regulation they want. The memberstate still hold most responsibility
And the DMA is much more expensive
1: that is just about unimaginable more complicated to do, and they don’t want it to be for everyone that are impactful for. Hence why Xbox, PlayStation or Nintendo isn’t covered because they don’t have enough business partners that are involved.
2&3: that’s already part of it and existing IP law.
But I agree the DMA could have been more restrictive in some respects. Such as stating that undertakers aught to have the ability to install software without needing permission from the provider of the hardware/os and engage in free contract engagement with any middleman.
Hence why Apple is saying a 15-30% fee is fair and reasonable. Or the CTf they had before was also fair and reasonable according to them.
And EU doesn’t have the civil servants to go after everyone. It’s not th US. At least 600.000 work for the U.S. federal government (excluding postal and military) while perhaps 50-100.000 work for EU)
Well one thing the others do have over Apple such as car manufacturers or console makers etc. They are consistent in taking 30%~ for any purchase with no exception.
While Apple do have a bunch of arbitrary exceptions.
And I do have to agree. It doesn’t seem to matter if Apple would be releasing a new iPhone every year or every 6 years etc.
Only reasonable angle is that they don’t have enough developers/ companies that matter. And/or the ability to purchase in physical stores. So a developer could sell their games in their own store and make a GameStop equivalent. And largely unrestricted publishing ability of any kind of game it seems even if more expensive to do.
Thats not true. There is a small business dev program in place.
It's their own business, even if you don't agree with the way they are running it.
There are many parallels to the console industry.
1: I mean in the sense of taking a commission, not the percentage
2: yes it’s their business, but it would be harder to attack if everyone payed a commission.
3: i would say not that many industries are parallel to the iOS AppStore market such as consoles. If consoles tomorrow only had digital purchases possible it would be way more equivalent. Or if we all of a sudden could buy iOS apps in Walmart
Epic sees itself as a white knight busting open apple, they may succeed or not. We'll have to see the outcome. But I do agree with Apple they want another entity controlling fees and commissions, which sets a bad precedent because of that slippery slope thing that has everybody talking.
It’s probably 99% self serving that might just happen to benefit others.
And then use the savior angle.
and Apple wants to maintain the commission and fees because it’s purely economic interest but might push some other pr angle.
Again whataboutery the company dictates the price of the product not the customer hence why apple are a greedier compared with other tech companies
So now we are comparing an iPhone to car see that’s the flaw in Apple’s stance and certain apple fans say see it’s the same as consoles & then when you point out the differences suddenly oh look we are the same as the car industry so what is it.
epic have not all of a sudden decided & forced apple to make changes to iOS that is what a court case is for that an independent individual hears both sides of the argument now in this case if the court decides changes should be made to iOS then that’s on apple not epic because this could all be avoided if they actually negotiated with them before action was taking in relation to the iOS App Store but classic apple we have all this money so we will drag this out because we have unlimited funds.
Apple is out to provide a service, not to kowtow to those who want to control t heir business, but not participate in their revenue.
Ad apple has every right to maintain their fees and commission. And if anyone doesn't like it there are alternative ways to distribute your products. Ask Epic.
Not going to change my opinion that greedy is a weasel word with purely a baised definition.
There are broad similarities over industries about how marketing consumer goods are done.
All of this will be decided in due time. And yes, producing products that people want to buy for decades does give one a hefty war chest.
Software development is supposed to be $0 risk? That's a terrible take obviously.
Calling someone a bully is purely subjective, objectively speaking.
You're saying Apple didn't spend over a billion into developing the App Store platform by now?
Actually, I’m pretty sure there are objective behaviors which can be seen as markers of bullying, regardless of context.
Spending money at the start is not the same as now
saying there are objective behaviors being classified as markers of bullying and calling someone a bully are two entirely different things.
I said Apple spent billions on R&D for the App Store platform which is talking about since the start.
Last edited:
Opting to expand their market. Their market. Expanding is a risk. It costs money, time, effort, resources to expand. There is the very real possibly they could have failed, and lost out to this market. Many were saying it would fail.
You can try and push for such a right. However, if you are not in control of the paint supply (in this example). There are companies that own a color for instance. Or own a patent on the chemicals that make up the paint. You may not have any right to any of that. It could have been sold to that car company as an exclusive. So neither would a 3rd party repair shop have access to it, without some kind of certification from them allowing them to work on it on their behalf. So while you "could" get it painted again by anyone. You "May" not be able to get the exact same paint color outside of the manufacture of the car. You bought what you bought. Not any-thing else. Do with it after what you will/can. But, the company is under no obligation to assist you outside of that or make it easy for you to do so. They have rights too.
Meaningless. It is a hack to get onto the iPhone. And Apple has every right to prohibit its use "BY" not allowing it to be able to hack its way on. You have every right to try to hack it on to YOUR phone. But, that is the limit for each party here. No different than saying Orange existed before iPhone 17. Why can't I have an orange phone before iPhone 17? Like Samsung BTS edition purple phone. Why can't I get that on an iPhone from Apple?
Proving the point we need not waste time with these rules to allow the 3rd party store. More importantly that Android already had/has the ability to let the end user have a 3rd party store. No need to force Apple to also have one.
It doesn't need the pressure. Only a small fraction of people "want" this just to tinker specifically ON an iPhone. Get a Droid. Have fun. And accept that Apple does NOT want to cater to that audience. That is not where they are focusing on. It is too small a market for them to even bother with, and have to work extra just to please. And, most likely fail at doing so.
If it does work out, they will eventually raise the price point. 1 million will go down to half a million. Royalties will go up from 5-10% or whatever in-between. And if they fail, Steam prices will go up. And on and on.
Perhaps. If it proves to be a big enough issue for them. They will. If not, they will move on to other things.
There is aways a markup on almost everything we buy. 27% may still be lower than what it would have been in a physical store. The MSRP or retail price could still be the same as a store as well. Since none of us are working for them to know the input costs, profit margins, taxes, tariffs, etc. Knowing it "is" 27% more than it otherwise would be is misleading. Not to mention IAP is generally something they created already being resold a million times over.
Qualcomm charges a lot, based on price of the device. And they own the patents for the tech that makes the cellular modem work. Bravo for them. Apple has to pay them. But, that cost is HIGH. And they fought over the cost with them. AND managed to come to an agreement (2 years or so later). HOLY CRAP! They didn't publicly shame or take out ads?? What in the world??? And now, they have an in-house modem chip based on tech they purchased from intel. So at some point, they will not have to pay Qualcomm anything. Because they will own their own modem. Not like Apple is going to sell its modem design to 3rd parties to compete against Qualcomm, just like they are not going to sell M chips to 3rd parties. They made it for themselves. I personally had no issue with EPIC going to court with Apple over the 30% or anything else they felt was "wrong". But they did it in public, and broke OUR access to playing the games or having EPIC anything going forward. THAT is the issue. I still got to make phone calls with my iPhone during the Qualcomm dispute.
30% is too much for you. The value is whatever you perceive it to be. We have different values. I don't want to open up the platform, as I chose this platform as it is. If you want it open, pick a platform that is more open. We both get what we want. Closer to what we both want rather.
This isn't Apple or Googles problem to solve. Neither can please everyone.
Again, nothing is perfect. And you should care how they make their money, since this whole conversation is about MONEY. Who/m charges what and if that is too much or not enough. How fair it is to charge what is being charged, and or if there should be a charge at all. Facebook, and Google can offer a platitude of services for free, but those services aren't really free and they have found a way to make a good bit of coin without directly charging you for it. Best of luck to you to MacGyver your way around that. I truly hope you succeed. Just note that if enough of us figured out a way to do the same. Then we should expect Google and Facebook to go away at some point for not making any money.
If you built the device. But, you didn't. You bought the device. That device is yours to do with as you see fit. It gives you nothing more than that right to it. And it also works for Apple, they don't have to do anything for you other than support the device as they shipped it to you. You have no right to make another company make that same device work exactly how you want it to, when you want it to. They built it the way they wanted to. You decide if you like it enough to purchase it. That's it.
The Mac Studio is 100 watt full tilt. So still 5x less power for what would most likely equal or better performance based on your existing system spec. Now you can't upgrade it in the traditional sense, so you still would most likely prefer the PC for that reason alone. But typically PC video cards need more than the 75 watts that come from the slot. Usually in the 100 - 500+ watt range alone. And Micro$oft will most likely force you to upgrade your CPU before 10 years is done. Building is definitely cheaper than buying from a vendor like Dell. But, everything has its pro-con's.
The history of Mac gaming is the games are generally never well optimized for the Mac as a platform. When you take into account say a console. All games on the console tend to run well enough to justify its existence on the console. For Mac, it tended to have limited hardware options. Which like a console, shouldn't be a limitation. But, it is on the Mac. Mainly because the dev didn't really optimize it as well as they could or should have. Games are an afterthought for Mac. Usually a game comes out a year or more later. Games that came out with a simultaneous release was rare and still needed a relatively new Mac to run well. As it is now with M chips. They are at minimum as good as a Nintendo Switch is at running any game. And the future M5 Pro or Max will easily handle all the games available for the Mac. But, that's the other problem. Just not that many. Heck even CyberPunk 2077 can run on an M chip. Can it run it as well as a 5090? No. But, it's not 5 times worse either.
This is the whole point. Might as well say. Xbox was designed for games, but is so much more now that we can't hold it to just gaming anymore...
Why does this matter? It's not exactly standard issue provided at birth.
Perfect
If you agree that Apple makes the device to a specification "they" came up with, and they should have the right to come up with whatever specifications they wish. So long as it doesn't harm the end user in some illegal way.
Apple also lets you do whatever you can do with your device. They just don't have to help you do it. So when you purchase the device. If you don't like what it does, how it does it or why it does it. And you have the means. You can do with it as you wish. You did buy the device.
Apparently the EU and other parts of the word think they are closing the can.
But those processors end up in Laptops, and Desktops and watches, and AppleTV's. Are those some how not living up to snuff?
Again just because you spend money at the start to get it up in running is very different to now customers are locked in to the generic store as they have no competition