One of those battles where you want both sides to lose. Apple are definitely gouging users and developers and don’t deserve all the money they make in the App Store, it is a classic case of money for old rope. In the other hand, epic isn’t really any better, and they just don’t want to give up a share of their user gouging…
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 depends on the line in the sand for legitimate criticism.
They aren’t gouging users and devs. And devs enroll willingly and users purchase willingly.
And people give their money to epic willingly.
If you know Apple does it, and you don’t agree with it, don’t buy an iPhone. It’s that’s simple.
Certain points regarding how apple run & maintains the App Store on iOS is a legitimate criticism regarding this 30% transaction fee
Well then…
I would recommend you speak with your wallet and go buy hardware that supports that other company’s OS that has the features you want.
If/when Apple starts seeing a dip in them profits, they could then be willing to do more to open up their system.
Having politicians forcing them to do so, when those politicians have next to none or even zero understanding of how complex these systems are, should not be dictating such changes.
I believe Japan and South Korea both took a softer approach to the DMA that the EU released and that softer approach is one major reason why Apple hasn’t fought against them as hard.
I may be wrong, but I also believe that Japan’s and South Korea’s economies are in a better spot then the EU so they didn’t need to throw in a bunch of word vomit to collect fines (revenue)
Guess you don’t remember how Dev’s made out selling software before. They’d be lucky to keep 30% after everyone took their cut (distributors, publishers, retailers).
This is why developers were happy with The App Store as it was considered a good deal to give up 30%. Practically no one was complaining back then.
Why do people constantly use the 30% figure? It’s misleading.
- 15% for small developers.
- Subscriptions are 30% first year and 15% thereafter.
- Many subscriptions can be bought outside of The App Store (Spotify hasn’t allowed in-App signups since 2016) meaning Apple gets 0%.
- Many Apps don’t have to pay anything (like shopping Apps or service Apps) or, of course, the huge number of free Apps.
This is the most important part people are missing. Every single developer knew the rules at the beginning.
Apple didn’t start off free and then when The App Store took off said “hey, we could really monetize this”.
In fact, Apple has done the exact opposite. Fees were initially 30% for everyone. Then they allowed subscriptions at 15% after the first year. They allowed outside subscriptions at 0%. They dropped small developers fees to 15%. They allowed many classes of Apps to avoid fees.
Having a hard time when someone KNOWS the rules, AGREES to the rules and then whines about them after.
Again this is whataboutery
Because does the 30% not relate to epic games like Fortnite?
For me it’s not about the free apps or Spotify
If apple feels that epic are trying to get a free ride then that’s on apple more than anything else
Yeah that’s not particularly true regarding gouging and this case speaks volumes
In terms of not only language but also in terms of actions from apple
1. It's $99 per year + cost of a Mac + cost of an iPhone and/or iPad and/or Apple TV and/or Vision Pro.
2. Still no one else came up with a good rebuttal about how illogical Apple's arguments are when Apple is fine with just $99/per year for free apps and apps selling physical goods and services but not when they sell digital goods.
They don’t want to develop for Apple. They want to develop for iOS users, and they want to maximize their revenue stream.
And? If it’s unprofitable they will not be able to compete. They want to offer 0% commission for every developer with up to 1 million in revenue yearly before they take a cut is beneficial to everyone.
Would argue apples is the one ripping everyone off by maintaining themselves as the eternal middleman and not improving the AppStore experience
No, always using the 30% fee is misleading. As is calling it a “tax” or “processing fee”. It’s all about changing the language to make Apple look bad.
Your reasoning is flawed because you’re attempting to make the developer fee a revenue source. It’s a processing fee to become registered with Apple. Similar to how a small business has to pay a fee to operate in a city/town by getting licensed. It’s a token fee, that’s all.
I suppose you don’t need a PC to develop Apps? Or are able to develop AAA games without a high-end PC with a GPU you can test on (or multiple GPUs)?
Somehow on Mac it is possible to install software without paying Apple their percentage. Why should it differ on iPhone?
You can buy the tools (PC and components) to develop for Windows/Linux from various vendors; you can only buy the tools to develop for Apple devices from Apple
If they were the only game in town sure. But they aren’t. People should vote the their $$$.
Last edited:
Epic is a shady company and Apple imo is correct.
What actions from apple? All they have done is protect their turf, which they own.
Developers make money on Ad's. There are games that have IAP, and the 30% certainly applies to them. But, there are ways to ensure you never pay apple anything more than the $99 yearly fee and whatever it cost to get a mac to develop on. Even with EPIC's rule of no charge for the first $1 million sales. Still acknowledges that there is a cost to provide this service. They may have other ways to make up the difference. They would be foolish not to have other ways to make it up. Or they are getting subsidized by other means. Either way, it's not for you or anyone else to say what Apple should or should not be making or charging for something they created. The market decides that. People no longer shopping on the store decides that.
Competition is great. EPIC can invest in making their own device to compete with Apple on. They already have a store, they support multiple platforms and OS's and hardware's. Team up with a hardware maker in phones or portable devices and compete to their hearts content. I bough Apple for exactly what it is. I don't need anyone taking away what I have. You're free to do with it whatever you are capable of doing with it. No one is stopping you, you just don't get support from Apple to do it.
Of the two, I pick Apple to have my best interest in mind. If I didn't feel that way. I would pick a different platform.
It's funny that I keep hearing about these games, and somehow none of them have ever bothered me on my device.
But, if I had to rely on say EPIC having a store. I already see the ads popping up on my Windows PC endlessly. I would rather that not happen to my phone just because I installed their store. And or whatever else they feel I "need" in order for the application to work properly. I don't seem to get ads in my wallet either. I must be lucky then.
I never installed Cydia. I honestly never had the need. When I first got an iPhone it already had a store and 90% of what I needed a phone for it came installed by default. Overtime, as more applications became available, and the phone got better at doing things. I still never had a need to install anything that wasn't already available via the Store, or built in by default.
YES. Forever. Some of these businesses would not even exist if for not the iPhone. To be on a platform with world wide access in an instant. Yeah, be grateful forever thank you very much. To the M$ or Adobes of the world. Yeah they would have been fine without the iPhone for sure. But they also sold these products in stores at the time and paid more than 30% for the ability to do so.
People and businesses can get annoyed at anything they want. My question to them is "Are you making money on the platform?"
Since I had Netflix before I had an iPhone (DVD rental service). This was never an issue. I would assume many people had Netflix early on as well. So going to a web page to sign up (on the same phone by the way), if it was your first time doing so. Really did not cause the uproar some are making it out to be. It's an inconvenience, sure. Is it going to prevent people from getting what they want? I would very much argue it has not. Even with Apple TV+ costing LESS and being baked into the device(s). Netflix is doing well, and continues to do so. So it's not about price, it is about what people want. And Apple doesn't prevent Netflix from offering to sell the service via the App. Netflix just doesn't want to give Apple a cut of the sale. And that is their right to feel that way. Same for Spotify. Are they hurting for sales? Are people so annoyed that they can't sign up via the App that they DON'T? Does not seem to be the case at all.
Like I stated above, it's not really an issue. It's an inconvenience, but it's not an issue. And it doesn't require any government to come up with any laws to fix. There is a work around.
CODB. Cost of doing business. Some how, some way. We have APPS galore. Despite what you stated above. Everyone has costs. Apple has costs. What they provide is not free. So many people think because Apple has the solutions in place, and the costs of running it is now much cheaper than it ever was. Miss the point that it is a business in and of itself. And to maintain that business it must continue to make money. CODB.
The customers to sell that too. I bought an iPhone because I wanted what Apple has to sell. I didn't buy the iPhone for EPIC games. If you bought an iPhone with the intention of it working exactly the way you want it to. You bought the wrong device. If you have the ability to bend the device to your wills, that's fine. And you can do so. Just without Apple's help.
These are the choices we have. And you're free to make any suggestions to Apple or other manufacturers for things you feel would make the products better. But, none of them are under any obligation to do so. What makes Apple "Apple", is because they control the whole widget. And from that control you get a product that you either love or not. You're not required to love it, or like it or buy it. If they don't make what you want, you are free to go elsewhere. It's not their fault other options are worse. If you want better. Got and create it. You would have many people banging down your doors for such a product.
Because Samsung now understands that if they control the product, they can make a better one. It's not going to be better for everyone, and many will not like it. But, you can pick up a Pixel or a Asus phone one of many other brands that make phones. Samsung isn't a charity, nor is Apple. They make what they make. Like it love it hate it want it, but pick the one that best suits your needs.
Lo and behold you have the ability to use Linux and even Nvidia GPU's for your computing needs. Others will pick up a mac mini and be happy with its performance. Or a Studio as they may need more. Others will use the cloud for such computing needs, be it gaming or development. The world has plenty of options to suit almost everyone.
I would add that when Apple had both AMD and Nvidia options. They most likely did not sell as well as the M series chip versions do now.
It would be no matter what platform you were on. Unless the application was multiplatform and subscription based. Moving from one to another will generally cost you.
If that continues to work for you, that's great.
Perhaps I missed that point earlier.
I think first, Apple is consistent when it comes to billing developers 30% of paid app revenue. So free apps don’t need to pay Apple anything, because 30% of nothing is nothing. Also, it is not possible for Apple to keep track of revenue which bypasses iTunes billing (such as ad revenue), so Apple doesn’t touch that either. As a result, you have cases like the Facebook app not needing to pay Apple a cent despite the parent company being insanely profitable.
It is what it is.
Second, I guess the distinction between apps that deal with physical goods vs digital ones come down to whether the service in question entails marginal costs or not. The delivery of physical goods and services have to contend with high margins costs of production that scale with the quantity of the goods being delivered (such as Amazon shipping groceries, or Uber sending a ride to your location). So Apple (correctly) elects not to touch that either.
Conversely, digital goods which are consumed on your mobile device (eg: IAPs for games like Fortnite, music, video streaming, a subscription for an ongoing service like Fantastical or Notability), these tend to have zero marginal costs, because the product is already made, and it doesn’t cost the company anything to serve the next available customer. As such, every additional dollar of revenue is essentially pure profit for them. So it is possible for Apple to charge 15% or 30% or whatever the final percentage works out to be, because the developer can absorb the hit.
I guess if we wanted Apple to be internally consistent, they could revise the wording in the App Store such that they take a cut only from businesses with no / low marginal costs, but I am not sure that anyone would be able to acknowledge the distinction.
It makes sense to me at least.
Pretty sure Apple doesn't charge 30% for a CC transaction. It encompasses everything they provide the developer to sell on the store. CC charges are included in that 30%, it is not just for that purpose.
It is only "forced" if you the developer want to sell on Apple's platform.
No, actually they can't always choose where to sell their food and goods. Best Buy doesn't have to sell Dell PC's or HP PC if they don't want to. They don't have to allow Apple stores within a store either. These are choices those companies made together to have such things within a Best Buy. It is Apple's store, because Apple made the iPhone and the OS that it runs on. And they don't want 3rd party stores or 3rd party control over the device, OS, Store they created. And they should have the right to do so. WE as consumers have the right to NOT buy from Apple and go to Google or 3rd party device/OS elsewhere for our needs. YOU don't get to force open a closed system because it suits you. You have the choice of going elsewhere.
That isn't how that business model was setup to work. Had it been, then yeah it could have been exactly that.
It could have been Restaurateur goes to the distributor and gets everything they need to make the meals for the restaurant. That part could be $99 for the yearly membership to that distributor. If the restaurant makes $0, then they don't owe the distributor anything else. If they make $1, they could owe the distributor .30c And so on. So to make the money the restaurant needs to survive and thrive. They could charge $1.33 for the meal. .33c to the distributor and $1 for them. Since there was very little to no upfront costs for the ingredients for the meal. They just pay once they make a sale. Break the sales down into what you need and what you want to make as profit. Add on 30% to cover the distributor and bobs your uncle.
Well most people buy the device for it’s hardware quality, the slick software and integration with ancillary hardware. That’s coring with your feet. The store service isn’t that free to allow you to vote with your wallet.
You can choose other streaming services than appleTV, you can get other than Apple Music, you can get other than iCloud etc.
That’s like saying I’m buying a Honda accord for the trunk space, nice steering wheel and placement of the shift lever.
I also can put new rims on my new Honda.