Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
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.
Well we have a plethora of apps that sell digital goods that Apple doesn’t take a cut from as the content isn’t consumed on device.
Example steam store for the content you purchase. Or ENEBA for the keys and digital content and subscriptions you buy is fully outside iTunes billing 🤷‍♂️. Even Apple subscriptions etc
. IMG_3196.jpeg

IMG_3193.jpeg
 
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.
Yeah because apple are the only company in history that has never done or did anything wrong that would make them look bad
In terms of this issue with epic
 
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)
This is brilliant when anyone dares criticise apple then the default position from some individuals is just go elsewhere
Just like epic & the comments they are getting like don’t like it go somewhere else leave our company alone it’s all very strange
Regarding a company that just wants a better deal
 
Yeah because apple are the only company in history that has never done or did anything wrong that would make them look bad
In terms of this issue with epic
Epic wants a free ride in someone else back. That makes apple on the mountain of right.
This is brilliant when anyone dares criticise apple then the default position from some individuals is just go elsewhere
Just like epic & the comments they are getting like don’t like it go somewhere else leave our company alone it’s all very strange
Regarding a company that just wants a better deal
Let epic go elsewhere. The mindset that Apple is wrong boggles. Android exists and has a broader market share.
 
  • Love
Reactions: marte91
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.
First it’s ludicrous to make a device to compete on a service. Am o to make a car just to compete with repairing paint jobs?

Nobody have questioned the fact it cost to run a store, they make money from the ones that earns more than a million a year. They don’t have a rule for the first million, it’s every single million every year. They think they’ll make money by offering them better services and opportunities.

The question is the only way the market decides is by throwing out the baby with the bathwater, the store simply sucks but it’s what they have to deal with.
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.
Apple could have the worst intentions yet the competitors might actually doing the worst so you stay.They are primarily for profit seeking ventures, not a charity. And yes these games don’t bother you because you’re not the one purchasing them, but there’s a lot of Apple users who are purchasing these gambling products that does everything they can to rip you off and Apple is fine with it as they are mighty profitable. And did you miss the entire F1 add complaints?
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.
There was what you had to do. Example being able to use the flash as a flashlight with a dedicated button, with the iPhone 4. Or being able to film video with the iPhone instead of only taking pictures. Or just having the settings bar to lower screen brightness and other settings without having to exit the app and enter the settings, multitasking, proper Adblocking etc etc.

The Adobe and MS of the world already sold their software in online stores and their own websites.

The. Apple should stop complaining when they think they’re paying too much royalties for licenses and parts when they wouldn’t even exist without them. Terms pence accepted to then be renegotiated.
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.
An inconvenience is a revenue issue. They would make more money if users could subscribe directly from the app, but they don’t think it would make them more money than refusing to allowing. Especially when you require to have 30%+ margins. And sometimes you’re just forced to provide IAP despite you not wanting to.
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.
I bought my iPhone to be a useful device for me. I didn’t buy it for the different apps, I just found the usefulness of said apps. I bought infinity blade because I found it. Epic store=/= Epic games.

I had to modify my device to make it more functional or to get access to apps that wasn’t available or to improve privacy etc etc.
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.

Well I do make suggestions and I can hold the beliefs that Apple or other are violating some rights of mine and that some representatives of mine should protect said rights and act on it.

Just if facebook or google wants to profit of my data o have acted to prevent them to do so by legal means because they refused to change their product to be better.

Samsung have the Google Play store. They don’t profit off it.

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.
Lo and behold my vast software and gaming library doesn’t work on Linux 🤷‍♂️ so I’m using what I have.
The M ship can be the best in the world, It still is fairly inadequate compared to dedicated hardware and I can’t use a GPU in a Mac Pro so I again had to abandon the Mac hardware to run windows on standard AMD components.

I don’t see why you would ever use cloud computing and stream games, but I rather own and run it locally compared to pay a subscription and more for it than it’s worth.
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.
Hence why the best option for everyone is a store for those who find the dedicated AppStore inadequate or poorly designed as a general service instead of specialized services such as steam.

If I’m using windows, Linux or macOS i can get software from anywhere to compete and contrast the stores service quality and library.

To use a proper browser that blocks adds and tracking superior than iOS allows for etc etc
 
  • Like
Reactions: platinumaqua
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.
Perhaps you have forgotten how in the early days developers kept begging Apple to implement trial versions (shareware model) and upgrade pricing and Apple flatly refused?

Later Apple started steering developers into the IAP model because more profits for them via the 30% cut. (Note: this was from the court contempt order that the judge written and it included some discovery from Apple's internal emails) Also notice Apple put in a filter for free to download/paid apps but never added one for no IAPs.
 
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.
Well why do you buy it if not for the malgamation of the qualities of said Honda? Presumably not for the ability to subscribe for seat warmers or the lack of no getting it serviced anywhere of your choosing?

You can put new rims, speakers, seats, gears, shift, infotainment system as well. Others doing a pimp my ride to their Honda doesn’t impact you either
 
Well why do you buy it if not for the malgamation of the qualities of said Honda? Presumably not for the ability to subscribe for seat warmers or the lack of no getting it serviced anywhere of your choosing?

You can put new rims, speakers, seats, gears, shift, infotainment system as well. Others doing a pimp my ride to their Honda doesn’t impact you either
Right. Like you suggested I bought a Honda accord for my reasons. On this case I liked the steering wheel and that tilted the equation.

But massive code changes to accommodate the DMA does affect me in terms of bugs and vulnerabilities. And could affect the reputation of Apple.
 
  • Love
Reactions: marte91
Well we have a plethora of apps that sell digital goods that Apple doesn’t take a cut from as the content isn’t consumed on device.
Example steam store for the content you purchase. Or ENEBA for the keys and digital content and subscriptions you buy is fully outside iTunes billing 🤷‍♂️. Even Apple subscriptions etc
. View attachment 2569578

View attachment 2569547
I am not understanding this example. There's a Steam store for iOS that sells games licenses?
 
You're conflating markup profit with credit card transaction fees. Stores DO NOT charge 30% to run a CC charge.
In-app purchases have nothing to do with the App Store so why should Apple get 30%?
The 30% goes towards covering the costs of running the iOS App Store. I don't think $99 per year per developer goes far enough in this regard. I will also argue that third-party payment processors like Stripe can afford to charge less because that's all they are - a payment processor. They don't run and maintain an App Store front, so it's easier to charge developers less when they are literally doing less for the money.

What Apple is doing here is make the barriers to entry extremely low for aspiring developers. The $99 annual fee is really there to prevent any Tom, Dick or Harry from creating a developer account just for the fun of it or to access software betas. If they release a free app or if their app isn't successful and they wind up not making any money, then the developer does not have to pay Apple any money. At the same time, it is all these apps from smaller developers that add to the diversity and vitality of the App Store (because basic apps like Facebook, Google, Netflix, Spotify etc are already available on both platforms, it falls on the more artisanal apps such as Play, Overcast, Fantastical, Ivory and Lookup that help iOS stand out from Android.

At the same time, given that the bulk of apps that wind up being charged 30% are gacha-type games, I don't really hold any sympathy towards them. Apple could tax them 50% and I wouldn't shed a tear.

It's a little like taxes when you think about it. People who earn below a certain threshold pay nothing. The more you earn, the more you pay, and the money goes back towards funding critical programmes and infrastructure. Nor do people say "Hey, I paid more in taxes than you, so I deserve more of this road than you".

Perhaps an argument could be made that since Apple derives the overwhelming majority of App Store revenue from games, they could simply exclude non-gaming apps from this 15/30% tax. It would help reduce a lot of the pressure and criticism that Apple is facing (leaving maybe Epic as the lone dissenter), while having a negligible hit on their earnings. However, at this stage, I do also believe that Apple remains steadfastly stubborn and unapologetic in doing what they are doing because they are convinced that they are entitled to 30% because they created the App Store, and enabled the thriving economy that underpins it today. It is sheer self-righteous indignation that's driving Apple's actions right now.

And I don't blame Apple. On a personal level, I do believe that Apple does deserve 30% (the same way Nintendo and Sony are). I want to see Apple win and I want to see Apple hold up this victory as proof of its unassailable authority over the iOS App Store. I also acknowledge that none of this is to my benefit, and that is fine because we are just random people posting on the internet, and really have zero impact over the outcome of the court case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marte91
The same people saying "I should have a choice", are the same people that don't like hearing "You have the choice to not be on the platform". I hate having to defend a big company, and be pro-capitalism, but it's more of Epic's hypocrisy of charging game developers fees to be on their platform. Also Apple is spending money on R&D, the upkeep of servers and software, there's a cost.
 
Also Apple is spending money on R&D

To make & sell iPhones

the upkeep of servers and software, there's a cost.

That's something they are forcing. Epic (and others) aren't asking to use any of Apple servers/software and they pay for the Developer fee that's asked.

Maybe Apple should charge more for the Dev fee?

None of this entitles them to a cut of all things happening in Apps.

Why aren't they trying to take a cut out of Amazon transactions in the App?

They use the same resources Apple provides that Epic does.
 
Last edited:
I am not understanding this example. There's a Steam store for iOS that sells games licenses?
Thers stores where you can buy games, software, subscriptions, in game content etc. This includes for iOS or other devices 🤷‍♂️




Edit: So hence the marginal costs or not is probably not the reason.
same with services provided digitally.
Right. Like you suggested I bought a Honda accord for my reasons. On this case I liked the steering wheel and that tilted the equation.

But massive code changes to accommodate the DMA does affect me in terms of bugs and vulnerabilities. And could affect the reputation of Apple.
Well if Isis can buy Toyota without impacting them meaningfully, I think il doubt Any other alternative stores would impact Apple as long as they stay away. I would even bet their practice of allowing shady gambling apps on the store harms their reputation more than any sideloading function ever could.

And thers closer to zero code changes that Apple would need to do as the function have been included for closer to a decade or so.


The same people saying "I should have a choice", are the same people that don't like hearing "You have the choice to not be on the platform". I hate having to defend a big company, and be pro-capitalism, but it's more of Epic's hypocrisy of charging game developers fees to be on their platform. Also Apple is spending money on R&D, the upkeep of servers and software, there's a cost.
Well currently Epic isn’t being hypocritical. They allow game developers to use their own payment systems for free. They currently allow them to earn up to a million a year for free.
They allow other stores to be listed for free.

Epic is allowing other to do the same and more as they demand of Apple 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:
  • Disagree
Reactions: I7guy
Imagine how many more people would be open to buying a Macbook if it could run Fortnite? (Which has between 230-650 Million monthly users)
 
Epic wants a free ride in someone else back. That makes apple on the mountain of right.

Let epic go elsewhere. The mindset that Apple is wrong boggles. Android exists and has a broader market share.
Again this is disingenuous to say epic want a free ride by apple because it’s not a free ride
Maybe if as a company apple was so greedy then they wouldn’t be in this position in the first place
 
Last edited:
Thers stores where you can buy games, software, subscriptions, in game content etc. This includes for iOS or other devices 🤷‍♂️
From what I can see, the app does not involve IAPs. It’s not dissimilar to how Netflix and Spotify operate (they get you to subscribe outside of the App Store so that they don’t need to pay Apple 30%). Though I suspect it’s closer to a market store front like Amazon than some sort of third party App Store.

It’s also possible that this app has simply flown under the radar of the app approval team so far. Perhaps one of us could bring this app to the attention of Apple and see if they decide to change their tune in the coming months? 😏
 
  • Love
Reactions: Sophisticatednut
Maybe if as a company apple was so greedy then they wouldn’t be in this position in the first place
Apple is no more or less greedy than Nintendo and Sony, is all I can say. I maintain that if Epic has no issues with paying either company 30% of IAP, there is no reason they should be dissatisfied with the current state of affairs on iOS either.

Nor do I see Epic pushing to have their Epic games store be made available for the Switch and PS5 platform either.

Who exactly is Apple being greedier than again? Just because they make profitable hardware, they are not allowed to operate an App Store or charge developers a commission? Says who? 🤨
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: marte91 and I7guy
I am not understanding this example. There's a Steam store for iOS that sells games licenses?
And well yes steam also exist so you can buy games.
But Patreon is for some reason obligated to have IAP and pay the 30% fee seems kind of odd.
The 30% goes towards covering the costs of running the iOS App Store. I don't think $99 per year per developer goes far enough in this regard. I will also argue that third-party payment processors like Stripe can afford to charge less because that's all they are - a payment processor. They don't run and maintain an App Store front, so it's easier to charge developers less when they are literally doing less for the money.

What Apple is doing here is make the barriers to entry extremely low for aspiring developers. The $99 annual fee is really there to prevent any Tom, Dick or Harry from creating a developer account just for the fun of it or to access software betas. If they release a free app or if their app isn't successful and they wind up not making any money, then the developer does not have to pay Apple any money. At the same time, it is all these apps from smaller developers that add to the diversity and vitality of the App Store (because basic apps like Facebook, Google, Netflix, Spotify etc are already available on both platforms, it falls on the more artisanal apps such as Play, Overcast, Fantastical, Ivory and Lookup that help iOS stand out from Android.

At the same time, given that the bulk of apps that wind up being charged 30% are gacha-type games, I don't really hold any sympathy towards them. Apple could tax them 50% and I wouldn't shed a tear.

It's a little like taxes when you think about it. People who earn below a certain threshold pay nothing. The more you earn, the more you pay, and the money goes back towards funding critical programmes and infrastructure. Nor do people say "Hey, I paid more in taxes than you, so I deserve more of this road than you".

Perhaps an argument could be made that since Apple derives the overwhelming majority of App Store revenue from games, they could simply exclude non-gaming apps from this 15/30% tax. It would help reduce a lot of the pressure and criticism that Apple is facing (leaving maybe Epic as the lone dissenter), while having a negligible hit on their earnings. However, at this stage, I do also believe that Apple remains steadfastly stubborn and unapologetic in doing what they are doing because they are convinced that they are entitled to 30% because they created the App Store, and enabled the thriving economy that underpins it today. It is sheer self-righteous indignation that's driving Apple's actions right now.

And I don't blame Apple. On a personal level, I do believe that Apple does deserve 30% (the same way Nintendo and Sony are). I want to see Apple win and I want to see Apple hold up this victory as proof of its unassailable authority over the iOS App Store. I also acknowledge that none of this is to my benefit, and that is fine because we are just random people posting on the internet, and really have zero impact over the outcome of the court case.
Personally I think Apple should take 30% (or whatever percentage they think is fair) on any and all purchase or allow any and all to use alternative payment methods.

And I do feel that it kind of removes most of the freeware’s some developers otherwise would make for everyone’s benefit but chooses not to do because they can’t afford the yearly cost or don’t want to support with adds.

And considering the developers that do earn 1 million or less accounts for so little of the AppStore revenue I think it would be fairer to just skip them all and just either take 0% or the cost of transaction. That would probably have killed most if not all the legislative pressure. Or even half a million or 100k as a cut of point.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3199.jpeg
    IMG_3199.jpeg
    147.1 KB · Views: 3
  • IMG_3200.jpeg
    IMG_3200.jpeg
    144.2 KB · Views: 4
  • IMG_3198.jpeg
    IMG_3198.jpeg
    147.8 KB · Views: 4
Apple is no more or less greedy than Nintendo and Sony, is all I can say. I maintain that if Epic has no issues with paying either company 30% of IAP, there is no reason they should be dissatisfied with the current state of affairs on iOS either.

Nor do I see Epic pushing to have their Epic games store be made available for the Switch and PS5 platform either.

Who exactly is Apple being greedier than again? Just because they make profitable hardware, they are not allowed to operate an App Store or charge developers a commission? Says who? 🤨
Well this is incorrect to say that apple are not more greedy than Nintendo that’s factually untrue on different factors
And it’s very easy to prove that but certain individuals who who are apple fans use whataboutery to justify Apple’s stance
 
Well this is incorrect to say that apple are not more greedy than Nintendo that’s factually untrue on different factors
And it’s very easy to prove that but certain individuals who who are apple fans use whataboutery to justify Apple’s stance


Let’s start with Nintendo’s 30% and the lack of sideloading on their platform. If there is a way for developers to sidestep the commission they need to pay the platform, I am all ears.
 
  • Love
Reactions: marte91
From what I can see, the app does not involve IAPs. It’s not dissimilar to how Netflix and Spotify operate (they get you to subscribe outside of the App Store so that they don’t need to pay Apple 30%). Though I suspect it’s closer to a market store front like Amazon than some sort of third party App Store.

It’s also possible that this app has simply flown under the radar of the app approval team so far. Perhaps one of us could bring this app to the attention of Apple and see if they decide to change their tune in the coming months? 😏
Well that could be 🤷‍♂️. But contrary to Netflix or Spotify you pay in the app.
But steam, ENEBA or G2A and many more apps are fairly indistinguishable in the marginal cost. Amazon at least have to actually ship something 😉

And neither uses IAP but I can pay with Apple Pay or a plethora of other payment methods as I have used them for years.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3202.jpeg
    IMG_3202.jpeg
    108.6 KB · Views: 4
  • IMG_3201.jpeg
    IMG_3201.jpeg
    195 KB · Views: 4
Well that could be . But contrary to Netflix or Spotify you pay in the app.
But steam, ENEBA or G2A and many more apps are fairly indistinguishable in the marginal cost. Amazon at least have to actually ship something

And neither uses IAP but I can pay with Apple Pay or a plethora of other payment methods as I have used them for years.

That’s probably it. You are not purchasing a digital good which you are consuming directly on your device as a result of the app.
 
Apple is no more or less greedy than Nintendo and Sony, is all I can say. I maintain that if Epic has no issues with paying either company 30% of IAP, there is no reason they should be dissatisfied with the current state of affairs on iOS either.

Nor do I see Epic pushing to have their Epic games store be made available for the Switch and PS5 platform either.

Who exactly is Apple being greedier than again? Just because they make profitable hardware, they are not allowed to operate an App Store or charge developers a commission? Says who? 🤨
Well to be fair it’s hard to be more greedy than Nintendo or Sony 😉.
Let’s start with Nintendo’s 30% and the lack of sideloading on their platform. If there is a way for developers to sidestep the commission they need to pay the platform, I am all ears.
Well Nintendo do allow digital game cards to be sold and/or resold 🤷‍♂️.
They could be allowing some keys for the developers to sell/give away like Valve does. But haven’t seen that confirmed.
That’s probably it. You are not purchasing a digital good which you are consuming directly on your device as a result of the app.
Well it would be a bit funny if EPIC games had just published a seperate app known as the Fortnite store where you could purchase vbucks or skins etc and get a code you just had to copy and paste inside the game separately and then apple would have allowed it xD
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3203.jpeg
    IMG_3203.jpeg
    210.4 KB · Views: 5
Let’s start with Nintendo’s 30% and the lack of sideloading on their platform. If there is a way for developers to sidestep the commission they need to pay the platform, I am all ears.
I don’t care about side loading it makes no odds to me
It’s easy to cherry pick one thing to justify your argument
However we don’t all have switch’s in our pocket or upgrade our switch console to a new generation every year or two
And that is exactly fundamental to one of the points regarding this commission with consoles
There is no free ride this is the same nonsense that apple put out there just like the big scary security & privacy stuff as well
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.