Mac doesn't get as much software as an iPhone does. It is better now with Apple Silicon where SOME developers allow you to run iOS apps directly.
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
Again this is incorrect because as the epic ceo guy said when questioned on this was simply this we take about 9% as that is the processing fee and to help maintain the App Store apple on the other hand business model is setup away that they can still make profit off that. Plus the iOS App Store is a generic store so any money made in that does not go to help the games industry it gets funnelled back into Apple’s back pocket to help them maintain their status quo as it’s not in apple’s interest to help the game industry
The problem is you lot don’t go all in.
You should be allowed to do “whatever you want”, but then it has to be fully that:
- you get the iPhone phone version that’s basically blank
- you get to install whichever operating system you want, heck could even install any flavor of Android for that matter or even windows or maybe any open source that pops up
- you truly do whatever you want… you get to tinker and hack around with the camera/mic/face-id/NFC/antenna/wifi etc etc drivers, behavior, security levels, you name it.
If for any reason you wanted to install iOS instead, then you wanted the non-blank phone version and get to play by Apple’s rules to begin with. You didn’t want to do whatever you wanted.
Can’t really handpick, mix and match here; but I think that’s totally not an issue for what you are asking for.
So, I’m right behind ya, let’s go all in, an Apple phone that truly allows you to “do whatever you want with the gadget you paid for”, that would allow you to install any OS and any store and any software sourced from anywhere.
I read your whole reply, but let me stop at your first 2 sentences. If what you say is true, and IAP's don't use the App Store (they just need a payment processed), then using your own logic, why should anyone pay Apple 30% to process a payment that doesn't involve the App Store?
If $99 isn't enough to cover costs, Apple should look at raising the price. Everyone loves free apps (most I have are backed by large companies and very few, if any, are just free apps written by small nobodies) but free apps are not a solid business model. These days, $99 is pocket change. Maybe $499 is a better price to become a developer and to be given the privilege of accessing and using Apples tools and Apple's market to distribute their product.
I'm a fan of just allowing people to download apps where they want. I get that choice of where to buy food and other things, why not my apps? I can choose Apple at a higher price (trust costs more) or from the developers store or site.
And an even closer comp is ... Apple's own Mac!
I literally wouldn't even use a Mac if they tried to force all the software through their own channel so they could extract a cut from everything, as well as impose their particular views on "what software is OK".
Make iOS/iPadOS behave like the Mac on software optionality and the whole issue goes away.
It'd be nice if they'd get on with this and stop fighting seemingly every jurisdiction around the world in one way or another.
This issue will never subside until Apple relents and they have so many other more important things to be worried about and focusing on that are forward looking.
It was a quite a financial ride they got for the last 15 years.
It's time to pivot.
how is the truth disingenuous? They want access on their terms?
It’s apples property. If you think they are greedy find another venue. Apple is on the mountain of right.
That’s exactly how posters are arguing. Even calling Apple greedy?
This has nothing to do with it.
It’s exactly the point that console makers get a pass on commissions and sideloading.
It’s time for the customers to pivot if they dislike the ecosystem so much. Or the devs to pivot if they dislike apples “rules” so intensely. Or the investors to dump their AAPL if they think it’s in a downward spiral. Or management to fire the management team. Or governments hate the popularity and influence of apple.
Yet none of this is happening except for the last one and one should ask themselves why do governments hate the popularity and influence of an American tech corp. especially when competition and technology exists that gives all critics exactly what they want.
Anything is possible, and I think it's a worthwhile thought experiment to discuss the possible ramifications of any changes to the App Store model.
I feel the crux here is that many people choose to zero in on Apple's 30% cut and fixate on it in a vacuum (often comparing it to the 3% charged by payment processors). For me, the main draw of Apple products is the entire ecosystem, which comprises of a mix of both paid and free software and services (which are certainly not free to operate and maintain), and I guess for me, all the money they make goes into one giant pool which is then funnelled into whichever part needs the money. As such, I fully support Apple's decision to monetise as many aspects of their ecosystem as possible (via profitable hardware, paid services, AppleCare, Apple Pay, App Store, Google's payout, plus whatever future avenues they go down).
I go back to my earlier point about how free apps by indie developers add to the vitality of the App Store, and the corresponding value of owning an iOS device. For example, a blogger I follow, Matt Bircher, recently released a couple of apps. He does not expect to make any meaningful amount of money from his apps, this is purely a passion project for him, and if the annual fee were raised, it may reduce the incentive for developers like him to continue working on their apps. $500 is not an insignificant amount to spend on a hobby.
Best-o-Masto
Cut through the noise and discover the most engaging posts on Mastodon. Best-o-Masto automatically highlights your timeline's best content, so you never miss what matters most. Just the best posts from your feed • See the best stuff first • Create a "Top 8" list of favorite users for...
apps.apple.com
Quick Subtitles
Quick Subtitles is a powerful, but simple app that transforms audio and video files into accurate text transcriptions and subtitle files using Apple's advanced Speech APIs, 100% on your own device, even your phone! ### Core Capabilities - Drag-and-drop interface for effortless file processing...
apps.apple.com
Quick Reviews
Quick Reviews turns your media opinions into stunning visual reviews! Create beautiful, shareable review images for movies, TV shows, games, books, and music that stand out on social media. Beautiful Customization - Customize colors, scoring systems, fonts, and layouts - Select alternate...
apps.apple.com
From the perspective of the end user, having fewer developers on board would be a disadvantage. I also do not want to have to deal with a situation where a particular app is not available through the main App Store, and I have to navigate to a standalone website or a third party App Store to get it. The winners here are the already big players who make more than enough profits anyways. The losers are the very people whom we want to encourage to develop for the platform, and iOS users by extension (because there are now less variety of apps available).
The other alternative is to just have Apple absorb the costs of running the App Store (a common argument is that they make more than enough money from iPhones anyways). It's certainly an option, and I guess it can also be argued that the money from the App Store go towards funding other services like Siri, maps, iMessage and satellite relay which add value to Apple hardware, but make no money of their own.
I do get the argument for being able to install whatever app you want (especially with the recent Iceblock debacle). It's still not enough to sway me from my stance that the App Store remains the intellectual property of Apple. For now.
The apps store model doesn’t need to change.Anything is possible, and I think it's a worthwhile thought experiment to discuss the possible ramifications of any changes to the App Store model.
I feel the crux here is that many people choose to zero in on Apple's 30% cut and fixate on it in a vacuum (often comparing it to the 3% charged by payment processors). For me, the main draw of Apple products is the entire ecosystem, which comprises of a mix of both paid and free software and services (which are certainly not free to operate and maintain), and I guess for me, all the money they make goes into one giant pool which is then funnelled into whichever part needs the money. As such, I fully support Apple's decision to monetise as many aspects of their ecosystem as possible (via profitable hardware, paid services, AppleCare, Apple Pay, App Store, Google's payout, plus whatever future avenues they go down).
I go back to my earlier point about how free apps by indie developers add to the vitality of the App Store, and the corresponding value of owning an iOS device. For example, a blogger I follow, Matt Bircher, recently released a couple of apps. He does not expect to make any meaningful amount of money from his apps, this is purely a passion project for him, and if the annual fee were raised, it may reduce the incentive for developers like him to continue working on their apps. $500 is not an insignificant amount to spend on a hobby.
Best-o-Masto
Cut through the noise and discover the most engaging posts on Mastodon. Best-o-Masto automatically highlights your timeline's best content, so you never miss what matters most. Just the best posts from your feed • See the best stuff first • Create a "Top 8" list of favorite users for...
Quick Subtitles
Quick Subtitles is a powerful, but simple app that transforms audio and video files into accurate text transcriptions and subtitle files using Apple's advanced Speech APIs, 100% on your own device, even your phone! ### Core Capabilities - Drag-and-drop interface for effortless file processing...
Quick Reviews
Quick Reviews turns your media opinions into stunning visual reviews! Create beautiful, shareable review images for movies, TV shows, games, books, and music that stand out on social media. Beautiful Customization - Customize colors, scoring systems, fonts, and layouts - Select alternate...
From the perspective of the end user, having fewer developers on board would be a disadvantage. I also do not want to have to deal with a situation where a particular app is not available through the main App Store, and I have to navigate to a standalone website or a third party App Store to get it. The winners here are the already big players who make more than enough profits anyways. The losers are the very people whom we want to encourage to develop for the platform, and iOS users by extension (because there are now less variety of apps available).
The other alternative is to just have Apple absorb the costs of running the App Store (a common argument is that they make more than enough money from iPhones anyways). It's certainly an option, and I guess it can also be argued that the money from the App Store go towards funding other services like Siri, maps, iMessage and satellite relay which add value to Apple hardware, but make no money of their own.
I do get the argument for being able to install whatever app you want (especially with the recent Iceblock debacle). It's still not enough to sway me from my stance that the App Store remains the intellectual property of Apple. For now.
My talke on this, for what it’s worth ( not a lot, most likely) is that both Epic and Apple are making bad faith arguments, and both arguments are circæling around the Elephant in the room : effective objective regulation of software distribution via app stores.
The sound part of Apple’s platform is that it is their platform, including their App Store, is a same and Secure environment, because they actively regulator it. That’s true. Apple have the right to charge for this service, and they do, with the 15% / 30% commossion. That is also true, they have that right.
Apple does not want third party app stores, because they would have less control over rguæating third party App Store. This is where Apple’s argument is shaky.
Of course it is not workable that Apple regulators their own App Store and regulates third party stores. They can’t be both a competititor as an app sstore and a regular of all appstores. That’s an obvious conflcit of interest.
But Apple, as seen with their EU dealings, do not want there to be an objective, dispassionate regulatory body for all app stores, which would be the obvious solution.
This is where many of the argument being made on the three break down, because this is where the EU is trying to go, but you can’t say thery’re wrong. Objective regulation is obviously the best option.
With that option, Epic can have their own 3rd party App Store, Apple would have no say or control over it, but therewould be an objective regulators body that both appstores would be equally answerable to. Same rules, no exceotionalism. Epic would no longer have topay commission to the Apple app store , because they wouldn’t be using it.
Butthisis not what Epic wants. They want tobe on the Apple AppStore, but not pay commission, so they want exceptional treatment from Apple, at the expense of other apps on the Apple AppStore. That’s also a bad faith argument.
Multiple app stores and an objective regulatory body to oversee them all, the same standards for all App Store, no exception. That’s the obvious good faith solution.
Think that tech companies (or any corporation) should have carte blanche to completely hołd the right and responsibility to regulate their own products is an incredibily stupid idea.
But given the knee-jery reactions by many Apple fana to any objective regulation, I can’t see a good faith solution appearing anytime soon.
Again this is whataboutery it is factually that apple are a greedy company compared with Nintendo.
Yes it does because as an apple fan points out Nintendo do the same thing so what’s the difference well don’t compare your company to Nintendo if you can’t handle points made
And then say it’s irrelevant when you don’t have a valid comeback
It’s not that they get a pass on commissions & sideloading it’s to do with how society is now regarding smartphones
It’s factual Apple isn’t greedy and is protecting their property. It’s also factual Nintendo is more “greedy” than Apple.
Society isn’t like this regarding smartphones. I dont see the masses clamoring for any of this. Just greedy devs.
This is a really tired argument.
Choosing a phone is not like choosing a breakfast cereal.
It is not possible for most people to “vote with their wallet” in order to correct the behavior of a duopoly where each corporate side of the coin is worth more than 3 trillion dollars and has spent decades digging extremely strong moats that keep customers in. Individuals are almost powerless here. That’s why we have government intervention.
I am still not seeing any arguments being made.
There seems to be this growing expectation that because a smartphone is now considered "essential infrastructure", Apple should not be allowed to charge developers a cut (similar to how you can download and install anything you want on PCs). But I also want to point out that even companies like Qualcomm are allowed to license their tech to other companies under a FRAND deal; they are not obligated to give it away for free. And incidentally, Apple has to pay more for their 5g modem license compared to other smartphone manufacturers simply because their iPhones cost more. Sound familiar?
As such, I am inviting you to list out all the reasons why you feel Apple is being more greedy than Nintendo here, and I will reply to them one by one, the best I can. Scrolling through your reply history, one point I see being highlighted is that people upgrade smartphones more frequently than they do game consoles. My answer to that is that they are not mutually exclusive. If I hold on to my 13 pro max for 6-7 years, does that then qualify as a console, and entitle Apple to make money off apps because they are no longer earning hardware profits from me nearly as frequently?
Interesting analogy but completely wrong. It’s providing a free platform and car makers can decide to adopt it.
Epic is trying to force Apple to open its platform to their liking.
Epic is trying to force Apple to open its platform to their liking.
They are 2 distinct mobile devices ecosystems, android and IOS, both of the are very clear about how they operate, IOS for the most part is a closed ecosystem, android is open(for now), if you don't like or agree to the terms of either platform, the what is next, android tells you straight off they will handle your data as they see fit, IOS is a bit different,you do own the iphone or android device you bought, the software on the other hand, you do not, just a license for you to use it, if you do not agree to it, then you are SOL, this is not a secret, they didn't just came of it suddenly, so all this complaining is unnecessary.
As an end user i don't care who gets what profits, if i see an app on the store, i care that i need the app and the price is acceptable to me as an user, developers want to fight with apple and google then so be it, i don't really care about it.
Do you honestly think the average user (both computers and phones), care about any of this?
to the average person most electronic devices are appliances, meaning all they want is something that works, that's one of the reasons that Linux is widely adopted as a desktop OS.
most people don't like Change, and they are Ok with windows and Mac os.
you use the term IF you upgrade but that is not the reality for most individuals and theI am still not seeing any arguments being made.
There seems to be this growing expectation that because a smartphone is now considered "essential infrastructure", Apple should not be allowed to charge developers a cut (similar to how you can download and install anything you want on PCs). But I also want to point out that even companies like Qualcomm are allowed to license their tech to other companies under a FRAND deal; they are not obligated to give it away for free. And incidentally, Apple has to pay more for their 5g modem license compared to other smartphone manufacturers simply because their iPhones cost more. Sound familiar?
As such, I am inviting you to list out all the reasons why you feel Apple is being more greedy than Nintendo here, and I will reply to them one by one, the best I can. Scrolling through your reply history, one point I see being highlighted is that people upgrade smartphones more frequently than they do game consoles. My answer to that is that they are not mutually exclusive. If I hold on to my 13 pro max for 6-7 years, does that then qualify as a console, and entitle Apple to make money off apps because they are no longer earning hardware profits from me nearly as frequently?
13 pro came out after the PS5 and if you change apple are still getting more money from you in the time that before the next PlayStation generation comes out so they get double the money so we have clarified that up
Because the comparison would be iPhone 12 series to 19 series if you want to be like that.
That is the point due to Apple’s business model they are guaranteed your money more than any other console maker out there and by the nature of the cost then Apple are a greedier company numbers don’t lie and
There is also different factors to it like this if you purchase a Nintendo product then that money gets reinvested back into the games industry to then make a better product and then better games for the industry but apple as a company are not interested in that as the iOS App Store is a generic store so it doesn’t matter to them.
One other factor is this
Yes. I honestly do. Obviously if you ask the layperson about software distribution models, intellectual property, or revenue splits their eyes glaze over. They'll think you're insane.
If you ask them about the TikTok ban, or about ICEBlock, about Fortnite when it was still off the store, suddenly they'll have an opinion. They'll think "why does one person/organization have that much power over what I can or can't do?"
I do get the argument for being able to install whatever app you want (especially with the recent Iceblock debacle). It's still not enough to sway me from my stance that the App Store remains the intellectual property of Apple. For now.
On this we agree. App Store is theirs. Let us get software elsewhere, though.
To be entirely honest nobody but nerds and the Fortnite kids are going to actually use those other stores. Doesn't mean they shouldn't exist. Especially in light of that whole debacle.