Apple’s not forcing developers to use their ecosystem. If they develop for devices WITHOUT Apple logos, Apple has no say as to what they can do. If a developer willingly makes the decision to develop for devices that have Apple logos, then perhaps they shouldn’t have?
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 and Epic Return to Court as Judges Question Prior Rulings
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's clear many developers (and regulators in government) feel entitled to access to Apple's customer base without realizing or understanding (or maybe caring) that a large part of the reason Apple has a large, wealthy, and attractive customer base is BECAUSE of Apple's rules - not in spite of them.
That’s not a free ride on Apple’s platform, though. They’re using web standards and do not have access to any of the Apple specific technology built into the phone. Thing is, some developers WANT access to Apple specific tech because they’ve found that affluent people using Apple devices like when the apps they use take advantage of the tech and are willing to pay for apps that utilize it.
I saw a post a few days ago running down alll the things the dev couldn’t do with a web app, stuff that they wanted to be able to do, but didn’t want to go the route of a native app. It’s like wanting really badly to walk underwater as easy as on land and being upset that oxygen is required. “It’s not required when I walk in the park, why is it required when I walk just 100 meters further this way?!?”
Seems to me the developer fee is adequate compensation for accessing the platform and web they use their payment system.
And therefore the commission should be a voluntary fee you can opt out by using your own server solution
“I have a goose that lays golden eggs, but I don’t like having to feed it in order to get the gold. I bet you if I killed the goose and opened it up, I could just skip the feed and there would be all KINDS of gold in there!”
I guess this gets to the question of whose customer base it is (if anyone’s). Without my AT&T cellular plan or my Mediacom home internet plan my iPhone would be kinda worthless. Should they get a cut of every iPhone, iPad and Mac sale?
You know what, you are right. All 3rd party developers should stop feeling entitled and just not make iOS apps. Im sure Apple will pick up the slack and fill the app store on their own.
They can! They’d just have to fit the model of a food or commerce/delivery company. If Epic Games wants to sell fortnite plushies or deliver fortnite themed foods to people, that would perfectly match the allowance that’s already in place for other businesses of that type.
Netflix actually straddles this line perfectly. They want to provide access to content that requires no use of the special tech inside iPhones while also delivering a game subscription service that DOES require the special tech in iPhones. So, if you’re signing up for the videos, you sign up for those through Netflix’s website. If you’re signing up via one of the games on Apple’s App Store, you’re allowed to pay for those through in-app purchases.
So, Epic could most certainly fit that model, they’d just rather not.
Last edited:
The problem is using the word “payments”. Apple isn’t taking 30% for payment processing. They’re taking 30% because they think they own you and the customer relationship and they think that’s worth 30%. But then I have to ask should cellular providers and ISPs get a cut of every Apple hardware sale because without them Apple’s hardware would be kinda worthless?
where is my goddam Fortnite on Mac? whenever I have to hop on with my buddies I have to play through iOS app which looks like garbage and I have to resort to play on pad, which isn't comfortable for me at least. They literally don't have to do anything expect porting iOS version to Mac and maybe tweak some things. Even whole apple cut thing is avoided because you play through launcher and not App Store.
So you think Apple should get a cut of browser transactions? Should they also get a cut of any physical goods purchased in an app?
One of Steve’s biggest pushes with OS X was “free developer tools for everyone.” It’s one of the reasons I bought my first Mac in 2001. I needed a laptop with UNIX underpinnings, gcc compiler, and the ability to use Microsoft Office products. It was my unicorn device that checked every bullet point on my “I need this” list.
And the solution to that will be to tie the developer fee to cost of digital goods sold through the developer on the app store. So instead of it being calculated on each individual purchase, it will be audited and collected on a regular schedule.
It's clear from this statement you've never worked with a laborers union or retail partner that has audit-rights over your books. This is actually far more common a scenario than you think when you're working/selling in someone else's jurisdiction or storefront.
Okay good to know you think if I visit amazon.com and buy something on my iPhone, Apple should get a cut. I disagree. Apple does not deserve a tax cut on website transactions in my opinion.
That's certainly your opinion. But how much Apple charges isn't limited by what seems adequate to you.
I know you think you're "getting" me here, but this is EXACTLY right.
If Apple's terms and conditions are really as onerous as the few loud complainers argue they are, then developers will stop making apps for iOS and iPhone will become a less attractive phone. That will result in Apple either having to adjust said terms and conditions, or be content with less market share and profit than they could have had otherwise. That's how the free market works.
The issue that the complainers have is that when most Apple customers are presented with the choice of "don't use iPhone" or "find a competing app", the customers continue to use the iPhone. Which in actuality shows there is tremendous value in having access to Apple's customer base. But rather than pay for that value, they're complaining to the government that "it's not fair" that they have to pay for access to the customer.
It's as absurd as saying "I don't want to pay the mall's rent to get access to the mall's customers, so I'm going to set up shop in the vacant store in the mall, not pay the mall rent, and use the mall's utilities because I DESERVE access to the mall's customers."
But the fact of the matter is that even with Apple's (entirely reasonable, industry-standard) fees, the companies make more money with access to Apple's customers than they do without. So they should pay Apple for that value in the way Apple wants, absent a really good reason. And in the year+ of debating people in threads like these, I haven't seen a single good reason to date.
Agreed that those are among the main differences between Web apps and native iOS apps. One could nitpick: Web apps can use the iPhone's cameras, mics, motion sensors, location, graphics horsepower, Apple Pay, Apple's Push Notification Service, and more. Web apps on Vision Pro can do fully immersive 3D stuff. Web apps can't offer direct Siri integration, Shortcuts actions, and Widgets like native iOS apps can, but Android devices have parallel features, so it's debatable whether those count as "Apple-specific technology."
So, are Web apps a free ride on Apple's platform? Well: they provide and support the platform, have never curated a single Web app, and have never charged anyone to develop and release one. What literal technical sense is left in which that isn't a free ride on Apple's platform? I suppose it's a semantic question at best (to attempt charity).
And, yes: there's a whole other faction of developers whose gripe is that Apple is failing, critiquable, fit for public and organizational pressure, not for gatekeeping and overcharging developers with respect to native apps, but for not entitling Web apps most every remaining technical privilege of native apps. I think that's an equally interesting but separate conversation. (My response would be agreement that it would be great for Apple to continue evolving the HTML5 platform, but similar incredulity that developers feel entitled to that when Apple's already – indeed – offering it all for free.)
Well they are getting paid to grant access and everyone is paying Apple for access. So the notion of free riding or not paying Apple anything is false and there’s zero threat to apples right to get paid for their platform.
Sure, if you want to be pedantic. Most people can grasp the concept that $100 is negligible compared to the millions Epic would have been paying.
The error here is the customer is largely unaffected by the store policies. The developers are impacted tho, and unless they don’t want to make money they have to swallow their pride and develop for iOS users.
Apple can have the worst developer agreement and still be largely unaffected because that’s where the users are. And nobody wants to move in to the mall, not r any vacant space. They want to sell to the mall customers outside the mall when they do other things. They don’t want to be mandated to only sell in the mall or have to move to a different state.