That's a false dichotomy. Developers don't have to choose between not making money and the App Store. They can also choose to make money on other platforms.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple and Epic Return to Court as Judges Question Prior Rulings
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If they enter into a negotiation and get that cut, then absolutely. It’s not “this is how all engagements between companies should ALWAYS go”, it’s “if companies come up with an arrangement that works for them for the moment, but not working for them now, they companies should negotiate new terms.”
Apple had an exclusivity deal for a time with AT&T where AT&T was the only seller in the US AND they got a cut of iPhone revenue. When Apple wanted to be available via other carriers, they didn’t go to the government saying “I don’t like the deal I signed”, they meet with AT&T and renegotiated their agreement.
It’s accurate. Facebook make billions and so does Amazon and any other reader apps.
Had epic been selling Fortnite skins and currency in malls or game codes for their epic store for iOS users to just write in them they would also pay Apple nothing more than the 100$ fee as well
Personally I Venmo Tim Cook a 30% cut every single time I order something on my phone, even if I order something through the web browser.
I’d just absolutely die if Apple weren’t maximising their revenue.
Like I said before: As long as I’m not forced to install a third-party App Store (or if I can disable the option to sideload), I’ll be fine. Apple’s App Store is all I need.
Your error is assuming developers are entitled to use Apple's IP to make money. They're not.
If you are using someone else's property to make money, and they ask to be compensated for use of that property, then you need to pay them for that use or not use it. It doesn't matter that someone else gets it for free, or that you'd make less money. If you don't agree with their terms, then you need to decide what is more important to you and act accordingly.
They're not mandated to only sell in the mall. They can sell in the mall across the street, at the store next door, or online. But if they want access to the mall's customers, using the mall's property, then they need to pay the mall if the mall asks. They're not entitled to use the mall's property just because that's where most people in the town shop.
So? I acknowledged that. Are you just going to ignore my point?
Yep!
Great! Apple's terms let around 99% of developers avoid the 30% fee. I know the small developers that I work with appreciate that. As a bonus, us consumers no longer have to pay for OS upgrades!
Developers pay the access fee and hasn’t asked for a revenue share model… so I don’t see the commission as a valid enforcement measure to collect revenue when its lopsided.
And I don’t see it as the developer using their property, but the customers being prevented from accessing other services or being informed of better deals.
Considering just about 100% of goods I can buy in any store includes pamfletts or links to their website to order spare parts or refills and accessories etc.
The fee being negligible I see as irrelevant. If Apple feel it’s not enough they should increase the developer fee. And I don’t think this has any relevance to free OS updates existing.
Epic should be allowed to skip the fee in the same manner as any other App Store like steam, G2A or ENEBA etc or take a commission on all sales no exception.
Bonus is having competing stores for the consumer and developers.
The irony of this statement is overwhelming.
They do. They charge $99 PLUS a commission subject to terms.
I disagree. Free OS updates started when the App Store opened.
As usual, you're pretending that the only value that Apple provides to developers is a store. You are well aware that's not true. The main value that Apple provides is the platform (which third-party stores do not.)
This is very important. Apple is taking the risk of losing out on apps and content. If too many jump ship, Apple sales drop, user base drops, market share drops.
In the same way, the third parties also must decide whether they are better off not being on iOS. Why is a court involved here at all?
Apple is not the dominant player in the space, just the most profitable one.
That’s like saying your $60 Costco membership means you can walk out with a TV for free. "I paid to walk into the store, so I don't see paying for the products in the store as a valid enforcement measure to collect revenue when its lopsided."
The $99 fee gets you access to the platform, not unlimited rights to monetize it however you want without sharing revenue.
I mean, the app literally won't function without using Apple's property. How can you honestly argue it isn't using Apple's property?
By the downvotes tough to believe that some MR posters think Apple should give a free ride.
We realise this and are perfectly ok with it. Apple should be able to unilaterally decide how they make money.
Also it's not companies being discriminating against, but the nature of their apps. If Epic were to create an app for selling physical hamburgers they would be treated like McDonalds.
No, it's voluntarily to be there. If they don't like the rules, change the business.
Apple and any other company should be able to decide unilaterally how they make money from their business partners. It's especially true when Apple is so far from having an enormous market share.
That's for Apple to decide, not developers and not users.
The only thing users and developers should be allowed to do if they disagree is to abandon the platform.
That would be up to Apple as long as they don't have an enormous market share. You have alternatives.
This is a good thing for customers like me.
I need Apple to work as as shield against developers. I don't want anything from them except their apps and services.
I think the judge realized that her anger caused her to make some statements that, if they were challenged, could overthrow the entire case as she was essentially making a state demand for Apple to give away their property. And several experts spoke out about that immediately after it was reported.
If they were looking to be successful, they should do what other regions have done. Make up a new term that doesn’t mean “Apple”, (but essentially means “Apple”), like “CriticalTech”. Define it as… oh, I don’t know, “Mobile devices, laptops, and desktops with logos that represent fruit of the rosaceae family”. Then, with that in place, apply new regulations on all “CriticalTech” companies. Any company that doesn’t want to be designated “CriticalTech” can simply change their logo.
Last edited:
On MacOs it is possible to install anything and Apple doesn’t collect any fees when sales are made outside AppStore. Why iOS or iPadOS should be any different? If consumer wants to stay in AppStore, that’s their choice. If the consumer wants to install other app, this should be possible without Apple charging for it, jusl like MacOS.
They absolutely should. The ONLY thing keeping the App Store going is developers continuing to release content on the App Store. There’s a wide world of Android devices, FAR more numerous than Apple devices with people that… ok, so they’re not really known for paying for a wide variety of apps, BUT, developers can always load down their app with ads! Those are profitable and it doesn’t appear that Android folks mind as they’re used to it.
Just look at 2024, Apple facilitated $1.3 trillion dollars in developer billings (90% having no commission for Apple). All the developers would have to do is just get together to ensure that everyone understands that keeping that $1.3 trillion dollars flowing into them is NOT good for business! Remove their app from the Apple App Store and things will get better overnight!