Apple Announces Major App Store Changes on iOS in Brazil

[I7guy]

I'm curious, what do you think is the motivation for the laws then?

Imp these laws were mostly directed Apple as it’s extremely popular and influential due to it’s popularity.

Do these lawmakers just dislike American companies?

Yes

How do you explain that other countries have introduced or plan to introduce similar laws? Is this some kind of hysteria or conspiracy?

The obvious explanation is the simplest.

 

[Abazigal]

Good point. Both also charge 30% commission for their stores. And, yes, I bet, they do not share any of their earnings either.

However, aside from the fact that Nintendo and Sony really have no ecosystems with a variety of hardware products to lock you in, developers on both platforms are not forced to publish in the store. I can buy FC26, for example, on Amazon. Or popular MMOs like World of Warcraft for Nintendo I can buy at the developer’s website, giving the developers more choices for distribution, whereas Apple gives zero choice for their entire iOS device ecosystem.

Even if I buy a switch game from Amazon, Nintendo still gets its cut, and that game still has to be vetted and approved by said company.

When developers complain about distribution, what they really want is the ability to get around Apple’s 30%. Which is why the manner in which Apple has implemented the third party App Store model is so clever - developers still end up having to pay Apple regardless of which option they choose.

I personally don’t find the switch model to be as liberating or as advantageous as you making it out to be.

 

[eifelbube]

Does that happen on any platform? No.

Because on almost every platform you have to pay the platform holder to release software on it. Only real exception is the PC or Mac. (Because yes, on both you can install apps outside of the store)

Nintendo requires companies to pay a license fee
Sony (Playstation) requires companies to pay a license fee
Microsoft (XBOX) requires companies to pay a license fee
Google (Android) is going to introuce a license fee with the new Developer verification

PC/Mac is the odd one out here. And to make it clear, console fees can go from a couple of hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars depending on the size of the company.

Also for example. If you want to release an app on Windows and not have MS Smart screen block it outright. You are going to need a code certificate. Which also costs hundreds of dollars per year. Not to MS, but still it's not cheap. Apple offers those with their $99/year.

If Apple is required to allow apps to install for free, those services might be cut. And it will become more expensive. Since apps still need to be signed.

Developers for Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft have options to bypass the 30% commission, … https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...hanges-on-ios-in-brazil.2484171/post-34647628

 

[surferfb]

Developers for Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft have options to bypass the 30% commission, … https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...hanges-on-ios-in-brazil.2484171/post-34647628

No they don’t. They have to pay the platform owner a significant licensing fee even if the game is sold by Amazon, MediaMarkt or your local independent store.

But apparently that’s not ok if Apple does it 🙄

 

[eifelbube]

No they wouldn’t expand the distribution system, if you follow Apple over the years.

On the Mac, they expanded the existing third-party distribution channels by opening the App Store. For iOS, it all began with the App Store and it remains the only one in the US. To the best of my knowledge: Following Apple over the iOS years, I do not see any quarter with revenue & profit numbers far enough below expectations to make the company even consider opening up their App Store. So, to say “wouldn’t expand” is as speculative as for me to say the opposite is true. When you follow Apple over the years, you must see something that makes you certain. I would be interested to know what that is, honestly.

 

[eifelbube]

No they don’t. They have to pay the platform owner a significant licensing fee even if the game is sold by Amazon, MediaMarkt or your local independent store.

But apparently that’s not ok if Apple does it 🙄

Sorry, they do and it appears to be worth it. Of course, they have to pay other fees but they do not have to pay 30% to Nintendo for hosting or Sony’s 30% platform fee on digital sales.

But apparently that’s not ok if Apple does it 🙄

That’s fine with me. The savings from not having to pay the App Store commission may be enough to make it a profitable option. I guess, the latter hasn’t been the case so far, but the first third-party App marketplace in Europe did not open until April 2024.

 

[eifelbube]

I personally don’t find the switch model to be as liberating or as advantageous as you making it out to be.

I can only point to the information provided under the more choices for distribution link I provided, excerpted here:

“…it can be more profitable, as it eliminates the 30% cut taken by platforms. Some games like Escape from Tarkov and massive MMOs like World of Warcraft have already successfully used this model.“​

 

[eifelbube]

Innovation is also less pronounced in the eu imo. Correlation?

True only for consumer digital tech imo — no loss

 

[eifelbube]

What does the above have to do with Apple and Google and app stores?

Regulation needed in both sides

 

[eifelbube]

What about the rest of consoles?

https://www.1d3.com/blog/platform-fees

 

[eifelbube]

Good as long as we agree the term gatekeeper is reserved for American companies.

Agreed only on Spotify preferential treatment by EC.
Not EC‘s fault that tech giants were born in the 🇺🇸
😊

 

[eifelbube]

Do these lawmakers just dislike American companies?

Yes

They dislike gatekeepers. „American“ is not only just a coincidence, there is also no proof for the claim. Until there is, I give you that it‘s an intelligent guess. 😊

 

[surferfb]

Sorry, they do and it appears to be worth it. Of course, they have to pay other fees but they do not have to pay 30% to Nintendo for hosting or Sony’s 30% platform fee on digital sales.

You are wrong here. You cannot sell direct to consumers digitally on consoles. There are no alternate app stores for PS5 or Switch, and if you sell a ps5 or switch game in store, Sony/nintendo gets a hefty licensing fee. Your link doesn’t say otherwise.

If you think I’m wrong, please provide me one link to a digital game download that functions on PS5 or Switch 2 from a website or alternate store.

That’s fine with me. The savings from not having to pay the App Store commission may be enough to make it a profitable option. I guess, the latter hasn’t been the case so far, but the first third-party App marketplace in Europe did not open until April 2024.

It’s absurd interference in the free market - making conduct illegal for specific companies while letting others do the exact same thing.

 

[Abazigal]

I can only point to the information provided under the more choices for distribution link I provided, excerpted here:

“…it can be more profitable, as it eliminates the 30% cut taken by platforms. Some games like Escape from Tarkov and massive MMOs like World of Warcraft have already successfully used this model.“​

I am reading the clause linked and it sounds extremely misleading. This only seems to work if the game in question is also available on a platform where purchases can be made without having to pay anyone a commission (eg: PC).

I mean, aside from world of warcraft and escape from tarkov not being available on the switch, it uses a monthly subscription model, so I imagine Blizzard could just get users to subscribe directly from their website to avoid paying Nintendo a cut (the same way Netflix and Spotify don't let subscribers pay directly via the app).

Heck, I don't recall WoW even being on any console, so it's not like we have a working model to show that Sony and Nintendo's 30% cut can be skirted around so readily. And I don't think these console makers would allow it either.

 

[MilaM]

Imp these laws were mostly directed Apple as it’s extremely popular and influential due to it’s popularity.

Yes

The obvious explanation is the simplest.

Ok, so you think there is absolutely no rational thought involved in these decisions.

 

[I7guy]

Ok, so you think there is absolutely no rational thought involved in these decisions.

Yes I believe there was rational and considerable thought put in on how to regulate Apple. Google was a side consequence of it. And after thousands of post there is nothing said to make some believe otherwise.

 

[I7guy]

They dislike gatekeepers. „American“ is not only just a coincidence, there is also no proof for the claim. Until there is, I give you that it‘s an intelligent guess. 😊

There was no such thing as a gatekeeper until the DMA. But we have gone into that for thousands of posts and nobody is changing anybody’s mind.

 

[MilaM]

Yes I believe there was rational and considerable thought put in on how to regulate Apple. Google was a side consequence of it. And after thousands of post there is nothing said to make some believe otherwise.

That's quite an extreme (and slightly unhinged) opinion. But maybe not that surprising, considering this is a forum about Apple products.

 

[I7guy]

That's quite an extreme (and slightly unhinged) opinion. But maybe not that surprising, considering this is a forum about Apple products.

Yeah, there is a big blind spot for those support the DMA. Considering Apple is an American company I think it’s a bit of “not invented here syndrome”.

 

[eifelbube]

You are wrong here. You cannot sell direct to consumers digitally on consoles. There are no alternate app stores for PS5 or Switch, and if you sell a ps5 or switch game in store, Sony/nintendo gets a hefty licensing fee. Your link doesn’t say otherwise.

But the link does say:

… it can be more profitable, as it eliminates the 30% cut taken by platforms. Some games like Escape from Tarkov and massive MMOs like World of Warcraft have already successfully used this model.​

What else other than that the model is profitable would “successfully” translate into?

Aside from the developer perspective, consumers appear to benefit from being able to buy games outside of the PlayStores — that is, physical media for PS5 standard owner (NNS Nintendo Switch; AMZ amazon):

for NNS - Super Mario Party Jamboree
$79.99 at Nintendo < > $59.99 at AMZ

for PS5 - Marvel’s Spider-Man 2 standard
$69.99 at Sony < > $29.99 at AMZ

for PS5 - Call of Duty: Modern Warfare III
$69.99 at Sony < > $39.44 at AMZ

 

[surferfb]

But the link does say:

… it can be more profitable, as it eliminates the 30% cut taken by platforms. Some games like Escape from Tarkov and massive MMOs like World of Warcraft have already successfully used this model.​

What else other than that the model is profitable would “successfully” translate into?

Aside from the developer perspective, consumers appear to benefit from being able to buy games outside of the PlayStores — that is, physical media for PS5 standard owner (NNS Nintendo Switch; AMZ amazon):

for NNS - Super Mario Party Jamboree
$79.99 at Nintendo < > $59.99 at AMZ

for PS5 - Marvel’s Spider-Man 2 standard
$69.99 at Sony < > $29.99 at AMZ

for PS5 - Call of Duty: Modern Warfare III
$69.99 at Sony < > $39.44 at AMZ

Escape from Tarkov and WoW are not available on consoles. There aren't any examples of console games that avoid the console's cut because there aren't any.

Consoles also get a cut from sales that happen at physical locations! See below link/table. That 15% "licensing fee" is money that goes to Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft.

Meta Description: Price Breakdown Of A $70 Video Game: Digital Vs Physical – Consulting on Japan’s gaming industry - mobile, console, PC and Web3

One of the three client groups I serve with my consultancy Kantan Games Inc. is financial institutions interested in the gaming industry.

www.serkantoto.com

Do we think the EU is going to let Apple take 15% of any app sold by a third-party?