Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Disabling 'Sign in with Apple' for Epic Games on September 11 [Updated]

Tonal said:
By suggesting you don't agree with Apple's response, you are basically saying you have a problem paying Apple for using the app store's servers and iOS platform to make money...
Click to expand...

This is not what I was saying.
My apps are free, but I still pay for my developer account, so Apple is making some money even on free apps. That's ok, $99 is not a big deal, but I'm not on the store "for free".
Their statement maybe was fine in the context of the Epic legal dispute, but wasn't so great for indie developers and for the majority companies in the App Store who don't make money from the App store but add value to the platform by making app for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: motulist
forcesteeler said:
Just pay apple there 30%, Who Cares ?
Click to expand...

It's not about how much money Epic makes off their games. 30% is an insanely high commission for Apple to charge. What about the smaller developers? How about all the smaller apps that have to charge $9.99 a month instead of $6.99 a month in order to make profit they need to survive after Apple's 30% cut? These rates are baked into the prices you pay. YOU are the one paying it, not Epic. Sure, Epic could win and keep prices the same, but I doubt it. They can sell more at a lower price and make more money. Regardless, a more reasonable rate from Apple would ultimately save you money across the board with all apps.
 
zifty said:
It's not about how much money Epic makes off their games. 30% is an insanely high commission for Apple to charge. What about the smaller developers? How about all the smaller apps that have to charge $9.99 a month instead of $6.99 a month in order to make profit they need to survive after Apple's 30% cut? These rates are baked into the prices you pay. YOU are the one paying it, not Epic. Sure, Epic could win and keep prices the same, but I doubt it. They can sell more at a lower price and make more money. Regardless, a more reasonable rate from Apple would ultimately save you money across the board with all apps.
Click to expand...
Epic wouldn't. My contention is Epic would still charge the same price and savings would not be passed along to the consumer. Personally I wouldn't mind paying $9.99/mo vs $6.99. It's worth it to keep my info safe. Because one breach can cost $$$ to clean up.
 
dguisinger said:
I'm not stupid, I get that. But understand other developers are watching. Developers have been blocked from the store for extremely stupid reasons in the past, do you think they see this and think "Oh, it would be smart of me to use Sign in with Apple and give Apple even more control of our users"?
Click to expand...
Agreed on these sentiments from you and other commenters. It’s not that they will terminate an account, it’s just that they can.
Sometimes mistakes are made, sometimes a single one man dev has a lot to juggle and sometimes, then, it could end in a dead end lost access situation.
What if for example, I make an app, offer AppleID sign-in (probably a simple enough to use Kit dunno), I fall seriously sick for a month, some Apple store rules changes or updates are enforced in the meantime and don’t make it on time, my app/account/etc is terminated along with potentially tons of users accesses?
 
amartinez1660 said:
Agreed on these sentiments from you and other commenters. It’s not that they will terminate an account, it’s just that they can.
Sometimes mistakes are made, sometimes a single one man dev has a lot to juggle and sometimes, then, it could end in a dead end lost access situation.
What if for example, I make an app, offer AppleID sign-in (probably a simple enough to use Kit dunno), I fall seriously sick for a month, some Apple store rules changes or updates are enforced in the meantime and don’t make it on time, my app/account/etc is terminated along with potentially tons of users accesses?
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't the same scenario happen with google or facebook?
 
arn said:
Hmm... does add some risk to the whole Sign in with Apple thing.
Click to expand...
I have to agree. This looks worse for Apple if they’re just going to wipe out the “Sign in with Apple” accounts people created. The Judge already told Apple they could not cancel Epic’s ENTIRE development account over this... why is Apple doing this, because they ruin Apple’s credibility as a sign-in service now.

Sign In with Apple is a service for Apple’s USERS to benefit. If Apple can suddenly start revoking it, why would we ever create more accounts with Apple’s feature and not just use the Developers’ methods?
 
  • Like
Reactions: motulist, TantalizedMind and BGM
hot-gril said:
Also, OAuth is a really complex standard. Many devs just delegate it to Firebase or something. I don't even remember how it works well enough to rant about it anymore, but at some point I did.
Click to expand...

My recollection from the last time I had to implement it was it starts with a frog, and the eyes of two newts....

SAML is worse, but only just.

As a developer, I would never want to implement any of these services. As a user, I am glad Apple mandates it (as it is more convenient).
 
  • Like
Reactions: hot-gril
i don't think is a good look for Apple, what message does this send out re: sign-in with Apple to developers and users?

Concerning they can pull it like that..
 
  • Like
Reactions: motulist
BGM said:
i don't think is a good look for Apple, what message does this send out re: sign-in with Apple to developers and users?

Concerning they can pull it like that..
Click to expand...
If you close your google account, can you still sign in with google?

if you no longer develop for a company, do you still have the right to use their infrastructure?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dvda66au and clavain
recoil80 said:
This is not what I was saying.
My apps are free, but I still pay for my developer account, so Apple is making some money even on free apps. That's ok, $99 is not a big deal, but I'm not on the store "for free".
Their statement maybe was fine in the context of the Epic legal dispute, but wasn't so great for indie developers and for the majority companies in the App Store who don't make money from the App store but add value to the platform by making app for it.
Click to expand...
I think that considering how the audience for the statement was the courts and not developers, the letter was worded appropriately. Apple is not trying to win over developers or make them happy here.

Second, I doubt your $99 a year comes anywhere close to paying for people to review your app. It's in a way subsidised by the money from apps that generate revenue. I am not saying you are a moocher, but I think one has to be realistic about how far their $99 gets them.

Third, while I do appreciate the value that third party apps bring to my iPhone, and thankful to the developers who take the time and effort to make this possible (I often wonder what their motivation is in releasing excellent but free apps with no obvious revenue stream), the reality is that people bought iPhones before developers made apps for iPhone. We don’t need to ask which came first — this isn’t a chicken or egg situation.

I am not saying this isn't a mutually beneficial situation, and yes, Apple is in a bad place if all developers were to abandon the iPhone but there are businesses that exist solely due to the iPhone, and owe everything to Apple’s customers. No one bought the iPhone for that business. They bought that iPhone and found that business.
[automerge]1599745167[/automerge]
BGM said:
i don't think is a good look for Apple, what message does this send out re: sign-in with Apple to developers and users?

Concerning they can pull it like that..
Click to expand...
Good for users, bad for developers?
 
I7guy said:
Epic doesn't have a good track record of being above board. Wouldn't be surprised if they are spreading a smear campaign.
Click to expand...

It shouldn’t be too hard for them to produce the email in question if it’s true.

IF.
 
zifty said:
It's not about how much money Epic makes off their games. 30% is an insanely high commission for Apple to charge. What about the smaller developers? How about all the smaller apps that have to charge $9.99 a month instead of $6.99 a month in order to make profit they need to survive after Apple's 30% cut? These rates are baked into the prices you pay. YOU are the one paying it, not Epic. Sure, Epic could win and keep prices the same, but I doubt it. They can sell more at a lower price and make more money. Regardless, a more reasonable rate from Apple would ultimately save you money across the board with all apps.
Click to expand...

You realize everything you buy has a markup built-in...
 
TiggrToo said:
But not Google, or Sony, or Microsoft, or Nintendo?
Click to expand...
If they're charging 30% as well, then yes they need to cut their commissions too. Apple does have real cost in providing and maintaining the app store, and I'm not arguing for zero cut -- but 30% is ridiculous even once you factor in a nice profit margin.
 
spazzcat said:
You realize everything you buy has a markup built-in...
Click to expand...

I never said Apple has zero costs. Just that 30% mark-up on a totally digital storefront is excessive. Documents have come out that stated they wanted to do 40% originally. It's good to see companies are pushing back and questioning it. If Apple wants to keep 30%, then let's allow competing app stores on iOS. Can't have both a walled garden and extortionist rates.
 
zifty said:
I never said Apple has zero costs. Just that 30% mark-up on a totally digital storefront is excessive. Documents have come out that stated they wanted to do 40% originally. It's good to see companies are pushing back and questioning it. If Apple wants to keep 30%, then let's allow competing app stores on iOS. Can't have both a walled garden and extortionist rates.
Click to expand...
Competing app stores pose a number of issues. But I think apple should be able to charge what they want for the top level certificates. Can't have it both ways. Let Apple charge another app store $50 million for the certificate for usurping Apples' intellectual property. Then see how competitive a 20% fee is.
[automerge]1599764915[/automerge]
tann said:
Only shows more of their abusive power, force devs to include it, force devs to remove it.
Click to expand...
Forces what devs to remove what?
 
TiggrToo said:
But not Google, or Sony, or Microsoft, or Nintendo?
Click to expand...

Those are DESIGNATED video game consoles. Court recognizes this. Common sense recognizes this. They are not computing devices with a plethora of uses, they play video games. 30 percent is perfectly okay when it is a system that only has a single feature.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Zellio and TiggrToo
TimmyP777 said:
Those are DESIGNATED video game consoles. Court recognizes this. Common sense recognizes this. They are not computing devices with a plethora of uses, they play video games. 30 percent is perfectly okay when it is a system that only has a single feature.
Click to expand...

What?
 
TimmyP777 said:
Those are DESIGNATED video game consoles. Court recognizes this. Common sense recognizes this. They are not computing devices with a plethora of uses, they play video games. 30 percent is perfectly okay when it is a system that only has a single feature.
Click to expand...

100% irrelevant in the eyes of the law. Quit making stuff up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GizmoDVD said:
Is the game even really playable on IOS anymore?
Click to expand...

I still play it. IOS players are stuck in the previous season so we don't get to enjoy the new Marvel crossover and we're exclusively playing against other iOS users (or bots.... lots of bots). Still fun though.
 
TimmyP777 said:
Those are DESIGNATED video game consoles.
Click to expand...

Can you point me to a legal definition of "Designated video game consoles"? Who issues this designation?

Court recognizes this.
Click to expand...

Awesome. Which court is it that recognizes this? Do you have specific case law for this claim?

Common sense recognizes this.
Click to expand...

Ah, the old "Common sense" definition.

They are not computing devices with a plethora of uses, they play video games.
Click to expand...

They also play music, run web browsers, play movies, support video conferencing, display photos, etc., and, in fact, given they have a keyboard, a pointing device and a general SDK, could support any application someone chose to write for them. Sounds like a "plethora" of uses to me. Conversely, one can argue just as easily, that iOS/iPadOS/tvOS/watchOS are "app consoles", not computing devices. They have the same restrictions: apps (games or other) have to be signed by the single source of approved content. Please provide some way to distinguish between them.

30 percent is perfectly okay when it is a system that only has a single feature.
Click to expand...

Who decides what is "perfectly okay"? Is there some legal standard that covers this? Are their court rulings you can reference?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back