But mall clients also don't have to purchase the backend that Apple, MS or Amazon has. Managing, running, owning server farms and the development engineering either.
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 Earned Over $100 Million From Fortnite
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The developers pay for most of the backend for their apps, this is not supplied for free by apple.
you dont get to be the only trillion dollar company by providing fair pricing or profit distribution.
There is going to be no solution to this that will make everybody happy....nor does there have to be. If Apple loses the revenue that they have, it is going to affect all of the small independent developers, as Apple may not longer be in a position to leave them free. There might have to be a cost for all apps and a lot of devs most likely not be able to afford it. Not to mention that anything that affects their ROI could change whether they are become listed as a "hold" "buy"....or a "sell" in the bigger picture.
Yeah Epic is greedy and Apple is a not for profit company. I bet will sell you an 6 inch usb cable for 20 bucks and its ok ?
Is this true for standalone applications? As in ones that have no need for access to things like multiplayer game servers, email hosting, etc?
No, it isn't really. Walmart gets a cut off of selling you a PS5 game, up front, one time, & only if you choose to buy it from Walmart. Any future DLC related purchase, Walmart gets nothing.
What Apple is doing would be like Walmart being the sole source of every PS5 game and getting a 30% cut of all of that as well well as any / all DLC purchases for the games.
Exactly....what's an "anti-Apple" fan.....a lot of the people on this forum ? I guess they can go and be Android fans ?....I suppose they are the demographic of gamer/computer geek that want to tweak internals and everything about the computer (not that is a bad thing) but I will suppose that the vast majority of iOS users just want to use the device and always have it "just work".
Has anybody looked at what Epic charges for the licensing schemes for Unreal Engine 5 outside of gaming? It is being used for broadcast television....turn on "The Weather Channel" and look at their video....there is virtual set content. That is the Unreal Engine 5. It is done by a company called "Zero Density" using the Epic engine. I bet they are charging a killing.
What has iWorks and the development of iOS got to do with running the App Store. Those are funded by Apple from the sales of hardware...I think Spotify and Epic would have a field day if that is what Apple said they needed to charge 30% for.
Oh not only that, Apple will make a proprietary charger, put a chip in it so they can make your phone not charge with any cables that aren’t “official”, and charge manufacturers money on every cable made. I like the phone and computer, but they’re an awful company. But yeah, Epic is greedy. 😂🤦♀️
You realize that Sony gets a 30% cut of every PS5 game, and all IAPs too, right? Then add to that fact that any physical games sold in-store have Wal-Mart’s profit margin too, so the developer is getting less than the 70% of revenue they get from Apple?
Well that is not really a natural conclusion when we look at the properties of each entity involved.
For instance the end product of say Spotify is streaming music to their customers devices … Apple neither manages or distributes that on behalf of Spotify … just the device / app. Same for say third party video conferencing ….
Now you may be in the opinion that by having full control App distribution therefore manages and distributes the end product. Any Best Buy like store considering this kind of rationale would be funny to see … Best Buy likes demanding, all of them, a 30% of App Store sales by simply selling and distributing the iPhone … just because somehow managed to implant a control device. Don’t forget ISPs either …
Apple neither managed or distributes the end product. This transitive reasoning over ownership is simply absurd. We can with no error conclude such rationale is fundamentally driven by ones policy empowered by stronghold tactics over users devices, not an intrinsic ownership or responsibility over the distribution of third party end products.
Last edited:
Okay, you got me on the wording. Apple is facilitating the delivery of products (both physical and digital) to end users by creating a complete management and distribution platform. Spotify and Epic through their delivery mechanisms only need to upload an app to get potential access to 1 billion devices. The platform is owned an operated by Apple and run at their discretion. Now if you want to pick on the wording, please feel free.
No, my opinion is that Apple manages the platform and does what is best for the platform.
Doesn't Best Buy get a 30% commission of a number of different items sold in it's stores and additionally, has an upfront sheliving fee and has full and exclusive control over what gets sold in it's stores? With Apple there is no upfront free, so the fee is in the back-end.
No they control the platform and charge no upfront fee, but get a recurring fee on the back-end instead.
We're not discussing ownership, we're discussing a billing model that is common in many industries. Fees as part of sales.
I don't agree. The billing model of paying fees as a percentage of sales is not unique to Apple.
The wording is very important because if not precise it may convey value that it not there to trade. At their discretion within boundaries as everything. The boundaries are defined as per conflict or friction with other entities properties. This is the reality. Happens if you own a car, a house … even the iPhone. The later is a clear example of that when it comes to iPhone use.
What its under scrutiny is if those boundaries are being abused or not.
I understand. But we alienate the fact that are third parties involved, case in case the people that buy devices. For instance can you explain why these people don’t have access to the xCloud game service? Its very simple, Apple wanted a cut of that Microsoft business going through the devices they have sold, not only that but full control over every game streamed through their platforms to customers iOS devices (they demanded each stream to be put in the catalogue, things that aren’t technically apps)… it definitely not about security or privacy. This is not about billing either … whats the reason to bill for things not served or sold, there isn’t even a technical justification in the current framework. The only thing that seams to justify is getting a cut … it’s a legit objective … but if it’s legitimacy is out of its ability to control devices owned by other entities, case in case people that bought them the devices … it is fishy use of its property boundaries. Its not like selling personal data, but its not really that far.
Yet you seam to hang on the basic moral principle … this is Apple property they can do whatever. But you can’t do whatever with your iPhone, your apartment. Imagine you purposely set your apartment on fire (whatever right?) and consequently burn the entire building … yet you could probably burn your mansion in the middle of desert no problem. So although the basic principle is correct, things do not exist in a vacuum. Things exist with other things. Context is everything.
Hence the existing conflicts are perfectly natural, morally and technically valid considering the ecossystem at wide. It does not necessarily mean that third party entities want a cut of Apple success, or looking to get things for free … there are concerns that look quite legit. Apple has also legit concerns, but to be honest some of them look like out of a wonderful paint job over a millennium old building.
Last edited:
Of course there's money behind these decisions. It's business. It's what business is all about.
I just don't understand how anyone buying a device, and especially one that's been established for for over a dozen years, can be upset with how the company is running their own platform, just the same as they always have. You are not promised that all software and Apps that are developed will be available on your device. You know that going in.
I'm pretty sure that, back in the day, some big name video games were exclusive to certain game consoles and if you didn't have that console, you were out. That's the breaks of the game. Just as certain phones were only available by certain providers. If you wanted the original iPhone when it came out, you had to have, or switch to, Cingular.
If the device you own doesn't get the App you want/need, change devices. You are not entitled to anything.
Bottom line is, people seem to like the iPhone and the way Apple handles it and the App Store. Hundreds of millions of iPhones sold. The numbers don't lie.
I’m am not upset at all. But the scale of things does really bring concerns. Over a dozen years the scale was totally different. Experience does change with scale. Take an iPhone Mini and an iPhone Max … the same thing with business abstractions.
You mean like the console app stores have ended and you now buy your Xbox games on your Switch, right?
People need to read the original article on Bloomberg because there is some information that MR has not included in it's reporting of the article.
The numbers being quoted come from app market data firm Sensor Tower therefore it's a question of how many people trust the company. In the Bloomberg article it is reported that for the full year of 2020, Apple generated about $22 billion from App Store commission alone, $22 billion in commision!!!! (does not include the $99 annual fee it takes from every app developer). it does not take billions to operate and run the app store. All Epic has to do is get Apple to admit what it costs to run the app store on a yearly basis and they can enforce the court to get Apple to provide the figures and once Epic has those figures, Epic can then question if it only takes x amount to run the app store, why is Apple getting billions in just app store commision alone? This just strengthens Epic's case even more.
The numbers being quoted come from app market data firm Sensor Tower therefore it's a question of how many people trust the company. In the Bloomberg article it is reported that for the full year of 2020, Apple generated about $22 billion from App Store commission alone, $22 billion in commision!!!! (does not include the $99 annual fee it takes from every app developer). it does not take billions to operate and run the app store. All Epic has to do is get Apple to admit what it costs to run the app store on a yearly basis and they can enforce the court to get Apple to provide the figures and once Epic has those figures, Epic can then question if it only takes x amount to run the app store, why is Apple getting billions in just app store commision alone? This just strengthens Epic's case even more.
Is there some magical set amount that a business can charge? Is Apple not a for-profit company? Based on the millions upon millions of iPhones sold and the hundreds of thousands of App Store developers, I'd say that a fair amount of people are quite happy with the way things are run.
No. Because I can go and buy the same goods at any other store I want and am not limited to only being allowed to buy my wares at Wallmart, regardless of which car I drive into the parking lot...
Best Buy is just a physical store that sells the physical device. They do literally nothing to write the operating system, developer platform, APIs, etc. They also don’t host all the digital downloads like Apple does in their App Store. Apple has done a lot of work creating the App Store.
As for retail stores, they can have up to 100% markup on anything you buy. So you buy a game for $50 and maybe the developer got $25, minus the 30% they paid to Sony or Nintendo. The App Store isn’t really a bad deal if you think about it.
So, it is Microsoft’s decision not to put their gaming service on iOS. Pretty rich considering they charge their developers 30% to put games on Xbox.
You seem to think that developers paying 15% to Apple (then 30% after $1 million) is untenable. We know that Apple getting $0 is also untenable. And believe me, if Apple allowed every app to include their own in-app-purchase system, every app would be free on the App Store so devs could avoid paying a fee. Then you’ve got Apple hosting millions of apps, keeping a store going that loses them millions each day.
I am not seeing you put forth a proposal here that meets in the middle, so what is the argument you’re making?
What are the “legit“ concerns with Apple charging people a percentage to be on the App Store? Do these “legit” concerns apply to every console maker and Google Play as well?
When it comes to things like Spotify, they could easily eschew the App Store and go with a web app (I think they already have one). It’s not like people don’t know how to browse the web on their phones. And it’s easy to add an icon to the Home Screen too. But guess what? Placement in Apple’s store is valuable! So they pay the fee for that placement.
It does no good to claim Apple is ripping developers off, but then offer only the alternative that they operate the App Store for free and lose millions on it.
Sure, we'll see where this all leads.
No. And I can't explain why Apple doesn't allow sideloading, downgrading, jailbreaking etc. When one buys an iphone one buys into the experience and all the control that goes with it.
Ok.
Yes.
Very bad analogy.
Sure. It's up to the judicial system to keep things honest. That doesn't mean they get an a+ every time.
Good thing Sensor Tower doesn't have direct information. It can only infer from the apps where this is installed.
To your point, the revenue from the app store may not be material. Epic lawyers may have asked for it, but was denied because Apple profit isn't central to the case.
And how do you know what the cost of running the app store is? And if you do, do you know the annual cost of running AWS?
It is standard practice within the business world that companies will charge consumers high prices for their products so the company can put the profits from one product into that of another. Apple have every right to do this to the CONSUMER but they do not have the right to do this to businesses that pay Apple for using a service of theirs. If Apple need money to keep the app store going, to pay employee wages, hosting costs, advertising costs, distribution costs, server costs, network line costs and so on, then Apple should be pricing the apps in the store accordingly to recover those costs through the consumer, with a bit extra on top to help keep the app store running.
Apple do not, in my opinion have the right to charge businesses (app developers) a comission based fee on every in-app purchase made to help pay for Apple other projects. If the figures from the data analytical firm are correct, where did the bulk of 2020's $22 billion commision goto?, because it certainly did not go all on the app store. Spotifiy and Epic have an app in the app store and thus any monies payed from their app should go into the running and upkeep of the app-store and nothing else.
So your argument boils down to, because Apple is already rich, they should turn into a charity, even tho. Apple have invested billions into building up the entire hardware and software infrastructure to support their eco-system? And because they already have billions, they are no longer entitled to make more?
Btw, if you ever start a business and you managed to get a humongous pool of user base, and that your business is also enabling other businesses to tap into that humongous user base, do give the Apple supporters here a shout and advertise about it. I’m very sure the Apple supporters would very much appreciate the free rides that you’ll be providing.