Personally and from own sales experience, enthusiast forums, their members and purchasing decisions are not representative of the average iOS (or macOS) user.
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 Facing $1 Billion UK Antitrust Lawsuit Over App Store Fees
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is actually what I find weird, Steam is only a storefront, digital delivery and some multiplayer features for a 30% cut yet Apple providing all of the operating system, development tooling, hardware development, SDKs for the device and the storefront, digital delivery and some multiplayer features for the same cut or for less profitable devs the 15% cut.
Steam doesn't provide the operating system or development tooling that either Microsoft or Apple provides, the base operating system for those games to run on and even for their own Steamdeck platform they're building on top of multiple open source projects as well. Perhaps I'm missing what Steam is providing that is in excess of what Apple provides because if I compare the SDK list of Apple's ecosystem versus Steam and I must be missing something. You can build a game for multiple platforms without Steam's IP yet anyone developing for iOS would be hard pressed to never touch an Apple provided intellectual property.
It’s higely relevant by the point that apples artificial limitation isn’t proving anything. On the contrary I’m showing that developers would do just fine without Apple.
Developers don’t need permission to use the APIs.
But apple and everyone here is defending the closed platform for everyone because it holds developers hands.
The lawsuit wants Apple to stop holding developers hands and allow those who wants to use other payment systems. Apple doesn’t have any business in dictating this.
That’s the thing. Apple forces you to use the tools and pay for it. Developers don’t need them when they have free options.
Steam isn’t just a store front, digital delivery and multiplayer features. They provide everything Apple does but better and much better and feature rich.
Having sales, forums for your products directly under your product, allowing a beta to be provided easily. Allow the ability to provide the ability to register out of store purchases if wanted, provide user created content such as workshop or dlc of various purpose from being a song list, to a completely separate game expansion . Not needing to use explicit APIs etc etc but can use their APIs such as multiplayer servers and cross platform multiplayer.
And that’s the point you can develop a game to be distributed by steam without needing to use their IP. But you can use it when needed.
I recommend you perhaps read this or just visit the steam store and compare it to the AppStore and you will notice how barebones apples offering is.
Store Presence (Steamworks Documentation)
That’s the thing, the SDK list is ironically the least useful feature Apple provides. It’s all the functionality for the store that Apple doesn’t have.
Here il show you some simple things in the steam app that just doesn’t exist or is poorly made by Apple. It’s the community function
If steam was available on iOS to purchase iOS apps I can almost guarantee you that almost 100% of developers would abandon ship and use steam primarily, even if they might use Xcode they will use the better store.
Big difference. Allowing only first party options or a a free market store.
You can’t allow 3rd party while also not supporting it. That’s just contradictory
Most use of commercial APIs are generally handled under some sort of copyright related permission scheme. This is generally where Apple is able to leverage a continued revenue sharing for the licensed usage of those APIs such as what happened in the Netherlands where external payment processors were authorised by that only meant a 3% reduction in the revenue sharing arrangement to account for not needing to handle the payment processing. Overruling that would mean interesting questions about monetisation of intellectual property and copyright law.
I'm confused how someone is able to build an iOS app without directly or indirectly leveraging Apple's APIs? Of course you're forced to use Apple's tools on Apple's hardware using Apple's operating system with Apple's intellectual property. I don't foresee how you could not?
The juxtaposition I was making is that the App Store revenue share supports the entire iOS ecosystem and all of it's APIs such as AppKit, UIKit and Metal (like them or loathe them). Steam just supports Steam. On the PC it doesn't support all of the APIs and SDKs generally used to make a game, as noted Epic are more likely to have a heavy impact on the development of those games and it has a more generous revenue sharing arrangement for their property.
This wasn't originally what I was thinking of, the question was what is Steam giving for 30% that is so much more than Apple and most of what you've shown seem to be the store front has community stuff in it...is that really worth the 30%? I guess perhaps I don't see that necessarily as a value to them but perhaps they do.
Though your statement made me wonder, why isn't there a Steam Store for mobile games on Android? Especially given for games, Google have a very similar revenue sharing setup though with none of the restrictions preventing side loading or alternative stores. Obviously the Epic v Google case will got to court in November (which I personally feel Epic has some solid evidence of Google leveraging their monopoly power in the mobile phone operating system market to threaten hardware OEMs to not ship Fortnite when I read their complaint) which will discuss some of Epic's attempts here but why not Steam?
I mean supporting the ability to install third party developers while also preventing third party developers.
Allowing only first party developers isn’t in the same legal framework with their legal responsibility to the market.
Well no that’s not how it works. The APIs in iOS aren’t copyrighted and Apple have zero ability to protect them, how do you think cydia developers make applications? Or how do you think developers makes iOS software without Xcode? There was even a short period when developers used other compilers before Apple banned them from the AppStore. The only thing Apple controls is the acces to their AppStore, nothing else.
Well it wasn’t. This example was forced by EU on ACM in the Netherlands because of their legislation and separate investigation preventing parallel investigations of the same issue. Apple still ended up in the end of this year to take 0% fee. There no overruling possible because it’s a separate law that was voted in last year that comes in to effect next month
It’s easily done by the fact Apple doesn’t own the rights to develop to their platform. They can only prevent them from selling in their store. Just how cydia apps was developed before and after the AppStore was launched. There uncountable apps that uses APIs not allowed on the AppStore
Well that’s the thing. Nothing prevents me for example from writing code that uses already existing software calls such as appkit, UiKit or metal. An api is just the equivalent of a digital phonebook for the application.
Steam supports 100% of all APIs in existence on windows and Mac. There nothing that prevents you from using an exotic api because steam isn’t dependent on them as they are all provided by the os.
Steam isn’t a development platform. Valve does provide you with all the tools needed with the source 2 engine to make a game. Or APIs to integrate steam functionality in your game.
As long as your game complies with the Steam Terms of Service, you will only need to create an account and pay a one-time fee of US$100 to publish your game on Steam. They will, however, give you the money back if your game makes $1,000 in gross revenue from sales on the Steam store.
Oh absolutely it’s worth it as it provides a very useful and valuable way to connect with your user base. And it’s loved by the users so they also ends up using the store.
Example the ability to have a forum directly connected to your application helps with feedback.
Having the ability to sell dlc under the same application, having a full functionality to support user created content only accessible by consumers who owe your product. DRM or no DRM. Anti cheating software and multiplayer servers etc etc is just so much things that is already created and saves the developers money and time from implementing themselves.
And the fact as a developer you can sell your game to every platform in one spot with relaxed rules
You would need to read the rest of the link as it’s much more exhaustive with developer directed list of functionality.
Just look how the Macappstore games have been mostly dead since day one as everyone just used steam anyway.
Well good question, can be they don’t see a need for it or that it’s not worth the hassle. Valve isn’t a publicly traded company so doesn’t need to do anything. Just how they barely ever release a new game.
It could be as simple that gabe newell just don’t want to🤷♂️ or they’re waiting for iOS to be open so they can sell cross platform games.
Or they might be developing it but it’s not done yet. Just how it took about 7 years to release a Mac version.
Here you have a two lists done by someone how many of these do you think the AppStore have? The Macappstore is largely dead when it comes to Mac games especially with the crippling limitations on how the games are allowed to be made
Last edited:
Apple protect them through the license agreements for both the software of the devices themselves as well as the supplemental licenses as a part of the developer program. There is a different between a legal right to do an activity and the technical capability.
The "making software without Xcode" doesn't mean that an app developer isn't leveraging Apple's intellectual property, perhaps they're not directly calling into WebKit to render their UI but some other intermediary is compiling it down for them. The software license agreements still define the permitted uses.
Apple still mention that they only apply a 3% discount to their commission. When you say "Apple still ended up" do you mean that it is yet to happen or it is happening? If you believe it is currently happening do you mind referencing the source unless of course by "still ended up" you are referring to the future EU Digital Markets app which I didn't think was coming into play until next year?
I guess we'll agree to disagree that legally Apple doesn't own the rights to the intellectual property that they developed and to dictate how that can or cannot be leveraged by third parties.
Nothing technically prevents you from calling into that code but generally there are software license agreements that also bind the usage of that which may prohibit that behaviour (if you read an Apple software license for iOS you'll see that they explicitly prohibit the right to use their IP in third party applications except through the supplemental developer licenses).
The juxtaposition with Steam is that they take 30% of the sales for much less than what Apple comparatively provides yet developers appear happy. That said you don't believe that Apple is entitled for compensation for their software when leveraged by third party developers so I guess that's where we don't see eye to eye.
By and large I agree with you, but there are significant geographic variations. In Australia there is virtually no private home rental on Booking.com even now, but when we visited Croatia in summer 2018 Booking.com was already full of private apartments.
Well they don’t need protection especially when you don’t need to use any special software to develop for Apple. Xcode is only required if you want to sell thought their official store front.
They have both the legal and technical capabilities(with jailbreaking)
Well the thing is the software license agreement isn’t signed if you use other software to develop the apps.
The license agreement doesn’t change this. WebKit etc is all located on device and it’s impossible to legally prevent anyone from calling it with custom Code.
Well yes I’m mentioning Eu digital market act and digital service act. They became law last year and identified gatekeepers have untill march 2024 to comply with the law.
It’s already come in to play.
Well this have been law for over 10 years
EU’s top court: APIs can’t be copyrighted, would “monopolise ideas”
The court ruled that functional parts of computer programs can’t be copyrighted.
arstechnica.com
And well it’s not their IP that is used. The copy of their ip is used locally on the device. It’s not a question of agree or disagree but legal reality.
Well the thing is if a Mac developer who sell their game on the steam store OR Mac AppStore they will pay 30% on both platforms. But the features provided in the steam storefront is about 95% unavailable on the Mac store.
As usual, you quote a case that doesn't mean what you say it means. The fact that APIs aren't copyrighted doesn't mean that anyone can access any API they want to. It means that anyone can develop their own software with the same APIs. It's plainly explained in the article that you linked to.Well this have been law for over 10 years
EU’s top court: APIs can’t be copyrighted, would “monopolise ideas”
The court ruled that functional parts of computer programs can’t be copyrighted.
And well it’s not their IP that is used. The copy of their ip is used locally on the device. It’s not a question of agree or disagree but legal reality.
It certainly legal to prevent access or charge for access to APIs in software that you created.
Except it does.
You can’t legally prevent anyone from accessing your APIs and doing the same function.
There no legal framework for you to be used in these regards.
Example if a developer writes a program that runs on iOS it can use any APIs free and unrestricted for the simple reason they aren’t copying or using their Intelectual property.
There a major difference in taking a license fee for using their software and calling The APIs that already exists on the consumers device
Again, your interpretation of the ruling is completely wrong. It is about reimplementing APIs in your own software. Not accessing the original APIs in someone else’s software.
For example, if Bob made an OS with an API called Bloom that developers can use to cause a flower to appear on screen, then Bob can restrict access to that API or charge for it. However, since you can’t copyright an API, Mary could make her own OS with an API called Bloom that causes her own flower to appear on screen.
Well no the laws are just… well the laws I just happen to agree with some of them as I have lobbied for them.
And well I would say laws are objective for your region
They might be contra productive if they are to meet a goal they aren’t targeting.
Wrong because there no possibility to deny access to the APIs. They are just system calls.
Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) are software interfaces that allow different applications or systems to communicate and exchange data.
Nothing prevents bob from making an app calling the APIs for WebKit in iOS. He isn’t breaking any laws, TOS or license.
WebKit is on the consumers device. Bob can write his own code that calls WebKit, reverse engineers the APIs, read open sources available and use it.
Otherwise DMA and DSA regulations couldn’t be legally implemented. It rests on existing laws.
Actually I agree 100% with you here. Apple have the right to leverage compensation.
But I would say only if said developer have signed an agreement with Apple to do so.
If you use Xcode and the AppStore, then you owe them something, and that is 99€ a year and 0-30% of all sales, and none for a special few.
And essentially where we draw the line.
The fact that there are a multitude of examples of companies restricting access to and charging for APIs would directly contradict your claim.
And, of course, you've changed the topic from the fact that you misinterpreted a court ruling even though you posted a quote that directly contradicted your claim.
Again, decades of examples of companies charging for and restricting platform access directly contradict your claim.
No it doesn’t, the fact a company have the technical means to restrict access to users doesn’t make the point when companies regularly use their APIs free of charge and no legal repercussions.
In what way have I misunderstood or changed the topic? There zero legal precedence for the thing you claim for in EU. And every time it’s challenged it doesn’t win. The Supreme Court of EU have been very consistent.
How is this contradictory? This is decided by the Supreme Court. Do you even grasp what an api actually is and why it’s absurd to think you can protect it.
And equally a decade of the same companies not being able to charge for their platform access from third parties
Or do you not see the difference in the entire third party software market that exists outside of the AppStore? cydia and their hundreds of stores selling and providing software at zero payed to Apple , windows or said platform?
Last edited:
At least in the US, you can re-implement someone else's functionality and their API but what you can't do is directly take it or leverage it. To avoid it being implied that it is copied, companies generally go to great lengths to have "clean room design" implementations with isolated teams reverse engineering a product and generating the spec. That said unless you ship an entire operating system to the phone, including device drivers and similar, it is unlikely any given iOS app is not going to require the use of Apple's IP. Of course the next hurdle is the possibility of patent infringement which also further protects some of the implementations, even if they are cleanly reverse engineered.
What I do wish is that companies were forced to open their boot loaders/signing keys and provide support documentation to enable others to support their hardware once they stop providing software update support for it. It is not useful having insecure legacy devices in the world that a manufacturer refuses to fix but also refuses to unlock for others to fix.
What I do wish is that companies were forced to open their boot loaders/signing keys and provide support documentation to enable others to support their hardware once they stop providing software update support for it. It is not useful having insecure legacy devices in the world that a manufacturer refuses to fix but also refuses to unlock for others to fix.
What’s going to be interesting to see is if you blow a massive revenue gap in Apple’s earnings, what is going to get more expensive to make up for it? We the consumers always end up paying for these things and it’ll be interesting to see where Apple shift this revenue to. I suspect it’ll end up costing us more money as there’ll be more middlemen in the market extracting value.