Pennies add up really fast.
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 Failed to Comply With App Store Court Order, Epic Tells Judge
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple is the reason Epic is making such profits in the first place. Apple’s AppStore gave them access to a captured market they would’ve spent a lot of money to advertise to. Now after making money from Apple’s customers… they want to act like they made their profits on their own?
These some of these apps would not exist today or would be much small if it wasn't for iPhone and it pisses these companies off that they need Apple.
At the heart of the argument, I feel, is that iOS (including the App Store) is ultimately Apple's property, they have the right to monetise it however they wish, and the 30% App Store cut is perhaps the most efficient manner in which Apple can do so. In a way, it also helps pay for all the other free services such as iMessage, Siri and Maps, as well as the tons of developers of free apps that earn Apple zero revenue. Charging all apps a flat percentage of revenue is simply the easiest way of doing so (since it uses iTunes, and ensures a thriving app market since free apps cost developers nothing).
It's not going to be "fair" to everybody, but then again, what solution truly is? There's never going to be one that makes every happy, only what is to one's advantage, and what isn't.
I will also say that Apple deserves some credit for having aggregated the best customers in the world, and for conditioning users to be comfortable with purchasing and downloading apps, which has in turn grown the overall market for developers. 15-30% is not unreasonable for Apple's contribution in this, IMO.
As such, I can understand why Apple does not take kindly to developers who attempt to circumvent their App Store cut. I can't say I am particularly sympathetic to Epic either, given how they were so ready to burn the existing App Store model to the ground (and jeopardise the overall health of the developer community) just for a larger share of the pie.
I would like to see them try. Maybe then I can finally get more people to migrate over to Telegram, or heck, maybe back to iMessage even.
Just so you know, it's not illegal to be a monopoly in the US.
This is why I wish someone other than Epic had taken up this fight. Apple is trying extremely hard not to comply with the spirit of the ruling, that much is clear. Epic wants some things that are unreasonable, that is also clear.
I just wish both sides would approach this in better faith. There are some real improvements Apple could make without hurting anyone including themselves. I’m not sure who all of this has helped except lawyers.
I would say the T&S should be applied equally for all the members. And the rules of the store should be equally applied.
unless you think a business should be allowed to discriminate against anyone and employ child labor etc then we both agree a business shouldn't be free to operate however they want to operate
Have you ever wondered how products get shelf space in a grocery store. Google it. This is not a new thing Apple made up. If Epic doesn't like it they are free to sell their product in another store ex Android, if some people don't shop at that store that just too bad for Epic.
As I understand it, the T&S for developers have been really clear for a long time. As have the rules of the store. And Epic actually violated those rules, and was banned as a result. They sued over it and lost. So, I'm not sure how this bolsters your argument.
So, because of child labor laws, in your explanation, Apple shouldn't be able to negotiate different deals with different entities?
Apple doesn't need to sit between me and the developer. Just let me download the .ipa from wherever I want.
Honestly, between a small number of big players, and small / indie developers, I could choose to have the small developers any time. And if the larger developers want to play hard to get, then I say good riddance to them.
The reality is that major app developers like YouTube and Netflix will likely be forced to embrace platforms (be it iOS or Vision Pro) by their users over time anyways. Competition and churn can be very powerful drivers (eg: if I am paying over $20 every month for Netflix but can't even enjoy it on my vision pro, that may lead me to re-evaluate my decision to stay subscribed, and instead support streaming platforms like Disney+ who do support said platform).
In addition, the larger the company, the more likely app development priorities and policies are being dictated by internal politics and issues. In some cases, it may be better to not have an app and fall back on the browser, than have awful apps marring the user experience. For all I know, they could just be skeptical of spatial computing, and are using the App Store as a cover to hide their current lack of desire.
On the flip side, small indie developers add much-needed vibrancy to the platform, and we already have a small but growing list of apps that we know will be available on the Vision Pro on Day 1, and this is just what was publicised on Mastodon. I strongly recommend this YouTube viewer app called, Play, which I have recently just subscribed, and which I am using to curate my YouTube feed.
Play 2.0 Adds YouTube Channel Support, Folders, and a New Premium Subscription
Marcos Tanaka’s Play has become the way I watch YouTube, which isn’t something I expected would happen as much as I’ve enjoyed the app since its launch early last year. The app, available on the iPhone, iPad, Mac, and Apple TV, started as a way to save YouTube links to watch later. That made Play
www.macstories.net
I really think that reports of a brewing "developer strike" has been way overblown by the press, and we are not in danger of a mass exodus anytime soon. One should not confuse a developer simply not having the time or resources to get their app ready for the Vision Pro on Day 1 for disillusionment. It just means they need more time.
The $99 is a membership fee for the developer program, nothing more.
A single app developer needs Apple more than Apple need them. And it's legally problematic for too many big app developers to join together because of anti-trust issues.
Unless Apple wants to operate their business in a different manner than that. Right? Or should businesses not be allowed to determine how they operate their business?
Didn’t know you and the local bar was members in the same whisky store that sells whisky to businesses.
Or that you and your child was a business who signed a ToS to eat at the restaurant.
Do you have some actual relevant examples?
Those are relevant examples. Businesses have differrent relationships with different entites all the time.
Again, Epic wants something from Apple. That Epic wants it means it has value. So Apple should be able to charge Epic for that value. That this point is even up for discussion says how odd this entire conversation is. Unless, of course, you don't like market economics.
Everything else in this discussion is just smoke and mirrors.
It's very common for an agent to take commissions from their clients.
And all app developers appoints Apple to become their agent and commissioner in the agreement they have with Apple.
Businesses operating how they want is the reason the environment is in shambles, the reason of economy almost collapsed in 2008, the reason healthcare costs are astronomical, the reason our personal data is marketed and sold around the web...the list goes on.
No, I absolutely do not think businesses should be able to operate however they want. They are not people, nor even citizens. They are non-living entities and should be treated as such.
Last edited by a moderator:
Though I do tend to side with Apple in this, there are millions of free-apps that are reviewed, hosted, and downloaded (often by millions of people (YouTube example)) but only pay the $99 a year fee.
None of that helps if you want your app to work on iOS. You have to use Apple intellectual property even to display a single character on an iPhone screen.
You used the word "however" not I. And as with a previous poster, this seems like a disingenous response. Do you really not understand that I'm talking about basic market economics? Of course there will be regulations.
Right, because that's the business model Apple has chosen. Just like all businesses have differing relationships with different entities.
Since software is intellectual software and is owned by Apple, Apple is free to decide how and if they want to monetise it.
It's the same principle for an author of a book. The author can decide to give it away for free, only charge for digital copies but not paper copies etc.
1) Amazon wants something that Apple provides.
2) Amazon doesn’t need to pay for it if it's physical goods but needs to pay if it's digital goods for the iPhone
3) Apple is a business which decided where to get their money and where not to geit their money