Kind of like retail, once I buy something it is no longer part of the store I got it, but that store still makes 40% off of what I bought from it...
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 Ready to 'Welcome Fortnite Back Onto iOS' if Epic Removes Direct Purchase After Losing Restraining Order Ruling
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Kind of like retail, once I buy something it is no longer part of the store I got it, but that store still makes 40% off of what I bought from it...
If you switch you're dumping a lot of money down the drain on apps alone.
I personally don't know anybody from both sides that switched in the last 5 years.
Darth Tulhu
macrumors 68020
It is hard to understand for you because neither you nor Epic invested money (let alone time and energy) to build both a hardware and software platform for the purpose of getting paid by selling software to the customers that choose to use the platform you built.
How much Apple chooses to charge is a separate issue here.
The court case refers to Apple's control of that which they built, which is the ENTIRE infrastructure that makes Epic's (and any other dev's) transactions possible.
It is that infrastructure (which is comprised of hardware, platform software, App Store, and Apple customers all as ONE unit) that Apple is "renting" to developers.
Whether that infrastructure is fast is irrelevant in this case, although the faster it is, the better the user experience...
Which leads to more customers that developers can tap into and make money off of...
Which leads to more developers wanting to use the platform...
Which leads to Apple making money off of those developers AND the customers who want to use their hardware
Everybody wins. This is what we call "incentive".
Apple has built something that gives both users and third-party developers an incentive to use Apple's platform/infrastructure. The incentive for a hardware customer is (or may be) different than the incentive for a business customer, but that is what business is for ANY industry.
"Those are Apple's rules and everyone should obey them" is correct, because we're talking about Apple's "house".
This is about as democratic as it's going to get in a capitalistic venture. Everyone, both devs and customers, can leave whenever they want or not agree to Apple's "ridiculous, usurious, insert-your-pejorative-here" rates at all.
This is like renting an apartment, signing all docs, moving in, then refusing to pay the rent and taking the landlord to court to force him/her to keep you in the apartment AND eliminating your rent.
Epic's case is insane, and dangerous because of the precedent it would set: The government can take over YOUR business.
Yea but Apple created and launched the iPhone and made it wildly popular from the start. Developers definitely contributed to further usefulness of it. They don't really depend on developers in the sense that someone can say "do it or I'll leave the App Store" - in that case they can just leave the App Store.
And yes, two rich, powerful companies fighting for a profit. I side with the one that makes my life easier.
[automerge]1598391915[/automerge]
Sure. I don't care. I don't use Windows so they can do whatever they want. They already do this with Xbox, for example.
Now replace Apple with <mobile network provider name> and explain to me why they arent entiled to 30% of what Apple sells.
By giving them access to the App Store...w/o them, all that advertising wouldn’t matter, as the app wouldn’t be available for iOS users.
Darth Tulhu
macrumors 68020
Not perfect for whom is REALLY the question.
The App Store is Apple's idea. How they choose to leverage it to make money is their idea. And Apple built the infrastructure to turn that idea into reality. All of this, for APPLE's benefit.
It is Apple that has cultivated the hardware & base software experience, their target customers, the App Store, and the third-party developers. Each element of the plan feeds the other in a circular fashion for the purposes of generating revenue for Apple, each with a different incentive, but never disconnected from one another.
Epic means to break this. If Apple makes no money off the App Store, it'll impact ALL the cogs in their wheel, including us.
That and my aforementioned bad precedent of giving the govt control over your business.
Darth Tulhu
macrumors 68020
Because they didn't put it in a contract ahead of time, as a condition of using their network, for starters.
Also, because they give Apple ZERO incentive to use their network over others.
EDIT: This is also not quite an apt comparison. It is the end-customer that chooses which network their Apple (or Android) device will use.
So Apple is helping the carrier, not the other way around. I'm sure Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile regretted not agreeing to Apple's demands when the iPhone came out. Apple helped AT&T make money. They both have incentive.
Last edited:
Blind Epic sheep...the whole point is that Epic doesn’t want to pay ANYTHING. If you read the email sent, they want access to iOS users and the App Store for free.
What difference does it make if the same app is available from multiple sources?
No matter where it’s downloaded/installed from, Apple would still get 30% of all the IAP.
Depends on the apps I suppose. There is only one or two apps I pay for at this point and they have been changed to subscription based anyhow.
Yes I tried switching to android before, and switched back in under a year. I didn't lose anything except for partial sanity when I tried Android.
It’s not really relevant what Apple’s costs are. Even if it only cost them $1/year, Apple can still charge their 30% and make billions.
Google does the same thing IF you use their payment system but they don't require you to use it.
I find the "Xbox / PlayStation" to be a false equivalency because those are purpose built game systems whereas phones have become some people's only computer and are essential. I also find the Walmart comparisons to be lacking because if a seller decides Walmart isn't a good deal they can sell to Target right around the corner. Their customers can easily have access through either. Most people have only one personal phone though so if an app is not available then you would literally have to buy a whole new phone to shop on a different store. That would be like if you only had one store in your state and had to move to shop somewhere else. Mac OS does just fine with an open system. It stands to reason that so would iOS. The only security this system provides is for Apples stock price.
Realistically, they didn't earn it, they only earned 70% of the price they set. Hopefully that was already in their business model, at least it better be since that's what they agreed to.
Just like their internet provider isn't TAKING $100 a month for their internet and the landlord isn't TAKING $1,000 a month for their offices. It's part of your budget.
If you don't like the terms (which is the same at the Google Play store, Steam, PlayStation, and X-Box) then maybe they shouldn't have gone into this business.
Would all the developers like it if it was 20%? Of course they would.
And I'd like it if my landlord to charge me 33% less, the same for water and electric companies, my cellphone, groceries, and the cost of cars.
A lot different... I can sell my product in 100s of different stores - not just Walmart, some I'll chose not to sell in b/c I don't like their customer service or the image they present. Also, in retail, you set the a price for the vendor ( store ) based on the volume they promise to buy & move - they can choose to resell at any price they chose. Stores then compete on price of what they sell and/or the quality of their store fronts and customer service as this is what attracts customers. In this situation, it's as if half the population bought cars from a company that will only drive to Walmart and the other half bought cars that will only drive to Target. The customer can't chose to visit other stores. I personally believe it'd be great to have other "app stores" for the iPhone. They could cater to different consumer communities & developers, resell at different prices and offer services that one "App Store" can't. For instance, Apple doesn't guarantee the quality of the apps on the App Store. You could have stores that only sell apps they've personally vetted and guarantee are of high quality - just like in retail. I'd personally would pay 100% - 200% markup to app stores that I knew used the application, had a relationship with the developer, and believed it was the best that was out there for its purpose. There's a partial duopoly in the App Store market and it's horrible for competition, consumers, & developers. It should be changed. Apple may make my phone, but when I buy it, it is mine. They shouldn't go to leaps and bounds to control how I use my phone or where I chose to shop for the applications that it uses. I can hardly imagine any other physical general purpose device where the manufacturer continually forces you how to use it forever.
I feel like that's saying: They built the Target/etc. down the road 12 years ago, it's not even a new building anymore, it seems like they should be charging me less since it's an older store! (They'd be charging me less by lowing their cut to the people who sell to them)
Probably mortgaged the building and the land and all the construction materials, so it's likely costing them the same amount to have the building today as it did then. (Even though they've renovated and made some changes they still have some long term costs).
The data center for the app store is probably a little bigger than it was 12 years ago.
PS - It's not the same computers that they put in in 2008, they've probably replaced them a few times and still have some staff running it. It's not just sitting their idle.
Yeah- there other professions, lawyers off top that get this kind of percentage as well.
It’s all about $. If epic never made a fortnite app, kids would still be on their console device looting away. The fact that apple has most of their hardware and software capable of running Fortnight is truly amazing. Is the consumer finished paying apple once they buy the device? Same question for the free software updates? Same question for security, bug fixes, simple authentication, purchasing Yada Yada. Nope, cause there’s an app for that.
The whole ecosystem is quite an accomplishment.
Get bored of Fortnite, rent a movie, play solitaire, do your taxes, book a trip.
Whatever, it’s an option that makes our world simpler. I agree with someone else that stated, Epic is trying to make Apples system more difficult For the consumer.
30% covers the cost of a functioning updated device, a backup, software for their app to run on, sdk's, inhouse tech for developers to help smooth operation, security, access to millions and millions of users that might not have existed prior to their iOS app.
70% of all that is better than 100% of none of it!
The whole ecosystem is quite an accomplishment.
Get bored of Fortnite, rent a movie, play solitaire, do your taxes, book a trip.
Whatever, it’s an option that makes our world simpler. I agree with someone else that stated, Epic is trying to make Apples system more difficult For the consumer.
30% covers the cost of a functioning updated device, a backup, software for their app to run on, sdk's, inhouse tech for developers to help smooth operation, security, access to millions and millions of users that might not have existed prior to their iOS app.
70% of all that is better than 100% of none of it!
What’s ridiculous is that some people think they know what is “fair” or that some government bureaucrat should decide what is “fair”.
Similar to people complaining that the iPhone or Mac is overpriced. Sure, everyone would like a $1,000 MacBook Air or a $1,000 iPhone 11 Pro for $700. Sorry, Apple charges $1,000 🤷♂️
It’s pretty clear that epic thought it had more pull than it really does. They either thought:
1- Apple would make a deal with them
Or
2- More companies would join in
Or
3- More outcry from people.
Nonsense. Apple does own any people, let alone a billion people. People own their iOS devices and Epic wants to be able to sell software to them. This business should be between Epic and the gamers. Apple has no business interfering.
Indeed. To make it fair, we need to let the market do it. Just allow alternative app stores and we'll see if app developers prefer the stores with 30% IAP/subscription or some store(s) might be able to offer a better service.