That's exactly what every single government is doing right now on this planet earth.
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
That's exactly what every single government is doing right now on this planet earth.
Yeah, that's the part that many seem not to understand or want to gloss over. In developing apps for iOS people are necessarily using Apple's IP. They don't have an inherent right to do that. They are allowed to do that because Apple licenses them right, under certain conditions. The 30% which Apple takes factors in a lot of things, not just running the store and processing payments. But part of it is in return for Apple allowing developers to use its IP.
Under some circumstances Apple allows developers to effectively use its IP for free (or almost nothing). It thinks that's in its best interests or the best interests of the iOS ecosystem. But it doesn't (and shouldn't) have to do that.
So, a developer creates an app with IAP and submits it to alternative app store which does not charge for IAPs. I install it and startling it. Let's say this app uses PayPal for IAPs. What exactly can Apple do about it? Raise the fee for IAPs in their App Store to 40%? Smart move. At this point the last moron stops using App Store.
How does no one say that it's pretty much the industry standard for App Stores: Steam, Google Play, Playstation, Xbox, and who knows where else? Although, it's possible they did and it just didn't get quoted in this story.
Playstation and Xbox don't have any competition on their devices either.
While Google Play has other stores and side loading, I'm not under the impression it's caused them to lower their percentage charged.
What can Apple do about it? Are you asking what can be done when someone uses another’s IP without permission? For one thing, the IP owner can sue them and get injunctive relief, or damages, or both.
Before using Apple’s IP (outside circumstances under which Apple is willing to license it the right to do so), Epic really needs to get a court to say that Apple has some antitrust obligation to license that IP (outside of such circumstances). Even still, Apple will almost certainly be entitled to some compensation for the use of that IP. That would likely be one of the considerations in an antitrust action - even if Apple must allow iOS apps to be loaded on iOS devices other than through the App Store (i.e., even if Apple must facilitate such), how is reasonable compensation for the use of its IP to be determined?
Yeah, all because it’s the Apple, with $2T in valuation thanks to recent unusual surge of stock price.
I don’t know what does Epic Game expect otherwise? No matter how they spin it, Epic Game does not have the same market size and bargaining power as Apple.
Now, I care little about their choice, but those sweet sweet lawyer fees. Someone is definitely a big winner of this “turns out to be a waste” legal battle. No wonder why people love to be a lawyer.
Lastly, maybe Epic Game should raise their in-app purchases by 30% to cover the Apple tax. No business is willing to pay tax themselves, so why developers need to pay Apple tax or Google tax?
I don’t know what does Epic Game expect otherwise? No matter how they spin it, Epic Game does not have the same market size and bargaining power as Apple.
Now, I care little about their choice, but those sweet sweet lawyer fees. Someone is definitely a big winner of this “turns out to be a waste” legal battle. No wonder why people love to be a lawyer.
Lastly, maybe Epic Game should raise their in-app purchases by 30% to cover the Apple tax. No business is willing to pay tax themselves, so why developers need to pay Apple tax or Google tax?
Obviously, obligation to allow for alternative app stores should be accompanied by obligation to license IP required to build the apps. As far as the compensation is concerned, it's easy - it should be identical for all developers regardless of which app store they use. It makes perfect sense because app development has nothing to do with the app store. Apple should still be free to set whatever price they want for services provided by their App Store. Competition will take care of those.
Does not Apple require that if the app consumes any assets that can be purchased anywhere these very assets should also be available for purchase via Apple payment system? Moreover, the price of those assets via Apple should be the same or lower than elsewhere.
For everyone siding with Epic:
If Epic decided that a 30% cut is way to high, they should just create their own platform (ie EpicPhone or something). In that way, maybe they can sustain by offering all developers 0 cost to host their apps. (Or a cut of x% based on all the ideas from business geniuses in this forum)
Oh but Epic didn’t - instead they went through lawsuits trying to force Apple to open up their established customer base to everyone for free. If you still don’t see the point here you are just a kid that don’t understand how the real world works.
If Epic decided that a 30% cut is way to high, they should just create their own platform (ie EpicPhone or something). In that way, maybe they can sustain by offering all developers 0 cost to host their apps. (Or a cut of x% based on all the ideas from business geniuses in this forum)
Oh but Epic didn’t - instead they went through lawsuits trying to force Apple to open up their established customer base to everyone for free. If you still don’t see the point here you are just a kid that don’t understand how the real world works.
Because there is competion, if there only was one, they would charge apple, just like Apple does. It's the whole point.
Apple pays FRAND to access the networks, imagine what Apple would do if they asked 30% of all sales. They would do something about it... Oh wait they did and they only asked for like 1% of the device price.
What apple should do for alternative app stores is charge about $10M for the certificates. And then let the app stores charge a measly 5%. Let's see how long they last.
So, you are arguing that it would be the best for consumer if every software developer had to also develop a computer, OS, software development tools for it etc. And then we would have to buy a separate computer/smartphone for each game. Makes perfect sense!
Your view of what's happening is rather one sided. Your video down plays it too. The App store is a service, the cost of maintaining the store isn't the only part of it that Apple has a legitimate right to charge money for. I'm not saying that 30% all day and night is correct, but the App store belongs to Apple and ALL of the devices that access it are made by the same company. You think they should give this all to Epic for free?
I am not an app developer and I don't follow this stuff closely. According to old 9to5mac article, it sounds like Apple did have the rules that I described but they had to backtrack somewhat:
‐--‐-----------------‐-
Whoa, Apple has reconsidered its stance on in-app subscriptions and has changed strict guidelines of its iOS developer agreement to allow in-app subscriptions outside the App Store. MacRumors spotted a crucial change in section 11.13 which previously required that content sold outside of the app be “also offered in the app using In-App Purchase at the same price or less than it is offered outside the app”. This requirement, which applied to both purchased content and subscriptions, is no longer in effect and has been entirely removed from section 11.13. Here’s the new wording:
---‐-----‐---------
That's one example where external pressure forced Apple to change their draconian rule. Let's hope that this lawsuit improves the situation further.
I understand that as AAPL shareholder you'd like that however with alternative app stores, they should be enabled to issue their own certificates.
This is certainly further down the road, but alternative app stores should not be allowed to issue their own certificates.
I believe according to articles that rule was squashed in 2011, although I would have to dig up the MR post that said that. But the guidelines always have to tweaked along the way. Nothing stays the same in the tech world. Not that's it's good or bad, but just the way it is.
I think hope is the operative word as we don't know how this will play out in it's entirety, nor how long this will take.
The rule was that if you offered something both via an IAP and an outside store then both should have the same price.
i.e: netflix subscription via IAP should be the same price as netflix subscription via their own site.
Apple never had any rule forcing you to offer as an IAP if you offered the same thing somewhere else.
Last edited:
Can you explain „the whole industry“ when it is just about Apple and Google? And Google just followed Apple?
I think you are referring to Playstations, XBoxes and other closed ecosystems? But you know - there is a difference. I - as a developer - never heated of a new OS for the PlayStation or XBox every year, did you? Maintaining an app is a cumbersome task. Every year Apple/Google release a new OS version and every year you have to touch your app, change it the way Apple wants it to be. Features break, if you need to do a small update Apple tells you that the update has to be build with the latest XCode and latest frameworks - you need to do complex testing with the new versions and a lot of other things. Pods change, frameworks break, certificates expire, access rights change ... constantly.
Long story short - it is expensive to run an app, the only constant thing about iOS is change. So yes 30% is way too expensive. Should I make the app more expensive? You have to know that there is something about the price that influences how well your app sells. We had one good selling app for $2.99 - we tried $3.99 and generated less revenue compared to the lower price.
And for XBox, PS - what are we talkin about? Something between $30 and $99? It is a different world and when a new PS with a new OS appears Sony or Microsoft tell you if the game can be played on the new console or not. Or you can BUY a new version of the game for the new console ...
30% isn’t too much just because you say it is.
P.S. Did you try your app at $1.99? Revenue might go up 5x and profits might double, triple or better 🙂
Last edited:
Gee, and 30% isn't fair and reasonable just because you say it is. See how that works?
Apple can charge whatever they want, if they alllow for other means of app installation on their platform just like Mac OS. That's THE problem. If you really enjoy the App Store experience (somehow) then you should think it worths paying that extra %30 for it.