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 Reinstates Epic Games EU Developer Account, Paving the Way for Alternative App Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
People defending a 2 1/2 trillion dollar company.
Why?
Although after seeing how Phil comports himself via email, I wouldn’t be surprised if he has burner accounts on a variety of Forums just to mix it up
Why?
Although after seeing how Phil comports himself via email, I wouldn’t be surprised if he has burner accounts on a variety of Forums just to mix it up
People defending an overreaching, power hungry government.
Why?
The answer? Because depending on which side you're on, that 2 1/2 trillion dollar company or the overreaching, power hungry government are doing whatever those people like.
Yes, these folks are really winners forcing things into action. The EU is a joke.
AppleStore rules? No need for them to break AppleStore rules because they do not have to sell through the AppleStore in Europe. That means, no need to break rules…. at least in Europe, thx to the DMA.
It's interesting that a government official seems to be hinging her entire credibility on whether a particular game is available to the public. Most notably one that has been in the news for all the wrong reasons.
Fortnite maker Epic Games fined $520M after accusations it exposed young players to potential harm
Epic, which was valued at $32 billion in April, was also accused of tricking users into making unwanted purchases.
www.nbcnews.com
Is this real? I thought it was fake. I live in the EU and can’t find any default browser settings on my phone.
Yeah there are certain things Apple and EU officials are better keeping their mouths shut on. Public statements can come back to bite!It's interesting that a government official seems to be hinging her entire credibility on whether a particular game is available to the public. Most notably one that has been in the news for all the wrong reasons.
Fortnite maker Epic Games fined $520M after accusations it exposed young players to potential harm
Epic, which was valued at $32 billion in April, was also accused of tricking users into making unwanted purchases.
This is exactly what the DMA does. It forces Apple to carry alternate app stores in its app store and allows Apple to enact some rules to protect its platform.
1. Most if not all apps from Apples App Store are forbidden from discosing that it might be 10-30% cheaper to subscribe or buy something on their web site directly instead trought the app, or link to any alternative purchasing option or use alternative payment processors.
No it doesn't. Absolutely allowed.
2. Rival App stores to gain userbase will most likely heavily undercut apples 30% tax by offering 5-15% which directly benefits consumers.
No it won't. It will benefit the bottom line of millionaires.
3. More games, apps and competition between app stores for usersbase lowers prices and enables developers to pick technologies and different ways to create, update and release games which apple would refuse, game streaming and e-commerce/subscription type of apps for example.
No it won't. It will be the exact same apps, with the exact same features, with the exact same prices.
...unless it costs more than $10?
What are you trying to say? If it makes the most money at $10, then it will make the most money at $10 - that statement is alway true.
If you're saying the profit-maximising prices is always the same, no matter the costs, that is wrong, that's not how pricing works.
Customer demand is elastic to price - and 20% higher costs (Apple's commission less the payment processing/distribution costs if you do it your) may very well make the difference between profit and loss.
Simple example: Assume that Apple Arcade and Epic have identical services - or both are equally "good" and have the same development and licensing costs. If priced at the same monthly subscription price, Epic will have a cost disadvantage to Apple, due to Apple charging a 30% commission, when Epic could themselves make or contract out the payment processing for 10%. So Epic may have to charge a higher price - which in turn may cost them consumers moving to Apple (and costing Epic the necessary scale to compete).
It's a he/his, not a she/her. And I don't follow you on the "hinging (his) entire credibility" on it. He's not. Neither Breton nor the DMA are only about Fortnite - far from it! The feud between Epic and Apple (along with Spotify) has been the most well-publicised related to the DMA. So no wonder he mentioned that publicly.
For any company.
You're moving the goalposts here. Obviously, less costs mean a developer makes more money. That has nothing to do with what I said.
People defending legislation to change a business model for a product from a company that produces a lifestyle product when one can vote with their $$$.
Why?
It would be more accurate to say Apples policies ruined mobile gaming.
The way microtransactions are used inside mobile games has made me write off most games on the platform as nothing more than sparkly slot machines. I download a game and am greeted with pay to skip timers nonsense….
My bad on mixing up his gender.
What I meant was - were the people in the EU specially clamouring for the ability to get Fortnite again on their iPhones, some three years later? Otherwise, it just feels like an oddly specific callout. Maybe the game is (still) more popular than I give it credit for. 🙃
We're talking about software. Increasing the price would mean making less revenue.
That's exactly my point. If $10 is the most efficient price, then increasing or decreasing the price will result in less revenue.
No, I'm saying that the revenue-maximizing price is independent of cost. Consumers won't spend more for your app just because you buy yourself extra coffee.
I find it absolutely mind boggling that you seem to suggest that a physical brick and mortar store is a better analogy for your iPhone than a computer.
These Target analogies are getting more and more convoluted and they simply don't fit. If anyone tried to argue that their Mac is a store, they'd be laughed out of the room.
No an iPhone is not a desktop computer, but it's a computing device. It's not a store. It has a store running on it, but it's not a store in itself. It can have many stores running on it, just look at other computers, including Android smartphones.
It feels more like the market voted and decided that they would rather opt for a free game that potentially cost them hundreds in IAPs, rather than a paid game that you could play forever. In a way, it always felt inevitable. The problem isn't so much the App Store as much as the internet making it extremely easy for anyone to publish an app and make it readily accessible to everyone.
What happens when supply exceeds demand? Price drops. The real issue, I feel, is way too many people all making similar apps. It's not an issue that's unique to Apple.
You aren't getting it so let me try again. You're saying if the app brings in the most income at $10, then that's what it will be priced at. Ok, but what if pricing it at $10 and then Apple taking $3 means the businesses is no longer viable? Maybe making $7 per purchase simply isn't enough to keep the dev afloat, they need $10. OK so then what if they price it at $14 and it results in slightly fewer downloads, but now the dev is making ~$10 per purchase after the Apple tax and now has a sustainable business. What choice is the dev going to make? Are they going to price it at $10 and eventually go out of business or are they going to price it at $14 and stay in business? Now let's look at the result from the consumer perspective, is $10 or $14 a more pro-consumer price? The dev could price it at $10, but has to price it at $14 due to the Apple tax.
Last edited:
Given how many things rely on phones and apps these days this characterization of the iPhone as a lifestyle device is bordering on a bad faith
They already get it, but they will pretend they do not. Because the safe, warm, and exquisitely designed walled garden needs protecting. One store, one gate only on this land, for safety and convenience reasons, you see.
In your previous posts (here and here) you referred to "making money" - which I (like the dictionary) understood as making a profit, not just revenue.
The revenue-maximising price is independent of costs (when talking of software, which has low and decreasing marginal costs) - but the profit-maximising price isn't.
Last edited:
No one is arguing that the fee doesn't cost developers money. That would be ridiculous. You're simply trying to move the goalposts.
Where were the original goalposts and where do you imagine they're being moved to?