Apple Reinstates Epic Games EU Developer Account, Paving the Way for Alternative App Store

[wbeasley]

It doesn’t exist anymore because Apple banned them all.

The rest of it, like Apple, is none of your business.

The example was to show the over controlling aspect of apples ability to remove something from my phone that I put on my phone - because they didn’t like it.

Apple often does things, like many companies do, react to legal advice.

It's not a case of Apple not LIKING something. Business exposure to legal action, as has happened many times of the years, makes companies wary. McDonalds have to tell you that hot coffee might be hot!
The US started the nanny state litigation process and scared everyone.

"None of your business"... well thanks for helping us understand what crucial functions Apple is depriving you.
You said it. I gave you a chance to explain it. Clearly you dont want to.

 

[mcnallym]

Oh I think they are not going to improve things at all, I actually think the DMA doesn't do enough to target the things that are actual problems for users.

exactly, all i see in there is other business saying we don’t want to have to pay Apple.

 

[wbeasley]

If it works for you where you live, fine. But the one size fits all approach does not work everywhere. We can't wait for Apple to catch up for years if not decades, they just don't have the ressources for it.

If a Trillion dollar company doesnt have the resources... geez.

They have no desire, a different beast indeed.
And you dont agree with them.

That's fine too.
You have the option of another OS and app store if it bothers you.
Pretty much as you "If it works for you... fine".

 

[bcortens]

ok.

I've only ever seen coupons within say a boxed item purchased from any store I've been to. You open a box of say soap and in it there is a manufacture coupon for whatever % off your next purchase "anywhere" this item is sold.
I've never seen a re-direct to purchase either directly or from another store. I would expect the app to be no different in behavior.

I would be ok with them letting you know you via emails or other means outside the app. Again, you're the shopper.
As far as everything else, someone else posted something really good to address exactly the part "the device and OS is separate". The iPhone was something new. And Apple "fixed" the issue of keeping it simple for the end user, and strait forward for the developer to reach the end user. I can't say it better, so I will have to find it and post it when I do.

Why just outside the app, and what harm does it do to you if they did it in the app?

It’s clearly not security:
Apps like Amazon (for real world goods) can already do all this, they use their own payment processing and let you know how to pay in App.

It’s not money:
The current rules aren’t making Apple money.

Apple didn’t fix anything because there are thousands of Apps that don’t use Apple’s IAP system.

 

[bcortens]

But you just said Amazon, Uber and Booking pay 0% — so I guess you don’t use those companies because you just claimed that Apple wants a cut of “every dollar” you spend.

The App Store is pretty much the same as it’s always been (now with lower 15% options). The complaints about fees are mainly coming from a few big boys who could afford to front their own infrastructure.

I’m a developer with apps on both of the main App Stores. I am not clamoring to host downloads on my website and handle payments.

The 15% I pay is a great deal — users can get my apps from a trustworthy store with the knowledge that managing their subscriptions is easy.

I can offer free trials simply. I can offer Family Sharing on iOS (another incentive to subscribe). Updates get pushed to devices automatically. It’s great.

While much of that may be possible if I handled all transactions with my own payment processor and website, it’s just not worth the effort. I want to improve my software, not run a store.

I understand your wishes, but I strongly doubt many developers are going to utilize an alt App Store 🤷🏻‍♂️

If Uber, Booking and Amazon also payed the 15% Apple would have a leg to stand on when they claim the store is a fair and level playing field for all developers. Since they don’t it isn’t that is one of the key problems with Apple’s commission system. It is just flagrantly not a fair system as it says that if an App wants to sell a digital book they have to pay but if they want to ship you the physical book, hey no problem, no commission for you. Digital song, pay up to Apple, CD? Nothing. You could argue that the digital goods have lower expenses but that often isn’t true, Spotify often struggles to run at a profit showing how hard it is to earn money in the streaming space.

 

[mcnallym]

Yeah, Apple had no idea they were complying maliciously and bitterly!

malicious compliance is where you comply with what is asked of you but you do it in such a way that has unintended consequences.

but what is done is still compliant with what been asked to do.

so you just posted that apples response is compliant.

not quite sure that was what you intended with that post.

 

[GroovyCatticus]

I want to clarify for those of you who don't actually develop apps what exactly you get from the iOS App Store.

The most basic is what it seems like most of you believe it to be – a place to download apps and possibly pay for an in-app purchase/subscription.

So your question is "why should Apple get 15-30% from a download site?" If that's all the App Store was, I'd certainly agree with you.

However, there's a lot more:

1. TestFlight: the ability to test beta apps with users, including accepting test purchases

2. Easy to add new products and pricing options in the App Store Connect website

3. Automatically handle price changes and customer opt-in to new pricing

4. Ability to offer free trials that automatically convert to billing after their expiration

5. Option to enable Family Sharing to share a purchase/subscription with up to 5 family members

6. Easy for customers to change subscription levels on the fly, or cancel a subscription

7. Easy for customers to get a refund

8. A server side notification service that alerts you when a customer makes a change (like a refund) so you can handle it on your side if necessary

9. Automatically push new app releases to your customers

10. Provides the customer with a single billing contact (see #7)

11. Ability to offer promo codes

12. Ability to add as many apps as you want

Alt App Stores are going to have to offer developers a lot more than a couple percent better than Apple to match all the services the App Store provides to developers.

Apps will also have to be more than 15-30% cheaper in an alt App Store for customers to bother using them – customers HATE friction.

That's why I think this whole thing is DOA (Epic notwithstanding) 🤷🏻‍♂️

 

[Abazigal]

If Uber, Booking and Amazon also payed the 15% Apple would have a leg to stand on when they claim the store is a fair and level playing field for all developers. Since they don’t it isn’t that is one of the key problems with Apple’s commission system. It is just flagrantly not a fair system as it says that if an App wants to sell a digital book they have to pay but if they want to ship you the physical book, hey no problem, no commission for you. Digital song, pay up to Apple, CD? Nothing. You could argue that the digital goods have lower expenses but that often isn’t true, Spotify often struggles to run at a profit showing how hard it is to earn money in the streaming space.

It’s probably more accurate to say that Apple charges on digital goods which often have zero or low marginal costs of production (The cost to deliver a pdf of a book is zero regardless of whether you sell 1 book or 1000 books). Services like Uber and amazon have higher marginal costs since they tend to deal with physical goods and services (you need to actually keep that many books in stock).

So it’s fair in a sense. Those who can afford to pay more, do pay more.

It’s how I would charge for an App Store as well.

 

[mcnallym]

Uh well that’s not true now is it?!

Such as?

 

[bcortens]

It’s probably more accurate to say that Apple charges on digital goods which often have zero or low marginal costs of production (The cost to deliver a pdf of a book is zero regardless of whether you sell 1 book or 1000 books). Services like Uber and amazon have higher marginal costs since they tend to deal with physical goods and services (you need to actually keep that many books in stock).

So it’s fair in a sense. Those who can afford to pay more, do pay more.

It’s how I would charge for an App Store as well.

Except they don’t, Spotify cant afford to pay more. Netflix has immense server fees and infrastructure.

Deciding, a priori, that businesses that distribute digital goods can afford to pay more is just not born out by reality. McDonald’s has a profit margin of 32%, Spotify‘s is -4%

 

[bcortens]

I want to clarify for those of you who don't actually develop apps what exactly you get from the iOS App Store.

The most basic is what it seems like most of you believe it to be – a place to download apps and possibly pay for an in-app purchase/subscription.

So your question is "why should Apple get 15-30% from a download site?" If that's all the App Store was, I'd certainly agree with you.

However, there's a lot more:

1. TestFlight: the ability to test beta apps with users, including accepting test purchases

2. Easy to add new products and pricing options in the App Store Connect website

3. Automatically handle price changes and customer opt-in to new pricing

4. Ability to offer free trials that automatically convert to billing after their expiration

5. Option to enable Family Sharing to share a purchase/subscription with up to 5 family members

6. Easy for customers to change subscription levels on the fly, or cancel a subscription

7. Easy for customers to get a refund

8. A server side notification service that alerts you when a customer makes a change (like a refund) so you can handle it on your side if necessary

9. Automatically push new app releases to your customers

10. Provides the customer with a single billing contact (see #7)

11. Ability to offer promo codes

Alt App Stores are going to have to offer developers a lot more than a couple percent better than Apple to match all the services the App Store provides to developers.

Apps will also have to be more than 15-30% cheaper in an alt App Store for customers to bother using them – customers HATE friction.

That's why I think this whole thing is DOA (Epic notwithstanding) 🤷🏻‍♂️

If those things are so vital then Apple can charge for them via something like the CTF, what they should not do, is try and take a percentage of transactions they do not actually handle.

 

[GroovyCatticus]

Except they don’t, Spotify cant afford to pay more. Netflix has immense server fees and infrastructure.

Deciding, a priori, that businesses that distribute digital goods can afford to pay more is just not born out by reality. McDonald’s has a profit margin of 32%, Spotify‘s is -4%

And Spotify is the #1 streaming service (by subscriber/user count) in the world!

So I guess they're not a very well run business 🤷🏻‍♂️

 

[Jensend]

All is good and fine then looks like.

To add my own concerns to this hot pot of a thread is:

What I’ll never understand is why everybody is piling up on “big bad Apple AppStore monopoly and ecosystem, along with its fees”, but absolutely nobody piles up on “Nintendo’s monopoly eShop appStore and ecosystem, along with its fees (and cartridge licensing fees)” or “PlayStation AppStore and its fees” or you name it, tons of examples…

A lot of the counter replies that I have received over the years have been either “well, it’s totally not the same!” (somehow it’s rationalized that it’s a completely different thing) to “well, you know, consoles are sold at a loss!” (as if somehow some evil hand forced these companies to make such bad business decisions and hence deserve free passes?).
Just in case, those rationalizations are of course not enough.

Wouldn’t mind those redeeming examples on some hypothetical NintendoRumors, EpicRumors, PsnRumors, etc… because as it stands, the current trendy train of thought is largely incongruent and double-standard-y.

Which is fine too, it’s ok to say up front: “I hate Apple, hence we want the double standard. Even if I don’t care, won’t buy and won’t use an iPhone, I want them to pay”… “but please don’t touch my beloved Nintendo brand, for Nintendo it’s ok not to be able to do with my device everything I want to do with it”.
It would at least answer where the incoherency comes from.

For many adults, their smartphone is their primary, or even only computer. I don't think that's the case with the Switch. A general purpose computer is more of a necessity that a single purpose device. Yes, any of the consoles could be a general purpose computing device if they were opened up to be that, but no one buys them to be their primary computer. Also, videogame consoles have several open alternatives with similar-enough form factors.

Some people have brought up computers in cars. Asking if governments should force them to be open. But there are obviously safety concerns there that are unlike the safety concerns of an open smartphone platform.

There isn't a hard cutoff line for when a specialty computer becomes a general purpose computer, or when healthy competition becomes a monopoly, or when a non-essential device becomes an essential device. The boundaries are fuzzy, and some people and companies will be upset wherever you place the lines when making a regulation. I don't think that means that there should never be any regulations ever in regards to how computer companies interact with their customers.

 

[mcnallym]

You can still choose to remain within the confines of the walled garden (at least with regards to installation of apps) and download all of your apps exclusively from Apple.

Are you forced to download and install from other developers? No.
Could an app that you like withdraw from Apple's App Store? Yes - just as it can today, for any reason (if it's not being forcibly expelled by Apple). Apps can and go, but you have a choice.

I don't see what "wall has been knocked down".

"Sideloading" has been available for years.
You could install any app from just downloading it from a random website. Apple even helpfully explain how to do it. They just did not contractually allow third-party developers and app stores to do it for distribution to consumers. That didn't prevent operations from certain parts of the world to obtain signing certificates for such "shady" business.

The only wall that's been knocked down is the "developers are not allowed to" in Apple's old developer terms.
By your choice not to "actively use the alt app stores or side load", you erect a wall that's equally secure - but only needs to be around yourself.

a system is either a walled garden or it is not.

android even if you don’t use anything other then Google’s play store is still an open mobile ecosystem.

so even where a user does not use the alternatives it does not make android a closed system.

simply by putting in support for alternatives you make it an open system.

 

[Abazigal]

Except they don’t, Spotify cant afford to pay more. Netflix has immense server fees and infrastructure.

Deciding, a priori, that businesses that distribute digital goods can afford to pay more is just not born out by reality. McDonald’s has a profit margin of 32%, Spotify‘s is -4%

Then it sounds like Spotify’s problem is that they chose to charge a clearly unsustainable price in the first place. Remember that they don’t pay Google anything, and their ad tier isn’t billed as well.

Which says more about the nature of their business model, then it does about Apple’s supposed predatory pricing model.

 

[GroovyCatticus]

If those things are so vital then Apple can charge for them via something like the CTF, what they should not do, is try and take a percentage of transactions they do not actually handle.

I've explained *my* rationale for supporting the iOS App Store. Rationale that I'm pretty sure that vast majority of small/independent developers would agree with.

The big guys -- ehhhh who cares? They're doing just fine either way (except Spotify, who will be out of business sooner or later, but that's definitely not due to the App Store!)

We'll see who's right!

 

[Jensend]

It’s probably more accurate to say that Apple charges on digital goods which often have zero or low marginal costs of production (The cost to deliver a pdf of a book is zero regardless of whether you sell 1 book or 1000 books). Services like Uber and amazon have higher marginal costs since they tend to deal with physical goods and services (you need to actually keep that many books in stock).

So it’s fair in a sense. Those who can afford to pay more, do pay more.

It’s how I would charge for an App Store as well.

That may be true when you are selling your own digital goods, but when you are selling other people's digital goods, that often isn't the case—such as Spotify selling subscriptions. They have to pass along about $7.33 for each $11 subscription to the rights holders. If they also passed along $3.30 to Apple, they'd have almost nothing left over.

 

[bcortens]

And Spotify is the #1 streaming service (by subscriber/user count) in the world!

So I guess they're not a very well run business 🤷🏻‍♂️

Streaming, at $10/month is probably not a sustainable business, they can’t realistically charge more because Amazon and Apple can subsidize their streaming businesses.

 

[GroovyCatticus]

That may be true when you are selling your own digital goods, but when you are selling other people's digital goods, that often isn't the case—such as Spotify selling subscriptions. They have to pass along about $7.33 for each $11 subscription to the rights holders. If they also passed along $3.30 to Apple, they'd have almost nothing left over.

Sounds like Spotify needs to run their business better – they're losing money despite not paying Apple for years!

I understand they keep coming up in these threads because they are a vocal critic, but they haven't been paying, so not quite sure what the argument is.

If they think having a payment link in their App Store app is going to save their business, well...

 

[GroovyCatticus]

Streaming, at $10/month is probably not a sustainable business, they can’t realistically charge more because Amazon and Apple can subsidize their streaming businesses.

Thems the breaks, I guess -- diversification is a thing.

 

[bcortens]

I've explained *my* rationale for supporting the iOS App Store. Rationale that I'm pretty sure that vast majority of small/independent developers would agree with.

The big guys -- ehhhh who cares? They're doing just fine either way (except Spotify, who will be out of business sooner or later, but that's definitely not due to the App Store!)

We'll see who's right!

As a very small developer I think the App Store is fantastic.
I suspect large developers who can afford to run their own payment systems find it less useful.

As a user I think that Apple’s policies have encouraged subscription apps to takeover, and scummy slot machine mechanisms to dominate gaming. As a user I am far more ambivalent about Apple’s App Store and don’t care as much about them getting to keep their walled garden.

For the 15-30% fee, that actually is a great fee to run those services if everyone pays it. I don’t think that fee is fair or reasonable as a way to fund iOS development or run the store today. The fee was conceived, and the categories to which it applies decided, back when most Apps were payed up front with no in app purchases or subscriptions. The fee really just hasn’t adapted well to the times and now seems like rent seeking.

I think (as I’ve said before) Apple needs to separate its funding of iOS and App Store from its commission on purchases. I think the CTF is a good first attempt at this because it could apply evenly to everyone, I think that the fact that they have exempted developers who remain in their store under the old terms is a mistake.

 

[bcortens]

Thems the breaks, I guess -- diversification is a thing.

Subsidizing one business with another is not really ethical… its, dare i say it, anticompetitive

 

[Jensend]

Sounds like Spotify needs to run their business better – they're losing money despite not paying Apple for years!

I understand they keep coming up in these threads because they are a vocal critic, but they haven't been paying, so not quite sure what the argument is.

If they think having a payment link in their App Store app is going to save their business, well...

I doubt they are losing money directly from the music business. I think it's because they are spending money to expand their business into other areas. Which is a thing you're suggestion they do in another post of yours.

Apple was still handling some Spotify subscriptions up until July of last year, so no, it hasn't been "years"

 

[GroovyCatticus]

For many adults, their smartphone is their primary, or even only computer. I don't think that's the case with the Switch. A general purpose computer is more of a necessity that a single purpose device. Yes, any of the consoles could be a general purpose computing device if they were opened up to be that, but no one buys them to be their primary computer. Also, videogame consoles have several open alternatives with similar-enough form factors.

Some people have brought up computers in cars. Asking if governments should force them to be open. But there are obviously safety concerns there that are unlike the safety concerns of an open smartphone platform.

There isn't a hard cutoff line for when a specialty computer becomes a general purpose computer, or when healthy competition becomes a monopoly, or when a non-essential device becomes an essential device. The boundaries are fuzzy, and some people and companies will be upset wherever you place the lines when making a regulation. I don't think that means that there should never be any regulations ever in regards to how computer companies interact with their customers.

The whole "it should be just like MacOS" argument makes perfect sense....if you're a nerd.

Nerds love to tinker and play with their computers/phones. Open is awesome – you can install and do what you want.

The problem is that 99% of people aren't like you.

They don't like to play with their phones, and don't think of them as a "computer" at all.

They don't want to "manage" it, they don't want to "tinker" – they just want to use it to communicate and get the apps they want/need.

iOS and the App Store makes that happen for them, so they are happy.

This is also why alt App Stores will fail – all the friction of dealing with an alt App Store will turn *most* people off. They can't be bothered, and they won't.

Sorry guys.

 

[GroovyCatticus]

Subsidizing one business with another is not really ethical… its, dare i say it, anticompetitive

It's all one business, called Apple. Compete harder!