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

[Abazigal]

I figure it is just a digital good and not a physical one. Wasn't that the demarcation line we've agreed Apple has drawn?

It’s a digital service that involves the transfer of physical assets (cash in this case) from one party to another. Based on my definition above, it wouldn’t qualify as deserving of a commission to Apple.

We can debate until the cows come home about whether those delineations are fair or not, but in the very least, there does appear to be some internal consistency here.

 

[j26]

It’s a digital service that involves the transfer of physical assets (cash in this case) from one party to another. Based on my definition above, it wouldn’t qualify as deserving of a commission to Apple.

We can debate until the cows come home about whether those delineations are fair or not, but in the very least, there does appear to be some internal consistency here.

Money is not mainly a physical thing any more. I've not had my hands on more than €100 in physical cash in total since the start of the year, yet I've moved tens of thousands around.

 

[MilaM]

Money is not mainly a physical thing any more. I've not had my hands on more than €100 in physical cash in total since the start of the year, yet I've moved tens of thousands around.

I agree. I don't think any commercial bank will have dealings in cash with other commercial banks these days. Even stocks/bonds are mostly digital goods nowadays.

 

[Abazigal]

Money is not mainly a physical thing any more. I've not had my hands on more than €100 in physical cash in total since the start of the year, yet I've moved tens of thousands around.

It’s still backed by a physical asset, in that if my friend and I were to take turns transferring $100 to each other 10 times each, I would expect to have the same amount at the end of the day. And if I went to the bank to withdraw it, I should get the full amount.

 

[diamond.g]

It’s still backed by a physical asset, in that if my friend and I were to take turns transferring $100 to each other 10 times each, I would expect to have the same amount at the end of the day. And if I went to the bank to withdraw it, I should get the full amount.

So then that about Stocks, and Crypto?

 

[Abazigal]

So then that about Stocks, and Crypto?

Are they fully digital assets like ebooks, music or video that you consume on your mobile device, or do they hold some intrinsic value in the real world?

 

[MilaM]

It’s still backed by a physical asset, in that if my friend and I were to take turns transferring $100 to each other 10 times each, I would expect to have the same amount at the end of the day. And if I went to the bank to withdraw it, I should get the full amount.

Sounds logical. Physical money and book money (what you keep at the bank), are completely different things, though. One is the legal tender of your country (physical), the other is not and, in fact, is only a liability on the balance sheet of a commercial bank, completely digital without any backing whatsoever.

If one of the two would disappear, the physical cash for example, the other form of money would still exist.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Are they fully digital assets like, music or video that you consume on your mobile device, or do they hold some intrinsic value in the real world?

Crypto does not hold intrinsic value in the real world - neither do options.

 

[diamond.g]

Are they fully digital assets like ebooks, music or video that you consume on your mobile device, or do they hold some intrinsic value in the real world?

I'd like to say that all digital goods hold some real world value (otherwise piracy couldn't claim that you are taking money out of someones mouth). But I see where you are going with this.

 

[Abazigal]

Crypto does not hold intrinsic value in the real world - neither do options.

I'd like to say that all digital goods hold some real world value (otherwise piracy couldn't claim that you are taking money out of someones mouth). But I see where you are going with this.

Then perhaps it is more accurate to state that things like news, music, video and ebooks have zero economic value. Once published on the internet, their lack of any marginal cost structure means that they can replicated infinitely with very minimal effort. For example, I could copy and paste an entire news article and forward it to my friends via WhatsApp, or torrent the latest song or movie or ebook, and the irony here is that the very thing that led to their ease of distribution on the internet being possible in the first place is also responsible for its current predicament.

The "real world" value they might hold, I have my own thoughts on this as well (basically, I feel it's outdated and needs to change), but that's another discussion for another day.

To my knowledge, it is not possible to "pirate" crypto or otherwise replicate it at zero marginal cost, or "photocopy" put options. Or in the very least, I would not be able to issue an infinite amount of options without also taking on an infinite amount of risk for myself.

While we are at it, I am also perfectly happy that there are people willing to challenge me on my views, and coming forth with examples to try and poke holes in my explanation. Keep them coming.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Under the DMA there will be no closed model where digital businesses are vertically integrated both technically and through policies baked into the device and OS considered Gatekeepers. App Store is just one kind of digital service, case in case a digital retail service, aka digital retailer. For third party apps and digital services, Gatekeepers may of course provide optional additional security measures in their OSs and devices beyond the default applied to first party apps and digital services.
But this can only be enabled under the discretion of the user of such device and OS. This may be necessary not only to further protect users data but also the device technical integrity and safety, but again at the discretion of the user and should not be enabled by default. It reminds me the macOS approach.

I think Apple backtracked, because a technical precondition for any developer to build App for iOS is a Developer Account. Now as far as I understand it Epic may have always paid their Development Account fees. The issue at hand as presented by Phil was concerning its App Store business and policies that were being vertically integrated into the device and OS business. Which under the DMA will need to change to the point that it's just a distribution channel amongst many potential others.

Now Apple can of course charge royalties for the use of their SDKs instead of a fixed fee like they have now. Untypical Apple they designed it around fixed fee for each app install and update. A model the way I see it, that may make free, and freeware software and digital services business models unworkable for the majority of businesses ... pushing these to use their own distribution channel, the App Store in these cases.

I say may, because don't think this royalty approach was ever tested in the market. Will see. If it does not work it may be considered another measure to limit the contestability of first party offers which would go against the DMA. So I believe the DMA might let the market test this approach.

 

[bcortens]

I’m not 100% following what you want from the App Store.

Maybe a clear bullet list of how you think it should work for all developers with a $ value attached.

Maybe comparing a small/indie to a big boy will make it all clear.

I’m interested 🤔

On a side note, I think subscriptions are fine. They connect app usage/love with payments that *can* keep app development moving forward.

Of course, not all devs will keep updating their subscription apps, but users will notice an outdated/broken app and not subscribe.

I’ve kind of outlined what I would like but I’ll rephrase it here:

Core Technology Fee to fund iOS SDK, Tools, and App Store
I think there should be something like the Core Technology Fee, I think that the first million downloads free is great. I think that because Apple can track devices charging per device per year rather than per install per year would be better messaging (this is basically what the CTF already is bit they just need better messaging).
I think the CTF should be a little smaller than it is now because right now I’ve seen examples of how it just doesn’t scale well for popular Apps that make very little money but that is more of a quibble and it might be just fine at 0.50 for devices over the first million.
I also think it should not apply to Apps that are truly free (no ads, no purchases, no monetization at all)

Commission on Purchases
For Apps that use Apple’s IAP system there should be a commission of around 10-15% for small devs (or subscriptions after the first year) and 20-30% for large devs and initial subscriptions.

Apps that don’t use Apple’s IAP system should not pay any commission to Apple, unless Apple wants to start charging commission to all transactions that occur on their platform (digital or physical) they should get out of this business because I think it is going to hurt them in the long run.

The justification for charging a commission on digital goods vs physical goods was always shaky and I think that it is something that they are kind of wedded to for bad reasons right now. I don’t think the justifications offered around marginal costs really matter because whether a business sells digital or physical goods has very little to do with whether or not that business can actually afford to pay Apple 30% of their sales.
I also think Apple wants access to that vast gaming revenue which I think is poisoning their App Store policies (more below).

Other Policies:
Account Management
Apps should be required to let you sign up for, change, ask for a refund, and cancel any subscriptions to the app or payments made to the company. This works with the above commission changes to let companies like Netflix manage subscriptions within the app without paying a commission to Apple. This doesn’t change how much money Apple makes because they already don’t make any commission from Netflix. This change just makes the user experience better for everyone who uses the App Store.

No Scummy Purchases

• No converting real money to in game money - show people the actual price to purchase that skin Not whatever the fake money price is that just tricks people into spending more than they otherwise would
• No timer based purchases for games - don’t tie in game timers to real money purchases
• No loot boxes - people should be able to see what they are buying (loot boxes and gambling can be allowed for people over the age of majority in the local jurisdiction)

These scummy purchases are why Apple makes so much money from gaming but they are an example of revenue poisoning the values that used to drive Apple.

Upgrade pricing
Offer developers an alternative to subscriptions for new app versions. Let them charge for an upgrade to a new whole version number and let them specify a lower price for upgrading from the old versions to the new version rather than buying new.



This is just some of what I’ve been thinking about.

 

[scorpio vega]

An irrelevant experience reported on the current versions of the two operating systems. It reminds me of a guy(also a supposed huge android fan in the past) that justified his hate of Android with the experience if using some 12 years old 120$ LG smartphone.

Regrading updates the situation is way different than the iphone 6 days, now when you buy an android smartphone you know with certainty how many Android versions it will get, for how long it will get security updates and so on. Although Android has also evolved in the direction of being more modular when in comes to updates and support, so even if let's say your phone doesn't get any new Android versions it still receives Google System Updates, so the core system services are kept up to date with improvements, optimizations and new features.


Yeah, you can get the same with Android as well. This idea is pushed as a negative against Android for no logical reason: "oh you have more options on Android because you absolutely need to tweak the phone, or else it wouldn't work" or something.

The same can be said about iOS, even more so.


This just a nonsense take. What core Android features don't work well? Well you said none of them, but still can you give a few example of relevant features at least?


A cliché that in reality does not apply at all.
Anyway it's obvious by your generalizations that you have no basic understanding of Google's ecosystem. Here, read a little:

Google Ecosystem: Over for Apple Ecosystem? A comprehensive guide

The Google ecosystem is a vast collection of interconnected digital tools and services that have become an integral part of our daily…

medium.com

Really? it doesn't look like it.


There it is, that blind illogical bias.
I remember an apple fan wrote: I would rather die than use an Android phone. Like that doesn't make sense and not something an intelligent person would say🤣

I’m not repeating myself. You’re welcome to revisit my old posts I’ve made in the last 25 hours anytime I criticize android and android fans feel slighted and need to defend it.

My opinion is based on my 22 ultra and galaxy z flip vs my iPhone. The z flip is cool but I hope apple never follows this gimmick/trend.

I also I unfortunately have experience with the pixel 8 pro so my experience is quite diverse.

My apologies if I skip the kool-aid and I’m not championing it. On an apple site no less 😊

 

[webkit]

And I would hope they do! I’m simply pointing out that forcing users to download a separate App Store to gain access to a billionaire owned app is not a better experience for iPhone users.

Besides Epic, it will be interesting to see who actually thinks bothering with a separate App Store is a winning idea. My guess is very few takers.

This won't necessarily "force" people to use alternative app stores and, as I stated, the new competition can help to make for a better experience for those who choose to continue to use the App Store.

I think Apple should expand on Steve Jobs' sentiment from 1997, "we believe in choice." Give iOS users access to a CHOICE of app stores, a CHOICE of payment options, a CHOICE of browser engines, etc.

 

[webkit]

Aversion implies I have a strong dislike of something. Like cats with water.

I used to be diehard android in my younger years and avid user of xda. I used to be anti iPhones mainly for the same reasons ppl here complain about iOS. It wasn’t until I won an iPhone 6 from T-Mobile that I actually realized how ridiculous I was. I started seeing just how good iOS was. It was less of me being annoyed what it couldn’t do and realizing what it did while growing aggravated with having to tweak this or disable that. Or download this app. Oh will I get this update?

I finally started being able to enjoy my phone with windows phone and later iPhones without a constant need to tweak something with android.

Android is overrated and a mid at best os. It has many features but does almost none of them that well But at least they can say they had it. Android is a jack of all trades and master of none. Android/google ecosystem is terrible honestly.

I still use android partly because of a few apps. But also I do like to be able to be up to date on tech.

I also have an uncanny talent of winning phones and I won a surface duo, Moto razr and most recently a z flip 4 so I do still use them.

That being said you will never see me use one as a Daliy driver ever again. I’d rather walk barefoot on broken glass the rest of my days.

But for when my iPhone is charging and I don’t want my iPad it’s tolerable.

Your opinion on Android just seemed to be a bit inconsistent. For example, you called Android "terrible" in this post ("Android/google ecosystem is terrible honestly") yet in another post in a Google Pixel topic you said it was "okay" (It's okay I guess").

 

[MilaM]

While we are at it, I am also perfectly happy that there are people willing to challenge me on my views, and coming forth with examples to try and poke holes in my explanation. Keep them coming.

I found two more holes (likely).

I can buy eSIM data plans without using in-app payments. Plans are charged using a credit card by the merchant who sells the plan. In-app is not even an option.

One very popular local classified ads company offers paid digital products that enhance the visibility of your ad. You can't pay for them with in-app payments. Though I'm not 100% if you can pay for them inside the app with other means.

I think both of those examples qualify as digital products with practically zero marginal cost.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Then perhaps it is more accurate to state that things like news, music, video and ebooks have zero economic value

Ouch. ☹️

Music and video clearly have value. Not only do consumers pay for them - Artists or rightsholders also do get compensated for them.

Take amazon for example. Let's say someone purchases a $100 backpack online. It would not be feasible for Apple to take a 15% or 30% cut (or any cut) because that is coming from the retailer, not from Amazon's earnings directly

Of course it's feasible. Apple can charge a certain percentage cut - and Amazon can adjust their in-app pricing accordingly to account for such distribution fees. They do that all the time and they're very good at it.

Also, why should Apple only limit to charge Amazon on their "value added"? They don't do it for in-app content either - they charge based on the retail price of items.

You may be right in that Amazon is an intermediary service, but it is also a service that Apple is not able to bill directly, because there is no part of its costs structure that uses iTunes for billing, and iTunes is really the only way Apple can reliably calculate how much money any one developer is making through their platform

They certainly can! Apple has figured it out already and made it clear: They're still going to charge 27%/12% on external purchases. They require transaction reports and reserve the right to audit such third-parties on such purchases.

Same for Uber. Apple would be billing the drivers, not the parent company itself.

So? They've got no qualms to do it on other content as well.

I know an artist and license one of his songs or games he created for digital distribution (on iOS) - and I promise to pay him 90% of my revenue from his creation, myself keeping only 10%.

When Apple charge their 15% or 30% commission, whom are they charging? In effect the artist himself, not me. Same as they're charging the Uber driver according to your argument.

This is the part of Spotify's criticism of Apple that has always struck me as incongruous. Like yeah, Spotify's technically not wrong, but it also hasn't really applied to their business model in ages.

Spotify are caught between
a) either having to pay 30% to Apple - the Apple that is a competitor with their own music streaming service
b) or having a sub-par app experience by not having in-app subscription management in their app. And also being restricted in their communication and marketing to consumers in their primary point of interaction with them (the app).

 

[cupcakes2000]

One very popular local classified ads company offers paid digital products that enhance the visibility of your ad. You can't pay for them with in-app payments. Though I'm not 100% if you can pay for them inside the app with other means.

You can pay to ‘boost’ Instagram posts (ie, an advert) within the Instagram app using PayPal, also completely skirting the iap system

 

[djphat2000]

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

These are the rules Apple came up with back in 2008. Everyone agreed.

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.

That is the rule for real world goods and services (banks). Everyone agreed.

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

It is, in different ways. Direct funds from Amazon or financial institutions, no. Indirectly for both, yes (people stay on the platform and use the services and other features of both). Again, everyone agreed to the rules that still exist. If they didn't like them, they could have not made an app and lived on the web (Which Amazon, and any financial institution, or social media company does already for free). Which may explain why it was free from the start. Or if you had something to sell it is the 70/30 rule (even lower than 30 these days). Just like in any store in the world today. Most likely an even better cut than a store.

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

Yet we have EPIC and Spotify complaining about stifling competition. And how much Apple charges developers. When free isn't good enough. Just removing the IAP to skirt the fee, isn't good enough. No,, they have to resort to lawsuits and public smearing, and whining.

The sooner people realize that EPIC and Spotify just want to make more money and spend less (like any business on earth). The sooner we will get off the merry-go-round and stop thinking EPIC is in the right and Apple has harmed anyone. No customers have been harmed in the 70/30 split. EPIC broke the rules, and deservedly was kicked out of the store. Their behavior should have consequences. Otherwise, why have rules?
Further public shaming by EPIC is just childish behavior at the least. Again, other companies disagree with Apple and have found ways to both "disagree" while remaining on the store for the customer to have access to the App. None of them went to court against Apple and lost actual money for their disagreements. Tim S has lost his business money in his efforts to prove himself. But, since he owns the majority share of it. He can do so without fear of losing his position. To what he claims in the benefit of us, the customer. And other developers (which he wants to court business from).

He just wants to make more money. And that's perfectly fine. I have zero issues at all with that. Just be real about it. Don't lie to me and say my prices will go down. They will not. Inflation alone will make that impossible. Every deal he cuts with Marvel/Disney/Lego/ or whatever else he wishes to add to Fortnite will be more expensive every single year from now till forever. So it's' impossible for the price to go down. At best, it will let him hold the line for a bit, but eventually it will succumb to the norm.

 

[AppliedMicro]

You can pay to ‘boost’ Instagram posts (ie, an advert) within the Instagram app using PayPal, also completely skirting the iap system

You could - buy you won't be able to skirt IAP anymore soon:

https://www.reuters.com/technology/...ce-fee-posts-boosted-via-ios-apps-2024-02-15/
https://www.macrumors.com/2024/02/15/apple-responds-to-meta-boosted-posts-fee/

 

[M3gatron]

I’m not repeating myself. You’re welcome to revisit my old posts I’ve made in the last 25 hours anytime I criticize android and android fans feel slighted and need to defend it.

You didn't write anything to show you actually really know Android, you just repeated the same cliches that are repeated on apple sites by people that don't use Android. Anybody could have wrote what you wrote without even having touched an android smartphone in their life.
And you don't "criticize" Android, you just hate on it as you clearly hate it, you even felt the need to make it clear with that puke face in your signature which is quite childish, no offense.

My opinion is based on my 22 ultra and galaxy z flip vs my iPhone. The z flip is cool but I hope apple never follows this gimmick/trend.

Yeah you still talk about hardware while your opinion is about the OS in general which should be independent of the hardware.
For example my experience with my S23U is superior in relation to my experience with the 14 Pro Max.

I also I unfortunately have experience with the pixel 8 pro so my experience is quite diverse.

Really? it doesn't look like it at all.

My apologies if I skip the kool-aid and I’m not championing it. On an apple site no less 😊

So what if its an "apple site"? And I'm definitely not drinking any kool-aid.

 

[cupcakes2000]

You could - buy you won't be able to skirt IAP anymore soon:

https://www.reuters.com/technology/...ce-fee-posts-boosted-via-ios-apps-2024-02-15/
https://www.macrumors.com/2024/02/15/apple-responds-to-meta-boosted-posts-fee/

Didn’t know that.

Apple is getting on my wick at this point. I find it shocking that they feel they’re entitled to anything at all for this type of transaction - I find it even more shocking that people actually support it. I mean, if I boost a post using Instagram, what has Apple had to do with that?

 

[bcortens]

Didn’t know that.

Apple is getting on my wick at this point. I find it shocking that they feel they’re entitled to anything at all for this type of transaction - I find it even more shocking that people actually support it. I mean, if I boost a post using Instagram, what has Apple had to do with that?

As evidenced by what djphat2000 wrote above, the rules created in 2008 seem sacrosanct to some. I don’t know why they think rules that were created 16 years ago are somehow the best rules of all time. The context is completely different, Smartphones have a radically different place in the world than they did in 2008, the variety of transactions occurring on the platform is far broader than originally conceived. This arbitrary digital/physical distinction just doesn’t make sense anymore.

 

[bcortens]

These are the rules Apple came up with back in 2008. Everyone agreed.

That is the rule for real world goods and services (banks). Everyone agreed.

It is, in different ways. Direct funds from Amazon or financial institutions, no. Indirectly for both, yes (people stay on the platform and use the services and other features of both). Again, everyone agreed to the rules that still exist. If they didn't like them, they could have not made an app and lived on the web (Which Amazon, and any financial institution, or social media company does already for free). Which may explain why it was free from the start. Or if you had something to sell it is the 70/30 rule (even lower than 30 these days). Just like in any store in the world today. Most likely an even better cut than a store.

Yet we have EPIC and Spotify complaining about stifling competition. And how much Apple charges developers. When free isn't good enough. Just removing the IAP to skirt the fee, isn't good enough. No,, they have to resort to lawsuits and public smearing, and whining.

The sooner people realize that EPIC and Spotify just want to make more money and spend less (like any business on earth). The sooner we will get off the merry-go-round and stop thinking EPIC is in the right and Apple has harmed anyone. No customers have been harmed in the 70/30 split. EPIC broke the rules, and deservedly was kicked out of the store. Their behavior should have consequences. Otherwise, why have rules?
Further public shaming by EPIC is just childish behavior at the least. Again, other companies disagree with Apple and have found ways to both "disagree" while remaining on the store for the customer to have access to the App. None of them went to court against Apple and lost actual money for their disagreements. Tim S has lost his business money in his efforts to prove himself. But, since he owns the majority share of it. He can do so without fear of losing his position. To what he claims in the benefit of us, the customer. And other developers (which he wants to court business from).

He just wants to make more money. And that's perfectly fine. I have zero issues at all with that. Just be real about it. Don't lie to me and say my prices will go down. They will not. Inflation alone will make that impossible. Every deal he cuts with Marvel/Disney/Lego/ or whatever else he wishes to add to Fortnite will be more expensive every single year from now till forever. So it's' impossible for the price to go down. At best, it will let him hold the line for a bit, but eventually it will succumb to the norm.

I don’t believe Epic and Spotify care that much about the user experience, and believe they are just out for more money...

That doesn’t make Apple right. It doesn’t address the issues with Apple’s commission and fee scheme. It doesn’t change the fact that as many many in this thread point out Apple feels entitled to all digital transactions on their platform, this entitlement is not supportable in 2024.

In 2008 these rules made sense. In 2024 I don’t think they do anymore.

 

[cupcakes2000]

I don’t believe Epic and Spotify care that much about the user experience, and believe they are just out for more money...

I don’t really care for either of these entities particularly- I use Spotify but I flit between all of them, however I don’t think this statement is true.

It’s more like Apple, something in the middle. Out for the money for sure, over step the mark, no doubt - but a solid customer focus nonetheless.

The Spotify app, for example is constantly updated and full of very user friendly features, and compared to the Apple Music app it’s a whole different world. Epic, I know less, but they have created the unreal engine. It’s undoubtedly for money, but these kind of advancements push the boundaries for no one else but the user.

I used to play Star Trek fleet command. They charge 100 quid for a chest. The chest does the bare minimum to just entice you to buy another one. I didn’t buy many - but that’s the type of company that dosn’t at all care for the user. I believe most of Epics games that I have played, (not many) aren’t pay to win, rather pay for useless stuff that doesn’t really matter either way. Who cares? Paying to reduce game timers or for loot boxes is where the evil lies.