Apple Says App Store Changes Go Too Far in New Epic Games Appeal Filing

[jlc1978]

as a now indie developer, no thank you. I'd like the comfort of knowing that me deploying a 800MB app that suddenly went viral won't cost me an arm and a leg.

just because I get millions of downloads does not guarantee millions of dollars, but it can guarantee tens of thousands of dollars in distribution. and it would discourage me from submitting updates as that's probably another few thousand dollars down the drain when people download my update.

Which is a point many miss in this arguement. If Apple changes the way it charges for access, small developers may be the ones hurt by new fees before they even make a cent off their app. Right now, Apple has made it easy to take an app to market withe very little up front expense and risk. Losing the ability to generate revenue via a cut of in app purchases could change that.

The big players can afford the costs, but small ones likely will find it harder to go to market and /or be forced to do much of what Apple already does for them for thier 15% cut.

You pay Apple for the platform to host your app, to have access to hundreds of millions of possible buyers and to deal with payments and refunds from customers worldwide. Although the AppStore isn’t perfect, that’s lot of boring admin taken care of.

People don't realize how much headaches of taking an app to market Apple removed via the App Store. Tax compliance alone would probably cost a developer more than the 15% to do it properly.

When I saw the difference in income before and after the 30% there were times when I thought “it sure would be nice if *all* that money was for me” but - hey - those are the rules for playing.

Which is why I thought Apple should have simply marked up a developer's price rather than label it a fee; much as B&M stores do.

But your broader point is valid; it's not about what is right or fair but getting a bigger slice of the pie for free.

My understanding is that Nintendo did the 30% cut first (with their own app store), and Apple simply followed what was considered the norm at the time. If we look at the market today, Sony, Nintendo, even Valve seem to hover around this percentage.

It also was much less than the old model where if a developer got 30% that was huge.

Maybe it just "feels right" psychologically. Not too high and not too low.

Which is why it's a bit of an optics issue. Had Apple told developer "tell us how much you want for your app" and then simply added their desired markup on top of that the "Apple is taking a 30 or 15% cut" argument is moot.

 

[maxoakland]

I don’t think they go far enough

 

[Nozuka]

You know, devs, you don't have to develop for iOS. Just leave. Problem solved.

Just like how I can choose not to develop for the Epic Games Store using Unreal engine on Windows. I can develop for Steam using Unity for Mac.

You seem to be happy to choose Steam on the Mac. If it was like iOS (and i'm sure Apple would love to have it that way), you wouldn't have that option and you would have to sell it on the AppStore or not at all.

 

[surferfb]

It’s always very telling when one has a legitimate argument against Apple the default response from certain apple fans is this if you don’t like it go to android and you wonder why people have this perception.

And I think it’s very telling when people who claim they want open options continue to buy Apple’s closed option, despite knowing it’s closed. It’s like buying a Tesla or GM or Rivian knowing full well it doesn’t have CarPlay and then complaining how unfair it is that CarPlay isn’t an option and how the government should force the car companies to let CarPlay work, even if the car companies are worried it’s a worse user experience or less safe for their customers.

If it’s that important to you, buy a product that offers what you want. You’re not entitled to have Apple make the exact product that you want. It’s Apple’s intellectual property, they get to decide how it’s used.

so do you think that epic can’t facilitate a
Refund on digital transactions and your card details would not be safe with epic
Or can only apple do it correct
Because the last time I checked epic wasn’t
A two bit operation so this argument about privacy and security doesn’t really hold water in relation to epic offering a 3rd party payment link unless you think they as a company are dodgy?

No one is claiming that, it’s a ridiculous straw man argument. But if Apple lets Epic do it, they have to let everyone do it.

And when my kids spends accidentally $700 on some in game currency, maybe Epic refunds it, or maybe they don’t. Maybe Epic does but sketchy Chinese game developer doesn’t. And then for most users that reflects poorly on Apple, because Apple has advertised for nearly 20 years now “if you download an App in the App Store, you’re safe.” And now all of a sudden that has changed because a few big companies don’t want to pay Apple for the value they’re getting from Apple.

 

[maxoakland]

Am I only person who tired of Epic Fails?

I’m tired of Apple fighting this. Opening up our phones to alt stores and sideloading is important

If I buy a phone, I have the right to run whatever software on it I want

 

[surferfb]

I’m tired of Apple fighting this. Opening up our phones to alt stores and sideloading is important

If I buy a phone, I have the right to run whatever software on it I want

You do have that right. Apple isn’t obligated to make it easy for you though. But you’re more than welcome to jailbreak and install whatever you want.

 

[maxoakland]

Does it matter who wins? The outcome is either greedy company A takes my money or greedy company B? As a consumer I seem not to win in either case.

Has Apple ever explained why 30% is reasonable? How high is their profit margin on App Store?

If Epic wins, we have a more open phone and more options to install software that Apple blocks, others can set up alternative app stores, not just Epic

 

[maxoakland]

You do have that right. Apple isn’t obligated to make it easy for you though. But you’re more than welcome to jailbreak and install whatever you want.

Apple doesn’t have the right to make it hard for me. I have the right to install software without jailbreaking

 

[surferfb]

Apple doesn’t have the right to make it hard for me. I have the right to install software without jailbreaking

It’s their IP, so frankly, they do. If you don’t like their stance on that, other options exist.

 

[SnowCrocodile]

If Epic wins, we have a more open phone and more options to install software that Apple blocks, others can set up alternative app stores, not just Epic

But then Apple has zero incentive to allow them using Apple AppStore as a cheap way to advertise their products and redirect revenue without getting paid. Basically, Apple would be required to do free or near free marketing for Epic but not be entitled to renumeration.

I am sure there are ways around this that the judge can't do anything about. But I don't see any that don't completely ******tify the ecosystem.

If Apple was forced to allow sideloading, this would at least be a defendable decision, whether you or I agree with it or not. But her ruling forcing Apple to allow other companies to use their AppStore as an advertising platform for free while redirecting them to their own sites is either dumb or deliberately malevolent. And no, I am not a fanboy.

 

[jlc1978]

Apple doesn’t have the right to make it hard for me.

Sure they do. Nothing says they have to make it easy. It's their OS.

I have the right to install software without jailbreaking

Not until some country passes laws to that effect; and unless they narrowly target the law it's likely to have a lot of interesting consequences; such as forcing console and hand-held platform makers open up their devices as well. Even software like Steam could get caught up in such a law.

 

[AppliedMicro]

If you want to build an app and are uncomfortable with the AppStore’s percentage, then why not build a web app?

Many apps require certain functionality that isn’t supported (or without which user experience would be considerably inferior) in web apps.

Apple doesn’t force developers to use the AppStore

They do - if they want to market to iOS phone owners.
Which matters because…

Essentially, judge is forcing Apple to allow other developers to use its AppStore as an advertising platform for their own stores, for the small cost of a single app listing.

Who says Spotify or Fortnite demand and App-Store advertising from Apple?
They don‘t - and they don’t require it, because they’re well-known enough on their own.
It could be as simple as downloading an app from Spotify‘s website.

But Target isn't required to facilitate your advertising and getting in touch with the said customer, using Target as a platform, for free.

Exactly, they aren’t required.

But Apple has been forcing themselves as middlemen into the customer relationship between consumers and developers like Epic, Spotify and Match. And they’re doing it with a platform (iOS) that constitutes a duopoly for mobile operating systems/handheld computers that has barriers preventing consumers from switching.

If Target

• operated in a market even remotely as concentrated
• with even nearly as high barriers preventing consumers to switch and „shop around“ for individual transactions
• gave away access to their distribution network and stores for free ($99) to most manufacturers, thereby monopolising distribution and entrenching themselves
• while imposing a unilateral, non-negotiated fee structure on only a subset of items
• even when there purchased out of Target stores and without Target‘s involvement

…then the same argument applies: Yes, Target‘s business conduct should be regulated by antitrust regulation.

 

[AppliedMicro]

allowing external payments does require changing code, fact.

External payments does not require Apple changing any code (Fortnite indeed proved that with their non-Apple in-app payment solution that lead to this legal wrangling).

and anything linking outside is open to exploitation. also fact.

So is me putting a link in my post on this forum.

Any link is potentially dangerous.
So is walking on the street or roadside.

Stop the fearmongering.

 

[Jumpthesnark]

I see the SAME items on the app and the website. I'm on AMAZON'S platform. APPLE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WHEN I BUY SOMETHING ON AMAZON. Apple should not get 30%. Amazon should.

Apple doesn't make any money off physical items sold through the Amazon app. The 30% you're talking about only applies to a digital purchase to be used on the device itself. You may indeed know this, but in your arguments you keep describing Apple's 30% cut of Amazon purchases in very general terms which could mislead readers into thinking you're talking about all purchases from Amazon on the app.

APPLE did NOTHING to make Netflix movies, they didn't invest in the script, the equipment, the editing, NOTHING. AND THEY WANT 30%.

So if you think this is the case, how does it work? If I have a subscription to Netflix, that's a deal I have with Netflix. When I watch a movie on the app, how do you think Apple takes a 30% cut? Specifically, does Netflix hand over 30% of my monthly or annual subscription fee? Do they prorate my monthly or annual subscription down to a per-movie rate and give Apple 30% of that rate? If so, how do either know what that rate would be, since neither Apple nor Netflix know how many movies I'm going to watch in a month or a year? So I'd think prorating would be impossible.

I'm asking specifically what this supposed 30% cut on Netflix you describe is based on. If you have that info I'd love to see it.

 

[vantelimus]

The judge decided that Apple was in "violation of the spirit of the injunction" by following the letter of what she wrote. In contract law there is a principle (the contra proferentem doctrine) that any ambiguity in a contract gets interpreted against the drafter. If Apple followed the explicit letter of what the judge wrote, then the error lies with the judge. Unfortunately, this isn't contract law and courts do not hold themselves to the same standards which apply to citizens. They rarely acknowledge their errors, let alone hold themselves accountable. The judge will get away with her self-exposed incompetence even if she is overturned for violating Apple's right to due process.

 

[Dirk Pieters]

Apple doesn't make any money off physical items sold through the Amazon app. The 30% you're talking about only applies to a digital purchase to be used on the device itself. You may indeed know this, but in your arguments you keep describing Apple's 30% cut of Amazon purchases in very general terms which could mislead readers into thinking you're talking about all purchases from Amazon on the app.



So if you think this is the case, how does it work? If I have a subscription to Netflix, that's a deal I have with Netflix. When I watch a movie on the app, how do you think Apple takes a 30% cut? Specifically, does Netflix hand over 30% of my monthly or annual subscription fee? Do they prorate my monthly or annual subscription down to a per-movie rate and give Apple 30% of that rate? If so, how do either know what that rate would be, since neither Apple nor Netflix know how many movies I'm going to watch in a month or a year? So I'd think prorating would be impossible.

I'm asking specifically what this supposed 30% cut on Netflix you describe is based on. If you have that info I'd love to see it.

For the sake of simplicity, let’s say a Netflix subscription when bought directly from Netflix is $10 per month. Let’s say Netflix now also wants to sell their subscriptions through the AppStore. There’s 2 options for them:

1. Netflix charges the same $10 through the AppStore but they only receive $7 in their bank account, because Apple takes 30%

2. If Netflix wants to receive $10 for every subscription month in their account, they’ll have to price the In-app purchase somewhere around $14. Because $14 - 30% (Apple’s commission) (roughly) equals $10 net

You can see this price difference in real life by comparing the monthly subscription price for YouTube Premium when bought through the AppStore, or when bought directly from Google.

 

[djphat2000]

This is incorrect not once did epic say that apple wasn’t entitled to a cent they said about
8 to 9% based on the smartphone business model.

EPIC does NOT, repeat DOES NOT get to dictate what ANY OTHER COMPANY CAN or SHOULD make. EVER. This is not something any company gets to do to another company. Whatever EPIC pays to run a similar system is THEIR business.

This privacy and security argument is nonsense as individuals purchase things on the internet from stores like the bolshoi theatre website and there is no issue

And people get hacked all the time from businesses that don't do the right thing to protect their customers/clients/members/etc. It happens ALL THE TIME. Apple at least is trying by saying "Look, you have to sell this way. It will ensure the end user is as secure as possible with anything that gets downloaded via the store. And in return, we ask for up to 30% of the sale price. For that YOU the developer gets access to all our VERY LOYAL and PAYING customer base". All sales are SALES, no theft no "sharing" of an application with another persons computer.

If you can't see that then I don't know what to tell you. Just look online at the daily hackathon that happens world wide because company A got hacked, and YOU get your information all over the dark web. And for your troubles you get like $20 back and maybe a few months of free credit monitoring.

When countries are pissed they can't get access your MY information from MY device. That's the brand I'll stick with.

 

[djphat2000]

The judge decided that Apple was in "violation of the spirit of the injunction" by following the letter of what she wrote. In contract law there is a principle (the contra proferentem doctrine) that any ambiguity in a contract gets interpreted against the drafter. If Apple followed the explicit letter of what the judge wrote, then the error lies with the judge. Unfortunately, this isn't contract law and courts do not hold themselves to the same standards which apply to citizens. They rarely acknowledge their errors, let alone hold themselves accountable. The judge will get away with her self-exposed incompetence even if she is overturned for violating Apple's right to due process.

That's why we have an appeals process. 🤓

 

[Dirk Pieters]

For that YOU the developer gets access to all our VERY LOYAL and PAYING customer base". All sales are SALES, no theft no "sharing" of an application with another persons computer.

Absolutely. During my 12 years of selling in the AppStore I’ve never had payment issues with Apple.

Apple can be ********s in other departments though, like rejecting an app for having a feature that’s been in there for months, just because a different app reviewer looks at it.

But as far as payments goes, like clockwork.

 

[zahuh]

Apple doesn't make any money off physical items sold through the Amazon app. The 30% you're talking about only applies to a digital purchase to be used on the device itself. You may indeed know this, but in your arguments you keep describing Apple's 30% cut of Amazon purchases in very general terms which could mislead readers into thinking you're talking about all purchases from Amazon on the app.



So if you think this is the case, how does it work? If I have a subscription to Netflix, that's a deal I have with Netflix. When I watch a movie on the app, how do you think Apple takes a 30% cut? Specifically, does Netflix hand over 30% of my monthly or annual subscription fee? Do they prorate my monthly or annual subscription down to a per-movie rate and give Apple 30% of that rate? If so, how do either know what that rate would be, since neither Apple nor Netflix know how many movies I'm going to watch in a month or a year? So I'd think prorating would be impossible.

I'm asking specifically what this supposed 30% cut on Netflix you describe is based on. If you have that info I'd love to see it.

If you're genuinely asking, here's the article when Netflix removed the in-app purchase system from their app.
Does this make a better customer experience that I have to leave the app? No. Wouldn't it be easier if I could just us Apple Pay for 2% or less commission and pay through the app? Yes. But that's not allowed. DUMB that it's not allowed. It's NETFLIX'S APP! They should be able to do what they want. Just like amazon does just like everyone does on a website. No COMPANY should own how your app does payments and 1000000% no company should get 30% of your digital products money! They did NOTHING to get it!!

Netflix No Longer Allowing Subscribers to Pay Through Apple's App Store

Netflix subscribers who still pay their monthly fees through the App Store in-app purchase system will soon need to add a new payment method to keep...

www.macrumors.com

 

[Jumpthesnark]

For the sake of simplicity, let’s say a Netflix subscription when bought directly from Netflix is $10 per month. Let’s say Netflix now also wants to sell their subscriptions through the AppStore. There’s 2 options for them:

1. Netflix charges the same $10 through the AppStore but they only receive $7 in their bank account, because Apple takes 30%

2. If Netflix wants to receive $10 for every subscription month in their account, they’ll have to price the In-app purchase somewhere around $14. Because $14 - 30% (Apple’s commission) (roughly) equals $10 net

You can see this price difference in real life by comparing the monthly subscription price for YouTube Premium when bought through the AppStore, or when bought directly from Google.

Thanks for your reply. It sounded odd so I looked into it, and it turns out the other poster is incorrect, or using old information, when talking about Netflix.

Netflix does not allow any billing through the app store app. They stopped in February 2024. The 30% is the reason - they didn't want to give 30% to Apple (I guess it was just 30% of whatever price the customer was paying to Netflix for whatever service they were paying for at the time) and they didn't want to keep their prices the same for the app and take a haircut.

 

[Jumpthesnark]

If you're genuinely asking, here's the article when Netflix removed the in-app purchase system from their app.
Does this make a better customer experience that I have to leave the app? No. Wouldn't it be easier if I could just us Apple Pay for 2% or less commission and pay through the app? Yes. But that's not allowed. DUMB that it's not allowed. It's NETFLIX'S APP! They should be able to do what they want. Just like amazon does just like everyone does on a website. No COMPANY should own how your app does payments and 1000000% no company should get 30% of your digital products money! They did NOTHING to get it!!

Netflix No Longer Allowing Subscribers to Pay Through Apple's App Store

Netflix subscribers who still pay their monthly fees through the App Store in-app purchase system will soon need to add a new payment method to keep...

www.macrumors.com

So why are you still using Netflix in your examples, if they haven't been part of this App Store purchase/billing system for more than a year and a half?

Likewise with your Amazon examples, leaving out that those are only digital purchases affected when you discuss Amazon as an example.

I'm not saying you're incorrect. What I am saying is your arguments are incomplete and perhaps purposely misleading - by not stating Netflix no longer allows billing/payments for their subscription, and by talking about Amazon purchases without stating those are only digital and not physical goods.

 

[surferfb]

If you're genuinely asking, here's the article when Netflix removed the in-app purchase system from their app.
Does this make a better customer experience that I have to leave the app? No. Wouldn't it be easier if I could just us Apple Pay for 2% or less commission and pay through the app? Yes. But that's not allowed. DUMB that it's not allowed. It's NETFLIX'S APP! They should be able to do what they want. Just like amazon does just like everyone does on a website. No COMPANY should own how your app does payments and 1000000% no company should get 30% of your digital products money! They did NOTHING to get it!!

Netflix No Longer Allowing Subscribers to Pay Through Apple's App Store

Netflix subscribers who still pay their monthly fees through the App Store in-app purchase system will soon need to add a new payment method to keep...

www.macrumors.com

The idea that Apple “did nothing” is just wrong. The reason in-app purchases work as smoothly as they do is because of Apple’s APIs, payment processing, fraud prevention, refund handling, parental controls, and integration with Apple ID and Apple Pay. That’s all infrastructure Apple built and maintains.

I’d also argue that Apple’s strict rules are a big part of why consumers feel comfortable spending money in apps at all. People trust that if it’s in the App Store, it’s safe. That was not guaranteed after the late 1990s and early 2000s when viruses and scams were rampant. That trust is a large part of what drives the billions flowing through mobile apps today.

Netflix can avoid the fee (and they did) by removing in-app signup. What Apple objects to is companies wanting the benefit of selling inside the App Store (trusted, one-tap payments to a billion users) without paying for the value Apple created. That’s not ‘nothing.’ That’s the product

 

[germanbeer007]

You are saying no and not even know the what could be hosting tier price?

Yes because I enjoy the current pricing now. I get tons of value from Apple's provided services that's built into the $99/year + 15%-30% cut.

Anyway why not a tier for you, premium at 30% or even more?

Not sure what you mean even more. I enjoy the current setup.

As for devs working on other areas … why should they “pay” for your comfort and others like you?

Are you talking about big developers earning $$$ and the Apple cut pays for services for smaller devs? Because it attracts more devs which means more apps for users which attracts even more users to the platform, and therefore benefiting big developers who develop for the platform.

Are you talking about small developers paying for big developers? Well the current setup won't bankrupt small devs should their app go viral. That would be a huge risk if they had to pay for distribution and other services. And making free apps is zero risk currently which attracts customers to the platform. More users on platform = benefits everyone.

Take for instance Facebook, Instagram, What’s App, TikTok … they get most of it all for free. But then hell goes loose if you are a math teacher providing remote lessons and content and do not pay a commission.

Not sure what you mean. You can sell the lessons and content outside the app without commission. But generally they'll use some processor like Stripe and Paddle. Paddle takes 10% for items under $10 which is not far from 15% that Apple takes.

Or if you develop say an innovative mail service … Why shouldn’t Netflix pay at least to host and distribute their App?

Well, Apple originally forced Netflix to include IAP so that Netflix essentially pays for the hosting/distribution. Apple relaxed the rules so that IAP is allowed to be 30% more expensive than outside the app. Then Apple relaxed the rules where Netflix isn't required to include IAP. They're easing the rules to make developers happy and still keeping the economics in check.

 

[vantelimus]

That's why we have an appeals process. 🤓

The appeals process can overturn a ruling, but it rarely holds a judge accountable for gross incompetence. A judge who reacts punitively because a respondent failed to read her mind is not fit for the bench. Unwritten rules, unwarranted overreach, and judicial petulance -- read her new ruling, it sounds like a tantrum -- are not justice. I wonder if she even wrote and read her previous order or whether she delegated it to a clerk who was similarly unable to read her mind.