All things change. The only reason their 30% cut is being threatened is because they insist on making the App Store mandatory. Should they open up the ecosystem, there would be no discussion of this and I can guarantee you the vast majority of people would still keep using the App Store. As it stands they are opening themselves up to this kinda stuff where the government can effectively dictate their prices so to speak.
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 Says App Store Changes Go Too Far in New Epic Games Appeal Filing
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Surprised so many are taking Apples 30% as reasonable without asking questions. You like paying more than necessary for goods and services?
I doubt Epic aim is to lower prices for the consumer but rather wants more share of the 30%. I must the be only consumer in this thread...
Why isn’t it reasonable (particularly considering it’s actually 15% for virtually every app)? Google charges 30%, Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, and Steam charge 30%, Meta charges 30% in the Quest store, Samsung charges 30% in the Galaxy Store, Amazon charges 30% in its App Store and on Kindle content. Why are all of those ok, but when Apple does it Epic needs to break contracts and sue?
You’re not the only consumer in this thread. But as you correctly point out, it’s not going to lower prices. Prices didn’t go down when Apple reduced the commission to 15% for virtually every app.
its not mandatory.
its there. you dont HAVE to use it if you stick to preinstalled apps and dont update them.
so having admitted the majority will continue to use it, why are we pushing for change to suit a minority that penalises the majority by changing the code on their phones as well?
if you want an open version, get Apple to fork the software and you can install that version instead and take all the risks while leaving us with a version we use now.
and then there will be cries "oh we didnt get new features" like those in the EU do when Apple decides it's too risky to add something immediately and geo blocks the feature.
lets face it, people will whinge no matter what.
nah, Apple users are quite good at buying apps. hence people choose the platform to make their apps available.
perhaps most of us look at the price we pay instead of how it is broken down?
governments set taxes, councils set rate, unit owners set rents.
that's life. you pay or you dont get what you want.
You and I have been over this a million times. Amazon, Uber and food delivery aren’t the same as digital in-app purchases. When you buy a ride, a physical product, or a meal, the transaction is fulfilled outside Apple’s ecosystem you physically see the package, car or the food, and you know you’re dealing with Amazon, Uber or DoorDash.
Digital goods are different: the entire transaction happens inside the iOS environment, and for almost 20 years users have been conditioned to expect Apple’s guardrails there: refunds, parental controls, fraud checks. A disclaimer won’t undo that expectation. If something goes wrong, people will still say “I got scammed on my iPhone and Apple wouldn’t help.”
That’s why Apple insists on a single system for digital goods. It protects the brand promise and gives every user the same trusted experience.
The revenue share only kicks in when an app monetizes digital goods inside Apple’s ecosystem. Apples rules are clear: if you’re doing that, you owe Apple on top of the yearly fee. If you don’t want to do that, then you don’t have to.
Epic can’t just skip paying its server bills because some other customer gets a better deal or the server company donates server use to a non-profit.
Sure, some developers don’t want to use Apple’s payment system. But the reason Apple requires it is because customers benefit from consistency. One set of APIs means every purchase runs through the same fraud checks, parental controls, refund process, and security model.
If Apple let each app decide, the user experience becomes fragmented, less safe, and worse overall for everyone. You’d have one app using Apple’s rails, another dumping you into a random web form, another storing your card on their servers, and a bunch selling your data. Most users won’t spot the difference outside of “this is more annoying than it used to be” but when something goes wrong, they’ll blame Apple.
Imagine if every time you downloaded a new app you had to create an account, give your personal info and hand over payment details - that’s what you’re advocating for. It’s much better for users to have everything go through Apple. You get subscription reminders, easy cancellation, privacy, etc. I understand why developers don’t like that, but I can’t fathom why end users should suffer so the Epics and Spotifys of the world get to freeload and then sell your data on top of it.
And the fact of the matter is developers are not forced to use IAP. If they don’t want to use it, they can (and do) push people to the web, like Netflix and Spotify.
The court explicitly ruled Apple didn’t have a monopoly, and only said they must allow link outs after misinterpreting California law.
Last edited:
And why is that? Or, maybe more to the point - why aren’t they helping? For those critical of Apple, what are they fighting against Apple for 3rd party iOS app stores for if 3rd party Android app stores don't help developers?
I mean, Epic says it has spent or lost around $1 billion dollars or more between court costs, legal fees, loss of v-bucks sales, etc...
Is Epic / Tim Sweeney lighting that money on fire just to get a pyrrhic victory for Mac Rumors forum members so they can say they have a technical victory and a non-impacting way that Apple was forced to "bend the knee"?
Which is why Apple needs to start charging for access up front, and let IAP be seperate. Any app that generates over 1 million in revenue gets hit with an access fee, much like EPIC does with its IP, and non-IAP payments are not charged a seperate fee. Let EPIC pay millions/month to be on the store and link out to in game purchases.
Apple could still offer a flat 30% as an option as well. For small developers, they could offer the 15% current deal or no fee beyond developer fee if they use an alternate payment system.
Every store has some sort of markup; the consumer decides if the value is worth the price. If anything, the App Store has conditioned consumers that apps should be real cheap or free.
I've also pointed out this is not about helping the consumer but who gets what share of the pie. EPIC wants it all and for Apple to still give them access to the App Store user base while Apple wants their cut.
If EPIC were so pro-consumer why not make their App Store completely free to developers? No fees, we do everything Apple does except do it for free.
If anything, it's the small developer that has a lot to lose depending how this plays out in the courts.
If you point out how greedy developers pocketed the windfall people rise to their defense; yet it was simple greed on their part as well. I don't begrudge them keeping the windfall because it's clear consumers were already buying at the higher price; but it shows that any cut in Apple's fees don't benefit the consumer.
I suspect, in the end, most developers will be hard pressed to find a better deal, at rival app stores, that offers the same customer base, services and revenue potential, at a lower total cost. One curve ball is international tax structures. A small developer could go broke ensuring they comply with all local tax laws if they sell outside of where they live.
The end goal for Epic is to have their Epic games store made available on iOS where they can not only keep 100% of iAP revenue, but also host other developers' apps and charge them a cut. In short, Epic is not seeking to improve the lot of developers (any benefit so far is entirely incidental). They just want the money to go to themselves instead of to Apple.
So having third party app stores only benefits you if you are the owner and don't have to pay a commission to anybody else. If you are a developer, I am not exactly sure why you would want to make your app available on the epic game store compared to say, Android or iOS (hypothetically speaking). Maybe the cut is a little lower, but you likely receive less traffic as well, so I don't really see how you will be better off in the long run. The only reason I can think of is that your app wasn't allowed on the App Store for certain reasons (eg: it's NSFW).
At this point, I don't know if Tim Sweeney can ever make his money back. Maybe he's just a man with a vendetta and too much money to burn, and he doesn't care how much money he loses on this lawsuit so long as he gets the final laugh.
Here's another scenario. Apple is forced to open up to alternate app stores and provide a choice of stores when first setting up an iPhone. That could be a scammers dream; setup a few scam stores and have Apple offer them as an option. Anyone that picks one becomes your mark.
Apple is caught between scammers and regulators who likely would look askance at Apple picking what stores to offer; and consumers would lose out and blame Apple. Any regulation requiring Apple to host and offer alternate stores would need to also hold Apple not to be liable for scams.
I think it is an ego thing. The last laugh for Apple would be for EPIC to have their own App Store and for Apple not to have to carry EPIC games unless EPIC paid a cut of annual revenue. Once EPIC has a choice it's hard to argue Apple should carry their apps for free.
Credit card fees are more than that.
Someone is gonna pay for the infrastructure. Or it goes away.
If you look at fees fro payment processors, they alone can be more than the 15% Apple charges for everything. Stripe, for example, has an annual fee plus charges 2.9% and a 30 cent swipe fee. Any app at $ 2 or less is paying some 30% just for payment processing. If you sell internationally, swipe takes an additional 3% on top of that.
Of course. Alternative app stores aren't likely to be free either. EPIC is doing it for free until you make a million in revenue; then they want their cut as well. It may be smaller but they still want a cut if you make a lot of money; I suspect the only reason it is less, besides a poke at Apple, is they realize their store won't generate near the revenue of Apples and thus need to provide a better incentive.
It appears EPIC waives all fees if you use your own payment system, I wonder how long Sweeney will do that if very successful games are on the site, competing with theirs, and are paying zero to EPIC.
I would argue that it was not the App Store but developers that conditioned consumers that apps were cheap. When the App Store came out, developers were fighting for space and entering a "price war" for relevance.
And, arguably, for the first time in programming history, every developer could now offer their products for sale without a true gatekeeper. Previously, you had to sell your product to a wholesaler/retailer and hope that someone would stock it. Or, you could pay to get your product on the "back of the magazine" CDs or market your website for direct download. The App Store opened up this model so that anyone could now offer their product for sale with virtually $0 up front cost. Every other time there was a large and mandatory up-front cost to get your product up for sale.
There’s already this issue with Android and sideloading.
Nearly 2,000 victims fell for Android malware scams, at least S$34.1 million lost in 2023
The majority of victims were aged 30 to 49, and were most frequently targeted on Facebook and Instagram.
And of course, people in their infinite wisdom want to port this “feature” over to iOS, citing freedom and personal responsibility, at a time when Google is moving to shut down sideloading on their own platform. 🙄
lol at this as well.
Rubbish. It's the exact same principle, except with Apple it's digital, with Amazon it's physical goods. But in both cases (Apple and Amazon) provide the marketplace, the infrastructure, the payment processing, etc. It is 1000% the same business model. Apple and Amazon are the marketplace, a 3rd party develops an app, or goods, then uses the marketplace provider to house their goods (digital or physical), advertise their goods, and sell said goods.
“Here’s to the misfits” - now when I read that, I’ll think of Apple and its compliance hahaha
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
Yeah, Apple didn't develop the app store, provide developer tools, build data centers, secure the App Store, provide people to review apps, etc etc. Apple did absolutely nothing.../s.
You assume that the judge is right...judges do get things wrong. You continue to completely ignore the valid points raised in defense of Apple. It's also very selective considering other providers have the same or similar policies for their marketplace, but yet aren't getting sued or having heavy handed judges punishing them.
Okay, so you don't agree with the judge. I agree with the judge. So as of now Apple is unlawful. Facts. I'll stick with the judge. Good chat 👍
As a consumer I don’t mind paying a bit more for safety and ease of use.
As a developer I am willing to share some of my profit with Apple in exchange for Apple hosting my app, taking care of payments and ease of use when wiring money to my account.
As a developer I can lower that comission to 15% by using renewable subscriptions, I think. It’s been a while since I sold through the AppStore though, so unsure what is currently going on with percentages.
Like any store. The "store" gets a cut of the sale price. Which keeps the "store" able to sell the good.
Some companies can and do sell directly to customers. They still have overhead associated with doing that. No different than any other store. Just that it can result in lower costs doing it yourself than letting someone else do it. There is still a cost.
They are free specifically because of apps that are paid for. IAP and one time app costs are part of what allows those free apps to exist.
What happens when an appeal goes in Apple's favor? Do you then side with Apple and "that" judge? Or will you come back in support of the first judge and EPIC anyway?
what is scary as that one app can detect and react to ther apps. I prefer they stay in their lane.
Apple had customers ahead of any developer wanting to or needing to or having to develop for the iPhone. iPhone came first. People immediately criticized it (those same developers) as a fail. They were wrong. Apple made plenty of money selling it and then allowed those developers to do so via an AppStore with a 70/30 split. This split was WAY more in favor for developers than any store had been prior. It made it EASY for both developer AND Apple's customer to acquire apps and distribute them world wide. And because it was EASY it was also inherently more secure than doing it yourself and going to site A, B, C, D, etc. Since YOU always know that the app came from Apple's store. It was checked and safe. Safer than going to any site, since you often can't or don't know how to confirm you're not getting scammed or installing a virus. That went away instantly with the AppStore. It simply solved ALL these issues the PC/Mac had to deal with, AND used less resources to do it. No Antivirus running in the background. No means to get anything not authorized into the device. While not impossible to break into the device (Jailbreaking and the like). It was harder for the end user to do something stupid to cause the issue. And, developers got every cent of that 70% from every sale. No loss, no damaged goods, no having to deal directly with the end user for a refund. Contact Apple they handle it. Yes, you give up control but, you get safety and privacy. If you want to deal directly with the developer for said product, you can go do so yourself. Otherwise, they don't have access to "YOU" without you giving it.
Not only did EPIC break the rules. They did exactly what Apple feared the outside world (outside the Appstore downloads, aka side loading) would do. Change the product maliciously. EPIC was a trusted vendor. They got highlighted all the time in the developer conferences. YOU as an Apple customer KNEW them and what they made. But, then they changed the product with an update that allowed Link-Out purchases. Which wasn't going to steal your life away or anything. But, what is to say they didn't add some Command and Control to the app. And now they track you, or they keylog you or get access to your camera, contacts, wallet, web browsing history, and on and on.
Some would say, Apple should have stopped it. And they would be right. They should have looked at the code before blindly approving it. But maybe they simply trusted them enough to believe they would not do such a thing. I don't have an answer for it. But, never the less EPIC just proved what could have happened if there was no App Store. In that instance, it did not work as advertised. Willing to bet it's working better now because of it though. But even a trusted app could change and get more of your info than you otherwise are willing to give. Or full access to your phone.
The other issues is still the fact that EPIC is stealing Apple's IP. No more than I or you are allowed to use the game Fortnite to advertise anything you or I make without express/explicit permission to do so from EPIC. EPIC is not allowed to with Apple's IP. Doesn't matter what anyone is being charged for the right to use it. You pay it or you don't use it. It's really just that simple.