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

[zahuh]

No free loading.

Umm devs pay 99/year + 30% commission for PAID apps in the App Store. NOTHING FREE there.

 

[zahuh]

That's just weird given you now compare a webpage to an appstore.

Apple dont control the internet.

So i'd say that doesnt make your comment correct

LOL You know amazon has an app right? And it's not WEIRD. I'm trying to show you they are the same thing. 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.

 

[zahuh]

No I am not.
Your example is amazon a shop. They get a cut of the sales, thevapp store is apples shop, they should get a cut of the sales or why provide a store for you to do business in in the first place
My example was to show how an app in the app store functions if it is selling all goods directly even though it wouldn’t brbanle to do so without the existence of the app store

Hope that clarifies

We are talking about the app store not the platform.
As long as the store owner, in this case Apple can gain income from those putting thier goods in Apple’s store then the store continues, if the store owner simply provides a space for others to do business then the model is unsustainable.
There is no easy answer.

First of all, what you're saying is literally ILLEGAL. The judge declared literally what you said ILLEGAL. So stop. I as a developer should be able to CHOOSE where payment happens. Customers can then decide which they want to use. We are not talking about PAID apps in the app store. We are talking about in-app purchases. ILLEGAL for APPLE to require devs to only use their payment system.

 

[zahuh]

Is your app on the iPhone or iPad App Store? Yes? Oh. How much are you paying for Apple's developer tools? How much are you paying to use any Apple API's? How much are you paying to have your app hosted and distributed by Apple on the App Store? How much are you paying Apple to develop the operating system your app is designed for?

Everyone has fees buddy. Get over it. Did you know, when you go out to eat, the Point of Sale that is used to take your food order, also has a credit card fee per transaction? This is not a free world. How much do you think it would cost you to develop your own hardware, your own software and host your own App Store with millions of hits to your servers a day? More than the 30% or even 15% that is coming out of your profits, that's for sure. Why don't you just give your software away for free, than you wouldn't have to worry about fees. Oh wait, because you have a business to run and profits to make. I guess Apple doesn't.

Huh? Literally I pay 99/year as a developer fee then for PAID apps I pay a 30% commission. You are losing focus. APPLE did NOTHING to make Netflix movies, they didn't invest in the script, the equipment, the editing, NOTHING. AND THEY WANT 30%. ANYWAY, your'e changing the subject cause you lost. FOR IN-APP PURCHASES, APPLE DOES NOTHING BUT TAX THE INTERNET/APP. It's now ILLEGAL for them to require devs to use their payment method.

 

[DocMultimedia]

Epic needs to go away. They do nothing more than seek attention for their miserable games. Hopefully they just crawl under a rock and stop trying to suck money from an actual company.

Epic developers... Stop developing for iOS, it will destroy Apple. 🤣

 

[chrono1081]

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.

This...so...much...not to mention Tim Sweeney charges for the Epic store, he's just mad other stores are successful and run well and his isn't.

Too many devs forget what it was like trying to sell software in the 90s and early 2000s before app stores were a thing. I remember the WWDC when Apple announced only a 30% fee and the crowd cheered. Gamedevs back then were used to losing around 95% (sometimes higher) of their revenue to a publisher if their games were pressed onto disc. App makers knew how expensive it was to have website and server hosting, secure payment processing, building your website, trying to get eyes on your website, etc just to sell some software. The costs were far more than 30%.

Heck, now it's only 15% if your app makes less than a million a year and you only get charged 30% on anything above that.

App stores are giant, expensive things to run well and taking a cut of the apps is what pays for it. Malls don't let their tenants set up shop for free why would an App Store?

 

[surferfb]

First of all, what you're saying is literally ILLEGAL. The judge declared literally what you said ILLEGAL. So stop. I as a developer should be able to CHOOSE where payment happens. Customers can then decide which they want to use. We are not talking about PAID apps in the app store. We are talking about in-app purchases. ILLEGAL for APPLE to require devs to only use their payment system.

FYI while the federal judge ruled the anti steering violated California law, it actually doesn’t. The California courts have since ruled that the anti-steering provision does not violate California law. It just happened too late to matter in Apple’s case.

So it’s not actually illegal.

 

[yabeweb]

Yeah this is nuts. A company should be able to run its own company. It’s not about monopolies that’s crazy. There’s plenty of competition. I hear Android is great. Apple seems to know what it’s doing and even making a profit. This is not about protecting the consumer’ or completion, that’s just BS.

T'ho think that in time Microsoft was fined for shipping I've as default browser despite people being able to download another one...

People cheered back then.... They didnt have a monopoly on browsers and people could easily download another, they had and advantage? Yes but not a monopoly.

 

[litmag01]

Always a joy to read about Jarndyce v Jarndyce.

 

[H.E. Pennypacker]

Apple crying First Amendment here feels like a stretch. No one’s telling them what to say they’re just being told they can’t strangle developers with fees and restrictions on outside payments. For years Apple built a walled garden and taxed everyone inside it, and now that courts are finally calling them out, they’re acting like victims. This isn’t about free speech, it’s about Apple trying to protect monopoly profits under the guise of intellectual property rights.

 

[H.E. Pennypacker]

Apple’s Lawyers found a Workaround with the Masimo Lawsuit and they will find a Workaround with this Epic Lawsuit. Apple 🍎 pays the big bucks for good Lawyers.

Sure, Apple’s lawyers are expensive, but let’s not pretend Epic walked in with a public defender. They’ve got heavyweight attorneys too. This isn’t a who has the biggest legal budget contest it’s about Apple clinging to monopoly control and Epic calling them on it. Sometimes the side with less money is still the one with the stronger case.

 

[Avidos1]

First of all, what you're saying is literally ILLEGAL. The judge declared literally what you said ILLEGAL. So stop. I as a developer should be able to CHOOSE where payment happens. Customers can then decide which they want to use. We are not talking about PAID apps in the app store. We are talking about in-app purchases. ILLEGAL for APPLE to require devs to only use their payment system.

So a free app which then requires in app purchases gives zero to apple and profit to the dev. Why should any company be required to let you use thier platform if they make nothing from it?

mind if I use YOUR wifi to run a streaming business?
No I am not going to pay you anything, maybe 50c to use your toilet once in a while, that ok???

See, it makes no sense, if you still don’t get it I give up, your a lost cause

 

[turbineseaplane]

Let’s be real here: Apple found out it can make a s—t ton of money from the App Store commission and Apple executives will fight tooth and nail to keep as much of it as they can and they’ll use whatever argument they think will work in the moment.

This is exactly it. I don't even know how anyone can deny it, as Apple has basically acknowledged this through various comms over the years.

They "fell into this" unjustified gravy train and now are doing pretzels to try to defend the "how and why".

And for some odd reason, we have Apple fans helping them with the pretzel twisting.

I mean .. I do "get why" ... it's a huge stream of cash.
Doesn't make it right. The situation needs to stop.

 

[Mr. Nice]

Never said Apple doesn’t have to comply with local laws or “they can do what they want.” But we’re talking about a ruling in a US court that applies in the US.

Yes, you're right, it's a US thing.

But even if Apple loses in US court:
No matter what anyone says and Apple is convicted...

There are so many Apple users here who then say that it's all their developments etc. They should be allowed to do that.

Strange views from many Apple fans. It's a bit like religious views.

And the same ones never want to accept what the EU decrees, even though Apple is coming to us on the market.

PS: Apple would have to leave a lot of markets by now, wouldn't it?🙋🏻‍♂️
Europe, Korea, Japan... 😂

macOS and iOS were built in different eras with fundamentally different assumptions. macOS has been open …iOS was deliberately built as a closed, tightly-managed ecosystem to serve 1–2B everyday consumers who expect security, privacy, and simplicity out of the box.

You are wrong, because you forget one big thing!

The development is based on a big difference:

Apple's found love for the lock-in effect for customers. (There was a document from Steve Jobs himself that came out in a court case describing the focus on lock-in).
That's the huge difference between Mac and iOS.

You've seen your US court cases, the hearings of the big tech CEOs...
All very trustworthy...not!

The market has never and will never regulate itself. And these companies can't regulate themselves.

Windows had an actual monopoly when the EU intervened. Like 90+% of the market. Apple doesn’t. And we’re not talking about the EU anyway, we’re talking about a specific US court case that applies in the US.

The big mistake was looking away for too long.
We did nothing.
The gatekeeper rules should have been introduced in the EU in the 1990s.

Fortunately, there is movement here and Apple is also being forced to make other watch manufacturers work well with the iPhone (answering messages etc.).
Apple has LONG been the new Microsoft.

If you are happy with your big techs with you. That's great.
But then accept the decisions in the rest of the world regarding Apple & co. ✌️

 

[jlc1978]

Ok but where does it end? Without AT&T and my ISP my iPhone isn’t nearly as useful. Should they be in on a cut because it’s their lucrative customer base too?

With the death of net neutrality they likely will try again to offer preferred access to their network. They also already get a cut becasue they sell the phone at full price but no doubt get a discount from Apple; so to use your argument yea, Apple deserves their cut.

In fact, I don’t think newly purchased brand new iPhone can be activated without internet connection at all. And an iPhone stuck at initial setup screen surely ain’t gonna be of any use.

Sure it can. You do not have to setup service to use features that do not require access, and internet service can be setup without phone service.

AT&T and alike probably should charge Apple an ongoing commission for using their infrastructure.

Considering the iPhone is what brings customers to the carriers I'd say Apple is the one in charge here. If a career demanded payment for selling iPhones Apple would likely just say goodbye, we'lll sell them in the store and activate them, with you paying us the activation fee.

Other payment processors don’t have to deal with the costs of running an App Store. It’s easy to charge less, when you are also doing less for the money.

Many of them also charge a flat fee plus percentage, so for a low priced app the processing fee can approach 25% or more.

Umm devs pay 99/year + 30% commission for PAID apps in the App Store. NOTHING FREE there.

Only developers making more than 1 million/year; for most it's 15%. Maybe Apple should just up the developer fee significantly to be on the App Store.

This is exactly it. I don't even know how anyone can deny it, as Apple has basically acknowledged this through various comms over the years.

Of course Apple makes money off the store, that's the whole point of running a store. As laws change, Apple will still find ways to make money off of apps.

 

[zahuh]

So a free app which then requires in app purchases gives zero to apple and profit to the dev. Why should any company be required to let you use thier platform if they make nothing from it?

mind if I use YOUR wifi to run a streaming business?
No I am not going to pay you anything, maybe 50c to use your toilet once in a while, that ok???

See, it makes no sense, if you still don’t get it I give up, your a lost cause

#1 'your' and 'you're' are different. Please learn
#2 FREE apps are a HUGE reason why people use their phones. From games to social media. iPhone would be far less used and useful without FREE apps.
#3 You are completely losing focus. I'm ONLY talking about in-app purchases. You know, the SUBJECT Apple is arguing in this article. APPLE is saying "Okay we can let EPIC games link to their website and sell items but not other developers." My argument is APPLE should be getting NOTHING once I'm in a developers app. Apple did NOTHING to make any of the Netflix TV shows or movies. I PAY Apple for the device to watch on a great screen and I PAY Netflix for great content. APPLE did NOTHING to invest in any Netflix movies/TV shows. Same with Amazon, APPLE did NOTHING to build amazon's infrastructure. APPLE DESERVES 0%, NOTHING, once the app is downloaded. If it's a paid app, yes, in Apple's App Store, Apple should get a cut.
#4 Devs pay $99/year for using Apple's dev tools and funding the App Store system.

 

[I7guy]

[…]My argument is APPLE should be getting NOTHING once I'm in a developers app. Apple did NOTHING to make any of the Netflix TV shows or movies.

My argument is if you don’t like the rules develop elsewhere.

I PAY Apple for the device to watch on a great screen and I PAY Netflix for great content. APPLE did NOTHING to invest in any Netflix movies/TV shows.

Irrelevant as to the developer side of things. Apple has a right and that is what these court cases are about to get compensated. The rules were known going in.

Same with Amazon, APPLE did NOTHING to build amazon's infrastructure. APPLE DESERVES 0%,

And with Amazon Apple takes 0%.

 

[jlc1978]

#4 Devs pay $99/year for using Apple's dev tools and funding the App Store system.

Yea, Apple should introduce a sliding scale:

Totally free apps: $99
Apps less than a million in revenue: $150K
Apps more than 1 million annual: 30% of revenue

 

[zahuh]

My argument is if you don’t like the rules develop elsewhere.

Irrelevant as to the developer side of things. Apple has a right and that is what these court cases are about to get compensated. The rules were known going in.

And with Amazon Apple takes 0%.

Forfeit.

I mean... Did you read the article? Your argument is false. It's ILLEGAL for Apple to require developers to use their in-app payment system only. So what you're arguing is Illegal. Unfortunately that's checkmate for you my friend. Great discussion. Have a great day 👍

 

[I7guy]

OK so now we’re back to privacy and security and not paying for use of IP?

Let’s be real here: Apple found out it can make a s—t ton of money from the App Store commission and Apple executives will fight tooth and nail to keep as much of it as they can and they’ll use whatever argument they think will work in the moment. So one minute it’s privacy and security, the next it’s paying for use of IP, but only for certain developers/apps and Apple should be allowed to arbitrarily decide who pays and who doesn’t. If you’re big and popular and Apple needs you (or directly competes with you) then you’re exempted. If not, pay up because it’s wrong and unfair for you to use Apple’s IP for ‘free’.

You are conflating arguments around IP and privacy.

 

[surferfb]

#2 FREE apps are a HUGE reason why people use their phones. From games to social media. iPhone would be far less used and useful without FREE apps.

And yet you’re here arguing in favor of a change that would lead to fewer free apps.

#3 You are completely losing focus. I'm ONLY talking about in-app purchases. You know, the SUBJECT Apple is arguing in this article. APPLE is saying "Okay we can let EPIC games link to their website and sell items but not other developers." My argument is APPLE should be getting NOTHING once I'm in a developers app. Apple did NOTHING to make any of the Netflix TV shows or movies. I PAY Apple for the device to watch on a great screen and I PAY Netflix for great content. APPLE did NOTHING to invest in any Netflix movies/TV shows. Same with Amazon, APPLE did NOTHING to build amazon's infrastructure. APPLE DESERVES 0%, NOTHING, once the app is downloaded. If it's a paid app, yes, in Apple's App Store, Apple should get a cut.

Owning an iPhone doesn’t mean you own iOS or the App Store. That’s Apple’s property, and developers only get to use it under Apple’s terms which they all agree to when signing the developer agreement. If they don’t like it, they don’t have to sign. Netflix can avoid the fee by pushing signups to the web (and they did), but forcing Apple to give away its platform for free is the constitutional issue here. It doesn’t matter if you think Apple deserves it or not. It’s Apple’s property and they get to decide absent a very good reason.

A court has decided there is a very good reason. Apple is appealing that decision. We’ll see who wins.

#4 Devs pay $99/year for using Apple's dev tools and funding the App Store system.

Checkmate.

No, it’s $99 a year plus a revenue share. That’s the deal every developer agrees to. Saying the $99 fee covers Apple’s platform costs is like saying ‘I paid the $99 application fee so I don’t owe rent,’ or ‘I bought the concert ticket so my drinks should be free.’ The $99 gets you in the door. The cut is the ongoing license to use Apple’s platform for commerce.

If you take away the ability to revenue share, don’t be surprised when the $99 a year goes up dramatically

 

[I7guy]

I mean... Did you read the article? Your argument is false. It's ILLEGAL for Apple to require developers to use their in-app payment system only. So what you're arguing is Illegal. Unfortunately that's checkmate for you my friend. Great discussion. Have a great day 👍

Is the issue understood? Apple is not being compensated. Whether you agree to it or not, Apple believes they are entitled to collation for use if their assets. How it gets collected is another matter.

It is a great discussion and you have a great day as well. 👍

 

[Cunir]

If they just obeyed the ruling in the first place there’d be no need for them to ask the court to reimpose it

 

[zahuh]

And yet you’re here arguing in favor of a change that would lead to fewer free apps.


Owning an iPhone doesn’t mean you own iOS or the App Store. That’s Apple’s property, and developers only get to use it under Apple’s terms which they all agree to when signing the developer agreement. If they don’t like it, they don’t have to sign. Netflix can avoid the fee by pushing signups to the web (and they did), but forcing Apple to give away its platform for free is the constitutional issue here. It doesn’t matter if you think Apple deserves it or not. It’s Apple’s property and they get to decide absent a very good reason.

A court has decided there is a very good reason. Apple is appealing that decision. We’ll see who wins.


No, it’s $99 a year plus a revenue share. That’s the deal every developer agrees to. Saying the $99 fee covers Apple’s platform costs is like saying ‘I paid the $99 application fee so I don’t owe rent,’ or ‘I bought the concert ticket so my drinks should be free.’ The $99 gets you in the door. The cut is the ongoing license to use Apple’s platform for commerce.

If you take away the ability to revenue share, don’t be surprised when the $99 a year goes up dramatically

You know what let’s do what you want. Let’s let Apple have a 30% cut of all revenue on their device. So MacRumors now needs to give 30% because I’m reading Macrumors on an apple device. It’s very easy to break your argument. And of course in the end what you’re arguing is illegal. The US government decided that Apple was illegally requiring developers to exclusively use their in app purchase system.

 

[I7guy]

You know what let’s do what you want. Let’s let Apple have a 30% cut of all revenue on their device. So MacRumors now needs to give 30% because I’m reading Macrumors on an apple device. It’s very easy to break your argument. And of course in the end what you’re arguing is illegal. The US government decided that Apple was illegally requiring developers to exclusively use their in app purchase system.

It gets a little complex but the us government has the ability to change/modify its own laws. Nobody lost. Quoting yogi Berra: “it ain’t over till it’s over”.

In the US we do have an appeals process….