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

[jmonster]

i love how apple pretends it's not a hardware company. as if its product have any value without third party developers. as if our $1-2k yearly purchases don't compensate their IP.

make a website? free to access.

wrap a native container so you can access bluetooth? sorry that'll be 27% of your revenue.

i'm sorry, did apple invent bluetooth? please explain why they get to gate keep a compiled app.

if this was microsoft / 10 years ago, everyone would be losing their **** over how evil microsoft is. and yet here we are, defending the multi trillion dollar apple company.

 

[surferfb]

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.

Apple’s right to set terms doesn’t mean 30% on everything; it means they can license specific uses of their platform. They apply it to in-app digital sales, not browsing Safari. The real issue is whether they can set any terms at all, or be forced to give their platform away for free.

But Apple isn’t taxing everything on an iPhone. It’s more like a mall. you don’t owe the landlord because you’re walking around or reading a magazine in the food court. You pay when you set up shop and start selling inside their mall.

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.

One district court judge ruled (again incorrectly, per California courts) that the anti-steering provisions violate California state law, but Apple is appealing on constitutional (and other) grounds. That’s why we’re even having this conversation; the higher courts haven’t spoken yet.

 

[turbineseaplane]

if this was microsoft / 10 years ago, everyone would be losing their **** over how evil microsoft is. and yet here we are, defending the multi trillion dollar apple company.

This 👆

100% this.

If we just swapped out "Apple" for any other company, the same people defending Apple at every turn, would be on an all out assault here.

 

[I7guy]

[…]. and yet here we are, defending the multi trillion dollar apple company.

And why not defend a a multi trillion company. I don’t see many criticizing epic who it can be said is “worse” than Apple in the morality scale.

It seems at times an all out assault against Apple for no reason because they are Apple.

 

[jdawgnoonan]

it will be interesting to see what happens. On the one hand, I believe that Apple is a private company that is not a traditional monopoly who has created an extremely high quality, secure, private, and lucrative ecosystem that I enjoy being a part of. On the other hand, when I buy an ebook in the Kindle app, using what I assume to be basically a web browser based function, I do not see what great IP Apple has involved to make them deserve a 30% cut of the revenue for selling some author’s writing that I may not even read on the Apple device where I purchased it. I read on this board some people saying how they define words like “Computer” with definitions that I find humorously narrow, a solar powered calculator from the 80s was a computer in my opinion and you couldn’t install anything on it. Anyway, it will be interesting to see where this goes.

 

[zahuh]

Apple’s right to set terms doesn’t mean 30% on everything; it means they can license specific uses of their platform. They apply it to in-app digital sales, not browsing Safari. The real issue is whether they can set any terms at all, or be forced to give their platform away for free.

But Apple isn’t taxing everything on an iPhone. It’s more like a mall. you don’t owe the landlord because you’re walking around or reading a magazine in the food court. You pay when you set up shop and start selling inside their mall.


One district court judge ruled (again incorrectly, per California courts) that the anti-steering provisions violate California state law, but Apple is appealing on constitutional (and other) grounds. That’s why we’re even having this conversation; the higher courts haven’t spoken yet.

They are guilty and are like every other guilty person trying to prove they are innocent get over it you’re on the side of a guilty party! Think about that they are guilty! You are on the guilty side! I am on the side of the person that’s innocent! Think about it and join the innocent party!

 

[I7guy]

They are guilty and are like every other guilty person trying to prove they are innocent get over it you’re on the side of a guilty party! Think about that they are guilty! You are on the guilty side! I am on the side of the person that’s innocent! Think about it and join the innocent party!

The only thing Apple is guilty is is an unfavorable court ruling that could be overturned on appeal.

 

[surferfb]

They are guilty and are like every other guilty person trying to prove they are innocent get over it you’re on the side of a guilty party! Think about that they are guilty! You are on the guilty side! I am on the side of the person that’s innocent! Think about it and join the innocent party!

I, like the California courts who are the authority on California State law, think the federal judge was wrong in interpreting California state law. That means Apple isn’t actually guilty of violating the law and is only in this situation due to a quirk in timing that the California courts didn’t rule until after the federal judge did.

I also think that even if Apple were guilty of violating the law, the judge’s order that Apple isn’t allowed to charge at all is unconstitutional and should be changed by a higher court.

Understand you feel differently. I seriously doubt either one of us is going to convince each other that the other is wrong, so I’m going to bow out here. Enjoy your Saturday!

 

[ryan102]

Does Apple pay retailers 30% of every Apple item they sell? Asking for a friend

 

[Madmic23]

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.

For example, I don’t think there is an option for game developers to avoid paying steam their 30% cut regardless of which payment processor they favour.

Even if other payment options are allowed in the App Store, I would argue that Apple is still entitled to a cut (could be 15% or 20% or even 27%). We can argue till the cows come home about what an appropriate percentage ought to be, but bottom line - Apple still deserves something at the end of the day.

I’m fine with Apple making 30% on things they sell in the App Store. That makes total sense.

What I have an issue with is in-app purchases. Why should Apple get 30% of your Netflix subscription when Apple doesn’t host or stream the content to you?

 

[Shirasaki]

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.

Can you set up a device with no ability to connect to internet at all? No wifi, no cellular, nothing. Think of it as putting a brand new iPhone in a faraday cage. I didn’t test it myself but I doubt it works. And also no SIM card.

Only developers making more than 1 million/year; for most it's 15%.

That’s AFTER initial Epic vs Apple legal saga erupted Apple changed the course. Before that, Apple charges 30% for everyone, big or small, likely touting it as “fair and square”.

My argument is APPLE should be getting NOTHING once I'm in a developers app.

Ok so in your mind Apple hosting apps and most importantly providing BANDWIDTH allowing you to download apps should be free of charge. I’m sorry but you are asking way too much here and Apple definitely deserves being paid for effectively using their server bandwidth. Think of it as paying a tolled highway to drive on that highway.

APPLE did NOTHING to build amazon's infrastructure.

That’s debatable too but for a different reason. Not important here so I won’t go further.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I wish everyone would realize that none of these companies (and certainly not Apple) are "white knights" or "guilt free".

If folks would treat them all roughly equally, all of these debates would be more productive.

A key problem is how folks think of Apple as "the good guy" ... they have successfully implanted these narratives with slick marketing and presentation (I guess?).

 

[surferfb]

I wish everyone would realize that none of these companies (and certainly not Apple) are "white knights" or "guilt free".

If folks would treat them all roughly equally, all of these debates would be more productive.

A key problem is how folks think of Apple as "the good guy" ... they have successfully implanted these narratives with slick marketing and presentation (I guess?).

For what is worth, I’d be just as opposed to courts forcing Epic to host Apple Arcade games on the Epic game store; doubly so without compensating Epic.

 

[cdsapplefan]

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.

Apple 🍎 is going to win this case with the Supreme Court in that this is their trademarked product/service. The courts will set a dangerous precedent if they go against Apple’s trademark service.

 

[Shirasaki]

I wish everyone would realize that none of these companies (and certainly not Apple) are "white knights" or "guilt free".

If folks would treat them all roughly equally, all of these debates would be more productive.

A key problem is how folks think of Apple as "the good guy" ... they have successfully implanted these narratives with slick marketing and presentation (I guess?).

And that’s what I consistently have trouble with while debating with other people. Not just in this forum but face to face too, just a bit more civil. I don’t know what trick Apple is using to convince so many that “I am the good guy and everyone else is evil”, while taking advantage of this narrative to do bad things themselves too. Maybe the whole “privacy campaign”, the “Windows Vista vs macOS” campaign among others delivered extremely persuasive and powerful messages to uninitiated, so much so that enough believe whatever Apple says without thinking. This is what I think is Apple’s greatest strength in competing with Microsoft Google and alike: a solid base of fanatical followers. Therefore, naturally, when Epic complains, “Apple is the victim and Epic is the villain”.

 

[turbineseaplane]

And that’s what I consistently have trouble with while debating with other people. Not just in this forum but face to face too, just a bit more civil. I don’t know what trick Apple is using to convince so many that “I am the good guy and everyone else is evil”, while taking advantage of this narrative to do bad things themselves too. Maybe the whole “privacy campaign”, the “Windows Vista vs macOS” campaign among others delivered extremely persuasive and powerful messages to uninitiated, so much so that enough believe whatever Apple says without thinking. This is what I think is Apple’s greatest strength in competing with Microsoft Google and alike: a solid base of fanatical followers. Therefore, naturally, when Epic complains, “Apple is the victim and Epic is the villain”.

Well said.

It's part of why I find it mesmerizing that we have folks breathlessly defending Apple charging for their IP ... but when another company wants to do that (say Masimo) suddenly they are in the wrong, or are a "patent troll" or they were "asking too much" ..

on and on ... Just endless defense of Apple's position one way or another, despite the shocking cognitive dissonance of it at times.

There are so many examples of "XYZ company does something" = "it's bad ... very bad" ... but if Apple does the exact same thing it's "Great" .. "I love it" ... "go Apple! -- Still the best!"

 

[I7guy]

And that’s what I consistently have trouble with while debating with other people. Not just in this forum but face to face too, just a bit more civil. I don’t know what trick Apple is using to convince so many that “I am the good guy and everyone else is evil”, while taking advantage of this narrative to do bad things themselves too.

Bad things is an opinion. Whatever Apple does is to further it’s product pipeline protect its trademarks.

Therefore, naturally, when Epic complains, “Apple is the victim and Epic is the villain”.

Yep. Epic is a “do as I say and not as I do company”.

 

[surferfb]

Just to illustrate the point of “bandwidth is expensive”, if you ever paid internet bill, you probably won’t see high speed internet (100mbps down) costing less than $100/mo. And that’s just ONE MONTH. That developer fee is $99 PER YEAR, meaning each paid developer only pays maybe $1 or $2 per month to cover the bandwidth usage. Not bad for using Apple’s bandwidth.

I did the math for Spotify’s app on one of these threads a few months back. Obviously it depends on Apple’s bandwidth costs, and Spotify is a hugely popular app, but assuming 150 million iOS Spotify users × 100 MB average app size × 8 updates/year = 120 PB/year (120 million GB)

Apple’s cost at different bandwidth rates:

• $0.002/GB → $240,000/year
• $0.005/GB → $600,000/year
• $0.01/GB → $1.2 million/year

So $240k - $1.2M per year just for app delivery for Spotify, assuming I didn’t screw up the math. So somewhere between 2,500 and 12,000 $99 substitutions just to offset Spotify.

 

[Manzanito]

Every time a conversation like this takes place on these forums a question often goes overlooked: apple needs developers even more than devs need iOS.

Apple's software in general is far from the high standards it once met, hence the need for third party apps.

It's ok wanting to have some margins of benefit, but I get the feeling whoever is in charge at apple of managing relations with devs is doing a terrible job. They should start listening to them and reach a common ground.

 

[jole]

IMO the cleanest solution for Apple remains to be:

• Allow installing any apps to iPhone from outside the store (just like Mac)
• Keep App Store rules as is, include all tools and APIs as today
• Limit all high level APIs and tools to App Store - outside the store you can work against the low level API and are on your own

 

[Shirasaki]

I did the math for Spotify’s app on one of these threads a few months back. Obviously it depends on Apple’s bandwidth costs, and Spotify is a hugely popular app, but assuming 150 million iOS Spotify users × 100 MB average app size × 8 updates/year = 120 PB/year (120 million GB)

Apple’s cost at different bandwidth rates:

• $0.002/GB → $240,000/year
• $0.005/GB → $600,000/year
• $0.01/GB → $1.2 million/year

So $240k - $1.2M per year just for app delivery for Spotify, assuming I didn’t screw up the math. So somewhere between 2,500 and 12,000 $99 substitutions just to offset Spotify.

Fortunately Apple has lots of developers but with just a handful of popular apps like Spotify the bandwidth cost will quickly become unbearable even for Apple.

It would probably be reasonable if Apple starts to charge big developers for bandwidth if the annual download exceeds a certain amount. But I guess because Apple definitely need big apps to be on their platform they can offer some sort of concession including lower bandwidth costs for them.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Fortunately Apple has lots of developers but with just a handful of popular apps like Spotify the bandwidth cost will quickly become unbearable even for Apple.

It would probably be reasonable if Apple starts to charge big developers for bandwidth if the annual download exceeds a certain amount. But I guess because Apple definitely need big apps to be on their platform they can offer some sort of concession including lower bandwidth costs for them.

guys… The solution is to stop hosting their apps.

Apple is the one forcing that, not anybody else.

Notarize apps and let people distribute themselves, just like on macOS!

 

[djphat2000]

Don't change the subject. Of course I realize amazon and Ebay make money ON THEIR PLATFORM what we are talking about is WHY THE HELL IS APPLE MAKING AN ADDITIONAL 30% ON TOP OF THAT?! It increases the price for customer and APPLE did NOTHING when I was on amazon/ebay. It's called the internet/app. APPLE should not get 30% TAX on the INTERNET

Definitely not changing the subject. If I shop on Ebay or Amazon there is a built in markup on the price of the item. Which goes to Amazon or Ebay. If an app is sold on Apple's AppStore. There is a built in mark up that Apple gets. You just happen to "know" what that mark up is. In this case, up to 30%.

In the real world, how it "works" is that you the customer see a price you are willing to pay for an item. If you don't like the price, you have the choice of purchasing it or not. You generally have no idea nor should most people even care what the store cost is vs how much the vendor/developer wanted to make on the sale. So long as the customer is willing and OK with making the purchase at the price that was advertised. The process from raw materials, and or an idea that goes through the steps to become a product/service has prices along the journey. Each step tends to add a cost. Be it transportation, warehousing, marketing, licensing, taxes, duties, defective/Loss, trademarking, etc. The final sale of the product, if it did not come from the original manufacture/developer. Tends to have a "store" cost too.

So everything, practically has a price increase more than the sum of its parts.

 

[Shirasaki]

guys… The solution is to stop hosting their apps.

Apple is the one forcing that, not anybody else.

Notarize apps and let people distribute themselves, just like on macOS!

Yeah then saved bandwidth costs can be used to do other things. Or maybe Apple secured insanely cheap killer deal on bandwidth costs so the cost of losing out on commission is bigger than bandwidth costs savings? I have no idea. But one thing for sure. Apple demands full control and will stop at nothing to make sure it remains that way.

 

[djphat2000]

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

So long as they follow the rules. The ones that don't want to free load.