Eh, not exactly a good analogy either. I'm pretty sure Epic makes more money from microtransactions on console and iOS devices than PC. Much larger player base on iOS and console compared to PC.
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 'We Won't Make an Exception' for Epic Games in App Store Dispute
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Eh, not exactly a good analogy either. I'm pretty sure Epic makes more money from microtransactions on console and iOS devices than PC. Much larger player base on iOS and console compared to PC.
What Apple needs is to open up iOS to outside sources for apps, it didn't hurt Mac, why does everyone think it would be the end of iOS as we know it?
The reason developers pay the 30% is for exposure, if they distribute it themselves they have to pay for advertisements to spread their app cutting into their profits anyways... when you have an App Store that will let people find your app organically without paying for ads why wouldn't you use it?
Some companies would distribute outside of the App Store, others might choose to distribute outside of it.
What I could see becoming a possibility is Apple opening up iOS to third party apps and adding an exclusivity clause for App Store distribution.
I don't get it.
Company A builds shopping mall. You want to be in the mall selling stuff. You pay rent. What is wrong with that?
- "They treat someone differently". So what? When some really large company wants to open in the shopping mall, I assume they get a discount.
- "The rent is too high". Who are you to say? It has been the same from the start, so it can't be a surprise. You are not forced to sell anything in this shopping mall.
- "The rent should be X". And the price of Pepsi should be Y? Price regulations are not a good idea.
- "They only want to make money". Yes, that's usually the aim for any business.
- "I have no choice but to be selling in this mall/there are few other malls." Is that the fault of the company that built the mall? Will there be more malls built if the company is forced to lower the rent?
- "They don't care about the small merchants". Imagine if the rent was a fixed amount of USD, same for everyone. It would immediately kill all small merchants.
Company A builds shopping mall. You want to be in the mall selling stuff. You pay rent. What is wrong with that?
- "They treat someone differently". So what? When some really large company wants to open in the shopping mall, I assume they get a discount.
- "The rent is too high". Who are you to say? It has been the same from the start, so it can't be a surprise. You are not forced to sell anything in this shopping mall.
- "The rent should be X". And the price of Pepsi should be Y? Price regulations are not a good idea.
- "They only want to make money". Yes, that's usually the aim for any business.
- "I have no choice but to be selling in this mall/there are few other malls." Is that the fault of the company that built the mall? Will there be more malls built if the company is forced to lower the rent?
- "They don't care about the small merchants". Imagine if the rent was a fixed amount of USD, same for everyone. It would immediately kill all small merchants.
That’d still leave the point that if not for apple’s payment system, we’d all have a hundred recurring charges on our credit cards, and we’d all be spending hours on the phone with dozens of app developers trying to cancel services we never signed up for, no longer want, or which were already cancelled but somehow keep getting charged.
Because that was life before the App Store.
But you act like this isn't a known fact - if I KNOW that the cost of my app requires my price to be $5, and I KNOW that Apple/Google will take 30% - then as a business I KNOW I will not make money until my price is $7.50 - if the market doesn't think my application is worth $7.50, I need to either structure my business to make the $5 reasonable or consider a different business. This is the same in retail - just because I have a product doesn't mean I will be successful, just look at a simple McDonalds - even their product in some areas doesn't sell and they close locations.
Ok - I disagree - knowing the costs of running a small digital setup - scaling that up to Apple scale tells me its not cheap. Also as a shareholder, I dont want them to run the AppStore at break even, I want them to maximize their revenue so they can pay me my dividends and I can make more $$ in my own pocket. Business isn't about break even, its about making $$$ and lots of it.
They would if they were forced to by regulators
I love the iPhone, I love the hardware, I love the software... what I don't like is that I can't install anything I please, I couldn't even install an alternative operating system onto the hardware I own even if I wanted to because Apple doesn't allow it.
No he doesn’t.
Mac has 7% market share. There’s a reason iPhone has >50% in the US. Locked down = massive benefits to consumers.
The way things go I tend to feel there is an alternative platforms being made for mobiles making developers to freely host their Apps without constraints or no cut in IAP at least. Now the gaming segment is trying to find the public opinion and if it resonates well then the new alternative may challenge these 30% rent seeking platforms. These monopolistic businesses behaviours happen when the world is without choices.
If Epic & their companions take this brave rout my wishes for them but I still remember that all such initiatives start with good intentions later became what it is now that they are challenging. Hence my support is with lots of caveats.
If Epic & their companions take this brave rout my wishes for them but I still remember that all such initiatives start with good intentions later became what it is now that they are challenging. Hence my support is with lots of caveats.
In addition, developers chose to publish their apps on the Mac App Store when it came out for the exposure it offers despite Apple now taking a 30% cut of those sales
That's completely pointless. Everyone would just answer "yes" thinking "Hey, maybe I can use it in my grandmother's car" or some BS. Or just flip it on eBay.
No - the question must be accompanied with a price drop. Otherwise I'm with you all the way - there's no point removing it.
Agreed. There are fixed costs with distribution. These days bandwidth is measured in gigabytes per penny. Storage is cheap. The biggest cost is in their review process, but lets be honest, they aren't consistent in the amount of time they spend looking at things so who knows what that is.
They should charge something based on the number of downloads, whether your app is free or not.
If they want a large chunk of change up front on initial sale, feel free.
Subscription or in-app purchases, they shouldn't be the ones to judge if something is tangable real world items or digital content that they should claim 30% on, it should all be considered the same.... because Apple doesn't provide the actual services involved in either case.
The requirement should be you can use Apple's IAP engine, or a combination of yours and Apple's...to be in the store.
If you don't want to be in the store, Apple should allow installation of signed applications. They would still have a kill switch if it were found someone introduced malware.
For smaller developers, yeah i could see the App Store as being a great way to be discovered - though these days its way too cluttered and hard to find much of anything useful that I don't already have. But its really hard to argue larger developers like Epic or Microsoft or Netflix need to be discovered, they just need to be downloaded. Apple isn't putting marketing dollars into promoting them in their store for discovery. People don't learn of these big profile apps in the store. Quite often they are Epic or Microsoft or Netflix customers looking for a smartphone to run on and just need to get it installed. The whole we make a level playing field argument is wrong in my opinion - it will never be a level playing field. You have 1st party apps that don't pay the 30% and are therefore given an advantage. You have major high profile apps that the benefit of Apple having them is actually bigger for them making their devices accepted and useful over building the developers. Apple's statements have acted like they enabled Epic to become what they are, Epic has been around a long time. Epic didn't need the App Store to build their business like Apple claims - Epic was forced to use the App Store to hit part of the market that Apple had locked down, thats it.
The regulators dont understand technology - they screwed up the Microsoft Anti-Trust in the 90's and they would screw this one up to. The big tech firms who represent 30%+ of the stock market will be protected, the whole thing is a show - because at the end of the day, main street and wall street are not the same thing, but while main street pays the bills for most of the stuff, wall street controls the core of power.
Apple prevents you from opening your own "bar" in this case even if you wanted to
But in doing so they would be reducing their “services” income, which is the area where they can show growth to investors. Tim really cares about investors.
Don’t get me wrong, I think apple should do something like you propose, and in the long run may be the smart thing to do, only I don’t see them doing it now both to keep the services growth going on, and not to show weakness.
What if I want to install Android on the hardware that I own?
If I bought a ferrari I could replace the engine if I wanted.
[QUOTE="mnsportsgeek, post: 28789299, member: 285170"
My point is simply that if Apple wants to continue saying that they treat all developers equally, then they need to define a criteria that is transparent for all developers to achieve the 15% Apple Tax.
[/QUOTE]
These are some of the requirements:
* Have a premium video service
* Have an Apple TV app for said service
* Integrate with Apple's TV app on the Apple TV
* Integrate the app with Siri
Altice One and Canal+ are two others who have the same deal.
My point is simply that if Apple wants to continue saying that they treat all developers equally, then they need to define a criteria that is transparent for all developers to achieve the 15% Apple Tax.
[/QUOTE]
These are some of the requirements:
* Have a premium video service
* Have an Apple TV app for said service
* Integrate with Apple's TV app on the Apple TV
* Integrate the app with Siri
Altice One and Canal+ are two others who have the same deal.
So then Apple would be controlling the majority of the US smartphone market... how is this not a monopoly then?
People make the argument to switch to Android repeatedly, but if the developers aren't making apps for it because the majority of customers use Apple devices why would users switch?
Except this situation is less about the store itself and more about the forced use of Apple's payment system. Using your analogy it would be like the mall allows retailers to set up stores in the facility but then requires all patrons to use a mall-specific payment card that automatically adds an additional 30% to the transaction.