Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account

[D4vidrim]

I'd support a law forcing Apple to allow sideloading.

Would you also support Apple raising the subscription fee for xCode from 99 $/year to, let's say, 1 million?
Would it be better for developers? Maybe for Epic, maybe not so much for small developers.
So, your idea would just hurt small developers over big big developers... is that what you want?

 

[gnipgnop]

Xcloud isn't installing anything on the computer or phone though. Both xcloud and netflix have an app you download and install to view the content but after that nothing else is installed.

The installation part doesn't actually matter. What is Netflix providing access to? Files. What is xCloud providing access to? Applications. Reader apps can only provide access to files, so xCloud doesn't fit the definition. Part of what you need to consider here is that Apple has said the App Store rules are meant to create a level playing field for developers. Are there ports of PC and console games in the App Store? Yes, and they were required to go through app review. Those apps won't be on a level playing field with xCloud if Apple allows MS to skip the app review requirement because they never bothered to take the time/expense to port the titles to iOS/iPadOS.

 

[D4vidrim]

You do realize the going rate for processing (securely) a payment is between 50 cents for debit and 3% for a credit card? Apple isn't doing any magic.

That's all Apple is doing. But if you feel safer by staring into your phone (FaceID) when making a purchase so Apple can "safely" process your purchase, good on you. Outside the Apple world, almost all electronic transactions are safe. I'm not worried. Pretty sure Epic wants their 27% in excess fees back.

Don't you think Apple has to pay something when they send you an update to the Fortnite app? Or do you think that is completely free for Apple to do? This is not about the payment system itself (as Epic made you think), it is about the way Apple gets money from developers. It's about the way developers get private date from customers. It's about the way the App store has been built over time, letting small developer with low barriers to the entry, thanks to some more money asked to big fishes like Epic.

 

[icolove]

Stores always take a cut. You sell Fortnite at Walmart, they take a cut. You sell in-app purchases in the App Store, then Apple is totally reasonable to want a cut. If you think you can thrive without the marketplace/middle-man, then by all means sell direct to consumers...but don’t try to have your cake and eat it too, using someone else’s marketplace but bypassing them in sales.

That's a really poor analogy. The game developer sets a price in which they will sell to the retail store, the retail store decides to price it at their chosen margin (and it definitely isn't 30%). The retailer also doesn't get any revenue from in-game purchases or DLC's. It costs a retailer more money to have shelf space for the product across hundreds or even thousands of stores than it costs apple to process a payment, which is literally all they are doing, and all they want to do. Epic's servers are more than capable of handling updates and payments as well. Merchant accounts don't charge over 5%, how can Apple justify 30% of an in-game purchase? There is no cake to be eaten here...

 

[Alan Wynn]

While Sony gets a cut, the games can be purchased at other locations.

Nope. Sony gets a cut of every game no matter where it is purchased. Physical discs sold at retail net the game studio even less, as they have to pay Sony and the retailer. This is true for Microsoft and Nintendo as well.

Nintendo goes further and limits the number of games a studio can release each year.

Now, if Sony locks down the platform completely and only allows the purchase of games through their store, then the situation would be the same. Especially if Microsoft did the same with Xbox. If consumers had no choice where to buy their games, the argument would hold.

You mean the current situation on consoles? Although it is even worse there, as both Microsoft and Sony also pay for exclusivity (either windowed - exclusive for some period, or total - complete platform exclusive). However, consumers still have a have a choice, they can buy the game for Android, iOS, Microsoft, Nintendo, PC (direct or through the Epic, EA, Microsoft or Steam stores) or Sony.

All of these companies would love to do what Apple and Google are doing because it increases revenue by killing competition from rival stores.

Sorry, Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft did this first, they did not follow Apple or Google.

By not stopping Apple and Google we are encouraging more platforms to aggressively force developers to sell their products only through those platforms, which increases the revenue of the platform owner at the expense of developers and consumer choice.

On Android it is possible to install other stores. Very early, Amazon tried to create one and it turns out that consumers were not interested for the most part. They prefer the convenience of a single store. Unfortunately for developers, allowing side loading has created a huge problem with piracy on Android. For games, there are 9 major platforms (two primarily mobile, three consoles and four PC based) and yet the prices are the same platform by platform. Developers that release on Epic’s windows store may at the moment pay less than they do on Steam, but they charge the user the same price. Same goes for those publishers that sell direct online as well.

None of this competition affects the price consumers pay, it just affects how much developers make. Given that every one of these stores will have it own set of APIs, and require the developer to support them, you should also understand that you are not even guaranteed to have every application on every store for every platform. Amazon spent heavily to get companies to be exclusive to the Amazon Android Market Place. The result was market fragmentation and lower sales for the developers. At the mobile game company where I consulted, we only released Amazon versions where we were paid to do so by Amazon, as it cost so much more to support two Android versions than we would ever make by trying to build a competitive market place between the stores.

 

[I7guy]

After press was involved - you should read the story again and follow the arguments of @DHH closely. Nearly every developer run into problems with the various logical gaps and inconsistencies in the App Store’s policies and their enforcement. There are too many written and unwritten rules one may get in conflict with.

Nearly every developer seems like a broad stroke to paint, hopefully you can show this is true.

f.lux was rejected because of „to weird“ and now is a feature of iOS. Parental control apps have been removed, and the list of Apple acting in an anti competitive kind of way is endless. Developers all over the world are mad at Apple because of their weird policies and anti competitive behavior.

f.lux was using undocumented apis. And yes, at this time, windows and ios (and probably mac) support the notion of changing the screen temperature based on the time. The the idea is a good one (and has been available on some monitors as color adjustments prior to f.lux), but the implementation in ios wasn't supported. f.lux knew exactly what they were doing and what rules they were skirting and decided to do it anyway.

 

[cmaier]

Why would they think such a thing? As has been pointed out before that 30% is pretty standard in the console market and if you go with Steam or Google play. (which as I mentioned beforeare both currently available on iOS)

Epic's whole case hinges on Apple being a Monolpy. Mono as in one. Last time I checked Apple app store+Steam+Google is more than freaking one! Similarly Epic is also suing Google for being a monopoly which make no darn sense for the same reason - you can't have two Monopolies in the same field because there is more than one company in that field.

Heck, Apple doesn't even have a dominance in the mobile market with only ~24%

Epic's case amounts to Ford suing Lamborghini because it doesn't sale Ford vehicles. It is on that level of stupid and the efforts to defend it are ridiculous.

Agreed. Epic is pretending that apple can have a monopoly over its own marketplace. But, as apple cited in their brief:

 

[cmaier]

But Apple wants it's cake AND eat it.

Apple made the cake. Apple owns the cake. If Apple wants to eat the cake, that’s not our business.

 

[cmaier]

Consumer protection regulations that protect market diversity are *good* which you benefit from on a daily basis.

Prove that. Certainly there are consequences of such regulations - less interoperability, the hazard of overchoice, consumer confusion, race-to-the-bottom in support, etc.

So prove that the regulations you refer to are a net benefit to me.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

you can also buy it physically from any place that sells physical discs.

But there’s only ONE way to buy it digitally... hmmm, so that would mean Sony has a monopoly on “digital downloads through the Sony Playstation Store to Sony Playstation brand game consoles”! Time for the government ban-hammer!

 

[cmaier]

I'd support a law forcing Apple to allow sideloading.

I’d support a law forcing you to let people come in off the street and live in your spare bedroom.

It’s the same thing.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Yes, something happened. Size.

Ah, excellent. So, what’s the precise size that causes the problem? I’m pretty sure if companies were made aware that, at a specific specified size, their size becomes problematic, they would take steps to ensure that they never got any bigger. Sure, customers are freely purchasing their products as a choice, no one is forcing them, BUT I’m sure companies all over the world would rather restrict customers buying their products rather than give up control of their ability to freely and legally negotiate with other companies.

The email after you preorder could go something like...
”Due to the fact that a dangerously large number of customers in the US want to purchase our products we regret to inform you that the quota for iPhones in the US has been reached and we will be unable to fulfill your order. We regret the inconvenience, but, in the end, this is for your own good so that you have a fair choice to purchase other products. Be sure to sign up early during the iPhone purchasing period next year and you could be one of the ones provided the pleasure of actually purchasing one!”

So, now, all we need is how to define what size is the problematic size. What is it?

 

[MalkieSans]

Stores always take a cut. You sell Fortnite at Walmart, they take a cut. You sell in-app purchases in the App Store, then Apple is totally reasonable to want a cut. If you think you can thrive without the marketplace/middle-man, then by all means sell direct to consumers...but don’t try to have your cake and eat it too, using someone else’s marketplace but bypassing them in sales.

How can they sell "direct to consumers" on iOS? Does Wal-Mart take a 30% cut? Why doesn't Apple let apps to sign up, or even advertise that you can sign up for third party services through the apps?

 

[Picard J.L.]

How can they sell "direct to consumers" on iOS? Does Wal-Mart take a 30% cut? Why doesn't Apple let apps to sign up, or even advertise that you can sign up for third part services through the apps?

You can't sell direct to iOS users, because Apple has certain requirements that make their platform what it is. It is Apple's selling point.

 

[Johnny London]

And yet there are tens of thousands of developers in the App Store. Do they all do it to lose money?

I hope they don’t. Are you one of them? Issues don’t necessarily arise right away. The app store seemed great for everyone in the beginning. The exposure to potential clients was enormous. People are waking up to the problem that a platform seeks absolute control over the producer to client interaction.

 

[PlainBelliedSneetch]

Who are we to believe, you or this person on Quora who states it averages out at 24%?
https://www.quora.com/On-average-how-much-does-Walmart-mark-up-its-products?share=1

In addition, everyone is basing this markup on the cost of the item, ignoring information the fact that Walmart are really good at forcing suppliers to reduce their price to Walmart.

No one should take invoice cost as a isolated value because even that is made up of even more breakdowns.

I would personally believe their financials:

WMT | Walmart Inc. Annual Income Statement | MarketWatch

Walmart Inc. Annual stock financials by MarketWatch. View the latest WMT financial statements, income statements and financial ratios.

www.marketwatch.com

if you divide gross income by revenue, you get 24%.

 

[SpringKid]

I hope they don’t. Are you one of them? Issues don’t necessarily arise right away. The app store seemed great for everyone in the beginning. The exposure to potential clients was enormous. People are waking up to the problem that a platform seeks absolute control over the producer to client interaction.

That must be the reason for all developers abandoning iOS for sideloading on Android instead then, right?

 

[TiggrToo]

I would personally believe their financials:

WMT | Walmart Inc. Annual Income Statement | MarketWatch

Walmart Inc. Annual stock financials by MarketWatch. View the latest WMT financial statements, income statements and financial ratios.

www.marketwatch.com

if you divide gross income by revenue, you get 24%.

I’m no accountant, but I don’t believe that’s accurate.

One of the key values I have to pull out of SAP is COGS - that’s then used to calculate margin based upon various factors including discounts, retail etc.

 

[Phone Junky]

The app store seemed great for everyone in the beginning. The exposure to potential clients was enormous.

The same rules applied back then.

People are waking up to the problem that a platform seeks absolute control over the producer to client interaction.

The rules haven't changed.

 

[laz232]

Stores always take a cut. You sell Fortnite at Walmart, they take a cut. You sell in-app purchases in the App Store, then Apple is totally reasonable to want a cut. If you think you can thrive without the marketplace/middle-man, then by all means sell direct to consumers...but don’t try to have your cake and eat it too, using someone else’s marketplace but bypassing them in sales.

"If you think you can thrive without the marketplace/middle-man, then by all means sell direct to consumers"

That is the point of the court case by Epic: consumers cannot purchase apps outside of the app store.

Most physical stores (Walmart is somewhat of a predatory exception - which is why they are much maligned) do not dictate the pricing. Rather the supplier (Epic in this case), gives a wholesale price to the store and the store decides what profit level to set, in competition with other stores (Best Buy / Radioshack etc) - In this case the marketplace is skewed: access to the consumer is only via the Apple Store.

By way of comparison: consider buying a Ford, but you can only refuel at Ford gas stations which have a 30% premium on the cost of gas.

Now, Apple Store is a valuable conduit - but 30% is a lot of the top - especially as they have cut deals with other (large) companies, such as Amazon.

I don't care either way - as I don't play any games - just pointing out the important facts in this case.

 

[TiggrToo]

People are waking up to the problem that a platform seeks absolute control over the producer to client interaction

What people? You got citations for this claim?

 

[cmaier]

People are waking up to the problem that a platform seeks absolute control over the producer to client interaction.

This isn’t a problem. It’s a feature. And the correct way to phrase it is “people are thrilled that the platform prevents scummy producers from harassing them, ripping them off, using dark patterns to trick them, making them call a phone number in asia to try and cancel/correct bills, selling their personal information, tracking them, etc.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

"If you think you can thrive without the marketplace/middle-man, then by all means sell direct to consumers"

That is the point of the court case by Epic: consumers cannot purchase apps outside of the app store.

Most physical stores (Walmart is somewhat of a predatory exception - which is why they are much maligned) do not dictate the pricing. Rather the supplier (Epic in this case), gives a wholesale price to the store and the store decides what profit level to set, in competition with other stores (Best Buy / Radioshack etc) - In this case the marketplace is skewed: access to the consumer is only via the Apple Store.

By way of comparison: consider buying a Ford, but you can only refuel at Ford gas stations which have a 30% premium on the cost of gas.

Now, Apple Store is a valuable conduit - but 30% is a lot of the top - especially as they have cut deals with other (large) companies, such as Amazon.

I don't care either way - as I don't play any games - just pointing out the important facts in this case.

The game is free, it doesn’t cost any money. This is about in game purchases. One could have just buy them direct from EPIC if you wanted to avoid an IAP.

 

[D4vidrim]

For me 30% is way too much. 2-5% for processing and maintenance from Apple side is enough.

Based on what? Do you think your stakeholders would be pleased with your reasoning if you were Tim Cook?
Do you think (or know) 2-5% is enough on transaction made through IAPs of Facebook? Do you think (or know) that this fee would cover for all the downloads, patches Facebook publishes every week or so?
Do you think (or know) it would cover for all the free apps (ads supported=0$ to Apple) that are in the store?

Because that is what this is all about. If you change the IAP rate, something else would have to raise. What? And would it be better in which way?

 

[5232152]

Would you also support Apple raising the subscription fee for xCode from 99 $/year to, let's say, 1 million?
Would it be better for developers? Maybe for Epic, maybe not so much for small developers.
So, your idea would just hurt small developers over big big developers... is that what you want?

How you go to that conclusion is laughable and plain wrong.