I'm trying to find what other commissions type transaction that takes 30% of the cut, especially for a big player.
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 Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple was huge without App developers. In one year, actually, one summer/holiday season, they captured 1% of the entire smartphone market. From zero to 1% of an absolutely ENORMOUS market in a matter of months. This was with no apps other than Apple’s own.
Take away App developers and I can still:
Make calls, send texts
Create calendars entries and send invites
Surf the web
Listen to music
Create videos
Edit photos
...all without the use of a single third party app. When I check Screentime on my phone, that’s what I’m doing the vast majority of the time. I like having access to native apps over web apps when available, but the App Store shutting down would affect Apps developers FAR more than Apple.
Not “become”, ”is and always have been”. It makes you wonder why the government allows Epic, Steam, Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo to set up these eshops in the first place, that’s just a lotta lockin’ in going on from day one and IT MUST STOP.
Apple does not dictate prices for apps.
That is also false.
Apple backs down on in-app purchasing rules, allows lower prices for out-of-app purchases | AppleInsider
Apple this week revised its rules for in-app subscriptions, and no longer requires that subscriptions purchased outside of an iOS application have the same price or less.
appleinsider.com
No it wouldn't, everyone would flood to Android. Iphone would instantly be abandoned.
Hah, using iphone without 3rd party apps. 95% chinese would leave Apple if they can't use wechat.
Apple would just do deals with important app makers and build that stuff in, like they used to do prior to the App Store.
A Bloomberg feature has charted the origins of that 30% fee all the way back to the Nintendo Entertainment System in the early 80s.
The NES became the first video game console to host third-party games, after Pac-Man's Namco Ltd. and Bomberman developer Hudson Soft Co approached Nintendo about distributing their games on its new platform.
The three companies agreed on
- a 10% licensing fee for appearing on Nintendo's proprietary platform
- Hudson Soft paid Nintendo an additional 20% to manufacture the cartridges for its games as well.
And of course now the tech companies with digital sales try to imitate that.
But back then a 10% licensing fee for appearing on their Nintendo's proprietary platform which is similar to todays app
stores. Apple and other whacked this to 30%. Stupid music companies are to blame with iTunes. The remaining 20% is paying someone else to manufacture and package the product. Apple is providing some packaging and distribution, but nobody has really said how much this really costs to the digital equivalent?
It would be interesting indeed, I'm glad they can't approach me directly. I'm not their customer, so why would they have access to my details? Ultimately they already give their app away free of charge, and their users can either buy directly in the app v-bucks (for that convenience and the impulse buyer they have to pay the provider) or their customers can go directly on their website. A simple business decision which is most economical, probably worth keeping both.
Nothing too different than other shops having their own presence on a high street, or be part of a mall, or have a concession in a department store. Each has a different business model, and each will have different costs associated with it. And each will have different advantages.
It is difficult to have like for like with other industries, the percentage isn't just commission there is a lot more to it and to call it a commission is grossly underestimating what is actually being provided. I totally appreciate that a company like EPIC may not want the additional services that Apple provides, but at the same time for users of the Apple platform having a consistent and good experience is a very important factor.
When you go shop in Harrods or Selfridges there are many concessions within the store, but again they have the same experience for all of its customers. It is worth it as it brings a certain clientele that is willing to spend.
To me a consistent and good experience is worth it. I'd not spend my money with a third party, I'd like to know I can get a no quibble refund, or only have to deal with one company. Also, like it that my credit/debit card footprint is small and is not stored with all sorts of 'shops'. But most of all, I like my iPhone to be an iPhone and not an Android clone. If I wanted that 'freedom' and inconsistent experience of having to think which store to use for what app I'd move to Android.
Epic is free to offer in-app purchases on their website. Pay for advertisements. They are big enough.
I think they need to show the evolution of digital stores to persuade the court about their case. Telling the court that everyone has this arrangement doesn't give the court any basis to validate whether it's fair or not.
Equally possible to create a store front on Apple devices. It would take some serious advertising, but if the world is apt to jump ship from the Apple Store, I say you have a billion dollar concept.
I wish you luck! You know that you have at least one customer: Epic. What would you charge to host Epic in your store? How would cost share the server rates, storage and advertising?
Those retailers might think that there’s better profit in getting a percentage of App Store sales than from selling the hardware itself. Walmart probably sells alot of units for Apple. If they start asking for a cut of app sales for any serial numbered unit that they sold how would Apple react. Walmart can make the argument that it paid overhead to carry those devices on its inventory and it wants a cut of the profits for the rest of that device’s life. Would it be better for Apple to give them a cut or lose a major seller like Walmart.
That’s semantics. Was the original iphoneOS’s support of google’s maps a “third party app” or a “first party app” that supported google’s back end? When iPhoneOS had built-in facebook support, was that a “third party app/?”
As you said, depending on the specific system you buy, you can only download digital games and guess what, the console costs less, and guess what else you have an OPTION of buying the same system at a different price that allows physical AND digitalDepending on the system you buy (and, you get a price break when you buy those specific systems), you can only acquire software digitally, through their stores. And, it’s all in how you define the market. The market in my example is “digital downloads through the Sony Playstation Store to Sony Playstation brand game consoles”. The market in your example is “digital downloads through the Apple App Store to Apple iOS/iPadOS devices”.
If you redefine your market without using Apple’s trademarked product names, then I’ll redefine my market without using Sony’s trademarked product names
The battle here is the use of micro transactions which already have multiple lawsuits against that. Example a kid bought $1000 worth of Fortnite loot boxes and Sony App Store said sorry no refunds. In Canada a class action litigation against extreme addiction with these loot boxes (micro transactions). In California another case where kids are being real addicted to Fortnite and kids should not be able to buy stuff without parental approval.
Lots of games that are free use micro transactions to pay for development/operations, they are more lucrative and predictable then buying the game. Apple I'm sure would want EPIC to stop this practice. Just sell the game and some in game packages instead.
It doesn’t have to be illegal to not be enforceable. Contracts are supposed to be “meetings of the minds” between two approximately evenly matched parties that hash out the individual terms. But most contracts today are what are called “contracts of adhesion” where one side writes the full contract out and the other party just signs it. Just about any contract that you have probably signed with a retailer. Since the contract is written by only one side not all the terms are enforceable and terms that are ambiguous are always interpreted against the side that drafted the contract. Whether a term is enforceable depends if a court thinks it is reasonable and not unduly unfair.
According to some on here Apple can sue Tesla when Tesla becomes to successful lol
Sure Walmart can do anything it wants...it’s their store. If they did what you describe apple would have to decide its’ response...whatever that may be.
But beyond that playing hypothetical scenarios doesn’t buy the conversation much.
I tend to agree with your answer. I don’t think Apple would force “our way or the highway” terms on a major seller like Walmart but then again I could be wrong.
Because companies will add ad/"benign" spyware which can make your program behave like crap which result sin poor review which results in poor sales. This is why Windows despite improvements behaves like crap when it is preinstalled on a PC - the margins are that thin.