Apple rejected, then apparently accepted. The rejection was supposedly an error.
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 Threatens to Terminate Epic Games' Developer Accounts on August 28
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple rejected, then apparently accepted. The rejection was supposedly an error.
The issue was fixed before Apple decided to force in app payment upon WP. It might be lack of Apple internal communication. Yet, this happened before, companies within the rules yet letters being sent requiring this feature to be enabled.
Yes. There are some people here that take this as an Apple only thing.
But it is not. Let's admit that Apple is allowed to proceed with this predatory practice after digital businesses value and revenue, because at 15%-30% considering the underlying services ... is what it is. What's to stop than MS or doing this? All in the sudden the idea of a free Digital Market is ... What's next? Then we have these digital moguls making agreements with each other to allow for concessions between them form their services, like Apple is doing with Amazon. Of course rules are the same for everyone, you just need to become one of them ...
It's seams to me people are taking this as a Tribal matter when it is not. If small businesses think this has nothing to do with them ... think twice. This practice dips deeply into the value they deliver to their customer for a simple matter of hosting, installing and updating an app ... give me 30% or go somewhere else ... but where if my customers bought you the devices? You cannot even put a link on Your App for opening a Web Page for that purpose ... even if you side by side put Apple Pay/Payment.
One cannot say this is ok for Apple, but not Ok for Google, Microsoft or Amazon. If digital business services, big or small don't want this you better be prepared to actually have a look at this properly the precedence this opens is huge!!!!. At the moment its kind of in a limbo, but once a decision is made ... its made for everyone. This should be regulated no? Apple uses all sorts of fallacies, comparing with XBOX One ... this are special purpose devices with a very defined scope ... now smartphones, PCs, Tablet ... this are core devices that everyone needs to use fo everything in the modern age, from ordering Pizza to Education (yes, Apple is taxing digital only education through iOS).
People are dazzled about the App Store revenue, but if you look at the Policy and the market share of iOS its very much a consequence. Oh Google Play does less ... well in Android there are multiple App Stores. If you buy a Samsung, number #1 smart phone sales, I think at least you have two App Store and your service (Galaxy Apps and Google Play), not to mention side loading. If you want to look at the effects of this Policy in iOS compare with macOS adjusting the value with their respective market share.
Anyway soon, you will be Apple will probably unify iOS and macOS stores and use the same tactic for macOS, just wait for macOS on ARM. Of course developers will be able to side load whatever ... provided you have a developer account ... much like the iOS. If Apple can do that for iOS for sure macOS ... Windows and Google will follow. Its an amazing Cornucopia of revenue!
As a customer and professional using Apple devices, honestly I feel that instead they should fix the stupid bird processes that is killing my MacBook Pro 16", not to mention the power draw when connected with external monitors. This is not good. Meanwhile I'm waiting for my iMac 27" 2020 almost maxed. I'm spending thousands on their tech to get the best tech, not for this revenue dipping practices.
Last edited:
Basically that section allowes Apple to do whatever regarding enforcing in-app payments. Only reader apps are exempt if classified as such. But what are reader apps? Reader apps by example?
AirBnB created ClassPass, that gives users access to tutorials and classes. Apple required in-app payments. No one knows precisely what a reader App is.
Their Businesses Went Virtual. Then Apple Wanted a Cut. (Published 2020)
After Airbnb and ClassPass began selling virtual classes because of the pandemic, Apple tried to collect its commission on the sales.
You guys need to put this in your heads. The end game of Apple is to collect the 30% revenue. Rules are there so that businesses have some kind of guidelines, speeds the process ... but still it does not mean that the App will pass. So arguing that Apple is right because X or Y violated some rule Z or W and the dev is in the wrong is moot. It might depend on unwritten factors also!!!! Its a guideline NOT A BOOK OF RULES, at least that is what the practice seams to indicate.
You can see this happening in the news because this guys are BIG, BIG, BIG. But you if you are a shrimp, no way you make the news. Follow and shut up.
Now you may argue that Apple can do this because of whatever. But if they can so can anyone else, because they could not before (check MS anti-trust case). So if anyone else can do this, MS, Google, Amazon ... digital businesses take care!
Digital businesses will be in a position of constantly betting against themselves just for the ability to install their app on their customers devices!!!!!
Last edited:
To start with, sure Apple should fix whatever issues you are having on your mac. Totally agree and that has nothing to do with this debate.
>well in Android there are multiple App Stores
Okay, we've established there is not a monopoly in app stores.
>Let's admit that Apple is allowed to proceed with this predatory practice
Let's admit if one wants to enter into a voluntary agreement with Apple, they have taken app store fees into account. Therefore there is no predatory practice as the above point gives a dev multiple development options.
> Apple uses all sorts of fallacies, comparing with XBOX One ...
Except they pay billions of dollars in legal fees and for that money, one would hope they are getting sound legal advice and not engaging in fallacious arguments, but setting up a legal case.
> You cannot even put a link on Your App for opening a Web Page for that purpose ... even if you side by side put Apple Pay/Payment.
Rules are rules right? First off, I believe unless you are a dev one has no skin the game, I'm an ex-dev. But you voluntarily signed up to be a part of this program, don't like the rules...go somewhere else.
>This should be regulated no?
What should be regulated? Why not regulate the price of Ferrari's or Rolex's? A can or corn in the supermarket? It seems anybody can say everything should be regulated, when there is no harm to the consumer.
Apple is protecting their interests. I don't blame them one bit based on what is going on now. People want to use apple's infrastructure for free, make money from apple without paying them a dime and side-step their processes. Can't blame Apple one bit.Basically that section allowes Apple to do whatever regarding enforcing in-app payments. Only reader apps are exempt if classified as such. But what are reader apps? Reader apps by example?
AirBnB created ClassPass, that gives users access to tutorials and classes. Apple required in-app payments. No one knows precisely what a reader App is.
Their Businesses Went Virtual. Then Apple Wanted a Cut. (Published 2020)
After Airbnb and ClassPass began selling virtual classes because of the pandemic, Apple tried to collect its commission on the sales.www.nytimes.com
You guys need to put this in your heads. The end game of Apple is to collect the 30% revenue. Rules are there so that businesses have some kind of guidelines, speeds the process ... but still it does not mean that the App will pass. So arguing that Apple is right because X or Y violated some rule Z or W and the dev is in the wrong is moot. It might depend on unwritten factors also!!!! Its a guideline NOT A BOOK OF RULES, at least that is what the practice seams to indicate.
You can see this happening in the news because this guys are BIG, BIG, BIG. But you if you are a shrimp, no way you make the news. Follow and shut up.
Now you may argue that Apple can do this because of whatever. But if they can so can anyone else, because they could not before (check MS anti-trust case). So if anyone else can do this, MS, Google, Amazon ... digital businesses take care!
Digital businesses will be in a position of constantly betting against themselves just for the ability to install their app on their customers devices!!!!!
True. Don't blame them either.
Don't blame this ones either. They are protecting their interests as much as Apple.
There must be some kind of middle ground. At the moment there is none.
PS: If you want to counter argue with fallacies with me it's kind of a dumb move. I'm sure Apple is smarter than that.
What is the problem that is trying to be solved:
- MR posters who are not devs object to the fee?
- MR posters and some others want alternative app stores?
- MR posters and some devs are making noise because they object to the IAP or the IAP of 30%?
- MR posters and some devs are making noise because they think the app store rules are a free form format?
- MR posters and some devs believe apple should altruisticly open up their infrastructure for the taking, so the devs have free reign?
I included MR posters, but they are really MR posters with no skin in the game.
Indeed. And it's not a legal issue. It's a business consideration akin to most, if not every, other instances. Will my idea/product/service generate enough revenue to overcome the known, anticipated expenses? Do I think these expenses are fair? How can I best offset or reduce my expenses? Are there better options -- for example, could/should I publish a Web app instead?
Unwritten rules are okay but they're only effective if common knowledge, e.g. etiquettes. After all of the discussed examples, it seems Apple's contract writers should revise those guidelines a bit for extra/updated clarity.
Of course, they can. They can also implement a 50/50 revenue share, and maybe some developers/publishers will conclude it's acceptable. Although, most might say, "Apple is only taking 30-percent, so, of course, I'll use the App Store." It's the same concept/reason as to why I haven't purchased a Go Pro. Is it a premium "action cam" product? Probably, but not enough greater to justify the price difference for me, though clearly plenty of people think otherwise.
I don't expect a justice system to intervene unless there is something collaboratively devious, such as price-fixing, or truly monopolies, such as power companies.
No, they don't have to rule on hypotheticals. A judge could force Apple to say either "if Epic breaches the contract in this way then they can keep their developer license" or to say "if Epic breaches the contract in this way then Apple will remove their developer license". That's what a declaratory judgement means. You can force another company to put the cards on the table. Apple wouldn't be allowed to say "if you want to know what we'll do, you have to breach the contract".
Let's get an accountant in. There's one accountant responsible for Apple Music. The accountant will tell you on the negative side that Apple Music cost so much to develop, that it costs so much to run, so much for advertising, that it costs so much to pay for the music. On the positive side, there is $7.00 per month coming in from subscribers in the first year of subscription, and $8.50 per month coming in from older subscriptions.
And there is another accountant responsible for the App Store. That accountant will tell you on the negative side how much App Store cost to develop and to run, and on the other side how much money comes in, including $3.00 from Spotify and from Apple Music, going down to $1.50 after a year.
Congress is not a court. Apple and others were in front of congress to explain things to them. And one of the congressmen apparently was just there to get tech support from either Google or Facebook :-(
If you purchase on a PC direct with Epic then according to the AppStore rules, Epic pays nothing to Apple. Even if the purchase is used exclusively on an iPhone or iPad. That's why it's called "in-app purchases".
Do you have any skin in this game, or are you debating for debating's sake? Seems like you're suggesting an apple shareholder has a biased opinion...same as for MR posters who were never devs.
Last edited:
My arguments are mostly common sense. What do you mean Game?
Do you mean if I work in the IT industry for 40 years and have seen how it has evolved across 4 decades? Yes. Or do you mean if I’m an Entrepeneur which is also yes? Do you mean if I’m an Apple shareholder of Apple or any of the mentioned companies? Than no.
But most of all I got into tech because of the amazing possibilities for Men. I believe in the power of innovation, people doing Amazing. Apple in this aspect has plenty of history. Yet, I’m afraid that if their approach to the App economy was 3 decades ago by some other, there would be no Internet, no Apple.
That is fundamentally my stake in the game.
Sometimes common sense and the rulings of/in the US judicial system do not align. By "game", refers to being a developer and having gone through the rigmarole of signing-up, developing the app, using the app store etc.
Check, check and check.
I disagree, the iphone fundamentally changed the landscape of smartphones. Plenty of innovation to be had. Part of the reason the iphone was successful was the app store concept, which others point out, apple "copied". That Epic wants to break out after a number of years of reaping the benefits is ironic. If anything the app store is enabling innovation, not stifling it.
I'm all for innovation, the way Epic went about this does their customers a disservice.
Fully agree. Amazing work. I think market has responded in accordance. Huge device sales volumes, huge profits ... from small to a trillion no? My choice has a customer and business has always been with Apple because I see all the stuff you mentioned. But I cannot stay with this one.
If you step a bit back In the same line we have the digital business landscape. There was, is and will be. Look at how the digital landscape is totally different from what it was. Now we are moving 5G, ISP tech ... Smart TVs everywhere, Huber, Amazon, the Music business landscape changed, remote everything ... many so much value also this collective brought to customer and should I say Apple it self. Without them iOS, Android, Windows, macOS would be just a bricks with some Apps from Apple.
Meaning that Apple is has much a part of it as all others. This is the way the world works. It does not work if everyone in the ”critical path“ demands 30% of others revenues. It would simply not work. Imagine cloud services providers ... give me 30% of your revenue ... with Apple that would 60% ... now what about ISP’s ... 90% ... what about platform you might use ... 120% ... Business this way would be crazy.
You are a developer correct? You know has much as I do that individually, App/File Hosting, Digital Payment & Billing ... does not cost anywhere near 30% of a companies revenue as far as market prices go for these kind of services. Yes, the App Store does a bit more, but what if some devs simply don’t need it? And the ones that do, why not pay it at marketing prices, convertion rates and leads? Currently if people come to the company site and the site has a link to the app in the App Store, a link from an article of google search ... pling $$$ 30% commission. Say through direct sale, meeting ... Heck the App Store didn’t even generated the lead man. Crazy.
Well. Without thinking you are giving me some reason. Epic could either pay 30% commission or you are providing a disservice to your customers. So what are the actual options? Yes, they could have stayed and pay the 30% of their revenue and go judicial. tThey could have pulled and go judicial, I guess this would be disservice. They decided to stand this way. If you look at the options, none of them look that good Epic.
The fundamental matter is that Epic has its customers that “happen” to use iOS. It’s not so much that customer come to Epic due to the amazing App Store business accumen in selling Epic’s goods.
As a matter of disservice, what do you think about Apple stand on xCloud and Stadia? How much of that its a service to Apple customers? I mean, for sure some Apple customers are also XBOX customers right?
Hey. I think we just see things differently on the matter of the App Store policies. I’m not even against the concept of a single App Store, but I do think that they are dipping on someone else’s value with the 30%/15% commission along with enforcement of in-app payments unless the app is free.
right and how much of the reporting and squeaking that epic is doing is about google?
The fundamentals of the digital business hasn't changed much since Compuserve. What has changed is the tech surrounding it. Better, faster, more expansive, etc. And sure some of the better, faster, more expansive has enabled new capabilities and innovation within that space. But at the end, it still boils down a company selling goods, through some middleware layer to the ultimate consumer.
30% is Apple's business model. Whether that is successfully challenged in court we have yet to find out. But Apple has made a very lucrative business out of the App store. And the bottom line is everybody gets their fair share...it's a business decision if 30% is worth it.
Without getting into what Apple did or didn't do, this part isn't about Apple. Even the judge agreed what Epic did was underhanded (in not so many words). Whether Apple will prevail with Epic International remains to be seen.
There are plenty of blow hard lawyers that spew garbage. I was never interested in hearing from them here. My point was hearing Apple enumerate the sectional violations of the developer agreement.
Funny. The consensus of conventional wisdom concludes free legal advice, even from actual lawyers, is worth exactly what you pay for it: ZERO.
When "an actual lawyer" wastes time here prattling on about their worthless opinion, they only continue to deride their own value.
You continue keyboard spray to hide the fact that you originally quoted sections of the App Guidelines document while referring to it as the developer agreement - which was blatantly incorrect.
Again, I was asking a specific question about why APPLE did not enumerate the specific sections of the DEVELOPER AGREEMENT that Epic violated. Such enumeration is a very common component of a legal demand letter.
I have ZERO interest in anyones else's opinion of which items they believed Epic violated, including yours.