If your IAP costs 5.99 and Apple takes 30% cut from that, you are left with 4.19 bucks as earnings... but you are willing to let your earnings go down to 99 cents per transaction and lose 3.20 dollars, as long as people go to your website and pay you directly? Aren't maths a requirement to be a developer?
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 Wins Stay in Epic Case, Won't Have to Implement App Store Changes Tomorrow
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If your IAP costs 5.99 and Apple takes 30% cut from that, you are left with 4.19 bucks as earnings... but you are willing to let your earnings go down to 99 cents per transaction and lose 3.20 dollars, as long as people go to your website and pay you directly? Aren't maths a requirement to be a developer?
Because it isn't allowed, that's the entire point of the anti-steering provision that YGR's ruling was going to strike out.
More like Epic fiasco. It is like you are Sanchez and watch as Epic attacks another windmill and the windmill is winning.
Plenty of subscription services up their cost by 30% if you go through the app. This would be direct benefit to the customers.
Before it was banned, Fortnite reached $1.1 billion in lifetime mobile revenue. So, it is a significant amount, it has been over a year now.
Doubtful will help the consumer at all. Why cut the price where the developer can pocket the money Apple use to get?
Yeah so? It’s their OS. They’re not forcing Epic Games to put their games on iOS. Just because Windows and Linux allow it doesn’t mean they’re right and Apple is wrong.
Besides, it’s for Security reasons. If Apple let another company create an App Store on iOS how the hell are they meant to moderate the software that is sold on it? Could be filled with all kinds of malicious junk.
Oh come on.... that is a poor straw man. A company at least has a reason to do 30% now, you think they would just charge more on iOS just because? Not a reasonable guess by any means.
Laughable. As everyone who's been paying attention already read a dozen times by now, Judge Rogers' original ruling was that ruling Apple had *not* been shown to be a monopolist. The injunction Apple was seeking had nothing to do with that. Rather, it had to do with a separate ruling that "Apple is engaging in anticompetitive conduct under California's competition laws." Which it may or may not have been. Apple was appealing her ruling, but she wanted it implemented immediately ragardless, prior to any higher court had a chance to strike it down.
Don‘t give up on this one Apple. Alternative payment methods and side loading apps is the end of quality and security of iPhone experience.
That is a huge assumption. Not many (any?) developers reduced prices to end users when apple reduced the fees (subscription or small business). There is no guarantee, or really any reason to believe, that developers would be magnanimous and reduce prices. Half the comments here are talking about wanting more money to get to the developer than to the storefront. So, the common logic is that users do not expect to see any reduction in costs.
And, I don't follow the second bullet regard managing IAP for services not accepting IAP. If Apple is forced to allow links to outside payment how does that translate to some new ability to manage those outside purchases? For one, Apple may simply be forced to allow a link to a web site and then the app has users make an account to registered said purchases. No different than managing your Netflix account today - direct on Netflix.com. Well, unless you are one of the three or so remaining Netflix users who managed to subscribe in-app all those years ago.
No, consumers would not have benefitted from this. Most developers would likely not have benefitted from this. The powerhouse shops (aka Epic) would have.
Edit : fixed typo.
Last edited:
Every attempt at passing a equal access law has either failed spectrally (North Dakota), disappeared from the voting docket (Arizona) or is in committee where 90% of bills "die". If the individual states can't do it I don't think anything will actually work its way through the Congress.
Oh absolutely. This thing was (is) going to drag on for years before we ever get a final verdict
This was pretty much inevitable. Remember she did not say they could not have their cut - she said they could not limit the payment methods. But she kind of placed the onus on Apple to make it happen. It will never work that way. She should have stated that Apple must accept reasonable developer requests for alternative payment systems as long as Apple is compensated just the same as they would be otherwise - or reasonably so based on contractual agreements. That puts the burden back where it should be - the developer that wants to make the change. I mean we already know that sort of thing happens now with subscription-based content providers. She just needed to expand on that into other areas.
Last edited:
How is it a monopoly when it's their platform that they built, consumers have a choice they can go to Android and Apple is not impeding the development of another mobile OS with its own App store? Apple has every right to have a closed ecosystem. Consumers have the choice and right not to choose Apple products?
Developers could drop their prices by 30% (or 15% depending on size) and lose no revenue while at the same time attracting new customers.
Keyword there being “could”. Sure they could, but they won’t. We all know how greedy Epic Games is.
I don't see how this helps the developer as there are two parts to the processing fee - the fixed amount (0.20-0.30) and the percentage of sale amount. Assuming the developer has average credit resulting in 3% and IIUC how the flat per transaction fee works they would be charged 0.23 to 0.33 before Apple get their cut. That works out to be 33% to 43%. Brilliant
I think Tim Sweeney will provide an 'Epic CEO' shave, a most wonderful, CLOSE, shave
(Sweeney Todd style).
Apple must have had the entire thing ready to go, since it was to be implemented by tomorrow. Also, even if Apple prevails in the end, I think Apple is busy making changes to its store to head off more of these kinds of lawsuits. They likely recognize that it would be better to give a little now on these issues (open some release valves), than to watch the whole dam break in the end (open the flood gates). They will want to use some of their flexibility now to work against more lawsuits and legislation like this in the end.
Apple: "Whew. Those checks got cashed just in time."
It's like the kid who didn't do the homework only to have a snow day the day the project was due.
It's like the kid who didn't do the homework only to have a snow day the day the project was due.