They are arguing a view that nobody expects them to win.
It's an attempt to move the needle and incite compromise.
Btw: yes, I do think Epic should collect "all the profit themselves" from their own sales.
They should also have to pay to access iOS customers.
The fee for that should not be 30% of all revenue.
That's... Insane.
These are digital products.
Apple's costs do not scale the same way they would in B&M operations
As an aside...
Do you think Apple should be entitled to 30% of all Amazon.com sales that are through the iOS App?
If not, how would you structure that for the Amazon.com iOS App and the transactions that happen within it?
I’ve worked on both sides, selling commodity products to mass market retail and working for mass market retail, as some context.
In regards to Epic paying Apple 30% of all sales, if I were Epic, I would have been pushing Apple for a graduated percentage drop, especially on IAP’s where they‘ve made most of their money. But just as you say that these are digital products, assuming you mean that they shouldn’t have the same markup associated with them - taking Apple’s or Google’s side I would say that Epic’s cost on any of the IAP’s they offer is likely negligible, at best, so paying a 30% cut to Apple and Google, and Sony and Microsoft is a normal cost of doing business - which it has been and made Epic into the large successful business it is (or was).
Where I’m sure Epic would like this to go, is to be on Apple’s App Store, offering free apps to download, then they collect the full amount of IAP’s, paying nothing to Apple - and both Apple and Google know this is the path forward that Epic is going for. So in this scenario, Apple and Google develop the customer base, allow Epic to offer free apps on their systems, and get nothing from Epic‘s sale of IAP’s. If that became a court ordered business model, why would Apple, Google, Microsoft or Sony want to deal with any game developers, if they all wanted to skip out of paying for access to these systems and customer‘s?
I didn’t say that Apple should be entitled to a 30% cut of Amazon’s sales. Apple smartly decided long ago to allow Amazon’s app to operate without paying the cut. That was a deal they worked out together, because it benefited Apple and their customers, as much as it did Amazon. Maybe Amazon is paying Apple something for access onto the App Store, but whatever it might be, I’m sure it’s not a percentage of sales.
Epic didn’t get the same deal, which is why they’re in court (with Google as well). Businesses like Apple and Google with app stores do have the right to offer whatever apps they want - at least they do in a free market economy, just as Walmart, Target, CVS, etc. also have the right to decide what products or services they buy from which manufacturers to offer in their stores or on their websites. If the courts try to mandate how these stores operate, do they then get to force Apple and Google to HAVE to offer these other app stores from developers they don’t want to work with? What we would be moving towards would be government control of private businesses decision making. I’m all for that when it benefits me personally - I’d like to sell my products at Target and Walgreens, so then I just get that right, at some lower percentage markup, because they (Target and Walgreens) don’t deserve to set their own rates.
This is what you’re arguing for, correct?
