They already lose money from the Epic Games Store, whats a few hundred million more over legal fees.
Never going to happen. Sony, Apple, etc are always going to get revenue off of F2P games on their platform. 3rd party billing skirts the process.
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.
Epic CEO Tim Sweeney Admits App Store's 30% Cut Is Similar to Consoles, Would Have Accepted Special Deal With Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They already lose money from the Epic Games Store, whats a few hundred million more over legal fees.
Never going to happen. Sony, Apple, etc are always going to get revenue off of F2P games on their platform. 3rd party billing skirts the process.
When I moved from Iowa to Alabama I complained about all the "y'all this" and "y'all thats".
"Don't they know it's 'you guys'?", I said. My parents got a kick out of that. I was three.
Sure, which is why I think the stores should be able to charge a fee to unlock it. In addition to the $99 fee, to unlock third-party payments, add an IAP into Xcode or ASC for say $999, or whatever amount is needed to offset. Better that then being forced to allow additional app/game stores.
I think one elephant in the room here that isn't getting addressed is that the App Store is not a simple web service of Apple-approved apps - it's also the operating system's package manager. It is currently performing the core function of installing apps, checking for updates for apps and updating them, managing their DRM, and so on. In that way, it's a core system component like the kernel, file system, or graphics layer, and it's asking every bit as much of Apple to support swapping it out with a third party solution as all of those things they also have a "monopoly" on.
To allow Epic to have its own package manager on an iOS device, Apple has to code in a whole new way for apps to be installed to the platform so that third-party app stores unknown to Apple can be installed on the device in the first place. Apple also has to code in an ability for apps to have far more extensive access to the system in order to install/remove/update their own set of apps that can appear on the same home screen and provide a similar experience. With that accomplished, Apple would then have to figure out how preserve those third-party system changes with each major new iOS release or simple security patch when it can't know/understand what those changes are.
Other OSs were built from the start to be able to do all that at the cost of stability, security, and performance. iOS was designed from the ground up to be something different. To change it now, after the fact, is not trivial from a technical standpoint. I think we should be conscious of this problem as part of the discussion.
To allow Epic to have its own package manager on an iOS device, Apple has to code in a whole new way for apps to be installed to the platform so that third-party app stores unknown to Apple can be installed on the device in the first place. Apple also has to code in an ability for apps to have far more extensive access to the system in order to install/remove/update their own set of apps that can appear on the same home screen and provide a similar experience. With that accomplished, Apple would then have to figure out how preserve those third-party system changes with each major new iOS release or simple security patch when it can't know/understand what those changes are.
Other OSs were built from the start to be able to do all that at the cost of stability, security, and performance. iOS was designed from the ground up to be something different. To change it now, after the fact, is not trivial from a technical standpoint. I think we should be conscious of this problem as part of the discussion.
Last edited:
I think this is the just the beginning for more troubles for Apple going forward. We all know it and is just started. Apple is just becoming another Microsoft.
Not sure that I agree that Apple is another Microsoft. However, Apple is no longer the scrappy company that it was 20 years ago; instead it has the largest market cap in the US. Apple is now the leader with targets on its back. And people/governments are trying to get a piece of that value.
The lawyers don't think so, which is why it's being brought up in court, specifically, the 30% cut Microsoft takes in the XBOX store.
The lawyers don't think the distinction is irrelevant, which is why it's being brought up in court. The argument is that because Microsoft and Sony subsidize hardware that it is fair to charge a 30% cut whereas Apple does not subsidize the hardware. Basically, it's a different business model.
Personally, I don't see Apple's 30% cut as unfair but I won't blindly defend Apple as while I'm a fan of their products, I am not a fanboy and I am a fan of many products from many different companies.
It is clear that a 30% cut is an industry standard but whether or not it's fair I wouldn't know. It should be discussed albeit I would say not in court.
If the only issue is “fairness” that’s a contract issue, and no court is going to rewrite apple’s contract. Epic thinks the distinction is relevant, but nobody else does.
Well that's certainly a good point that it leaves it much easier for your government to block your access to any apps they please. On the other hand though, it makes it harder for foreign governments (except arguably the USA), to install system-wide spyware monitoring tools on your phone, along with any criminals who might want to do this too. So it's a tradeoff - it's up to you to make a choice.
I'm in the USA, and I'm sure my inability to run console emulators on my iPhone - a particular pet peeve of mine - is at least somewhat related to what you are talking about. I decided to go with an iPhone anyway though because I valued what I got from the walled garden even appreciating it meant there would be things I wouldn't be able to do in exchange. Had I different priorities, I could have bought an Android phone instead and been free as a bird. It was my choice. This lawsuit is about taking that choice away from me - from all of us. There is something very wrong with a supposedly anti-monopoly legal campaign that effectively seeks to rob consumers of choice.
Let's put it this way.
The standard printer business model is to sell the printer cheap because the money is in the ink refills.
By this logic, if some other company (say Apple) were to make a premium printer that went for a decent margin, does this mean they are no longer entitled to sell their ink at a premium?
Fairness has absolutely nothing to do with it. Each company is simply doing what they believe will maximise revenue for them in the long run. If Sony thought they could sell their consoles at a premium and still maintain their market share, I am sure they would too. These companies subsidise their hardware because they have to, not so much out of the kindness of their hearts.
The only way to win is that people that do multiplatform applications should not be restricted to one place. it for a fair marked completion vendors like Apple, Google, Microsoft and Sony should be forced to allow users to move and take with them what they have payed. No matter if is content, vouchers or applications. It they trying to stop users to move, they are trying to monopolize it customers.
I am sure publishers (like Electronic Arts) would love to lose the double dipping revenue from someone not having to buy Madden NFL 22 on both Xbox and Playstation...
Unless an Xbox Application can run, unmodified on a Playstation or vice versa (it can’t), it’s not double-dipping. It’s trying to make money from the development effort. Even if the development tools help to make the process as easy as possible, there’s still an effort of tweaking to customize the code for the target platform.