Apple are like a motivated ex-wife.
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 Games Accuses Apple of Charging 'Unjustified Fees' for Required Non-App Store Purchase Link
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Epic games and Tim Sweeney are the most unhinged individual/company ever. Declaring that removing Fortnite is a "Human Rights Violation" is absurd. Due to the recent publication of Tim Sweeney's email to Valve COO, it's enough proof to prove to any Judge/lawyer to side with Apple until the end of time. Apple has done nothing wrong and the 30% through the App Store are within Apple's full right.
Epic needs to remove Tim Sweeney immediately before more harm is done.
Epic needs to remove Tim Sweeney immediately before more harm is done.
Epic wants to pop up a table in Target and not pay anything...all while they sell skins for $25 each and don't allow others to do so.
The number of times it must be pointed out that iOS itself is not a store is baffling.
Nope. There isn't a different case.
Anti-steering is only about the rule keeping developers from promoting outside payment options in the app.
In the old days when I was doing WebObjects development, first with NeXT then Apple, we paid $2,500 per seat for the developer tools, (Project Builder, Interface Builder, EOF, etc.. all the precursors to Xcode), and $50K per server for app deployment. These fees later got cut in half and eventually were free in the last couple years before Apple killed it. But once they stopped charging, the level of support we got fell off a cliff and vanished. I don't remember what I paid for our MSDN subscriptions because it has been years since I did windows development, but I believe it was about $3K a seat per year. Now, I believe it is either $45 or $250 a month depending on what size business you are. Those claiming they are developing for free are riding on the coattails of others that are paying the heavy support bills that produces the knowledgebase that is trickling down to them in the form of documentation and tools that are eventually made public.
Last edited:
Apple is just going to continue weaseling its way to longer and longer trials while Epic loses money not being on the store. If this was not the US, there might be some authorities that would put a stop to such low ball moves. But it's what works for them since they aren't a good team player when it comes to sharing money. With lower profits coming from China, they'll need to nickel and dime everyone they can to keep profits beating the last years profits. It's going to ruin their reputation with other companies and they'll get back at Apple by not making optimized software for new product launches. They've earned it.
Well it seems valve is price fixing. So we will se.
And no court in the world should care what kind of person he is, and only take his statements
I agree that a phone is not a laptop, but it has evolved into a computing device in its own right. It’s no longer just a ‘phone’ (in the old sense of the term). It may not be as powerful a computing device as a laptop; it may have a small screen. But it still IS a computing device nevertheless. Just because it’s a different platform doesn’t mean it ought to be a closed platform in perpetuity. The vertical integration that you mention are very appealing factors that should attract users to the platform, but they do not justify the platform being closed. Not any more.That's a naive response.
And fanboyism comments tend to get you warned or banned for a while... just saying
Many people bought Apple devices because of the walled garden and store. by choice.
They could have bought Android ones where things are more open.
Phones and tablets do borrow features and crossover. no argument.
But they remain different hardware.
You dont carry a laptop everywhere with you but a phone does not have the screen real estate or keyboard or unlimited storage potential a laptop has. If one device could do it all that would be all we buy. iPods sales disappeared as iPhones became cheaper with more features. Hardware vendors like product differentiation. But all the Apple devices make it easy to AirDrop files and share WiFi passwords between siblings and continue file edits on another device in a vertical market. Apple have thrived by getting someone to buy in and keep expanding their product purchases.
And Android is not really any more open for the common man. Yes, there are devices where you can side-load applications. But what is being discussed here is having an alternative store-front that the average user can access without jumping through hoops. That doesn’t exist on Android either. On the PC you have multitude app stores. Drawing a parallel to PC gaming environment; there is Steam, Epic game store, GOG, Ubisoft store, EA store etc. Some games are available on multiple stores; users have the choice to buy the same product from a store-front they prefer. Similarly, some games are published exclusively to one store-front. That’s because developers have the choice to publish to the store-front they prefer. On both iOS and Android these choices are non-existent for both users and developers.
Now that phone and tablet platforms are mature, I don’t see why choice would be a bad thing for either the users or the developers. If I’m buying the next Angry Birds game, I should be able to choose getting it from the Apple App Store or hypothetical Amazon App Store, or Steam mobile App Store etc. Maybe Amazon mobile App Store has a sale going. Maybe I have an Amazon gift card I can use. Or maybe Steam App Store offers ‘buy once play anywhere’ for some games. So I might prefer Steam since I can then access the same game on my desktop without paying again. The point is - I can choose which store-front might be better for me. If I’m a developer — maybe I get better terms from the ‘Google iOS App Store’ so I can focus my ad budget for their store. Maybe ‘Epic iOS store’ offers me a lump sum money for 6-month exclusively, which I really need while my studio is still getting established. Maybe GOG offers me no better financial terms but promises to highlight my game on their top banner. You get the point. An open eco-system benefits both consumers and developers. It promotes competition amongst app stores, which often lead to customer and developer friendly policies.
On the flip-side — A closed eco-system makes sense when a product is in its infancy. Or when the product is being subsidized to make it up via software sales (like consoles are often sold at a loss initially). But phones and tablets are not subsidized and are mature categories now. I really don’t see how the gate-keeping benefits anybody other than Apple or Google (and their respective shareholders).
Also, about this being a naive take - the fact that multiple governments are thinking about looking into this and regulating it (as EU already did), means it’s not as naive a thought as you think is. I’m not saying there are no benefits to a close-garden approach, but at some point the cons start outweighing the benefits.
Last edited:
I disagree. Developers can get free tools to build their app. They can have a free developer account until they want to launch the app on the App Store. Apple returns 85% of the sale price to most developers, and even those paying 30%, if they are a subscription based app, then the fee drops to 15% after year 1. Apple provides a lot of services for that 15%.
If it was profitable enough for developers they'd forgo Apple and stick with Android or another platform.
Similar pricing or price changes are not per se illegal, collusion to fix prices is, the US at least.
I never said Apple cares about the little guy. Though, I do find it funny when they implemented some changes that would be a boon to smaller developers, many were cool with it except for Tim Sweeney who was still hoping it'd apply to his own.
The argument for companies to pay developers more stems from Tim Sweeney himself, as he tried to frame the argument for lower distribution costs being so that developers could get paid properly. It was also implied that the savings could then be passed onto the customer.
Epic CEO: “You’re going to see lower prices” on Epic Games Store
Sweeney says free games, “high quality standard” are leading to quick growth.
arstechnica.com
And the follow up after Sweeney's claims didn't come to fruition.
Steam’s “price parity rule” isn’t wreaking havoc on game prices
Game publishers aren’t “passing on the savings” from “cheaper” online storefronts.
arstechnica.com
The argument always is "Prices will drop for consumers;" because "We want to pocket more money while keeping prices where they are" doesn't quite get as much sympathy.
We also saw when Apple reduced the cut to 15% developers didn't drop prices, and subscriptions after the first year when Apple's cut drop don't get cheaper either.
This whole fight is about who gets to have more of the pie, not sharing it with consumers.
What do you mean Android isnt any more open?
I've support apps on both platforms and know which ones had bad software "accidentally" loaded that wreaked havoc on their phone and the network. It wasnt iPhone.
It's all the non common people on here whinging they want open access.
They have that on Android. Do what you want there. It suits your needs.
Well that’s still hilarious, especially when I don’t think there any value to evaluate if customers gets a cheaper price or not. I fin it more valuable if a healthy and fair competitive market exist to foster innovation, quality and new services who can benefit all market participants ( customers as I private citizens and companies)I never said Apple cares about the little guy. Though, I do find it funny when they implemented some changes that would be a boon to smaller developers, many were cool with it except for Tim Sweeney who was still hoping it'd apply to his own.
The argument for companies to pay developers more stems from Tim Sweeney himself, as he tried to frame the argument for lower distribution costs being so that developers could get paid properly. It was also implied that the savings could then be passed onto the customer.
Epic CEO: “You’re going to see lower prices” on Epic Games Store
Sweeney says free games, “high quality standard” are leading to quick growth.
And the follow up after Sweeney's claims didn't come to fruition.
Steam’s “price parity rule” isn’t wreaking havoc on game prices
Game publishers aren’t “passing on the savings” from “cheaper” online storefronts.
So I find it funny why it’s bad if developers pocket ms the difference between epics 8% fee and apples/steams 30% fee, it gives them more profits to work with and improve their products.
This has always been the case. Apple have dropped the price for developers.
iPhone= have just gotten more expensive.
Apple drops intel who they payed a massive premium for their CPUs= Mac’s are way more expensive.
Apple stopped using expensive AMD/Nvidia GPUs= Mac’s is more expensive.
Every time Apple does something that benefits the customers wallet, they alway keep the savings while the customers never se it.
That's the purpose of a competitive market - keeping prices such that there is no economic rent.
But a healthy and fair competitive market is about costs; actions that protect economic rent are anti-competitive market; and benefits only hose who receive it and perhaps politicians who enable it. The consumer get shafted.
It's not bad; just how developers responded to the cut; and gives lie to the argument that forcing 3rd party stores with price cuts will benefit the consumer with lower prices. If a developer is happy with what they get on an App Store, once they can bypass that fee if the don't cut the price off the store they are exhibiting rent seeking behavior; something people on MR chastise Apple for doing. I just find it ironic to criticize one and not the other.
The flip side is Apple can use the revenue to hire smart people and innovate as well. I'm not against either group pocketing the money, I do the same with my company as well when my costs go down.
I'm for innovation, but question how much truly innovative features developers put out once they got the additional revenue, vs. simply enjoying the windfall.
For me a competitive market brings innovation and lower prices. Innovation as companies differentiate their products to avoid commoditization and prices as they compete for market share.
One thing the App Store has down is dramatically lower the prices consumers expect to pay for an app; they expect them to be free or very low cost. A $10 app is considered expensive, but is cheap relative to what apps cost before the App Store.
Of course, they are a profit making company; any price cuts typically come late in a product life cycle as Apple gets ready to discontinue it. At best cost reductions limit cost increases on new products; enabling Apple to keep selling prices at or close to the previous model; which is a consumer benefit as you get better performance / cost ratios while spending less in real terms.
It's not ironic because it depends on who the developer is. A small indie developer pocketing the difference would be much less scandalous (for lack of a better term) than a big multinational corporation doing the same.
Unless, to use an analogy, you wouldn't have a problem leaving your child with an unvetted random individual since checking who's who would be ironic.
I stand by the fact that installations outside the App Store could potentially decrease app prices and even bring in entirely new developers.
While I can see a small developer being pocketing the windfall; my point was end users see no price reductions so the whole fish is not about saving consumers money; despite how some frame it as such.
I'm sorry, but that is a poor analogy. One involves a child's life, the other is simply money. In addition, you are misusing the term ironic.
Based on what I've seen in the App Store when Apple dropped the cut, and how subscriptions are priced after year 1, plus the pricing in the MacOS work, I'm not convinced consumers will see any price drops of any note.
Part of the reason is I doubt many developers will find it that much cheaper to go it alone or on other App Stores than Apple's current 15%.
It will be interesting to see how pricing plays out.
I was just showing you that context is key. Since you managed to see the flaw in my analogy, surely you'll see the difference between Apple and your local indie dev pocketing the difference? (Also, I used the word ironic because you said it was ironic, which it's not)
I do, but my point was, despite all the noise about consumers benefiting because prices will come down, there's evidence that will not happen based on developer's actions to date.
I certainly don't begrudge developers keeping the windfall profit, nor do I begrudge Apple charging the biggest developers 30% vs 15%. It's business, not personal. It may very well be the case charging the richest developers more enables them to keep fees lower for the indies who don't sell nearly as much; so from that perspective it's good Epic, Spotify et. al. pay more.
Ferrous enough, we can have divergent viewpoints. For me, the Fe'ny was people would argue that Apple is being greedy but make excuses for developers pocketing the money; when it is the exact same behavior and thus their actions contradict the expected.
I think you totally missed the point. Android doesn’t have multiple legitimate App Stores. If I have the Google Pixel, I get to purchase apps from the Play store and that’s it. Do other digital vendors have app stores on the pixel?
No luck needed. Everything is for sale, including Epic once the right sum is found, hostile or not.
Victor Kiam became famous as the spokesman for the Remington shaver. His catchphrase, "I liked it so much, I bought the company", made him a household name.
Victor Kiam - Wikipedia
you can load apps directly from an APK file.
i've seen it done when the app I supported needed an emergency fix.
they didnt wait for Play store or App Store approval process.
Android users were emailed the file and could install it immediately.
The 10 best Google Play Store alternatives for apps and games
Why stay Google restricted when there are plenty of amazing digital media marketplaces available for our apps and games
www.androidpolice.com
perhaps you missed these Android alternatives?
Except games consoles aren't general use devices no matter how much you argue 🙄By your own admission, game consoles "could be" general purpose computers. Which is exactly why the distinction is irrelevant. And the term general purpose computer is kind of silly. Most any device nowadays is technically a general purpose computer. All that really means is that it is a device with a CPU, memory, storage, user interface, and can run software. My watch is a general purpose computer.
If I can run streaming, browser, office, Blu-ray, etc apps on my XBOX then it is a general purpose computers. You say nobody buys a game console for the purpose of being a general purpose computer. I disagree. I am sure many bought one because it could stream and play Blue-ray discs.
The original iPhone sold out in hours with no third-party apps. Was it a general purpose computer? Or was it a new and novel phone platform that struck a chord? Did the original buyers buy it as a computer or as a phone (and internet communicator and iPod).