In other news, baby accuses mom for not providing lactose free milk option.
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
that is next week. And the EU will demand its own cut.
This makes about as much sense as Apple opening up their ecosystem and allowing everyone to freely install (unnotarised) apps from any source without restrictions - just to prove that people are buying iPhones for their "walled garden".
One developer would only shoot himself in the foot - and its product quickly be substituted.
A concerted action by several high-profile developers would prove the point (but may be illegal).
As in any thoroughly repressive system, a revolt of the small and the few will get crushed or ignored.
It is really quite simple. Developers are well aware of the costs associated with publishing code. You are clearly not. We are aware because we know the expenses we have when, for example, I purchase an annual license for n/Software's libraries. I'm sure Apple has licenses for many technologies in IOS and in iPhones that they pay recurring costs for.
And as for "even fewer have ever commercially published anything", how is that relevant? You think enterprise devs don't publish software? I could give many other examples.
You really do not want to go back to the days of boxed software in some new 'Epic' form.
I think it happens all the time. People choose an iPhone for access to their stock apps like email, maps, iMessage, camera, etc..
And so the solution is clearly to allow Epic to host other apps and charge them 30% instead.
It's all fine and dandy when it's not Apple collecting the money, I suppose.
This doesn’t apply to epic because they’re not that relevant, but apps make the iPhone an actual useful device so Apple paying developers that help make the platform so attractive shouldn’t be a crazy thing to suggest. Heck, iirc, Microsoft did pay developers to develop for windows phone.
You can do so much more with the $1000 fee Microsoft charges, but if you just want into the windows store they have offered it for as low as a $7 one time purchase.
On their PC store, they take a 12% cut, allow in-app purchases from third-party payment processors with no Epic cut, and don't charge for royalties on usage of the Unreal Engine. That's a significant advantage over a 30% or even 15% cut.And so the solution is clearly to allow Epic to host other apps and charge them 30% instead.
It's all fine and dandy when it's not Apple collecting the money, I suppose.
They also have incentives like letting developers keep 100% for the first 6 months under certain conditions.
And Facebook. And Twitter, tiktok, YouTube, google, authentication apps, amazon, WhatsApp, PayPal, Cash app, banking apps, everything. Let’s see how many new iPhones Apple manages to sell. Who’s really the free rider?
I’d like to sue Epic for charging me too high of a fee to play their games. I’m more comfortable with free, make it happen Epic.
Because Microsoft needed developers more than developers needed the windows phone platform. It was a dying platform with few users and even fewer options for monetisation.
Today, the issue with iOS isn't that there aren't enough apps, but that there are too many, to the point where people are complaining that it's next to impossible to locate anything in the App Store. I don't think a proposal to purge the App Store of say, the bottom performing 50% of apps and developers would fly, but the solution isn't to attract more developers; it's to better surface the better apps.
It's worth remembering that Google was willing to pay Apple billions of dollars a year to keep google search as default in safari. I know many people here think that the iPhone is wholly dependent on third party apps for its success and rub their hands gleefully at the thought of a mass exodus of developers bringing the iPhone to its knees, but I am of the opinion that it's the other way around.
Apps are but one aspect of what makes the iPhone so popular and so successful, and the reality is that to an extent, devs need the iOS platform more than iOS needs them, because that's where the money is. You don't think Facebook has contemplated withholding their app in a bid to extract more concessions from Apple? They don't dare to try because Apple likely wouldn't play ball (they had no qualms about booting Fortnite in 2020), and the reality is that alternatives to Facebook do exist. If I can't browse Facebook on my phone, I can always go to twitter, or Mastodon, or YouTube, or browse the web. There's tons of other ways to while my time away.
If WhatsApp isn't available, who knows, I might be able to migrate more of my social circle over to telegram instead (something I have had very limited success in over the years).
What I want to say is - we don't know how a mass app boycott will play out, and it may not necessarily be to Apple's detriment altogether.
you seem offended that I pointed out your analogy actually does exist where people are locked in and do it by choice.
that doesnt suit you, fine, go buy that open android. it's really that simple. you have a choice to buy a device that meets your needs and I am more than happy you have that option. But forcing Apple to open up, against the wishes of those who bought it locked and were happy with it, removes rights we used to have. Thanks EU! not.
I hope you music is better than your logic appears to be... you brought up the music on your own website so surely you wanted it discussed. how much are you making off it? for context and comparison to what Spotify reap in...
honeymoon deals tend to not work out longterm...
the carrot is to encourage people to move apps there.
they know they need apps to attract interesting in their store.
geez a bit like Apple and Android did - years ago when there was no market.
today it is different. two choices with established reputations.
expect more incentives to come for a while... until insufficient consumer demands wipes them out. like Microsoft phone.
So basically I just read here that you want to sell to iOS device owners but you don’t want to have to agree to Apples terms to sell and distribute apps on iOS.
why do you think Tesla spending money creating charging infrastructure. It is because Tesla knows that simply selling the car without providing charging infrastructure means people won’t buy the car.
traditional fuel companies won’t add charging points unless can see enough EV. So Tesla built out infrastructure instead.
now not all Tesla charging stations are open to non Tesla cars so is already present in car industry.
Tesla has gone for vertical integration same as Apple and now doing power supply for homes etc again allowing easier use for Tesla Cars.
tesla not only sells you a car but is looking to provide the charging infra structure to you. Ie you charge at Tesla charge point and pay Tesla,
tesla have even start to open to non-Tesla owners so can get money from people that bought non-Tesla cars. Tesla can also be connected to non Tesla chargers and charge so if no Tesla charger then can still charge.
strange how Tesla seem to be most successful EV manufacturer in the western world.
tesla don’t roll out tyres as there already then infrastructure in place to use for tyres So pointless to do so,
unless Tesla wanted to start providing tyres themselves then tyre manufacturers know Tesla cannot sell cars without tyres and ways of replacing tyres, hence why Tesla cannot charge a cut in tyres. Tyre manufacturers could,say that they wouldn’t supply tesla cars with tyres and so Tesla couldn’t sell cars as cars without Tyres pretty useless.
in the Early days of cars then the car manufacturers learned that they could not realistically roll out national networks for refuelling and so they agreed standard for filling station so worked across all of them.
technology simply not there unless wanted to have different connectors so a Ford fuel pump nozzle not fit in a GM car. Technology didn’t allow Ford etc to lock into a Ford fuelling station Solution or tyre fitting. Ford would have to employ a person at every filling station in countries where they sold cars to make a note of every Ford car that came in. How much fuel was put in. Then send all of that information back to Ford where Ford would have to then collate all that information, and all without the aid of modern comms and computers. It would cost more than it would generate. Now imagine every car manufacturer doing that.
legacy ie traditional car suppliers such as ford etc when came to EV all decided to allow separate common charging and not working as well as basically taking old style approach and applying to EV whereas Tesla started afresh and design for EV from beginning in the cars.
Apple spent the time and money to develop the iPhone. They spent time and money developing the infrastructure to support the iPhone In terms of App Store.
Pretty much the same a Tesla developed the car and infrastructure to support the car. Difference being that a car requires a fuel station, petrol/diesel or electric where it is. An iPhone simply requires connection to Internet which already had widespread coverage to connect to the equiv of the fuel station in the App Store.
due to the Internet then apple can cover the world without physically being in the exact spot so didn’t have to say we want partners for the infrastructure.
google on the other hand makes its money in a different way.
it collects data about users. Now the way it does that is by making google services available for free to users and making sure that the searche engine etc is good experience.
so rather then being interested in selling the phone then Google makes android attractive to vendors so can shortcut into mobile market, but it feeds information back into Google for Google’s primary revenue stream Wether google pixel, Samsung galaxy etc.
now if devs believe that 3rd party apps made iPhone then if 3rd party app developers stop developing on iPhone then consumers will stop buying iPhones as cannot get the apps that they need.
at that point apple either cans iPhone or offers 3rd party app developers better terms.
people are posting that 3rd party apps made iphone, which if true would mean what I posted here would work.
if the apps I need are not available on iphone but are on android why would I buy an iPhone over android. phone Models are updated every 12 months but phones bought throughout the year so would show up fairly quickly in a down turn in iPhone sales. If removed app in Jan then February purchasers would see the lack of apps.
not sure how Apple would be able to force devs to keep developing and making available to new consumers.
you say if software devs are willing to develop for each platform. Surely part of that willingness is to look at each platform and say with those terms can I make money, am i happy to develop on that platform. Or are we expected to believe that developer operated at a loss to provide the solution on iOS when people approached asking for the app to be be provided on iOS.
for 16 years then devs have been prepared to develop on iOS.
the Apple App Store launched in 2008 same year few months before android device launched but android announced in 2007.
so in 2008 when this then starting out then why did devs accept the terms that apple laid out for developing on iOS rather then android. iPhone not the success is today and apple certainly not a 2.64 trillion dollar company at the time.
if devs reject the terms in 2008 then if the apps made iPhone what it is then apple would have needed to give better terms.
what has changed since 2008? Apple has grown and people decided That they want their share of the pie to be bigger.
people could be done for fixing prices etc however for stop Selling a product.
it is not illegal for people to decide that they no longer to wish to work with someone else.
Malls do it to their tenants. I’m sure there are PLENTY more examples of this.
They are still using Apple’s devices and OS. Would Epic have its current customer base outside of being on Apple’s devices?
Would Macy’s allow the individual women’s cosmetics companies to implement outside payment without a cut? Maybe Apple should start charging fees for being on their devices proportionate to their customer base? Bigger you are, the more you pay to “rent” space
The main thing that's changed is that people now see an opportunity to have their cake and eat it too.
You don't see anyone arguing against the Nintendo Switch's 30% cut, and this is with $60 titles. I am pretty sure that given the opportunity, game developers would love to be able to skirt around Nintendo's 30% cut as well and keep all the gaming proceeds for themselves, but right now, there really isn't much traction behind such an argument. There is also this implicit understanding that Nintendo sells the switch at break-even pricing to build up a user base, and that the 30% goes back into maintaining the platform and keeping the lights on for everybody.
I also suspect that if push came to shove, Nintendo would have no qualms with booting every other developer off their App Store and simply doubling down on selling endless remakes of games involving jumping Italian plumbers, and their user base would just lap it up. That's the leverage that Nintendo holds.
Heck, I am willing to bet that Epic would love to be able to offer their own App Store on the switch, where they can host other apps and charge developers a cut as well. It's practically free money here, when they get to piggy-back on other people's infrastructure for free.
There is no justification for expecting a free ride on iOS other than developers seeing that the tide of public opinion seems to be turning against Apple in this matter, and there is an opportunity to reshape App Store policies in their favour. It's not a matter of right or wrong but of power, and who gets to wield it in the end (and who doesn't).
History is written by the victors ultimately.
I think we can safely say Epic have no power over purchase decisions regarding iPhones.
Fortnight was taken off for more than a year (an upgrade cycle) and the iPhone market didnt crash.
Some people might have liked the app to stay there but it obviously wasnt a deal breaker.
Spotify could pull out too.
They havent broken any rules but if Apple is giving them such a hard deal, why not?
Probably because people who want to stream on their phones would seek an alternative.
And that wouldnt have to be Apple Music. it could be any of the other options that work at the right price and feature set.
Fortnight was taken off for more than a year (an upgrade cycle) and the iPhone market didnt crash.
Some people might have liked the app to stay there but it obviously wasnt a deal breaker.
Spotify could pull out too.
They havent broken any rules but if Apple is giving them such a hard deal, why not?
Probably because people who want to stream on their phones would seek an alternative.
And that wouldnt have to be Apple Music. it could be any of the other options that work at the right price and feature set.