Do they also take 30%? Isn't their problem with the high %, not the cut itself?
According to Sweeney, 12% covers costs with a small profit. 30% is, in his mind, an obscene overcharge.
Do you think this is about Fortnite for epic games? This is about forcing Apple to allow other game stores on the
Something like “Game distribution platform fee” is the term you want to use in a search engine which should lead you to the information. To me, their problem is they see a future where people are using hardware platforms (and their digital downloads) more and more, which reduces their ability to have a cut of that pie. As they weren’t making a huge amount from iOS, they figured they’d have their fight there and use a win in one arena as a precedent to force changes elsewhere.
One would THINK that they’d factor in how much it actually costs to run the business, but by giving away millions of games for free, they’ve shown they either don’t know what it means to be profitable OR don’t care about being profitable right now. 🙂 Their goal has been to increase the number of developers and users. 12% to him likely doesn’t relate to any idea of actual “profit” other than “It’s less than half of Steam so hopefully developers will flock to us for those extra few percent.”
Speaking of, they just jacked the price of V-Bucks up.
I think you misread my comment. I was talking about Epic trying to use EU with some fake issue. The whole USB C has its merit and I understand why EU would push for a standard. Please don’t jump to conclusion. EU is merely the venue after the Supreme Court for Epic to drag this out.
Epic would otherwise has to present its case to EU before EU can decide on anything, whether the issue is considered fake in EU’s eyes or not. That’s why I say “might”, rather than “may”.
It may be good to remember, though, that Apple said lightning would be the connector for the next 10 years. That was in 2012. Having made good on that promise to those hardware vendors, they were primed to switch anyway, not anywhere close to something they “hate”. And, the rest of the industry already had switched. Thus, their crowing about “we made the industry do this” is just taking credit for what was already a foregone conclusion (and other countries with their just created ‘usb-c requirements’ are doing the same). That’s FAR different from trying to force the implementation of something the industry doesn’t find value in.
Well, we will never know the true internal discussion of this issue. And, assuming Apple does say lightning is for the next decade in 2012, wouldn’t it makes more sense to switch last year rather than dragging on for another year? Yes, they design their new device quite some time ahead of launch, but they should’ve known regardless.
That is exactly how it works and why Apple takes a cut. Developers have no connection to refund anyone's purchase.
That’s my point as to why Apple has a cut baked in their agreements. But people here just think Apple does nothing and shouldn’t get a cut.
I am very happy Apple does all my payments/refunds/ customer support. Makes my life much easier and I gladly pay for that.
Unfortunately (for Epic) it's not quite that simple; there are a lot of moving parts.
Well, we do know that Apple did not “hate” USB-C as it was already being used on many devices. Plus, the EU said all smartphones must have USB-C by December 28, 2024.
Does hold some merit. How do you make sure folks are less likely to be perturbed about finally turning off the lights on lightning? You make sure that there’s a very wide number of non-Apple USB-C products in the marketplace. By now, everything is either USB-C or has a USB-C cable. Sure there’s the compatibility thing to wade through, but that’s nothing for someone who really wants to take advantage of the port.
I guess I could be misinterpreting the rules, but they way I read it was that newly introduced smartphones had to use USB-C by that date and older models were grandfathered and could still be sold, which would mean Apple didn’t even have to switch until the 2025 models. No matter what date they switched, though, both sides would complain because, even more than cat videos, that is what the internet gives people most!
As you suggest, actual motivations are often speculative, at least until the "tell-all" book is released -- but then again, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. So, which "cigar" are we looking at in this case?
We do know, for sure, that Apple didn’t decide, in 2022, to release a USB-C smartphone in 2023, these decisions are made years ahead of time (especially considering that USB3 support is built into the A17 Pro chip). Based on what we know from past releases, we’re talking about a 3-4 year lead time, maybe more. So, by the time the EU said “Two years from 2022”, Apple was already locked into a 2023 release.
