You can't be serious. Apple shouldn't be able to ban something on iPhone?! So you are fine with scam apps on the App Store with no ban then?
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 CEO Renews Attack on Apple and Calls for Single, Universal App Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Except for proxying women for "easily fooled" instead of using generic "people," I agree with this.
No, this would not shut up the developer’s calling for regulations. Consider that in ANY partnership, a 50/50 split is usually the best you can hope for, though you may have to deal with 40/60 or worse depending on the size of the company you’re partnering with. For any random developer jumping onto the App Store of a company the size of Apple getting a 70/30 split? That’s a pretty good split.
Anyone that would seriously complain about a 70/30 split would complain about ANYTHING, so even your chart would be rejected. This is why the vast majority of developers are deploying their code, cashing their checks (from around the world) and not saying a lot about this whole thing.
What's good price for someone is their right to consider. Fair price is a result of free market where offer and demand meets.
I think Epic and other companies providing subscription services are mainly not happy with 30% commission for in-app purchases.
What's the difference for Apple not charging this commission for pizza app but for virtual pizza app yes? Too outdated for todays.
Imagine buying hammer in a shop and be forced to give 30% commission from every paid job you use that hammer for. That's how in-app purchases feel more for developers I think.
If I'd be developer I'd let part of Apple's (or other platform companies) commission covered on behalf of customers. Let's say 25% on customers, 5% on me and being transparent on the reasons. I'd put text before purchase like: "Wondering why prices are 25% more here on iOS (Google Play, etc) than on some other platforms? That's because Apple (Google, etc) is charging us 30% commission from every purchase here unlike on other platforms where we can use payment providers with up to 5% commission. We can cover 5% here. If you're not happy with that, ask Apple (Google, etc)."
And if they would not allow this text to be there I'd share it publicly in social media to get people aware of that reason and let free market to work.
100%. free market, vote with your dollars….not more burdensome regulation.
Dude, go get yourself an Android phone (assuming you haven’t got one yet, which I doubt) because no one forces you to use Apple products, right?
Who runs it, decides what content is allowed, who sets prices, who moderates the content, who resolves billing disputes, who controls access?
The-Pizza-Store has a fixed cost for the price of a given pizza, it is a physical good. It costs them approximately the same cost to deliver 5 Extra Large Pizzas to your door than 1 Small which is why they offer discounts on multiple items purchased. The Pizza Store has real costs for ingredients, rent for their store, delivery drivers should they choose to employ them.
The cost of The-Pizza-Game selling you 1 Pizza and 100,000 Pizzas is grossly different, as is the cost of delivery of said 100,000 pizzas. Different cost structures, different margins, different commission.
You’re absolutely right! And, the good thing is, it’s a 70/30 split, clear and across the board. Developers are free to agree or disagree. The vast majority agree and, if they have good business practices, they’re making a profit. I’d actually say it’s exceedingly difficult to NOT make a profit with a 70/30 split if you have an app that users desire. BUT, if the developer, in their personal life, is a fan of $20,000 gallons of water… yeah, they would likely rather a more friendly split before they’d give up those quite necessary gallons of water.
No, to MOST developers, the ones that are quietly driving that “paid to developers” number of Apple’s up, see it as a cost of doing business. Like the computer they own, the electricity to run that computer, the house/apartment where they keep that computer OR the office they go to every day (and the food they consume during it all). They wouldn’t expect a 100% cut of sales any more than they’d expect to given food every day for free (no such thing as a free lunch). I’m sure some do, some REALLY REALLY do, and you’re never going to make anyone happy when what they want is to remove the cost of doing business. And, since those people will never be happy, trying to placate them will never be beneficial.
So, a hardware platform created to share pictures of cats, and that’s it, NOTHING else, you would say that once they get to X(tbd), they’re no longer able to moderate the hardware and image viewing software they built and they have to allow anyone and everyone to do whatever they want.
I suppose “We reserve the right to refuse” ONLY counts for physical spaces.
I know it's pointless responding, but a "tax to do so".... really? You realize that retail is a legitimate business, right?
When you walk into a local store and buy a carton of milk, was that product marked up by "a tax" by the store owner? You expect the store owner to sell it to you at the same price that they paid, effectively making $0.00?
Now, enter Apple. They built the platform, built the distribution platform (App Store) and continue to invest millions of dollars every year, and you expect that they do that for $0.00 because otherwise it's a "tax"?
So, Apple deserves to mark up the products that they distribute, because it's costs money to run that retail storefront, just like any business. Nothing illegal about it.
Now, your argument is that the App Store is the _only_ storefront for iOS and iPad apps. So therefore, developers have no choice but to use them, and pay the "tax".
Okay, let's force Apple to enable side-loading.... and just watch what happens. When the stability and integrity of your iPhone goes to ****, don't blame Apple. They were only trying to provide a safe, trusted environment, and you wanted something different. So no complaining.
Let’s face it, you don’t know what monopoly means.
Sweeney is a joke. I'm surprised anyone still listens to him.
First he was advocating for multiple stores on Apple devices, now he wants a single store for all devices? How can these two arguments come from the same person?
First he was advocating for multiple stores on Apple devices, now he wants a single store for all devices? How can these two arguments come from the same person?
This is like someone calling for the government to intervene and create one single brick-and-mortar store because Walmart charges a little more than everyone else for shelf space.
I think it is only fair that Epic Games invite Arcade, Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo and any game developer to their game development department and share the new concepts, research and development.
Samsung is laughing at him by parading him around to their executives and judges in South Korea. In their native language showcasing Tim Sweeney as the worst example of American leadership, how to ruin a once successful business and recommending to quickly dump any investments as an Epic Failure is about to transpire.
Nope they shouldn’t, but in the AppStore, yes. The problem is there is no AppStore escape route.
E.g if I wish to install a malware in my hardware, e.g for security research reasons, it’s up to me and my decision, i bought the device, and it should be fully under my control.
Completely ignoring the multipurpose device aspect is also an option, right?!
a simple corporate congress from the companies that are invested in the digital store.
That is a great idea and so simple if it weren’t for the fact that there is nothing simple about a corporate congress made up of multiple companies, each with their own agenda, trying to agree on how to run a collective business. It’s scary how many people seemingly have zero idea of how real businesses operate, especially with regard to retail (business to consumer). And to then be fooled by someone like Epic making arguments that are senseless just in an effort to keep their brand, or get their brand back, in front of consumers.
Even in this short period of time that apps on mobile devices have existed, there have been a lot of businesses that have gone from nothing to huge and back to irrelevant - when was the last time you thought of, or heard about, apps like Farmville, or Angry Birds? The same thing is happening to Epic and they’re trying to stop or slow the bleeding, instead of working on what the next big thing will be.
You need to turn off what you're calling common sense, you're misleading yourself...also, Microsoft was not forced to give that money to Apple, they chose to. You're basing almost all of your statements here on misunderstood information, so I guess it really is a lot like politics.