Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I partially agree with the idea... App sales maybe should be one fee and in-app sales should be a lower fee, for instance. But totally free? That's not even a reasonable ask. That's like asking Visa to eliminate interchange/swipe fees. It's one thing to say they're too high, but saying it should be free is complete nonsense.

Plus, developers can just make everything in-app as most already do. So, you have to meet in the middle somewhere anyway.
And that last point is "THE" point that matters. Everyone will go to the cheapest option (In-App Purchase), if the price was lower than the 30% price for purchase, like it used to be. This is how you get free games and apps "at first". Then pay forever to use the features or add features overtime. It still initially cheaper than laying out the one time purchase price. But, it adds up. So everyone will move to an In-App purchase model if it was say 1% to 5% fee. Even maybe a 10% fee. Since it's still a lower cost than 30%.

However, Tim will argue it's too much. And that fee should be like .5% or something silly. Simply because of how he feels. And then in a year or two say it's extortion!

We should all remember that he was one of the proponents of the AppStore not that long ago. More than happy to show his apps on stage at WWDC's. It was when things got a little tuff, and he had to get more money from someplace. That's when it all changed.
 
And this mentality is why Apple will never be a serious gaming platform. Why would developers want to come here and work harder to support proprietary tech for a fraction of the sales they can get elsewhere without this "pay the tariff and kiss the ring" mentality?
They pay it on the consoles? What's the difference?
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy
I'm often amazed at the extent of the vitriol for the Tims (both of them) on the forum.

I don't think any of us have met either of them or know them at all, so it's a little worrying how "personal" the attacking verbiage seems to get.
Lots of people get to meet Tim Cook vs Tim Sweeny. Think of all the Apple events over the years at Apple Stores. During launches of the iPhone especially. He goes to the stores and takes photos. I can't say the same for Sweeny.
 
No disagreement that the tactics are different.
Let's not pretend like Tim doesn't lobby for Apple and their interests is all I'm saying.

He was just doing it quite publicly and controversially on a different topic.


Tim also has access to the highest levels of government that most don't .. granted, he's had to do extraordinary things to get it. Influence, sway and lobbying come in many forms.
Tim Sweeney has direct access to the communist Chinese government, surly that has gravitas?

Also, if you advocate for free and open software, should we advocate for Epic to open up their game engines free and open source too?
 
Yeah, I agree a fixed+variable component could work. Whatever happens needs to reduce friction and align incentives between Apple and developers.

I suspect that would be structured to generate as much or more revenue than now. There incentives are already aligned - sell as much stuff as you can.

Such a model is likely to end the freemium option since developers would be paying for all the users that never make an in-app purchase or not enough to cover the fixed cost of acquiring the user.

It's just a bad look for Apple to charge so much that their developers try to get their users to employ payment loopholes.

Everybody acts as if the 15% the small developer pays is somehow extreme, yet I bet they cannot get as good of a deal from a third party App Store when they are available. 30% for developers making millions is not unreasonable either.

as a developer that sells apps with in-app purchases, I rather not.

I can see why, under such a system you are paying up front before you get any revenue, and if an app doesn't take off you could wind up owing Apple money. Most people don't get how Apple changed the risk for a developer to take a product to market.

He's very happy to pay for hosting, distribution, and payment processing. Apple forbids it.

Apple bundles it, and if they have to unbundle it I think they can figure out ways to make the same or more revenue as before; just becasue hosting is cheap doesn't mean they have to sell it for cheap. Apple's customer base is what is lucrative for developers, and Apple will charge accordingly; Sweeny will the whine accordingly. He wants Apple to host his stuff for free so he gets to access their user base while making all the money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FriendlyMackle
This is one of them classic lose-lose… of Epic proportions. And our money, either way. Apple needs some serious come downs but Sweeney doesn’t deserve a red cent. We get to sit on the sidelines as others play with our wants and needs. And whoever wins, we’re on the good ‘ol short stick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jlc1978
This is one of them classic lose-lose… of Epic proportions. And our money, either way. Apple needs some serious come downs but Sweeney doesn’t deserve a red cent. We get to sit on the sidelines as others play with our wants and needs. And whoever wins, we’re on the good ‘ol short stick.

Well… try to stay positive my friend.
🙌✌️
 
And this mentality is why Apple will never be a serious gaming platform. Why would developers want to come here and work harder to support proprietary tech for a fraction of the sales they can get elsewhere without this "pay the tariff and kiss the ring" mentality?
Sony Playstation platform charges the same rate.
 


Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney has said that he will never agree to share revenue with Apple for external purchases linked from iOS apps, even after a U.S. appeals court ruled that Apple is entitled to charge a reasonable fee for such transactions.

app-store-blue-banner-epic-1.jpg

Speaking to The Verge following the U.S. Court of Appeals decision that partially modified the injunction in the Epic Games v. Apple case, Sweeney outlined his position on what Apple should and should not be allowed to charge developers as the dispute returns to the district court for further proceedings. The appeals court ruled that Apple must be allowed to collect some form of compensation for purchases made through external links in iOS apps, reversing a lower court order that had permanently barred Apple from charging any commission at all.

Sweeney acknowledged that Apple incurs operational costs in reviewing apps that include external payment links and said Epic would accept flat, submission-based fees tied directly to that work. However, he rejected outright the idea that Apple should receive any percentage-based commission on revenue generated outside the App Store.

Sweeney characterized the appeals court ruling as a decisive rejection of Apple's longstanding approach to App Store fees. He said the decision "completely shuts down, I think, for all time, Apple's theory that they should be able to charge arbitrary junk fees for access." He went on to suggest that the U.S. decision could influence regulators abroad, arguing that other countries would be unlikely to permit Apple to charge fees that a U.S. court had found to be unlawful.

However, the appeals court did not block Apple from charging commissions on external purchases. Instead, it said the district court went too far by permanently banning all commissions, calling that approach more like a punishment than a corrective measure. Although the court agreed that Apple deliberately violated the original injunction by making external links hard to use, it ruled that Apple must still be allowed to cover its costs and receive some payment for the use of its intellectual property.

As a result of the ruling, the case has been sent back to the Northern District of California to determine what constitutes an appropriate fee structure. The appeals court said that Apple may not charge any commission on purchases made via external links in iOS apps until the district court approves a rate.

Article Link: Epic Games CEO Says Apple Should Be Paid for App Review Only, Not External Purchase 'Junk Fees'
This millennial feud should go suck themselves inside the upside-down.
 
Yes you use Apples IDE, Apples APIs, Apples metal framework, and expect it to be free?
(I’m not really responding too much to you individually, btw)

This is quite a change from when Epic first sued Apple… back in 2020. Where anyone not blanket supporting Sweeney was more or less stereotyped as a Apple zealot or defender.

But now, this first page is a mixed bag. I was expecting this first page to be filled with Sweeney support. Did the checks stop going out?
 
Steve Jobs originally offered WebApps for iPhone. Totally free. They can still do this today in fact.
The dev's rejected it.

They rejected the severe limitations. And Apple deliberately not implementing features they need in Safari. It’s not a proper alternative and I think people know that.

Still doesn’t answer the question.
 
Thanks to their give aways and local pricing I got Dead Island 2 for free and Hitman & Cyberpunk for like eight dollars each. May the force be with you Epic Games. Another thanks to Nvidia for letting me play these games for free on their cloud service.
 
Well, let's see what percentage the courts ultimately settles on. I feel it will be around 15%. Apple likely has a higher figure in mind, Epic will always want 0%, and I am curious what you think will be the final quantum. 😛

Else, I don't think I have anything more to add on that I haven't already raised in the previous thread. Nice chilly Saturday morning, just had breakfast, devices have either been updated or are updating to 16.2, and there are a few comments I should get back to replying to. :)
 
Well, let's see what percentage the courts ultimately settles on. I feel it will be around 15%. Apple likely has a higher figure in mind, Epic will always want 0%, and I am curious what you think will be the final quantum. 😛

Else, I don't think I have anything more to add on that I haven't already raised in the previous thread. Nice chilly Saturday morning, just had breakfast, devices have either been updated or are updating to 16.2, and there are a few comments I should get back to replying to. :)

I'll take the under on 15% and guess something between 7% and 12%
 
Well, maybe just one small observation. 😬

It's clear that Tim Sweeney is not doing any of this to benefit or empower smaller developers, much as he tries to style himself as a defender of the downtrodden. His proposed solution (impose a flat fee for vetting payment links) sounds like it may be a massive burden for the small developers he claims to be looking out for, while bigger corporations (like the multimillion dollar gacha companies like the one he's running) reaps most of the benefits because footing the costs is practically a rounding error on their account books.

Smaller developers for whom a “small” fee hundreds of dollars per update is a real hit would end up updating their apps less frequently, even at the cost of security.

Monthly updates might wipe out the entire revenue stream for small apps. Free apps would have no ability to raise the ongoing funds for updates.

Or they could stick with iTunes, but that means they lose out on any potential upside of said ruling.

Meanwhile, Epic will get 100% of the Fortnite revenues (even paying $500 a day is chump change for them), so there’s that.

IMO, a percentage fee still makes the most sense, because it means that those who make more, pay more and contribute to the overall infrastructure which benefits all developer, however big or small. This is similar to the way our income tax is structured.
 
When will a court “Shut down completely, for all time” Tim Sweeney for being nauseating and a nuisance? This guy really needs to find something better to do with his life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.