Epic Games CEO Says Apple Should Be Paid for App Review Only, Not External Purchase 'Junk Fees'

[CarAnalogy]

And gets even muddier considering how much overlap there is between computers and smartphones.

People are doing a lot of the exact same stuff on each.

Exactly! And there’s an argument to be made both ways, from the people who want it to be a simple locked down platform for specific uses, vs people who want it to be open for anything they want to do. And both statements apply to mobile and desktop/laptop.

To quote a great workplace ethics video, “Where is ‘The Line?’”

 

[Abazigal]

Exactly. Thank you. That’s entirely the point. That’s what they do on game consoles. Is the iPhone a locked down console only controlled by its manufacturer, or is it a general purpose computer? De facto it is the former. People want it to be the latter. That’s the crux of the whole thing.

Apple is making up artificial rules and distinctions to protect a computing platform. Whether that is right or wrong is the whole question. Personally I think they are taking it too far in the gaming console direction.

If we want to go further, what is it that's stopping a game console like the Nintendo Switch from becoming a computing platform? It has an OS, processor, ram and storage that is on par with smartphones today. Is it the ability to sideload apps? The lack of productivity apps like email or office? The form factor? Whoever said that a computing platform (ie: the iPhone) needs to allow users to freely download apps the same way they do on Windows?

These all seem to be wholly unwritten expectations that people have made up out of nowhere in order to justify wanting Apple to behave a certain way, and then they seem upset when Apple doesn't adhere to their own unspoken rules.

 

[turbineseaplane]

If we want to go further, what is it that's stopping a game console like the Nintendo Switch from becoming a computing platform? It has an OS, processor, ram and storage that is on par with smartphones today. Is it the ability to sideload apps? The lack of productivity apps like email or office? The form factor? Whoever said that a computing platform (ie: the iPhone) needs to allow users to freely download apps the same way they do on Windows?

I honestly wish we could stop talking about game consoles because they are pretty different here.

With iPhones and Macs, we are literally talking about users syncing the exact same data and very often using the exact same apps to do the exact same tasks.

It’s a way closer comparison than consoles and it’s not even close.

It’s far more understandable why some would like App access to be the same across Mac and iOS given that.

(I’m not a fan of what happens on consoles either FTR)

 

[Abazigal]

It’s far more understandable why some would like App access to be the same across Mac and iOS given that.

Which raises the question - should iOS app access be the same as with the Mac (or PC), and why?

The US judge did in fact rule against this. See Page 109

apple-epic-judgement

www.documentcloud.org

Second, with respect to sideloading, app review is likely impossible and thus could not prevent social engineering attacks. Apple currently prevents direct distribution from the web using technical measures. If those measures were lifted, users could download—and thus could be tricked into downloading—directly from the open web. Although Epic Games presents some alternative methods that could be used to prevent malicious direct distribution (which are discussed below), there is little dispute that completely unrestricted sideloading would increase malware infections.

Which is ultimately why she initially sided with Apple in its lawsuit with Epic, and chose to uphold the current App Store model as it is.

People need to stop acting like the current PC model is perfect and without drawbacks and that any platform thereafter ought to behave exactly like it. Perhaps an argument could be made that maybe it is the opposite which should happen; that maybe users might be better off (security-wise) were PCs be more locked down like mobile devices? 😈

After all, what is life if not a bundle of tradeoffs and compromises? But that will be another discussion for another day. 😛

 

[CarAnalogy]

If we want to go further, what is it that's stopping a game console like the Nintendo Switch from becoming a computing platform? It has an OS, processor, ram and storage that is on par with smartphones today. Is it the ability to sideload apps? The lack of productivity apps like email or office? The form factor? Whoever said that a computing platform (ie: the iPhone) needs to allow users to freely download apps the same way they do on Windows?

These all seem to be wholly unwritten expectations that people have made up out of nowhere in order to justify wanting Apple to behave a certain way, and then they seem upset when Apple doesn't adhere to their own unspoken rules.

Well, the iPhone processor is touted as one of the fastest on earth. The latest phones have 12 gigs of ram. 256 base storage. In my day that’s what we would call a computer, and a pretty good one at that.

Who is to say they shouldn’t be allowed to “freely” download apps like they do on Windows? In my day that’s just how it worked. There was no central authority running a certificate server and god knows what else to ensure that only blessed software can be run on the platform.

In fact a guy called RMS warned us about a future where computing platforms were mere interfaces for the rights holders to display proprietary information, if one holds the correct license of course.

It sounded like the ramblings of a madman in the early 90s. Now it’s how “computers” work.

 

[Abazigal]

In my day that’s just how it worked.

When my new principal came in 2019, one of the first things that she made clear was that she would not tolerate the use of "that's how we have always done it" as a reason (or an excuse) for doing anything. Any proposal has to stand on its own merits, and you need to be able to justify why you feel that is the best course of action to take (one way was to do up a comparison table and weigh the pros and cons respectively). Just because that's how our predecessors had done something in the past doesn't mean that was the best way then, or that it continues to be the best way today, or that there were no problems or tradeoffs whatsoever.

As I stated above, the consequence of people being able to freely download software from the internet was the proliferation of malware. And users would come to manage this issue not by educating themselves, but simply by downloading less software than they otherwise would.

I honestly don't know if the situation is any better on macOS.

Compare this with the state of iOS, where Apple has managed to get users to trust the download process, which in turn led to more apps being downloaded as a result, and developers benefit from making money than they otherwise would have (iOS generates more money compared to Android despite having fewer users). Incidence of malware also appears to be less compared to Android, where one of the main attack vectors is, predictably enough, via sideloading.

I do recognise that this line of reasoning can also be used to argue against Apple's 30% cut, just that I haven't really seen anyone argue convincingly for why 30% is too much (besides "it just is"), or what a reasonable cut might look like (besides "make it zero and let Apple subsidise the costs of operating the App Store via iPhone profits).

I also feel that it is the lightness of mobile platforms like iOS that allow PCs to be "heavy". I can accept that PCs could and should stay open, given the nature of tasks that people perform on them. Meanwhile, iOS should remain closed, again, given the. nature of tasks that people perform on them (eg: they use banking apps on smartphones but log in to a bank's portal via a browser on computers). They don't necessarily need to mirror each other (too closely), and perhaps they simply shouldn't.

It's kind like how I own both a MBA and an iPad, and I am happy with my MBA running macOS and my iPad running iOS (rather than both running macOS). I do my lesson prep on my Mac, and my iPad displays those resources in the classroom. Each has its own strengths that allow it to stand out in the right conditions, and I have no desire for them to essentially be a carbon copy of the other. 😬

 

[surferfb]

Well, the iPhone processor is touted as one of the fastest on earth. The latest phones have 12 gigs of ram. 256 base storage. In my day that’s what we would call a computer, and a pretty good one at that.

Who is to say they shouldn’t be allowed to “freely” download apps like they do on Windows? In my day that’s just how it worked. There was no central authority running a certificate server and god knows what else to ensure that only blessed software can be run on the platform.

In fact a guy called RMS warned us about a future where computing platforms were mere interfaces for the rights holders to display proprietary information, if one holds the correct license of course.

It sounded like the ramblings of a madman in the early 90s. Now it’s how “computers” work.

A PS5 Pro has an 8 core CPU, discrete GPU that measures over 33 TFLOPS, and 16GB of RAM, and 300W of power.

A PS5 isn’t “just a game console” in any technical sense. It’s a general-purpose computer with a restricted OS, but I guess that’s only a problem when Apple does it.

 

[Abazigal]

A PS5 Pro has an 8 core CPU, discrete GPU that measures over 33 TFLOPS, and 16GB of RAM, and 300W of power.

A PS5 isn’t “just a game console” in any technical sense. It’s a general-purpose computer with a restricted OS, but I guess that’s only a problem when Apple does it.

It's also become muddier now that Valve is releasing their own gaming console. The "steam box" is every bit a PC that runs Linux, but is being marketed as an alternate to your xbox or PS5, rather than your gaming PC.

 

[turbineseaplane]

A PS5 Pro has an 8 core CPU, discrete GPU that measures over 33 TFLOPS, and 16GB of RAM, and 300W of power.

A PS5 isn’t “just a game console” in any technical sense. It’s a general-purpose computer with a restricted OS, but I guess that’s only a problem when Apple does it.

There aren’t even any general-purpose apps for the PS5 even first party.

This is nothing like the comparison between the iPhone and a Mac, which literally run the same software.

The Mac can literally run iPad and iPhone apps, unchanged, unless the developer opts out on purpose!

I hate the game console situation as well, but it’s pretty different than this one.

 

[CarAnalogy]

There aren’t even any general-purpose apps for the PS5 even first party.

This is nothing like the comparison between the iPhone and a Mac, which literally run the same software.

The Mac can literally run iPad and iPhone apps, unchanged, unless the developer opts out on purpose!

I hate the game console situation as well, but it’s pretty different than this one.

Nailed it. I don’t think I have the energy to keep this up because it always winds up going in circles, but this is a well stated form of exactly what I was thinking.

 

[CarAnalogy]

When my new principal came in 2019, one of the first things that she made clear was that she would not tolerate the use of "that's how we have always done it" as a reason (or an excuse) for doing anything. Any proposal has to stand on its own merits, and you need to be able to justify why you feel that is the best course of action to take (one way was to do up a comparison table and weigh the pros and cons respectively). Just because that's how our predecessors had done something in the past doesn't mean that was the best way then, or that it continues to be the best way today, or that there were no problems or tradeoffs whatsoever.

As I stated above, the consequence of people being able to freely download software from the internet was the proliferation of malware. And users would come to manage this issue not by educating themselves, but simply by downloading less software than they otherwise would.

I honestly don't know if the situation is any better on macOS.

Compare this with the state of iOS, where Apple has managed to get users to trust the download process, which in turn led to more apps being downloaded as a result, and developers benefit from making money than they otherwise would have (iOS generates more money compared to Android despite having fewer users). Incidence of malware also appears to be less compared to Android, where one of the main attack vectors is, predictably enough, via sideloading.

I do recognise that this line of reasoning can also be used to argue against Apple's 30% cut, just that I haven't really seen anyone argue convincingly for why 30% is too much (besides "it just is"), or what a reasonable cut might look like (besides "make it zero and let Apple subsidise the costs of operating the App Store via iPhone profits).

I also feel that it is the lightness of mobile platforms like iOS that allow PCs to be "heavy". I can accept that PCs could and should stay open, given the nature of tasks that people perform on them. Meanwhile, iOS should remain closed, again, given the. nature of tasks that people perform on them (eg: they use banking apps on smartphones but log in to a bank's portal via a browser on computers). They don't necessarily need to mirror each other (too closely), and perhaps they simply shouldn't.

It's kind like how I own both a MBA and an iPad, and I am happy with my MBA running macOS and my iPad running iOS (rather than both running macOS). I do my lesson prep on my Mac, and my iPad displays those resources in the classroom. Each has its own strengths that allow it to stand out in the right conditions, and I have no desire for them to essentially be a carbon copy of the other. 😬

It was that way because Microsoft chose to allow an ecosystem to raise all ships. You’re advocating for the concentration of wealth generated by a platform to go to the platform maker as a rent seeker.

A mobile platform designed for mobile doesn’t have to be designed that way just because it’s for mobile. This is Apple successfully retconning the entire history of software.

 

[surferfb]

There aren’t even any general-purpose apps for the PS5 even first party.

This is nothing like the comparison between the iPhone and a Mac, which literally run the same software.

The Mac can literally run iPad and iPhone apps, unchanged, unless the developer opts out on purpose!

I hate the game console situation as well, but it’s pretty different than this one.

I’d argue the reason there aren’t any general purpose apps for PS5 is because Sony doesn’t allow them.

But that’s besides the point. The term “general purpose computer” does not appear once in the DMA, it’s entirely a post-hoc retconning by forum visitors of why it’s fine that Apple has to open up but Sony and Nintendo don’t.

The DMA claims to be neutral, but it’s applied selectively. That’s the problem.

Consoles have the exact same “gatekeeping” structure Apple does. Either “gatekeeping” is a problem, in which case Sony and Nintendo should be subject to the law, or it’s not, in which case Apple shouldn’t be either. The EU can’t have it both ways.

 

[Abazigal]

A mobile platform designed for mobile doesn’t have to be designed that way just because it’s for mobile. This is Apple successfully retconning the entire history of software.

And it's hard to argue with the results. Apple saw the problems with PCs, and wisely decided to address them in iOS with the App Store model, and I will argue that this is what allows for the greatest amount of benefit to the greatest number of users (more people are downloading more apps than ever as a result). That Apple happens to make a lot of money in the process is the by-product of them making a great product that people want to use.

Which is precisely the whole point. Customers don't hate closed, walled-garden ecosystems. Yet here people are wanting to blow up the entire ecosystem just because Tim Sweeney wants to make more money from Fortnite and has managed to convince everybody that he's actually doing god's work.

 

[jlc1978]

Who is to say they shouldn’t be allowed to “freely” download apps like they do on Windows?

Why shouldn't a company be allowed to decide how to sell ita product?

In my day that’s just how it worked. There was no central authority running a certificate server and god knows what else to ensure that only blessed software can be run on the platform.

The market evolved a lot differently, back then, there was no infrastructure to support the current model so software was distributed on tape, disks via B&M stores or mail order. The market evolved as technology improved.

It was that way because Microsoft chose to allow an ecosystem to raise all ships. You’re advocating for the concentration of wealth generated by a platform to go to the platform maker as a rent seeker.

MS really didn't have a choice because the infrastructure was not in place to create an App Store. When it comes to rent seeking, MS is front and center.

As for lifting all ships, Apple did that with the App Store by increasing significantly what a developer gets from a sale, reducing the costs and risk of bring an app to market, and providing access to a lucrative world wide market.

I do recognise that this line of reasoning can also be used to argue against Apple's 30% cut, just that I haven't really seen anyone argue convincingly for why 30% is too much (besides "it just is"), or what a reasonable cut might look like (besides "make it zero and let Apple subsidise the costs of operating the App Store via iPhone profits).

What gets lost in the 30% discussion is small developers only pay 15%; and especially for small developers, greatly reduced the cost and risk of bringing a product to the market. No more finding a distributor (who gets a cut), investing in pakaing up front before you get a single sale, etc. Developers used to be lucky to get 30%, Apple removed a lot of teh friction in bringing a software product to market. Add in that you used to have to buy developer tools, which often weren't cheap, if you wanted something more than Basic.

A company making millions off an app should expect to pay the company enabling them to make that much money, and 30% is not unreasonable, IMHO.

Small developers should be concerned that the changes Apple is being forced to make will hurt them in the long run and cost them more upfront and per sale. In the end, Apple should be allowed to offer teh current model as an option for developers, even if they have to offer alternative terms. I'd bet few small developers will find a better deal that offers access to the same customer base. Sweeny does't care about any of that, he just wants a bigger slice of the pie, at Apple's expense, while still enjoying the benefits of the App Store.

A PS5 isn’t “just a game console” in any technical sense. It’s a general-purpose computer with a restricted OS, but I guess that’s only a problem when Apple does it.

At one point is was possible to run a different OS on a Playstation, Sony put an end to that. No one seems to complain about that, so I guess you are right.

 

[AppliedMicro]

That's an artificial distinction with rules made up randomly to suit the argument.

It’s as artificial a distinction as Apple’s rules that differentiate between different in-app transactions:
ones that are commission-free and can use any payment method others that require use of Apple’s IAP.

When my new principal came in 2019, one of the first things that she made clear was that she would not tolerate the use of "that's how we have always done it" as a reason (or an excuse) for doing anything. Any proposal has to stand on its own merits, and you need to be able to justify why you feel that is the best course of action to take (one way was to do up a comparison table and weigh the pros and cons respectively). Just because that's how our predecessors had done something in the past doesn't mean that was the best way then, or that it continues to be the best way today, or that there were no problems or tradeoffs whatsoever

Agree.

Regardless of how it used to be: letting two or three companies - all located in a single foreign with increasingly adversarial foreign policy - gatekeep, control and “tax” distribution of pretty much all commercial desktop/mobile software is clearly not a good idea to me. Nor Europe or Japan.

But that’s besides the point. The term “general purpose computer” does not appear once in the DMA, it’s entirely a post-hoc retconning by forum visitors

Its “spirit”, if you will, is part of the term “core platform service”:

“core platform services feature a number of characteristics that can be exploited by the undertakings providing them. An example of such characteristics of core platform services is extreme scale economies, which often result from nearly zero marginal costs to add business users or end users. Other such characteristics of core platform services are very strong network effects, an ability to connect many business users with many end users through the multisidedness of these services, a significant degree of dependence of both business users and end users, lock-in effects, a lack of multi-homing for the same purpose by end users, vertical integration, and data driven-advantages”

(…)

A small number of large undertakings providing core platform services have emerged with considerable economic power that could qualify them to be designated as gatekeepers pursuant to this Regulation. Typically, they feature an ability to connect many business users with many end users through their services, which, in turn, enables them to leverage their advantages, such as their access to large amounts of data, from one area of activity to another. Some of those undertakings exercise control over whole platform ecosystems in the digital economy and are structurally extremely difficult to challenge or contest by existing or new market operators, irrespective of how innovative and efficient those market operators may be.”

While the same may, in principle, to gaming platforms, it should be obvious that platform that do “only” games do not even nearly command similar and wide-reaching power and grip of whole economies as “general purpose computing” platforms and their developers.

Why shouldn't a company be allowed to decide how to sell ita product?

They should - but not when they too much market power (monopoly power) and an uncontestable position.

 

[BaldiMac]

They should - but not when they too much market power (monopoly power) and an uncontestable position.

In the US, the court ruled that the Apple didn't violate any state or federal antitrust laws. And the DMA doesn't consider market power. A company could be in a hotly contested market with a 10% share and still be labeled a gatekeeper based solely on size.

But that's the usual strategy for so many people in this forum. Just throw out loaded terms (monopoly, duopoly, rent seeking, anti competitive, etc.) that have no legal applicability instead of making an actual argument.

 

[surferfb]

Its “spirit”, if you will, is part of the term “core platform service”:

“core platform services feature a number of characteristics that can be exploited by the undertakings providing them. An example of such characteristics of core platform services is extreme scale economies, which often result from nearly zero marginal costs to add business users or end users. Other such characteristics of core platform services are very strong network effects, an ability to connect many business users with many end users through the multisidedness of these services, a significant degree of dependence of both business users and end users, lock-in effects, a lack of multi-homing for the same purpose by end users, vertical integration, and data driven-advantages”

Thanks for helping me prove my point. "Core platform service" doesn't mean anything. It was just a list made up to hit American companies and avoid EU ones. Virtually everything in that list applies to both consoles and Spotify.

• Extreme scale and nearly zero marginal cost to add business users or end users
  • Yes for consoles
  • Yes for Spotify
• Network effects
  • Yes for consoles (More Players ->More Dev Support -> More Players and "all my friends use Playstation so I need to get one too)
  • Yes for Spotify (Playlist sharing, social features, "all my friends use Spotify so it must be the best")
• Ability to connect many business users with many end users
  • Yes for consoles
  • Yes for Spotify
• Multisideness
  • Yes for consoles (developers/publishers on one, gamers on another)
  • Yes for Spotify (publishers/artist on one, listeners on the other)
• Lock-in effects
  • Yes for consoles (purchased games, friend lists, subscriptions)
  • Yes for Spotify (Playlists, Saved Libraries, etc.)
• Lack of multi-homing for the same purpose by end users
  • Yes for consoles (buying other systems are expensive, software is expensive)
  • Yes for Spotify (who is paying for multiple streaming services)
• Data-driven advantages
  • Yes for consoles (Store and commerce data, social graph, engagement,e even cheating/fraud detection)
  • Yes for Spotify (more listening->better recommendations/personalization->more listening)

So remind me again why game consoles and music streaming aren't "core platform services"?

A small number of large undertakings providing core platform services have emerged with considerable economic power that could qualify them to be designated as gatekeepers pursuant to this Regulation. Typically, they feature an ability to connect many business users with many end users through their services, which, in turn, enables them to leverage their advantages, such as their access to large amounts of data, from one area of activity to another. Some of those undertakings exercise control over whole platform ecosystems in the digital economy and are structurally extremely difficult to challenge or contest by existing or new market operators, irrespective of how innovative and efficient those market operators may be.”

Let's do the same thing for this paragraph

• Considerable economic power:
  • Yes for Consoles (three major companies, one of which certainly seems to be getting out of the space. I believe you call that a duopoly; Sony and Nintendo are making billions of dollars a year)
  • Yes for Spotify (Clearly most powerful player in its market - meets all relevant thresholds to be a gatekeeper if music streaming hadn't been corruptly excluded)
• Ability to connect many business users with many end users (same as above)
  • Yes for consoles
  • Yes for Spotify
• Leverage their access to large amounts of data from one area of activity to another (also see above)
  
  • Yes for consoles (Store and commerce data, subscription, usage data informing what games to fund)
  • Yes for Spotify (music, podcasts, audiobooks, ads)
• Exercise control over whole platform ecosystems
  
  • Yes for consoles (that's literally what consoles are, platform ecosystems)
  • Yes for Spotify (governs the rules and interfaces for discovery, playback, and monetization across business users and devices)
• Structurally extremely difficult to challenge or contest by new or existing operators:
  
  • Yes for consoles (hardware investment, exclusive content, social graphs, extensive games libraries)
  • Yes for Spotify (Scale & data/learning moat (i.e., you need listeners to improve your algorithm - can't get listeners if you have a bad one), you can't innovate your way around writing giant checks for music rights)

While the same may, in principle, to gaming platforms, it should be obvious that platform that do “only” games do not even nearly command similar and wide-reaching power and grip of whole economies as “general purpose computing” platforms and their developers.

I'd argue consoles map cleanly to Operating Systems and Online Intermediation Services, and therefore should be subject to the DMA already; I would assume the reason they don't is they don't meet the thresholds (which we all know were set artificially high to ensure primarily American companies would be hit). Spotify meets the thresholds, but as I showed responding to your first paragraph, they were corruptly excluded because the DMA was designed to hit American companies, not EU ones.

 

[germanbeer007]

That’s entirely the point. That’s what they do on game consoles

you're still making a distinction to suit the argument, not apple.

Sony should be able to tax everything that happens on the Playstation platform.
Apple should be able to tax everything that happens on the iOS platform.

If you're against this act, you should be against the general principle rather than cherry picking which platform gets to do it.

 

[jlc1978]

They should - but not when they too much market power (monopoly power) and an uncontestable position.

Wheter Apple has a monopoly in the smartphone market, the question is what is a reasonable set of regulations. Regulating privacy, power standards is not unreasonable, where regulators overreach, IMHO, is when they start telling companies they have to grant access to their system and limit what they can charge for such access. Even more overreach is to be forced to carry competitor's stores.

Ultimately, Apple will have to change its fee structure to recoup any revenue loss due to various country's laws regarding access and payment systems. How they choose to do it will dictate how the app market evolves. Whatever happens, Apple's real goal is to keep the revenue from big developers flowing, as it likely is the most significant source of revenue for them.

Small developers could find themselves paying a lot more upfront if Apple institutes d/l and hosting fees, signing fees, etc., increasing the financial costs and risks for small developers. Such changes could also spell the end of the freemium model as developers would be paying for users that never buy anything. Even something as simple as users offloading apps and then d/l them later would coast developers each time it gets d/l and not result in additional revenue.

OTOH, Apple could look at the revenue from small developers and decide to drastically reduce the costs to them if the revenue is small enough. Less than say 500k/year? Pay a flat x for a developer account if you charge for apps. No charges beyond that. That would make it unprofitable for 3rd party stores who likely will be dependent on small developers for their store. Even at the current 15%, I suspect developers will not find 3rd party alternatives that attractive or cheaper.

It will be interesting to see this play out.

 

[diamond.g]

Wheter Apple has a monopoly in the smartphone market, the question is what is a reasonable set of regulations. Regulating privacy, power standards is not unreasonable, where regulators overreach, IMHO, is when they start telling companies they have to grant access to their system and limit what they can charge for such access. Even more overreach is to be forced to carry competitor's stores.

Ultimately, Apple will have to change its fee structure to recoup any revenue loss due to various country's laws regarding access and payment systems. How they choose to do it will dictate how the app market evolves. Whatever happens, Apple's real goal is to keep the revenue from big developers flowing, as it likely is the most significant source of revenue for them.

Small developers could find themselves paying a lot more upfront if Apple institutes d/l and hosting fees, signing fees, etc., increasing the financial costs and risks for small developers. Such changes could also spell the end of the freemium model as developers would be paying for users that never buy anything. Even something as simple as users offloading apps and then d/l them later would coast developers each time it gets d/l and not result in additional revenue.

OTOH, Apple could look at the revenue from small developers and decide to drastically reduce the costs to them if the revenue is small enough. Less than say 500k/year? Pay a flat x for a developer account if you charge for apps. No charges beyond that. That would make it unprofitable for 3rd party stores who likely will be dependent on small developers for their store. Even at the current 15%, I suspect developers will not find 3rd party alternatives that attractive or cheaper.

It will be interesting to see this play out.

I think the end of the freemium model would be a win.

 

[jlc1978]

I think the end of the freemium model would be a win.

Yea, but then the developers face the challenge of getting people to pay upfront for an app instead of giving it a try, or risk spending a lot of money for d/l and hosting and not getting enough revenue to cover it and other costs. Which means a developer may find it difficult to offer a basic free version with an add on premium purchase, since they'd be paying for each d/l and hosting and not getting any revenue if the user finds the free version good enough.

 

[diamond.g]

Yea, but then the developers face the challenge of getting people to pay upfront for an app instead of giving it a try, or risk spending a lot of money for d/l and hosting and not getting enough revenue to cover it and other costs. Which means a developer may find it difficult to offer a basic free version with an add on premium purchase, since they'd be paying for each d/l and hosting and not getting any revenue if the user finds the free version good enough.

Do folks consider demos to be fremium as well?

 

[jlc1978]

Do folks consider demos to be fremium as well?

I don’t, but if developers pay per d/l, demos can get expensive.

 

[CarAnalogy]

you're still making a distinction to suit the argument, not apple.

Sony should be able to tax everything that happens on the Playstation platform.
Apple should be able to tax everything that happens on the iOS platform.

If you're against this act, you should be against the general principle rather than cherry picking which platform gets to do it.

The iPhone is not a gaming console. They are different things being treated the same. The PlayStation does not provide general purpose software. The PlayStation is not intended to be a programmable computer aimed at the general public. A personal computer, if you will.

The iPhone is a lot closer to a personal computer than a gaming console and so it should be treated differently. That’s my only point.

Sony does (did?) in fact make personal computers, they called them Vaios. And they treated them differently than game consoles because they were computers.

They also made (make?) Android phones and have to deal with Google’s rules there, but the same thing is happening to Android now for the same reasons as iPhone. It’s gotten so close to a general purpose computer, and so essential to the general public, that treating it like a game console doesn’t make sense anymore.

 

[germanbeer007]

The iPhone is not a gaming console.

The iPhone is a lot closer to a personal computer than a gaming console and so it should be treated differently.

Again, there's no valid reason to treat the stores on gaming consoles vs stores on mobile platforms differently so the distinction makes no sense to do. Platforms should be treated the same, especially when xbox gamers spend $325/year on software while iOS users spend about $120/year on software. If anything, it makes more sense to open up software rules on Xbox/Playstation before we open up software rules on iOS (though I'd still argue platform owners should be allowed to dictate the rules).