Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
People simping for Apple in this is just sad.

Nobody would accept the premise that creating a computer operating system would entitle you to a 30% cut of every application developed for it, nor would anyone accept the premise that Microsoft or Apple should have total control over what applications are available for the general public to install or run. Nobody would accept the idea that Apple should get a cut of physical goods purchased through the Amazon or Ebay iOS apps.
The fact that video game consoles with their own OS and take a cut of developer sales up to 30%, and one of them is Microsoft, kind of disproves your point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Onelifenofear

TS >Currently, Meta doesn’t have a monopoly or even a significant user base in any core businesses in which Epic competes, or intends to compete . . . Meta isn’t doing anything that stifles us at all. You’d have to speculate about the future. But, in general, I’m incredibly happy and impressed with the degree of investment that it is making, in developing a future hardware platform.
So berates Apple and Google as monopolies because of the app stores but because Meta doesn’t restrict his businesses he considers Meta not a monopoly at all. In fact he looks at Meta as a ally. Just wow!
 
So does Apple ?
You ignored the first part of my post. Apple provides tremendous value to developers. They invest in the platform and keep consumers engaged. Sweeney just wants to change the logo on the store and collect some money.
 
You ignored the first part of my post. Apple provides tremendous value to developers. They invest in the platform and keep consumers engaged. Sweeney just wants to change the logo on the store and collect some money.
I ignored nothing….
 
Oh really? Android didn't succeed until it copied iOS. And Windows Phone was a market failure.

Yes, really. If Apple had gone the "feature phone" route instead, that doesn't mean someone else wouldn't have come along with an iOS/Android setup and potentially left Apple in the dust or playing catch up, etc.

Besides, the iPhone wasn't a runaway hit out of the box either. Lots of other mobile OS/phone makers continued to see notable sales increases after the iPhone came out and if Apple hadn't drastically slashed prices (8GB iPhone went from $599 to $199 in about a year), who knows what would've happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech
Does Tim Sweeney remember when software developers were lucky to keep 20-30% after the publisher, distributor and retailer all took their cut?

Now developers keep 70-85% and have access to a huge customer base. As developers we have it much better than the days of packaged retail software.

Largely true, although software often cost a lot more (adjusting for inflation) back in the day. 30 years ago, MS Office for the Mac could run the equivalent of $1,100+ in 2022 dollars. Today, it's $150. 20% to 30% of $1,100 is still more than even 100% of $150.
 
Yes, really. If Apple had gone the "feature phone" route instead, that doesn't mean someone else wouldn't have come along with an iOS/Android setup and potentially left Apple in the dust or playing catch up, etc.

Besides, the iPhone wasn't a runaway hit out of the box either. Lots of other mobile OS/phone makers continued to see notable sales increases after the iPhone came out and if Apple hadn't drastically slashed prices (8GB iPhone went from $599 to $199 in about a year), who knows what would've happened
Apple didn't "drastically slash prices". The consumer's upfront price went from $599 to $399 because the allowed AT&T to subsidize the phone like most other smartphones instead of paying for the whole thing upfront. Apple still got the full $599.

The iPhone turned into a runaway hit with the iPhone 4.
 
It is not. I am 100% fine with my cut going to Apple. In the bad old days you’d be lucky to take home 30%, with cd / dvd production, marketing , warehousing and distribution, retail cut ( that was 40% alone )

Even more modern delivery - storage and payment cuts are more than I am paying now.

Sweeny just wants all Apples customers for free.
 
Apple didn't just take a chance on online stores, but on physical stores as well. Remember the popular wisdom on brick-and-mortar stores? Gateway was taking a pounding, and everyone thought Apple was foolish to open physical stores.
At the end of the day, Apple is tiny in comparison to Android and Windows. So, they have all right to defend and protect their platform. It’s only a matter of time before Epic has their clashes with other platforms like Facebook.
 
Apple didn't "drastically slash prices". The consumer's upfront price went from $599 to $399 because the allowed AT&T to subsidize the phone like most other smartphones instead of paying for the whole thing upfront. Apple still got the full $599.

The iPhone turned into a runaway hit with the iPhone 4.

All of the prices I mentioned were AT&T subsidized (required 2 year plan) prices.

The original 8GB iPhone launched in June 2007 for $599. Less than three months later, the price was dropped to $399 and due to the uproar, Apple ended up having to give early buyers $100 Apple credit. The following year when the 8GB iPhone 3G came out, it was priced at just $199.

Again, in about a year's time, the price of an 8GB iPhone was drastically slashed from $599 to $199.
 
All of the prices I mentioned were AT&T subsidized (required 2 year plan) prices.

The original 8GB iPhone launched in June 2007 for $599. Less than three months later, the price was dropped to $399 and due to the uproar, Apple ended up having to give early buyers $100 Apple credit. The following year when the 8GB iPhone 3G came out, it was priced at just $199.

Again, in about a year's time, the price of an 8GB iPhone was drastically slashed from $599 to $199.
They like to remember history differently it seems.
 
All of the prices I mentioned were AT&T subsidized (required 2 year plan) prices.

The original 8GB iPhone launched in June 2007 for $599. Less than three months later, the price was dropped to $399 and due to the uproar, Apple ended up having to give early buyers $100 Apple credit. The following year when the 8GB iPhone 3G came out, it was priced at just $199.

Again, in about a year's time, the price of an 8GB iPhone was drastically slashed from $599 to $199.
Turns out the correct answer was in between our two versions of history. :)

The iPhone launched at $499 (4Gb) and $599 (8 Gb) without subsidy but did require a 2 yr contract. They eliminated the 4Gb version and dropped the price of the 8GB to $399 without subsidy (and gave a $100 credit to early adopters). The iPhone 3G started $599 unlocked, $199 with subsidy.


 
I just don’t get how this isn’t obvious to them yet, it’s mind blowing.
For some reason, this comes to mind...
1653585597387.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech
The argument that the App Store has helped a lot of developers and the argument that Apple's cut is to high are not mutually exclusive.

Once a certain fraction of all software globally is sold over your platform and you reach an overwhelming market power (a point that Apple and Google have passed a long time ago), you have to accept the responsibility that comes with it. You're not just responsible to your shareholders. You don't get to keep 30% of every transaction ever made just because you own the platform.

Before the App Store, taking 30% of anything as a digital platform was unthinkable. Imagine if Microsoft had done the same with Windows. Imagine if VISA and MasterCard took 30% of every transaction just because they provide the platform. Everything would be a lot more expensive for consumers only for a handful of corporations to get even richer.

It's just greedy, plain and simple.

I really don't understand why people are defending Apple so fervidly on this topic. It's really not good for anyone that Apple takes such a large cut (same goes for Google, etc. of course). It's not good for developers, it's not good for you as the consumer. It's only good for Apple.

All of you people always complain about Apple's prices for their devices being too high (Studio Display, Airpods Max, etc.), but at the same time you're all going head over heels to defend Apple's taking 30% of every transaction.
Before the App Store you bought your mobile apps through the phone company. They took easily 30% or more and offered zero support and consumer protections. Scamming was rampant, "forever" charge scams were rampant and the phone company looked the other way while threatening to turn your phone off and send you to collections for their mistakes.

The Mac App Store was meant to compete with boxed software. Software developers were lucky to take home 25% of retail after Publishing, printing, and retail markup figured in. Retail markup for boxed software was like 40% in the 00s when the app stores started. An independent software developer keeping 70% was Absolutely unheard of.
 
Law makers around the world sees this different.

You are absolutely right, which is why I think Apple will comply, however it wouldn't surprise me if they have a different phone for that market, that is either limited or without something... I don't see them pulling out of the market to spite the regulators of that area.

But little Timmy from Epic is a douche...
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.