Ummm...then who makes the apps for the consumers? The developers. And there are a lot of developers speaking out against Apple, not just a couple disgruntled ones
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 Denied Preliminary Injunction for Fortnite, But Apple Can't Block Unreal Engine
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ummm...then who makes the apps for the consumers? The developers. And there are a lot of developers speaking out against Apple, not just a couple disgruntled ones
I have never heard a valid reason behind people's arguments here. Why do you feel 30% is too high? Is that compared with the industry standard of 30%? If Apple was the only one taking a 30% cut it would be easier to understand people's logic here. But I just don't understand why people feel 30% is too high but are fine with other companies taking 30% too.
I am not sure I am following your logic. Are you saying EVERY POSSIBLE CHANGE to iOS apps is a server side change when the code has been in the app for weeks/months? I have a whole list of update notes for apps I have that just now introduce new features.
Even if what you say is true, should my App be allowed to remain if I flip a switch to an app that just shows adult material?
It is also a misuse of the term hot fix. Hotfixes are typically referred to as immediate urgent updates to fix an issue. This was a standard update, not a hot fix.
A hotfix or quick-fix engineering update (QFE update) is a single, cumulative package that includes information (often in the form of one or more files) that is used to address a problem in a software product (i.e., a software bug). Typically, hotfixes are made to address a specific customer situation.
Go to any real software development company. Code changes that can wait for weeks are referred to as just updates. Code changes that need to get out NOW...Customers are calling in non stop, our product is broken - these are hot fixes. Why do you think it has the word "hot" in the name people?
I have been doing this for over 20 years. I have never heard software development companies refer normal updates like what Fortnite did as a hot fix. Its always been "We released version 4 to the customer but they cannot open the product at all due to error XYZ, you need to work after hours and on the weekend to create a hotfix that needs to go out ASAP so the customer can use the product". Its a "hot" fix, name tells you all.
But didn’t Epic admit to deploying a hotfix (patched code)?
Edit: next time I will read all of the posts before making a reply.
Again, that’s just irrelevant semantics. Epic says it was a hotfix. Their lawyer says it was a hot fix. They submitted a sworn declaration from their engineer who called it a hot fix.
And the judge called them out for playing games.
I am not sure you are understanding hot fixes? They can certainly be done on iOS. I have seen them. They are just urgent updates. Maybe if you go to this section of the app and do this one thing it crashes the app. But a lot of our customers are calling us about it. So all the developers drop what they are doing, and working on this urgent update to the app to prevent the crashing (what a hot fix is), submit it for code review, and get it released. Customers update the app and are good to go.
I am not sure why you think hot fixes are impossible on iOS. They are just urgent updates.
Piss off the developers, and consumers will get fewer apps. Until the 2010s, it was really hard to find Mac-compatible software because Apple kept changing APIs under devs' feet. And it's still hard to find Mac-compatible computer games because Apple declared war on OpenGL after propping it up forever.
Yes, Windows had more marketshare, but also developing for Windows was/is a piece of cake, and your software would last forever (literally 22 years in many cases so far). Part of that marketshare came from consumers preferring the OS that had all the software, despite the OS itself being trash.
On iOS, Apple treated their devs much more nicely, and now there's a great market. Street wisdom when I worked in SF four years ago said that Android devs were harder to find than iOS devs. But that can change.
Last edited:
If they are calling it a hot fix to justify their actions, then I think it is relevant semantics.
If conditions were so bad on the iOS App Store, developers would have gone on to develop exclusively for android long ago. The reason they don’t is because the iOS platform is still the more lucrative of the two, ironically because of the aforementioned features (lower incidence of piracy, Apple having aggregated the best customers, and providing a safe and secure environment for customers to purchase apps from).
What’s happening now is that with so many developers in the App Store, everyone’s share of the pie is now smaller, so the only way left to increase their revenue is to go after Apple’s 30% cut.
It’s sheer greed and ingratitude at its finest. Companies like Spotify and Epic didn’t make any noise when leveraging on Apple’s lucrative install base to quickly reach out to hundreds of millions of users, and after they have reaped all the benefits from Apple that they could, they are now deciding to bite the hand which feeds them.
Make no mistake - this move is solely for their own benefit, not that of the consumers. If Steve Jobs were still alive, he would have made an example of them long ago.
Is there a legal requirement for apple to allow any 3rd party apps? Would apple be justified in just closing the App store? I dont really get this argument. Iif apple would be legally justified in releasing a device with no app store, why is there a problem with a “gatekeeper” type app store.
there are millions of devices where developers have no access to the device.
there are millions of devices where developers have no access to the device.
I agree. This eventually comes down to government telling a company how to operate. Obviously they are not doing anything illegal so this argument would be different in that scenario. But there is no precedent to force a company to operate a certain way.
If Apple says "okay no apps on iOS then", does that mean the government can force Apple to use revenue to keep developers hired to maintain app functionality on iOS? Will the government pay Apple then if they force them to do this?
I think this can eventually lead to a situation where the government has no business being so involved with how a company operates.
All i’m saying is that the argument about what a hot fix is or isn’t on this board is meaningless. What matters is that epic told the judge it was a hot fix, and said they routinely do hotfixes, and then tried to say “since we routinely do these and they are harmless, this last one is not a problem.” Which is cuckoo logic.
Both Epic and Apple have a dark side, both in the pursuit of maximizing profit. EPIC acted like a spoiled kid. However I do feel that Apple's business model within the App Store is not transparent or fair and I am not referring to the 30% cut. Nobody is an angel here.
I don't know why you are making such a big deal about us discussing them misusing the term hot fix. Generally most discussions on this board are meaningless other than just having conversations. The judge isn't basing their verdict on our messages, neither is Epic or Apple going to change based on what we say here. They don't even read it most likely, so we cannot really have any meaningful impact on these conversations.
Their use of the term is 100% incorrect. Just like if I call a duck a goose. Someone would definitely comment saying I am referring to the wrong animal! 😃
Even if just one person realized hot fixes meant something else, then I think my comment is meaningful.
A lot? Do tell. Many devs don't seem to be having any issues having their apps on the platform.
Also, nobody's stopping those devs to be Android exclusive (and some decided to do just that). Android's much larger market share is more lucrative.
I don’t think they’re calling it a hotfix to justify their actions. When it comes to the legal consideration, it doesn’t much matter whether they call it a hotfix or a chimichanga. They‘ve explained to the court what they’re referring to.
I think they‘re calling it a hotfix because, according to Epic’s Technical Director of Engineering, that’s how it’s typically referred to internally at Epic.
The only ones making a big deal are the nerdsplainers with the “Actually, the lark is nature’s most UNhappy bird” talk. I’m just pointing out that it’s besides the point. The interesting bit is that the judge is onto Epic, and told them so.
That has me worried about the software development at Epic. What do they call real hot fixes then?
You need to tell that to the court then as that is their statement. Ask them if you can be an advisor in May if the Judge needs some help.
I miss the days of no in app purchases and no subscription fees... Those were the good ole days...
Some of us remember the earlier days of Apple where their market share was small and their shelf presence was even smaller. If you wanted Apple software and went to the likes of CompUSA, BestBuy, Circuit City, or Fry's Electronics, you'd end up in a Mac section (maybe) with your choice of "Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing" or versions of Microsoft Office or Virtual PC that were two releases behind being current (yet still at the full price).
Apple built their Apple Store (both the physical ones and the software stores for iOS and Mac) to eliminate the appearance that they were so much a niche product. No longer would you go to a big box store and be told "Why do you want a Mac? This Celeron-based Gateway 2000 is what you really want!" The same goes for the software.
You want it done right, you do it yourself. They did. This certainly had a benefit for Apple but it also had a benefit for the developer. No longer was "shareware" the only way to get Mac or phone software that may or may not actually work and may or may not be of questionable origin. And, if that didn't work, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and others wouldn't have followed that path so quickly.
Is 30% too much? That's a business decision. But, if 40% of your sales are coming from a platform with 10% of the potential users (made up numbers here; this is going to vary per company/product), then I'd wager Apple's doing something more for you than just hosting a download link. If it's the other way around (fewer customers than percent of potential customers) I'd say a good business decision would be to drop that platform altogether. That seems to be the choice Epic made.
Apple built their Apple Store (both the physical ones and the software stores for iOS and Mac) to eliminate the appearance that they were so much a niche product. No longer would you go to a big box store and be told "Why do you want a Mac? This Celeron-based Gateway 2000 is what you really want!" The same goes for the software.
You want it done right, you do it yourself. They did. This certainly had a benefit for Apple but it also had a benefit for the developer. No longer was "shareware" the only way to get Mac or phone software that may or may not actually work and may or may not be of questionable origin. And, if that didn't work, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and others wouldn't have followed that path so quickly.
Is 30% too much? That's a business decision. But, if 40% of your sales are coming from a platform with 10% of the potential users (made up numbers here; this is going to vary per company/product), then I'd wager Apple's doing something more for you than just hosting a download link. If it's the other way around (fewer customers than percent of potential customers) I'd say a good business decision would be to drop that platform altogether. That seems to be the choice Epic made.
When Steve announced Apple would only take 30%, developers were ecstatic, especially since many were getting less than 50% under the traditional retail model. The problem is this sense of entitlement that’s so pervasive in our culture. What makes people think they have the right to determine what someone else should charge for their product or service? What makes 20% fair but not 30%? If Apple charged 50%, then people would say that a much more fair rate would be 40% or 30%. No one is forcing these developers to develop for iOS. Don’t like it? Develop for Windows. Or Mac. Or don’t develop at all. But don’t sign a contract then get greedy and say that Apple is taking too much as if it’s some kind of surprise.