But then your discriminating against smaller OEM’s from being able to sell their product so then your putting legislation in place to stop companies from earning a living
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 Has Paid Over $100 Million in Legal Fees to Fight Apple's App Store Rules
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple is legally liable to adhere to shareholders and investors. SOME or MOST of those folks, especially those in BIG BIG tech want to maximize profits. Apple is doing the fiduciary responsibility to appease their shareholders. Until the lay or ruling says NO, they proceed with doing as much as they can.
This isn't like Apple is doing something pure illegal, if it was the decision would have been made many years ago.
No Apple is forced to change, they will NOT be liable for losing some of their shareholders values.
Call Apple greedy or they should have done this long ago, but their first and primary and LEGAL responsibility is to their shareholders. If shareholders told Apple they wanted App Store fees 80%, Apple would make it 80%.
How so? All OEMs, whether big or small, would pay the same amount to license Android. It would be fair and non-discriminatory.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers called Apple’s previous 27 percent “work-around” fee “a gross miscalculation” and ordered immediate compliance
Because it’s too close to the 30% so it’s to discourage people from using payment links that’s why she told them to do one
That is the key thing here. We are discussing this WHOLE thing about Epic and.....Fortnite? Yeah Apple has a monopoly on where you can play Fortnite. Let's see, where you can play it?
Windows
PlayStation 4
Xbox One
Nintendo Switch
Xbox Series X/S
PlayStation 5
I am pretty sure that makes Apple NOT a monopoly here. All of those have MUCH higher marketshare towards gamers especially.
Because then if you’re a smaller OEM then you might not be able to afford to pay the figure quoted so then it would hurt that business that is why it will not get regulated with a figure that is why google gives it away for free
The judge wanted a 0% commission on non-Apple payments. This is the revenue that Apple would have to change the App Store business model for.
That doesn’t justify allowing Google to continue with anti-competitive conduct.
The OEM could either eat the cost of the license fee, increase the cost of the product, or a bit of both.
The difference is these companies don’t bring out new generation of products every year that’s the difference
For example the switch came out in 2018 and has just about to get replaced in 2025
That’s the difference between Apple
And these game makers
That’s why Tim Sweeney says Apple aren’t justified to take anything more than 12% because of how Apple’s business model is set up
That’s not what she said
She said Apple you can charge a fee however it needs to be realistic and they came back with 27%
That is why it’s zero because they are not coming back with a realistic figure
Because they are greedy greedy greedy
That’s why we are now discussing what business model Apple might switch to if they don’t win their appeal.
The article discusses the illegal in app purchase system in the US. I assume after our conversation you’re now on my side and we are agreed to agree. Great to give developers in app purchase freedom to choose and keep money. I agree with you an alternative store makes things more complicated for the developer hopefully someone will make it easier to distribute everywhere! Have a good one.
The judge set a 0% commission because that’s what she says the law requires them to charge for non-Apple payments. This is where the fee for service would come in instead (i.e., what the judge would consider a realistic figure for services provided, fee per download, fee per app review etc).
Its flipping economics for goodness sake. If developers don't want to have the 30% cut, don't release an app. At what point should it be ILLEGAL to request money as a business owner?
Should Apple sell a MONITOR STAND for $1,000? Should they go to court because monitor stands should not be this expensive? Or should basic economics be at play here, nobody buys so lower your price?
How is Sweeney the authority to tell Apple what to charge their customers?
Literally almost every other platform I have listed charges the same 30%.
And what does bringing out a new generation even mean? Fortnite doesn't require the latest MAX iPhone to play it.
How’s it anti competitive if Apple is there competition so it’s not anti competitive then is it?
No court in the land is going to make someone pay for something that they got free before if it hurts their business model
Read the comment chain understand the context.
Seoras said they used to have their app on the Amazon app store, but removed it as it was not worth it
You said the following:
"you’ll soon be very tempted to pay only 2.9% and question the 15% you’re giving Apple"
And I explained that even at 2.9% the time and investments to set up ANYTHING related to this would not be worth it.
This has NOTHING to do with the article, I was responding to your comments stating that the Seoras would be back because percentage but that is not always the case.
You are NOT going to hire 5 people to handle external payments, support costs, etc or even support extra stores if only 5 people are going to pay for the app. THAT was the point. It doesn't matter if the cost would be 0%. TIME and INVESTMENT on supporting MORE than App Store is not worth it in ALL cases. Regardless of percentage.
Apple does not sell or license its OS to anyone else.
The market for licensable mobile operating systems has precisely one option, Android. Samsung cannot shop around and license a mobile OS from another company because no other options exist. If we put a stop to Google’s anti-competitive behaviour that ensures Android dominates this market then perhaps more competitors would exist and Samsung would be able to offer a range of different products with different operating systems and ecosystems.
Because ethosik
Nintendo brings out a new console every 7 years because that is how the games industry works so that means that in that time Nintendo are only getting that big purchase once in 7 years
Where as Apple brings out new iPhones every year and make massive profits every year because they bring out new phones every year
That’s the difference
Yes there is a difference because in mobile there is only two OS’s so you pretty much don’t have a choice if you want to sell your app.
That is why epic took Apple to court to get better terms unless you think companies don’t have the right to try get better terms & conditions
It’s not anti competitive behavior because another company exists is that not Apple’s argument when anyone attacks them
Depends on which market you are talking about.
If you are talking about the mobile OS market there are 2 options (consumers have the choice of 2 different operating systems).
If you are talking about the licensable mobile OS market there is 1 option (OEMs have the choice of 1 operating system).
Both markets need a lot more competitors.
Google will not get regulated for being
Anti competitive because Apple & iOS exists so that is how both companies are able to keep the status quo in the west because
When ever they are attacked by governments or taken to court suddenly both companies mention each other
That is why in the current smartphone market in the west no 3rd company will break that 2 party system
Google would get regulated if the focus was on licensable mobile operating systems. That’s why defining the market is so crucial. No regulation means no increased competition.
Oh so it is Sweeney's business to get into Apple's books and say "Since you release a new product every year, you CANNOT price your services at X dollars?"
That is basically what you are saying.
Is Sweeney a shareholder for Apple? He doesn't have the authority to dictate how Apple prices their products.
It will make no difference
Because Microsoft tried it & failed
Amazon tried it & failed
The system is set up away that it’s virtually impossible to break through because for example android has a customer base of 3.5 billion people
If a small independent company brought out an amazing OS then other factors would stop it from being successful
No that’s not what I’m saying
That what he said
That is one of his reasons for saying the
15% to 30% IAP fees are junk
Compared with console makers
Who don’t release a new console every year based on their business model
For example since 2020 Sony have sold about 74 million PS5 consoles
What is Apple’s iPhone sales in that time
That’s his point
It would make no odds to Apple if there fee was 12% because they are guaranteed to earn big profits every year regardless
And are just profiteering in his eyes
That’s why he took them to court