Epic Games Loses Again in Battle With Apple Over App Store Rules

[tripsync]

That extra 30% is meaningless if the customerbase is not installing the .ipa and is still using the App Store, which they most likely will.

I think you just proved my point? App will pop up a message "we're leaving App Store. install XYZ store to continue using the app"

Case in point: The Epic Game Store. The Cursed Fortnite Launcher has a much more generous cut for developers than Steam does, but that generous cut is not being taken full advantage of as EGS sees a lot less traffic than Steam does. Borderlands 3 for example, while it did well on the Epic Game Store sales wise, after it's exclusivity expired and the game arrived on Steam, the Steam version outsold the EGS version in a short time period. As revealed in court discovery for Apple vs Epic, the EGS is actually losing Epic Games over half a billion each year. It's not making the money they hoped as games just aren't selling there. They had to pretty much stop the exclusivity deals because it was costing them so much for no benefits as most just waited for the exclusivity to expire and the game to come to the much better platform.

1. Epic paid $146 million for exclusivity. 2k benefitted substantially.
2. Not the same scenario. We're going from millions of users to migrate from App Store to EGS, not from 0 users to EGS store. People refused to buy from EGS to make their voices heard.

The same is gonna be true for the iOS App Store since the majority of people are already set up for it, so alternative app stores and sideloading is not gonna be the threat to your precious app store you think it is.

Epic will pay $$$ for exclusivity to get people to install their store on iOS.

I literally worked at Apple at 1 infinite loop (before spaceship campus) as a software engineer. Have pictures/video from a beer bash on campus too that was exclusive to employees. Even have some employee documents from 2012 when I got the job. If I posted a 30 second clip from that event that you can't find anywhere online, you going to take the L or continue to be in denial?

Just like any other app store, in the background. It's not rocket science lmao.

If you were a developer, you'd know that background running tasks are limited and cannot run indefinitely on iOS. Only a few exceptions such as music and navigation apps that are actively playing music or accessing the GPS will run indefinitely. Otherwise, if you tried to download/install an app that took 8 minutes, it wouldn't work. iOS will suspend your app in the middle of an installation for example because it's hogging too much power.

Now could you just ask GPS to be running or have blank music playing so that iOS doesn't close your store? Sure, but users will be seeing the navigation/music icon in the status bar and potentially close your store in the middle of an installation, corrupting the process. We already saw this when Facebook would silently play audio in the background to keep their app alive. People forcefully closed Facebook to keep their battery life up.

LMAO thanks for proving that you've never written an iOS app before.

They'll probably just use their own or a third party service, just like they already do on macOS and Android.

Again, they'll probably just use their own solution. You're overthinking it.

Again, thanks for proving that you've never developed an app.

On an iOS device, a single push notification background service remains open to receive notifications from Apple's push notification servers. All third party apps use a push backend service (whether their own or third party) to send data to Apple's push notification servers and then those notifications get sent to that single push notification background service. This requires a signed certificate from Apple, including Mac apps being sold outside the App Store (which developer pays $99/year to Apple for). Having just one push service running in the background minimizes energy usage which is one of the reasons why iOS has better energy efficiency than Android.

For apps outside of the App Store on iOS, a separate push notification service needs to be running in the background that doesn't go through Apple. So if it was EGS, an EGS push notification service would need to be running and games send their pushes through EGS servers. Same with Microsoft/Google stores. This is also why jailbroken apps cannot send official push notifications and require a jailbroken push service to be run in the background.

It's been a while since I've developed for Android but last I checked, there are many push services running in the background if the app does not use Google's official solution (Firebase or GCM). This sucks up a lot of battery power and is one of the many reasons why iOS is much more power efficient. iOS just has exactly one push service running.

Again: Established userbase. A lot of Candy Crush players are signed in via Apple IDs and have their progress tied to their Apple accounts. They'd have more to lose abandoning the app store than they do to gain.

I've already explained this. That risk was not worth it on Android platform only since the loss of players could result in a net loss after factoring expenses in setting up shop. But when you setup a shop where 30% equates to extra billions over long term, potential loss of players would still result in higher net profit.

Also you keep talking about this "migration process" since you seem to think once iOS 17 comes out that everyone overnight is gonna leave the App Store and just install .ipas, which they're not.

No. Process does not inherently mean overnight.

iOS didn't have an App Store when it launched as iPhone OS in 2007. The App Store wasn't a thing until a year later. Back then Apple wanted everyone to just make web apps.

Irrelevant? Apps have many users now so it's far easier migrate users than it is to acquire new users.

And again, you're already proving that most devs (if any) won't leave the App Store once sideloading becomes available.

I made no indications of how many devs overall will continue or leave the App Store. FYI: my stance on that is most small devs will stay on the App Store, but big devs will move as it makes financial sense to get more of the cut.

Again, you keep assuming everyone is gonna leave once iOS 17 comes out.

No that's not what I'm arguing.

And even if you had to go with sideloading, that would mean there was a better option than the Apple App Store that warranted doing so, and that's Apple's fault for not providing a good enough service than competitors.

Better option for greedy large devs, not a better option for the user. Apple makes it easy for the user to trust and buy apps. A third party store can simply forego user guidelines and review process to undercut Apple's cut of the revenue share which is worse for the user but better for the dev.

 

[Abazigal]

It isn’t benefitting them.

How is it benefitting to consumers though when Apple creates a single point of failure, charge supercompetitive competition rates and prohibits useful app functionality (even when that does not pose a security concern) or makes it unfeasible for developers to implement it?

It goes to show that contrary to what many people have been arguing here, opening up the App Store by way of sideloading doesn't necessarily mean that users are better off ultimately. It just means people are trading one set of compromises for another, and as with any paradigm shift, there will always be winners and losers. And the impression I get from many of the aforementioned arguments I have read is that they want sideloading for whatever reason remains their own, and they don't mind seeing the current App Store model burn to the ground because they believe they are tech-savvy enough to manage the risks (and whether other people are or not is immaterial, because they are not the ones to deal with the fallout ultimately).

I feel that at this point, iOS and android smartphone users are largely self-selecting, in that we choose our respective platforms because we believe the advantages are worth more than the downsides (or in some cases, the supposed limitations, like a walled App Store, are actually construed as benefits).

For one, iOS customers don't care about a 30% fee they will never see (which actually drops to 15% in a number of scenarios). There's little evidence to suggest that IAP prices will drop by 30% even if Apple dropped their platform fee because they are priced to maximise revenue and have zero marginal cost, so revenue = profit.

Second, consumers don't actually dislike closed, sandboxed app ecosystems. That's why Epic ultimately caved and brought Fortnite to the google play store after initially releasing it as a standalone launcher. That's why the outpouring of developer and consumer pressure Epic had hoped would sway Apple's decision initially, ultimately never materialised.

It didn't help that Epic itself was no saint, having recently been fined by the US government for deceiving consumers, and their CEO coming across as being increasingly unhinged on Twitter. It doesn't necessarily mean the lawsuit was without merit, but Epic was not the right company to lead the crusade against the App Store, and it just lends fuel to the argument that these third party App Store makers want to go around the iOS App Store just so they have an easier time targeting consumers with shady and illegal practices.

FTC Finalizes Order Requiring Fortnite maker Epic Games to Pay $245 Million for Tricking Users into Making Unwanted Charges

The Federal Trade Commission has finalized an order requiring Epic Games, the maker of the Fortnite video game, to pay $245 million to consumers to settle charges that the c

www.ftc.gov

Finally, think about why Epic is doing all this. If they win, they potentially get to offer their own App Store on iOS devices, where they can then host other developers' apps and charge them a commission. They are not doing this to empower developers or benefit users. But if Epic loses (and it has), the consequences may well be dire for the entire app ecosystem. Apple will feel emboldened by its victory and will rigidly defend its practices. They will have no incentive to make concessions to developers because its legal victory will stand as a symbol of its unassailable authority over iOS.

I am hoping that Apple will do the opposite and be the better person, and announce further concessions to the App Store during WWDC. Personally, I am coming around to the idea that while games should continue to be taxed at 30% (since gaming revenue makes up the bulk of iOS app revenue), the 30% can be waived for non-gaming apps (or at most charged a token 5% to cover payment processing).

Make no mistake. Epic’s reckless gamble has been bad for the app economy.

 

[Aurizen]

How is that choice? Why do you seek to deny me the choice of a walled garden?

you can have your walled garden. just don't download from an outside source. I'm sure Apple can have a safety switch that users can select to allow outside apps.

 

[tripsync]

you can have your walled garden. just don't download from an outside source. I'm sure Apple can have a safety switch that users can select to allow outside apps.

until the app you already bought leaves the walled garden for more money.

 

[AppliedMicro]

and they don't mind seeing the current App Store model burn to the ground

I don‘t think anyone is earnestly hoping for the current App Store to go away. It is, as many say, a (relatively) secure and idiot-proof to download and purchase apps, that‘s well-suited for the less tech-savvy. Which most people will surely among their friends and relatives.

That said, it’s by far not as secure as Apple makes it out to be (too many scam and copycat apps). And I really detest their hypocrisy and virtue signalling in claiming their rules are all made and applied for the comfort and security of their users.

It didn't help that Epic itself was no saint (…) but Epic was not the right company to lead the crusade against the App Store

Maybe. But I don‘t care if it’s Epic (who probably aren’t saints, I agree) or anyone else - as long as someone will eventually pierce that veil.

until the app you already bought leaves the walled garden for more money.

Not a great marketing strategy.
They'd risk losing existing customers.

I'd rather stay on the App Store and offer it cheaper outside.

 

[BaldiMac]

I don‘t think anyone is earnestly hoping for the current App Store to go away. It is, as many say, a (relatively) secure and idiot-proof to download and purchase apps, that‘s well-suited for the less tech-savvy. Which most people will surely among their friends and relatives.

Of course, the poster referred to the App Store model, which obviously people are hoping go away. You move the goalposts here.

That said, it’s by far not as secure as Apple makes it out to be (too many scam and copycat apps).

That's based on what? Comparing them to perfect? It's just a strawman argument. To paraphrase, don't compare them to the almighty, compare them to the alternative.

And I really detest their hypocrisy and virtue signalling in claiming their rules are all made and applied for the comfort and security of their users.

Another appeal to emotion. Buzz words based on arbitrary interpretations of intent.

I'd rather stay on the App Store and offer it cheaper outside.

I'd rather it stay cheap on the App Store.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Of course, the poster referred to the App Store model, which obviously people are hoping go away

What is the App Store „model“?

Apple reviews submitted apps, cryptographically signs them and handles the payment and subscription.
I don’t have any problem with that and sincerely hope it does not go away - while still wishing for alternative models to coexist with that.

That's based on what? Comparing them to perfect? It's just a strawman argument. To paraphrase, don't compare them to the almighty, compare them to the alternative.

That’s based on the copycat and phishing apps, of which I‘ve seen some myself:

https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/7/...users-scam-mobile-apps-ios-android-app-stores

I'd rather it stay cheap on the App Store.

30% commission isn’t and doesn’t allow for cheap, when it’s basically payment processing with little added value for big developers.

Another appeal to emotion. Buzz words based on arbitrary interpretations of intent.

Give me a break. You’re no stranger to those yourself (at least occasionally)

But honestly, I’m not as much trying to appeal amotionally as I‘m just stating my own emotional reaction to Apple‘s conduct.

And I stand by my point and interpretation: Apple reserving the right to approve streamed games in cloud gaming apps was an anticompetitive **** move. Their primary intent to do so was nothing else than to protect their own gaming revenue. The reason why they‘re not doing it for ebook video streaming apps, with especially the latter being virtually no difference in content? It’s because Apple doesn’t have much of a foothold and market share in these areas. They need Netflix, Kindle, Prime Video and Spotify more than they‘d lose customers from disallowing their apps on the store - that‘s why the reader category exists at all.

 

[Abazigal]

And I really detest their hypocrisy and virtue signalling in claiming their rules are all made and applied for the comfort and security of their users.

They are though.

Notice how the lawsuits against Apple are all being brought forward by developers? Throughout all this, nobody has ever thought to ask us consumers just what we think of the iOS App Store model.

And for good reason too. As I stated above, users don’t actually hate the walled garden. If consumer sentiment played any part in the final verdict, none of those lawsuits would ever stand up in court.

 

[BaldiMac]

What is the App Store „model“?

Apple reviews submitted apps, cryptographically signs them and handles the payment and subscription.
I don’t have any problem with that and sincerely hope it does not go away - while still wishing for alternative models to coexist with that.

The current model of a single App Store with no option for sideloading. You know. The topic of the thread. The thing that you would like change.

That’s based on the copycat and phishing apps, of which I‘ve seen some myself:

https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/7/...users-scam-mobile-apps-ios-android-app-stores

Exactly my point. You're comparing Apple to perfect. You're saying that they are not perfect, so even though they never claim to be perfect, they're not telling the truth. Even though they never said the thing you're implying.

30% commission isn’t and doesn’t allow for cheap, when it’s basically payment processing with little added value for big developers.

The prices on the App Store directly refute your point. And then there's your 30% number which only applies to less than 2% of developers.

Give me a break. You’re no stranger to those yourself (at least occasionally)

But honestly, I’m not as much trying to appeal amotionally as I‘m just stating my own emotional reaction to Apple‘s conduct.

And I stand by my point and interpretation: Apple reserving the right to approve streamed games in cloud gaming apps was an anticompetitive **** move. Their primary intent to do so was nothing else than to protect their own gaming revenue. The reason why they‘re not doing it for ebook video streaming apps, with especially the latter being virtually no difference in content? It’s because Apple doesn’t have much of a foothold and market share in these areas. They need Netflix, Kindle, Prime Video and Spotify more than they‘d lose customers from disallowing their apps on the store - that‘s why the reader category exists at all.

There you go with more appeals to emotion based on self-serving interpretations of intent. Why can't it just be that you would prefer if Apple allowed cloud gaming apps and other ways to obtain apps? There's certainly an argument to be made there. Instead you have to result to the political ******** where everyone has to paint what they disagree with as malevolent.

 

[Abazigal]

That’s based on the copycat and phishing apps, of which I‘ve seen some myself:

https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/7/...users-scam-mobile-apps-ios-android-app-stores

That's an argument for Apple to step up their game with regards to how they vet apps, but I don't how it makes the case for sideloading. The article you linked also said the following:

To be fair, Facebook’s report indicates that the issue is significantly worse on the Play Store — out of the 402 malicious apps on its list, 355 were for Android, and 47 were for iOS. Interestingly, the Android ones spanned a wide range of genres, from games, VPNs, photo editors, and horoscope apps, every single one for iPhone was related to managing business pages or ads.

So it implies that App Store curation does have its merits. Apple has been able to identify and stop the bulk of those apps before they ever hit the App Store. This may have been an oversight on their end, they will learn from this, just as the scammers will learn and evolve, and the cat and mouse game continues.

In contrast, Google either pays even less attention to vetting their apps, or scammers just tend to target the google play store more, or maybe it's both?

And I stand by my point and interpretation: Apple reserving the right to approve streamed games in cloud gaming apps was an anticompetitive **** move. Their primary intent to do so was nothing else than to protect their own gaming revenue.

Yes and no.

From a business standpoint, I feel it is in the best interests of Apple, developers and consumers that the iOS App Store remains a central marketplace for everyone, and anything that may potentially lure consumers away to another platform is a risk to all parties involved.

No doubt the move was done in part to protect their own gaming app revenue, but that's not the only reason, I feel.

 

[tripsync]

Not a great marketing strategy.
They'd risk losing existing customers.

I'd rather stay on the App Store and offer it cheaper outside.

For apps like Candy Crush, 30% extra is hundreds of millions per year in additional profit.
For companies like Activision Blizzard, forcing people to install Battle.net means future software brings in 100% of the cut instead of 70%. Over the course of 5 years, we're talking potentially billions in additional profit. It's worth losing some existing customers.

This is especially true in games where game clones don't exactly live up to the original title. If you want to play Grand Theft Auto, you're not going to switch to Gameloft's Gangstar title because you didn't want to download Rockstar's Store. You want to continue using your level 70 character that you spent years building up so you'll go through the hoops to do it.

 

[mrochester]

For apps like Candy Crush, 30% extra is hundreds of millions per year in additional profit.
For companies like Activision Blizzard, forcing people to install Battle.net means future software brings in 100% of the cut instead of 70%. Over the course of 5 years, we're talking potentially billions in additional profit. It's worth losing some existing customers.

This is especially true in games where game clones don't exactly live up to the original title. If you want to play Grand Theft Auto, you're not going to switch to Gameloft's Gangstar title because you didn't want to download Rockstar's Store. You want to continue using your level 70 character that you spent years building up so you'll go through the hoops to do it.

Hopefully a potential 27% commission on alternative app sources will strongly discourage developers from taking apps out of the apple App Store.

 

[AppliedMicro]

For one, iOS customers don't care about a 30% fee they will never see (which actually drops to 15% in a number of scenarios). There's little evidence to suggest that IAP prices will drop by 30%

There‘s enough evidence that the handling of in-app purchases costs way less than the 30% Apple. Even the court in the Epic vs. Apple case found that they‘re charging supercompetitive rates.

Enabling developers to sideload or free them from the in-app purchasing monopolist that Apple is (on iOS for digital content, that is) opens up the possibility of lower costs to customers.

 

[mrochester]

There‘s enough evidence that the handling of in-app purchases costs way less than the 30% Apple. Even the court in the Epic vs. Apple case found that they‘re charging supercompetitive rates.

Enabling developers to sideload or free them from the in-app purchasing monopolist that Apple is (on iOS for digital content, that is) opens up the possibility of lower costs to customers.

30% isn’t just the cost of handling payment, it includes a license fee for using iOS software and APIs.

I suspect software installed from third party locations will still be subject to the license fee.

And the costs of providing an in-app payment service still have to be met; they won’t suddenly become free just because it’s not going via Apple.

 

[AppliedMicro]

30% isn’t just the cost of handling payment, it includes a license fee for using iOS software and APIs.

The license fee is 99$ for a developer subscription.

 

[mrochester]

The license fee is 99$ for a developer subscription.

No, that’s wrong. It’s the cost of the developer tools, plus 15% or 30% commission on digital sales.

Chop off Apple being able to automatically collect the 15% or 30% on digital sales and they’ll have to make up that revenue somewhere else.

It seems fairly obvious to me, why do some struggle with this so much?! You can’t just blast a massive hole in Apple’s revenue and not expect them to fill the gap you’ve just left!

Maybe it’ll be something like 99 + 15/30% for developers on the apple App Store and 50,000 + 5% for developers not on the App Store. Or something else in between.

 

[Abazigal]

There‘s enough evidence that the handling of in-app purchases costs way less than the 30% Apple. Even the court in the Epic vs. Apple case found that they‘re charging supercompetitive rates.

Enabling developers to sideload or free them from the in-app purchasing monopolist that Apple is (on iOS for digital content, that is) opens up the possibility of lower costs to customers.

Apple has clarified that out of the 30% cut, 3% is payment processing and 27% is a platform fee. We will see if Apple tries to charge developers 27% for sideloaded apps. Which would be way more than the 15% under its small developer programme.

Alternatively, Apple may also try to recoup any lost revenue via other means, such as a higher annual developer fee (which would penalise makers of free apps even more).

In the very least, I don’t see small developers hoping on this initiative, except to release apps that otherwise wouldn’t be allowed on the App Store. Will have to wait and see what Apple announces.

 

[mrochester]

Apple has clarified that out of the 30% cut, 3% is payment processing and 27% is a platform fee. We will see if Apple tries to charge developers 27% for sideloaded apps. Which would be way more than the 15% under its small developer programme.

Alternatively, Apple may also try to recoup any lost revenue via other means, such as a higher annual developer fee (which would penalise makers of free apps even more).

In the very least, I don’t see small developers hoping on this initiative, except to release apps that otherwise wouldn’t be allowed on the App Store. Will have to wait and see what Apple announces.

Some of that platform fee will include costs that Apple would no longer incur if the app was being sold in a third party store, or directly by a developer (e.g., app review), so there‘d probably be a few more percentage points knocked off the 27% to account for those saved costs. Maybe a license fee of 20-25% or so?

 

[Abazigal]

Some of that platform fee will include costs that Apple would no longer incur if the app was being sold in a third party store, or directly by a developer (e.g., app review), so there‘d probably be a few more percentage points knocked off the 27% to account for those saved costs. Maybe a license fee of 20-25% or so?

Apple doesn't break down the 27% further, and I think the whole point is to actively dissuade developers from trying to go around the App Store, by making the process as onerous and as financially unfeasible for them as possible. Payment processing will actually cost developers a little over 3%, so that plus the OG 27% would actually cost them more than simply offering their app in the App Store.

Not just that, I can't even imagine how Apple is going to enforce the collation of sales receipts from the developer, so that may be another angle - attempting to drown the developers in an endless sea of red tape.

The point (from Apple's POV) isn't to be fair or equitable, but to make it instantly apparent that even with the possibility of sideloading, it's still a better deal to stick within the App Store.

 

[AppliedMicro]

It’s the cost of the developer tools, plus 15% or 30% commission on digital sales.

They do enforce commissions on digital sales. Because they can. Even if that may be Apple‘s chosen model of monetisation, you can use exactly the iOS software and APIs if you don‘t pay that commission. So it’s not a licensing fee.

Chop off Apple being able to automatically collect the 15% or 30% on digital sales and they’ll have to make up that revenue somewhere else.

They don‘t „have to“. iPhone hardware sales alone are a self-sufficient business.
They’ll clearly want to, though.

 

[mrochester]

They do enforce commissions on digital sales. Because they can. Even if that may be Apple‘s chosen model of monetisation, you can use exactly the iOS software and APIs if you don‘t pay that commission. So it’s not a licensing fee.


They don‘t „have to“. iPhone hardware sales alone are a self-sufficient business.
They’ll clearly want to, though.

Apple are entitled to charge for, and profit from, their software products. This is the fundamental basis of capitalism and if you’re arguing against companies being able to do that then we are in an entirely different realm.

Apple are the ones who get to decide how the commission works for their product. If they want to comp the commission for developers who make free apps, that’s entirely at their discretion, or charge 15% under 1m or 30% over 1m, also entirely their discretion.

 

[robco74]

The license fee is 99$ for a developer subscription.

I would not be surprised to see this increase. Or for Apple to start charging for Xcode and other tools.

 

[Snahbah]

I bought an Apple Watch. Does this mean I should be able to install Android Wear OS on it? No.
I bought a PS5. Does this mean I should be able to install Xbox's Halo on it? No.
I bought an Oculus Quest. Does this mean I should be able to install Steam VR on it? No.
I bought a Tesla. Does this mean I should be able to install CarPlay on it? No.
I bought a smart TV. Does this mean I should be able to install Windows on it? No.

You buy hardware knowing full well (or at least should have known) the limitations of the software.

You bought a Mac. Does this mean you can install software of your choice on it? Yes.

 

[Snahbah]

Sure. The hardware belongs to you. The operating system and software do not. When are you people going to understand this?

Try taking out all of Apple’s intellectual property from your iPhone — OS, firmware, any other code in any of the chips — and sure, the rest is yours to do whatever you want with. Knock yourself out. But you don’t own iOS or the firmware on the rom chips or any of the other code that runs it, so you can NOT do whatever you want with that.

Perhaps you misunderstand. The legislators in the EU are introducing laws that will force Apple to open up where and how software can run on their iPhones. You seem to be getting confused with OS software and App software, which is surprising. I think the EU sees an iPhone as a computer. You are not forced to use the App Store for your Mac, are you? No. So why should a phone be different? No idea if the legislators in the US will feel the same - don't really care.

 

[mrochester]

You bought a Mac. Does this mean you can install software of your choice on it? Yes.

The Mac is sold that way.