Epic Games Setting Up Webshops for iOS Developers to Offer Users Out-of-App Purchases

[turbineseaplane]

But if Apple also can’t make a business out of giving things away for free.

They aren't!

They charge Devs an annual fee, they make money on accessories and Services (other than App Store) and TONS of margin on hardware!

Also, IAP will still be a thing. A lot of devs, smaller ones in particular, will likely stick with that option. Great!

Choice = good
Competition = good

What happened to everyone?
It's like a corporate control mind bug took over and everyone is advocating for monopolistic practices.
It's totally nuts.

 

[davide_eu]

Bad, bad, bad

Apple has invested billions of dollars in building the infrastructure around computers, phones, iPads, Apple TV and so on. And they continue to invest billions each year in new technology that will benefit the developers and making it possible for them to develop new games and apps that can be even more advanced thanks to new hardware.

Apple have made this business possible in the first place. What's wrong with them benefitting from that more or less forever?

If you don't make it possible for innovators making a giant pile of money in the end, why should they risk the initial investments from the beginning?

The development has been paid by your phone. Now what you want to do with YOUR phone and a third part is not a$$le business.

 

[spazzcat]

Because the majority of Apples revenue comes from IOS and iphone

Can you guess where the majority of app developers obtain the majority, if not all, of their income from?

 

[davide_eu]

Or when dev start losing money they will go back to the App Store.

Let's say that they start saving the cupertino tax!

 

[cocky jeremy]

It’s literally nothing though, that analogy oversimplifies and misrepresents the situation. Apple isn’t a physical retailer like Walmart—it’s a platform provider, more akin to a landlord renting digital space. Developers aren’t asking Apple to list their products for free while sending customers elsewhere to pay—they’re asking for the option to point users to an external checkout, especially when Apple takes up to 30% of revenue on in-app purchases.

A better analogy would be if a mall landlord required every store to give them a 30% cut of every sale made anywhere, even if the customer just found the product at the store and later bought it directly from the brand’s website. That’s not about fairness—it’s monopolistic behavior.

This ruling is about giving developers more freedom, encouraging competition, and giving consumers more choice. Apple still benefits from hosting the app on the App Store, but it shouldn’t control how every dollar flows after that.

So, Walmart should be forced to put up signs saying you can purchase items in their store for less elsewhere?

 

[davide_eu]

The reality of most of these rulings against Apple is that consumers will have a more fragmented, confusing, and friction-filled experience.

Apple will see a lower return on their investments, customers will have a less cohesive and rewarding time using their products, and all so some other large companies can maximise their own profits.

I never asked for this. I don’t want this. I don’t think it’s in my interests.

It's FUD. You have always used a "fragmented" market in your everyday life, even in your "real" life and I believe you aren't dead. So the same will be in the digital life. You buy from where you want...

 

[HighwaySnowman]

That’s right. You take away the 3d party apps away from IOS and iPhone and it won’t do well. But if Apple also can’t make a business out of giving things away for free. So if the revenue dies from selling 3d party apps because they they are not allowed to collect revenue from it, Apple will eventually die unless they come up with something else they can make money from. A company cannot give things out for free and survive. Period.

Apple survived for DECADES without a rent-seeking app store.

Let's be clear what Apple is doing here: They're doing exactly NOTHING and getting a 30% cut of your money for it.

This isn't Apple giving out things for free. This is Apple selling expensive iDevices and then illegally taking a 30% cut of transactions between you and an app developer.

 

[WarmWinterHat]

That’s right. You take away the 3d party apps away from IOS and iPhone and it won’t do well. But if Apple also can’t make a business out of giving things away for free. So if the revenue dies from selling 3d party apps because they they are not allowed to collect revenue from it, Apple will eventually die unless they come up with something else they can make money from. A company cannot give things out for free and survive. Period.

Unless you're being given a Mac or iPhone, absolutely nothing is being given away.

I've gave Apple zero dollars since I bought my 16.

 

[GMShadow]

Not going to happen as epic have already explained why they are not going to force the games consoles to allow this

It's more that Sony owns part of Epic and would move to have Sweeney removed from the board if he tried this, Nintendo will simply expel them from the console, Microsoft would do similar, and then they collapse due to already spending more than they make.

 

[davide_eu]

That’s right. You take away the 3d party apps away from IOS and iPhone and it won’t do well. But if Apple also can’t make a business out of giving things away for free. So if the revenue dies from selling 3d party apps because they they are not allowed to collect revenue from it, Apple will eventually die unless they come up with something else they can make money from. A company cannot give things out for free and survive. Period.

Are they giving phone for free? They will continue to make money on the phones...

 

[platinumaqua]

This is about as stupid as forcing Walmart to sell Heinz ketchup but allow customers to pay through the Heinz website. Throw their **** on the shelf just for them to get around you getting paid for it.

Apple already allows purchases of physical goods to use non-App Store payments before the ruling, so this analogy doesn't hold at all

 

[cocky jeremy]

If Tim Cook was smart instead of arrogant and greedy he would have implemented a much fairer payment system years ago and avoided all this litigation and fines.

WTF are you, or anyone else, to say what's "fair" for them to charge?

 

[tinman7162]

They aren't!

They charge Devs an annual fee, they make money on accessories and Services (other than App Store) and TONS of margin on hardware!

Also, IAP will still be a thing. A lot of devs, smaller ones in particular, will likely stick with that option. Great!

Choice = good
Competition = good

What happened to everyone?
It's like a corporate control mind bug took over and everyone is advocating for monopolistic practices.
It's totally nuts.

They do charge $99. you really think that covers the cost of developing the API. As I said earlier, Apple will be forced to charge more for those tools if they can’t make revenue from the store.
I’m not on the side of monopolies at all, but I don’t think a company should be forced to give things away for free.

 

[turbineseaplane]

It's FUD. You have always used a "fragmented" market in your everyday life, even in your "real" life and I believe you aren't dead. So the same will be in the digital life. You buy from where you want...

It's true

I was walking down main street last evening and it was so fragmented.
So many choices of stores and side streets to walk down and discover different products and places to buy them.

I almost collapsed
It was just ...

AWESOME

 

[Rogifan]

Should Apple be charging for software or is that built in to the price of the hardware?

As a reminder in 2008 Steve Jobs said it was Apple’s intent to run the App Store at basically break-even. And this from Phil Schiller in 2011:

 

[koelsh]

You clearly have never read the Vlasic Walmart story.

I haven't however with a cursory search I don't see how a supplier entering a bad business deal has relevance here.

So, Walmart should be forced to put up signs saying you can purchase items in their store for less elsewhere?

Apple isn't putting up any signs. They have to allow companies to make packaging that acknowledges their products exist outside of the App Store.

 

[platinumaqua]

So, Walmart should be forced to put up signs saying you can purchase items in their store for less elsewhere?

no, the equivalent is if the item's manufacturer puts something on their packaging/manual saying the same item (edit: or replacement parts/consumables for that product) could be bought elsewhere (or just having a text to their official website) and Walmart banning the item from their store because of that

 

[Rogifan]

That’s right. You take away the 3d party apps away from IOS and iPhone and it won’t do well. But if Apple also can’t make a business out of giving things away for free. So if the revenue dies from selling 3d party apps because they they are not allowed to collect revenue from it, Apple will eventually die unless they come up with something else they can make money from. A company cannot give things out for free and survive. Period.

In 2021 Tim Cook said the bulk of apps on the App Store were free. 🤷‍♀️

 

[tinman7162]

Are they giving phone for free? They will continue to make money on the phones...

No, they aren’t giving the phones away for free, but I bet the cost of how much they sell the phones for are determined by how much they are making off the store as well.

 

[DelayedGratificationGene]

Wow lowlife Sweeney just fd himself! Holy cow he just screwed up with this.

 

[Rogifan]

Apple already allows purchases of physical goods to use non-App Store payments before the ruling, so this analogy doesn't hold at all

How does one, in this argument, distinguish between physical and digital goods? Or purchasing via the web browser? What’s the difference in Apple’s eyes if I’m buying a Kindle book or hand lotion in the Amazon app (or on amazon.com)? Why does Apple think they deserve 30% of a Kindle book purchase (and yes I know the Kindle app doesn’t have in-app purchases)? Just because you’re going to use their hardware to read the book?

 

[surferfb]

At the same time Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, products are sold at Walmart. You take them home then make purchases on those products and Walmart doesn't see a cent of that.

For that matter Apple products are sold at Walmart. Should Walmart demand a percentage of all purchases made on Apple products sold from their store? Walmart provided that customer for Apple, why shouldn't they get a cut of Apple's revenue for products purchased from their store.

Walmart's intellectual property isn't used on any of the products that Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Apple sell. If Walmart's IP was required to make the Switch 2 function, then yes, Walmart would be within its rights to ask for payment for use of that IP.

 

[DelayedGratificationGene]

I demand that Walmart give my products eye level shelf space for free! I will use Judge Rogers Epic case as precedent! I will do the same for Target etc. I don’t care that Walmart provides a safe, secure and reliable platform(place) to dell
My stuff

 

[surferfb]

How does one, in this argument, distinguish between physical and digital goods? Or purchasing via the web browser? What’s the difference in Apple’s eyes if I’m buying a Kindle book or hand lotion in the Amazon app (or on amazon.com)? Why does Apple think they deserve 30% of a Kindle book purchase (and yes I know the Kindle app doesn’t have in-app purchases)? Just because you’re going to use their hardware to read the book?

Yes. You'll be (presumably) using Apple's IP to use the digital product on your device. You won't be using Apple's IP when you use the hand lotion.

 

[asparagus]

As it should be. A business should succeed by making a quality product or providing a quality service. Apple's policies highlight their fear - that someone else might dare to make a better store than they did.

Except they aren't. EPIC isn't making a platform. They're just trying to screw apple. Your example is iOS vs Android, not App Store vs. Epic store. Epic is getting paid and Apple did the work. That's BS.