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

[Reason077]

Did I miss something? Is Epic back on the App Store? Will this mean Fortnite returns to Apple devices?!

 

[damienDevZ]

Epic games is about to give access to their customer base, allow game devs to offer purchases on their own website, then host them through the Epic launcher, provide support and build API all for free with 0 commission.

Wait…

 

[dandy1117]

Indeed I'm struggling to come up with a proper analogy. I just don't think that's quite what's happening.

The way you're presenting it implies the factory, the physical equipment producing the ketchup, is owned by Walmart and Heinz is renting time on that equipment. And/or that Heinz would be a subsidiary of Walmart.

Rather, Heinz is producing the ketchup themselves to standards agreed upon by themselves, Walmart, and the rest of the industry.

This is one place where analogizing software and physical goods breaks down so I may be off base with this too.

You may not be a software developer, but it's important to understand that the APIs used for app development on Apple’s platforms are proprietary to Apple. They are not standardized across all platforms. The development tools for iOS are distinct from those for Android and other operating systems.

So, while my analogy might be imperfect, it highlights the relationship between Apple and software developers: Apple provides the infrastructure that developers can utilize to create their products on the platform.

The ongoing debate centers around whether Apple can require developers to make it the exclusive distributor for their iOS apps when they use Apple's development tools. If that is the case, then I don't believe it's unfair for Apple to require developers to compensate them for those tools. In fact, I suspect the value of those development tools is significantly higher than the 15-30% revenue share. Only time will tell if this proves to be true.

 

[MysteriousStain]

And that Apple developed this safe user friendly ecosystem, allowed app developers to do their thing.

Yep, and I remember buying a copy of Think C and three tons of Inside Macintosh books in the early 90s, when you had a choice of development tools and how you distributed your work. Apple could have continued that with the iPhone but chose to take a piece of everything instead and there was no way it could last forever, smart phones are intrinsic and ubiquitous now.

 

[HighwaySnowman]

The reason epic are not going after the console makers is very simple
They don’t make new consoles as it’s generally every 6 or more years
Where as Apple make new iPhones every year so they make a fat profit every year compared with the console makers
That’s why

They still should go after them.

The consoles have the same sort of monopoly, they also need to be smacked down for it.

The law would be fairly simple to write: "No individual or corporation shall sell, lease, or rent any computing device that does not allow the owner, lessee, or renter to install any software of said owner, lessee, or renter's choosing. The penalty for a first offense shall be a fine triple the price paid for the device, for the second and subsequent offenses one year in jail for the CEO of the manufacturer company and an additional fine of not less than $1,000,000. 'Computing device' shall include but not be limited to devices sold as computers, tablets, phones, game consoles, or any other computing device whether stand alone or included in another product such as a refrigerator or vehicle. Manufacturer must provide adequate documentation and hardware to facilitate installation of software at no additional cost."

That should cover it pretty well.

 

[Stuwil]

They still should go after them.

The consoles have the same sort of monopoly, they also need to be smacked down for it.

The law would be fairly simple to write: "No individual or corporation shall sell, lease, or rent any computing device that does not allow the owner, lessee, or renter to install any software of said owner, lessee, or renter's choosing. The penalty for a first offense shall be a fine triple the price paid for the device, for the second and subsequent offenses one year in jail for the CEO of the manufacturer company and an additional fine of not less than $1,000,000. 'Computing device' shall include but not be limited to devices sold as computers, tablets, phones, game consoles, or any other computing device whether stand alone or included in another product such as a refrigerator or vehicle. Manufacturer must provide adequate documentation and hardware to facilitate installation of software at no additional cost."

That should cover it pretty well.

There is a difference
Because no games maker is going to take any of the console makers to court to pursue said issues because they understand that for example Sony brought out the PS5 in 2020 and are not replacing it to about 2027
Where as APPLE make new iPhones every year so they make big profits every year so ultimately that’s the difference

 

[Jamie0003]

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.

Nope.

What would be similar is the Heinz ketchup having a QR code or label linking to their website for a discount. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever

 

[xander49x]

any developer that use epic will not get my money or business.

 

[damienDevZ]

any developer that use epic will not get my money or business.

I feel the same, but I have to wonder how the pricing will work. If it links to a site that uses Stripe, and says I can buy for $10, but then the App Store version says $13… I’ll likely buy the $10 one if it still allows access to all the same Apple things like App Store and API’s, etc.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

The difference is Stripe doesn’t have to maintain the App Store, build API’s, pay App customer support, etc.

These are all things Apple freely chose to do. If Apple doesn't want to foot the bill for distributing other people's software, then maybe they should not be the sole distributor of other people's software.

 

[damienDevZ]

I just thought of something. Apple Store rarely does game sales. All the time the Mac version of games go on sale on Steam, but the Mac App Store version doesn’t. I wonder if this’ll force Apple do game sales more often to compete.

 

[Rogifan]

According to Apple’s earnings release, services gross margins are nearly 76%. How much of the 30% IAP is pure profit? Seems like a lot.

 

[I7guy]

That doesn’t even make sense because we are talking about 3rd party apps not made by Apple
Hence why they should be allowed to offer an alternative payment option

That’s exactly the point to people who suggest Apple is a “monopoly”.

 

[I7guy]

The reason epic are not going after the console makers is very simple
They don’t make new consoles as it’s generally every 6 or more years
Where as Apple make new iPhones every year so they make a fat profit every year compared with the console makers
That’s why

“Fat” profit on phones has nothing to do with any other business line that Apple may have.

 

[BoMo]

Great! I am a developer. Can I put my game on Epic’s new store with a link to a third party payment system of my choice? I don’t want my 1,000,001 customer to have to pay Epic’s 12% cut.

 

[surferfb]

The reason epic are not going after the console makers is very simple
They don’t make new consoles as it’s generally every 6 or more years
Where as Apple make new iPhones every year so they make a fat profit every year compared with the console makers
That’s why

Maybe I’m misunderstanding something, but this doesn’t make sense to me. You seriously think Epic would be fine paying 30% if Apple broke even on iPhone sales every year?

 

[Corgnado]

The fact that Apple is clinging on to this case for so long shows how massive their revenue is coming from purchases via app store. They had so many years to innovate and come up with new idea but instead spending time and resources on maintaining their questionable revenue model. It’s hard to sympathize when you manage to see through all the noises and tactics they’re trying to use here.

 

[CarlJ]

What about providing bandwidth, curation and safety? Should Apple provide those for free as well?
What you wrote sums up Sweeney's agenda without any counterpoint.

The also doesn't take into account that Apple developed every bit of the platform that the developers are benefiting from - iPhone hardware, but also iOS, development and maintenance of all the frameworks and APIs, developer tools, etc. Developers cry "no, see, we pay $99 a year for that, AlL ThE ReSt ShOuLd Be FrEe!!1!" - no, the $99 price was decided upon in the context of also having commissions on purchases and IAPs - a base price ($99/yr) plus a percentage. If you cut the percentage cost down to $0, I would expect the base price to go up considerably, which is going to hurt small developers a lot more than big corporations.

 

[Madonepro]

I may not fully understand this, but it seems to me, the implications of this ruling sounds the death bells on the App Store.
If an app is downloaded from the App Store, and then a subsequent external purchase is made, Apple do not receive any money, yet hosts the app in the store.
Apple may as well then shut the App Store to all ‘free apps’, which will kill small developers. As there is not a requirement to allow third party stores in the US, UK, et al, companies like Epic etc, will have to charge for their Apps, and pay Apple a cut for hosting.

 

[Madonepro]

Why are they proud that it has 57 ingredients though? One would think ketchup should have fewer than 10. 🤔

It’s 57 varieties, not ingredients.

 

[CarlJ]

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.

No. If you give developers the chance to collect money outside the App Store, then most developers will shift to a pattern of "download for free on the App Store, pay us $5/10/20/whatever directly to unlock", so they can avoid commissions, and then Apple doesn't get any money from hosting all those apps on the store. This has always been the reason for the enforced commissions.

 

[surferfb]

I may not fully under this, but it seems to me, the implications of this ruling sounds the death bells on the App Store.
If an app is downloaded from the App Store, and then a subsequent external purchase is made, Apple do not receive any money, yet hosts the app in the store.
Apple may as well then shut the App Store to all ‘free apps’, which will kill small developers. As there is not a requirement to allow third party stores in the US, UK, et al, companies like Epic etc, will have to charge for their Apps, and pay Apple a cut for hosting.

I suspect one of two things will happen

“AppStore+” where developers who abide by Apple’s preferred terms get reduced fees/better service/placement in searches/etc.”

Apple allows alternate stores with any terms whatsoever, but if you want to be in the App Store you have to follow their rules.

(Note, I don’t think this would work in the EU because the DMA is very strict about what is/isn’t allowed, but there’s no reason I see why it would be in violation of the judge’s ruling in the US)

 

[bcortens]

I may not fully under this, but it seems to me, the implications of this ruling sounds the death bells on the App Store.
If an app is downloaded from the App Store, and then a subsequent external purchase is made, Apple do not receive any money, yet hosts the app in the store.
Apple may as well then shut the App Store to all ‘free apps’, which will kill small developers. As there is not a requirement to allow third party stores in the US, UK, et al, companies like Epic etc, will have to charge for their Apps, and pay Apple a cut for hosting.

If this is the death knell of the App Store then Apple wasn’t doing it right.
The Kindle app, the Amazon store app, Netflix, etc… big name apps that pay and have paid Apple exactly zero dollars in App Store fees. If Apple wants to charge a fair and non-discriminatory app hosting fee they can probably get away with it, but that is likely only if they also allow third party app stores and side loading… they have to actually compete now, this is the thing. If they want devs to use their IAP system they have to make their system competitive. Why do you think so many devs are clamouring to get out of apples terms? If Apple was actually offering a competitive rate would Netflix have long ago abandoned IAP?

 

[turbineseaplane]

Apple is the one choosing to force everyone to distribute through their App Store.

They don't have to incur any of those costs.

They could offer a nice inexpensive notarization option, ala macOS, and let devs distribute their own software.

It will still be sandboxed and notarized, just like iOS App Store Apps are now.

 

[falainber]

What if Walmart funded the infrastructure and ongoing maintenance of the factory that produces Heinz ketchup, in return for supplying the product exclusively to Walmart? This is a frequently overlooked aspect. For instance, think of Target approaching Heinz to stock their product, while assuming they will continue utilizing the Walmart-supported factories.

In this convoluted analogy, it may seem unfair for Walmart to prevent Heinz from selling their product elsewhere. However, it also appears reasonable for Heinz to pay a fair market value for the infrastructure provided by Walmart, wouldn’t you agree?

I would not agree. The more accurate analogy then would be this: Walmart funds the infrastructure and ongoing maintenance of the factory that produces Heinz ketchup AND it prohibits Heinz from using any other infrastructure and maintenance providers. Still no way for the market to do what it's supposed to do.