All stores on the Mac are just clunky. As a customer why the hell would I want to install 4 different stores on my Mac, with separate accounts and payment details. I think it is worse for the customer in terms of convenience and risk, bad for the developer because of less exposure, the only benefit here for the companies is higher profit margins, but with less exposure they might have lower profits overall
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 Sought Side Deal for Fortnite Prior to Lawsuit, Apple Says in Court Filing [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
All stores on the Mac are just clunky. As a customer why the hell would I want to install 4 different stores on my Mac, with separate accounts and payment details. I think it is worse for the customer in terms of convenience and risk, bad for the developer because of less exposure, the only benefit here for the companies is higher profit margins, but with less exposure they might have lower profits overall
Off they will say they want it for all developers. Tbh saying that this will benefit small developers is misleading. Only big companies have the resources to run robust payment systems and protect customer data. Smaller companies will always pay big companies for that anyway. EPIC just wants the sales to go trough their own EPIC Store, they have been pushing it in the last few months, this entire drama is part of a bigger plan and this is one if its phases.
A smaller market where monopoly in fact is not established through anti-competitive conduct is not illegal. However, Apple's App Store monopoly is established through anti-competitive conduct (bundling App Store with iOS, preventing users from using anything else). Apple's App Store monopoly would be legal only if iOS users had the opportunity to use something else but willingly chose to use App Store.
Whether and if there is a narrow definition of an “iOS App Store distribution monopoly” is for a court of law to decide. The outcome will be interesting. In the meantime, Apple, probably on the advice of their attorneys is enforcing the rules with little care to whether they appear to be a monopoly or not.
It's not an "excuse". It's what many people, me included, want.
And soon companies like Epic would come along and require that users have to enable this unprotected mode in order to use their apps, so the companies can avoid Apple's fees, embed whatever spyware they want in their apps, and circumvent iOS's tracking protections. And piracy and malware would explode like they have on Android. No thanks.
If you want a phone to tinker with, iOS is the wrong platform for you. Get an Android. You can sideload what you want, root it, disable device security, install custom ROMs etc. to your heart's content.
Fine but then Tim Cook is lying when he says all developers are treated the same. They’re not and some think it’s perfectly fine that certain developers get better treatment.
Doesn’t Apple define what is allowed (or not) for IAP? Regardless it’s not like Apple is kicking these developers/apps out of the store. Of course why would they as they make a ton of money off their cut of these IAPs.
All of this is true because Apple created a specific policy that allowed it. I have a hard time with the argument that Apple’s 30% is justified when the company can decide certain apps don’t have to pay it. If it’s justified then every app should have to pay it. At least Tim Cook and Phil Schiller should stop saying every developer is treated the same when it’s clearly not true.
Last edited:
The revenue scale would be based on the developers account revenue and not singular apps. Going around this by creating new developer accounts would be a breach of the terms and conditions.
So Tim Cook lied at a congressional hearing, when it took MR posters all of 10 seconds to figure out where the lies are? That doesn’t track. Unless Tim believed the group he responded to are a bunch of idiots that couldn’t think their way out of a paper bag and would never figure out the truth. /s
That's because they do their subscription billing outside the apps and do not offer IAP. I'm not a Fortnite player, but from my understanding you can buy "V-Bucks" outside the iOS apps as well and apply them to your account. If that is correct, the IAP option is just a convenience and Epic could simply remove it just like Netflix and Spotify did.
Yep. It is a fantastic deal that enables things otherwise impossible, or out of reach, to most small developers.
He (and I’m sure some here) would say he wasn’t technically lying. When we say developers are we talking in general or specific to categories? All ”reader” apps may be treated the same but not all apps qualify as “reader” apps. Why? Why is Apple making a distinction which allows certain apps to bypass IAP and others not? I suppose it’s similar to when people debate whether Apple is a monopoly or not. It depends how you define the market. Is the market iOS or computers in general?
And as apple cited in their response brief, the courts have said you can’t have a monopoly in your own product. In other words, “ios app distribution market” does not make sense as a relevant market.
According to Apple’s developer rules I don’t think games qualify as ”reader” apps and therefore can;t omit IAP. The question is how did Apple decide on this “reader” category? Why does it only apply to certain types of apps?
App Review Guidelines - Apple Developer
The App Review Guidelines provide guidance and examples across a range of development topics, including user interface design, functionality, content, and the use of specific technologies. These guidelines are designed to help you prepare your apps for the approval process.
- If you want to unlock features or functionality within your app, (by way of example: subscriptions, in-game currencies, game levels, access to premium content, or unlocking a full version), you must use in-app purchase. Apps may not use their own mechanisms to unlock content or functionality, such as license keys, augmented reality markers, QR codes, etc. Apps and their metadata may not include buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than in-app purchase.
- 3.1.3(a) “Reader” Apps: Apps may allow a user to access previously purchased content or content subscriptions (specifically: magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video, access to professional databases, VoIP, cloud storage, and approved services such as classroom management apps), provided that you agree not to directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase, and your general communications about other purchasing methods are not designed to discourage use of in-app purchase.
Hey if I had my way every app would cost something and Apple would get a cut of the transaction when someone buys the app and downloads it to their device. But after that it’s no longer in Apple’s store and they only get a cut if a developer chooses to use them for payment processing. But the developer wouldn’t have to use Apple. It could be handled the same as non-digital purchases are now.
This does not apply to Fortnite, since it's free to play. This is only about IAP that can be used for microtransactions within the game.
That said, I agree that the definition of "reader apps" is too ambiguous ("approved services") and should be clarified by Apple.
Last edited:
This is horrible idea. If you can't take responsibility for what gets installed on "YOUR" computer then maybe you should not even own one.
If this happens, you can kiss pretty much all professional level apps goodbye.
And the poster who said Epic is a one-trick pony is clearly clueless as to who Epic is. Unreal Engine powers many games that are not made by Epic, and they are also powering the emerging Virtual Production space (Disney Mandalorian.)
I do not have much of a problem with iDevices being locked down and apps being forced through the store and being vetted as iDevices generally have a lot more personal info on them, tracking hardware, etc etc. But I also feel that the 30% cut is too high. Nobody even gets 30% in sales based commissions. And maybe the big rub is that all purchases are subject to the 30% wack. Maybe only the base app should be subject to the 30% commission.
This is a good point, and perhaps this will hose Epic in the end. Epic is basically giving the app away for free, so they do not have to pay the 30% commission. So perhaps "free" apps that have in-app purchases *should* get wacked at the 30% point.
Right but micro-transactions within games have to use IAP. I believe productivity apps have to offer IAP. During the Hey kerfuffle Phil Schiller said apps that do nothing upon launch are a bad user experience. Yet Apple’s reader category allows just those types of apps. Netflix does nothing upon launch if you don’t have an account and there’s no way to sign up for one via the app. Hey got around it by offering a free trial.
Um isn’t that the majority of apps in the store? Tim Cook said 84% of apps are free. My guess is most of the “free” apps offer in-app purchases. Perhaps Apple should get rid of free apps and get their commission off the app purchase but then not force apps to use Apple’s IAP once the app is downloaded to the device.
I can’t answer that because I’m not qualified in the nuances. However, I expect, for example if a business came along with amazons business model and this business wanted to host an iOS app, that apple would treat this. New iOS app as amazons app. An iOS app for another streaming service, mimicking Netflix business model, would be treated the same as the Netflix app. As far as apple being a monopoly, they aren’t until that chanages in a court of law.
I'm not sure this is accurate. My understanding is that you can buy "V-Bucks" e.g. in the form of gift cards, add them to your account, and use them to fund the microtransactions, so Epic could simply remove the IAP option if they don't want to pay the fee. Maybe a Fortnite player can confirm if this is accurate?
Users have willingly chose to use apples App Store by choosing an Apple product as their phone. Is this really that confusing.
it’s like going to an Apple retail store and complaining they're not a Samsung store.
The people going to an Apple store know what they’re getting. If they don’t want what Apple is offering then they can go to a Samsung store down the road
If you do not need some feature, why are you trying to take it away from everybody? If you remember original iPhone didn't have an App Store and there wasn't any plans to allow third party apps in it. Im' sure there was a good motivation for this and "user security" was the very first argument.
If you do not trust Epic, you do not install their store. So simple, but it's always great to have a choice.
The IDFA is another joke from Apple, designed and implemented by Apple in California, but now they call this "tracking". The "tracking protection" is implemented by iOS itself and it shouldn't depend on how the app was installed. If it is then this called a security flaw.