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
Nothing is 100% secure, but iOS is a butt-ton more secure than most anything else.
Attacking the wrong gal here - this was exactly my point. Read the post I replied to.
That's ironic given MS takes 30% from XBOX software sales. But I think they're more concerned that Forza will go offline on iOS. I think its built on Epic's unreal engine.
I guess it goes to the argument of whether an iPhone is a console or not. John Gruber says yes others say no. But I would also add something John Siracusa said on the last ATP podcast...if developers aren’t complaining about Microsoft and Sony then perhaps it’s because those companies are better at developer relations or game developers feel the 30% is justified for what they’re getting in return.
It is easier than going into settings to change something, a pop up dialog box will ask the user if they want to run the app.
Most of us here aren't prescient. Things may change in the future, but not the way you believe, nor what you can envision for reasons that aren't yet known.I'll make a statement here, and please feel free, in years to come to tell me I was wrong.
Apple will be forced to have to change the current system either in pricing or what it wants to allow.
Be it this year, next year or in 5 or even 10 years time.
The exact current model is not sustainable.
30% for everyone (not that's it's everyone now, despite Apple saying it is)
No other means of loading apps on an iphone.
No other stores within the app store.
No streaming games services allowed.
etc etc.
Some of this, Apple will be forced to have to change.
If Apple does not have to change some of these things, and the app store stays the same for the foreseeable future, then please tell me I was wrong
This statement of surprise...is surprising. This is privacy not security and they are not equivalent. Large ecosystems have many moving parts and the vendors have to manage it. This is not unique to Apple and every vendor has the same issue. See Microsoft patch cycle for an example.
This isn't binary. I'm sure you can find at least one dev that has a complaint on every platform.
This commenter on the Verge is spot on:
shunted22
Apple seems to think that because they are now entrenched as half of the smart phone duopoly they’re entitled to 30% of all profits for all of eternity. Classic rent seeking behavior.
Nevermind that the incremental cost of running the app store is very low. Or that Apple benefits more than anyone from a robust app ecosystem. Apparently not giving them their tribute is the same as shoplifting.
As is this one:
LiterallySomeone
I’ve never thought about this but perhaps IAP should be separate from the other components of the App Store. Maybe charge a smaller fee for apps that want to use Apple’s IAP and then have a completely separate fee related to just being in the App Store and the services Apple provides for that. And that separate fee would be paid by all developers who have apps in the App Store.
But on the flip side you get this:
DBacksArb
That would be a disaster for developers, customers, and Apple. Right now there is one place on your phone to get apps, they’ve all been reviewed for quality and safety, and there is our safe purchase system with one customer friendly set of refund and subscription rules. In a big part because of the comfort this provides the average iOS user is spending 10x as much in apps as the average Android user.
Does anyone have numbers on how many people are installing apps outside the Google Play store? Is it a big number? As far as quality and safety in the App Store, there are websites and tweets storms devoted to some of the crap and scammy apps in the App Store. Here’s an example from Tech Crunch. I’m not in favor of side-loading mostly because I think it would be a lot of work on Apple’s part for a very small number of people who would use it. But lets not pretend only good, quality apps make it on the App Store because that’s just not the case.
shunted22
Apple seems to think that because they are now entrenched as half of the smart phone duopoly they’re entitled to 30% of all profits for all of eternity. Classic rent seeking behavior.
Nevermind that the incremental cost of running the app store is very low. Or that Apple benefits more than anyone from a robust app ecosystem. Apparently not giving them their tribute is the same as shoplifting.
As is this one:
LiterallySomeone
It’s completely reasonable to believe that bundling those other functions with the payment processor is anti competitive in and of itself. It’s not impossible for Apple to monetize those other benefits in different ways that allows developers to more fairly pay for what they need. This idea that free apps which don’t have to pay these fees at all but receive the same benefits but Apple needs to fund those benefits through IAP fees is super weird to me. Bundling has a long history of being struck down as anti competitive.
I’ve never thought about this but perhaps IAP should be separate from the other components of the App Store. Maybe charge a smaller fee for apps that want to use Apple’s IAP and then have a completely separate fee related to just being in the App Store and the services Apple provides for that. And that separate fee would be paid by all developers who have apps in the App Store.
But on the flip side you get this:
DBacksArb
That would be a disaster for developers, customers, and Apple. Right now there is one place on your phone to get apps, they’ve all been reviewed for quality and safety, and there is our safe purchase system with one customer friendly set of refund and subscription rules. In a big part because of the comfort this provides the average iOS user is spending 10x as much in apps as the average Android user.
Does anyone have numbers on how many people are installing apps outside the Google Play store? Is it a big number? As far as quality and safety in the App Store, there are websites and tweets storms devoted to some of the crap and scammy apps in the App Store. Here’s an example from Tech Crunch. I’m not in favor of side-loading mostly because I think it would be a lot of work on Apple’s part for a very small number of people who would use it. But lets not pretend only good, quality apps make it on the App Store because that’s just not the case.
Last edited:
Hope this thing blows up in Epics' face. It would put an end to this.This commenter on the Verge is spot on.
shunted22
Apple seems to think that because they are now entrenched as half of the smart phone duopoly they’re entitled to 30% of all profits for all of eternity. Classic rent seeking behavior.
Nevermind that the incremental cost of running the app store is very low. Or that Apple benefits more than anyone from a robust app ecosystem. Apparently not giving them their tribute is the same as shoplifting.
I think you are forgetting that Apple makes a VERY FAT profit on every one of their pieces of hardware.
If Apple sold Iphones for the manufacturing cost price or less than cost price, and then used the App Store to recoup money over the long term.
Which is what the console makers historically have done for decades and look like they will be doing again.
THEN I think you would find people have a different feeling towards Apple and it's fee's.
I would prefer positive outcomes for both sides. Just because EPIC made fun of Apple with that 1984 video, and broke some rules is not grounds for excommunication.
They could very well have a different feeling, but it wouldn’t be justified. In a free market, companies are allowed to charge what they want. If it’s too much, the market will take care of itself.
Well the stunt epic pulled is not renegotiating. It would be like Apple refusing to pay the suppliers or only playing the rate that they want to pay, After receiving the parts.
Not excommunication, which I’m not advocating. But the court finds an outcome favorable to Apple.
Isn’t that technically what Apple did or tried to do with Qualcomm? Look how well that turned out for them...
I think there may have been a glitch somewhere, or maybe I missed a thread of discussion... I don't think I commented on @mrcloaked's post?
They should be more concerned with what Epig will do to them if they win this case, Epig will have the power to force all console makers to house 3rd party stuff on their dime
You'll see xbox live go up to $100 minimum