If I want a Ferrari, I am forced to pay for it, fair or not. So instead I steal one while filing suit demanding that I should get one on my own terms.
So you think that storing and downloading a tiny amount of data (the app itself) is worth 30% of BILLIONS of dollars?
Because Epic may have sold a game to you, but you bought it via the App Store, for which Apple pays for the servers, APIs, code, security, testing etc... All the same reasons Epic's Game Store takes a 12% cut of any game sold on its platform from that game's developer.
You are absolutely wrong. Developer accounts are terminated all the time because developers leave the business, sometimes forget to make their $99 payment (my boss gets two reminders from Apple and three from employees every year so this doesn't happen
The apps continue working. Services provided by Apple stop working. That would be downloads, in-app purchases, push notifications, iCloud storage. If the app is fine with that, it continues to work.I'm so tired of people using examples like this. No one is asking for a free game. No one is stealing anything.
No, my point was that Apple delivers content, contrary to the OP's comment to which I replied.You brought up the 30%, but since you have: I never said it was worth 30% (in fact, I've repeatedly said I personally think it's too high), but the argument that Apple doesn't deserve anything is a non-starter to me. 🤷🏻♂️
As do Steam and as do Epic, who charge a commission of 12% on the Epic Game Store with the exact same legal underpinning: you agreed to it when you signed up. No amount of whining changes that.
Take the internet away and nothing would work. So your ISP should get 30% too, according to your logic?
See the update. See, Apple isn't this angel you see them as. They have no problem stating lies.
If my internet provider wanted to try it, they could.
If your ISP made you sign a document saying you had to send them 30%, then yes, you would have to pay them. But they don't, so you don't have to.
There is that argument that Apple deserves something, and there is the argument that there should be other ways to deliver content that doesn't cost 30% (or anything at all outside the costs the dev pays to process payments).
Apple announced they want to cancel Epic's developer contract, and Epic doesn't like it. So Epic goes to a court and tells them "tell Apple they can't do that". The judge can refuse to do this. But if they agree, the judge will likely say something like "Apple can't cancel the contract until a court has properly decided about this. But I recognise that this restraining order may cost Apple x million dollars in damages. So to get the restraining order, Epic must pay $x million into escrow, and if Apple wins the court case, the court will use that money to pay Apple's damages, and there's nothing Epic can do about it. If Apple loses, Epic gets their money back".
Incorrect. Video streaming, games etc. are delivered by Netflix, Epic etc. servers. Apple has nothing to do with it.
