Epic Games, Spotify, and Tile Form 'Coalition for App Fairness' to 'Fight Back' Against Apple

[MacBH928]

Actually this is great, lets see which companies join together and decide to lay the hammer on Apple and withdraw their apps from the App Store. Who is going to last? Apple or the coalition?

Apple fanboys won't be happy when they open their iPhones and find that "There is no app for that ..."

 

[laptech]

The article says 85% of apps in the store are free. There I wonder what would happen if the 15% of app's that generate the money, changed their apps so there was no in app payments, thereby ensuring that 100% of the apps in the store were free. I wonder how long Apple would allow it be that way, no app generating any money for Apple.

Whilst it is accepted that Epic is losing money due to their stance, it has to be noted that Apple is also losing money from the 30% it would usually be taking from Epic due to in app purchases. All Epic has to do is convince the app stores other biggest developers to cease in app purchases and instantly Apple loses more billions a month. Apple maybe able to handle the loss of the billions it gets from Epic but how long could it handle the loss of the billions it gets from the next biggests app store developers. If Epic can convince these other big developers to side with them, Apple would be in serious trouble of losing a lot lot more money. Such a move would force Apple to change it's ways.

 

[otternonsense]

And I think it offers a better user experience compared to Apple Music.
Of course, the bundle will convince many customers to cancel Spotify and listen to Apple Music.
To really compete, Spotify needs to be part of a similar deal.
Think about a bundle with Spotify, Netflix and some Cloud storage, I bet the majority of customers would pay for that instead of Music and TV+
The only real advantage is iCloud is integrated into iOS, so another cloud service wouldn't work the same way but most people only need to save their pictures and you can do it with third party services.

Only those entrenched in Apple's services would do that (abandon Spotify because of a 'One' bundle). Which might be indeed the case for several users in the U.S. but globally? Out here users barely pay for iCloud storage to begin with, let alone the rest. Otherwise I totally agree. Even when it comes to my 200GB iCloud sub, I only use it for pictures and OTA backups. A Spotify + Netflix + whatever cloud bundle wouldn't just be a no-brainer, would be a dream come true.

 

[Cycling Asia]

So, the people yelling here and telling these companies to "go and build your own phone". Did you also yell at Netscape and tell them to "go and build your own operating system" when Netscape too Microsoft to court?

You also say that people should pay for the infrastructure Apple provides. To which I agree. And I also say, Apple shouldn't force developers to use their infrastructure.

Apple also needs to consider that without developers creating content for use on their products, they'll be selling far fewer products. A perfectly secure App Store is not much use if there is no content within. Apple play a balancing act between provisioning of infrastructure and fees it collects. Sometimes the scales tip and we end up with conflict.

I'll end with this thought. If Apple ever allowed third party app stores to exist, would that make their App Store any less secure? Would it also make users who want Apple's security to be any less secure? No - all it would do is allow those users and developers who don't want to utilise Apple's store and payment infrastructure, have an alternative. It would not be the end of the world. In fact, it may result in a better quality App Store, for all the dodgy apps would move to a random third party store.

 

[rmariboe]

I am because of this for the first time seriously considering switching to Apple Music. The built in Spotify app in the car is kinda s h i t anyway, and I don’t really feel like sponsoring the campaign Spotify has chosen to join with any more of my money

 

[rmariboe]

So, the people yelling here and telling these companies to "go and build your own phone". Did you also yell at Netscape and tell them to "go and build your own operating system" when Netscape too Microsoft to court?

You also say that people should pay for the infrastructure Apple provides. To which I agree. And I also say, Apple shouldn't force developers to use their infrastructure.

Apple also needs to consider that without developers creating content for use on their products, they'll be selling far fewer products. A perfectly secure App Store is not much use if there is no content within. Apple play a balancing act between provisioning of infrastructure and fees it collects. Sometimes the scales tip and we end up with conflict.

I'll end with this thought. If Apple ever allowed third party app stores to exist, would that make their App Store any less secure? Would it also make users who want Apple's security to be any less secure? No - all it would do is allow those users and developers who don't want to utilise Apple's store and payment infrastructure, have an alternative. It would not be the end of the world. In fact, it may result in a better quality App Store, for all the dodgy apps would move to a random third party store.

If Apple allows external app payment like Epic is trying to force, that will be (ab)used by the big ones able to create their own payment systems while the small ones still have to go through Apple. That’s neither beneficial to Apple or to the whole community - including the users.

30% is a historically comparative low percentage to pay, and I don’t see any reason why the App Store should lose any apps by holding on.

If free App Stores were allowed, apps would be spread across all app stores and 1) finding them would be more cumbersome, 2) finding a non-fake version not containing malware would be less certain, 3) Apple would need to handle way more support because of regular users getting their phones infected by malware and just terrible software - driving cost of running the Apple enterprise up, and with that price of their products. Currently, you can easily get 3rd party app stores on your iPhoneby jailbreaking - but you need to make a conscious choice in order to do it.

 

[J InTech82]

You’re kidding, right?

Why on earth would you possibly think that Apple isn’t entitled to a return on the money they’ve invested to create the iOS ecosystem? They’re not a non-profit.

From the first “issue” of this new lobbying group, Epic tries to pretend the 30% “app tax”—everybody hates taxes right?—is a transaction fee, as if Apple demands 30% for swiping a customer’s credit card. Yes, the payment processing fee is included in the 15 or 30%, but that’s just a small part of what developers get for that revenue share.

In a letter to Epic, Apple mentions a few of the things the 30% pays for—all of which Epic feels they are entitled to for free—besides a secure, customer-trusted payment system, and app hosting: APIs, libraries, compilers, development tools, testing, interface libraries, simulators, security features, developer services and cloud services.

Apple continues: “The App Store is not a public utility. Epic appears to want a rent-free store within the trusted App Store that Apple has built. Epic wants “equal access” to Apple’s operating system and “seamless” interaction between your store and iOS, without recognizing that the seamlessness of the Apple experience is built on Apple’s ingenuity, innovation, and investment. Epic wants access to all of the Apple-provided tools like Metal, ARKit and other technologies and features. But you don’t want to pay. In fact you want to take those technologies and then charge others for access.”

Monday can’t come soon enough.

Bravo. Very well said.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Bravo. Very well said.

Thanks but they’re mostly Apple’s words 🙂

 

[firewood]

The points include the demands that "no developer should be required to use an app store exclusively," ... and "no developer should be required to pay unfair, unreasonable or discriminatory fees or revenue shares."

There is NO such exclusivity or fee requirements. Publish their complete source code with an Xcode project on their website or GitHub, and everyone can download, build, and run it. That’s how a vast number of developers distribute their code.

If they don’t want Apple to handle distribution, IP protection, and fee collection, they are free to figure it out for themselves.

 

[I7guy]

Actually this is great, lets see which companies join together and decide to lay the hammer on Apple and withdraw their apps from the App Store. Who is going to last? Apple or the coalition?

Apple fanboys won't be happy when they open their iPhones and find that "There is no app for that ..."

Riiiiight. These companies will cut off their collective noses to spite their face. And it seems to me the apple critics won’t be happy when they find out: “There is no app for that.”

 

[Stevez67]

That's a quite simplistic view of the situation. Spotify wants Apple to compete fairly with them, which they are currently not since Apple Music does not have to pay 30%. Reading through these comments Apple fans want Apple to crush their competition, which is quite literally the definition of monopolistic behavior.

Actually, crushing the competition is what doing business in a free market and capitalism is all about. In this case, it's a single device manufacturer, in a market with multiple competing device manufacturers, making a product, that has created a store with rules for compatible apps for its platform. Apple doesn't dominate the mobile device market or the OS landscape. And as for being fair, how many of the coalition partners allow each other on their proprietary platform for free, at reduced cost, or allow competitors to setup a store on their platform? I think your argument fails on the facts.

 

[supermacman1938]

these companies should form a cell phone company and make their own phone and store.

Well I guess this is the end of me supporting Tile. I think they are just scared about Apples new tile like tracker. After my tiles expire I will be ditching them.

 

[djejnyc]

Spotify complaining about fairness is hilarious!! They should be given the same fee they give musicians....

 

[laptech]

The thing is, as an iphone owner, if i was to think that Epic could give me a better deal on it's games in it's store by using their own payment system than Apple could with the same game in it's store and Apple's payment system, why should I as a customer be prevented from chosing which deal I want?, why should I be forced to accept the only deal that exists which is Apples deal or I have to go without. From a customer stand point that is not acceptable.

If i was to purchase a Ford car from an offical Ford dealership and I wanted to upgrade the internals, get a different car radio, different speakers, car seat covers, I can either return to the official car dealeraship or I can got to a Ford authorised dealership or a 3rd party car parts seller to see which one offers the best deal.

If I want to get new ringtones for my phone or new display backgrounds, or a picture editor or music equaliser, I cannot look around for the best deal, there is only one place I can got to and that's the Apple app store where I have no choice but to pay what the app stores says I have to pay.

If customers want the Apple app store experience then fine let them have that BUT let customers have a choice of who and where they want to purchase their apps from. Do not arbitarily force that upon us.

 

[I7guy]

The thing is, as an iphone owner, if i was to think that Epic could give me a better deal on it's games in it's store by using their own payment system than Apple could with the same game in it's store and Apple's payment system, why should I as a customer be prevented from chosing which deal I want?, why should I be forced to accept the only deal that exists which is Apples deal or I have to go without. From a customer stand point that is not acceptable.

If i was to purchase a Ford car from an offical Ford dealership and I wanted to upgrade the internals, get a different car radio, different speakers, car seat covers, I can either return to the official car dealeraship or I can got to a Ford authorised dealership or a 3rd party car parts seller to see which one offers the best deal.

If I want to get new ringtones for my phone or new display backgrounds, or a picture editor or music equaliser, I cannot look around for the best deal, there is only one place I can got to and that's the Apple app store where I have no choice but to pay what the app stores says I have to pay.

If customers want the Apple app store experience then fine let them have that BUT let customers have a choice of who and where they want to purchase their apps from. Do not arbitarily force that upon us.

As a customer I believe opening up the app store is a bad move and will decrease the quality of iOS and trash apps/malware , and customers won’t get a price break as believed. This isn’t acceptable. (Of course our own biases come into play to form the outcome acceptable or not)

 

[yeye2]

I just created 2 fortnite skins and 4 weapons, going to upload to EPIC FORTNITE store to sel.... oh wait!

I just created 2 songs, going to upload to spotify as they are not taking any fees like appe... oh wait!

just suck's, cannot play fortnite in my nintendo, sony of xbox, as they have same fees than apple, Fortnite is sure removed for their stores also.... OH WAIT!!!!!

 

[I7guy]

I just created 2 fortnite skins and 4 weapons, going to upload to EPIC FORTNITE store to sel.... oh wait!

I just created 2 songs, going to upload to spotify as they are not taking any fees like appe... oh wait!

just suck's, cannot play fortnite in my nintendo, sony of xbox, as they have same fees than apple, Fortnite is sure removed for their stores also.... OH WAIT!!!!!

Even though this happened a month ago and your post is dripping with sarcasm...Yep, Epic made a calculated move and they knew exactly how this was going to end up.

 

[movielad]

In all the years I've been using Apple products (Mac, iPhone and iPad), I've never felt "constrained" to the platform or what choices I have with software. I have everything I need to do my job, pursue my hobbies, and play the odd game (though for the more demanding stuff, I use an Xbox One X).

I've terminated by Epic Games and Spotify accounts because of their actions. I believe this coalition is talking completely out of their arse. 30% is not an unreasonable sum of money for the services Apple providers for developers. My only two complaints are:

1) Game streaming from the likes of Project xCloud and Stadia. Apple's decision seems a bit bonkers and impractical. Yet I kind of understand where they're coming from.

2) If a film or TV distributor removes a title from your local country iTunes Store, and you haven't backed it up (which you can only back up the SD or HD version of a title - you can't back up the 4K or any extras which come with it), you won't get any recourse from Apple. Which is bad for the Apple TV platform, quite honestly (and if you have a massive iTunes movie library, does Apple really expect you to back the whole lot up?). If a developer misbehaves like Epic, is Apple responsible for any and all refunds, or will Apple direct you to Epic (who will direct you back to Apple)?

I don't want the iOS/iPadOS platform to be opened up. My iPhone contains sensitive data about me, and if opening up iOS to the point where 3rd party developers can just stuff any old crap on it without Apple checking and filtering, it could lead to all sorts of nefarious things. Is Epic, Spotify and the whingers that follow them prepared to take the responsibility for that? I don't think so. Apple won't do it for free.

Video streaming is a whole different ball game with its own rules. If I've understood it, to qualify your app needs to integrate AirPlay/AirPlay 2 or some other Apple-related feature in order to qualify for the 15% cut and to be able to charge outside of the App Store payment system. I think that's been misinterpreted by a lot of these companies that are complaining about Apple. (This policy looks to have been introduced around the time Apple TV app came on the scene - see https://www.macrumors.com/2016/11/16/apple-halving-subscription-video-fees/ for more info).

In any event, a big fat raspberry to Epic Games, Spotify and the rest of the "coalition".

 

[Websnapx2]

You’re wrong. This is a union. The fact that it isn’t employees banding together doesn’t change the ultimate goal of forming together to be stronger than individuals. These app developers are no different than service providers. Apple relies on them being in less powerful positions just like companies rely on employees being weak. what if you had individual contract workers form a union even though they are all LLCs? You’d still call that a union, even though they are seperate companies.

The fact that these smaller players are companies doesn’t mean what they are doing is not forming a union. The only part of my post that you disagreed with is the word I chose, not the overall idea that that Apple is playing a harsh power game over developers just like companies do to employees. These companies are simply playing the power game back at Apple.

No, you got everything wrong and I agreed with none of it.

A union is needed for the expressed purpose of giving power and a voice to a group of workers when dealing with their employer who potential abuses their power structure. This is an important dynamic to understand as in that dynamic, the workers have no recourse other than to work within the parameters of their employer or quit, hence the reason they want to negotiate — they don't want to be forced to quit and have to look for another job, they want better parameters to work under. The scenario here is much different — none of the developers are apple's employees, apple sets guidelines for their end product but doesn't have parameters to work under, Apple cannot fire them so they do not lose employment when they run at odds with Apple's guidelines, and finally — they have other revenue streams that a unionized worker does not have — which is why they unionize to protect their one job/source of income. They literally sell their products that apple has no hand in making unless they are asked to by the developer.

In no way shape or form is this like a union because an unionized member has no options other than to work, quit, or strike. Developers have the option to maximize their efforts on other platforms; control their scheduling, hiring practices, benefits packages, equipment used and profit-sharing among employees; partnerships with competitors to Apple; pricing structure; and future innovative features. None of that has to be run by Apple — the developers are completely self-sufficient and choose to have their applications put in the App Store — by their own desire to be successful — so absolutely not this endeavour would not be considered akin to a Union — a coalition is absolutely the right term but if you think that puts them on the same ground as a Union you are sorely mistaken. Frankly, it's insulting to Unions to make these bunch of well-funded crybabies seem like they are as powerless as a Union worker asking for fair wages, useful benefits and realistic expectations for civilized working conditions.

These ungrateful babies have seen monstrous profits they would otherwise have no expectation of off the backs of this platform that is developed, run, curated, hosted, and secured by Apple, who also provide support when they run into trouble, create tools to more simply create the apps devs want to make, while also providing a seamless way to both monetize purchases securely, but also provide these services taking no cost other than a dev licence to do all of this if you don't charge anything. So what you are saying is that — understanding the balance that if you charge nothing you pay nothing and that the app store is a community — these ungrateful, now successful developers no longer want to put into the pot for the community it directly benefited from because they don't want to pay for the infrastructure that gifted them so many users to be the successes they are today — and that puts them on par with a union worker asking for better pay and benefits?

The door to their guilted cage has never been closed, they are free to fly over to Google Play.

 

[movielad]

The thing is, as an iphone owner, if i was to think that Epic could give me a better deal on it's games in it's store by using their own payment system than Apple could with the same game in it's store and Apple's payment system, why should I as a customer be prevented from chosing which deal I want?, why should I be forced to accept the only deal that exists which is Apples deal or I have to go without. From a customer stand point that is not acceptable.

Then why become an iPhone owner in the first place, knowing that the developer (not Apple) sets whatever price the app is (bearing in mind that the developer will get 70% of whatever it is they charge)? It's the developer's choice whether they swallow the 30% in their app charge or not. As I own an Xbox, I could get the lower V-bucks fee from Epic's store directly and could have used it on my iOS/iPadOS device. I appreciate many people won't have another platform to be able to do that - but it is possible. But also note: V-Bucks are an internal game "currency" - you can't trade them for any other "currency" within the Epic Games ecosystem - Epic sets the value of that. And you can't buy skins or items anywhere else - Epic tightly controls how much each skin or item costs. You can't buy them externally and import them. So a big fat raspberry to Epic Games for complaining about competition.

If I want to get new ringtones for my phone or new display backgrounds, or a picture editor or music equaliser, I cannot look around for the best deal, there is only one place I can got to and that's the Apple app store where I have no choice but to pay what the app stores says I have to pay.

You can create (or purchase elsewhere) and upload your own ringtones to an iPhone. Wallpapers are easily imported from anywhere. I'm sure there are plenty of specific apps for picture editing or music equalising, some free, some not.

 

[Abazigal]

Look who else is starting to take a cue from Apple.

Google to Increase Push for Apps to Give Cut of In-App Purchases

Google plans to push harder for developers to give the company a cut of in-app purchases through its Play app store, according to people with knowledge of the move.

www.bloomberg.com

 

[movielad]

So, the people yelling here and telling these companies to "go and build your own phone". Did you also yell at Netscape and tell them to "go and build your own operating system" when Netscape too Microsoft to court?

You also say that people should pay for the infrastructure Apple provides. To which I agree. And I also say, Apple shouldn't force developers to use their infrastructure.

From a consumer point of view, and as a sysadmin, I disagree with this. The recent iOS/iPadOS/tvOS updates took me less than 50 seconds to download on a superfast broadband connection as soon as the updates were released. I am competing with hundreds of thousands of people trying to do the same thing.

I have seen the kind of prices a company like Akamai (a worldwide CDN) will charge for that kind of performance. Are developers really going to have the kind of resources of Apple/Akamai? A 30% charge alone is a bargain for the ability to download from Apple's distributed network. And that includes handling support for the app, payments and a whole lot more.

A company like Epic Games might have the resources to do something like that, but smaller developers will likely not.

The last thing I want is the App Store referring to potentially inferior infrastructure when downloading or updating apps. Alongside all the code signing and whatnot that goes along with it. And as a developer managing your own infrastructure, you've got security patching, performance (scaling) and many other variables to consider. As a developer, you'd be doing a lot of work which Apple does for you already.

Also remember: with the App Store, a customer can download and use an app across 5 machines under their control. How would you enforce this if the developer had to handle the infrastructure themselves?

Apple also needs to consider that without developers creating content for use on their products, they'll be selling far fewer products. A perfectly secure App Store is not much use if there is no content within. Apple play a balancing act between provisioning of infrastructure and fees it collects. Sometimes the scales tip and we end up with conflict.

I'll end with this thought. If Apple ever allowed third party app stores to exist, would that make their App Store any less secure? Would it also make users who want Apple's security to be any less secure? No - all it would do is allow those users and developers who don't want to utilise Apple's store and payment infrastructure, have an alternative. It would not be the end of the world. In fact, it may result in a better quality App Store, for all the dodgy apps would move to a random third party store.

But there is no need for a random third-party app store. That's the point - the iOS platform is managed to ensure that dodgy apps are weeded out before they are distributed.

 

[movielad]

The article says 85% of apps in the store are free. There I wonder what would happen if the 15% of app's that generate the money, changed their apps so there was no in app payments, thereby ensuring that 100% of the apps in the store were free. I wonder how long Apple would allow it be that way, no app generating any money for Apple.

Whilst it is accepted that Epic is losing money due to their stance, it has to be noted that Apple is also losing money from the 30% it would usually be taking from Epic due to in app purchases. All Epic has to do is convince the app stores other biggest developers to cease in app purchases and instantly Apple loses more billions a month. Apple maybe able to handle the loss of the billions it gets from Epic but how long could it handle the loss of the billions it gets from the next biggests app store developers. If Epic can convince these other big developers to side with them, Apple would be in serious trouble of losing a lot lot more money. Such a move would force Apple to change it's ways.

Yet Epic sets the value of V-Bucks in Fortnite, so they can raise or lower the price for X number of V-Bucks and/or what each skin or item costs. They, and they alone can do that. (And this is why I despise in-game currencies so much.)

 

[laptech]

Then why become an iPhone owner in the first place,[....]

[....]

Oh plesase, stop being so pathetic in using that old excuse 'oh if you dont like something, don't buy it'. If everyone took your reasoning, nothing would ever get bought because people always find something wrong with something but they buy it because the rest of whats on offer out weighs the negatives. The iphone has a lot to offer than just the app store.

 

[movielad]

Actually this is great, lets see which companies join together and decide to lay the hammer on Apple and withdraw their apps from the App Store. Who is going to last? Apple or the coalition?

Apple fanboys won't be happy when they open their iPhones and find that "There is no app for that ..."

No, we'd just find alternatives. There are always alternatives. Some good, some bad, but there are alternatives. I can live without any of the products offered by the "coalition".