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

[cupcakes2000]

Gutted about ProtonMail joining this coalition. Not sure associating themselves with this will be good for their excellent reputation in the privacy field.

Their CEO‘s rants are seeming more unhinged and inaccurate by the day.

Aside anything else, most people who know about this service would be singing up via their website, so non of this would even affect them.

I’m astonished they’re putting themselves in this position, rather than fighting the causes their whole company is set up and designed to fight.

 

[movielad]

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.

Pathetic? Dear, or dear, I have hit a raw nerve!

Yeah, people's requirements are different (and indeed I don't buy something if I find something fundamentally wrong - it's called doing some bloody research first - caveat emptor), but you're the one complaining that you're not getting a better deal from developers on the App Store because Apple doesn't allow them to reduce their cut. If they want to include the 30% fee in their prices, and I find the software to be useful - I'll buy the damn thing. If not, I look for an alternative.

And I already explained that there are ways and means to get around some of things you complained about.

 

[I7guy]

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.

It’s clearly up to the buyer to determine if a product is suitable for them. Take the pluses and minuses and determine if the price/value equation is on the right side of the fence.

I do not buy for one NY minute if App Store fees would be lowered the customer would get a rebate on a large enough quantity across the board. I know when the last time my state lowered its taxes I didn’t give up that amount back to my employer.

 

[movielad]

It’s clearly up to the buyer to determine if a product is suitable for them. Take the pluses and minuses and determine if the price/value equation is on the right side of the fence.

I do not buy for one NY minute if App Store fees would be lowered the customer would get a rebate on a large enough quantity across the board. I know when the last time my state lowered its taxes I didn’t give up that amount back to my employer.

Exactly. And people have had 18 years to complain/try resolve the 30% cut and "lack of choice". Why suddenly now?

 

[Websnapx2]

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.

And if Epic all of a sudden wants to change it's ToS to gather more information on you or your device, sideload background apps from their advertisers, or hike up fees out of nowhere, there is no Apple keeping them in check. If you want that experience, it is available on android — you have that choice, you are not trapped.

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.

Not the same thing in the least. A car seat cover cannot compromise the safety and integrity of the vehicle or the experience driving it — it's an accessory. The car radio is like choosing Spotify (which you can do), different speakers are like choosing Sony Headphones rather than the in-box Earpods (which you can also do), and car seat covers are like choosing a different case other than the ones Apple sells. Allowing sideloaded apps is like changing the drivetrain with uncertified parts — there is no guarantee on the integrity of it in the context of your vehicle, if it will break other things, if it sends other cars your information. It's a mess. It's funny though that you mentioned the internals — the upgraded internals would then be Ford-certified parts or (depending on the part) you could void your warranty, so it's actually the same thing in your analogy — you are just misrepresenting the parts in it.

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 gotta be kidding me — most of my ringtones I made myself, no charge — never mind having to pay apple. Most of my wallpapers come right from the Pinterest app — search, download, select in settings from photos.

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.

You have a choice — another ecosystem. If I have a Playstation and I want to play Halo, I don't yell at Sony I buy an Xbox. If I want a Porche 911 but want the ability to charge it rather than refuelling it, I don't complain Porche won't do it — I go to another manufacturer.

Have conviction — if the way apple operates this system makes you feel like your choices are restricted then put your money where your mouth is and jump ship. That actually has power and if Apple feels the sting of enough people wanting what you want they will sway. Until then every single product from them you purchase is you agreeing to how they run their ship — not your ship — their ship. Apple's walled garden is the worst kept secret in tech, you seem informed. You made your choice and no doubt paid handsomely for it.

 

[Websnapx2]

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.

So you mean they make an educated choice, understanding that everything has pros and cons? Sounds like a reasonable way to go about it. And if the cons overtake the pros, the user has the option to switch when the value proposition is no longer favourable to them.

 

[0924487]

If they can get Alibaba, WeChat and TikTok on board, they will be able to crush Apple.

 

[J InTech82]

If they can get Alibaba, WeChat and TikTok on board, they will be able to crush Apple.

Except what do these companies sell as IAP? I don't think products sold on Alibaba are hit with the 30% "tax" as so many are calling it.

 

[0924487]

Except what do these companies sell as IAP? I don't think products sold on Alibaba are hit with the 30% "tax" as so many are calling it.

You can buy TikTok tokens to award streamers. It's 30% more expensive to buy tokens on iOS. Both WeChat and TikTok fought Apple last year over this and Apple backed off because it's a common consensus in China that if WeChat or Tencent apps get pulled from iOS, people would choose WeChat over iPhone in China. In China where Huawei is in many ways better than the iPhone and Apple's services and the App Store doesn't really have an ecosystem over there, iPhone buyers in China only weakly prefer iPhone over competitors because of ease of use.

Both Tencent and Alibaba, which is not just an Amazon + eBay but much more, offer digital services and consumer-to-consumer platforms that are subject to the 30%, but Apple waived those for Chinese companies so long as the platform, like TikTok, doesn't take a cut from the revenue passed to the creators, and Apple will not take a cut either. This policy doesn't exist in the US.

 

[Ethosik]

Wow, seems like we have at least two cults going to war here.

Regardless of which cult you belong to, it would be good to knock Apple's high handedness down a notch or two.

Is this the right way to do it? Don't know, but someone has to start.

Wy? Are they doing something illegal? People keep saying 30% is too much, but what are people comparing it to? WHY is 30% too much? That is never discussed. I am sure some people would think 5% is too much!

Most of the industry is 30%, so again, why is it only too much when Apple does it? Are they doing something illegal? If its too much there is Android. Just like I can get named brand Peanut Butter for $1 more than generic non-named brand. Is it too much?

 

[kmj2318]

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.

No, you are still wrong. You are using the world Union in the specific legal context.

 

[Websnapx2]

No, you are still wrong.

You are using both the word "wrong" and the word "union" improperly then.

I'm not wrong, you just disagree with my opinion, there isn't a right and wrong here between apple and the coalition of crybabies until something legal happens. However, what I do know is they all signed a contract and were happy with the split when they needed the benefits afforded to them from the App Store — which to me sounds legal. SO it seems like my opinion conforms with the law.

You are using the world Union in the specific legal context.

As did you when making the initial — and tragically context deaf — analogy of drawing parallels to those who disagree that these companies, and "bootlickers" who knock actual unions with oppressed workers when they actually have no parallels at all. SO what then, is this like a civil union? A continental union? Because it is definitely not what you were making it out to be. If they are a union because they are together then your analogy was not just wrong but infuriatingly hyperbolic.

Words mean something — use them properly.

 

[PC_tech]

Epic CEO worth $30 billion

Spotify CEO worth $4 billion

Apple CEO worth $800 million.

Paste that everywhere you see this conversation.

Paste false information? No thanks 🙄

 

[Expos of 1969]

And why not? As little as they pay artists, they must be rolling in dough. Free booze!!!

If the artists are not in agreement with what Spotify pays them, don't let Spotify stream their music. If the artists can't do that because it is their label which has signed the contract with Spotify, well then the battle is obviously between the labels and the artists. Spotify is not to blame.

 

[TiggrToo]

Paste false information? No thanks 🙄

True, the figures are not as specified. Tim Sweeney seems to be worth $9b, Daniel Ek $4.5b and Tim Cook just hit the $1b mark.

 

[Abazigal]

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.

You had a choice. You made it when you bought an iPhone (and decided to continue using an iPhone all these years).

 

[Ethosik]

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.

I do not understand this argument at all. Does Microsoft need to pay themselves to use Windows on their computers at work? Apple is using the infrastructure they built so why should they be forced to pay themselves 30%?

 

[MacBH928]

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.”

If you can't walk the walk, don't talk the talk. If they will make a stand against Apple they should take action, otherwise they should shutup and pay Apple what they demand. Continuation of operations and yet complaining loudly is childish acts.

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".

You...You will use the alternative. Linux+OpenOffice are completely open source and free alternatives, but people are still using Windows+Office and paying for it with a wide smile. Once people purchase their iPhones and realise there is no Instagram or Snapchat in it, to the trash it goes, that was the main reason they get an iPhone in the first place.

 

[Ethosik]

Let's just start with Apple applying the same rules to their own products. That means: bring Finder, Safari and all their own software to the App Store, without favoring themselves and developing according to the AppStore restrictions. Most of their own products would never even be accepted. It would be good to level the playing field.

There are things that definitely should be locked down or provided at the OS level and not an app. What if the "Finder" app suddenly breaks? Its getting an error when uninstalling and trying to reinstall too. But at the OS level, its baked right in.

I really don't understand this argument people have. Apple built the OS and can provide defaults and keep some things locked down. Should we allow developers to interact more at a lower level instead of APIs? How will that work with malware of looking at the secure enclave?

 

[Ethosik]

Apple doesn't really care about marketshare. As a corporation they care about profits and they've shown that they already have the profitable share of the market, why would they jeopardize that? Philosophically they've always believed that they will be most successful by providing the best user experience, so why would they concede to degrading that user experience?

Do you really think the path to a larger marketshare is to add more and trashier trash to the heap?

Yes, watch this. This baked in the idea behind Apple.

 

[Ethosik]

People REALLY need to think about what is going to happen if Epic wins and gets another App Store. Look at what Epic did to the PC market. Borderlands 3, Satisfactory, Metro Exodus (which was removed from Steam), Control. Some of these were highly anticipated (Borderlands 3 and Metro) and others are not known as much (Satisfactory). However, the ONLY place to get them was on the Epic Games Store. So I had to buy them there if I wanted to keep spending time with my friends to play Borderlands 3.

Since Epic started all their whining and intentionally broke their agreement and acted like a kid throwing a tantrum, I have re-purchased these now that they are on Steam (timed exclusives and came to Steam recently for some games). Developers got double my money but I never want to install the Epic Games Store again after all of this.

This same thing will happen on iOS. A highly anticipated iPhone app will be an Epic Store exclusive (timed or not).

 

[Ethosik]

Flawed logic. If the producer wants to sell something to John Smith and does not like Walmart fees it can sell the same product to John via Target. It's called market. On the other hand, if app developer wants to sell an app to John, who happen to own an iPhone, what are the developer options? App Store is the only one, which makes it a monopoly.

People making this argument are making it too narrow.

There is an alternative to mobile apps - Android. If I cannot sell my app on iOS, I can sell it on Android. Just like your Walmart vs Target comparison. Walmart cannot be forced to have a Target inside its same store. So sometimes I would need to drive for miles to go to Target vs Walmart.

I can only find Kirkland Popcorn at Costco. Does that mean Costco is the only place I can get popcorn? No. People need to broaden their arguments a bit here. Microsoft has a monopoly on Xbox Games so they should be broken up? No, that is too narrow, Games is the market not Xbox Games.

You do know that many business only have their apps for Android right? And the businesses are doing VERY well right? I don't know where this idea is that your business will never be successful unless you have an iOS app.

I used to work for a company that was entirely built on mobile app usage. And they are not a small company either, so Android was very profitable.

 

[Ethosik]

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.

100% completely different situation. Microsoft tried to convince Netscape from building the app in the first place. Then, they tried to cut deals to prevent Netscape from being distributed so it would favor IE. Apple is not doing this. If Spotify wants to sell the subscription for $20 on iOS and a smaller amount elsewhere its fine.

Also, Microsoft was in trouble with Sun regarding Java, making it intentionally difficult to port apps to and from Windows.

THESE were the reasons Microsoft got in trouble. NOT because they included IE in Windows. Which BTW did you realize that Microsoft still has a browser built in to Windows 10?

Also, as I mentioned, having additional app stores would lead to exclusivity deals as we have been familiar with regarding Steam vs Epic on Windows. So in a way, yes it would make things less secure as I wouldn't be able to stick with Apple App Store.

 

[Ethosik]

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".

Point #2 is incorrect. You can no longer buy Journeyman (time travel TV show that I enjoyed because, time travel) or Farscape The Peacekeeper Wars, but I still have those in my library to download and watch.

 

[Ethosik]

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.

What kind of argument is that? I don't like AMD GPUs on my Windows PCs because they lack CUDA. But I should still buy them even though I don't like it?