Epic Games Store Lures EU Developers With Promise to Pay Apple Fees

[Rogifan]

In the EU? I'm assuming they pay the CTF like everyone else in the EU.

But in the US, under an entirely different model, that's a different question.

All that aside, how business choose to operate is not something, outside of broad safety concerns, I care for Government to dictate. If Apple wants to cut deals with different companies in different ways, that's up to Apple.

I was referring to the US App Store. And Apple didn’t cut a deal with Meta. No “free” app in the App Store pays Apple anything outside of the yearly developer fee. And most of the apps in the App Store are “free”. So basically a small percentage of apps (mostly games) subsidizing all the other apps. Let us not forget when the App Store was announced in 2008 Steve Jobs said Apple’s intention was to run it as a break-even business. That’s clearly not how Apple is running it now. The App Store is a huge revenue/profit center for Apple. And so long as Tim Cook, Phil Schiller and Eddy Cue are in charge of it they’re going to wring every dime out of developers that they can.

 

[CarAnalogy]

Mr Sweeney, I want to launch and have you host for free my competing App Store on your App Store. When can we get this done?

Maybe when you can get yet another App Store to pay your fee for being in Epic’s App Store to be in Apple’s App Store. It’s just App Stores and fees all the way down!

 

[CarAnalogy]

In this scenario it actually does cost Apple nothing.

This is largely irrelevant. If the developer of the third-party software wants to provide it for free, a one-time cost, or a subscription, none of that matters. None of that has any affect on Apple. It is the third-party developer's choice.

---

And because I know someone will comment, "But Apple created all the APIs." Yeah, they created APIs. So do many software developers. Apple's APIs benefit Apple two-fold:

1. Their own software uses them.
2. Third-party developers can make software using them and provide a more unified experience to the end-user.

Apple does not need to charge for providing APIs. Providing APIs allows developers to more easily write software for Apple's platform. More available software makes the platform more attractive to end-users.

All of this comes down to a single thing: Apple wants money. They want money from every one at every stage for every thing.

• They want money for the original product.
• They want money for any and all upgrades to the product.
• They want money when the user needs to repair the product.
• They want money for any and all software that runs on the product.
• They want money for any purchases made on the product.
• They want money when the user is done with the product and ready to move on to a different product.

They really only deserve money for the first one, but they structure their products, services, and policies with the end goal to extract money in all areas, even if they had absolutely no involvement in the transaction.

I agree. The financial structures have grown up around the software realities to extract money at every layer. People act like computers are different now than they used to be. It’s only because now they’re made to be devices for extracting money from the end user. It didn’t have to be this way, not to this extreme.

It wouldn’t even be so bad if the incentives weren’t so strong to actively make the software worse. It’s been a long time since software was designed first and foremost for the people using it. It almost sounds quaint at this point.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

I think "you can't dictate what consumers are allowed to install on their phones" is an extremely reasonable (and in fact welcome) regulation. I don't think it's a utopian idea.

So why doesn't it exist?

 

[Timo_Existencia]

But if OTHER people who DO live in the EU wish to do something different, that should be entirely THEIR business... on THEIR Apple stuff... that THEY paid for.

But that's the point. It's NOT "THEIR" BUSINESS. They are customers. And they are free to make the choices that customers make. Buy into Apple's model or don't by into Apple's model. Governments deciding who actually owns the business and gets to make business decisions is an entirely different conversation.

 

[surferfb]

And because I know someone will comment, "But Apple created all the APIs." Yeah, they created APIs. So do many software developers. Apple's APIs benefit Apple two-fold:

1. Their own software uses them.
2. Third-party developers can make software using them and provide a more unified experience to the end-user.

Apple does not need to charge for providing APIs. Providing APIs allows developers to more easily write software for Apple's platform. More available software makes the platform more attractive to end-users.

But they are Apple’s IP and Apple is perfectly within their rights to charge for that IP however they wish. Developers aren’t entitled to it for free just because they want it, or it make’s Apple platform more attractive, or Apple makes enough money selling hardware or whatever other excuse that gets trotted out on MacRumors for why Apple should work for free.

All of this comes down to a single thing: Apple wants money. They want money from every one at every stage for every thing.

• They want money for the original product.

Which they deserve.

• They want money for any and all upgrades to the product.

Which they also deserve.

• They want money when the user needs to repair the product.

If it’s out of warranty, then they also deserve this.

• They want money for any and all software that runs on the product.

Only if it’s paid software. And given they developed the APIs that allow the app to function and own the OS it runs on, seems appropriate - even if it’s a somewhat unique ask in the industry, it’s their IP and no one is forced to develop for it.

• They want money for any purchases made on the product.

Only if it’s a digital product or service that is intended to be consumed on device. Stuff in the physical space (Ubers, DoorDash, Amazon purchases) they don’t want a cut of.

• They want money when the user is done with the product and ready to move on to a different product.

Generally Apple gives people who trade their devices in, not take from them.

They really only deserve money for the first one, but they structure their products, services, and policies with the end goal to extract money in all areas, even if they had absolutely no involvement in the transaction.

Strongly disagree.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

All of this comes down to a single thing: Apple wants money.

Question. Is Apple a business or not?

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Again, if you not an EU resident, these laws & options have no effect on you, nor can you even use them if you wanted to use them.

I noticed you didn't answer that question. I presume you are NOT in the EU and are thus just taking a very passionate, pro-Apple stance on other people's laws and consumer options. So many people who are so passionately against the EU law don't appear to live within the EU. What I don't see nearly as much is very many EU people being unhappy with this law. And they are the ones directly affected by it if they want to exercise anything it allows them to do that the rest of the world can't.

If EU Apple people were as offended such that I was seeing many of them ranting & raving about how terrible this is, I'd bend my own view of it. My general take on ALL such matters related to Apple is generally what is best for consumers. That has me praising Apple in some threads and panning them in others... versus just always taking an extremist side for or against them in everything.

But until I see a LOT of unhappy EU people about this law, this seems very much a MYOB-type of thing for all outside of the EU. If EU people are generally happy with these freedoms, I'm quite happy for them. Personally, I'm even ENVIOUS of this added flexibility available to them.

If they hate this law, the best course of action is to vote out those who put it in place and replace them with leaders who can switch things back to letting Apple rule all.

Closer to home, I'm also glad that GOV stepped in when Microsoft got too dominant in the browser space so I don't have to be typing this in a 2025 version of IE... and if we opted to debate this via phone, I'm glad I wouldn't have to make that call via AT&T's lock on long distance at whatever rate AT&T would want to charge in 2025.

And GOVs generally don't get involved until some players get too much dominance over some market. Then they are the "last resort" option to step in and reel those kinds of business practices in before they get completely out of hand.

 

[Dave-Z]

Strongly disagree.

Now this is something we can agree on.

 

[Dave-Z]

Question. Is Apple a business or not?

You're attempting to adjust the subject being discussed. I'm not playing that game.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

All of this comes down to a single thing: Apple wants money. They want money from every one at every stage for every thing.

• They want money for the original product.
• They want money for any and all upgrades to the product.
• They want money when the user needs to repair the product.
• They want money for any and all software that runs on the product.
• They want money for any purchases made on the product.
• They want money when the user is done with the product and ready to move on to a different product.

I have 15 Airbnbs. I need money to cover the cost of the original product. I need money to cover the costs of the upgrades of the products I have on the market. I need money to cover the costs when a guest requires a change in the product. I need money when the guests require that I pay for wifi and Netflix. I need money to cover mattresses, sheets, sofas and soap.

The last one? When they are done with my product, I want them to move on as quickly as possible.

And more importantly, in fact the only point that really matters, I need money to make a profit. That's the only reason I'm in the business at all. If you think that business isn't in the business of being a business, then just say that. Say that you don't believe in market economics, and we can move past disagreements quickly.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Apple wants to cover their costs AND MAKE MONEY. Do you really have zero understanding of how a market works?

The more I read these threads the more I think that basic economics 101 should be taught in kindergarten.

 

[surferfb]

Again, if you not an EU resident, these laws & options have no effect on you, nor can you even use them if you wanted to use them.

I noticed you didn't answer that question. I presume you are NOT in the EU and are thus just taking a very passionate, pro-Apple stance on other people's laws and consumer options. So many people who are so passionately against the EU law don't appear to live within the EU. What I don't see nearly as much is very many EU people being unhappy with this law. And they are the ones directly affected by it if they want to exercise anything it allows them to do that the rest of the world can't.

If EU Apple people were as offended such that I was seeing many of them ranting & raving about how terrible this is, I'd bend my own view of it. Until then though, this seems very much a MYOB-type of thing. If EU people are generally happy with these freedoms, I'm quite happy for them. If they hate them, the best course of action is to vote out those who put them in place and replace them with leaders who can switch things back to letting Apple rule all.

The EU’s law has made everyone’s Apple devices worse. Every minute spent trying to comply with this ridiculous overreach and mess of a law is time and money Apple engineers aren’t spending fixing bugs and developing new features.

And that’s before whatever security bug or exploit is introduced in everyone’s phones that exploits these compliance measures. (Like how the EU gave us the Crowdstrike crash by demanding Microsoft give kernel access to anyone who wants it).

 

[frenchcamp49er]

Said the spider to the fly ......

 

[CarAnalogy]

But that's the point. It's NOT "THEIR" BUSINESS. They are customers. And they are free to make the choices that customers make. Buy into Apple's model or don't by into Apple's model. Governments deciding who actually owns the business and gets to make business decisions is an entirely different conversation.

Just wanna stick my nose in a little to point out that there is a better way to do light touch government regulation. What the EU is doing right now is absolutely not it. There is room to question some of Apple’s decisions and guide them in a direction that helps maintain a healthy market for everyone. But neither the US nor EU seem interested in that approach.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

The EU’s law has made everyone’s Apple devices worse. Every minute spent trying to comply with this ridiculous overreach and mess of a law is time and money Apple engineers aren’t spending fixing bugs and developing new features.

Apple is richest company in the world. I suspect they can comply with these laws while having abundant people doing other things... such as developing AI stuff as quickly as possible. Browse the main page today: Car play work continues, firmware code updates for AirPods, 18.3 coming next week, iPhone SE 4 on deck, MBair on deck, iPhone slim on deck, etc. They don't seem to be short of talent to work on many things at the same time.

Bug fixing seems to no longer be much of a priority to Apple but I certainly wish your insinuation was true. I suspect the relatively small team probably involved in complying with this law would not make much of a difference on bugs. Instead, they would probably be assigned to more AI work. I suspect they actually already are as the tech to support this law had to be in effect nearly a year ago.

And that’s before whatever security bug or exploit is introduced in everyone’s phones that exploits these compliance measures. (Like how the EU gave us the Crowdstrike crash by demanding Microsoft give kernel access to anyone who wants it).

The "Wolf! Wolf" security danger argument has been flying for about 2 years BEFORE Apple had to comply with this law. And the anniversary of this law going into effect is almost a year now (March about 6th or so, as I recall). Where is the wolf? I've not seen ONE story about bank accounts being emptied... not one story about a virus being distributed this way... not one story of lives being destroyed, etc. I just can't believe the much promised criminal syndicates can be this patient before exploiting all the holes that this would offer them. Criminals want easy money even more than Apple.

The security card is sooooo easy to sling but once the law went into effect we would either soon see the security disaster unfold or not. Best I know, the EU is just fine... EU Apple people are just fine, etc. For "Wolf! Wolf!" to work, the villagers need to see the wolf. Else, eventually they wise up and stop coming.

 

[surferfb]

Apple is richest company in the world. I suspect they can comply with these laws while having abundant people doing other things... such as developing AI stuff as quickly as possible. Bug fixing seems to no longer be much of a priority to Apple. I suspect the relatively small team probably involved in complying with this law would not make much of a difference on bugs. Instead, they would probably be assigned to more AI work. I suspect they actually already are as the tech to support this law had to be in effect nearly a year ago.

I’d rather have Apple engineers working on new features and bug fixes, not enabling Epic to suck up money from teenagers without giving Apple a cut, or developing an idiotic browser choice screen.

The "Wolf! Wolf" security danger argument has been flying for about 2 years BEFORE Apple had to comply with this law. And the anniversary of this law going into effect is almost a year now (March about 6th or so, as I recall). Where is the wolf? I've not seen ONE story about bank accounts being emptied... not one story about a virus being distributed this way... not one story of lives being destroyed, etc. I just can't believe the much promised criminal syndicates can be this patient before exploiting all the holes that this would offer them. Criminals want easy money even more than Apple.

The security card is sooooo easy to sling but once the law went into effect we would either soon see the security disaster unfold or not. Best I know, the EU is just fine... EU Apple people are just fine, etc. For "Wolf! Wolf!" to work, eventually the villagers need to see the wolf. Else, eventually they wise up and stop coming.

You realize that when a feature is introduced all holes and exploits aren’t immediately known by the bad guys right? Hell given the changes the EU is still asking Apple to make the security bug may not have been written yet! It took well over a decade, maybe even two before the the EU’s kernel access requirement caused 25% of the world’s computers to stop working for a couple of days. Absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence!

Apple should be the one designing their OS, not bureaucrats in Brussels who literally tried to mandate Micro-USB be the only allowable port on all smartphones.

And all of this is moot because Android exists. If you don’t like Apples terms and conditions there is a really easy answer that doesn’t involve giving Apple’s IP to freeloading developers.

 

[pumpkinwhite]

OK. How about this for the "I bought my phone so let me do what I want with it!!!!" crowd...

You buy your phone, but you get no security updates, no software updates. Nothing at all. You buy it as is and it stays as is. But then, you could buy software updates and security updates from Apple when you want them.

But the idea that these ongoing services should be given away for free is among the silliest of ideas that the EU and many Macrumors members continue to put forward. Of course, the EU can't compete in the digital world; so that's understandable.

I think you are forgetting the fact that the phone itself is not free, and that the OS upgrades for the phone are not for perpetuity. When you buy a computer (Mac or PC), the cost of the OS and its security upgrades are already factored in. Both Windows and Mac OS have a deadline for older computers, after which they are not eligible for OS upgrades, and only get the bare minimum security patches. Why should the phone be any different? In fact, if anything, justifying software maintenance within the cost of the hardware should be easier for phones, which are typically upgraded by end-users MUCH faster than the computers they own.

So why shouldn’t the cost of the phone include security updates, software updates for 5-6 years, just like the computer? If you think Apple is justified in charging the CTF just because their are costs associated with maintaining the platform, you are wrong. Those costs should have been factored in, in the initial cost; and I’m sure they already are. If you think Apple actually cares about the $0.50 fee, you are deluding yourself. They put this in clearly to gate-keep app purchases within their OS.

 

[Joshuaorange]

Maybe when you can get yet another App Store to pay your fee for being in Epic’s App Store to be in Apple’s App Store. It’s just App Stores and fees all the way down!

Now we’re talking 🤣🤣🤣

 

[Timo_Existencia]

Apple is richest company in the world.

...and hasn't always been that, and didn't get there by ignoring the fundamental priciples of business. This is a nonsensical argument. I have no understanding of what this point is supposed to convey. That Apple should therefore ignore basic fundamental principles of business? Why? That actually helps no one.

I suspect they can comply with these laws while having abundant people doing other things...

"Can comply" is not the point. Forcing them to change their fundamental business principles should be outside of Government purview. Unless you simply don't believe in market economics. Then we can have a different conversation.

The "Wolf! Wolf" security danger argument

But the Wolf eventually DID COME. That's the point of the fable.

The security card is sooooo easy to sling but once the law went into effect we would either soon see the security disaster unfold or not.

Not true at all. The security risk might take many years to come, but why should we take that risk?

 

[JonathanX64]

The EU’s law has made everyone’s Apple devices worse. Every minute spent trying to comply with this ridiculous overreach and mess of a law is time and money Apple engineers aren’t spending fixing bugs and developing new features.

And that’s before whatever security bug or exploit is introduced in everyone’s phones that exploits these compliance measures. (Like how the EU gave us the Crowdstrike crash by demanding Microsoft give kernel access to anyone who wants it).

But they’re literally developing new features to comply, and these features will remain relevant anyway as more governments eventually sober up.

Pretty sure that iOS 18.1’s «default apps» settings pane, which is available worldwide, had to be built because of legislative pressure.

Bugs and exploits are still discovered quite frequently, and Apple does a reasonable job of patching them with updates. The ability to truly own your computing device isn’t going to affect that process much. For example, Mac has a system integrity protection feature. You can unlock the system partition on a Mac, but that requires rebooting into recovery, typing a specific command, and rebooting back. No malware can bypass that; if somebody will find a way, it will be quickly fixed. It’s not like your average malware is going to ask users «pls reboot your system and type this csrutil disable command and then go back to your OS and open terminal and write sudo ~/Downloads/trojan.sh and enter your password 🥺👉👈»

 

[gavroche]

Yes, actually.

Well, with an asterisks. It costs Apple to run their extra third party app store notarization service stuff. The thing is, nobody actually asked them to do that, so it's kind of like the person who cleans your car's windshield and then asks for money...

Who writes all the API’s that software developers use for the programs? I’ll give you three guesses.

Edit: in all seriousness, Apple should give everyone that thinks as you do the option of truly writing their own code. No Apple APIs. Let them see how well that goes.

 

[Student of Life]

One thing thats kinda missing here is that Epic is basically backed by a state actor. If Epic goal was just financial, they would have gone back into the App Store years ago, they have lost just from the IOS over 4 billion dollars in profits. They have also lost Billions from leaving the Android App Store. So this was never about money. What business would lose billions in easy money via in app purchases. Again this was never about money.

This is about bypassing the protection protocols in IOS and Android. They want you to use their store, with their rules. Again they are back and funded by a state actor. 35 to 40% of Epic is owned by Tencent which operates in China.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

...and hasn't always been that, and didn't get there by ignoring the fundamental priciples of business. This is a nonsensical argument. I have no understanding of what this point is supposed to convey. That Apple should therefore ignore basic fundamental principles of business? Why? That actually helps no one.

The other guy implied that some programmers allocated to complying with this law could instead be working on bug fixes... as if Apple didn't have the money to both comply with the law AND do bug fixes... AND develop AI... and new firmware for AirPods Pro... and developing iPhone SE 4... and developing iPhone slim. Etc.

It has nothing to do with your take.

"Can comply" is not the point. Forcing them to change their fundamental business principles should be outside of Government purview. Unless you simply don't believe in market economics. Then we can have a different conversation.

So you would prefer to be typing this nonsense on an IE browser... because without that GOV action, Microsoft would VERY LIKELY completely rule Internet browsing by now and since about 2002 or so. Even Jobs installed IE on my first Macs because, at that time, it had to be IE. And then unique Microsoft extensions to try to cement that lock had to be dealt with well into the 2000s by all web developers to cover exclusive IE stuff.

Or does this take ONLY apply to preserving Apple's lock on this one market... but you welcome GOV preventing IE from ruling the Internet?

But the Wolf eventually DID COME. That's the point of the fable.

To gobble up those who kept shouting it so long that nobody believed anything that had to say.

The point of the fable is don't mislead others.

Not true at all. The security risk might take many years to come, but why should we take that risk?

If we want to play that card, then the security risk might come from just leaning on any Apple technology. Ban Apple completely because Apple technology MIGHT have some security risk that can't yet be recognized.

Or ban all tech because some unforeseen tech risk may come many years from now.

Why take any risk at all on some unforeseen security risk that may hit in years?


I fully get the passionate brand defense/loyalty. I'm not new here. But it really doesn't matter how much we post in these EU law threads. The law is set. Apple is complying. This is already a done deal for nearly a year now. Apple will comply with these laws or be punished. They choose to comply.

Apple could exit the EU market completely so they wouldn't have to comply but they choose the lucrative revenue & profit from that BIG market and thus need to comply with EU laws. Apple chooses the money in spite of having to deal with "local" law.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

I think you are forgetting the fact that the phone itself is not free

No, I understand that the phone costs money. And that Apple needs a margin of profit on the phone. Of course. That's business 101.

When you buy a computer (Mac or PC), the cost of the OS and its security upgrades are already factored in.

To a degree. But all businesses allocate costs differently and spread them to different categories. Apple has a model to cover their costs and make a profit. That's part of running a business. Who do you think is in the best position to make those decisions?

Both Windows and Mac OS have a deadline for older computers, after which they are not eligible for OS upgrades, and only get the bare minimum security patches. Why should the phone be any different?

The phone is not different. iPhones age out as well. But the costs are currently being spread over hardware and app sales. You think if you eliminate app sales the cost of hardware won't increase?

In fact, if anything, justifying software maintenance within the cost of the hardware should be easier for phones, which are typically upgraded by end-users MUCH faster than the computers they own.

Which is a business decision. Are you suggesting this should be a government decision? If so, then we are completely outside of market economics and should be having a different conversation.

So why shouldn’t the cost of the phone include security updates, software updates for 5-6 years

It can if that's how Apple (and you) want to cover all these costs. Want to pay more up front for your iPHone? That's one path. But ultimately, this isn't YOUR decision (except for whether you buy an iPHone or not) but Apple's decision.

just like the computer? If you think Apple is justified in charging the CTF just because their are costs associated with maintaining the platform, you are wrong.

There's no such thing as "wrong" in what you're saying. There's preferences and cost-benefit analysis. Wrong? That's a religious term. Make that decision with your Tribe.

Those costs should have been factored in

Should have? According to who? God?

If you think Apple actually cares about the $0.50 fee, you are deluding yourself. They put this in clearly to gate-keep app purchases within their OS.

Apple is a business. Apple cares about business.

 

[JonathanX64]

Apple is a business. Apple cares about business.

And you are a human being, so you should care about not being screwed by said business.

Once you switch from «ok, I'll pay $400 to repair one keyboard button on a laptop with a $500 market value» to «you f***g Apple Geniuses can't even repair a button?? Fine, I'll go to third parties who can do it for $30 and support a small business instead of useless capitalists», you contribute to building a better society, and you'll reap the benefits of these improvements yourself, too.