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

[AppliedMicro]

Yes, a legal one at that.

Not anymore (in Europe).

You believe government should regulate consumer lifestyle product companies

No, not really.
But they should regulate companies that provide economic infrastructure.

Don’t buy their product then.

It’s not as if people have a breadth of choice.

That said, I just bought a Google Pixel phone.
And a new (non-Apple) watch supporting tokenised contactless payments will be delivered tomorrow.

 

[I7guy]

Not anymore (in Europe).

Some dialing back of that may be one the way.

No, not really.
But they should regulate companies that provide economic infrastructure.

That’s mostly every company. So I disagree.

It’s not as if people have a breadth of choice.

The just need a choice.

That said, I just bought a Google Pixel phone.
And a new (non-Apple) watch supporting tokenised contactless payments will be delivered tomorrow.

Cool. Looking forward to hearing your review on the alternatives forum.

 

[Bananir]

Because you think it costs nothing for Apple to provide the service?

Assuming that Apple isn't the one hosting these alternate app stores, yes it literally costs nothing for them

 

[macfacts]

iOS and the associated APIs are owned by Apple. Xcode is owned by Apple. The other development tools and resources are owned by Apple. So yes, they use Apple’s infrastructure, even if they’re trying to freeload by not using the App Store.

Not my problem apple made a bad business decision to give xcode away for free.

 

[surferfb]

Gruber is Apple’s unofficial spokesman and no independent journalist.

Have you seen his latest Apple article? Doesn’t really read like something an Apple spokesperson would write.

Siri Is Super Dumb and Getting Dumber

Siri with Apple Intelligence gives confident but embarrasingly wrong answers to sports trivia questions, both famous (Super Bowls) and obscure (North Dakota high school hoops).

daringfireball.net

And no doubt “compliance projects” are a euphemism for erecting more technological barriers, restriction, gates etc. to make it as difficult for third parties and their stores as financially unviable as possible.

No pretty sure the example given was either developing infrastructure for third-party stores or the browser choice screen - I honestly can’t remember at this point.

They’re not giving them it.
They merely have to make it interoperable.

“You have to let your competitors have access to the feature you developed to differentiate your ecosystem” is giving it to them.

That’s a good thing (a win) for consumers.
And encourages competition by making switching platforms easier.

Strongly disagree. It dramatically discourages innovation, which is a huge loss for consumers.

100% of the market for iOS apps does.

And McDonalds has 100% of the BigMac market. Doesn’t mean McDonalds has a monopoly on the burger market. Kinda like Apple doesn’t have a monopoly on the mobile app market.

I have basically no issue with them charging a justified fee.
Could be a “core technology fee” for developers.

What I take issue with:
Not charging a fee and giving away their tools and resources for free to “most”, in order to establish and maintain monopoly power as economic infrastructure - and then leveraging that to extract monopoly rent from a subset of third parties that depend on your economic infrastructure.

There is an absolutely nothing wrong with subsidizing certain customers while charging others more. By keeping the barrier to entry low they are increasing participation and increasing the number of apps available to customers, not “establishing and maintaining monopoly power”. They’ve developed an incredibly fair model where if you do well Apple is compensated a reasonable fee for the tools and market it built while allowing hobbyists access as well.

If you got your way Apple is forced with raising prices for everyone and reducing the apps available for its customers, or not being properly compensated for enabling an entire industry to make billions of dollars.

Which is actually you and Vestager’s goal. You don’t want Apple compensated for everything it does because you’ve decided “they’re too big”. So bring on the socialism! Give away Apple’s inventions to its competitors! Who cares if innovation stops, apps and features go away and prices rise. The ability of developers to freeload is more important than pesky things like fairness and ownership.

 

[surferfb]

Not my problem apple made a bad business decision to give xcode away for free.

Not a bad business decision at all, because it increases the number of developers for their ecosystem. Particularly because in regions of the world that respect property rights they are able to be compensated when the apps on those devices do well.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

Not everyone uses their phone as their primary device.

But nobody uses a Nintendo Switch as their primary device.

The question is, what happens when you're a protester in Hong Kong and Apple makes it impossible to download the app you use to avoid getting killed by the state police. If it's your game console, who the heck cares, why were you using the protest app on your game console. If it's your phone—very possibly your primary or even your only computer—it's a big deal.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

Assuming that Apple isn't the one hosting these alternate app stores, yes it literally costs nothing for them

The original post was referring to free apps hosted on Apples App Store. But even so, Apple has ongoing costs for the platform. All uses of that platform should pay for those costs. It’s basic economics. If you believe in market economics, that should be obvious. If you don’t, then there’s nothing to discuss.

 

[revfife]

Let me try to help. What some people want is what they see as the superior phone: iPhone... with more options for sourcing software to enjoy on that phone. They don't want the inferior phone enough to then get a greater freedom of sourcing software. Like just about anything we buy, consumers want the best of both.

All of us already have the desired app freedom of source choice on our Macs. iPhone buyers would like access to iPhone apps just like we Mac owners can access Mac Apps.

There is an Apple Mac App Store too. But we don't have to source all Mac apps from only that one store. I have a number of Mac apps I've picked up via those 10 apps for $5 bundles. When do you see that sort of bargain in the iOS App Store? I often go straight to the developer's website to buy an app for my Macs... so they make as much money as they can make for their creations. I can do that- if I choose- OR I can buy the same app from the Mac App Store so Apple can take the first bite of revenue from that purchase, even before the app creators.

Competition is not purely A vs. B. There can be competition or even up to monopolistic practices within just B. Customer interests- whether via policy or just customer wants- tend to near universally want freedom to get what they want for least possible cost. We tend to do that in nearly all purchases. We want an ability to shop around to find what we want for the lowest price. How do we shop around for iOS apps? We can't. There's just a single iOS store... unless we live in the EU.

When a company gets a lock on any market (not limited to just software apps), that company can set nearly any price for that market... as well as restrictive policy for buyers within that market.

Change the name involved to anyone else. How about Shell Gasoline? Would we like the only source of Gas in our country to be from one company? Would we want only one source of grocery in our country? When we change the name, our consumer mind will wake up and recognize the undesirability of no competition.

But, but, but, there's android in this situation. Yes, but when one buys an iPhone, they are then locked into a single Company Store model almost everywhere except the EU. And to then use that iPhone with any software, they have one single choice of where they can get those apps.

Perhaps consider it another way: effective immediately, the only place you can get Mac apps is the Apple Mac App Store. No more bundle deals. No more buying from developers. You can only buy from Apple. If an app you like is not in the Apple Store, you can no longer get that app. Do we welcome that wholeheartedly after enjoying the freedom to get apps from many sources with much competition for all the years Mac have existed?

If that's too close to (Brand favorite) home: effective immediately, you can only get cell service from AT&T. No other source of cell service may be used with your iPhone. Pay up for whatever AT&T demands with this lock on that market because it is your only choice. No shopping around for better deals. If AT&T now dominating this market no longer wants to give away a phone on contract, pay up for phone and then pay whatever they want for service. Don't like AT&T total lock on the cellular market? Throw away your iPhone and buy Android. "But I don't want Android!" Tough luck. If you want iPhone, give AT&T whatever they want for service. You have no choices.

If any of that gives you pause, we shouldn't be so quick to defend preventing that kind of consumer flexibility for software apps for a different kind of Apple computer than our Macs. Our brand bias/Apple love/"Apple is my God" positions cloud how we see the issue. Step back from that- mentally change the "Who?" and see if we would argue for the same way FOR maybe Samsung, Microsoft, Google, Spotify, Netflix, etc with the same zeal & passion. If not, it shouldn't be different just because our favorite company is the name involved.

I hope that helps.

Does XBox allow Sony or Nintendo to sell video games on the XBox?

When you buy a console you buy into their ecosystem. Which is why it’s important to evaluate the ecosystem before buying into it.

Should the EU force Microsoft to allow steam to sell games on their consoles?

I understand the desire to be platform agnostic. I’ve owned PCs and Macs. However, that’s never been part of Apple’s strategy. Even when Jobs was there they were the alternative closed system.

Now as some have said, people want iOS AND a wide open ecosystem. It will be interesting to see where this goes.

My guess is 99% of Apple Customers are basically content with the App Store.

 

[Abazigal]

Does XBox allow Sony or Nintendo to sell video games on the XBox?

When you buy a console you buy into their ecosystem. Which is why it’s important to evaluate the ecosystem before buying into it.

Should the EU force Microsoft to allow steam to sell games on their consoles?

I understand the desire to be platform agnostic. I’ve owned PCs and Macs. However, that’s never been part of Apple’s strategy. Even when Jobs was there they were the alternative closed system.

Now as some have said, people want iOS AND a wide open ecosystem. It will be interesting to see where this goes.

My guess is 99% of Apple Customers are basically content with the App Store.

It’s also interesting to note that game developers evidently have no issues with paying Nintendo, Sony or Value 30% of app revenue (at least I have not heard any complaints from them) but make a lot of noise about having to pay even a single cent to Apple.

In this context, the whole “essential infrastructure” argument kinda falls apart, IMO. If I were the game developer of a game available on multiple platforms, why would I care about the distinction? You mean to tell me that I am supposed to have an issue with Apple taking 30 or 15% of my iOS app revenue but should be fine with Sony (or even applaud them for) doing the same for their Switch platform?

Is the money from Apple users different from the money from Switch or PS5 users somehow?

 

[macfacts]

Give away Apple’s inventions to its competitors!

Spotify and epic aren't competitors. Spotify and epic don't make smartphones. It is apple that "sherlocked" Spotify.

 

[AiPone12mini]

Nothing is preventing you from jailbreaking your phone and sideloading to your heart’s content. Apple isn’t obligated to help you though, anymore than Sony is obligated to help you play Xbox games on your PS5.

I have blocked iPhone 15 Pro updates to wait jailbreaking to catch up so i can install .ipa like it should be. Then i have a choice at least to install apps that Apple blocks officially.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Sideloading must become easy as on Android. Currently people are blocked by walled garden in countries where Apple bows to dictators. Easy to defend walled garden by people who are gotten used to it, but once you get hit yourself then you talk another story. EPIC does right thing to limit power of Apple walled garden.

The EU will never allow that to happen. Because, one of the reasons why Apple pulls in FAR more revenue despite the fact that Android has a much larger marketshare is that sideloading is JUST annoying enough for most iOS users not to do it. They’d rather pay whatever fee there is than to try to figure out how to get it for free.

That’s why the DMA includes provisions that are in place to protect developer profits. They don’t want the amount of money coming from iOS to decrease, they just want a larger percentage of that money.

 

[Abazigal]

Sideloading must become easy as on Android. Currently people are blocked by walled garden in countries where Apple bows to dictators. Easy to defend walled garden by people who are gotten used to it, but once you get hit yourself then you talk another story. EPIC does right thing to limit power of Apple walled garden.

Hypothetically speaking, if the ability to sideload was as important as you claimed (eg: a citizen in China wishing to download a VPN app which is otherwise not available in the iOS App Store), couldn't they just buy an android phone to access said capability?

 

[surferfb]

Spotify and epic aren't competitors. Spotify and epic don't make smartphones. It is apple that "sherlocked" Spotify.

Disagree. Sure they’re not competitors in the phone/OS market. But competitors none-the-less.

But it’s a moot point. Android and Samsung are competitors in the phone/OS market, and the DMA says Apple has to give them access to all hardware and software features too. As I shared up thread:

The EU wants Apple to open AirDrop and AirPlay to Android and other platforms

A new mandate from the EU may force Apple to open AirDrop and AirPlay, among other features, to Android and other platforms.

9to5google.com

 

[AppliedMicro]

In this context, the whole “essential infrastructure” argument kinda falls apart, IMO. If I were the game developer of a game available on multiple platforms, why would I care about the distinction?

Gaming consoles aren’t important economic infrastructure.
Cell phone networks and handheld internet devices are.

Hypothetically speaking, if the ability to sideload was as important as you claimed (eg: a citizen in China wishing to download a VPN app which is otherwise not available in the iOS App Store), couldn't they just buy an android phone to access said capability?

Hypothetically, yes. Practically, you may be challenged to find an Android device whose manufacturer doesn’t collect (and share) data on you.

Anyways, I’m sick of of the “But there’s Android! (So Apple gets a free pass on everything)” argument (considering it’s a duopoly in mobile OS).

And the EU has chosen to designate and regulate both as core platform services. And at an estimated market share of 50% of mobile app spending for Apple, rightly so.

 

[I7guy]

Gaming consoles aren’t important economic infrastructure.
Cell phone networks and handheld internet devices are.

Cellular networks are important. The device format is irrelevant.

Hypothetically, yes. Practically, you may be challenged to find an Android device whose manufacturer doesn’t collect (and share) data on you.

Anyways, I’m sick of of the “But there’s Android! (So Apple gets a free pass on everything)” argument (considering it’s a duopoly in mobile OS).

I’m sick of measuring dominance by revenue not units.

And the EU has chosen to designate and regulate both as core platform services. And at an estimated market share of 50% of mobile app spending for Apple, rightly so.

Incorrectly so. The eu did what it did, doesn’t make it right or good. And the more people argue for it, I’m inclined to believe how bad the legislation actually is in the long run.

 

[surferfb]

Gaming consoles aren’t important economic infrastructure. Cell phone networks and handheld internet devices are.

Gaming is at an estimated at $187b in revenue globally in 2024. That’s more than smartphone manufacturing ($175 billion in revenue). The DMA regulates smartphone hardware, why not gaming hardware?

Hypothetically, yes. Practically, you may be challenged to find an Android device whose manufacturer doesn’t collect (and share) data on you.

Maybe that’s because they aren’t getting a percentage of app sales like Apple is.

Anyways, I’m sick of of the “But there’s Android! (So Apple gets a free pass on everything)” argument (considering it’s a duopoly in mobile OS).

Life is full of compromises. You’re not entitled to have a company that makes the exact product you want. Android does literally everything you ask for from a “software competition” standpoint.

And the EU has chosen to designate and regulate both as core platform services. And at an estimated market share of 50% of mobile app spending for Apple, rightly so.

At an estimated platform share of 25%, unjustly so.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple has ongoing costs for the platform. All uses of that platform should pay for those costs. It’s basic economics

Completely agree. 👍
And without unjustified discrimination.

Let’s start with Uber and the food delivery apps.
Can’t expect to have preferential terms and/or use Apple’s services for free.

 

[surferfb]

Completely agree. 👍
And without unjustified discrimination.

Let’s start with Uber and the food delivery apps.
Can’t expect to have preferential terms and/or use Apple’s services for free.

Apple should be able to charge different developers different prices. If they want to say apps with red icons are free and apps with blue apps get charged 75% or free apps get charged nothing and paid apps get charged 15/30% there is no reason they shouldn’t (as long as they aren’t doing things like discriminating against protected classes.)

If they determine subsidizing free apps by charging more to paid apps is in their interest (or it isn’t in their interest but they want to do so anyway), there is no justifiable reason they shouldn’t be able to do so.

 

[Abazigal]

Gaming consoles aren’t important economic infrastructure.
Cell phone networks and handheld internet devices are.

You didn’t answer the question though.

Which is that as a game developer who is interested solely in maximising revenue, the distinction is meaningless to me, if you tell me I am allowed to sell a game via the epic games store on iOS (and thus keep a larger portion of the proceeds for myself) but not be able to do likewise for the switch or ps5 platforms (where I still need to pay these companies 30%).

Essentially if I happen to make the bulk of my revenue on these game console platforms (a game like slay the spire was released on steam and switch first before coming to iOS).

If that 30% is indeed deemed to be too much, then it should be too much for any platform who attempts to charge as such, not just Apple. Otherwise, there should be nothing wrong with allowing Apple to still charge developers for apps sold outside of their App Store, either via the core technology fee, a flat 27% tax, or otherwise.

This is why I feel the DMA ultimately goes too far in attempting to regulate Apple. Maybe you are right in that the law is the law, and by rights (however unfair), Apple should have no choice but to either follow or exit the EU (the only two options available to Apple evidently).

But suppose you flip a coin enough times. Suppose one day, the coin lands on its edge.

 

[Ethosik]

But nobody uses a Nintendo Switch as their primary device.

The question is, what happens when you're a protester in Hong Kong and Apple makes it impossible to download the app you use to avoid getting killed by the state police. If it's your game console, who the heck cares, why were you using the protest app on your game console. If it's your phone—very possibly your primary or even your only computer—it's a big deal.

I do not think this response is relevant to the conversation. We are discussing in a thread about Epic Games Store. In no way shape or form will some CRITICAL MUST HAVE app will be on this store. And NOBODY will use this store as their primary store. This is a thread about a game store, and no amount of games will be that important where your life depends on it. Which BTW my grandparents get by just fine with old style flip phones. Their life isn't in jeopardy and I think the whole smartphone being a requirement is vastly overstated.

If there is such an app where people's lives depend on it, it more than likely won't be something you need to pay for therefore this whole conversation is irrelevant to the topic at hand. People barely have enough to purchase an iPhone (shocking alert here that a lot of not so well off people get the cheaper much cheaper android phones). So name ONE app that is absolutely crucial that is subject to a 30% fee and they charge you for it?

Therefore, the whole "people use these as their primary devices" is not relevant to this topic. Most people stick to the stock apps provided on the phone.

 

[Ubuntu]

Ah, that canard...The Mac grew up in a different era; an era where software manufacturers thought they could sell me their software 1 time and then provide lifetime support and upgrades to me for free.

Even though I hate the subscription model of software, I fully understand why it exists. There are ongoing costs for platforms and feature development. The Mac model was formed in naiveté. Now we live in the real world, where we want ongoing support, upgrades and new features. This costs money.

The Mac model is dead everywhere. Unless of course you want to pay for your phone through subscriptions?

Offering subscriptions is not exclusive to the App Store, so your point doesn’t make sense.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

Offering subscriptions is not exclusive to the App Store, so your point doesn’t make sense.

I never said it was exclusive to the App Store.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple should be able to charge different developers different prices.

...in competitive markets, yes (where consumers and suppliers have negotiating power).
Not when they have monopoly power and can impose take-it-or-leave-it terms on everyone else.

How much is the market pricing pressure to lower Apple's 30% commission rate for large "consumers" (developers)?
👉 Answer: Zero. The market for application stores is not competitive.

That is why government should step in with regulation and at least provide the possibility for competition.

If they determine subsidizing free apps by charging more to paid apps is in their interest (or it isn’t in their interest but they want to do so anyway), there is no justifiable reason they shouldn’t be able to do so.

Having monopoly power and anticompetitive pricing and business terms is justifiable reason for governments to intervene.