what rules? The ban if Epic was validated by the court and that is done.
The latest ruling has to do with Apple having to allow external links for payments.
Epic was banned for a reason and that should continue.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Epic Games Submits Fortnite to U.S. App Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The latest ruling has to do with Apple having to allow external links for payments.
Epic was banned for a reason and that should continue.
My kid and it's friends play it all the time. And they spend money on it. Although not as much as they'd spend on full price games if one were to compare the time they spend on it - so I'm o.k. with that.
Btw., Fortnite on iOS is a 10GB download.
You are right, but it doesn’t cover the 20 million downloads. That is just administrative fee to get into the App Store. Apple makes money by getting a percentage of in app purchases. That’s why they’re not losing money. If they only made $99 for each app annually, they would lose significant amount of money on the App Store.
That means they would have to change it to a per download pricing structure. They could say something like it’s $99 up to 1000 downloads then goes up from there. That would mean big developers would host their own apps. Once the most popular apps were gone from the App Store, the iOS App Store would turn into what the macOS App Store is now.
It’s $300 for large companies.
If that doesn’t cover it, perhaps Apple should have a fee based on number of downloads.
It’s Apple that states the fee includes distribution.
Whether $99/yr is enough to cover costs or not is beside the point. You also don't seem to acknowledge that having these apps available on the App Store helps Apple sell more iPhones and other devices and services which more than offsets costs.
That's why Apple doesn't charge Amazon, McDonald's, Walmart, Bank of America and similar apps where Apple gets $0.00 in commission anything more than the annual developer fee. It's also why Apple's willing to offer some companies sweetheart deals...
Why Amazon got out of the Apple App Store tax, and why other developers won’t
It’s leverage. The reason is leverage.
www.theverge.com
Apple and Amazon very, very quietly unveiled a monumental app deal this week, without fanfare or, sadly, much in the way of transparency. Out of nowhere, buttons to buy or rent movies appeared in the Amazon Prime Video app. It’s difficult to express how strange this is: for over a decade, Apple has stuck to the rule that all digital goods sold in iOS apps must use Apple’s payment methods, including Apple’s 30 percent cut.
Suddenly, that rule appears to apply to all developers except those who have the leverage to cut a special deal with Apple.
It's a strategy similar to how supermarkets operate. They use loss leaders (e.g. milk and eggs) to get customers in the door, hoping that they'll buy other items, especially items with higher margins.
That's what a lot of MacRumors forum posters seem to want, as far as I can tell. Would be terrible for users, in my opinion, but I guess a lot of people disagree.
The lawyers handling this are probably on retainerThis will be interesting. I’m sure apples expensive lawyers are running on overtime.
I think the issue is that the App Store 30% subsidies the processing and distrubution of free apps. The fact that they list free distribution doesn't mean that your $99 pays for that service. For example, you're free app can have multiple versions every few weeks that have to be reviewed / scanned etc which all happen for that $99. Also, what if your app is so successful that it gets distributed to 50% of all installed user base. All that for $99? (included developer docs etc)
The free app model has been essentiall for the App Store success since inception. But if you can just "free load" and distribute a free app and make money outside of the store.. well thats not fair either, I dont know if Apple are going to run with all of this in the long run. Somethings got to give.
It's a catch 22, I think Apple want/need to spend effort scanning/verifying apps to keep their platform safe and they need to have free apps. But if everyone ends up making money outside of the apps they could end up with them distributing every app for basically free and getting zero income. Which is insane.
I actually think the half way house of "tell your customers outside of iOS somehow you can subscribe etc." was maybe the best approach here. It kind of blurred the lines.
Even if Apple reduced the cost to just payment processing like Stripe (2-3%) it would not subsidize the free App Store.I see that Epic think 12% is reasonable for them. Console companies think 30% is reasonable etc.
Someones going to have to set a price by law or something.
Because if I was Apple I'd shut down the whole free App Store thing before I let everyone force me into distributing their stuff for nothing. No way in hell. This is a business, not a charity.
That doesn't explain apps that are free, like Target or Kroger. There are a ton of apps that have no in-app and never will.
Because it’s a game
The only reason it’s talked about on this site is because Tim Sweeney challenged Apple in court.
And because Apple are now having to make changes to the iOS App Store because of it.
If Tim Sweeney lost completely then MR wouldn’t be talking about Fortnite
As long as Apple gets a 30% cut, they're absolutely fine with that.
Last edited:
Even $300 it’s not going to cover anything close to a million downloads. A few based on the number of downloads was what I mentioned could likely happen or at least was one of the possibilities.
I don’t think the supermarket analogy works. A better analogy would be how Sony or Microsoft sells video game consoles for at cost or sometimes even below cost because they’re going to make significant profits on games. I guess it would be kind of the reverse of that where they distribute the software at a loss and made a profit on the hardware.Whether $99/yr is enough to cover costs or not is beside the point. You also don't seem to acknowledge that having these apps available on the App Store helps Apple sell more iPhones and other devices and services which more than offsets costs.
That's why Apple doesn't charge Amazon, McDonald's, Walmart, Bank of America and similar apps where Apple gets $0.00 in commission anything more than the annual developer fee. It's also why Apple's willing to offer some companies sweetheart deals...
Why Amazon got out of the Apple App Store tax, and why other developers won’t
It’s leverage. The reason is leverage.
Apple and Amazon very, very quietly unveiled a monumental app deal this week, without fanfare or, sadly, much in the way of transparency. Out of nowhere, buttons to buy or rent movies appeared in the Amazon Prime Video app. It’s difficult to express how strange this is: for over a decade, Apple has stuck to the rule that all digital goods sold in iOS apps must use Apple’s payment methods, including Apple’s 30 percent cut.
Suddenly, that rule appears to apply to all developers except those who have the leverage to cut a special deal with Apple.
It's a strategy similar to how supermarkets operate. They use loss leaders (e.g. milk and eggs) to get customers in the door, hoping that they'll buy other items, especially items with higher margins.
I don’t think that’s what will happen though. If the App Store becomes unprofitable, Apple will just allow companies to download whatever apps they want to the iPhone. Similar to how you can on a Mac.
You have to remember this is the Internet. There are quite a few people on the Internet that just want to watch the world burn. Whatever would be most destructive is what they’re going to support. I’d say that accounts for a significant portion of this support. Also people sometimes legitimately support things because they think it will be better. It sounds cool and people will support it until it bites them. I think an open ecosystem where you can download it and install apps from a webpage would have some severe consequences.
I never played FortNite despite having knowing a lot of folks loved that game. This whole thing just been crazy for a while. This is the court battle of the century right here.
The App Store is supported by in app purchases. Apple can basically give away free hosting for free apps with no in app purchases because they make money off of other apps. When you take that money away, they can’t continue to do this. As someone said they could just lose money off the App Store and then absorb that loss with iPhone sales, but I don’t think Apple will do that.
First of all, the APIs are used by Apple apps throughout iOS, it’s not like the apis are developed exclusively for third party developers.
The price of an iPhone is supposed to cover the development of iOS, which of course includes the APIs.
Finally, apps make the iPhone, well the iPhone. Look what happened to windows phone. Nobody used it because it didn’t have apps. I believe at some point Microsoft was so desperate that it was PAYING developers to develop for windows phone.
So Apple should be thankful third party developers have added massive value to the platform.
A lot if not most platforms/software that can have extensions/plugins/apps/third-patty integrations let devs host their extensions for free because they know a rich ecosystem makes your product better and more attractive.
well, Epic made that choice actually cause they broke the agreement and therefor got banned ...
what would motivate Apple to lift that ban?
The apps in the app store is also the reason they can sell iPhones in the first place, with a large margin and gigantic total profit.
Because of how it will play out
That is why epic are more than likely going to get reinstated on the iOS App Store
Good you don't have issues!
Leave the other users to download and have fun with Epic Games!
If Apple refuses, like many here suggest, it only proofs how they abuse their position of power. This could potentially lead to more legal trouble for Apple.
No matter what, it is sick people would support the refusal. They have fallen hard to Applespeak.
No matter what, it is sick people would support the refusal. They have fallen hard to Applespeak.