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 Takes Legal Battle With Apple to Europe With Antitrust Complaint
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Something no one has mentioned in comparing the Mac and iPhone is that Mac apps are frequently more complex and have a greater cost than iPhone apps (with exceptions of course). So a dev willing to hand over $3.30 of a $10 sale probably doesn't feel the same way about handing over $89.70 for an app they have priced at $299.
Personally I don't understand why some people, on this board and elsewhere, believe Apple should allow side loading and alternate app stores on the iPhone. Why did you buy an iPhone if that's what you want? Get an S21 or whatever with Android and have at it. Why should Apple change the way they do business to accommodate your desire when it is in conflict with what Apple has decided to do?
Personally I don't understand why some people, on this board and elsewhere, believe Apple should allow side loading and alternate app stores on the iPhone. Why did you buy an iPhone if that's what you want? Get an S21 or whatever with Android and have at it. Why should Apple change the way they do business to accommodate your desire when it is in conflict with what Apple has decided to do?
I am European
I mentioned Antarctica because maybe there, the penguins might consider "epic" their pathetic attempts.
Alot of people know that the data they POST is used, but assume that it.
The cross-app/site tracking and data-mining aspect is something I would say the vast majority doesn't "get".
Not just from the Dev's side. If a cross platform software package costs $2000. There is a big incentive for a company to consider switching platforms if the Mac version was $600 higher. I'm not a fan of Windows, but 10 is a solid OS.
Expensive Pro Applications (Autodesk / Adobe / Steinberg for example) don't need the same level of "App Store Exposure" that consumer apps do.
Well, somehow I get your worries, but the MacAppStore is a wasteland because it’s the nature of macOS devices by not being handy and lifestyle centric like iOS devices, and also Apples fault.
Apple never pushed macOS as a gaming platform, nor offered the Hardware, APIs to make macOS devices good gaming devices, and attractive to game developers and gamers. On the other hand, if you look at the iOS AppStore, the driving force there always has been primarily Games. It’s the symbiosis of Games and lifestyle Apps that made the iOS AppStore overall attractive and successful. With Apple Silicon this might change a bit on the Mac side, time will tell.
Of course as a dev, if you notice that the MacAppStore is becoming attractive to gain additional new customers, you also offer your stuff there, just like Affinity is doing. The Apps which is essential for the majority of macOS users also exist on the MacAppStore, stuff like MSOffice, Calendar Apps, Text Writing Apps, Password Apps, etc. The Apps that don’t exist on the MacAppStore are usually for a bit more tech savvy, or topic profound users, and these users usually have no problem installing Apps from elsewhere, they often even prefer it that way.
That way they also can skip app versions, freeze app versions, install multiple app versions, rollback app versions. All that without being bothered by some red icon counter, just one click away from update catastrophe.
Since the beginning of the AppStore, developers also wanted a way to offer upgrades for existing App owners, or offer App trials, Apple never made this possible. This drove us to the subscription hell we have today in the AppStore, maybe even planned by Apple to get more % bonus. I recognize the comfort the iOS AppStore offers, but as a unique installation source, it’s more a draw back than a benefit to me. I put having a choice over comfort, just like in other non-tech areas of my life.
Last edited:
Not really, because why would a developer bother with the AppStore if they feel that they theoretically make more money by not being in it, or because they do't want to bother learning how to?!
That means that fewer apps will go through the process of having their apps "validated" by Apple, and I, as a user, end up having to trust/distrust every single developer/source about what they've put in the app. No matter if it's about malware they aren't capable of discovering themselves, straight up fraud, or tracking.
I like my iPhone locked down like it is. And I'd switch to another platform if I change my mind about that.
So you think they should be allowed to use the platform differently, and not obey the rules of it, simply because they… Why exactly? Because they're expensive? Because they expect fewer users? Because most people can't afford them?
What in all of that should make them have direct access to iDevice users without having to have their software checked by Apple for malware, data abuse, and tracking etc?
this „your house your rules and if you don’t like it you can just leave“ is an American philosophy that usually doesn’t fly the same in the EU. Another poster already gave you some examples
It is so unfair that Google and Apple built hardware and software ecosystems, support the infrastructure to run them, marketing to attract customers to the platforms - to create a global marketplace of billions of customers who are just one tap away from funnelling money into their bank accounts (which they also provide payment processing for).
Yeah, I can really see how the payment processing part is what they have the problem with, I mean, Epic and all those other clowns (like Hey!) really do deserve 100% unfettered access to all those customers without Google or Apple getting a cent - its not like they're getting anything in return for the 15-30% commission /s
Zoom out on this problem and imagine if one country wanted free and unfettered access to another countries population to sell goods and services to? The only way value can be legally extracted from one economy into another is by paying a tax of some kind. Every country puts a lot of investment into building their populations and their economies, they're not just going to let some outsiders come in and take a chunk of that value without getting something in return for their spent efforts.
If they don't think the commission is worth the fee, why don't they put their money into developing their own hardware platforms? These platforms didn't just happen overnight, they took decades to build into what they have become now.
EPIC / Tim S is the unrivaled master in sickening hypocrisy.
I am really bewildered how he constantly manages to outpace even FB/ Mark Zuck.
And he** no... we do not want to have side load options for our Apple devices. And btw nor I would want to for other systems as well just because someone would want to play different rules. I am using Apple and other systems because they are designed as they are and being more secure than others.
I am really bewildered how he constantly manages to outpace even FB/ Mark Zuck.
And he** no... we do not want to have side load options for our Apple devices. And btw nor I would want to for other systems as well just because someone would want to play different rules. I am using Apple and other systems because they are designed as they are and being more secure than others.
I think you misunderstand. Im happy that iOS / iPadOS should remain buttoned up and I'd hate to see the ecosystem screwed up by allowing sideloading or loss of IAP's.
However, if they tried to lock down MacOS in the same way, it could cause a lot of pro customers to consider a switch in platforms if the software cost is raised to 30% (even 15%) higher than alternatives.
Maybe Apple would be happy to serve those apps from the store if the subscription was purchased outside of their ecosystem which would have zero impact. I guess the future will tell.
Yeah, I don't think that MacOS will get such a lockdown anytime soon.
Macs are the development platforms, and a big part of the professional community couldn't use their Macs if they couldn't compile and run software.
Forcing closed source software through a MacStore, while allowing open source to be compiled would, of course, be possible; but there's no way that Apple could do that without losing a huge portion of the professional communities.
Technically we'd have to stick to the old OS until it stops being supported, or we can switch to any other OS.
As shown in Report: Steam's 30% Cut Is Actually the Industry Standard Microsoft charges 30% for their App Store and 30% for their Xbox game store. How is this different from Apple (other then now Apple has a 15% tier)?
In my hypothetical scenario, MacOS is locked down the same way as iOS and all applications could ONLY be bought via the App Store and nowhere else.
As a result Mac Users would have to pay 15-30% more for Adobe CC, for example, than a Windows user who could just purchase from the developers website direct without the added Apple fees.
Unlikely scenario - but we live in strange times.
To maintain it's UNIX 03 certification and given its limited software base there is no way Apple would go to the hypothetical you propose. I am dealing with reality not some pie in the sky slippery slope argument that seems to have no basis in anything but paranoia.
Again, as shown in Report: Steam's 30% Cut Is Actually the Industry Standard Microsoft charges 30% for their App Store and 30% for their Xbox game store. How is this different from Apple in the here and now (other then now Apple has a 15% tier)?
Last edited:
I doubt it.
Apps are already priced on a profit-maximising model. Developers may not choose to pass the full incidence of the tax onto consumers if they felt it would significantly impact sales.
For one, we know that Apple reduces their cut of subscription-based revenue from 30% to 15% after the first year, yet subscriptions don't get any cheaper for me as a consumer. Likewise, I don't see any of the developers making their apps any cheaper after Apple decided to lower their cut to 15% as well. They just ended up pocketing the difference.
Alternatively, they could also consider moving their apps to a subscription-based model and direct users to subscribe directly from their website.
In short, I doubt developers would choose to just pass the full burden of the 30% tax directly onto consumers. It's not that straightforward.
Apple effectively launched a side salvo with its more aggressive stance on programs "irrationally high" in-app purchase price. Now it can play the "Think of the children" card and nip a lot of this nonsense in the bud.
Section 3 says that Apple "won't distribute apps and in-app purchase items that are clear rip-offs."
Section 3 says that Apple "won't distribute apps and in-app purchase items that are clear rip-offs."
Why do developers bother with the Mac App Store then? It seems the model works just fine, why are Apple and you afraid to try it on iOS? Also, as a user I resent I have to lose options simply because you and others don’t want to learn to discern between good and bad apps. Your fears and inaction shouldn’t limit my options.
I hope you're happy with the Android phone that you must have gotten, as that's the product that fits what you want.
We are not the ones who bought an iPhone and am now complaining about a supposed lack of choice when said tradeoff was precisely why we bought into the iOS ecosystem in the first place.
You have a choice if you want a more open platform - android.
Nah, we also have the choice to insist Apple be reasonable. Try and create a false choice somewhere else.
Regulating that Apple open up the Apple Store, can devalue the entire platform. For those who want complete freedom there are alternatives. Leave the choice to have the ecosystem as it is to those who want it and take ones lack of freedom somewhere else.
It was really the two monopolies that is on it's face ridiculous.
Frankly the whole EPIC saga is juvenile and ridiculous. EPIC is on multiple platforms, so they have no claim to rights on either Google or Apple. That Apple charges an industry standard 30% is irrelevant. I sure don't like paying monthly subs to xbox gold so my kid can play "free" fortnight on that platform.
Frankly the Apple platform was a far better value for the consumer than other platforms because it could be totally free. Never mind that it worked better on an ipad pro than on consoles. That alone allowed my daughter to be a casual player.
So let's flip the tables. Epic controls 100% of the market for Fortnite. Apple should demand that Epic make all Fortnight games and skins available on Apple for free!!!
(not really, just showing how absurd Epic is).