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 Throwing a 'FreeFortnite Cup' Bash Before iOS Users Lose Access
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's like the company is run by the 13-year-old's who play this game...
I don’t see a difference between a game being offered on PSN / XBOX stores as being different to a game being offered on App Store no... they’re all hosting the game ready for download. If a developer doesn’t like how one of these platforms set their pricing then simply don’t offer your game via their platform? Simple.
I’m not defending “Apple” here. I’m defending all platforms and companies over quite a wide swath of industries.. who for no coincidence at all arrive at pretty similar pricing.
We get it. You hate them They are terrible. Their software sucks. Why would you want to be on their platform at all? You have a choice. Go to one of the open platforms that have the dominant market position. Stop trying to force me to accept your choice as my only option.
Same point. They are a terrible company and do not do what you want. Why are you even here?
Maybe you are right. Maybe you are wrong. Perfectly happy to let the market decide. The last thing I want is for a government agency or court deciding technical details of the security on my devices. That is what happens when Apple is forced to allow another App Store.
I bought an iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, Apple TV and Mac because I want a level of integration that only a first party can deliver. You want something else. That is fine with me. I do not begrudge you your choice, I wish you would stop trying to make live it. I like what I have now.
None of their complaints were theoretical, they were all clear up front. The did not need to violate their contract and put all those developers who use their engine ( and about whom they tell us they have so much concern), at risk of having apps that no longer work. They want their own store. Apple does not allow that. Clear from the contract.
The question is not if Apple’s iOS/iPadOS/tvOS/watchOS are ”significant” but if they are a market by themselves, or, as in the PeopleSoft case, they are just part of several larger markets, each of which is quite competitive.
Sorry, you are just wrong. Nothing they did helps make their case any stronger, and long term may hurt them greatly. Amazon’s open source Luberjack looks much more compelling today to developers because they can see that Epic’s only concern is Epic and did not give any of their customers’ issues a thought.
My point is simpler. If a developer cannot make enough selling digital goods giving up 30%, they should leave the platform. If a significant number do so, maybe there will be a change.
Well, from looking at what has been going on in the world lately, it's more likely half the population are intellectually and behaviorally indistinguishable from 13-year-olds (mixed with 5-year-olds).
Nintendo does not sell their devices at a loss. Microsoft and Sony make money on the vast majority of their ”console” hardware, as they keep them in the market for many years and only at the beginning are they being sold at close to “cost”.
That definition works for me. I completely fine with that requirement for my iOS/iPadOS/tvOS/watchOS devices. If that does not work for you, there are other platforms, pick one and stop trying to force me to have your choice be the only option.
I'm sorry, your example is "unreal". You would NOT need to pay 30% to Apple if you sell goods or services, you ONLY pay if you sell DIGITAL services, such as gems, coins and things like that.
If you sell t-shirts, you don't pay any % to Apple besides the 99 $/y and, if there is, the 30% on the app (which most certainly will be free).
And remember, even if you sell digital things, if that digital service is a subscription, after the first year Apple takes half rate, so only 15%. I think it is a good deal. It pushes developer to make good services to retain its customers and to pay less to Apple.
Epic only takes 12% on their game store.
What about PSN and Xbox? Just because they also take 30%, it's ok?
Are you just talking about a different offer from Apple that, in the end, gives the same amount of money to Apple itself?
Let's say I'm in, but is there a benefit to anyone?
We already have a system where big companies pay more and small companies pay less. We already have a system where there are not high barriers to the entry in the market. Any change would need a balance and you are giving it, the only problem is that your way is much more complicated and, sorry, I don't see any advantage for the end user.
Do you?
😂 as a consumer you need to be fully aware that there will be restrictions across different platforms and make your own decision on what you want? No different to game developers making their own decision on whether they want to abide by certain platform guidelines🤭
I have very few non-Mac App Store apps on my Mac. A few open source apps and a few that cannot live with Sandboxing. My b/f may still have a Creative Cloud license, but I am not sure.
Well the "package manager" was invented, as far as I can tell, in Linux and remains free and open source. Apple's "App Store" is just that but with a highway tax added. In any case, it may be time for competitors to offer equivalents to handle licensing and version control since the technical task is trivial and overheads even more trivial.
And it only gives the unreal engine, while Apple and Google give a massive customer base, much bigger than the one Epic can give.
Which means the end user has to pay that 12%, plus other fees. It's not 30%, but it's not 12% either. It's just a different way, less clear, shady?, to show prices.
And, as already stated, you can have subscription with Apple, therefore the rate is only 15%, much closer to that 12%, but with that massive customer case Epic doesn't have.
Would that model even work? People would pay $10 for an app that they THEN use to buy goods and services? Is anyone doing that? I mean... Safari is MUCH better for goods and services, plus it works on all devices so you don’t even have to have an iOS development team to continually maintain the app.
BUT, I recently found out there are folks that pay $99 a year for email, so maybe?
It’s like “I’m not against Apple getting PRECISELY the same amount of money they’re getting now, I just don’t want it to be 30% on each purchase”.
What do you think about subscriptions then? 15% instead of 30%. But in that case the developer has to have a much bigger commitment to its customers, otherwise he won't retain them after the first year.
So what if the Apple store costs more to run. Apple and Epic use Amazon AWS for their servers. Both get a discount for bulk storage and services. It still doesn't make their 30% cut fair. Epic provides tools as well for game developers as well as movie & TV productions.
Yes. They pay for timed exclusives. Epic does not allow game developers to set up their own stores to bypass the 12% cut.
Epic also has an online game store. They only take 12% cut from developers for game sales. Which is much more generous than either Apple or Google. What other fees are there? What's shady about that?