Epic Games Throwing a 'FreeFortnite Cup' Bash Before iOS Users Lose Access

[Unregistered 4U]

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.

No, I mean the other poster’s post seemed to be saying that. Which, I mean, I agree with you. If folks want to cut and slice it so that Apple still gets the same amount, then why not just keep it as it is? I know that‘s not what Epic wants, Epic wants Apple to take in less money.

Sue every company that has an online store then.

Pretty much. Folks have been saying that from day one, Apple had an unfair monopoly not only on the Apple App Store, but also the Apple iPhone, the Apple iPad, the Apple MacBook Air and many other products. If a company can be considered to have an unfair monopoly on the things they create, then every company selling anything through any channels should be sued for having an unfair monopoly on their products.

 

[jonblatho]

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?

Yes, but it's complex. I'll admit that much, but the end user already sees little of the existing system that's already complex anyway. Hear me out.

Let's look at Facebook for an example. Facebook pays, at most, $299 to Apple every year for the Apple Developer Enterprise Program. And while I don't doubt that Apple has probably worked out a special deal with Amazon on AWS pricing, on which the App Store is largely hosted, we'll just assume that most outbound App Store traffic incurs charges of about $0.02/GB. (At this scale, the cost of actually storing the app binaries would be negligible, but it is an added expense.)

Even if there's a special deal, if 50 million Facebook users download a 250 MB Facebook app update from the App Store in one week — Facebook updates their iOS app weekly — they will blow multiple orders of magnitude past that $299 in that week alone in costs to Apple due to over 10 PB (!) of egress. As the Facebook iOS app has historically generated no revenue for Apple, their weekly app updates may essentially cost Apple at least hundreds of thousands of dollars a pop. And that's not even including their other massively popular apps like Messenger and Instagram!

This is actually why I don't think the App Store operates with that high of a profit margin; major free apps really can cost Apple quite a bit of cash. That's where the 30% fee for paid apps and IAPs comes in. While Apple does have some expenses coming out of that 30% directly for each transaction, its real purpose is probably more to subsidize the free apps on the App Store. And ultimately, of course, those 30% fees often wind up getting passed to the consumer. Even if there's no direct payment option to compete with (e.g., you can't buy an iOS app directly from the developer), developers of course at least consider the 30% cut when pricing their apps and IAPs., and many charge ~30% more than they would have otherwise. I can tell you that I myself have charged more than I would have if the cut was, say, 10%.

Should it be that way? Facebook can obviously afford to pay more — a lot more — than $299 to Apple each year for its operations on the App Store, and why should everyone else including indie developers be forced to chip in and subsidize them? Raising the developer program fees for companies and developers who can afford it would allow Apple to significantly reduce its commission on IAPs and paid apps, which would lead to lower costs for developers, who can then choose to pass those savings onto their customers (and probably sell more, too, due to price elasticity of demand).

 

[Saipher]

The console has a 10 year shelf life and therefore can be sold below cost initially. Today PS4/Xbox are profitable. Switch has been profitable since day 1 so at the very least Epic should sue Nintendo.

A phone can't be sold below cost initially because their shelf life is about a year, sometimes less than a year.

That rationale doesn't work.

First, the average life spam of a console is about 7 years (not 10). Second, Epic is not asking Apple to sell the iPhone at a loss. Apple makes good money on the sale of each phone, they would never sell anything at a loss, so if anything, they could easily give developers a much better deal than console manufacturers. Also, Idk what phones you are using or what you do to them but I’m still rocking an iPhone 8 I bought at launch, and it works flawlessly, the only reason I’ll be upgrading this year (possibly) is so can have a better camera. Isn’t the whole point of Apple’s high quality iPhone the fact they last, and are supported, long time?

 

[andresr]

Yes, but it's complex. I'll admit that much, but the end user already sees little of the existing system that's already complex anyway. Hear me out.

Let's look at Facebook for an example. Facebook pays, at most, $299 to Apple every year for the Apple Developer Enterprise Program. And while I don't doubt that Apple has probably worked out a special deal with Amazon on AWS pricing, on which the App Store is largely hosted, we'll just assume that most outbound App Store traffic incurs charges of about $0.02/GB. (At this scale, the cost of actually storing the app binaries would be negligible, but it is an added expense.)

Even if there's a special deal, if 50 million Facebook users download a 250 MB Facebook app update from the App Store in one week — Facebook updates their iOS app weekly — they will blow multiple orders of magnitude past that $299 in that week alone in costs to Apple due to over 10 PB (!) of egress. As the Facebook iOS app has historically generated no revenue for Apple, their weekly app updates may essentially cost Apple at least hundreds of thousands of dollars a pop. And that's not even including their other massively popular apps like Messenger and Instagram!

This is actually why I don't think the App Store operates with that high of a profit margin; major free apps really can cost Apple quite a bit of cash. That's where the 30% fee for paid apps and IAPs comes in. While Apple does have some expenses coming out of that 30% directly for each transaction, its real purpose is probably more to subsidize the free apps on the App Store. And ultimately, of course, those 30% fees often wind up getting passed to the consumer. Even if there's no direct payment option to compete with (e.g., you can't buy an iOS app directly from the developer), developers of course at least consider the 30% cut when pricing their apps and IAPs., and many charge ~30% more than they would have otherwise. I can tell you that I myself have charged more than I would have if the cut was, say, 10%.

Should it be that way? Facebook can obviously afford to pay more — a lot more — than $299 to Apple each year for its operations on the App Store, and why should everyone else including indie developers be forced to chip in and subsidize them? Raising the developer program fees for companies and developers who can afford it would allow Apple to significantly reduce its commission on IAPs and paid apps, which would lead to lower costs for developers, who can then choose to pass those savings onto their customers (and probably sell more, too, due to price elasticity of demand).

To complement your points, there's also the payment fees. Using this calculator, at the domestic online transaction rate, a $0.99 payment would have a fee of $0.33 (a 33% of the transaction), while a $4.99 payment would have a fee of $0.44 (8.8%). This is important to consider because most apps and iaps are in this range (for better and for worse). I'm sure Apple can hammer a better deal, but it wouldn't be by that much, not in this bracket.

And that's without considering all the international banks/payment processors they deal.

Subsidizing free apps is a necessity at this point. It's what attracts users, and can hook into their ecosystem. And many users won't move to a platform that doesn't have FB/Pinterest/Twitter/etc. accesible (and usable).

 

[Abazigal]

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?

I believe the epic game store offers a lot less functionality and resources than the iOS App Store, so its easy to charge less when you are doing and providing less for the money.

 

[farewelwilliams]

First, the average life spam of a console is about 7 years (not 10). Second, Epic is not asking Apple to sell the iPhone at a loss. Apple makes good money on the sale of each phone, they would never sell anything at a loss, so if anything, they could easily give developers a much better deal than console manufacturers. Also, Idk what phones you are using or what you do to them but I’m still rocking an iPhone 8 I bought at launch, and it works flawlessly, the only reason I’ll be upgrading this year (possibly) is so can have a better camera. Isn’t the whole point of Apple’s high quality iPhone the fact they last, and are supported, long time?

1. I was going by last generation, PS3 was 2006-2017 and Xbox 360 was 2005-2016
2. I'm not suggesting Epic should tell Apple to sell at a loss as I already mentioned it's economically impossible to do so. Also, Nintendo was making a net profit since day one. At the very least, shouldn't Epic at least sue Nintendo then? Or are they exempting Nintendo? Also, Sony and Microsoft make up their loss after 1-2 game purchases and make a killing after 3-5 game purchases (especially when titles are $60 a pop, each with 1-2 $30-$60 DLC). So shouldn't Epic tell Sony and Microsoft that after X number of games released on the store, developers should take a bigger cut?
3. I didn't say user should upgrade every year. I'm talking about R&D into a phone only lasts 1 year on the shelf then they stop producing. Maybe the iPhone 7/8 gets produced an extra year sure, but generally it's gone after a year.

 

[derekamoss]

So here is what I'm not getting when saying FortNight charges 9.99 for in game currency in the Apple app store and Apple gets 30 %. Epic sells it in other stores for 7.99 and people are telling they didn't mark it down 30% because they can make in app purchases which everyone seems to think should happen. If they are not.payin 30% to Apple then the game should be 30% cheaper. No one is seeing the other point where the could have just of set the cost of the 30 percent by adding it into the revenue where they don't have to pay apple

Both in game currency costing now 9.99 from where ever you buy it. Epic gets more profit but that's not what they did. Even they could have made it one price in every store because some stores ask 30%, but they are only taking 20% from the stores they don't have to pay 30% percent.
Epic is taking a 10% loss of revenue from stores that Don't take 30% when they could have easily just made every in store currency the highest amount and nobody would complain then because everywhere it's 9.99 instead of 7.99

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

Epic is that person in the room where he shouts "Fine! I'm leaving!" and keeps looking back on the way out to see if anyone would care.

A lot of fortnight players on iOS/macOS care. I'd say a lot of them care very very much. I'd be highly surprised if it hasn't brought a lot of young kids to tears. These kids care more about fortnight than they do about the Apple ecosystem. How do I know this? Because my son and all his mates used to be addicted to fortnight (they're now a bit older, so have moved onto other games). This isn't good for Apple.

Apple is the person in the room who shouts back "Fine! Go then, see if I care!" and keeps looking at the other person's back to see if they will cave in and come back.

Meanwhile, all the other people in the room who are also pissed off, are making up their minds if they are brave enough to shout "I'm leaving too!"

 

[mi7chy]

Saw this video when I launched Fortnite. 😂

 

[EvilEvil]

I believe the epic game store offers a lot less functionality and resources than the iOS App Store, so its easy to charge less when you are doing and providing less for the money.

No. They're both stores that offer the same basic functionality of buying software. Epic actually wants to support game developers while Apple only cares about money.

 

[I7guy]

... while Apple only cares about money.

No Apple cares about a consistent experience. It seems epic is The Who only cares about money. Their customers be damned.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Apple is the person in the room who shouts back "Fine! Go then, see if I care!" and keeps looking at the other person's back to see if they will cave in and come back.

You're missing the part where Epic tried to steal money from the cashier and stuck posters to the wall already basically saying "F*** APPLE".

Apple's "Fine! Go then, see if I care" in your example is warranted as any store owner would logically do.

In reality however, Apple is basically saying "please put back the money in the cashier and we'll be glad to have you!"

 

[D4vidrim]

No. They're both stores that offer the same basic functionality of buying software. Epic actually wants to support game developers while Apple only cares about money.

I hope you're not here to troll.... How do you think Epic wants to support developers? How could you say they are the same where they are clearly not equal in every single point of view?

As I've already told you, Epic gives a smaller customer-base audience through its store (more the one billion customers with Apple), it does give less development tools (only unreal engine, that's it), moreover, when you talk about 12% you forget to say that customers have to pay for the payment system, that's an added fee, while it is included in the 15-30% Apple asks.
Last, you keep forgetting about 2 points

• there is a subscription fee Apple has in its "menu": it costs only 15% su developers
• if the app is free, ads supported, Apple does not take any money

In the end, you haven't explained what would be the benefit to the end user if Epic had its own store. No, we are not Epic' stakeholders... so their higher profit doesn't count.

And by the way, there is nothing wrong caring about money. I don't care if Epic or Apple care about their money, I certainly care about mine and my experience. Why do you need to underly that Apple cares about money? Don't you? Doesn't Epic? Apple also cares about the user experience, very much, to an often criticised extension, but its customers like it that way. What about Epic?

 

[Ramchi]

Agreed 100%, I just hope they don’t do something stupid like add the ability to sideload.

What is the problem if it doesn’t force anyone to side load and allows those who want to?

I don’t get the stand that I don’t side load and others shouldn’t aspire to get that option.

 

[D4vidrim]

What is the problem if it doesn’t force anyone to side load and allows those who want to?

I don’t get the stand that I don’t side load and others shouldn’t aspire to get that option.

Less security for everyone.
Some developers would be on the other store and we would be forced to sideload to use those apps, while now developers have to comply with standard and security Apple asks them.

 

[mrcloaked]

The security is fine.

 

[Ramchi]

Less security for everyone.
Some developers would be on the other store and we would be forced to sideload to use those apps, while now developers have to comply with standard and security Apple asks them.

Not Lesser security for those who don’t side load isn’t?

Leave those who side load Apps to themselves doing outside of App Store.

That’s something they will worry.

 

[Ramchi]

Just buy a second side phone with Android on it, then you can run those exclusive apps, what is the problem? Is that really so hard?

We want to keep iOS secure so it’s not a haven for malware like Android users deal with every single day. All my friends with Android are always complaining at least once a week about their compromised phone; it’s a tragedy on a worldwide scale.

I already feel bad enough having to use macOS with its openness, it’s quite uncomfortable knowing anything could sneak into my Mac, hopefully soon that follows the lead of iOS and stops the ability to download any outside apps too. Keep foreigners OUT.

I have been using Android & iOS(iOS first since 2007 than Android started in 2010) and many of my friends and family members use Android right, left & centre. So far no one complained nor I have faced malware issues using Android. I have even rooted my Galaxy S2 and Galaxy S4 and toyed with various MODS, never encountered malware issue or getting hacked. Android security is as good as iOS, if not better.

 

[D4vidrim]

Not Lesser security for those who don’t side load isn’t?

Less security for everyone. I tried to explain my reasons. You might disagree, but you didn’t explain why.

 

[mrcloaked]

I suppose so.

 

[derekamoss]

No Apple cares about a consistent experience. It seems epic is The Who only cares about money. Their customers be damned.

Epic is the one who only cares about money and customers be damned?.......BWHAHAHAHAHAHA🤣
That has pretty much been Apple's Slogan for the last 8 years!!!

 

[EvilEvil]

I hope you're not here to troll.... How do you think Epic wants to support developers? How could you say they are the same where they are clearly not equal in every single point of view?

As I've already told you, Epic gives a smaller customer-base audience through its store (more the one billion customers with Apple), it does give less development tools (only unreal engine, that's it), moreover, when you talk about 12% you forget to say that customers have to pay for the payment system, that's an added fee, while it is included in the 15-30% Apple asks.
Last, you keep forgetting about 2 points

• there is a subscription fee Apple has in its "menu": it costs only 15% su developers
• if the app is free, ads supported, Apple does not take any money

In the end, you haven't explained what would be the benefit to the end user if Epic had its own store. No, we are not Epic' stakeholders... so their higher profit doesn't count.

And by the way, there is nothing wrong caring about money. I don't care if Epic or Apple care about their money, I certainly care about mine and my experience. Why do you need to underly that Apple cares about money? Don't you? Doesn't Epic? Apple also cares about the user experience, very much, to an often criticised extension, but its customers like it that way. What about Epic?

Are you serious? They provide the Unreal Engine to game developers and tv/movie productions for free and an online game store that takes a much smaller cut from game developers than competitors. Customers do not have to pay Epic's payment system. Where did you get that idea?

So another 15% on top of the 30% cut Apple takes? Nice...

Free games on the epic store have no ads and never will.

You're the one trolling.

 

[I7guy]

Epic is the one who only cares about money and customers be damned?.......BWHAHAHAHAHAHA🤣
That has pretty much been Apple's Slogan for the last 8 years!!!

Seems to me the $2T Apple is worth show this train of thought has derailed.

 

[I7guy]

Do they have a choice? aside from not publishing on the App Store.

Yes, that is the choice. Decide to publish on the App Store with its myriad of rules or regulations or don’t. But don’t publish, decide you don’t like rules, throw a hissy fit and leave your customers stranded.

 

[I7guy]

What is the problem if it doesn’t force anyone to side load and allows those who want to?

I don’t get the stand that I don’t side load and others shouldn’t aspire to get that option.

Alol it takes is one incident that will blemish the reputation. Apple probably wants to control the entire experience, side loading “side steps” that control. There’s always jail breaking to get what you want.