Never said I did.
That is your opinion.
From Tim Sweeney himself actually.
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
Never said I did.
That is your opinion.
From Tim Sweeney himself actually.
It would take a lot of bravery to make up their minds to shutoff a faucet that’s pouring out, say, even as little as $10,000 a month that the developer only has to seriously work on during new iOS releases and once every couple months to bug fix or add content. Developers aren’t complaining because it’s a good deal for most... not because they’re scared.
It’s not that Epic’s NOT making a ton of money with the current deal, they just want to make MORE money. Oh, AND they want to find a future where they belong on platforms that aren’t PC’s. As more and more gaming goes to these platforms with their own built in stores, they see the handwriting on the wall.
Which is why as you say, they want more fair revenue sharing not this old fashion 30% cut. Reminds me of the old real estate brokers with their fixed percentages, as the revenue derived from software sales goes way up you don't want so much going to Apple as they are already extremely well compensated, likewise the real estate agent/broker who no longer deserves the same % because home values rose so much. That is why things are different now, and deserve to be adjusted for the amount of revenue transactions a partnered software vendors provides for the Apple Ecosystem.
Epic is suing to benefit themselves, they put in a single line in a piece that says they hope Apple will do it for everyone but it is very clear from that email that Tim Sweeney wants to have their own competing store and payment system. As an option they think it'd be good if Apple did it for more than just Epic but Epic still wanted it for themselves first. Epic even set a two week deadline for responding but I wouldn't be under any illusion that this wasn't anything more than a sanctimonious puff piece that Epic wrote with the intention of someone releasing it.
Of course the thing is they must have sent a similar one to Google because that email ends with "we will understand that Apple is not willing to make the changes necessary to allow us to provide Android" which makes me wonder what the email was that they sent to Google.
Except Apple didn't release it in their legal documents, Tim released it himself making the entire thing look even more self serving. Apple saw it for the intent to breach contract that it was intended to be and had legal handle it. I do expect it to be in a future pleading showing bad faith from Epic Games combined with the other social media actions, the 1984 piece and the cup as discussed by this post.
Well back in the very early days Apple operated by setting goals if you could buy so much we would give you this much more discount. The store doesn't incorporate anything like that. A fixed % detracted doesn't offer any reward for Software Vendors to continue to excel selling products. Commissions on sales should not be flat IMHO, it should be variable depending on the financial contribution that vendor provides to Apple.
Ultimately it should be them, as far as the scale that's a good question, what is fair, not disadvantage to Apple? If Apple did this right they might effect their competition and grow their market. Their move.
Nah, there’s a few loud people that want more money for the same level of effort. That’s it. As you may have noticed, all the complaints have been
“APPLE WON’T LET ME DO A THING”
Apple: You knew the rules when you signed up. If this is what you want to do, then these are the rules you follow in that case. Make the changes, upload, and you’re good.
“APPLE IS UNFAIR BUT, YOU KNOW, it’s not like I’m NOT going to be on the App Store, that’s crazy. But I’ll still... ahhh, complain because it raises the awareness of my app. I mean, folks had no idea that email was worth $99 a year until our complaint!”
No, you’re missing the bigger picture. Forget the revenue sharing or a commission or any of that. Epic Games is just seeing a future where the major platforms have gateways by which folks purchase things that don’t include them. They want to be allowed to set up a purchasing system because that’s a logical first step to then pushing for the installation of applications through that purchasing system.
I suppose Apple COULD update the iPod touch, remove anything having to do with being a secure OS, like make it unable to access the Apple App Store or use anything like Apple Pay, Messages, iCloud or the iCloud Keychain, ONLY include Wifi. Sell that for anyone to install their own App Store onto. Epic Games could license the hardware, but that hardware would HAVE to be allowed to install other stores that want to be on it and Epic Games would have to maintain the OS, make sure it’s updated every year, produce security patches, etc.
The reward is “the more you sell the more you get”. Sell $1300 dollars of stuff a year, you get $1000. You sell $13 million dollars of stuff a year, you net $10 million. I know... no one can be expected to run a company on just a mere $10 million a year. Such a hardship
Seems like with the app store revenues apple is discussing at their earnings call, they don't need to grow their market. This entire discussion seems to be centered around the perception reduced rates, multiple app stores is good and publishers will receive more revenue, while customers will pay less. I don't think it will happen that way.
Thats an odd comment from Apple that you mentioned why would any company say that?
This just in
Microsoft sides with Epic Games in legal battle against Apple
"Microsoft says it needs Unreal Engine on iOS for Forza Street and other titles"
Last edited:
I've been trying to square the Apple Developer Program License Agreement and the Xcode agreement. Xcode appears to have a separate agreement, at least when installed via the App Store, which would appear to permit Epic to keep developing against the publicly available SDK's for iOS 13 and macOS 10.15. I think it does mean that they would be prevented from developing against any of the pre-release SDKs for iOS 14, macOS 11 and the Apple Silicon DTK.
Apple appeared to intend to cancel the Apple Developer Program License Agreement in the email that Epic filed with the injunction and mentioned that Epic had to stop developing against the SDK but there was no mention of the other licenses for which they are in bound like the Xcode one. The language Apple used was imprecise in this situation as there are multiple agreements, though I would expect if they actually follow through they will have had enough time to draft a suitably detailed amount of legalese explaining the extent of their limitations on usage of Apple's intellectual property.
That said Epic took a path to intentionally break their contractual obligations with Apple, Apple took actions based on that and then Epic sued Apple. If you read the Apple response there is a reference that "a company may refuse to deal with an entity that sues the company without contravening antitrust laws" which feels like Epic unburdened Apple with the suit and potentially opened themselves up to Apple cutting off access to Apple's intellectual property.
I totally agree. But this doesn't make them happy to give up 30% of revenue. The way you write it, it's like you think that it's super easy to make a successful app that not only covers all your development costs, but makes a profit. It's not, it's extremely difficult, and there are a ton more failed apps than successful ones. The wildly successful ones aren't the norm, but they are the ones we all read about. If you do have a wildly successful app that is making millions, then sure, giving up 30% of revenue is an annoyance. But if you have spent a lot of time and money developing an app that isn't wildly successful, and you're not even breaking even, then imagine having to give up a whopping 30% of revenue on top of that! It's 30% of revenue, not profit. Most apps make a loss, not a profit, but they still make revenue. So Apple still makes a sweet sweet 30% off your hard work, while you aren't even covering your expenses. That's the part that most people don't understand, and once you do understand it, you realise that 30% is greedy to the point of sickening.
Apple would say that if the downside is more than the upside and by how much. It's also not a given that Apple would end up really growing their revenues to a significant enough number.
I’m sure it doesn’t make them happy to have to pay rent and for electricity and the monthly internet bill, too. And those costs aren’t even the result of something directly making you money! In the end, if they’ve developed an app, heck if they’re doing ANYTHING that isn’t making you enough money to survive off of, then they may need to do something else altogether. Or, find another source of funding for their day to day life. Because I guarantee that whatever they’re paying in all those other monthly costs dwarfs whatever the 30% is. And, really, when it gets to be where the 30% is more than those bills... like if the 30% is $10,000, they’re now making $33,333. A month. OR almost $400,000 a year.
Unfortunately, of course, folks apparently can’t live off of $400,000 a year.
Actually, yes they do. Epic, as a customer of Apple should expect any money paid by them for use of the app store should be re-invested back into the app store. If Apple are using the money to pay for other things then it can be argued in court by Epic that Apple has set the requirement for in-app purchase to be 30% for the sole purpose of paying for other Apple services which are not related to the app store, hence why it is set at 30% and not lower.
You haven't explained why Epic should expect so. The money goes to maintain the ecosystem Apple has created.
It could be the App store itself, but it could also mean the money goes to Apple developers who create the development tools, as it could go to maintain all the server needed for iCloud services (which can be used by any app). How much should go to those things or to other services/products I don't think it is something Epic can question.
Can you post any from this year? Any that involved apps on the App Store (as that is the point)? The one you posted was from 2015, and was caused by developers using unsigned versions of Xcode.
Sorry, this just is not true. Given how easy it is to install side loaded apps, and how many Android devices are not running the current release of the OS, Android users are much more vulnerable. You mentioned that you needed anti-virus software for your Android device (a sign that viruses are a problem), while there is none needed for iOS.
Yup, but given the value of a Zero-day exploit on iOS is over a million dollars, non-state actors do not deploy them against random people.
And yet there is a need for anti-virus software on Android and there is no need for it on iOS. Why is that?
So are you saying when for example, I buy an iphone, there is an expectation that the profits from this sale go back into iphones only...not Macs, infrastructure, Airpod R&D etc? Is the app store setup as a separate legal entity? (I don't know, just asking the question)
Far out dude, you don't know if you're going to make a profit on an app until you take the risk to make it.
And RISK means they may make it, they may not. Either way, it won’t be the 30% Apple take that breaks them, it will be ALL the other costs that they have to deal with.
You do not understand the issue at point here. When a company designs a product, the bosses look into how money made from the product will be reinvested back into the company. This then allows the bosses to determine how much the end product will cost. When us the consumers look at the price of the product, many of us consciously determine if the product is good value for money, based on factors such as quality of parts, production costs, design costs, marketing costs, all those sorts of things.
Now when it comes to the app store, app developers will be looking at value for money, what Apple is providing them, what effort they put in to provide them and then look to see if 30% is good value for money for the Apple puts in and provides and the answer is no. Apple could so easily charge 2% or 5% but they don't. Apple charging 30% means to those in the business world that Apple is exploiting it's customers to specifically fund other areas within Apple.
Apple is not using the app store for the benifit of it's users, it's using the app store as a cash grab to help pay for other areas within Apple and as such companies such as Epic have every right to challenge the 30% fee as being exploitive.
I wouldn't expect many to understand because you have to understand part of the business world. What Epic is doing goes beyond the understanding of the everyday consumer.
I'm sorry, you haven't given any reason for your point of view.
Apple could easily charge 2%... based on what?
Epic has the right to challenge the 30%... yes, they can make their own phone, store and let's see if the 2% is really enough.