By not understanding the issue, you expose the fact you do not understand how a company determines the cost of a consumer product. Here ends this line of conversation.
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
By not understanding the issue, you expose the fact you do not understand how a company determines the cost of a consumer product. Here ends this line of conversation.
I think the issue is that nobody really knows just profitable the App Store really is. AboveAvalon estimates that the App Store could charge a 20% commission and more or less break even. So a 25% cut seems reasonable if we allow the App Store a modest profit, but either way, any possible reduction may not be as significant as developers would like.
'A modest profit', you do realise Apple are making multi millions of profit on in-app purchases from companies like Epic. Do some reasarch and look at how huge Epic's ios customer base is, it's absolutely massive. Just having 6 companies like Epic in the app-store that have similar customer numbers and it's easy to see why Apple can make over $100 million a month. It does not take that much to run the app store.
I believe Apple invests a lot more resources (both money and otherwise) into the ios apps softer than people know or care to admit.
The cost of a consumer product depends on many variables. Knowing how a supplier decides to spend his money after we pay for its service is marginally a variable... moreover you still haven't explained yourself.
I agree, not many people understand the issue at point, and it seems you may have missed it as well. The expression "being in the business world" comes off as self-serving.
This is apple's business model. Apple has built this model and refined it over the course of time, so users can have a consistent experience (as possible) with third party apps. Hence a set of guidelines, rules, regulations exist to enforce that. As there are literally 1000s of developers it may not benefit every user exactly the same way in the same manner, but if you want your app on the ios app store, you agree to guidelines.
It seems to me many people who are not developers are chiming against Apple on this...why I have no idea, but it comes off as false criticism.
As far as value for the money, this is your opinion. It is not a statement of fact. When you post "apple is not using the app store for the benefit of it's users", that opinion, imo, is a wrong opinion. The 30% apple charges seems justified to me.
Unless one understands Apple, one may miss that point.
(And specifically about that 30%, it's your opinion about that Apple is exploiting devs, who voluntarily sign-on to develop ios apps)
Apple is of the 'opinion' that 30% is justified. Opinions mean nothing in this instance, facts do and Epic are more than justified to challenge Apple's opinion that their rate of 30% is justified. If it's not an opinion but fact then again Epic are within their rights to then subpoena Apples app store documents to prove it's a fact, if it is a fact and not just Apple's opinion.
Apple will no doubt be in possesion of documents that show how much it costs Apple to run the app store. Documents I am sure that Apple will not want be made public in court if the documents proves that Apple runs the store at a low cost but yet charges high rates on in-app purchases. Such a situation would prove Epic's case.
I'm pretty sure anyone can charge 1 billion dollars to sell a glass of air and if he finds a guy willing to pay, there's no rule against it.
In this case we have one company selling at 30% rate, just like many other players do. By the way, Epic's problem is not what Apple's rate, Epic just want a zero rate, to have their own store and have their own rate. That is the main point. Not the 30%, which could be 15% is Epic wanted to. Don't forget about the 15% rate. Do you think that is too high too?
Just happened to receive this feed today.
Malicious Chinese SDK In 1,200 iOS Apps With Billions Of Installs Causing ‘Major Privacy Concerns To Hundreds Of Millions Of Consumers’
One of the apps, Helix Jump, has over 500 million total installs. Total ad fraud proceeds could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
www.forbes.com
Android mobiles need not run the latest version of the base OS to get all necessary features. Now a days monthly security patches are regularly being pushed. That is sufficient for the general population. More over by nature Android OEMs have their own agendas in not upgrading their relatively cheaper editions more than couple of years.
iOS App Store even today has many Virus Scanners but not required to be installed is left with the individuals. I agree that App Store is perceived to host safer Apps than Play Store. But when we consider the volume and variety of devices region, versions, OEMs, hardware obviously it is unmanageable proportion in Android. If iOS reaches similar numbers we will know all vulnerabilities.
More over, Google is also providing lots of inputs regarding vulnerabilities in iOS (& MacOs) and entered an agreement not to disclose it public. Google doesn’t get such help from their peers and working on their own carefully every single day.
Epic make Fortnite, they develop it, they update it, they support it, Apple provide NOTHING towards the upkeep of the game, all they do is host the game on their app servers for which no one in the world is allowed access to only Apple and for app developers to get access to ios users they have to comply with the ONLY company that has access to the servers which is Apple..that's anti-competitive. Go research on the figures as they are out there in the public domain. Epic are reported to give Apple approx. $20 million a month in app fees due to the enormous amount of ios users that play Fortnite. Considering Apple provides nothing to Epic appart from hosting services, I do not think it is unreasonable for Epic to ask what they are asking for.
Somehow I think it does not cost Apple $20 million a month to run it's app store and remember, this is just ONE company.
Sure, you are saying your opinion, my opinion mean nothing in a court of law. It's up to the courts to decide whose "opinion" is on the right side of the fence.
Agreed. If this were NOT true, scammers wouldn’t be a thing.
”Mr. Nigerian Prince, my client says that the deal he entered into with you was NOT worth the $200,000 you said it was worth. Please remit. Thank you.”
I think you forget Apple provides Epic with customers and a consistent experience through all their devices, development tools, syncing options, cloud storage and more.
What you think is "nothing" costs billions to build, otherwise Epic would have created its own mobile phone.
What you also forget is that Microsoft tried to make their own phone+store and they failed.
What you think and call just "hosting service" is much more.
Fortnite would not work without the OS Apple develops. That costs money and that is not just an hosting service.
By the way, thanks to Apple, as you are saying, Epic earns more than half billion every year..., thanks to a complete ecosystem, made in Cupertino, that Epic can enjoy and build its business on.
And you idea is that Apple should get any money out of it? Based on what?
Last edited:
Seems similar in concept to the facebook sdk that was embedded in apps. And therein lies the issue. It's very difficult to combat this type of stuff.Just happened to receive this feed today.
Malicious Chinese SDK In 1,200 iOS Apps With Billions Of Installs Causing ‘Major Privacy Concerns To Hundreds Of Millions Of Consumers’
One of the apps, Helix Jump, has over 500 million total installs. Total ad fraud proceeds could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
Every single of the dozens and dozens of vendors? Or is it just Samsung?
You took quote some efforts on your response, so, I don't want to leave it unanswered. However, your answers have a tendency of being out of context or are based on incorrect assumptions.
I said I think a lot of Apples own apps are (let's call it) "very basic if at all"... or not even existing (a calculator on the iPad for example).
Why would I be on the plattform? For 20 other reasons but seriously not Apples apps. Let it be device security, hardware support over 5+ years,...
At which point did I force you to accept my choice (???) as your only option?
Same point. Not because of Apples apps, but because of the OS or hardware perhaps? But for now I indeed abandoned MacOS except for my old Mac Mini. Although, now that Apple raised the priority again on Mac OS and introduced Apple Silicon things will get interesting again. Let's see what the future brings...
How would it hurt you if someone else installs another app-store on THEIR device?
You don't want to grant that freedom to others so you feel safer?
Other than the App-Store is not the fundamental reason why iOS is secure. The reason for that is sandboxing and ton of device APIs. The app-store does add a little security, but it's rather neglible.
What the app-store does NOT add is privacy. That is also a common misunderstanding. The most basic example for that is the existence of Whatsapp, Instragram, TikTok and so on in the App-Store. Non of them respect your privacy.
Privacy and Security are fundamentaly different things.
That is taken out of context... the original post was about Apple stepping in in case of developers retreating from the app-store. Apple in that case can't just write their own facebook or instagram app with the same features as the original. Some of those APIs are closed.
You want to read up what happened in court recently.
Apple wanted to completely kick EPIC from the Apple-Environment.
However, apparently EPIC GAMES is a different legal entity than the EPIC Developers which have a different contract.
As such Apple was FORBIDDEN to kick EPICs developer account.
And this is a very good example to show the difference between arbitrary acting by Apple VS a court ruling.
long story short is: The market for mobilephone games is: Android and iOS. In some regions (especially the US) it's more like a 50:50 share.
As such Apple exercises arbitrary control over 50% of the mobile phone games market. If Apple held an insignificant market of only 20% it would not be relevant for anti-trust investigation.
If there's less than 4 players on the market it's almost always an issue for anti-trust considerations. See also mobile phone network service providers.
The courts decision that Apple must not cut of EPIC from the developer tools was quite a success. So EPIC can keep selling their engine, they just cant publish any games under their EPIC GAMES account anymore at the time. And yes... there was some risk involved... but I guess they had an entire office filled with lawyers going through all possible outcomes.
...and lose >50% of their revenue?
If Apple had 25% market share, google 25%, BlackberryOS 25% and WindowsPhone 25%... well then getting kicked of one plattform would mean losing 25% of your revenue. But since there are only 2 big players pulling out of one market can mean you instantly lose 50% revenue AND might not reach enough customers to actually reach critical mass. Imagine uber was available only on Android. Do you think they would have made it? Going through the app-store is not an option but a necessity for certain types of businesses...
Pure speculation unless you are on the inside of the judicial system on this very case.
Epic was luck it structured it's corporation that way. All the eggs are not in one basket. They did deserve to be kicked off the app store.
That doesn't mean the app store is public property, because a dev deems it necessary to have an app there. Some people want the government to step in and change the situation, yet wouldn't want the same in their own life or marriage even if it were for the greater good.
Nope. You just seem not to understand the connection between the choices that Apple (and those users who prefer their approach have made) and the things that you might like.
You have also used other terms to describe them that are stronger than “very basic”, but no problem, you think their apps are basic.
Where do you think that “device security” and the ability to have hardware support for over 5+ years comes from? The exact choices that Apple made with its platform. Apple funds its development with money from various sources. Services revenue is one of those sources. Other vendors do not have the same revenue model or sources and do not support their product in the same way.
Having worked with a company that had a large mobile game presence, I can say that the difference between Apple’s App Store’s ecosystem and the ability for side loading on Android made the difference in piracy between the two platforms. We sold iOS apps, all the Android apps were ad-supported free-to-play/pay-to-win because we had no other option. Despite the 30% we paid Apple, we made much more on the platform, even in territories where Android had 85% of the market.
At the point where you say that Apple needs to allow other stores and side loading. Once that happens, you have compromised security and user experience for everyone. Right now, if I want an app, I have only one store with which I have to deal. Almost every service I use primarily in the ecosystem, I can purchase via the App Store, without needing to create a separate account. The changes you want would mean that even more of the biggest apps would have separate accounts, stores and terms. Unless the requirement is that in order to be on some other store on iOS they also have to be in the Apple App Store, meeting all of Apple’s requirements, your charge harms me (and those that feel the same way I do) by adding fragmentation, among other things.
Again, you are wrong. Apple’s requirements for the App Store improve privacy for all users, because apps have to disclose what they are doing (see today’s announcements from Facebook). These requirements mean I have to be able to use Sign-in with Apple (if another social sign in service is supported), which further protects my privacy, by making it impossible for multiple services to track me by my email address. The ”freedom” you want would make it so that those services would only be available on stores that enforce no privacy protections.
Epic violated their contract and Apple responded. Epic has received a Temporary Restraining Order, not a judgment. The judge decided that while we are waiting for the court to rule, Apple cannot remove access to the company that makes Unreal Engine (which few people knew was a separate company until that point).
No, Apple was temporarily prevented from doing this until the other lawsuit is settled. The court has not ruled on the merits of the case, and from talking to quite a few game development companies over the last few days, many are very concerned about using Unreal Engine (as they now question whether Epic will put its profit from other things over their commitment to the engine).
That however is not the definition of the market. It is the overall games market, of which these two platforms are a part. However, it is the smallest share of Epic’s game revenue, as if it were not, they would not be risking it while they are suing (they could have sued without violating Apple’s and Google’s terms and had just as strong - if not stronger - a case).
In most of the world, Apple’s share of the mobile market is under 20%. Its share of the gaming market is much less than 50%. You have chosen to define the market one way, we will have to see how the U.S. courts eventually define the market. The courts have repeatedly held that the natural monopoly over one’s one products is not a violation of the Sherman Act.
Only when there is some specific barrier to entry that is fixed, such as the publicly granted radio spectrum. There is noting that prevents other competitors in the mobile or games markets. The very existence of the Xbox line proves that. Microsoft took on the established competitors in the space and has since carved out a good sized niche for themselves.
A more accurate statement is the court ruling temporarily prevented a disaster for Epic. They may still lose both the battle and the war because of their actions. Every developer considering choice of engine for a new or early stage project is reconsidering that choice. They know what Epic values most and now needs to include that in their consideration. The clients with whom I work are now looking at Lumberyard and Unity much more seriously.
It is not 50% of their revenue. Most Fortnite players play on consoles or PCs. Since they have not released their financials, we have no idea what share of their revenue it is. In the worst case, it would 30% of some percentage of their revenue. Since they are a multi-platform game, they could still offer discounted v-bucks on their own site (they just could not link to that site from their app), and could advertise that fact on every other platform, which would likely make it a much smaller amount of money they would lose. That is not their real concern. What they want is a store of their own that charges other developers money.
Simply no. The market share of potential customers has nothing to do with how much revenue one receives from those customers. While Apple’s market share is less than 20% world wide, the App Store generates substantially more revenue than the Google Play store. Apple’s users are much more valuable, precisely because they spend more money. Market research has shown that Apple‘s control of and conditions for being in the App Store has made potential customers more comfortable purchasing in it.
Even more absurd. Even in the U.S. where the market share is closer to evenly split, Android’s market is more than big enough to sustain almost any business.
Given that they still are not profitable, I am not sure they have made it now, but I think that the Android market would be more than sufficient to sustain a company like Uber if they had a business model that was profitable. As proof of my point, there are apps today that are not available on both platforms. Some are iOS only (they tend to be U.S. services that target people who actually spend money) and some are Android only (mostly ad-supported services that target the larger market).
What business cannot be profitable with 130 million users? In addition, if they needed to target iOS customers, they could always do it using a web interface and not pay Apple anything.
It's like with the election of a certain New York realtor, everyone loves to read about them and say they don't like them, but the resulting incentives to media to publish more and more about them means they have an unstoppable amount of publicity. This whole affair has definitely played right into Epic's hands, as I guess they anticipated it would.
And develop the operating system and develop the devices these things run on, and deliver a user base that is willing to pay money for apps, unlike on android.
So, yeah, “nothing.”
Now now @cmaier, it's anticompetitive that only Apple should be able to make iOS, that only Apple should make iPhones and that only Apple builds the iOS SDK. And really how dare Apple 12 years ago build a platform for distributing these apps, develop a standard payment mechanism and then once it became a "monopoly" because everyone decided it was better than Android, Apple didn't become the shining knight and just start giving everything away! It is so anticompetitive that Apple have invested in their operating systems and APIs for decades. Monopoly! Apple provides absolutely nothing towards the upkeep of the game that is built on top of all of the iPhone/iPad hardware, the operating system and drivers to run on it, the iOS SDK's they developed like Metal, the App Store model they developed and secure containerisation technology and the infrastructure to distribute the game around the world. It is so anticompetitive of Apple to expect to be compensated for their intellectual property! How dare Apple charge for their work?
Just look at Epic Games! If you write a game that makes millions of dollars a quarter using their engine you don't have to pay them anything! Because Epic knows they contribute nothing towards the upkeep of your game. Truly Epic is the shinning example here. When you build a game leveraging Epic Games' intellectual property you know you will never have to pay them ever because they have a monopoly over 3D game engines, particularly for the first person games. No matter how much you earn, Epic knows you don't have to pay them anything. They're generous like that.
So, yeah, "nothing."
That's enough sarcasm for one post but if Apple contributed truly nothing, nobody would be trying to use the platform.
Your falling into the very obvious trap that all the other Apple fanboys are doing, focusing specifically on the phone. That is not and never has been the issue. The issue is the app store and thus are two seperate things. Epic pay to use the services and support of the app store and any profit made should be re-invested back into the app-store to pay for upgrades, service and support to keep the servers running. That is how it's done in business. Now if Apple are using the store to specifically help fund other areas within Apple then that would be considered unethical business practice because it can be argued that is why Apple apply 30% in app purchase fee as it needs to be that high to help pay for other areas within Apple, rather than say 5% which could be more than adequate to help pay to keep the app store running.
The in app purchase fee should only be enough to help keep the app store running and functioning because that is what app developers are paying for. If Apple want to develope the ios for iphone and ipad then the money should come from the sales of iphones and ipads. Same applies to any Apple product. The profit made from sales goes back into developing the product better. That is how it is done. Now if Apple are using the app store to help pay for development of other products and they need the in app purchase fee to be as high as they can get away with, Epic and any other app developer have a right to challenge this.
Using that logic, what about platforms such as PlayStation, where it’s clearly profitable for Sony?
If it’s profitable, it’s profitable. Why does it matter where the profits go to?
The profit that Sony makes on the playstation, some of it goes to the shareholders and some of it is re-invested back into re-development of the playstation. Plus, the playstation is a physical item, it costs alot to develop hence why the playstation is priced accordingly.
The app store is just a hosting service. Yes there is physical hardware to maintain (servers), server software updates, hardware maintance, improvments to app host software but that's about it and for that, one company is paying Apple approx $20 million a month for those services because of the high number of it's customer base who make in app purchases. Remember, this is just ONE company in the app store. Now add the rest of them and Apple could be pulling in on average $100 million a month on in app purchases. Now are you going to tell me it's costs Apple that much to run it's app store every month??? Not a chance in hell would it.
What Epic is doing is no different to what the majority of people do who pay taxes, when their tax dollars are being spent by local government and the public do not approve of what their tax money is being spent on or how much of their tax money is being used on something, they complain and they complain hard. Epic are doing exactly the same, they believe the 30% is unjust and that the money they pay is not going back into the app store but being used for other things, hence why Apple keeps the rate at 30%
if Apple can prove that they need to keep the rate at 30% because that's the level required to keep the app store running month to month then I do not have a problem with that but if they can't and they are intentionally keeping it at 30% to fleece money out of app developers to help Apple pay for other areas within the company then no,that is not right in my opinion.
Can you prove this is not being done, and please be specific. And this is your issue, which is an opinion.
It can also be argued that Epic made billions and they got greedy and this (30%) is the value that apple places on their services. Epic agreed to it at the beginning and went in full well knowing what it was. But your opinion is just that and nobody knows how this will turn out, nor how long it will take.
Let them challenge this as it will put to bed the issue, no matter the outcome.
As far as usage of the revenue you are making assumptions, and do you have some GAAP to cite that revenue can’t be cross-utililized?
Of course it's being done, it's standard practice in the business world BUT is the app store so expenisve to run that it requires a fee of 30% on every in app purchase from every developer that uses in app purchases? I highly dobut it and I reckon Epic highly doubt it too.
Epic have every right to make billions off THEIR game. They designed it, they developed it, they update it, they support it. Apple provide ios development tools so Epic and many others can write app's for the iphone. Should app developers have to pay 30% of every in app purchase to have that privaledge? I highly doubt it and I am sure Epic think the same way.