That is to be determined. As to where this ongoing battle goes. To make billions the 30% value added seems reasonable. Epic couldn’t have done it without Apple and that is what they are paying for in the 30%.
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
This has been proven though.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple-privacy-betrayal-for-chinese-icloud-users/
WOW..is your support of Apple really THAT strong that you made a post about something that is irrelevant. The article states that Apple handed over icloud services to a company that does not have good safegurards regarding customer data and all you can come up with is 'So Apple shouldn’t comply with local regulations?'
I can therefore see that no matter what people say about Epic, your going to defend Apple as if your life depended on it.
And you commented on something that you deem irrelevant? So therefore it is relevant. Did Apple have a choice?
I haven't seen any defense of Apple from your posts about Epic, just the opposite, so I'm going to assume it's as if your life depended on it. edit:
Last edited:
Or, Apple can choose not to do business there if it violates customers' privacy like Google has done.
Just more proof that Epic is right with regards to Apple not treating all customers and developers the same.
Or they follow the local rules even if some don't like what they are doing. Apple is treating all customers the same within the same region. Laws vary around the world and some (seemingly)don't understand that.
All developers shouldn't get treated the same. The biggest customers always get some concessions. Epic deserves none.
Last edited:
Apple likes to think itself as the champion of data privacy protection because of the very publicised cases where they took on US law enforcement who wanted Apple to break into iphones owned by terrorists but then you get to see a 2018 article where Tim Cook basically throws every iphone owner in China under the bus because of moving it's China icloud database to a company in China (as per Chinese law) but instead of making sure the data privacy of all those customers are protected and defended to the same level that Apple took on US law enforcement, Tim Cook has not done this and thus allowed the database to be accessed at will by the Chinese government, as per the Amensty International article.
When your dealing with a company who is prepared to ignore data privacy at a whim just to maintain it's business interests, you know your dealing with an unethical and unscuplous company who will think of nothing of making sure THEY get their own way at the expense of others.
You say Epic deserves none, based on the above, I say Epic deserves everything they are going for.
imo, you’re conflating apples stance on privacy with having to follow local regulations.
Same comment as above applies. You’re entitled to your opinion, but I do not think the universe agrees with it.
I disagree.
Your ignoring the comment mi7chy made and it's a very valid comment which is that if Apple considers it self a purveyor of data privacy towards it's users then it should have removed itself from China rather than have to comply with the law that allows the Chinese government to look at the icloud database at will.
Apple did not have to comply with the law. Just look at the lengths Apple went to with US law enforcement, they refused to comply with the law and was taken to court for not obeying the law but when China says you must obey the law, Apple says OK. If your going to take a stand and protect customers data then Apple should do it for everyone around the world, regardless of what the countries law says and if they are told to comply then they should leave the country.
Apple pick and choose who's data gets protected and who's doesn't based on financial factors and China is proof of that. Obey the law so they can still sell Apple products in China.
Like I said, if this is the way Apple opperates then I hope Epic sticks out the battle and goes all the way with it.
All this amounts to are opinions of what Apple should do. It is easy for some to say Apple should leave a market because of a, b, c but as you point out...maybe some don’t understand how business really operates.
What it’s proof of, is that Apple follows the laws of where they do business.
Epic may go all the way, but Apple may still prevail. That remains to be seen.
Apple have every right to make billions off THEIR development tools, THEIR operating system, THEIR hardware, THEIR services and THEIR App Store. Should app developers have to pay to license Apple's proprietary intellectual property that they have developed? Absolutely!
Epic disagree and they're welcome to disagree to it, we have an entire legal system for mediating disputes between parties. The judge has already put Apple on notice for showing more justification behind the 30% and we might find out that it costs Apple more to handle transactions in part of the world and part of the 30% is a simplification. We already have on record places where 25% of the transaction could be eaten by payment processors, that's been documented that Epic's 12% isn't in fact a universal flat fee by Tim Sweeney himself. As this case developers we will necessarily find out more about the basic workings of the App Store. It would seem unlikely though that the judge would order Apple to change the percentage that it takes, that is something generally left to the legislative branch.
Apple have every right to make billions off the products they sell BUT the app store is not a product, it's a service provided to ios app developers to host their creations on and as a service, app developers should only be paying for what they are actually using, nothing less, nothing more. As such, Apple do not have the right to charge high fee's which help cover the costs of development costs elsewhere in the company.
Epic need to fight it out in court to find out what is the actual running cost of the app store to determine if the 30% in app fee is justified. If Apple can prove the 30% is justified then fine, as I've said in a previous post of mine, I have no problem with that BUT if it turns out lets say that for arguments sake that it would only take 10% of in app fees for Apple to recover it's running costs of the app store (with a bit of profit thrown in), then why set it at 30% if 10% is all they really need. This is what Epic are challenging and in my opinion they should be doing what they are doing.
This is your opinion. In my own opinion, I view the percentage as a value add for the developer in terms of management and discovery and ease of upload. It's okay we have different opinions on this.
Yep, the court will thrash this out.
And I think you overestimate them...
It's more a fact. If you look at iOS mail, photos, contacts, music (yikes),... they are not really great apps. Far from it. They do nothing but the very minimal function. If minimal is OK for you that's your choice. But the original topic was about Apple jumping in, in case of app providers pulling out and then delivering the same experience as the original app. Based on their existing apps that can be doubted.
If or not you like the minimal approach is your opinion and we don't need to argue about personal preferences...
I'm absolutely certain iOS development is fully covered by iOS device sales. Unlike old consoles the iPhone does not in any way need to be cross-financed using store-tax. Store tax is additional profit.
The lack of security on Android is a plattform problem not a sideloading issue.
As your App is distributed as a signed binary iOS would still validate that binary.
And that is where Code-Signing becomes important. iOS should still not run any unsigned binaries. And binaries from a revoked signing certificate (e.g. because of replublished patched/cracked binaries) should be prevented from running by iOS. Revoking such a certificate should be only allowed when a criminal action was involved.
I know what you mean, but you assume in first place that a lot of apps would retreat from the app-store. I'm quite confident that would not happen for the majority of apps (see play store). And within the app-store apple could still maintain their policy of enforcing payment only through the app-store as the app has been purchased there. Basically like it is now. My guess here would be that apps would likely be published on alternate stores, but most apps have transaction cost less than 5$ per transaction. In this ballpark the customer doesn't care if they save a couple cents.
The majority of user would likely keep purchasing from the Apple App-Store and not offering apps in that store would likely mean an overall loss of revenue.
Apple devices offer an "Identifier for Advertisers" (IDFA) that Facebook and its advertising partners use for ad targeting purposes. In iOS 14, the IDFA is an opt-in feature, providing more transparency for users who would prefer not to be tracked in apps and on websites.
They changed an API-function from op-out to opt-in. That's not related to the app-store.
Yes, for the average user, Sign-in with Apple provides a convenient way of hiding their mail, but if you wanted to do that, you can as well use aliases for you mail address.
Sorry for lack of accurracy...
TBH, I don't care much about EPIC... if they will under bottom line profit or lose from this only time will tell... right now it's only speculation. But I do appreciate that they shake the tree.
There's multiple perspective's to how to look at markets and probably none of them is 100% wrong or right. As such if you want a defintion of market in that context... you first have to define that. In my posts I stick to smartphone app market = iOS and Android. They share that market. Small players are currently neglible.
We'll have to see how this plays out. But todays article doesn't really suggests things are going to stay the way it is.
Which is also why I never said, that we should remove Apples App-Store. I also said that most people likely wouldn't install a 2nd store even if they could. And that's also the reason why most developers would NOT pull out of the app-store.
However, if, as you correctly say, they make a lot more revenue in the app-store than anywhere else, getting kicked of the app-store can be even more of a problem. So, in such a scenario, I absolutely agree Apple should be able to kick them of their store, but not an entire plattform. Arbitrary removing apps from the store or giving them an unfair disadvantage is indeed subject to anti-trust (e.g. tile).
Sustain is one thing. But being restricted to one plattform means the competition can easily outperform you. That can (not necessarily does) mean you lose on the other market as well.
And a single company deciding your fate is not actually the idea in a capitalistic environment.
You fall into the very obvious trap of mistaking your opinion for fact.
If you disagree with that, please present some U.S. case law that supports your position. Apple has a set of businesses. Unless and until they are deemed to have monopoly control, they can connect their businesses in any way they wish. They could choose to give the iPhone away for free and make all their money on App sales.
I think what you are actually saying is: “I only want to consider this one aspect of Apple’s business and I think it should operate this way.”
You seem to lack understanding of how businesses work. The App Store is not a regulated utility. It is a store, just like any other store, and as such, as long as they follow GAAP, they can choose to allocate revenue from their store towards anything they wish. Just as BestBuy, Walmart, Target and Tiffany set their own prices and allocate their profit however they choose.
Really? Can you provide some legal, GAAP, or text book reference that supports your position? We can look at simple counter examples: McDonald’s took the money they made from running McDonald’s to buy Chipotle (then eventually spun it off). Apple used the money it made from the Mac to develop the iPod and the money from the iPod to develop the iPhone.
Huh? Can you provide a citation to a business ethnics text book that supports your position? Given your position, how does a company develop new products, if they can only use the funds from a product to support its manufacturer/operation (with no profit beyond cost recovery)?
No need to argue anything. Apple’s is not a regulated monopoly (or a monopoly at all), so they get to use their profits for any legal purpose. If they chose, they could demand a 75% margin for products in the App Store and use all the money to build a moon base. Developers might not be interested in developing for the platform with a take so high, but that is how the market naturally regulates things like this.
I think you mean: “I think that Apple should run the App Store as a service to the world and should not charge anything over cost recovery.” You have a right to your opinion. If you are a developer, you can choose not to develop for the platform (and if enough other developers leave the platform, that will be a problem for Apple. If you are an iOS/iPadOS/tvOS/WatchOS user, you can choose either not to purchase anything through the App Store (only purchasing things directly from multi-platform product companies) or you can leave the platform. Again, if enough people leave the platform, Apple will take notice.If you are a shareholder, you can try to gain enough support from other shareholders to put a resolution on the annual meeting agenda to limit Apple’s actions in this area. If you can convince enough shareholders that they should do what you want, you can get what you want. If you are a lawyer or willing to pay a lawyer, you can either file a class action lawsuit against Apple, or try to join one of the existing suits. If you can convince a circuit court judge, several appellate court judges and five SCOTUS justices to ignore all the case law precedents that clearly state:
you can get want you want. Finally, you can try to convince enough members of Congress and the sitting president to change the law to make what you want illegal and hope that SCOTUS does not rule that is an illegal taking, or that you then get a constitutional amendment passed with the same restrictions. Otherwise, your opinions on fairness and ethics are just your opinions.
Glad few companies follow your approach, as we would rarely have new products. Almost all successful companies, use their profit (the money they have left over after they have paid their employees, vendors and taxes) to develop new products (and sometimes new product categories). If they did not do that, we would not have new product categories from existing companies.
Epic and (any other developer) can stop developing for the platform (one way to express their feelings), or they can try to sue. As I already mentioned, if they take the latter approach, they will have to get the courts to overrule existing precedents.
Stockholm syndrome... WOW
I find it amusing that faced with different people you right away excuse it as something “wrong” or “bad” saying stuff like kidnapping, while many like me find technology and computers to be very useful but also very dangerous thus prefer the locked down nature of iOS which leads to why do you buy iPhones in the first place if the machine is definitely overpriced and you want options...
Why not buy an Android? A pureOS phone?
Why do you buy iPhones?
If Apple doesn’t gives you the ability to have options it doesn't mean you were forced to Buy and or use their products. if you did however and now wish to you can request a refund or sell second hand see you’ve got options but there is no sense in forcing us to change just because you don’t understand. Stick to the Android it is so “much better anyway” if you want, we want a locked down computers.
I do buy it for its locked down nature and for its convenience (knowing that I rarely have to leave the device to create an other account and that I can pay for everything in one place). Why do you buy it?
The ego is strong with this one. Is it so impossible for you to accept that other people (maybe a lot of them) have a different perspective from you, without resorting to ad hominem attacks? I have had a smart phone for a very long time. I had various versions of Symbian OS and was super excited to switch to my iPhone 1 (before the App Store). I had some apps for my various Symbian OS phones, but the lack of a single app store and the hassle of creating accounts (payment or usage) definitely limited how many apps I installed.
Or maybe, your lack of historical perspective makes it impossible for you to understand that my views come from years of experience. Like many people, I do not think that Apple has my best interests at heart, just like I do not think that Epic has “helping small developers” as their goal. What I do think is that Apple‘s interests and my interests are (on some of these issues) aligned. Some people like “free and open”, I prefer “safe, secure and convenient” and I am glad that both options exist.
You say that if Apple allows other stores and side loading those who do not want them will not be forced to use them. Let us try a simple thought experiment to see if you are right.
Suppose Apple allow both other app stores and side loading.
Do you think that every app will have a version that supports the App Store and all its restrictions (from things like disclosing trackers to prohibitions on using my system resources for things like bit coin mining without my knowledge)? Do you not think that some (many) apps will only do versions for the store that protects me least? That many apps will not support Sign In with Apple because the will not be forced to protect my privacy? That I will be forced to create a new account just to use an app (something currently discouraged or prohibited by Apple)?
Is it not clear that the only way your choice happens is to take mine away (and do the same to the millions who share my views)? You have a choice, buy a different platform. You do not need to take the views of your kidnappers, to whom you probably should not be giving money given your views about them, just use a different system that has rules that matter to you.
And maybe, just for a minute, accept that people can have different views from you and not be “sheeple”, “brainwashed”, or “victims”.
Last edited:
"So what if the Apple store costs more to run...It still doesn't make their 30% fair.". Huh? Reportedly, Apple pockets about 10-12% after expenses. If Google/Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft charges 30%, why is it unfair? Apple provides the hardware, AppStore, iOS, hosting, security, handles payments, customer support, dev tools, etc. So how much is fair for Apple to pocket?
If Epic doesn't allow devs to create their own store in the Epic store, then why should Sweeney demand that Apple provides the same level of OS access Apple has, allow them to open a store of there own and access to all of Apple's customers for 0% cut?
The tone-deaf 1984 video, misinformation and screwing over their Apple customers while leverage an army of 10 years to be soldiers in their crusade is pathetic.
App Store is a part of their mobile operating system that is tied to their hardware product. The App Store isn't the product, the phone is the product. The App Store is a feature of the phone. Apple decided to charge the fees it does, it has done so now for a decade and over that time it has progressively taken increasing amounts of marketshare. It isn't Apple abusing a monopoly since it hasn't had one and if anything it is earning itself an increasingly dominant marketshare through the policies it has.
We're already seeing evidence that Epic don't charge the same fee but instead charge different fees for different countries, in some places up to 25% of purchase price. There were some other mentions I think from Steam as well. Epic should challenge it but it's decided to try to win a marketing campaign at the same time and there is the risk you lose both. There is a neatness to the consistency I could see as being applied as a uniform percentage but we will see what comes of it. We might find out more about what they charge, the hint from the judge seems that they feel there is at least something in the case worth examining so it'll be interesting to see where they take it.
Maybe Epic should start walking the talk themselves. They are insanely profitable as well, and I am sure they too could lower their cut to barely cover costs as well.