The developer gets diddly squat from Apple on subscriptions (as far as value / services provided goes). Apple isn't doing anything that the developer couldn't do for pennies vs all of the overhead the developer has.
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 vs. Apple: Timeline of Events Surrounding Fortnite's Removal From App Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The developer gets diddly squat from Apple on subscriptions (as far as value / services provided goes). Apple isn't doing anything that the developer couldn't do for pennies vs all of the overhead the developer has.
Funny, I've never had to buy ANY application through the Windows Store or Mac App Store. So no, thats not how computers have worked. You can chose to purchase from them, but you can chose not to. So ---- the app store agreement, we are saying its not legitimate.
I hate that developers have to pay such a steep "tax" to have their game distributed on the various platforms. However, as a consumer, I do not want to give out my credit card to various companies. It's easier to trust and hold one company accountable for their practices in PCI Compliance than several companies. Especially with breaches that we've seen with Home Depot, Equifax, Target, etc. I would hate to see how less security focused companies are handling Credit Card information. I have to side with Apple on this one.
I mean you can't do it any other way on iOS. You have to use the app store. On Android, Mac and PC you can distribute your own app from your own website if you want. Yet MS (and Google and Apple) still develop APIs and SDKs for devs to use on those platforms... but for some reason Apple locks down iOS specifically (while alloingw apps on their other platform MacOS).
That's exactly what I said....
Mobile is different. This isn't something new, and I doubt Epic has a leg to stand on. They signed an agreement and broke it. Apple doesn't have to allow apps on their OS if they didn't want. I agree the tax is steep, but that is the price of admission. I don't know what Epic was thinking.
Last edited:
This CNBC YouTube discussion talks about how well planned this is. What do developers get for this 30%?
What they are doing is ... getting developers to agree to it. That’s pretty much all that’s required. If you gave me $40 for a pet rock, what am I doing to deserve $40 bucks? Giving you a rock and having you agree to pay that much for it.
Standard Oil had a monopoly on oil, a generic term for that industry, and used their market power unfairly. Apple has a monopoly on the Apple App Store. If you have to use a company’s trademarked terms in the description of a monopoly, you’re not defining a monopoly, you’re defining a company’s product.
McDonald’s has a dominant position in selling Dr Pepper in the McDonald’s store (much like Apple has a dominant position in selling apps in the Apple App Store). Why should I be forced to pay an exorbitant markup JUST because I happen to be sitting in a McDonald’s drive thru?
It’s true, but they did not update those stores, presumably as consoles are more locked down than smartphones and they don’t exactly integrate well with web browsers to purchase directly.
This.... and consoles traditionally have offered more powerful hardware for less... usually subsidized during the first year or two of the console's production by software sales.
This article reads as a thinly-veiled hit piece masquerading as a timeline. If it were submitted in my Fundamentals of Journalism or Media Law and Ethics classes, it would receive an F until it was re-written. I don’t know if Joe just copied and pasted a press release, or if he has a vested interest of some kind. Either way, the lack of journalistic integrity is disturbing:
- It uses a format and voice that appear objective, yet heavily features one side of the issue in number of quotes, contextual framing, and commentary.
- The content has been chosen and structured in a way that firmly establishes the emotional and logical appeals of one side, provides an unequal defense from the other, then closes with a lengthy rebuttal from the first without any follow-up.
- It directly embeds one-sided communications without critical context or analysis.
- The title and framing present the topic as a conflict between two entities, while the facts provided (and unprovided) establish that it is much more complex, involving multiple parties.
It's Apple's app store, it can do what it wants. There is no monopoly or anti-competitive behavior because there is very healthy competition: Google's Android. The vast majority of devices in the world run Android. That right there destroys any argument that Apple has anything close to resembling a monopoly.
Android, similarly, also does not have a monopoly because there is an alternative: Apple. Google also allows other, competing app stores to exist and Android device owners can install apps that don't come from Google Play. This lawsuit is going to be dismissed in a hot minute.
In America, it's okay to be successful as long as you're not too successful. Pffft
Android, similarly, also does not have a monopoly because there is an alternative: Apple. Google also allows other, competing app stores to exist and Android device owners can install apps that don't come from Google Play. This lawsuit is going to be dismissed in a hot minute.
In America, it's okay to be successful as long as you're not too successful. Pffft
They actually missed out the part where Epic launched the game on their own website on android, bypassing the playstore completely as they wanted all the profits for themselves. Then after Almost a year decided that they should put it on the playstore after all. So having it on the playstore when there is an alternative which they have already tried means they should be abiding by the rules. However this stunt just shows that they want their app on the App Store and playstore but think that they shouldn’t have to pay anything.
- iOS Users rarely understand the payment system as it is. I write apps for a living. When I get an email, from someone unhappy, they invariably want me to give them a refund. I can't. Apple controls all payment stuff. Now imagine an open system with many payment processors on iOS. It's confusing enough for users. The end user doesn't actually care. They want something that is safe, quick and convenient. This is all about 30% Epic doesn't want to share. I don't mind, I think Apple earned it even though I'd get a 30% pay rise (actually I wouldn't, PayPal takes 5.6% and I can't stand them. I don't want to get into credit credit processing.)
- I'll guarantee the App Store Keywords ranking algorithm Apple uses takes into account the revenue an app makes. So if you cut Apple out of their 30% expect to see your app fall in the rankings.
Hate to break it to you, a duopoly is also able to be classified as a monopoly. It just so happens the two players have nearly identical restrictive terms. Wink and a nod collusion is covered by the Sherman Act, just ask the guys who make RAM chips
Although I nearly have all APPLE products one can buy ... I am totally surprised by the opinions in the forum here
APPLE is on the losing streak here
(and GOOGLE and AMAZON too)
regulators will/must crush these tech giants. Jeff Bezos said it in an interview years ago, he knows that Amazon will be sliced up in little pieces. There is no alternative here
and this goes for APPLE too. but in a different way.
APPLE is on the losing streak here
(and GOOGLE and AMAZON too)
regulators will/must crush these tech giants. Jeff Bezos said it in an interview years ago, he knows that Amazon will be sliced up in little pieces. There is no alternative here
and this goes for APPLE too. but in a different way.
They know damn well there is any alternative on android because they’ve done it themselves in the past.
Right, Apple could be proactive and try to head it off.... allow side loading, lower in-app and subscription skimming, etc. Maybe divert a matching percentage from Apple's own apps to a 3rd party charity or startup investment fund that is easily auditable so it can't be said Apple's apps have an unfair advantage. That would all be reasonable ways to head it off.
I am pretty sure the AppleTV cost more than pennies.
And macOS development.
and iOS, iPadOS, the hardware, iCloud, etc all cost more than a few pennies. All those things make the little apps easier to develop and increase value for your app. No taking advantage of every resource Apple offers is the developers fault.
Stop looking at one line item.
Why do you want to ruin iOS so badly? Can't some people have nice things?
Huh, guess Apple just gives away all their hardware. Let me remember to ask them for money back on all my iPhones, 4 AppleTVs, 3 iPads, etc. And excuse me, I pay for iCloud. Why should the developer be subsidizing it?
[automerge]1597441093[/automerge]
I've owned more Apple products than you've probably ever touched, why are enjoying paying Apple for things they aren't doing?
Astounding that allowing people to install software that they'd like to install would "ruin" iOS. Does this blasphemy also "ruin" macOS?
You could try being serious
Apple has the most expensive products on the market.
Compared to the competition, who provides their development kits for free. As well as what Apple does on the Mac.
Is Apple losing money on the iPhone / iPad business to the point developers have to bail it out? Obviously not - they have the highest profits in the industry, generally more than everyone else combined, so your point is invalid and disingenuous.