Lots of strong words - you sure you know what they mean? What’s uncompetitive and abusive? Go and read what the Symbian stores charged developers, let alone mobile operators taking cut for Java apps/games
Which is why they aren't around anymore.
Actually 30% isn't a lot, if you sell physical games through a distributor, the take is much much more as much as 55%-60%, when this was announced in 2008 it was seen as a great alternative and you made more money from your game.
Each copy of a physical game takes up space on a store's shelves, sitting on top of land that must be rented or purchased, and that space, once occupied by that game, cannot simultaneously be occupied by any other product. It requires cashiers to handle scanning the product and taking payment. It requires stock clerks to move them from storage onto the shelves and keep the shelves organized. It requires department staffers to direct people to the right aisle. It requires fire and police protection that are paid for by property taxes.
And remember that there are multiple parties involved in that 55–60%. Part of it went into manufacturing the physical product. Part of it was paid to the distributor. Part of it was likely paid to a wholesaler that bought from the distributor. And the rest was paid to the retailer that bought from the wholesaler, not counting the 3% that went to the credit card processor et al, where applicable. That's a far cry from the App Store, where there's just one company in the middle (plus the credit card processor).
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 think everyone would be fine with requiring that anyone who accepts payments for digital goods must allow Apple's payments to be one of the options (with a no-more-than-reasonable upcharge to cover the high fees). That should cover folks who feel as you do without forcing everyone to pay more because of lack of payment processor competition.
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.
You keep using the word "monopoly". The core purpose of anti-trust laws is to prevent monopolies from forming, but they do not apply exclusively to monopolies, or even duopolies.
Want to know what market doesn't exist because of their behavior? Mobile download payment processors. Apple requires you to use their own internal payment system for mobile downloads, and the rest of the industry followed their lead. As a result, there's an entire missing industry filled with competitors that should exist to handle the purchase of in-app downloads in the mobile device world. That right there destroys any argument that Apple's actions are not monopolistic and anticompetitive in their effect.
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.
And yet for decades, companies have been building hardware and operating systems without demanding a cut of sales for every app that runs on their platform. Why should mobile be special? Users already pay for the operating system and hardware development as part of the purchase price of their devices. It isn't being subsidized by app purchases and in-app purchases.
Self-publish on Amazon and you keep 70%. Make it a paperback and it’s only 60%. Shall we sue? Has anyone?
N.B. Actually, someone did try to break that monopoly and was rewarded with an antitrust lawsuit. That company was Apple.
Apple was rewarded with an antitrust lawsuit for not allowing anyone to sell their books at a cheaper price through other stores, even if those other stores took a lower cut of the purchase price, thus effectively colluding with Amazon et al in a giant price-fixing scheme, but don't let the facts stop a good rant.
EXACTLY. The App Store is not a monopoly in any way, no matter how you slice it. Not happy with the App Store? Then dont put your game on it. Dont do business on the app store. Dont be a developer. If Epic Games is so great, then create your OWN platform and app store and make your own devices, like what apple does now (obviously that would be impossible for Epic Games) so just shut up and quit it.
I think it would be absolutely hilarious if Netflix, Amazon, Facebook, and every major game maker did just that. Suddenly, you'd all be screaming, "Why are there no apps for iOS?" and Apple would be wondering why everybody stopped buying their devices. It's already starting to be a problem with Facebook's games. It's just a matter of time before this policy starts hurting Apple's hardware sales noticeably.
Trust me, Apple losing this fight quickly and soundly is by far the best outcome, both for Apple and for their users. It would not even surprise me if Apple asked Epic Games to do this so that they could change this policy without it looking like they were bowing to pressure from Facebook.
Epic signed up to the rules and conditions, if they no longer want to stick to them just kick them out in their entirety. Apple own the App Store and nobody has a default entitlement to be there, you sign up to the T&C’s and get pulled if you don’t stick to them. Apple should just kick Epic out as a developer and refuse to let them back in.
I'm glad most folks don't share that opinion. Otherwise we would still have sweatshops with child labor in this country, we would have no OSHA, etc. One of the most fundamental tenets of contract law is that contract terms that violate the law are invalid. That's what this is all about — letting the courts decide if those contract terms violate the law. There's only one way to do that, and that is to take it to court.
And no, they could not just sue first, because without actually selling products on the store, they could not show that they were financially harmed by those contract terms, and likely would likely not have standing to sue.
