Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Epic Games vs. Apple Trial Begins With Opening Remarks Underway

I think this is fascinating case..
metalsiren said:
Walmart, and ANY retail store. in Walmart, you can only use their POS system. And if you dont like it they can refund your purchase. So if you bought A toy for example Hasbro, Hasbro doesn’t know you bought it ,etc… and if you are unhappy you can also contact Hasbro yourself.

But you get the idea… the min that something is Digital people forget the normal retail business that has worked like this forever.
Click to expand...
but it’s not the same thing when you don’t allow other stores to sell the same products. Walmart is in Competition with target for example. Who is the Apple App Store in
Competition with? I don’t have a dog in this fight, I think it’s a fascinating case. Will be interesting to see how it lands.
 
gnipgnop said:
Epic charges 25% when they handle transactions.
Click to expand...
Question - does "when they handle the transactions" also include paying all tax withholdings and providing documentation for said payments? Or is it just an uplift on an extra 10% to cover the costs of the credit card transaction fees?
 
Cheesehead Dave said:
Pretty much any business?

If I buy a doodad from Walmart, Doodad, Inc. has no idea that I'm a customer of theirs. If I have problems with it and decide to return it to the store, again, Doodad Inc. has no clue and wasn't involved with the process unless I reached out to them directly.
Click to expand...
But I can buy Doodad from anywhere I like; it’s not the same at all.
 
gregmancuso said:
Question - does "when they handle the transactions" also include paying all tax withholdings and providing documentation for said payments? Or is it just an uplift on an extra 10% to cover the costs of the credit card transaction fees?
Click to expand...

Any payment processor such as mastercard/visa/amex charge significantly less than 2% on transactions. the online 15-30% that app stores do in the digital age have very little to do with the actual costs of payment processing.

These are absolutely Profit positive tools that go far and above just covering the costs of payment processing and the App stores they're attached to.
 
"Guys, guys, Apple is evil! They are taking 30% of in-app-purchases!"

Epic, don't you charge twenty dollars for a SINGLE Fortnite skin? You have literally nobody to pay. You made the skins, and you sell them for twenty dollars. Wow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maconplasma
JackHinkle said:
"Guys, guys, Apple is evil! They are taking 30% of in-app-purchases!"

Epic, don't you charge twenty dollars for a SINGLE Fortnite skin? You have literally nobody to pay. You made the skins, and you sell them for twenty dollars. Wow.
Click to expand...
this has absolutely nothing to do with the claims by Epic.

They could charge $200 for a skin and it's still irrelevant to the claims that Apple is acting in monopolistic anti-competitive behaviour.

I think it's silly paying for these skins, but that's competely not the point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Td1970 and PC_tech
I think the microphone has gotten worse. Can’t understand what Tim Sweeney is saying. He says “um” a lot, though.
 
metalsiren said:
Walmart, and ANY retail store. in Walmart, you can only use their POS system. And if you dont like it they can refund your purchase. So if you bought A toy for example Hasbro, Hasbro doesn’t know you bought it ,etc… and if you are unhappy you can also contact Hasbro yourself.

But you get the idea… the min that something is Digital people forget the normal retail business that has worked like this forever.
Click to expand...
There is one big difference. Retailers like Walmart buy the product from the manufacturer and sell it on. In doing so the retailer takes on an element of risk that they can resell the product. Traditional retailers also have much higher costs to cover. That’s why most retailers have a profit margin around 5% rather than the 78% margin Apple has with the AppStore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech and LordVic
laurensvo92 said:
That doesn’t justify the 30% and afleidt macOS there is a choice, with iOS were stuck with AppStore. The more completion, the better it is for many reasons.
Click to expand...

But you are advocating GETTING RID of competition. Right now consumers have a choice between a relatively secure and private ecosystem with a curated App Store and an operating system that will not launch apps not signed by Apple, and a less private and secure ecosystem capable of running unsigned apps, even if the apps are malicious and were never intended by the user to run. You want Apple to change its ecosystem into Google’s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: secretbum, AlphaCentauri, Lone Deranger and 3 others
Aeronauts said:
There is one big difference. Retailers like Walmart buy the product from the manufacturer and sell it on. In doing so the retailer takes on an element of risk that they can resell the product. Traditional retailers also have much higher costs to cover. That’s why most retailers have a profit margin around 5% rather than the 78% margin Apple has with the AppStore.
Click to expand...

Doesn’t walmart make the suppliers bear the risk? After all, I know that when things don’t sell they return them to the suppliers.
 
It is all very simple and boils down to private contracts and developer legal agreements. Epic agreed to use Apple’s tools, make a program and get it published on Apple’s App Store while agreeing to Apple’s terms.

And in no way is an App Developer entitled to 100% of the sales in somebody else’s store, just like any physical product manufacturer gets 100% of the retail sale. They just need to change their perspective.

And there are always cheaper competing products, and copycats. No matter what you make. You just have to make sure your product is better quality and value.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlphaCentauri and Mescagnus
cmaier said:
I think the microphone has gotten worse. Can’t understand what Tim Sweeney is saying. He says “um” a lot, though.
Click to expand...
Yeah, better wait and read the new afterwards, our discussions and differences won't influence the case anyway.
The audio quality is too bad to torture myself with it.
 
cmaier said:
But you are advocating GETTING RID of competition. Right now consumers have a choice between a relatively secure and private ecosystem with a curated App Store and an operating system that will not launch apps not signed by Apple, and a less private and secure ecosystem capable of running unsigned apps, even if the apps are malicious and were never intended by the user to run. You want Apple to change its ecosystem into Google’s.
Click to expand...

But this is the same silly assumption that people have regarding Android

BECAUSE it's allowed that means everyone does it right?

In reality, most people don't leave the App store of their platform. The biggest difference here is that Android, Windows, MacOS, Linux, BSD.. you name it. ONLY iOS is locked down in such a way.

And if you're going to say that having any alternative is "insecure" than you stand by the same stance on all the other OS's.

Again: it comes down to user agency and choice. it doesn't have to be allowed "By default" but a user should be able to, wiht informed consent, enable 3rd party offerings if they willingly accept the risk.

The comparisons that just because 3rd party applications are allowed automatically makes something insecure has no basis in reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sime0n
cmaier said:
But you are advocating GETTING RID of competition. Right now consumers have a choice between a relatively secure and private ecosystem with a curated App Store and an operating system that will not launch apps not signed by Apple, and a less private and secure ecosystem capable of running unsigned apps, even if the apps are malicious and were never intended by the user to run. You want Apple to change its ecosystem into Google’s.
Click to expand...
So your saying macOS is not secure?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech and LordVic
icerabbit said:
And in no way is an App Developer entitled to 100% of the sales in somebody else’s store, just like any physical product manufacturer gets 100% of the retail sale. They just need to change their perspective.
Click to expand...

This is wrong:

in Physical sales the developer gets 100% of the price they ask from the retailer. The Retailer than provides markup in order to include their own profit margins.

That's not the model of application stores. in this case, Apple doesn't pay anyone for just having their app available in the store itself. in fact, Apple charges Developers for that already.

if we wanted to make some weird analogy to physical stores, it would be more like:

Widget Producer pays Walmart for "right" to have a shelf in the store with a "receipt". the buyer takes that receit to the checkout. then the Walmart tells the widget buyer to send you the widget. And then takes another 30% from that transaction

it's a silly analogy because comparing what an App store does and their models to physical retail presence doesn't work. the entire model of who pays who and when is completely different.

in retail: the storefront does not take a set cut of every sale of every widget. They purchase those widgets and attempt to sell it to you at their own markup. if that widget doesn't sell, it's not the manufacturer who loses, it's Walmart.

in the App store model, Apple NEVER loses and always gains through numerous different means because they have a captive audience who can not go elsewhere. that by definition is a monopolistic business model.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech
dasmb said:
Uh...no. Value-based pricing is an incredibly common practice among all businesses, even those with intense competition.

Monopolies may be effective at this practice, but so's the corner shop that charges an extra $1 for a pint of ice cream, or the BestBuy selling $30 HDMI cables.

I mean, this whole kerfuffle is about Epic's desire to keep a larger cut of the proceeds of the sale of virtual items. Do you know what the mariginal cost of a virtual item is? It's $0!
Click to expand...
It’s actually about Epic not following a contract they signed
 
LordVic said:
This is wrong:

in Physical sales the developer gets 100% of the price they ask from the retailer. The Retailer than provides markup in order to include their own profit margins.

That's not the model of application stores. in this case, Apple doesn't pay anyone for just having their app available in the store itself. in fact, Apple charges Developers for that already.

if we wanted to make some weird analogy to physical stores, it would be more like:

Widget Producer pays Walmart for "right" to have a shelf in the store with a "receipt". the buyer takes that receit to the checkout. then the Walmart tells the widget buyer to send you the widget. And then takes another 30% from that transaction

it's a silly analogy because comparing what an App store does and their models to physical retail presence doesn't work. the entire model of who pays who and when is completely different.

in retail: the storefront does not take a set cut of every sale of every widget. They purchase those widgets and attempt to sell it to you at their own markup. if that widget doesn't sell, it's not the manufacturer who loses, it's Walmart.

in the App store model, Apple NEVER loses and always gains through numerous different means because they have a captive audience who can not go elsewhere. that by definition is a monopolistic business model.
Click to expand...
The producer gets what the stores want to pay, not what the producer wants.
 
  • Like
Reactions: icerabbit and dynamojoe
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back