Epic vs. Apple Takes a Twist As 35 US States and Department of Justice Weigh in to Back 'Fortnite' Maker

[AppliedMicro]

The fact is, consumers currently have a choice, they can choose a closed or an open system. If you force Apple to open up their system then the consumer no longer has that choice.

Just provide an option in system setting:
- allow only Apps from the iOS app store (digitally signed by Apple)
- allow Apps from other sources

Problem solved. Users could simply choose between having a closed and or an open system - on their device.

To discourage the practice of annoying users by either not selling in the App Store, having different prices between the App Store and outside the App Store, or including different features inside the App Store vs outside.

So basically you're advocating for anticompetitive measures to combat competition.

 

[Maximara]

If you want to reach all smartphone users you are.

That make no sense as barring some form of emulation software you can't run android apps on iOS (which is both tablet and smartphones) so barring Epic's Sauron one shop for everything idea (PC, console, mobile) which if it became a reality would be a monopolist wet dream come true there is no way "to reach all smartphone users".

 

[Maximara]

Guys let’s not forget that the iPhone platform is desirable for consumers because of the third-party applications.

Those third-party applications are valuable because of Apple closed garden. Remember android is only one year younger than iOS. Also there is no "iPhone platform" but the iOS platforms which is both the iPhone and iPad.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Except everybody except itch.io is over that 10% and why 10%? Epic is admitting its 13% woun't be profitable until 2027 at the earliest. More over the government is very hands off on this kind of price fixing.

The fact that all of the closed platforms take 30% is indicative of lack of competition.
Also, is the Humble Store operating at a loss, by taking only 15%?

That make no sense as barring some form of emulation software you can't run android apps on iOS *which is both tablet and smartphones)

If you want to reach (virtually) "all" smartphone users, you have to offer an iOS app (as well as Android apps).

Those third-party applications are valuable because of Apple closed garden

They would still be valuable to consumers if Apple allowed installing from third-party sources.
(Which, in fact they already do, if you have a developer account... it's just that the apps work time-limited)

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Only be customer benefits? Your solution would reduce the revenue of the App Store. Would Apple continue to provide services like App Store editorials on the App Store without the added income? Would Apple invest in accessibility APIs (such as the functionality to provide Apple Watch controls with hand gestures) that offer value to many customers and increase app developers' addressable market? Would Apple increase the costs to developers, which developers would then, reasonably, pass on to users? There would be fewer free and low-cost apps in the App Store.

Would regulators allow Apple to limit services for purchases made outside the current App Store model or deem it an unfair advantage for the platform vendor?

You may turn out to be correct that any new regulations, in reality, turn out to be a net positive for consumers. However, I continue to point out that nothing is assured when you make changes to large economies. The App Store is an economy and not just an online service.

Yes actualy only customer benefits. Apple didn't create the app store to earn money from it, apple is a hardware company not software/service company. it exist 100% for apples benefit only, and that is to increse the atractivnes of the iphone, iPad, iPod, Apple Watch hardware they sell. Without it it would crash and burn to obscurity irrespective how great the hardware is.

What cost are you talking about. And cost have nothing to do with profit margins. If you choose to do business with a company and use their resources, name and goodwill to build your business, you do get to decide what you believe is fair, but cannot dictate to that company that they have to pay you what you decide. You decide if the deal makes sense for you and take it or leave it. If Apple’s system wasn’t fair and accessible they wouldn’t have over 20 million registered developers worldwide.

These things are correlated, but you can't make a casual link. it can just be simple capitalistic interest to have the biggest market possible. costs I'm talking about is how much apple needs to pay to support the App Store. 90% of apps are free, and apple still makes a lot of money, money i would argue would be better going to developers instead of apple by encouraging competition with other payment services.

The scenario is similar to the PlayStation and Xbox ecosystems in that there is a device developed by one company that has a huge number of revenue streams and develops a platform That other company make products to sell on. The only difference was there was a huge barrier to entry because it requires lots of cash and access to get started and no guarantees either platform would even except your product.

this is not a similar scenario because the barrier to entry isn't interesting, it's only a question if their actions are anticompetitive. Xbox/playstation developers have multiple ways and places to sell their games and keep different part of the revenue.

A great solution could be that apple must allow competing app stores but only signed apps can be sold. such as an app on the app store can be distributed on competing stores but must be aproved by apple, allowing others to compete on services.

iOS is the only place.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The solution to duopoly power is to introduce more parties. Breaking up the App Store still leaves the duopoly power around. And I can certainly see this going to a $300 Apple developer fee and $500 XCode license to make up for the 30%. And you (developer) having to deal with individual line items for CDN, support, transaction and other items.

you dont need to break up anything. If you want to develop a game/app for windwos you have multiple places to sell this product.
If you want to develop ot Xbox/PlayStation, you have multiple platforms to sell from.
if you want yo develop to Android, you have multiple places to sell it.
If you want to develop an iOS app, you need to use ONLY APPLE APP STORE

a developed iOS app can't be sold on android. it must be a new app
a developed Xbox game can't be sold on PlayStation, it must be made a new one for it.

Xbox doesn't stop PlayStation games from being sold on Xbox store, it's a different OS and architecture.
Android doesn't stop apps from being sold on iOS App Store, they are incompatible systems on a technical level.
iOS stopps apps from being sold anywhere else outside their store. the prevent any alternative payment options.

apple could even force third party payments be displayed next to iOS In-app purchase function, just as they force every app to have Apple login alongside Facebook and Twitter logins etc.

Apple could even vet and sign every app as now but allow the exact same app be sold on competing stores, or even on the developer's website. And if an app breaks apple's rules on the store, it will lose its verification and not be possible to install, just as you can't install a downloaded iOS app today that doesn't have apple's signature or your Apple ID connected to it.


this allow you to keep all the safety but compete on services

 

[AppliedMicro]

Except everybody except itch.io is over that 10% and why 10%?

Let's not assume everyone and everyone's pricing is for games only.
I recently bought three Mac Apps from their developer's sites, and they were processed by

- 2Checkout
- Paddle
- Fastspring
- (oh, and let's also add) Stripe

What do their commissions and pricing look like?

(Spoiler: while their pricing may be more complex, it's nowhere near 30%)

 

[Sophisticatednut]

So Apple makes MS Word?! Sure I am being silly but you went overboard with the claims. IF you know what you are doing you can even install Unix programs on a Mac and a Mac is made by Apple, is it not?

well I'm taking about iOS not mac. My humble mistake i assumed it made since we didn't talk about mac that already can install third party apps from anywhere.

 

[mielie]

Just provide an option in system setting:
- allow only Apps from the iOS app store (digitally signed by Apple)
- allow Apps from other sources

Problem solved. Users could simply choose between having a closed and or an open system - on their device.

So basically you're advocating for anticompetitive measures to combat competition.

That works fine until an essential app comes along that decides it will not participate in the Apple App Store because it either wants to use a different payment system, or it is not happy with the rules for submitting apps. This then forces the user out of the closed system.

From a developer point of view, it also means I must either choose which store to support, potentially alienating users, or support both with the necessary additional overheads in terms of time and potentially cost.

You can frame just about any measure as anticompetitive if you want to. Surely its anticompetitive that when I go into a supermarket I can only buy food from the supermarket. In a normal market there would be many different traders and I could choose where I buy my apples. But in a supermarket I can only buy my apples from one vendor. Of course, I have a choice to not use the supermarket, I could use the actual market. Ergo, I have choice so its not anticompetitive. In a similar way, users are not forced to use Apple or Android, they have a choice. I chose Apple because of the closed nature of the entire ecosystem. If this system is forced to change then people like me who want to make that choice will not be able to anymore.

 

[Maximara]

Let's not assume everyone and everyone's pricing is for games only.
I recently bought three Mac Apps from their developer's sites, and they were processed by

- 2Checkout
- Paddle
- Fastspring
- (oh, and let's also add) Stripe

What do their commissions and pricing look like?

(Spoiler: while their pricing may be more complex, it's nowhere near 30%)

As you said you bought these from the developer's sites ie not through the App Store. Heck, Libreoffice is free off its own site but costs $8.99 on the Mac App Store so they are clearly not equivalent comparisons. It's Android/iOS counterpart is Collabora Office.

If the developers of Collabora Office can write such a program for both Android and iOS for a subscription of USD S18 per user/year than other developers can develop for both platforms enough though their App structures are totally different.

 

[Maximara]

you dont need to break up anything. If you want to develop a game/app for windwos you have multiple places to sell this product.
If you want to develop ot Xbox/PlayStation, you have multiple platforms to sell from.
if you want yo develop to Android, you have multiple places to sell it.
If you want to develop an iOS app, you need to use ONLY APPLE APP STORE

But that is not what Epic actually wants. Their CEO want to have one App whose programs run on "iOS App Store, the Android Google Play marketplace, different stores on Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo Switch, and then Microsoft Store and the Mac App Store" - "Tim Sweeney wants one app store for every platform, probably in the metaverse" (PC gamer)

That is Epic's long game as off the wall crazy as it is.

 

[Maximara]

well I'm taking about iOS not mac. My humble mistake i assumed it made since we didn't talk about mac that already can install third party apps from anywhere.

MS word is available on iOS so my "Apple makes MSword?!" comment still applies.

 

[mielie]

Let's not assume everyone and everyone's pricing is for games only.
I recently bought three Mac Apps from their developer's sites, and they were processed by

- 2Checkout
- Paddle
- Fastspring
- (oh, and let's also add) Stripe

What do their commissions and pricing look like?

(Spoiler: while their pricing may be more complex, it's nowhere near 30%)

Its nowhere near 30% because they are just offering you payment processing. How many of those companies you listed also provide all the software development tools you need to build your app? How many of them provide you with access to beta software, developer forums, technical documentation of SDK's, etc? Do those companies promote your app for you on their store? Do they even have a store? I could go on, but hopefully you get my point.

 

[Maximara]

That might make an iota of sense if we were talking about first-party apps, but we're not, we're talking about third-party apps.

So is Epic with their mad dream of having one app for all platforms.

 

[Maximara]

It has and it has made iOS and iPad OS worse in many cases.

What OS hasn't gotten "worse" over the years thanks to feature creep?

 

[Maximara]

OnlyFans... 20%

?

OnlyFans is a subscription service not a "store" through which you buy software. Using that as a counterargument against the industry standard being 30% before this all blew up is like comparing Apples to baseballs.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

MS word is available on iOS so my "Apple makes MSword?!" comment still applies.

... no because Microsoft was "forced" to develop one Windows version and then a Mac version because you can't just download a windows program and install it, but they can sell it anywhere for mac customers on the app store or physical stores or a random online store or their own website for direct download..

if Microsoft wants to develop Word for iOS, they need to make a new app and only sell it through the Apple app store and nowhere else.

so no.. not at all

 

[Sophisticatednut]

But that is not what Epic actually wants. Their CEO want to have one App whose programs run on "iOS App Store, the Android Google Play marketplace, different stores on Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo Switch, and then Microsoft Store and the Mac App Store" - "Tim Sweeney wants one app store for every platform, probably in the metaverse" (PC gamer)

That is Epic's long game as off the wall crazy as it is.

Great that I have never argued for Epics position of independent app stores or side loading.

But i cant see how it's bad to have all apps available on one store so we don't need to buy apps multiple times...

But i presented a great solution for consumers that apple could do and still keep their control.

3d party payment in apps plus apple's solution next to eachother liek apple login.

And/or

Apple allow apps published in teh store to be downloaded on websites or competing stores paying apple no commission, but require apple to still sign the app.
so an app removed from the app store will stop working in other stores as well just like today you cant install an iOS app you downloaded outside the store

 

[Maximara]

... no because Microsoft was "forced" to develop one Windows version and then a Mac version because you can't just download a windows program and install it, but they can sell it anywhere for mac customers on the app store or physical stores or a random online store or their own website for direct download..

That is totally nonsense as thanks to the difference inherent in the OSes themselves (ie different binaries and system hooks). You can't run a windows program natively on Linux either and WINE can be a temperamental solution.

 

[Maximara]

Great that I have never argued for Epics position of independent app stores or side loading.

But i cant see how it's bad to have all apps available on one store so we don't need to buy apps multiple times...

Because Epic's off the wall bonkers goal would require a developer to write a program for all the platforms the store was available on ie for "iOS App Store, the Android Google Play marketplace, different stores on Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo Switch, and then Microsoft Store and the Mac App Store".

There is no way in the rational world that Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo Switch would give up their exclusive stores. More over Epic is the one doing exclusives even to the point of encouraging developers to do bait and switch (which is illegal). You would have thought after Shenmue III Epic would have learned.

 

[iOS Geek]

Funny thing is, people outside of here ARE complaining about it, you just choose to be ignorant of it ?

Show me these people. Users, not developers. Because if the majority of users wanted this…it would have been done.

You could have done without the “ignorant” insult, by the way. Not hearing complaints doesn’t make one ignorant.

 

[Phone Junky]

Show me these people. Users, not developers.

Not gonna happen. Users don't care. It's a vocal minority of developers that are complaining. Look at every thread on this forum that pertains to this issue. It's the same handful of people chiming in over and over again.

 

[iOS Geek]

Not gonna happen. Users don't care. It's a vocal minority of developers that are complaining. Look at every thread on this forum that pertains to this issue. It's the same handful of people chiming in over and over again.

Haha and that’s exactly why I said it the way I did. If this truly is a pressing issue for users, someone should be able to show me some proof of people other than developers complaining.

I said the same thing on a similar thread a few months back because someone said something about the majority of users want this. When I asked for proof…zip, zilch, nada. I wouldn’t even believe someone if they said the majority of DEVELOPERS wanted this change.

 

[chilly willy]

There has been legislation on the table for years attempting to force these disclosures and limit access, but they have been blocked. One such bill is just 2 votes shy of passing and the other side have no desire to change that.

And no large corporation - Apple included - wants the information as to money they spend lobbying easily accessible to the public. The amounts Apple, Amazon, FB, and Google spend could probably end world hunger and give everyone in the world a free pony.

Anyone thinking that anybody involved in this dispute is operating based on principles and what’s best for all consumers is naive.
If side loading made Apple more money than the App Store, I’m pretty sure Tim et. al. would not balk. Likewise Epic if the App Store made them more money but worse for consumers….

 

[the8thark]

Which states? I smell something POLITICAL instead of actually looking into antitrust procedures...

I would be careful saying that word around here. Certain individuals here do not that word.
I can not say anymore because of the potential consequences.