EU Welcomes Apple's App Store Changes, Epic Slams 'Junk Fees'

[neuropsychguy]

It is just an illusion that people don't have to buy Apple. That's exactly what the EU law is about. As I see people are just so okay with platform owners like Apple and Google to charge developers unjustified fee, they are together hold a duopoly. There is no escape from this unless the government like EU intervenes.

Has any of you seen Apple's justification for these things? They don't give any number like how much they spend on for "supporting" activities that would justify their fee. Not at all. You can only see how much money make from their services branch which is crazy amount of money.

Where is anyone forced to buy Apple products? There are other computers people can own; or people can not own a computer at all (when/if they need one they could go use one at a friend's house, a library, or an internet cafe). People can get "dumb" phones instead. Now, some aspects of the world will be more challenging without a smartphone, but it's possible to function and thrive without one. I know people who do.

So again, no, people do not have to buy Apple products. I'd function just fine without any Apple products. I choose to use Apple products, but that's my choice because of the perceived value I receive from them (I also have plenty of non-Apple devices running Linux, Windows, Android, etc. I'm not tied to any single OS). I could even do just fine without a smartphone. The most challenging thing would be multi-factor authentication, but there are other options than authentication apps. I also appreciate GPS-based mapping, but I could always do what I did in the "old" days and use paper maps, print out directions before leaving, or get a standalone GPS unit.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

It should be exactly 0%.

1. Apple isn't hosting those apps from the 3rd party stores
2. Apple isn't processing the payments made through alternate payment method

Core technology fee, i can understand that one if you are using Apple's software to develop your app. But that's a stretch because that would mean they should start charging those same fees for MacOS apps. That would also mean Microsoft can charge for any app you release for windows, etc etc. What next, linux foundation needs to start charging everyone fees because well, there is no service on the planet that does not use some sort of linux technology. Literally all of Apple's business runs on linux.

I agree 100% with you. Something maybe important to consider is how you fund making updates to the libraries. Microsoft generally charges for major updates to Windows. Historically, Apple did the same for macOS (and iOS for the iPod Touch).

More recently, I think Apple sees themselves as having shifted those fees from being direct to the customer to upgrade, to instead being indirect via App Store fees.

Maybe Apple bakes the cost of maintaining macOS into the initial purchase price of the Mac.

So that may be how Apple sees it as reasonable to charge this Core Technology Fee for iOS while not charging the same for macOS and Microsoft doesn't do the same for Windows.

 

[Starfia]

The companies run on so low profit margins for a single vehicle, they tried to generate income via subscription services. Everybody thought this is dumb, and just got outraged to even think about paying for a feature that should come by default after buying a car. I don't see a difference here. The only difference is Apple has a strong control over the mobile market.

You don't see a difference between whether a company's choice is loved or hated by customers, and whether a government declares it legal or illegal?

Okay. Let us know when you do…?

 

[visualseed]

This is why you don't unleash regulators on your competitors. They almost always end up entrenching them in the market.

 

[I7guy]

I agree. Many of the same people against higher government taxes and overreach come here in support of taxes if they're paid to a corporation. At least pick the tax that might be spent on public good, rather than the one guaranteed to only make private executives and investors richer. Makes no sense to me but what do I know...

Absolutely correct. Government overreach is so much worse than legal corporate greed in an environment where there are competitors.

Government overreach affects your life such as wearing a helmet, seat belts, how many children you can have, the size of a serving of French fries, etc.

Legal corporate greed in a competition means you can shop for your own version of where price meets value. Corporate greed examples are: convenience fee, market adjustment on hot cars etc. Basically the addition of fees for no value added. (Which is not fees and commissions within Apple, because there is a huge value add).

But yeah, not the same.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

So I should be able to enter your home and take what I want.

Remind me what Epic is taking from Apple by hosting their own apps and processing their own payments?

Like all manufacturers charge for a service. Come on now.

What service should Epic pay for again?

 

[BaldiMac]

Remind me what Epic is taking from Apple by hosting their own apps and processing their own payments?

Why do so many people on your side of the argument pretend that the only value that Apple provides developers is hosting and payment processing?

 

[dynamojoe]

This is why you don't unleash regulators on your competitors. They almost always end up entrenching them in the market.

That's a good point. Apple played ball and now has the EU's approval. They've proven they can be worked with. Other EU-market developers just got better terms for their apps. Sweeney just wants everything for free from Apple (he's not giving his own marketplace away for free though, that would be lunacy).

I can't believe it has been six years since Sweeney got me booted off of Fortnite. Time flies.

 

[Samplasion]

Government overreach is so much worse than legal corporate greed in an environment where there are competitors.

Government overreach affects your life such as wearing a helmet, seat belts

"I hate when the government cares for my life" is a wild statement to make in earnest.

Legal corporate greed in a competition means you can shop for your own version of where price meets value. Corporate greed examples are: convenience fee, market adjustment on hot cars etc. Basically the addition of fees for no value added. (Which is not fees and commissions within Apple, because there is a huge value add).

What value does Apple add as a forced intermediary in a transaction that:
- Doesn't require their hosting
- Doesn't require their payment processing
- Doesn't require any more API usage than granted through the terms they wrote and that the developer pays year after year
- Doesn't require their support
- Doesn't affect them in any other way?
I'd classify that as plain rent seeking.

 

[Samplasion]

Why do so many people on your side of the argument pretend that the only value that Apple provides developers is hosting and payment processing?

Because anything else they add (which is not much, anyway) should be covered by a 99$/year agreement. What essential value is provided by Apple and can't be done away with?

 

[turbineseaplane]

Government overreach affects your life such as wearing a helmet, seat belts, how many children you can have, the size of a serving of French fries, etc.

You're against seat belt laws?

My goodness..

Those have proven to be an unalloyed net good.

 

[BaldiMac]

Because anything else they add (which is not much, anyway) should be covered by a 99$/year agreement.

Should? Based on what? An arbitrary number?

Pretending Apple provides “not much” value to developers is just a weirdly undermining position.

What essential value is provided by Apple and can't be done away with?

The iOS platform, services, development tools, and APIs, as well as the continued investment in improving them all.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

Why do so many people on your side of the argument pretend that the only value that Apple provides developers is hosting and payment processing?

Don't developers pay a developer fee to Apple to get access to tools to make apps? Why should Apple get more on top of that for something they have nothing to do with?

 

[turbineseaplane]

Don't developers pay a developer fee to Apple to get access to tools to make apps? Why should Apple get more on top of that for something they have nothing to do with?

I've finally accepted that a lot of folks think Apple is within its rights to do anything they want in terms of fees, restrictions, rules and terms, including only conditionally adhering to and applying them!

Once I understood that difference of opinion, it's helped me decide to just not engage much on these topics.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

I agree about Epic but Unreal Engine is their real meat and potatoes. iOS was only ever a single digit percentage of Fortnite income. Epic only sued Apple because they were the biggest fish in the pond. Forgetting all the free marketing the case brought them during the pandemic, their ultimate goal was to loosen the restrictions across the board and ultimately get the Epic Store on PlayStation which accounted for over 60% of Fortnite income. They weren't about to bite the hand that feeds however.

They were hoping that the results of this action would give them the legal teeth to use against Sony, Valve and others. They’ll continue to be mad because it didn’t.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

Should? Based on what? An arbitrary number?

Pretending Apple provides “not much” value to developers is just a weirdly undermining position.


The iOS platform, services, development tools, and APIs, as well as the continued investment in improving them all.

Pretending the iOS platform is "the gift that keeps on giving" from Apple and developers should bow down and thank Apple in perpetuity is just as ridiculous as thinking Apple should pay the developers for their time and money developing apps, which without, the iOS platform would whither and die.

The "iOS Platform" argument people on your side like to dangle as evidence is actually mutually beneficial to both Apple and devs. Without popular apps, iPhone dies.

 

[surferfb]

Because anything else they add (which is not much, anyway) should be covered by a 99$/year agreement. What essential value is provided by Apple and can't be done away with?

Simultaneously arguing that “Apple provides no value to developers” and at the same time “Developers have to be on Apple’s platform otherwise they can’t make enough money to survive” is absolutely wild.

 

[BaldiMac]

Don't developers pay a developer fee to Apple to get access to tools to make apps?

No. They pay a fee plus commission per the terms they agree to.

Why should Apple get more on top of that for something they have nothing to do with?

Because those are the terms of the agreement.

 

[BaldiMac]

Pretending the iOS platform is "the gift that keeps on giving" from Apple and developers should bow down and thank Apple in perpetuity is just as ridiculous as thinking Apple should pay the developers for their time and money developing apps, which without, the iOS platform would whither and die.

The "iOS Platform" argument people on your side like to dangle as evidence is actually mutually beneficial to both Apple and devs. Without popular apps, iPhone dies.

Again, making stuff up undermines your argument.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

There is no escape from this unless the government like EU intervenes.

But, the most effective way any government can intervene is to create a structure by which it’s more likely competitors will be founded/funded/thrive in the region. Even reducing the commission to zero still solidifies the position of those you say hold a duopoly.

Has any of you seen Apple's justification for these things? They don't give any number like how much they spend on for "supporting" activities that would justify their fee. Not at all. You can only see how much money make from their services branch which is crazy amount of money.

The justification is, “That’s what devs will pay for it.” Why will devs pay for it? Because it gives them access to billions of customers that are known to pay for digital content at a very high rate. Make an app that only .01% of 1 billion people like enough to buy in a year? Well, that’s 100,000 sales. If it’s a $2.99 app, that’s $299,000 before commission and $254,150 after. That’s well over what most folks make in a year and THAT is why the vast majority of devs on the App Store are quietly just cashing their checks.

 

[mrochester]

Because anything else they add (which is not much, anyway) should be covered by a 99$/year agreement. What essential value is provided by Apple and can't be done away with?

Apple charges a license fee for use of its intellectual property. The value Apple brings is the creation and maintenance of that intellectual property so that developers can make iOS apps, which in turn they make money from.

It really is as simple as that.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

An illusion?!? How does iOS only have only between 25-30% of the EU market then? Android exists and allows users and developers to sell and install apps from outside the Play Store.

It’s an illusion that iOS has that marketshare in the EU. Simply exclude all non-Apple devices from the equation, and I think you’ll find that iOS has ALL the marketshare in the EU. There are people in the EU that WISH they could just buy a non-smart phone, but they quickly find out that option is also just an illusion. 🙂

Those folks that don’t want any mobile phone at all? Simply impossible. Everyone knows that those in the EU that don’t own an iPhone can’t even open their doors to leave their residence. Fortunately, when a child becomes what they call “emerging age” in the EU, their parents are forced to have a device shipped to them.

/s of course

 

[mittencuh]

But, the most effective way any government can intervene is to create a structure by which it’s more likely competitors will be founded/funded/thrive in the region. Even reducing the commission to zero still solidifies the position of those you say hold a duopoly.

This is spot on. None of these changes do anything to address the fact there simply isn't a competitive European hardware/software company shipping devices/software that people are actually interested in buying to any impactful degree. The EU is trying to seemingly protect a native product that quite simply doesn't exist.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Simultaneously arguing that “Apple provides no value to developers” and at the same time “Developers have to be on Apple’s platform otherwise they can’t make enough money to survive” is absolutely wild.

I'm not that person, but I think the argument is that many devs have to be on both of the two platforms for their own business reasons and viability. That's not true of all businesses of course, but many for sure.

That's not really an argument for Apple providing value, it's just about what many Devs are forced to do in order to be viable.

I can see why regulators all over are interested here. I've always maintained it's a symbiotic relationship, but one party (the platforms) have enormously more power and leverage. That dynamic tends to draw scrutiny, very understandably.

 

[surferfb]

I'm not that person, but I think the argument is that many devs have to be on both of the two platforms for their own business reasons and viability. That's not true of all businesses of course, but many for sure.

That's not really an argument for Apple providing value, it's just about what many Devs are forced to do in order to be viable.

I'd argue that if developers have to be on Apple's platform to be viable, then obviously Apple's platform is providing value to developers. If Apple's platform didn't provide value to developers, then they wouldn't care that Apple charges them a commission - they would just not develop for Apple if the commission bothered them.