Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Every fee model based on a percentage is inherently non-transparent and a pure profit mechanism. This applies to Apple, Google, Microsoft, and also to AltStore and the Epic Store.

It's not enough to simply state, "We use the fee to cover Apple's costs, server expenses, and payment processing."

Apple's fee is fixed at €0.50. Payment processing fees depend on the network but average around 2%. Server costs, at constant volumes, are constant. Let's say they're successful and need to manage a hundred servers with related storage. We're talking about several hundred thousand dollars a year, the costs of which should be attributed more or less consistently as they depreciate.

Now, if I subscribe to Fortnite at $9.99/month for the first time and download the game, AltStore/Epic will have to pay €0.50 to Apple, pay the card network, and keep the rest to cover my contribution to the server costs. For the second month's payment, they won't owe Apple anything and will only incur payment processing and server costs. But they won't charge me €0.50 less...

Let's break it down: $9.99/month subscription:

  • €0.50 goes to Apple
  • About €0.20 goes to the credit card network
  • About €0.50 goes to AltStore for my share of their store usage
For the second payment, they won't owe Apple anything (the fee is per download, not per payment event), and the credit card fee will be the same. Suddenly, the server cost for me doubles to €1. By year's end, I would have given them €14.399, of which €11.49 would be for server costs, some of which might already be depreciated and should only cost as much as the necessary personnel for their management and a bit more for maintenance and bandwidth.

Let's say we consider this fair. If there are many users, they'll profit significantly, but if there are few users, a good portion of the business risk will have been passed on to them. There aren't many courageous entrepreneurs around.

If I decide to subscribe at an advantageous price of €99.99/year paid annually, they would still only give €0.50 to Apple. Then they would give 2% to the payment network (about €2) and would proportionally retain an enormous amount (€9.50) for the store server, which I would have used only once a year. The difference between using the server 12 times a year or just once a year is €2. So each use produces an additional cost of €0.16. Obviously, there's no connection between what we buy and the actual use of the money. The server cost doesn't vary whether I buy a €100 game or a €1 game: it will be the same. The same the storage, the same the bandwidth needed for each download. At most, it can vary based on the game's size; hosting and transmitting a 4GB game is different from a 1MB game. If we like being fooled, fine. Should we be fanatists of transparency and pro-customer practices we should demand fees proportional to quantifiably justifiable values such as infrastructure costs.

Apple, at least, has been clever enough to tie the fees to continuous API development, store curation, and the notarization and verification process (which can be bound to an app irrespecutful of its qualities). They don't tie it to costs that can be covered with one day of sales activity.

As a customer, I find myself unable to fully side with either party: my interests lie in a different direction altogether. I'm willing to pay what is necessary, provided that it's proportional to the value I receive. However, I'm wary of costs that are unnecessarily disproportionate to the expenses the entrepreneur actually incurs. For instance, I'm concerned when the profit margins they aim to secure are far beyond what can be reasonably justified.
Now you have a choice: which one will you support with your wallet.

Remember, you can still just continue to use Apple apps if you want. The EU hasn’t forced Apple to stop trading.

Adding competition can only be a good thing.
 
Well Euros, it's like this--you don't get Apple Intelligence because of the EU, but you do get Fortnite because of the EU, so...decent trade off?
Don’t worry EU will get Apple Intelligence… it’s just a matter of time. Apple has way more to lose than Europe have… it’s not so hard to understand. Americans tend to forget everything isn’t about money, they need to be reminded some time to time… :)
 
So they basically ask €1,00/year (+ the orginal Apple fee) for the same thing Apple asks them €0,50/year and then they complain Apple is greedy.

Yes. Apple is greedy. I fail to see how someone else trying to run a business under Apple's machinations exonerates Apple of greed.

I'm under the impression that you wouldn't be pleased even if they only charged the 0.50 that Apple demands.
 
I tried this game on Xbox and played it just once. As soon as I would spawn, I would get killed and it wasn't the way I thought the game worked. I never got to parachute down and run around the island. It didn't seem fun so I stopped playing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: progx
I tried this game on Xbox and played it just once. As soon as I would spawn, I would get killed and it wasn't the way I thought the game worked. I never got to parachute down and run around the island. It didn't seem fun so I stopped playing it.
Same feelings I had on PC and Switch. Both versions played fine, but I didn't stand a chance and I didn't care enough to keep playing. I prefer Overwatch.
 
Every developer/publisher has a choice where they want to market their apps. I'm not sure what there is to complain about. Just don't use it when you don't like the way it is distributed.

That developers have a choice. I don't want to them have so much freedom. I only want them to put their apps in the App Store.
 
~220M monthly players, about 30M of which play daily (at least from the numbers I could find in a quick Google search), so I'd assume that at least some of those are kids.
In Switzerland, Austria and Germany 'alt' means very old. Maybe just people aged 78 are shopping at ALTstore there? Do those still need delicious women with latex thighs or men in rubber pants? On a global level, it is conceivable for some.
 
Last edited:
  • Wow
Reactions: gusmula
If I wanted a more open platform, and if things like removable batteries, expandable storage, ability to sideload apps or install third party app stores, or the ability to install skins, I would have gotten an android phone in the first place.

The thing is, I am not interested in concepts like more competition or a freer marketplace just for the sake of having a freer marketplace, but rather, what it can do for me. Apple created the modern App Store. They conditioned users to love and trust the download process. They aggregated the best customers. Problems like piracy were largely eliminated precisely because users are unable to sideload APK files the same way they could on Android. The benefit has been both a wider variety of apps available for us, and more revenue for developers, even after Apple's 30% cut.

You look at the google play store for all its openness, it pales in comparison. Malware is rife, profits are lower, piracy is commonplace, it's just a worse experience all around.

Competition is precisely what allows for consumer choice in the form of 2 competing platforms with very different approaches to the user experience, and users have the liberty of choosing what works best for them. I personally feel that the iOS App Store model is what allows for the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of users. You are free to disagree with me, which is precisely why Android exists.

Otherwise, what sort of meaningful choice is there to be had exactly if both app stores essentially become carbon copies of each other? What then is the point, and how exactly is this supposed to benefit the end user?
Citation please, or is that just your opinion?
 
Citation please, or is that just your opinion?
It's an opinion formed by my observations over the years.

1) iOS App Store is overall more profitable than the google play store.


2) It's an old article, but sheds some insight onto the economics of both app stores, including the damning state of piracy for the latter.



3) On and off, Ars Technica will report on viruses and malware found on the google play store. In comparison, the worst you can find on iOS are apps that try to scam users into costly weekly subscriptions (and which can be readily revoked).


There's also this....

To be fair, Facebook’s report indicates that the issue is significantly worse on the Play Store — out of the 402 malicious apps on its list, 355 were for Android, and 47 were for iOS. Interestingly, the Android ones spanned a wide range of genres, from games, VPNs, photo editors, and horoscope apps, every single one for iPhone was related to managing business pages or ads.

And this...


Not saying Apple's stewardship of the iOS App Store has been flawless and without issue, but to imply that the problems plaguing both are even remotely similar is just disingenuous and flat-out lies.
 
and the playerbase is still growing
registration? sure

active user? has blips of interest when they have special events, but ongoing active daily players went from 20-30 million to 1 million in the span of 2 years.

it's a dead game. players are growing up and moving on.

overwatch 2 which I consider a dead game too has 6 million/day active players.
 
Last edited:
it's a dead game. players are growing up and moving on.

Wishful thinking. Google "games with the most active players", "most popular games in the world right now" or something like that and you'll see it's always in the top 3, one month it's #2, the next #3, the next #1 and so on. You hate it, it's OK, but it's very much alive and kicking.
 
Why do people pay for makeup? Why do people pay for designer clothes? Why do people pay for popcorn at a movie theater?

People spend money on things they enjoy. Or they spend money because of peer pressure or an addiction or whatever reason.
Yes. That is not the same. The goal of the game is to win. If paying doesn’t give you any extra advantage, what is the point.
 
It's an opinion formed by my observations over the years.

1) iOS App Store is overall more profitable than the google play store.


2) It's an old article, but sheds some insight onto the economics of both app stores, including the damning state of piracy for the latter.



3) On and off, Ars Technica will report on viruses and malware found on the google play store. In comparison, the worst you can find on iOS are apps that try to scam users into costly weekly subscriptions (and which can be readily revoked).


There's also this....



And this...


Not saying Apple's stewardship of the iOS App Store has been flawless and without issue, but to imply that the problems plaguing both are even remotely similar is just disingenuous and flat-out lies.
Doesn't all look so clear cut as per this report:
iOS malware is on the rise, creating new threats. The sophistication of attacks is a reminder that iOS users need to take device security seriously. In this guide, we've listed the latest iOS malware stats.
 
Somehow, it reads like an AI-generated SEO article designed to sell VPN subscriptions.
I'm sure you'll find fault with any research or article that casts iOS in a bad light.
 
Well, now that we've heard from everyone, we know that's settled.
Ok, some will want it badly 😉. Considering, that you need a recent iPhone AND a recent Mac that is capable of running Sequoia to even use mirroring, the majority of iPhone users won't be even able to take advantage of this feature. So yeah, I think not many will really care if it's there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gusmula
Doesn't all look so clear cut as per this report:

Here's three things that piece notes:

1. New malware for iOS grew by more than 70% in 2020

According to a report by the antivirus company McAfee, iOS malware has increased rapidly in the last few years. It noted that in 2020, the amount of malware for iPhones and iPads went up by more than 70% compared to the year before, with a huge surge in the first quarter of the year. This trend is expected to continue as hackers focus on targeting all mobile internet users with malicious apps.

This is journalistic malpractice on the part of that publication. The first item and the graphic are based on a McAfee study from 2020. They note a 77% rise in iOS malware for Q1 2020 without noting the immediate drop in iOS malware that followed. McAfee said in the same study: That "new iOS malware dropped 77%... following its Q1 spike."

5. Sideloading exposes iOS users to apps that contain malware

According to research by Apple, sideloading apps is a chief reason for malware infection among iOS users. Apple recommends not downloading apps through direct downloads or from third-party app stores. It also reminds users that actively supporting sideloading would “cripple the privacy and security protections that have made iPhone so secure and expose users to serious security risks.”

Also:

7. Only 28% of users worldwide are using iOS

According to Silent Breach, 97% of mobile malware affects Android rather than iOS users. Panda Security, by contrast, says that Android users are 50% more likely to be attacked than iOS users.


As @Abazigal notes, the numbers of malware/attack problems between the two platforms aren't even close, and the linked piece notes the "serious security risks" involved in iOS users sideloading apps.

I just posted the above because, yes the information in the linked item is pretty clear about the differences between the security of the two platforms. They are not close. And frankly it does seem very much like an article meant to frighten people into getting a VPN, as they cherry pick 4-year-old data and ignore that the numbers were temporary and no longer valid.
 
all that whining and mud slinging for them to basically sell their trash app at a swap meet of an App Store? nice
 
Explain the Nintendo Switch and Sony PS5 then. Both charge developers 30%, and neither allow you to sideload games and circumvent their cut.
Point of fact here, they DO allow you to sideload games. I can buy games anywhere I want to for my Switch. I'm not beholden to the Eshop to get them.

Up until now, I had only one place to get iOS games.
 
Point of fact here, they DO allow you to sideload games. I can buy games anywhere I want to for my Switch. I'm not beholden to the Eshop to get them.

Up until now, I had only one place to get iOS games.

Even games purchased this way still net Nintendo their cut, and they still need to get approval by the company.

It doesn’t matter how you purchase your game. Nintendo still gets their 30%. Are you saying you are fine with Apple allowing for sideloading if developers still pay 30% for apps sold this way?
 
Wishful thinking. Google "games with the most active players", "most popular games in the world right now" or something like that and you'll see it's always in the top 3, one month it's #2, the next #3, the next #1 and so on. You hate it, it's OK, but it's very much alive and kicking.

first two results showed no fortnite at all (steam)
third result showed a listing of Fortnite at #3 based on "peak players" which is completely irrelevant as we're discussing the trend line.
fourth result is a reddit post in r/iosgaming which of course wouldn't have Fortnite anywhere
fifth result shows active player.io which shows Fortnite having active daily players around 1-2 million when no special events are going on and the trend line is going down. Overwatch 2 on active player has around 6-7million active players daily and the trend line is going up. I consider overwatch 2 a dead game so by transitive property, that makes Fortnite dead IMO

sorry, but I did exactly what you did and there's nothing in the top 5 results showing proof that Fortnite is growing and dominating. I know some kids (my nephew included) don't like it when I'm spitting facts but that's just how it is.

anyways, I think I spent enough time on this. onwards.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.