Judge Grills Tim Cook on App Store Policies as End of of Epic Games v. Apple Trial Approaches

[ijordano]

Apple should say that they will just disable the App Store if they cannot “make a profit.”

THIS IS CAPITALISM! Apple is not doing charity work for poor developers. Apple PROVIDED A WAY TO MAKE MONEY! They CHOSE to make an app.

This is literally my opinion every time this gets brought up. No one forced Epic onto the App Store????

 

[PC_tech]

Which doesn't matter. Apple is the only company being looked at here and it is not a monopoly. Case closed unless it can be proven that Apple and Google are actively colluding at monopolistic practices. Epic is trying to create little "markets" within iOS even (literally saying iOS In App Payment Processing is a market) so that they can claim a monopoly on Apple's part.

This really does boil down to Epic wanting to be able to use Apple's devices, operating systems and even its App Store but substitute its own in app purchase payment system.

I really wish you guys would stop saying Apple isn’t a monopoly, that’s simply your opinion, the courts are who matters and if they say they are, what are you going to say next? The judge is an Apple hater? 🙄

 

[rkuo]

Like others have stated, Epic is the one making this argument NOT the government. It is unprecedented to have your OWN platform you develop be considered its own market and you have a monopoly in it. That is just plain ridiculous, and if they judge agrees with this than I have major fears for the rest of ALL industries as this will set a precedent that could go after Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo.

This is like saying "Steam in itself is a market and Valve has a monopoly on it". There are certain games exclusive to Steam you know.

The actual precedent is that, when a company has market dominance, the rules that you think apply, don't.

Let's be clear ... anyone who posts without acknowledging the market dominance issues is posting nonsense. These aren't two little companies fighting over space in a strip mall in Kansas.

 

[PC_tech]

Unlike Walmart, it costs Apple money for you to continue using their product.

It cost Walmart to maintain a brick and mortar……🙄🙄

 

[Jdshewman]

I really wish you guys would stop saying Apple isn’t a monopoly, that’s simply your opinion, the courts are who matters and if they say they are, what are you going to say next? The judge is a Apple hater? 🙄

What were people using before Apple created the first iPhone? I will tell you, a flip phone with next to nothing when it comes to apps, let alone a readable screen. They provided a platform for entrepreneurial developers to make money by creating apps. How many millionaires have been born from the app store? Plenty! Apple collects from their platform because they provide the best app ecosystem. I love the fact that Apple is stringent in their app approval. If you don’t then go join Android and deal with the security issues. Funny how some take the side of Epic, and it is only to squabble about money. Epic games are a $30 billion dollar company with even Apple collecting 30%. All they have to do is submit an app to the app store and 720 million people can download it because of Apple. They get free marketing by the app stores reviews. So, what are they bitching about?

 

[SuperMatt]

I really wish you guys would stop saying Apple isn’t a monopoly, that’s simply your opinion, the courts are who matters and if they say they are, what are you going to say next? The judge is a Apple hater? 🙄

Saying that Apple *is* a monopoly is also just an opinion. We can all express our opinions here. IMHO, saying that Apple has a monopoly in smart phones is pretending that Samsung, Google, et al do not exist.

 

[SuperMatt]

The actual precedent is that, when a company has market dominance, the rules that you think apply, don't.

Let's be clear ... anyone who posts without acknowledging the market dominance issues is posting nonsense. These aren't two little companies fighting over space in a strip mall in Kansas.

That seems to be the question in this case. Does Apple have market dominance in smartphone apps? To me, saying such a thing is completely ignoring the Google play store. Maybe others will say they have market dominance in iPhone apps, but that is a narrow market. Lemonheads have market dominance in the round yellow candy market, but they aren’t a monopoly in the candy market overall.

 

[arlomedia]

And how does that app get updated? Through the App Store.

Since Apple prohibits installing apps from anywhere else, the cost of hosting the apps isn't a very good justification for the fees they charge.

It would indeed be nice if there were "alternative app-stores" - but who should run them?
The reality is that most consumers aren't able to make an informed decision as to when a web-page asking for payment information is "legit" and when not.

Would you also prefer that all e-commerce websites be shut down, except Amazon and maybe one other? Or would you concede that in most cases consumers can make informed decisions and avoid major problems when shopping online?

The 30% is to cover what Apple spent to bring a billion customers to the table. Buying a marketing list of customers will cost many thousands of dollars but you can't sit there and argue about how cheap the paper is or how it cost them nothing to email it to you. This is a classic case of not seeing where the value is.

It's not like Apple brought those customers for the benefit of developers, nor does it go out of its way to help developers reach them. Of course there is some value to what Apple offers developers, but it's nowhere near the fees it charges, the fees are not logically related to the benefits and there is no way to opt out and handle some functions yourself. It's like Apple is still running its version 1.0 business model for the App Store, and it makes less and less sense the more the mobile industry grows and evolves.

 

[TheMattGeorge]

“Rogers said that she understands that Apple brings users to the games, but after the initial interaction, game developers are keeping their customers. "Apple's just profiting off of that it seems to me," she said."

A THOUSAND TIMES ^^^^ THIS ^^^^

 

[SuperMatt]

“Rogers said that she understands that Apple brings users to the games, but after the initial interaction, game developers are keeping their customers. "Apple's just profiting off of that it seems to me," she said."

A THOUSAND TIMES ^^^^ THIS ^^^^

Do you realize that most games are free downloads now and that they make all their money on IAPs? If they don’t pay a fee to Apple for the IAPs, then how does Apple get paid for the service they are providing?

Also, do you realize that Microsoft, Steam, and others have the exact same terms? Why didn’t fortnite pull their app from ALL platforms that charge a fee? Could it be that iOS was making them the least money, so pulling the app cost them a small amount, while allowing them a lawsuit thwt could reap them millions and millions over the next few years?

 

[gregmancuso]

#

“Rogers said that she understands that Apple brings users to the games, but after the initial interaction, game developers are keeping their customers. "Apple's just profiting off of that it seems to me," she said."

A THOUSAND TIMES ^^^^ THIS ^^^^

and that is the point that you are obviously missing (or just plain ignoring). If Apple cannot profit on the IAP then they have no ability to monetize at all.

All apps would be free to download and all IAP outside of the App Store. So, Apple is to maintain the store so you can provide your app to a billion potential containers for free. And they are supposed to ensure user security and privacy for feee. And they are to ensure app security (no malware) for free. And the are supposed to maintain the store for free. And they are supposed to provide advanced API that actually make it easy for you to developer your game (such as Metal) for free?

how long do you think there will be an ios ecosystem?

We can quibble about percent all we want but the fact is there is a massive amount of R&D, platform enrichment, developer support, tax payment and liability shield, and, yes, transaction processing that goes into the App Store fees. And without the ability to monetize (at a profit or at least at break even) there is no way they can justify maintaining the store.

 

[Wildkraut]

And how does that app get updated? Through the App Store.

hehe building a software updater is one of the easiest thing to do for a dev, I already did it multiple times for clients.
And there are even free available open source solutions out there e.g. sparkle for the ones who can't or aren't in the mood, wouldn't be rocket science to mod and port it for iOS.

 

[I7guy]

I really wish you guys would stop saying Apple isn’t a monopoly, that’s simply your opinion, the courts are who matters and if they say they are, what are you going to say next? The judge is a Apple hater? 🙄

No, it’s a fact that Apple isn’t a monopoly. There has been no past finding saying Apple is.

 

[TheMattGeorge]

“Rogers said that she understands that Apple brings users to the games, but after the initial interaction, game developers are keeping their customers. "Apple's just profiting off of that it seems to me," she said."

A THOUSAND TIMES ^^^^ THIS ^^^^

I have no problem with Apple profiting from their eco system.

Let me put it this way ... i don’t go to “Apple” because they have Fortnite. There’s no part of apples eco system that is enticing me to play that game.

Epic is enticing me to play the game because they made a damn good game.

Apple wants to take a slice of in app purchases? Hey I got no problem with that ... but to say “30% is standard” and “Epic should be happy because of Apple’s ecosystem bringing customers to them” ... that’s ... about as ludicrous as it gets.

Fortnite was big before apple ever got involved ....the judge is SPOT ON with this.... and I hope she rules accordingly.

 

[TheMattGeorge]

Apple has a plethora of games that I don’t play. Expensive games, free games.

Again ...nothing about “Apple” and their “eco system” has ever enticed me to play a game ... it has always been the game itself that stands on it’s own.

 

[SuperMatt]

“Rogers said that she understands that Apple brings users to the games, but after the initial interaction, game developers are keeping their customers. "Apple's just profiting off of that it seems to me," she said."

A THOUSAND TIMES ^^^^ THIS ^^^^

I have no problem with Apple profiting from their eco system.

Let me put it this way ... i don’t go to “Apple” because they have Fortnite. There’s no part of apples eco system that is enticing me to play that game.

Epic is enticing me to play the game because they made a damn good game.

Apple wants to take a slice of in app purchases? Hey I got no problem with that ... but to say “30% is standard” and “Epic should be happy because of Apple’s ecosystem bringing customers to them” ... that’s ... about as ludicrous as it gets.

Fortnite was big before apple ever got involved ....the judge is SPOT ON with this.... and I hope she rules accordingly.

Why is Apple being singled out? Sony, Microsoft, etc. have similar terms. Epic hasn’t pulled their games from those platforms.

 

[SuperMatt]

Apple has a plethora of games that I don’t play. Expensive games, free games.

Again ...nothing about “Apple” and their “eco system” has ever enticed me to play a game ... it has always been the game itself that stands on it’s own.

You are presumably playing it on an iPhone? Game wouldn’t run without a platform.

 

[MowgliWolf]

Looks like she’s grilling both sides hard here, I reckon this might end up being a lose-lose for all parties involved aye

 

[Michael Scrip]

Apple wants to take a slice of in app purchases? Hey I got no problem with that ... but to say “30% is standard” and “Epic should be happy because of Apple’s ecosystem bringing customers to them” ... that’s ... about as ludicrous as it gets.

Exactly. There definitely needs to be a different set of fees for things like V-Bucks, in particular.

It's literally a currency exchange. You're turning your real dollars into virtual currency. There's not a lot of overhead in that. It happens in the blink of an eye.

I don't see why my $10 purchase of V-Bucks entitles Apple to get $3 from that.

And that goes for ALL the platforms who charge 30% for VBucks.

Like I said... there should be a different way to handle those types of transactions.

I'd say the same thing about Kindle e-books too. Apple isn't even delivering the Kindle book from their servers... Amazon is. All Apple is doing is handling the payment. But Apple thinks they deserve $3 from every $10 Kindle book. Fortunately Amazon said NO and was granted a special exception found a way around it.

Sure... Apple made the rules... but I think those rules need to be re-examined.

Yes... Apple should get something from digital In-App-Purchases... but there's wiggle room between "nothing" and "30%"

 

[SuperMatt]

Exactly. There definitely needs to be a different set of fees for things like V-Bucks, in particular.

It's literally a currency exchange. You're turning your real dollars into virtual currency. There's not a lot of overhead in that. It happens in the blink of an eye.

I don't see why my $10 purchase of V-Bucks entitles Apple to get $3 from that.

And that goes for ALL the platforms who charge 30% for VBucks.

Like I said... there should be a different way to handle those types of transactions.

I'd say the same thing about Kindle e-books too. Apple isn't even delivering the Kindle book from their servers... Amazon is. All Apple is doing is handling the payment. But Apple thinks they deserve $3 from every $10 Kindle book. Fortunately Amazon said NO and was granted a special exception.

Sure... Apple made the rules... but I think those rules need to be re-examined.

Apple should get something from digital In-App-Purchases... but there's wiggle room between "nothing" and "30%"

Before IAPs, you bought the game up front, with everything enabled. That one-time purchase went 30% to Apple, 70% to the developer. For consoles, it was a similar amount. For in-store sales, the developer made even less money because they had to pay for physical production of the game too.

So now we have IAPs. The game is “free” to start but you pay for stuff in the game. Why should this new way of charging people for the game suddenly be free of the fees game makers have been paying for decades?

 

[gregmancuso]

I'd say the same thing about Kindle e-books too. Apple isn't even delivering the Kindle book from their servers... Amazon is. All Apple is doing is handling the payment. But Apple thinks they deserve $3 from every $10 Kindle book. Fortunately Amazon said NO and was granted a special exception.

What? Amazon did not say "No," nor were they granted special dispensation. They opted to not provide the ability to purchase on iOS at all, as was their right under the agreements. If they wanted allow purchase, then they had to use IAP. They opted to simply not allow purchase of ebooks via the Kindle app. So, you go to Amazon.com and purchase there. You can read the books on iOS no problem.

The "special dispensation" you are alluding to is the "Video Partner Program" and it is open to any streaming provider. From the program documents:

As of fall 2020, over 130 premium subscription video entertainment providers around the world have signed on to participate in this program, such as Amazon Prime Video, Binge, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), Claro Video, C More, DAZN, Disney+, Globo, HBO Max, Joyn, Molotov, MUBI, myCanal, STARZ, and Viaplay

Here is the link if you want to go look: https://developer.apple.com/programs/video-partner/

 

[Michael Scrip]

Before IAPs, you bought the game up front, with everything enabled. That one-time purchase went 30% to Apple, 70% to the developer. For consoles, it was a similar amount. For in-store sales, the developer made even less money because they had to pay for physical production of the game too.

So now we have IAPs. The game is “free” to start but you pay for stuff in the game. Why should this new way of charging people for the game suddenly be free of the fees game makers have been paying for decades?

I didn't say "no fees"

I said "different fees"

Yes... it was certainly a lot easier when a developer sold a game for $10 and Apple kept $3.

But should that same 30% apply to all IAP? Should Apple get $3 from every $10 VBucks purchase? Or $30 from every $100 VBucks purchase?

Or $3 from every $10 Kindle book purchase? Or 30% every month from a subscription media service?

THAT'S what I was talking about.

I agree that 70%/30% for game or app purchases is a lot better than the bad ol' days of physical software distribution.

But 30% for IAP or external subscriptions needs to be re-examined.

 

[Michael Scrip]

What? Amazon did not say "No," nor were they granted special dispensation. They opted to not provide the ability to purchase on iOS at all, as was their right under the agreements. If they wanted allow purchase, then they had to use IAP. They opted to simply not allow purchase of ebooks via the Kindle app. So, you go to Amazon.com and purchase there. You can read the books on iOS no problem.

The "special dispensation" you are alluding to is the "Video Partner Program" and it is open to any streaming provider. From the program documents:

Here is the link if you want to go look: https://developer.apple.com/programs/video-partner/

Oops... you're right... my mistake.

But my point was... Amazon found a way to avoid paying 30% on every Kindle e-book. You have to buy e-books from the Amazon.com website.

So why didn't Epic go this route? Let people buy VBucks from EpicGames.com?

That's seems a lot easier than suing every platform maker...

 

[gregmancuso]

I didn't say "no fees"

I said "different fees"

Yes... it was certainly a lot easier when a developer sold a game for $10 and Apple kept $3.

But should that same 30% apply to all IAP? Should Apple get $3 from every $10 VBucks purchase? Or $30 from every $100 VBucks purchase?

Or $3 from every $10 Kindle book purchase? Or 30% every month from a subscription media service?

THAT'S what I was talking about.

I agree that 70%/30% for game or app purchases is a lot better than the bad ol' days of physical software distribution.

But 30% for IAP or external subscriptions needs to be re-examined.

That is all well and good, but this case is not about the percentage. Based on Epic's statement in court and their various public rants, they would not be satisfied if Apple reduced the fees to 0%. They want a store of their own with all rights and benefits of direct access to the OS, hardware, and customers.

I have never published anything on the App Store so I have no personal stake in the percentage, but looking at the services provided I see nothing wrong with an expectation of a percentage from every IAP. And, 30% is really not that unreasonable. If you look at the 30% as simple the swipe transaction then 30% is a tad high. But you also get the ongoing developer support. More importantly you get the sales tax payments and filings in every jurisdiction your app sells. You get the financial accounting that goes with that, and the reporting you need for compliance assurance. That service and reporting shield alone is enough to justify. Even for someone the size of Epic - if they are ever investigated they can point to Apple. Yes, they are ultimately responsible if they don't check and correct a mistake, but they are shielded quite a bit. Much like having a CPA sign your tax form. You may still get audited but and taxes, interest, and penalties due due to the error will be greatly lessened by the fact a tax professional provided that filing effort.

 

[gregmancuso]

Oops... you're right... my mistake.

But my point was... Amazon found a way to avoid paying 30% on every Kindle e-book. You have to buy e-books from the Amazon.com website.

So why didn't Epic go this route? Let people buy VBucks from EpicGames.com?

That's seems a lot easier than suing every platform maker...

Because then they wouldn't have an army of 9 year olds impulse buying v-bucks all day long. They want the ease of IAP butt they also want the direct access to the hardware and OS without going through Apple - at any fee amount..