Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Judge Says Apple Has Until December 9 to Make App Store Change Letting Developers Link to Alternate Payment Methods
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You are forgetting Apple isn't the only one using 30%. Can you say "Google" and "Microsoft", neighbor? I knew you could. ?. And that brings up an important aspect of the App Store that gets lost in all this - the App Store serves both MacOS and iOS/iPadOS which, until the M1, used totally different CPU architectures.
Except Epic admitted that it is currently losing money on its store on its 13% so how in the name of logic is Apple going to make a net profit on 10%. As you say the math doesn't lie and if <13% = lose money and logically, everything else being equal, than 10% = lose money.
If it was so easy to charge less than 30% than why were Humble Bundle (25%) and itch.io (name your percentage) the only major ones before Epic to do so? Supply and demand apply to digital goods as well and certainly if it was that easy everybody would have been competing on the percentage but they didn't. Why?
It is akin to how F2P games work; the majority who play for free are supported by the handful who pay hundreds or even thousands. Heck, the current system even fits into the Minnows, Dolphins, and Whales model.
Minnows: (free) only pay the $99 fee
Dolphins: ($0.13-$1.300,000 w/fee) pay 15%
Whales: (>$1.300,000 w/fee) pay 30%
"In response, Apple offers three procompetitive justifications: security, intrabrand competition, and protecting intellectual property investment."
1) "Here, the Court finds Apple’s security justification to be a valid and nonpretextual business reason for restricting app distribution."
2) "As a corollary of the security justification, the app distribution restrictions promote interbrand competition. The Supreme Court has recognized that limiting intrabrand competition can promote interbrand competition. Leegin, 551 U.S. at 890. (...) However, Apple submits some evidence that Mac computers have more malware than iOS and, in any case, provides a compelling explanation for app review’s increased effectiveness against certain types of attacks. Given the trial record, the Court finds that Apple’s security rationale is a valid business justification for the app distribution restrictions."
3) "That said, while the Court has found the rate itself pretextual, the Court cannot conclude that Apple’s protection of its intellectual property is pretextual. Courts have found similar justifications based on the protection of intellectual property rights valid, albeit rebuttable, procompetitive justifications. (...)
Accordingly, Apple has shown procompetitive justifications based on security and the corollary interbrand competition, as well as generally with respect to intellectual property rights."
Heck, the only "cookie" the court could give Epic was due to California's insanely vague anti-steering provision and Hoag said that is on somewhat shaky ground. As for the district appeal failing he points out odds were it was going to fail as the court would have had to effectively gone 'ok we messed up'. Apple had to go through the motions to take that issue to the Ninth Circuit. As for what the Ninth Circuit will do with it they may err on the side of caution and grant the stay.
Can you please tell us the name of your company and your products and of course your name so we can check you and your company out. Otherwise you're just a keyboard jockey like everybody else around here.
BTW, Microsoft estimated that Apple's break even point is more than 15%. I'll believe Microsoft before I believe you. Epic games loses money on 13% according to Epic themselves. So lets's assume that 15% is the breakeven point. Should Apple not make any profit? What's a fair profit?
So what happens to the console Stores? Or heck Epic's Store? Should they all be open and not make any money?
What is your end game. Should the dealers not make any money on your car, your grocery store, your gas. Do you want somebody else (let's say the government) regulate how much profit your company can make or how high your salary should be? After all if you reduce your company's profit or your salary, the end price for your product will reflect it and that benefits consumers, right?
So are developers ready to provide support when there is a dispute with the customer, cause if Apple is not making any money from an app they won't provide support for it. Good luck figuring out whether it is your software or Apple that's screwing up the customer's invoice.
If forced to abandon the agency model Apple will get their pound of flesh in other ways. For example a developer account will be $10,000 instead of $100. They will charge per support incident to developers and charge you for documentation. They will charge you per API access. They will charge all apps a nominal fee even for "free" apps. Lots of different ways to skin that cat.
Last edited:
There are very few absolutely free apps on the app store.
There are a number of apps which are ad supported, but exclusively ad supported is rare in any gaming app. And from personal experience ad supported apps pay very little no days compared to the early days. To give you an example, take a look at the AdMob page:
Google AdMob - Earn More With Mobile App Monetization
Utilize Admob’s mobile app monetization technology to generate revenue through in-app ads & discover other actionable insights to help your app grow.
admob.google.com
Then go down to the calculator and plug in: Region = USA, Platform = iOS, and Category = Games
With the default 50,000 active users per month they estimate you can earn an ANNUAL INCOME of $4,690.
50,000 active users per month is literally within the top 1% of all the apps released each year, and if you are lucky with categories it may put you on the top 300 charts, but not much more.
Pushing it up by 10x to 500,000 active monthly users and you are looking at around $46,500... which still does not cover a single full-time developers salary. And this is for an app which is crossing into the top 100 apps. This might be good enough for the weekend indie developer but it takes an enormous amount of work AND luck to get an app into the Top 100.
The completely free apps Apple doesn't really care that much about. They are usually small enough and simple enough that they breeze through the Apple Approval Process because they aren't pushing the boundaries of technology or Apple requirements.
At the most I would consider this category of completely free apps plus ad supported apps to be 30%. This can include a lot of big names apps like LinkedIn, Google Apps, Amazon, Uber, etc... but should completely exclude any app that uses In-App Purchase. No where close to this 90% value you stated.
Even apps you wouldn't think like Facebook or Snapchat have IAP even if nobody thinks to use it... there is bound to be some revenue in there. But more importantly they have their own ad network (or another source of revenue) that is MUCH more profitable that the pitiful amount Google ad network pays out.
So I would argue that the vast majority of app developers use IAP or are paid apps.
But even more striking and maybe the point you wanted to make: is that the vast majority of apps make no significant money at all. 90% of apps on the store are poor quality or unpopular and do not make enough to justify their cost in the App Store infrastructure.
So let's charge them a little bit more. I'm all for it. After all we don't want free loaders, do we?
But this is not how Hoeg Law presented it. He presented it as if the sign is posted as 40mph and you are driving 38mph (ie under the speed limit) but are given a speeding ticket basic you are close enough to speeding. In your example the person is blatantly driving over the speed limit and therefore is not really applicable. More over thanks to the use of red light/speed cameras what were originally criminal proceedings have been turned into civil ones causing all kinds of legal issues.
Good to have one who actually understands the law even it is a little outside of this particular wheelhouse. My late mother trained to be a lawyer...until she found out that she would never see the inside of a courtroom (it was the 1950s). Though her family my great (several times removed) uncle was Morrison Waite (yes that Morrison Waite). Sadly the Waite family reunions ended about a decade ago...too few people were showing up.
I only used it as a demonstration of how the law is set up and it does have some interesting hiccups. For instance the National Archives states "Title 48 was last amended 11/08/2021" so something in it changed not that long ago.: "Tablet PCs, which may use touch-sensitive screens along with, or instead of, other input devices, are considered notebook computers."
The iPadOS is "a rebranded variant of iOS" and therefore can run iPhone programs. But the above puts iOS along side MacOS and Windows as well as Android as a computer OS.
So as you point out things are kind of a mess.
Not that any of that matters as as far as Law goes Epic lost every Federal point they made. See Epic v Apple: Judgment Day - Who Won? Who Lost? ...and Why? (VL538) for a summery. If you don't feel like going through the 2:26:21 long video and want information on the one (and only) point Epic won on Hoeg Law starts talking about that at the 2:02:07 mark and explains exactly what it really means. That said the whole video does correct a lot of the nonsense spread by the media who based on their headlines are, for the most part, little better than yellow journalists. Of the works Hoeg presented only IGN got it right.
At the 2:04:07 the lawyer spells it out that the law the court is using allows one to pull a 'if you come close then you are in violation' bunch of BS (insipid is the actual term, and it has a much different meaning in legalese than in normal English). "Hmm. you almost violated the law and we think there are comparative effects if you had." As the lawyer says you should have the law spell out where the line is.
So to use the speed limit analogy again it is akin to having "Speed Limit, around 35" sign. You get pulled over driving 34mph and given a ticket and when you point this our in court the judge says 'oh that 35 is kph which is 21.748 mph. That what there is an "around" on the sign means. You have 90 days to pay the court' Before you say that is insane there are stretches of road where it is 25mph going one way and 35mph going the other on the exact same stretch of road (I lived near a street set up like that and there are some YouTube videos of such streets)
Last edited:
I got to love how everybody want to say Apple is in the wrong when the only point they lost on is a state law so vague it effectively goes 'hey, judge if you think they came close to violating the law you can take redress'. Who here thinks such a law is a good idea?! 
If you want an example of the utter knuckle dragging insanity from the Epic minded developer side read Apple suppresses apps, blocks the free flow of information, developers claim in court (November 4, 2021):
"Isaacs is joined by Coronavirus Reporter, an app developed “to capture and obtain critical biostatistical and epidemiological data as it happened,” according the complaint.
Apple turned it down for not being affiliated with a “recognized institutions such as government, hospital, insurance company, NGO, or a university” and for containing “user-generated data has not been vetted for accuracy by a reputable source.”
Meanwhile, Apple distributed a nearly identical Covid-19 app on the App Store and partnered with Google to create its own contracting-tracing app."
Did you see what is missing? If the article is accurate (and from how the Epic ring was described I seriously doubt it) we get this "For Chen, the case hinges on whether the developers can define a relevant market." IMHO the case depends on if the "nearly identical Covid-19 app" had the support Apple required and the same goes for the Google contracting-tracing app" but we are not told anything about that.
Well guess what? I looked up that so called "nearly identical Covid-19 app":
"The new COVID-19 website, and COVID-19 app available on the App Store, were created in partnership with the CDC, the White House Coronavirus Task Force and FEMA" - Apple releases new COVID-19 app and website based on CDC guidance. For all we know the same goes for the Google contracting-tracing app.
Its Epic 2 electric boogaloo and even more off the wall Trump really won the election levels of crazy. Why is Justice Chen allowing the court's time to be wasted with this nonsense? Part of me wishes the court could just cut and paste from Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 812 Filed 09/10/21. Which would justify the court in telling these plaintiffs to pound sand...and pay Apple's legal fees.
If you want an example of the utter knuckle dragging insanity from the Epic minded developer side read Apple suppresses apps, blocks the free flow of information, developers claim in court (November 4, 2021):
"Isaacs is joined by Coronavirus Reporter, an app developed “to capture and obtain critical biostatistical and epidemiological data as it happened,” according the complaint.
Apple turned it down for not being affiliated with a “recognized institutions such as government, hospital, insurance company, NGO, or a university” and for containing “user-generated data has not been vetted for accuracy by a reputable source.”
Meanwhile, Apple distributed a nearly identical Covid-19 app on the App Store and partnered with Google to create its own contracting-tracing app."
Did you see what is missing? If the article is accurate (and from how the Epic ring was described I seriously doubt it) we get this "For Chen, the case hinges on whether the developers can define a relevant market." IMHO the case depends on if the "nearly identical Covid-19 app" had the support Apple required and the same goes for the Google contracting-tracing app" but we are not told anything about that.
Well guess what? I looked up that so called "nearly identical Covid-19 app":
"The new COVID-19 website, and COVID-19 app available on the App Store, were created in partnership with the CDC, the White House Coronavirus Task Force and FEMA" - Apple releases new COVID-19 app and website based on CDC guidance. For all we know the same goes for the Google contracting-tracing app.
Its Epic 2 electric boogaloo and even more off the wall Trump really won the election levels of crazy. Why is Justice Chen allowing the court's time to be wasted with this nonsense? Part of me wishes the court could just cut and paste from Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 812 Filed 09/10/21. Which would justify the court in telling these plaintiffs to pound sand...and pay Apple's legal fees.
Last edited:
How do you not understand CONTEXT? My statement was in direct reply to your statement of "this does not mean they get to use the App Store infrastructure completely rent free." I was pointing out the irony that 90%+ of apps in the App Store (outside of the $99 fee) are using that same infrastructure for free. But again... I never said Apple shouldn't make money on the App Store nor did I ever state anywhere that Developers should get to use those resources for free.
Dude, "whataboutism" is not a valid excuse to support your argument.
You love to write these long "word salad" replies that contain a lot of info but, ultimately, lend very little to what's actually being debated.
Because you somehow forgot, let's back up and CLARIFY what we've been debating...
1) YOU stated all this stuff about how if Apple lowered their 30% commission tier to 20% commission that they'd only breakeven because you were estimating that would be the breakeven point.
2) I challenged you on this ridiculous assertion because NONE of the data backs that up. Not extrapolated expenses from Apple's own public filings, nor from analysts with experience on what a closer estimate of true costs would be.
3) You rambled on and on about part of your estimation was due to Apple having to pay higher merchant rates than normal because software downloads are considered high risk, which was completely debunked by me and others.
4) You're now quoting and spewing information about the case, and the industry, that has ZERO to do with what the estimated costs of running the App Store and what Apple's profit margins probably are on it; and how that affects the context of the debate as to how much they're making and if they can lower fees and still make billions in profit.
So stop trying to conflate the debate about you trying to justify a 30% commission due to costs, and either admit you were proven wrong on that position, or if you wish to continue to defend that position, then stay ON POINT if you're going to address it and not conflate the issues with completely separate elements of the Epic case or anything else.
Last edited:
First of all, if you're going to try and attempt a "fly by" to add yourself to the discussion, the very least you can do is to actually READ what has been posted in total context of what's being debated and not just selectively reply based on you not even reading what others have already posted.
- LET'S BE PERFECTLY CLEAR... NO ONE HAS TAKEN A POSITION THAT APPLE SHOULDN'T BE MAKING BILLIONS FROM THE APP STORE.
Did you need to reread that again a few times so you get it? I, nor anyone else that I've seen in the recent pages of this thread, have mentioned Apple shouldn't be making a lot of money from the App Store. The 'debate' was about the fairness of the 30% commission and also how it relates to anti-competitive behavior.
- Where does Microsoft state that Apple's breakeven point is 15%? And are you saying Microsoft said that Apple needs to charge at least 15% commission in lieu of their 30% commission tier in order to just breakeven on the App Store in their estimation? The analyst estimates (multiple analysts) believe Apple's profit margins on the App Store are 80%+ based on the analysis of Apple's own public financials. The debate you've seen taking place in the past few pages of this thread (at least where I was concerned) are about the estimated costs of what it costs to run the App Store; and those defending the 30% because of it.
- LOL at you asking for me to prove who I am and provide some personal information just to validate points made on an internet forum with a bunch of made up, anonymous usernames. It doesn't even matter what I've personally experienced (merchant rates, etc.) in my own companies, if you had carefully READ the discussion I've provided EVIDENCE by linking to some of the biggest merchant providers online (Stripe & Shopify) that provide services for digital downloads and only charge 2.9% making Maximara's entire argument about App Store costs in relation to 'probably' high merchant rates invalid.
I got to love how everybody want to say Apple is in the wrong when the only point they lost on is a state law so value it effectively goes 'hey, judge if you think they came close to violating the law you can take redress'. Who here thinks such a law is a good idea?!
If you want an example of the utter knuckle dragging insanity from the Epic minded developer side read Apple suppresses apps, blocks the free flow of information, developers claim in court (November 4, 2021):
"Isaacs is joined by Coronavirus Reporter, an app developed “to capture and obtain critical biostatistical and epidemiological data as it happened,” according the complaint.
Apple turned it down for not being affiliated with a “recognized institutions such as government, hospital, insurance company, NGO, or a university” and for containing “user-generated data has not been vetted for accuracy by a reputable source.”
Meanwhile, Apple distributed a nearly identical Covid-19 app on the App Store and partnered with Google to create its own contracting-tracing app."
Did you see what is missing? If the article is accurate (and from how the Epic ring was described I seriously doubt it) we get this "For Chen, the case hinges on whether the developers can define a relevant market." IMHO the case depends on if the "nearly identical Covid-19 app" had the support Apple required and the same goes for the Google contracting-tracing app" but we are not told anything about that.
Well guess what? I looked up that so called "nearly identical Covid-19 app":
"The new COVID-19 website, and COVID-19 app available on the App Store, were created in partnership with the CDC, the White House Coronavirus Task Force and FEMA" - Apple releases new COVID-19 app and website based on CDC guidance. For all we know the same goes for the Google contracting-tracing app.
Its Epic 2 electric boogaloo and even more off the wall Trump really won the election levels of crazy. Why is Justice Chen allowing the court's time to be wasted with this nonsense? Part of me wishes the court could just cut and paste from Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 812 Filed 09/10/21. Which would justify the court in telling these plaintiffs to pound sand...and pay Apple's legal fees.
More "word salad" incessant rambling from you that has nothing to do with what anyone specifically has been debating in this thread.
With all due respect, some of you keep posting stuff that isn't true. I'm in the gaming industry and can tell you the statement you made above is simply NOT true.
The entire "Hypercasual" game segment, which makes billions a year, makes up a solid % of the overall Mobile Games Market. On any given day on the Top 100 games list on the App Store, 30% might fall into the Hypercasual segment.
Hypercasual games make the vast majority of their revenue solely from advertising. Some may have IAPs, but they're mostly related to "Remove Ads" for $1.99 or something and is related to the ad-supported model.
YES, most games (there are millions) don't make much money at all, and on average, App developers don't make much. BUT... there are many Hypercasual game companies (CrazyLabs, Rollic, Ketchapp, etc.) that make millions and millions of dollars from mostly ad-supported mobile games on the App Store.
I forgot to reply to this specifically in my other reply to your comments...
This isn't an Apples to Apples comparison (no pun intended). Epic is losing money on their 13% commission currently because they've dropped like $500M on their Epic Games Store where most of that money is paid to game developers for exclusive deals to list on Epic Games Store (and not on competitor Steam) or other payments to developers that wouldn't agree to an exclusive deal but still get paid nicely for listing on their store in addition to Steam. So that's the only reason they're not making money yet using a 13% commission, their filings prove it.
I'm assuming you're stating Apple needs to charge 15% commission where they currently charge 30% commission (or even taking in all commission tiers) in order to just break-even on the App Store. This is false based on their own accounting data. It's estimated the App Store now contributes over $20 Billion PER YEAR in PROFIT, based on the analysis of their public financials by experts. So it's a mathematical certainty that if they lowered all usage of their 30% commission down to only 15% that they're not just merely break-even; FAR FROM IT. It's more likely they'd still end making a profit in the $8 Billion to $10 Billion+ a year range if they dropped everything to 15%. I, personally, think it should be closer to 10-12% and/or some sort of tiered commission that is LOWERED based on volume, not raised, which is what happens in almost any other industry.
But the discussion isn't only about "what's a fair amount of profit" as it also is in correlation with the anti-competitive measures (like can't tell your customers about other payment alternatives) and things that protect Apple's 30% while stifling competition and the industry to potentially lower prices for consumers based on more Net Profit that may result for developers paying a lower commission and testing lower IAP pricing to maximize net returns.
In short you have no real response because you don't really understand and resort to ad hominem attacks lazily using a fictional character to make the point for you.
Nah, I would just prefer to not waste my time to read and then write a response to a long tirade post of yours that is off-topic for the discussion we were having.In short you have no real response because you don't really understand and resort to ad hominem attacks lazily using a fictional character to make the point for you.
But to the point you posted, I understand it just fine. What you apparently fail to understand in the context of the suit and all those 'accusations' is that the overall goal was for Epic to try and establish the "relevant market" that it was claiming Apple had and its dominance over it. In order to do that, it's a common legal strategy to throw every little thing you can come up with to try and make your point. Many things are often ignored/dismissed/cast aside in the final judgment BUT many of those sub-issues end up giving the plaintiff (Epic) a broader scope of 'discovery' to get access to more documents/data/proof that they can get from the defendant (Apple), which ultimately may end up helping them establish their overall goal, in this case, 'relevant market.'
I.e. this claim about oppressing certain types of Apps may have introduced certain facts to the case that while they may not win that specific claim, still helps their overall strategy.
No he isn't as you snipped the sentence right before what you quoted. Here is the quote (italics) in its actual context:
As bigsnake49 said Microsoft estimated the break even point for Apple's store is above 15%.
As for Epic they are so dysfunctional as late as 24th June 2021 they still didn't have a digital shopping cart worked or be troubled to have someone set up one for them. As an accountant trained by a retired CPA that has to be the most incompetent thing I have ever read.
But it gets better: Tim Sweeney wants one app store for every platform, probably in the metaverse.
Hmm. There is a word for that...oh yeh MONOPOLY.
From the article:
'"Right now software ownership is fragmented between the 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."
Epic's plan to clean up that confusion is to come up with a system enabling users "to buy software in one place, knowing that they'd have it on all devices and all platforms."'
The first part is 'like no duh' that is the whole purpose of competition.
The second is, if you know anything about software, going to be a clusterfubar for users.
You won't own any of your software as there is no sane way to code a program to run on all platforms so you are left with use a machine via the internet. If the software company pulls the plug or goes out of the software business you are going to be SOL. This is assuming that high speed internet isn't expensive because there is only one provider for your area.
Never mind I can't see Nintendo or Sony accepting this nonsense as exclusive titles are, like Epic is right now, their thing. Heck, Epic pulled that exclusive nonsense with titles that got their money promising they would be on many platforms at launch. Epic had to pay money for that piece of stupid regarding Shenmue III.
Last edited:
In short you have no real response because you don't really understand and resort to ad hominem attacks lazily using a fictional character to make the point for you.
BTW, we're still waiting for you to finally admit that you were WRONG about that App Store cost estimation you made and all the other stuff you claimed about software being high risk, etc. and implying Apple was paying high risk merchant fees (to justify your estimation).
We're still waiting.
No because I produced references and quote while all you have done is produce stuff that as bigsnake49 said could have been produced by "any keyboard jockey like everybody else around here".
Here is what one company says in its promotion: "the average rate is about 4.5% + 23 cents (USD) per transaction, but actual rates will depend on years in business, volume and other factors". If you could get "up to 3.5%" (ie 3.5% or less) why would anyone with any kind of business savvy use this company?
Here is what another company claims "Expect to pay as much as 10%-12% per transaction and 50% more for monthly fees with a high-risk merchant account compared to a standard one. (...) Don’t sulk at rates of 4.5%, 7.5%, 10% or even 12% if down deep in your heart you know this is the only option." Again, if you could get "up to 3.5%" (ie 3.5% or less) why would anyone with any kind of business savvy use this company?
More over according to Google "You can expect to pay on average ~$100 per month for a high risk merchant account, on top of a $500 credit card merchant fee to Visa and MasterCard, EACH, on top of potential sign up or start up credit card processing fees." (Nov 14, 2019)
Elsewhere "Computer Software" along with "IT Services" are labeled as "high risk". Yet another site has this:
Low risk:
*Average monthly sales volume less than $20,000
*Average credit card transaction less than $500
*One currency accepted
*Doesn't offer recurring (subscription) payments
*Not on on MATCH list/history of excessive chargebacks
*Main product offering: books, office supplies, clothing, home goods, etc
High Risk:
*Average monthly sales volume over $20,000
*Average credit card transaction over $500
*Multiple currencies accepted
*Offer recurring (subscription) payments
*Placed on MATCH list/history of excessive chargebacks
*Main product offering: software, digital, tickets, seasonal items, etc.
Are all these sites wrong? Do you have proof they wrong about where software, especially digital software is not High risk as they claim?
Maximara, it's been fun bantering back and forth with you and debating stuff, but can you please refrain from going into tons of stuff that has nothing to do with specific points being argued? Because it's not supporting what's being debated at all yet you're presenting it as such.
WHERE did Microsoft allegedly claim that they estimate the break-even point for Apple's store is above 15% commission that they take now? LINKS PLEASE.
Oh and as far as your claims about Epic... again, you don't know what you're talking about in the context of the 13% rate they charge and how they aren't making money. Again, some of you keep posting stuff as facts that or in the very least implying things, that just aren't true.
There was a STRATEGIC reason they didn't have shopping cart support NOT a technical reason. C'mon... how do you not understand CONTEXT or actually read into things more before you claim surface details as defacto evidence of something? Many of the game marketplaces had followed a one game buy & install process and not a multi-game shopping cart process instead. When it's one game they can control other things to do with the install as well as other purchases on the backend (upsells) for that specific game. Apple doesn't have a "+" sign next to a list of Apps in the App Store, you have to individually click to install them one at a time or buy them one at a time. Same with iTunes if you buy a single song or one album. You're essentially buying ONE product at a time. You aren't buying 2 albums in a shopping cart at the same time.
So again, you trying to belittle Epic over the shopping cart thing was your effort to try and imply they're technically incompetent all because you did some Googling to find articles about Epic and/or the case and then you make your own conclusion and post it as fact when you're taking things out of context or not fully understanding them. The opposite is true. They're some of the smartest tech innovators in the industry. They're the creators and developers of the UNREAL ENGINE. The most sophisticated 3D game engine in the world.
You're obviously not in the Games Industry and don't know what's been happening, like with Epic's heavy investments in licensing deals to try and get their games store to compete with Steam. THAT is the sole reason why they aren't yet profitable with the 13% rate, not because the infrastructure costs to run the store can't be covered.
I already stated that, but apparently you scoffed at it as is it wasn't true so here's proof:
Epic will lose over $300M on Epic Games Store exclusives, is fine with that
Here's how much money Epic is burning to make the Epic Games Store a Steam competitor.
Here's an important quote from that article... Thanks to Epic's big legal fight with Apple, we learned this week that Epic committed around $444 million to Epic Game Store exclusivity deals in 2020 alone. Phew.
Last edited:
DUDE... that information is OLD and outdated. So much of that stuff does NOT apply today. bigsnake made his comment because he apparently didn't read and see the links of proof I posted.
STRIPE is now the largest small business merchant processor in the world. They charge 2.9% and you can instantly join and get going with software downloads. Same for SHOPIFY. I've already pointed this out.
You can't make a claim like, "There's no cheaper price than this for this product." And then when someone posts PROOF of a cheaper price found elsewhere, which completely invalidates your argument, you can't then post other "high price" sources or sources that may say things about higher rates. The proof has already been provided that you were WRONG that lower prices DO exist and invalidate your entire argument.
That info you posted says "subscription payments" are "high risk." LOL. Stripe and all the other top modern processors, like PayPal, etc. have automatic billed in subscription payment billing. EVERYTHING is now subscription, including the entire evolution of the software industry where now so much software is sold with a SAAS model.
BUT... even if we put all of that aside... that you've been proven wrong on. Let's get to what started this debate in the first place over a point you were making...
And I'll simply put it in the form of a YES/NO question so you can clearly go on record as to your position...
Do You Believe That Apple Is Paying A "High Risk" Merchant Processing Rate To Run The App Store?
YES OR NO. It's that simple. Because that's your original claim as part of your App Store cost estimate.
What in the name of intelligence is strategic about limited people's access to your digital goods and require them key in their credit card every time and rick it being locked?! So the Epic shopping cart feature is more than six months away... then I look at the date that was posted. July 29, 2019 If claim that Epic had a shopping cart in the EU is correct than things get even more bizarre. What the same hill is strategic about semi crippling your digital store to where people who try to buy multiple items get their credit card frozen for "suspicious activity" (assuming Epic doesn't freeze the account first)?!
Jim Sterling had a field day with that piece of stupid "strategy". Of course there is the usual corporate bashing but you know that going in. Which is why he later said all three (Epic, Apple, and Google) could take a flying leap. Then there is Epic's treatment of its workers but to be fair to Epic software development in the AAA space with regards to worker treatment is crap (read about the horror that was LA Noir development sometime)
Stripe has been around since 2009. If they were offering rates like this c2018 then again why would anyone savvy use those companies?
More over the link google has for one of these sites is said to be one of "the Best Providers of 2021" even though the article dates from 2018. If it is old why would any savvy business owner use that company? Another dates from 2018. As mentioned in the citation the Google information is dated 2019. That isn't all that long ago.
Last edited: