Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Spotify Sides With Epic Games in Battle Against Apple's App Store Fees

Actually gaming is important but Apple isn't there spending its cash so that other people can make money while they make none. What business would be? Google can offer alternative stores on Android because they make their cash by hoarding your personal data. Apple doesn't do that, they just take a cut of transactions like any number of other services and platforms do. Console game publishers have to pay to use the console branding on their boxes, I dare say there are other costs too. Every logo anyone ever prints on their wares means someone is paying someone else to put it there.


Heres the other interesting thing about the whole argument between Apple and Epic: People siding with Epic are claiming that the reasons Apple gives to justify its levels of control and curation are just lies to mask the fact its making money. Meanwhile epic has told the courts that they just want Apple to open up a free and fair market for the benefit of consumers and aren't seeking monetary compensation in their suit. Except the other 30% of their monthly subscriptions on potentially up to a billion devices. Thats just pocket change right? Why is no-one accusing Epic of lying for profit here? Probably because all the people on their side are Android fanboys I'm guessing.

Apple should offer them zero commission if they drop the lawsuit and if they agree just file to have it thrown out instead.
 
mrcloaked said:
It’s not? What’s the biggest money maker on iOS then?

Are you sure you’re not just talking about yourself?
Click to expand...


I keep saying Apple is trying to build a console or equivalent to keep Xbox and Playstation out of the living room, or at least keeping them from being preferred as the primary hub for Netflix, Amazon Prime etc.

Services are the new growth area whether its Apple services or the cut they get of other peoples.
 
Waragainstsleep said:
But what makes you think you should be entitled to it being a free market?
Click to expand...

Anti-trust laws.

Again, not a monopoly. Its a private endeavour with a cost and conditions for entry. Don't like it, don't enter. You wouldn't have the same objection to a gym membership where you'd feel you should have permanent access without paying membership would you? Even if it was the only gym in your town. Same thing here.
Click to expand...

You compare something that's available in abundance (gyms) to something that's available only once, from a single company (iOS). You don't seem understand monopolies. There is a reason why the US governments as well as governments in other countries all over the world are investigating Apple's app store policies for anti-trust issues. Those in charge of these investigations know a whole lot more about the laws, rules and definitions than you could ever know. Yet here you are, claiming you know better.

By the way, a private endeavor can be a monopoly. In fact, most monopolies we've seen to date were private endeavors.
 
funkahdafi said:
Anti-trust laws.
Click to expand...

Those are to protect the consumer. Since Apple insists their users are charged the same as users on other platforms, how exactly does the ability to install untrustworthy software protect consumers?


funkahdafi said:
You compare something that's available in abundance (gyms) to something that's available only once, from a single company (iOS).
Click to expand...

Not really. You're defining the product specifically as the iPhone or iPad. Of course that's only available from one company. No anti-trust laws are going to cover that. You might as well be complaining you can only buy a new Mustang from Ford.
I specifically stated the gym in my example was the only one for miles around. Are you seriously saying that expecting someone to move house in order to change their gym is a more reasonable expectation than buying a phone with a different operating system? Think it through.


funkahdafi said:
You don't seem understand monopolies. There is a reason why the US governments as well as governments in other countries all over the world are investigating Apple's app store policies for anti-trust issues. Those in charge of these investigations know a whole lot more about the laws, rules and definitions than you could ever know. Yet here you are, claiming you know better.
Click to expand...

We clearly see governments overstepping. Look at Trump forcing TikTok to sell to Microsoft (or Oracle or even Apple depending which rumour you like). The EU is hardly known for its restraint in such matters. Apple are being investigated because greedy developers and jealous competitors keep filing complaints about them. Apple's platform/product experience would be diminished if they were forced to allow apps from any old source. Its hard to say by how much it would be diminished, but like it or not there is truth to their defence claims. As long as there is other smartphone manufacturers and Apple is happy to allow literally anyone else to write software for their devices I cannot see how anyone can call this a monopoly or claim its being abused. Consumers are not forced to be a part of Apple's market. Its ridiculous to claim otherwise. Their market share is under 50% for goodness sake. Any law that claims Apple has a monopoly that needs to be interfered with is a bad law.


funkahdafi said:
By the way, a private endeavor can be a monopoly. In fact, most monopolies we've seen to date were private endeavors.
Click to expand...

If Apple had managed to patent the smartphone, then yes that would be a monopoly. They didn't. They weren't even allowed to patent multi-touch or inertial scrolling in the end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maximara
Waragainstsleep said:
Fortnite certainly owes a hefty chunk of its popularity to the Apple ecosystem. If you want to sell a product, you need shops or you sell it yourself direct or both. Shops take a cut of the retail price and if you sell it cheaper direct they probably won't sell it for you for long. Epic have done very well from Fortnite on iOS, this behaviour is just unbridled greed.
Click to expand...
1. No, Fortnite is popular because they made a good app on iOS and people love it, not because of Apple's anti-competitive practices. Being on App Store does not make you popular, ask those apps with few users.
2. You are conflating App Store with iOS. When did you see Windows charge an app and say I'm gonna charge you because you are on my OS? (that would be illegal)
 
Waragainstsleep said:
Actually gaming is important but Apple isn't there spending its cash so that other people can make money while they make none. What business would be? Google can offer alternative stores on Android because they make their cash by hoarding your personal data. Apple doesn't do that, they just take a cut of transactions like any number of other services and platforms do. Console game publishers have to pay to use the console branding on their boxes, I dare say there are other costs too. Every logo anyone ever prints on their wares means someone is paying someone else to put it there.


Heres the other interesting thing about the whole argument between Apple and Epic: People siding with Epic are claiming that the reasons Apple gives to justify its levels of control and curation are just lies to mask the fact its making money. Meanwhile epic has told the courts that they just want Apple to open up a free and fair market for the benefit of consumers and aren't seeking monetary compensation in their suit. Except the other 30% of their monthly subscriptions on potentially up to a billion devices. Thats just pocket change right? Why is no-one accusing Epic of lying for profit here? Probably because all the people on their side are Android fanboys I'm guessing.

Apple should offer them zero commission if they drop the lawsuit and if they agree just file to have it thrown out instead.
Click to expand...
1. Why are you worried about Apple's profits? Can't Apple just make damn good phones?
2. Epic's claims are all true: consumers benefit from an open and competitive market, Epic wants consumers to benefit so consumers have more money to pay for more Epic services.
 
Reindeer_Legal said:
1. No, Fortnite is popular because they made a good app on iOS and people love it, not because of Apple's anti-competitive practices. Being on App Store does not make you popular, ask those apps with few users.
Click to expand...
Being on an app store does make you more popular if you are featured or once you get into the top ten lists. No store, no advertising to the billion users who just went into the app store to see what was around. This is not rocket science, its very simple.

Reindeer_Legal said:
2. You are conflating App Store with iOS. When did you see Windows charge an app and say I'm gonna charge you because you are on my OS? (that would be illegal)
Click to expand...
You're just ignoring the big picture because it doesn't suit your position. Its disingenuous. Without iOS, there is no app store. Thats literally where the name comes from. And the clue is in the name. Microsoft doesn't charge you to use its OS (unless maybe you want your app certified by them as trustworthy) but if you want them to sell it in their actual stores, they will be taking a piece of that action. This is how retail has always worked. The complication is the switch to subscription based pricing which cuts out the retailer. Apple isn't just the retailer though, they made the platform so they took steps to make sure they don't get cut out.

Reindeer_Legal said:
1. Why are you worried about Apple's profits? Can't Apple just make damn good phones?
2. Epic's claims are all true: consumers benefit from an open and competitive market, Epic wants consumers to benefit so consumers have more money to pay for more Epic services.
Click to expand...

I'm not worried about Apple's profits, I'm saying they are a business and they exist to make them. Its not unreasonable to expect them to want to make money.
Epic's claims are not all true because they don't give a damn about Apple having an open system, they just want that 30% cut Apple is taking for themselves. Their claim states they won't make any money from their lawsuit but they will. in 2019, Epic made $1.8B from Fortnite.Its likely at least half of that (probably more) came from iOS users. Thats getting close to $400m a year they stand to gain by cutting Apple out. An extra 22% on their Fortnite revenues. But no, they're only in it for the consumers...

Apple lets anyone develop for iOS who agrees to their terms and conditions. Which Epic did. Then they violated them. Then they tried to screw Apple out of all the revenue it makes from all apps on iOS. I'd ban them too. So would anyone.

"You won't let us make hundreds of millions extra selling stuff rent-free in your highly lucrative market you spent ten years building. Waaaaaaaahhhhhhh!"
Boo hoo. I have no time for this Epic greed tantrum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nütztjanix
mrcloaked said:
It’s not? What’s the biggest money maker on iOS then?

Are you sure you’re not just talking about yourself?
Click to expand...
In the grand scheme of things Apple, it's not. Remember, you brought the Mac into this discussion. Gaming might be the biggest money maker on iOS (I honestly don't know), but for the whole Apple ecosystem and App Store (including the Mac App Store and the one for tvOS and watchOS), it's not.
 
Waragainstsleep said:
Being on an app store does make you more popular if you are featured or once you get into the top ten lists. No store, no advertising to the billion users who just went into the app store to see what was around. This is not rocket science, its very simple.


You're just ignoring the big picture because it doesn't suit your position. Its disingenuous. Without iOS, there is no app store. Thats literally where the name comes from. And the clue is in the name. Microsoft doesn't charge you to use its OS (unless maybe you want your app certified by them as trustworthy) but if you want them to sell it in their actual stores, they will be taking a piece of that action. This is how retail has always worked. The complication is the switch to subscription based pricing which cuts out the retailer. Apple isn't just the retailer though, they made the platform so they took steps to make sure they don't get cut out.



I'm not worried about Apple's profits, I'm saying they are a business and they exist to make them. Its not unreasonable to expect them to want to make money.
Epic's claims are not all true because they don't give a damn about Apple having an open system, they just want that 30% cut Apple is taking for themselves. Their claim states they won't make any money from their lawsuit but they will. in 2019, Epic made $1.8B from Fortnite.Its likely at least half of that (probably more) came from iOS users. Thats getting close to $400m a year they stand to gain by cutting Apple out. An extra 22% on their Fortnite revenues. But no, they're only in it for the consumers...

Apple lets anyone develop for iOS who agrees to their terms and conditions. Which Epic did. Then they violated them. Then they tried to screw Apple out of all the revenue it makes from all apps on iOS. I'd ban them too. So would anyone.

"You won't let us make hundreds of millions extra selling stuff rent-free in your highly lucrative market you spent ten years building. Waaaaaaaahhhhhhh!"
Boo hoo. I have no time for this Epic greed tantrum.
Click to expand...
1. Users paid for iOS. Period. Apple does not get to double charge iOS.
2. Apple's App Store is an illegal monopoly, I don't care about Epic's motivations.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Maximara and Nütztjanix
Reindeer_Legal said:
1. Users paid for iOS. Period. Apple does not get to double charge iOS.
2. Apple's App Store is an illegal monopoly, I don't care about Epic's motivations.
Click to expand...

Apple doesn’t license iOS. iOS, and the App Store by extension, is literally Apple’s to do with as they deem fit.

Apple owns the license to all of the software produced within the iOS ecosystem by Apple, including the App Store. In the context of this conflict with Epic what it ultimately means is that Apple will win. It is theirs. They can do what they want with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nütztjanix
Reindeer_Legal said:
1. Users paid for iOS. Period. Apple does not get to double charge iOS.
2. Apple's App Store is an illegal monopoly, I don't care about Epic's motivations.
Click to expand...

1. Show us your receipt. And then explain why Apple can't double charge if they want. Especially if they aren't charging you.
2. When you file two lawsuits alleging monopolies against two different plaintiffs at the same time, maybe you need to go learn what the 'mono' part means.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maximara and Nütztjanix
Waragainstsleep said:
1. Show us your receipt. And then explain why Apple can't double charge if they want. Especially if they aren't charging you.
2. When you file two lawsuits alleging monopolies against two different plaintiffs at the same time, maybe you need to go learn what the 'mono' part means.
Click to expand...

Apple lets me use iOS without charging me? Did you lost your Software Licensing Agreement for iOS? https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iOS13_iPadOS13.pdf
 
Abazigal said:
Apple doesn’t license iOS. iOS, and the App Store by extension, is literally Apple’s to do with as they deem fit.

Apple owns the license to all of the software produced within the iOS ecosystem by Apple, including the App Store. In the context of this conflict with Epic what it ultimately means is that Apple will win. It is theirs. They can do what they want with it.
Click to expand...
Did you not read Apple's Software Licensing Agreement for iOS? https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iOS13_iPadOS13.pdf
 
I7guy said:
Where does it see Apple charges you for using IOS and only IOS?
Click to expand...

I said users paid for iOS and I explained it very clearly. When you purchase a phone, software licensing is included. When you buy a mac, software licensing is included. When you buy a Surface Pro, software licensing is included. The fact that Apple didn't sell iOS separately doesn't mean I didn't pay for it.
 
Reindeer_Legal said:
I said users paid for iOS and I explained it very clearly. When you purchase a phone, software licensing is included. When you buy a mac, software licensing is included. When you buy a Surface Pro, software licensing is included. The fact that Apple didn't sell iOS separately doesn't mean I didn't pay for it.
Click to expand...
The point is the users don't have to pay "Extra" for it and you are just saying this another way. Apple costs associated with device maintenance are rolled into the original purchase price. The secondary buyer essentially gets this maintenance for free.
 
I7guy said:
The point is the users don't have to pay "Extra" for it and you are just saying this another way. Apple costs associated with device maintenance are rolled into the original purchase price. The secondary buyer essentially gets this maintenance for free.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you cannot understand a decades-old business model. The fact that iOS isn't listed as a separate item doesn't mean you didn't pay for it.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: I7guy
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back