Apple removes Fortnite from App Store after Epic attempts to bypass fees
twitter.com
twitter.com
In Canada, we have three major cell carriers. None of them has a monopoly, or anything close to it. None of them has even 50% market share.
You can have a 10 GB smartphone plan with Rogers for $75. If you don't like that, you can switch to Bell's 10 GB plan for $75. If you don't like Bell, of course you can switch to Telus's 10 GB plan for, wait for it, $75.
The Big 3 operate smaller brands with fewer bells and whistles and lower costs. You can get a 4 GB cell plan from Koodo (Telus subsidiary) for $50, or from Fido (Rogers subsidiary) for $50, or from Virgin Mobile (Bell subsidiary) for $50.
Sometimes one of them has promotional pricing, like $45 instead of $50 for 4GB. The other two offer the same pricing for the same duration. Sometimes one of them increases their prices by $5 a month citing reasons such as infrastructure investments, lower Canadian dollar value, or inflation. The other two increase their prices by the same amount a couple of days later.
And none of this is collusion in the legal sense. They don't gather in smoke-filled rooms and decide how to screw over their customers. There is not back-channel communication whatsoever. And it is not because the competition is so perfect the prices have been commoditized. In fact, Canada has some of the highest cell plan prices in the world, even adjusting for factors such as population density and GDP.
It's just that the big companies have decided to stop competing. If you live in, say Alberta or Ontario or BC, you have three options and they are all the same overpriced crap. Cell carriers in Canada are not a monopoly, but you don't have to be a monopoly to harm customers with anti-competitive behaviour. Apple and Google, Android and iOS do not have a monopoly or a collusion agreement. But they are harming the customers all the same.
You see something like this with gasoline pricing - major brands will have "competing" stations across the street from each other, but their prices moves in lock step without a race to the bottom.
Memory vendors have explicitly colluded in the past, but they really didn't need to - they just needed to copy their competitors' posted pricing. Presumably that is what they do now.
If there are high barriers to new competitors entering the market, then the situation is unlikely to change.
Yeah because otherwise you make no money on gas. If I undercut the store across the street by a penny, they will then immediately match me or undercut by a penny. Pretty soon, we are at the break-even point and can't go lower without losing money. That's not tacit collusion, that's just a race to the bottom.
There's a big difference between all major app stores taking 30% every time money changes hands, and a race-to-the-bottom industry like milk or gasoline. Try starting a dairy farm - I think you'll find you won't be able to price your milk lower than your competition, and as a result your milk will be the same price everyone else's has been for the past 50 years - ~$2-3/gallon.
The issue in the telecoms market, at least IMO, is the high entry price (spectrum access sometimes meaning there is no option aside from buying an existing operator), combined with scale of the operators (usually large and national-level) meaning there is little entrepreneurial spirit to drive costs down.
It can cost a large company 100x what it would cost a small company to do the same work, and that becomes a price everyone ends up paying for. But absent knocking down barriers to entry, it's a very hard market for a new entrant to get into, unless you are happy to just sell to the existing incumbents as clients.
Having worked at one, we would check the prices of the two others on the same road once every hour. These numbers were reported into HQ, and a price adjustment would be made to be lower.
It’s very competitive and people are willing to drive or wait until a different time of day to get a lower price.
EDIT: Maybe I should have said: that’s at least not the case everywhere.
If a store knows that the other store will raise their price in response, they can collude without an explicit agreement.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_signal#:~:text=A%20price....
Everyone acting in complete independence, simply copying everyone else, cannot lead to stability, let alone the durable, persistent lock-step stability that is seen.
Indeed. It is a common misconception that antitrust only applies to monopolies. You can engage in anti-competitive behavior of various kinds, illegally, without actually having a monopoly in strict terms.
I suspect this is/was part of the push to get non-incumbents into the cell market.
I use the 2ndLine app for (very rare) calls and SMS. It gives you a local number. Data-only is the most cost effective imo
Their Wikipedia article paints a pretty bleak and accurate picture of the "competitive" landscape:
> Freedom Mobile Inc. is a Canadian wireless telecommunications provider owned by Shaw Communications. With 1,767,155 active subscribers (as of the end of February 29, 2020) in urban areas of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta, it is Canada's fourth largest mobile network operator with 5% market share.[3]
> Founded in 2008 as Wind Mobile by the telecommunications company Globalive, Freedom was one of several new mobile carriers launched in Canada in 2008 after a government initiative to encourage competition in the wireless sector alongside Mobilicity (later acquired by Rogers Communications) and Public Mobile (later acquired by Telus).
But this was back when the best they offered was 3G, and their signal quality wasn't great. After a few incidents where I was downtown in Toronto, full bars of signal, yet couldn't open a single webpage or use my data, I decided it was time to ditch them. I loath the big-3, but I needed reliable service.
I've heard that after they installed their LTE/4G towers, most of those problems went away. Maybe I'll go back, eventually, but for now I'll be gouged like most Canadians.
Black markets are useful in some circumstances, but when they grow too big they have to be regulated and taxed. A lot.
Good for Epic.
This is a poor analogy.
I am still waiting for a real argument on HN as to what Apple is doing that is anti-competitive or illegal. Still have not found one.
Also as a voter, I would hope that the legislature make these costs come down. In Canada, the government recently intervened to reduce credit card processing fees. I would hope next they direct their attention to app store fees.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4379884/canada-credit-card-fee-cu...
They provide a great service to devs - a store to get consumers to see and buy their products.
Why is 30% unfair?
A company charging a certain percentage for something is neither unfair or anti-competitive. You need to develop your argument further.
This is the same as with store owners who have to hand over part of their earnings as danegeld to some gangs controlling their neighborhood. They also pay happily for a great "protection" service. Would be a pity if something happens to your nice store (or app, in Apples case)!
I don't get how anyone who stands up for freedom of information, a free internet and a fair economy can still own an iPhone without developing schizophrenia..
They have Android, which dominates the market.
I get it, Apple Bad! Bad Keyboards! No Upgrades! Bad Bad Bad! And yet people time and time again want iPhones over Android - because they like the way the App Store is, they like iOS, they don't want malware on their phones that is rampant on Androids. Opening it up will be WORSE FOR DEVS.
> This is the same as with store owners who have to hand over part of their earnings as danegeld to some gangs controlling their neighborhood.
No, it's the same as store owners who have to pay higher rent to be on a busy street. Which isn't illegal.
> I don't get how anyone who stands up for freedom of information, a free internet and a fair economy can still own an iPhone without developing schizophrenia..
There are plenty of avenues for information - the iPhone controls apps - but the rules of engagement are clear and 2 million apps managed to get on the app store. If you can't, that's your problem.
Still waiting for a real argument on here.
Apple and Google are engaging in obvious tacit collusion. QED.
Apple offers a closed experience, which is what my parents want. They don't want to be tricked into downloading malware through some crappy facebook post.
This is depriving the market of a valid product, it's unfair to people who want this product, so that devs can make more money, and Epic can rip off more kids for a skin on a gun.
They have obviously won their market position fair-and-square and their rules aren't illegal. But extracting taxes ('rent' in economist-speak) from other companies just because they were successful at some point in the past is uncompetitive behavior now.
Same goes for Amazon/Google: extracting rent from a market-dominant position should be illegal (it isn't) regardless of how that position was won.
> and are enforcing rules that do not have political (as in citizens') legitimacy.
This is basically saying to me "yea you're right, it isn't illegal, but I don't like it!!" They're charging for a service, there is nothing unfair about it. Frankly, it could be even higher.
> Same goes for Amazon/Google: extracting rent from a market-dominant position should be illegal (it isn't) regardless of how that position was won.
Google is a clear monopoly - they dominate the market. Amazon does not - Wal-Mart, Target, are all viable competitors. BestBuy, NewEgg, Ebay, etc.
A black market requires illegality. You are conflating "rules" of contracts and "rules" of law.
I agree that Apple "even is party to transactions". I think that's the common problem with Google (eg. Froogle / Google Shopping), Amazon (eg. Amazon Basics), and Apple (apps that compete and undercut 3rd party apps or which don't have to adhere to the same App Store contract clauses).
Elizabeth Warren discussed this frequently.
> Google, Apple, and Amazon provide platforms that lots of other companies depend on for survival. But Google, Apple, and Amazon also, in many cases, compete with those same small companies, so that the platform can become a tool to snuff out competition.
[1] https://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/2016-6-29_Warr...
So I guess my point was this: past a certain size / power concentration a market/platform has to have regulations that are answerable to a democratic/political authority, not to a private party. That's regulation, isn't?
"Grey market" is taken, so how about "brown market"? :)
App stores don't create "laws"; they have contractually enforced rules.
Regulations are laws if the regulatory body was granted the power to make regulations.
Your use of legitimate confuses me; I can't grok your intention.
The FTC has the directive and authority to regulate commerce. If Apple is violating an US law or an FTC regulation, the FTC should prosecute. Otherwise this discussion should be focused on what laws (if any) you think need to be created.
Bloomberg/Warren 2020!
Wow. In France it's the reverse: during promotions, you can get 70GB for €10.
Out of promo, it's €15-€20 at low cost operators, and €35 at traditional brands.
Example: A few years ago it was legal in the UK to advertise the price of broadband excluding the fee for "landline rental". This recurring fee notionally covers the service cost of the actual copper (in most cases) last mile cable needed to deliver service. In principle you could use it to make voice telephone calls (remember those?) and needn't buy it from the same provider as Internet service piggybacked on the same physical infrastructure.
So e.g. Big ISP #1 advertises Internet is "£5 for first six months†" and then the small print explains "† Plus line rental of £11.50 per month". That's £16.50 customers will actually be paying, and a competitor Big ISP #2 won't get far advertising Internet as "£15 for first six months" because that sounds much more expensive even though it's less. So sure enough they'll do the same thing only more so "£3 for the first six months†" "† Plus line rental of £12 per month".
Still, ISPs argued this is fair because they don't actually provide the service "line rental" pays for, they don't have teams of engineers in vans ready to dig up cable and repair it, that's something a last mile owner does.
Except, since the last mile is a natural monopoly that provider is legally obliged to publish its pricing and rationale. Sure enough it does bill for "line rental". But is it charging £12 per month? £11.50 per month? Er, no, over the modern period its costs have reduced gradually and it's charging those ISPs about £8 per month. So that £12 "line rental" is actually £8 line rental plus £4 "Money we're hiding from our real prices so as to trick customers".
Even if they never met in a darkened room and agreed to fix these bogus prices, the effect was that all large UK ISPs inflated a fee so as to make their prices look cheaper, taking advantage of customers. Maybe no crime was committed, except in the sense that customers got ripped off.
This particular loophole was closed by requiring ISPs to advertise the price that includes all fees needed to deliver the actual service, and sure enough once they couldn't use it to hide the real price the ISPs stopped pretending "line rental" cost 50% more than it really did.
The MVNOs compete heavily on price, and drive prices down for savvy customers. You can get 3 GB/month with unlimited calls and SMS (with roaming to 50+ countries) for 6 GBP per month on a 30 day rolling deal, right now.
Wait, how can what Apple does ever be okay even they legally don't have a monopoly.
Apple provides a marketplace (which they name store, but it's a marked place not a store) which is the only way to install software (on their phone) for millions of persons which means it's a marked and not just a marked place and they do both run the marked and provide products there but give their products an unfair competitive advantage (access to internal APIs, fast review, not applying app guidlines, subvention developent for the apps etc.) while haven basically rip-of pricing for (at least part of) the competition and intentionally preventing many business model and undermining how companies can freely present their products and company to users inside of their own products...
Not sure how anyone can call it ok, tbh.
Maybe legal due to a laws not yet having arrived in the 21st century but definitively not ok.
And of course opinions differ on the good and bad aspects of their policies.
It’s not like all the competitors who are complaining are ‘fair’ in any particular way.
Also, your description fits a department store, or Amazon, or pretty much any other store for that matter.
All store owners get to stock what they want, charge what they want, and give their own products advantages.
If your argument is that no store should be able to do these things, then that seems like a reasonable position to hold.
Perhaps we do need to overhaul the notion of marketplaces and intermediaries in general. That seems like a relevant idea to explore.
The people arguing about monopolies are saying that everyone else should be allowed to do these things, but not Apple because they have too much power.
I think plenty of people might think on reflection "That's not cool but I still want that phone".
That pretty much sums up my continuing commercial relationship with Google as well.
And my feelings about most modern meat production practices.
We don't always vote with our wallets.
We do, it's just not 100% of the weight of the decision, but it's rarely 0%.
People don't realize what's actually going on with the policies and practices of the app stores. They just buy the phone and use it. If they did know, they would probably be more opposed to it too. They don't realize how these practices actually impact them and their choices on the platform.
The only thing I can infer from this comment is that you aren't arguing within a legal framework (although I suspect you might be wrong because "unfair competitive advantage" is something that can be enforced under US and EU law).
Especially if we consider the difference between the intend behind a law and it's current legal interpretations.
Because of this I try to avoid arguing using the actual laws.
I also believe many of this laws need some degree of adaption to the modern world. Sometimes with changes in the law and sometimes with changes in the interpretation of the law.
So yes it's no accidentally vague.
More concrete would be : It should be illegal but might not be due to the law not being adapted to the dynamics of many modern markets.
But that's still pretty vague tbh.
While that makes for nice rhetoric in your great comment, you don't actually know that this doesn't happen.
I suppose the state could implement price controls and force Rogers et al to lower their prices. That worked well in the past!
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
While 30% is steep I don’t think Apple is at fault here. You wanna be able to use their carefully constructed walled garden with security protections, servers, payment system and users? You have to pay to play.
Apple on the other hand has created an infrastructure to enable a billion interconnected devices, and they are now charging a fee to operate. They are not colluding or preventing competition, they are simply saying there's a price to play, and it's 30%.
It's natural that Fortnite doesn't want to share their profits, in the same way that Apple doesn't want to be the only ones taking the loses, but every time this question comes up, lots of comments assume Apple should bend over simply because it's bigger and wealthier.
I think I'm on a 15€/100GB plan at the moment (plus a bunch a stuff like 25GB a month of international roaming).
Just look at the prices in Australia or Russia. There's no good technical reason Canada should just be massively more expensive than the rest.
Same for webdev
Maybe it's a form of pride to have the "Canadian alternative"? Or they feel they couldn't really compete with the US/Europeans?
Population density in Canada is about 4 per square km, in the US about 36, and in the UK (pretty typical for western-europe) about 270.
I know that much of Canada is mostly uninhabited and typical population density is a lot higher, still, to hook up Canadian telecom infrastructure seems to be inherently to be a much more expensive endeavour.
I compared quickly (not very thorough) the profit margins and some ratios of US/Canadian telecoms, and they're really not much different.
It's an extreme outlier in terms of habitable land vs land area. 5% of it's land is arable, as compared to close to 17% for the United-States. I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of the land was simply not inhabited.
[0] https://geopoliticalfutures.com/population-density-of-canada...
Sources will state about 80% of Canada is uninhabited, and 47% of the US. In the UK it' 1-2%.
In other words, even assuming you apply the population density figures I mentioned in my previous post to only 20% of Canada or ±50% of the US, you'd still get a large discrepancy in 20 people per square km in Canada, vs 72 in the US, and still around 270 in the UK.
Hooking up the same coverage with 3-4 (US) or 13-14 (UK) times fewer people in that area should naturally drive much higher costs per person connected, which may explain prices.
And given profit margins of all the big telcos aren't exceptionally high for Canada despite much higher prices, that hypothesis seems quite plausible.
What I would really want to see is the density distribution of the parts of the country that actually have coverage. Eg how many square miles do I need to cover to serve 50% of the broadband users, 75%, 99%. That would give us a way better idea.
Lastly, I wouldn't discount the theory that the profit margins might be bad because the companies are inefficient. When there's no competitor or threat to the business it's easy to be inefficient and still end up with profits.
Seems kinda hypocritical that they’re taking this stance when their licensing model is arguably just as burdensome on developers.
In my opinion, Epic should not put their app on the App Store if they don’t like the terms, just as they would tell a developer to not use their engine if they don’t like the terms.
Only those that make >$1mil lifetime gross.
I don’t think Epic are against fees so much as against ones as high as in the App Store.
Apple has a monopoly on 1/2 of Smartphones users in the US, Android the other.
This is a totally different scenario that 'choosing component vendors'.
The App store comission is like Apple charging you 30% anytime you sell one of those goods to someone who lives in an Apple branded house. (To complete the analogy, maybe you're a door to door salesman and Apple charges you a "sidewalk usage fee" or something)
One (Unreal Engine) is a licensing agreement for a tool with no upfront cost; the other is a tax on any sale made to an end user.
If a developer doesn't like Apple's terms, there are no viable alternatives for iOS distribution.
I don’t know why people feel it’s their undeniable right to be able to provide an app to iOS users.
It’s just very few users have any real ability to affect that sort of change.
Overall this will go over most law makers heads because they are technically incompetent.
This is why antitrust laws exist - sometimes the market realities make this nearly impossible.
The feature/capability parity between the platforms means they are, in fact, both capable of serving these markets. But people want to vote with their dollars in the iOS ecosystem, and now the players want to change that ecosystem.
I'm not entirely convinced that this is Apple's problem, in as much as it is Google's fault for not fostering a properly competitive revenue delivery platform, even though it has the maturity and standing to do so.
Also for some serivces iOs users are the large majority, like more or less any "real premium" service (Like apps you have to pay 10 or so+$ a month or 100+$ when buying them).
Anti trust laws (or competition laws) tend to apply to players with an clear control over the market, monopolies that stifle competition. Apple has ~14% of the mobile market, compared to Android's ~86%. I'm curious about how this will play out as it might have an impact in other sectors where smaller players by market share exercise a bit too tight control.
Don't know about tablets, but I feel it's not different.
Rephrased:
> I don't know why people feel it's their undeniable right to install the apps they want on iOS.
- Yes, every shmuck who buys only iOS cause Apple is the status symbol undermines everyone's ability to choose. But we'd need a consumer union to go after these monopoly-aiders as scabs. Ha ha ha not going to happen.
- All the other hardware manufactures are so shitty and quality control and integration that they are also responsible. Do we wait for Moon's party to break up Samsung so Apple gets more competition? Tell Taiwan to break up TMSC or do more direct-to-consumer?
Fundamentally we have the perfect storm of outsourcing and low quality, precarious Americans looking for status, and nationally-tinged monpolies. The idea solutions are just out of reach in the short term, so I support putting iOS on a stupid pedestal to break up Apple's exclusionary vertical integration.
There is a history here where using your market position in one area to force your product in another as being illegal (see the recent EU fine against Google for "abusing their Android monopoly" for example: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_... ). Apple seems to be crossing that line rather brazenly.
If Apple is using its market power to increase profit at the expense of reducing selection and/or increasing prices for consumers, then that's a very serious problem. It's exactly the reason antitrust laws exist.
But are they competing or parallel markets? Does Apple changing pricing or terms on the App Store drive business to other app stores, as replacements, or do software vendors choose which app stores to distribute with based on whether each provides a benefit worth the price, but not whether it is a better deal than some other store?
I think that under market/pricing power tests, Apple’s software distribution business in the App Store is not that unlikely to be a monopoly.
Now, establishing consumer harms from the way the leverage that monopoly to extract rents and dictate terms to software vendors might be less straightforward than it would be for a B2C monopoly, and in the US, at least, consumer harm is the key adverse impact from monopoly abuse that justifies legal consequences.
Consider you not being able to:
- buy train tickets under iOs
- check-in into a hotel under iOs
- do video conferences
- chat with your friend
- cross play with your friends
- open your apartment doors
- check your health data
- do online banking
- securely check your email
- do Ueber, Rbnb, etc.
- buy at Amazone
- etc.
Sure many (but not all) things might be doable over web interface but this crates often much more frictions and due to constraints put onto web interfaces and PWS also has often much worse UX, not providing service for millions of iOs users is often deadly and providing competitively shitty service isn't anygood either, even worse if you have to compete with Apple itself which gives there apps unfair advantages beyond not needing to pay the 30% cut.
Let's be honest any marked which covers millions of people should be handled as a standalone marked even if you could argue it's just part of a bigger marked by any government or you fail your people (and the free marked idea IMHO, but reasoning about this is tricky as it involves considering how the marked dynamics have fundamentally changed and how thinks which would have worked in benefit for the population don't work anymore in the current times and therefore how the marked (laws) has to adapt to it).
If a developer doesn't like Apple's terms, there are other phone platforms.
If you forgo the iOS platform, you lose out on the vast majority of mobile app revenue. Android may have greater market share than Apple but iOS dominates the market among people who actually buy apps (mostly affluent people in western countries).
I think people need to stop looking at their own immediate interests and start considering long term aspects of things. You can't just throw out technology now without understanding how it empowers bad actors, because it amplifies them too.
Desktop software, for a long time, did not have the notion of specialized app stores or enforcing signed programs. Yes, Windows has loads of security issues. But surely this can be a problem that can be solved over time?
Apple cares about their hardware customers and fosters a well-earned trust. The AppStore rules are a huge part of the foundation of that trust.
What's Microsoft's parallel motivation in your analogy?
They should go ahead and do that, then make an OS and mobile devices built around their store, so I have an option other than iOS devices when I want someone in my life who's not a tech nerd to have a reasonably safe and usable computing experience that's still very robust and doesn't require any work on my part. That would be competition and improved consumer choice.
I want more options that deliver the experience Apple does (or better! Please!) rather than fewer. That's the choice I want. I've got tons of only-nerds-can-use-them-safely computing options. I don't need more of those.
Phone run everything from games over office apps to unlocking you apartment doors or handling the check-in at a hotel (yes some hotels have app based check-in).
(And in the end Apps is just a handy short form of Application, so you could say even the name kinda implicates this ;=) )
- A general purpose hardware with specific less general purpose hardware extensions.
Where they differ:
- By default allowing "mostly" any legal kind of software, but then putting absurd constraints on it.
- By default only allowing games and some multimedia and maybe then putting absurd constraints on it (maybe because idk tbh).
I.e. even with apples constraints iOs operates as a general purpose platform while XBox/PS5/Switch do not.
But they are general purpose computing devices with built-in malware that makes the device only useful for the types of computing the seller wants you to do with the device. And that's gaming, of course
Right. Apple's terms were clear from the start, so Fortnite had no reasonable expectation to be allowed to violate them. Just like Fortnite could have chosen to use a different game engine if they didn't like the terms of a particular game engine, they could choose to focus on non-Apple platforms (or choose to abide by Apple's terms on Apple's platform) if they don't like Apple's terms. I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Which is why the game engine comparison is a bad one.
Lots of opportunities for mobile distribution though. Apple is what, < 20% of the mobile market? (I know where you're coming from, but this is what Apple's legal team will say).
Perhaps PWA+WebGPU will solve this.
.. not covering the iOS marked is for some products not viable and might literally lead to insolvency in the long run.
Today you can tell people that you don't provide a game on e.g. X Box and they might not like but accept it. But you can not tell people that their premium mail service has no iOs app or that they team meating software has no iOs app or that their <insert any software covering a group of people> app doesn't work on iOs.
Tbh. it's probably somewhat true for tipple A massive multiplayer games and games consoles, too.
Edit: "do" -> "can"
And that’s a big fraction of their services. https://www.thestreet.com/investing/google-pays-apple-billio... estimates that at $9.48 billion over 2018.
Downloadable is nominal outside of store. I had millions of downloads back in 2005 timeframe and we never even looked at file hosting cost.
retailers pay suppliers some wholesale cost for their goods. doesn’t seem like an analogous situation to a marketplace that takes a fixed cut of every sale.
It's now 30% for the first $10 million, 25% for $10-$50 million, and 20% thereafter.
Also relevant here would be Epic Games Store, which is 12%. Also relevant here, is payment processors are way, way less than 30%, which is all that's used/needed for in-app purchases.
Given publicly reported financials for Apples services gross margins imply a break even around 10%, I doubt any successful App Store offering similar services could survive on less than 15%.
Not for in-app purchases they don't, which is why I specifically called that one out. The game provides all the UX there to find & purchase the items, the game "delivers" the resulting purchased goods, etc... All the app store does in that case is facilitate payment. No different than, say, Square.
One of the biggest developer benefits is Apples app reviews process. While not perfect for devs, it helps ensure customers feel safe buying my apps free of the risk of viruses, malware, and fraud ware. That sells more of my apps.
If you don’t understand these things, you don’t understand your customers.
I’m not saying it’s right but it’s pointless being shocked by the hypocrisy of the logic that businesses are run by.
I don't know how effective something like this would be, wouldn't this just incentivize hiring people that fit your political agenda?
For instance let's say you hire a bunch of Chinese/Indian immigrants on H-1B visas, they'll just vote in people that benefit China/India
Also the 1997-2011 era Apple probably wouldn't have worked under a law like this
That's what all companies already do: the political agenda of every publicly held large company today is to please its shareholders, and only to please its shareholders. The proposal changes the political agendas of large companies so that they also have to please their workers and communities.
> For instance let's say you hire a bunch of Chinese/Indian immigrants on H-1B visas, they'll just vote in people that benefit China/India
Kind of a pessimistic view of humanity there. Immigrants are just as good as native-born citizens at collectively deciding what's best for the organization they work in.
> Also the 1997-2011 era Apple probably wouldn't have worked under a law like this
Apple would certainly be different, but so would its competition.
Taking a 30% cut of all future revenue from the game just because they established the initial install is waylaying!
The strategist in me thinks that Epic Payments is a provocation rather than a product, they've been in touch with state attorney generals about Apple's antitrust situation, and the real goal is to get that lawsuit out, bring the antitrust hammer down on Apple, and maybe get some free PR and marketing from the press cycle.
That's the DEFINITION of "constitutional state"/"state of law".
It means the government can't just arbitrary bend the law if it fit's them on a case-by-case basis. If they want change they need to make a new law.
Even if Epic did act out on apple because of Chinese support the US has to handle the case fairly on basis of the facts of Apple abusing there marked power (which they obvious do, through not necessary illegally). Then, after or parallel to this they can decide how to handle the Chinese involvement, but this MUST NOT affect the given suite. That kinda what being a "constitutional state"/"state of law" is about. It's about being able to rely on the law being uphold independent on weather you family (or investors) might be crime lords or foreign powers or whatever.
Surely they were expecting this to happen, so what comes next? Perhaps Epic has been planning a major lawsuit and this will provide them with the reason to launch it?
Edit: https://twitter.com/FortniteGame/status/1293984290326433792
They have an entire short prepared for this. This is nothing if not fascinating deep-level company poker.
It's to coincide with EU/US investigations into the Apple and Google App Stores.
Which may actually be the plan, as the EGS isn't the only revenue feather in their cap. If they're fine taking that hit because they get game devs twice (selling them distribution and selling them an engine their game is written in), more power to them.
In theory, one can model Apple the same way (i.e. the App Store is a distribution channel to encourage people to buy Apple hardware so they can use the channel), but it sounds like maybe Apple found a great rent opportunity and is reluctant to let it go. Time for someone to remind them they're a hardware company that writes software as an excuse for people to buy their hardware. ;)
That's not the same at all, there's no devices that solely run the EGS, there's nothing stopping any game studio from taking their game to Steam, Origin, GOG, or even making their own.
App Store policy is not law - its terms are unilaterally set by Apple. Citing it as justification makes no sense.
If you want to regulate Apple’s behavior, introduce a law (I would support a law to regulate Apple’s cut of App Store transactions). Fortnite getting booted isn’t going to get a bill sponsored or have antitrust regulators take notice. It’s a breach of contract currently, no more no less.
There are no plans in place to force Apple, Google etc. to do anything. And it's not even clear what outcome the EU is even seeking.
Apple could spend time and money trying to find such hidden features, but that would mean many major apps would see no updates. That’s a losing game, too, even if they are successful at detecting such hidden functionality.
They must have thought about this and decided this is their optimal initial response (it need not be the final one. They can put the app back in their store in seconds)
I can understand that. Allowing this is guaranteeing the end of the App Store. Fighting gives them a chance salvaging it, parts of it, or at least, delay the inevitable.
Is it though? Has the play store ended because Google allows side loading?
The issue here is Apple simply doesn't really take risks and innovate to be the first in an industry. They take existing tech, polish them VERY well, and then try to make a lot of money off of it.
Problem is they're trying to leverage their position to run other companies out of business (Spotify and Apple music for example, or Netflix and Apple TV+)
Doesn’t take risks? They spent lots of money on hardware for machining aluminium (a move that turned out good, I think), developed the Touch Bar (got mixed reviews), a new keyboard (not that successfully), decided to move to ARM CPUs in the desktop (potentially, that could bite them in the future. If x86 CPUs ever become faster than Apple ones, the speed difference with Windows may lose them customers for their high-margin devices), etc.
I guess this is moving away from the main conversation. But I don't really see the App Store going anywhere even if third party app stores were allowed.
https://www.investopedia.com/news/apple-now-bigger-these-5-t...
At the end of the day, and iPad is a general computing device, and it will probably be treated as such in courts, where there are precedents on this.
The prohibition of third party transactions or third party App stores are less clear to breach, but there is a case to be made...
b) There are no precedents that state that a platform must have competing App Stores or make them freely available for anyone to publish. In fact the opposite is the default in companies today e.g. PSN, XBox, Tesla, Shopify, Salesforce.
If you have case law that contradicts this please by all means provide it.
https://resources.whitesourcesoftware.com/blog-whitesource/t...
Of course, Apple had the foresight to purge GPL apps from its store:
And the users who buy Apple's devices, what do they own? Clearly not the devices, if Apple still decides how they may be used.
If you want to argue that Apple’s TOS are unenforceable, then that’s a different argument.
I know of a business that had a policy that fired someone for missing work 3 times without notice. So... an employee missed work 5+ times and then got fired. That employee sued AND WON because the company didn't fire at 3, they waited until 5. If a company has a policy or ToS they need to enforce it.
If Apple allowed sideloading the entire point would be, of course, moot, but Apple's continued refusal to allow this is really the biggest problem, IMO.
>Starting at $8.99, we also provide Certificate & Provisioning files that can be used to install any app, including apps you've created and those not found on the App Store.
Looks like they're essentially "sharing" developer accounts.
Some people realized that they could sell each of those 100 slots at $5-10 to people who really wanted to use the beta (NB: previously iOS did not have public betas), hence "UDID registration".
Later, some of those people realized they could also sell you the code signing certificate that's generated by the real Apple developer account; valid for up to 1 year. That means you have the option of purchasing a real code signing certificate that allows you to sideload apps on non-jailbroken iPhones.
I don't want a situation where 10 apps means 10 different privacy agreements. I also don't want to deal with app companies directly for returns or their custom payment solutions — an "Amazon" is way better.
I’m really curious what you mean by this. Which additional transactions do you wish Apple would take a 30% cut on? You DoorDash orders, your rent, your salary?
Tempting...
(Just experimenting with the idea, not that I actually agree with this line of thought.)
Again, not that I agree with this...just playing devil's advocate here.
I don't want to pay 30% on any transactions!
There isn't a lol big enough
That's not what they said. Apple already handles payment processing via Apple Pay for real world goods (Amazon, Food delivery, Wish), and does not take a cut of the transaction. Some people see Apple controlling payments for many companies as monopolistic and overreaching, but some (like the parent poster and myself to a degree) see it as a safer alternative to having trust dozens of different companies.
They haven’t developed it to not make money off of it.
There are serious costs involved in running an international payments system.
But that's very different from a proper 30% style cut.
Apple has none of the risk and somehow thinks it is appropriate to charge per transaction AND customer. Yes, they charge the companies who wish to integrate with apple pay a quarterly fee per card.
Apple customers are footing this bill, of course, as vendors and banks aren't just going to lose money. Apple is way out of line, and apple customers would benefit from informing themselves.
Heading to a billion and beyond in the next couple of years.
* Some level of guarantee that every app on my phone has been vetted (it's not perfect of course, but is better than nothing). It's unlikely that anything to nefarious makes can make it onto my phone, and if it does, it'll be removed.
* I get a better fit and finish. Apps on the iPhone very often have a better quality to them.
* I get the ability to refund when needed.
* Personally, my support requirements go down. When my nephew calls me with a problem, I know that he didn't go download some random app from instructions he got from a friend.
Clearly, there's also some profit in there.
Edit: Perhaps to get to my point -- these were ALL known when I bought my phone, and for me, were part of the reason I bought it. If I was not ok with this, I would have bought an Android phone.
Bandcamp, for example, provides both digital and physical assets, and only takes a 10% - 15% cut. They provide a secure experience for their customers free of ads, malware, spyware and spam.
One is payment processing, the other's a unified market of 155 countries and 1+ billion users where all the headache of payments, local sales taxes, APIs, etc are taken care of.
How about we do what's often suggested: we spin the AppStore off as its own non-profit governing body and they can disclose their operating costs and increase / decrease their fee as needed. The rules then apply equally to Apple vs. non-Apple companies.
It’s not just payment processing. They provide other critically valuable services to developers such as App Review, Hosting, International Distribution, CoMarketing, Store APIs, Security, etc, etc, and they all have thousands of employees and cost billions to provide.
Apple Services:
- AppStore $ 15 billion
- Licencing $ 10 billion
- Apple Care & Others $ 7.5 billion
- Apple Music $ 5.4 billion
- iCloud $ 4.5 billion
- Third-Party Subscriptions $ 3.6 billion
Total: $46 billion
Remember, you're stating that Apple isn't able break even at a 10% fee for the App Store. Recall that Apple charges developers a yearly subscription (99 USD for non-enterprise accounts per year) to be able to submit something to the App Store. And additionally remember that your "co-marketing" cost should include the money Apple makes from advertisers on its App Store [1].
The items you mentioned as costs are standard for many similar internet service (hosting, security, customer APIs, etc. etc,.) that do not make nearly the amount of revenue Apple does with its App Store.
Let's do a worst case and cut Apple's estimated App Store revenue from $15 billion to $5 billion a year to show how ridiculous the claim that they can't break even is.
And the $99 and ad revenues are service revenues. So their audited financials say, taking all of those revenues, that services expenses are roughly 32% of their revenues. Obviously this doesn’t include administration costs, interest costs or taxes.
32% of 30% is 9.6%, so it’s possible that’s their break even level, or even a little lower if App Store margins are higher than other services. But it’s unlikely because it’s likely the billions in the Google Safari placement check is close to 100% margin, meaning the rest of services has to have margins well under 68%.
There's an obvious trade off for security/reliability, but I've still come across my fair share of terrible iPhone apps. Android definitely has a more freeware/open source vibe.
You're just annoyed because you want third party apps, but you don't want to follow their ToS :)
Now explain why the rest of us have to be limited to your choice only on our $1000+ mobile computers.
If you want to be happy with using the store for all your life's needs - that's completely fine. Nobody will argue with you here.
Otherwise, people should be able to download as they please.
Imagine if your electricity company only allowed 'approved Toasters' on their electric grid, complete with special plugins, and a 30% cut of the device.
It's an anti-competitive practice as old as time.
You mean like the days when Ma Bell limited the selection of phones that people could choose from?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_AT%26T#Monopoly: 'Each phone was leased from AT&T on a monthly basis by customers, who generally paid for their phone and its connection many times over in cumulative lease fees. This monopoly made millions of extra dollars for AT&T, which had the secondary effect of greatly limiting phone choices and styles. AT&T strictly enforced policies against buying and using phones by other manufacturers that had not first been transferred to and re-rented from the local Bell monopoly. Many phones made by Western Electric thus carried the following disclaimer permanently molded into their housings: "BELL SYSTEM PROPERTY — NOT FOR SALE."'
No one forces you to side-load. I don't see how you not wanting something turns into "no one else should have it"
Pretty clever on Epic’s part to specifically highlight how Apple’s app store fee hits the user directly. Pretty short-sighted of Apple to immediately pull an app for providing consumers with additional disclosure about where their money is going.
Edit as reply: I'm not accusing them of breaking a law, but of abusing their position. That there might not yet be a law against this specific kind of abuse doesn't make the practice any less abusive.
At least with Android you can go through f-droid if you don't like the Play Store.
A monopoly would be if Apple was literally the only smartphone manufacturer in the entire world.
"Apple monopolizes the iOS App Distribution Market".
I don't think that it's a good argument to make that anyone can do it, because it does require _some_ technical knowledge in order to do it. I'd make the argument that if it's not accessible to everyone, then I don't think it's a viable replacement for an app store.
To lean on F-droid as an example on the Android side, outside of the initial installation of F-droid(which can be done from your phone), you can easily browse F-droid and install apps.
I don't think it's as easy to sideload apps on iOS. I haven't done it in years(since my jailbreak days), but I remember that you needed to be on a Mac and needed xcode to do it. It's probably updated now to make it a bit easier, but from a quick Google it looks like you need to download a separate program in order to do it. It looks like other ways to sideload apps requires some abuse of developer certificates to make it work.
Is this seriously the argument?
There are multiple stores that you can try and get your product on. If Walmart doesn't work, then you could try Target, or Aldi, or Amazon.
You have literally one option to go with on iOS. You can't even "drive to a new store", as switching to Android costs hundreds of dollars, and not everyone is in a financial situation to purchase a new phone on a whim.
I won't argue about the specifics of this, Epic paid lawyers millions of dollars to draft a court document about the monopolization of the iOS app distribution store. I'd urge you to read the document first before drawing pretty poor parallels.
If you’re accusing Apple of breaking other laws, please specify which.
Unless if you’re alleging that Apple is in breach of an existing law. If so, you should probably provide evidence for such an assertion.
In my youth I had the energy and desire to individually assess how much I trusted what I downloaded. Today I do not want to spend the energy/time so I spend financial capital to have Apple assess trust for me.
Does that mean that app developers have a harder time selling me their software? Yes. I empathize, but I don't want to be an early adopter anymore. I'm happy for those developers to first build trust, then have access to me as a customer.
what's crazy is harping on a technicality about the word "monopoly" and then to ignore the actual issue that is implied by the criticism, market power.
Even two companies aren't a market, if you get hung up about monopoly call it a duopoly. The state of affairs is ridiculous. There should be a thriving market of competing stores, payment systems, operating systems and so on, yet we're stuck with at best two alternatives, both of which are extremely locked down.
Sure, there should be more platforms available. I'm into that. Personally, I bought an iPhone because of the closed ecosystem. I don't want to have to think about my phone that much, but I want to be able to rely on it. That's what I paid for and that's what I'm getting.
From my perspective demanding that the platform be open to any and everything is a bit like going to a carwash and demanding they also do your house.
> I don’t want to have to think about my phone that much, but I want to be able to rely on it.
I’m in the exact same boat; I have no interest in sideloading every app that decides to get into a pissing match with Apple (and as Spotify’s hinted at it before, they will certainly be losing my subscription if I need to sideload their app). For every app that has a legitimate reason to sideload (i.e. payments), there will be another app that sideloads to bypass the user-beneficial aspects of the App Store (i.e. Onavo from Facebook).
That sounds terrible. Myriad incompatible ways to find apps, having to give your financial information to lots of different systems you have to investigate individually, or not be able to do business with someone using a different system, apps only being available on the small number of devices running the OS they were developed for.
All the things you mention benefit massively from network effects, which can greatly benefit consumers.
that is a weird complaint because that is the status quo due to closed platforms, I can't run facetime on an android phone.
Diverse ecosystems develop protocols to enable interoperability, that's where the slogan "protocols, not platforms" comes from. This is how the internet works, despite the fact that you can hook up anything from a fridge running windows ME to a supercomputer running suse to it, everyone communicates just fine.
Is this what we're advocating for? More consumption of rare resources?
Either way, say I made a mistake and now I'm using Apple. Do you suggest everyone in that same condition go make more waste by buying new phones?
> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area.
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
I think there's a reasonable argument that users buy iPhones with the expectation of a market in the app store (I can get or buy apps from any company that cares to develop one), so when Apple charges a 30% fee (far above normal payment processing fees) on every transaction made through the app they are abusing a monopoly position.
An iPhone is clearly a different case. Measuring what options users have is not limited by a geographic region but by what policies and app stores govern the device.
And that the high-spending consumer segment appreciates this?
I always seem to regret signing up for subscriptions elswhere. Did anyone have the myheritage fight - I did that 5 years ago - total nightmare. I mean - how is stuff like THAT legal (hadn't used service in a year, no notice prior to the renewal being billed), no way to get out of paying.
I'm not using any Apple products for exactly that reason (other than what my workplace forces upon me.)
On my Android phone I can install any 3rd party app I please - there even is "F-Droid", a non-Google app store for open apps, which I use a lot.
And for desktops I use Linux. I guess I'm in the minority - even here on HN.
If iPhone had no App store and only had official Apple apps we wouldn't be having this conversation, regardless of how popular iPhones are.
I think Apple is in the wrong, but a critical issue what threshold or criteria must be met for them to be required to offer an open(ish) platform?
*open(ish) meaning allowing alternative app stores or charging industry standard payment processing fees.
I'm mostly responding to the strong comments - in this case "digging their own antitrust grave."
While falling into an anti-trust grave would be very serious - we are a fairs ways away from that here I think.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held....
Similarly, I'm sure Walmart monopolizes the Walmart distribution market.
As that law has been interpreted, it is not illegal for a company to have a monopoly, to charge "high prices," or to try to achieve a monopoly position by what might be viewed by some as particularly aggressive methods. The law is violated only if the company tries to maintain or acquire a monopoly through unreasonable methods.
They STARTED the app store with these terms, that is literally the OPPOSITE of achieving a monopoly with predatory or below market pricing. They did such a good job that despite the high price most developers make LOTS of money on the app store, and users value many of the elements as well.
Anyways, will be an interesting case, but it's not "crazy" that someone doesn't have time to respond to every point on HN - seriously HN has gone full outrage / offense these days with no ability to just discuss merits, consider other viewpoints.
personally i don’t see it as sustainable and surprised the stock keeps hitting all time highs.
It's pretty clear it wasn't a mistake from Epic, so there's no point in dallying.
The other interesting thing is that they're charging the reduced price on consoles which I believe take a similar 30% cut to Apple.
They certainly have a lot to lose if they back down, and a court battle's outcome is uncertain.
What is also certain is that Apple has enough cash sloshing around to out-lawyer and outlast anyone on the planet. They very clearly do not have a monopoly, and the charges of anti-competitiveness are a bit flimsy. Seems like a worthwhile risk to take.
US Antitrust is still in the 80's Chicago School era where antitrust is solely based on consumer benefit and and efficiency. EU has more broad approach where economic power in the public interest is important. It may be up to the EU to change how Apple does business.
If I wanted a different choice I'd buy a different brand of phone.
Also, many can dislike this issue but still not buy an Android. It isn’t like this is the only differentiator.
An oligopoly is an oligopoly. Would be redundant to bring in how this one has mediocre products now.
Unless they know something the public doesn't about a prior case file, this stuff takes a long time to be fully investigated and go through the courts.
Epic could sue in some EU country or some European game developer might jump in.
We have been given court-side seats to a sophisticated game of feints and dramatic negotiation. Pre-Game, Epic lined their shot with care. They've come prepared with media and assets, (no doubt) lawyers (and potential lawsuits?), PR strategy, regulatory strategy etc. They know the argument they would like to make. And they know how to make it.
How will Apple respond? Will Epic's strong start lead to a strong finish?
Their machinations have been laid scandalously bare. If you listen closely, you can hear your local business school clickety-clacking away to a ludicrously overpriced case study. And the local #hustle blogger RSI their way to a million views.
O'Think of the great blog posts and MBA lessons this drama will make!
edit: and they've filed for relief! https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/apple-complaint-734589783.pdf
1. TikTok and WeChat getting banned (This will also have a huge side effect for Apple)
2. Uber and Lyft regulated to classify drivers as employees
3. Influential companies trying to tear down the Apple payment walled garden (Last time it was Hey, but this time it's Fortnite, which is infinitely more formidable). Now the only thing left is for Google to come out and say "we're going to charge zero commission for our in-app payments", and the wall will be down pretty soon.
I feel like there's some pattern here that may change the overall game of the tech industry. Grabbing some popcorn and waiting for new opportunities to open up!
Regulators are slowly getting sick of the tech industry's behavior of overthrowing markets by VC-ing out competitors to establish their own monopoly all while dodging taxes through global schemes.
https://twitter.com/ballmatthew/status/1293893660493455360
"Wow. Epic outright promoting direct in-app payment around iOS store but in iOS apps
And users collect 100% of the savings. No monetary benefit to Epic.
Note: McDonalds, Starbucks, et al are 'allowed' to do this today - but not gaming/media cos"
Edit: The youtube comments are hilarious because no one knows what it's a spoof of. For those who don't know: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zfqw8nhUwA
Pardon my hyperbole but this is nearing the level of a human rights issue. The freedom to run the apps and services you want to is so core to the way our society works that most people don't think about it. Having one corporation dictate how all apps for the entire world work is not compatible with a free society and actively harms innovation. This is becoming a big problem and regulations are being very slow to react to it.
Google made it so third party app stores like F-Droid can't even implement auto-upgrading, or background installations of apps. App stores outside of the Play Store and 3rd party apps are 2nd class citizens on Android.
It is similar to how Gatekeeper works in macOS. Developers that didn't pay Apple $100 a year to develop and notarize software have their apps get treated like they're radioactive by Gatekeeper.
The Play Store can do background installations, auto-upgrading and batch installs of software, while competitors can't. That's anticompetitive behavior in my book.
App store fees are on the unjustified side in the current spectrum of value assessment.
The more reasonable approach is to figure out ways for customers to get more values from the platform, instead of extracting more efficiently.
I bet this decision is some form of lower-to-middle level decision, without consulting Tim and his close subordinates. I would expect Tim and his close subordinates to be sensitive enough to at least not doing something so abruptly (not that it's not complying with the rules). I would guess this decision didn't even surfaced to VP level. AFAIK, VPs should be owning such sensitive decisions at Apple.
Everything that has 10% market share should have some kind of regulation for things like this.
Defining things like this is hard though. What to regulate is hard too.
People are talking anti-trust, but I don't think it'll take a legal case for them to eventually lose this broader fight. Apple has enough money they COULD do whatever they want for as long as they want, but if this grows to even more companies, Apple's negotiating position becomes weaker.
> Why would epic even do this.... they know the rules. Why would they expect to use another companies platform for free. With apple 100% on this.
Use? they add value to the platform, Apple is just double dipping because crazy hardware markup wasn't enough for them. Are people really this blind?
>Epic agreed to the App Store terms and guidelines freely and we’re glad they’ve built such a successful business on the App Store.
>The fact that their business interests now lead them to push for a special arrangement does not change the fact that these guidelines create a level playing field for all developers and make the store safe for all users.
lol.
This is the same as Bungee not needing to pursue Playstation customers to make Halo what it is.
All of those platforms have stores, all of them allow digital downloads of software that executes, all of those have browsers.
What makes the iPhone "general purpose" where the others are not?
But there was nothing stopping Microsoft from releasing halo onto the playstation.
There is nothing stopping anyone from developing a game for these consoles.
The rules could be unfair[1] but this issue is just Epic not wanting to follow the rules to make some more money.
[1] We can discuss what a fair price/percentage should be. Arguably the market and Apple customers have decided 30% is fair, but we can discuss. Meanwhile, side-loading or not charging would make my iPhone experience worse.
It seems we have both settled that either an iPhone is not general purpose, or all consoles, TVs or IOT devices with downloadable content are general purpose devices.
If you'd like we can now start discussing if the price Apple charges is fair.
I've already stated, the market decides to buy iPhones understanding (even appreciating) that the user cannot side-load non-Apple approved apps (other than through a less trusted channel i.e. the browser). As such the market through demand, has decided there is a niche ecosystem where 30% fees for in app purchases are appropriate and fair.
What are your thoughts?
However the current focus is on Apple due to their size.
I've already stated, the market decides to buy iPhones understanding (even appreciating) that the user cannot side-load non-Apple approved apps (other than through a less trusted channel i.e. the browser). As such the market through demand, has decided there is a niche ecosystem where 30% fees for in app purchases are appropriate and fair.
Why is this market dynamic an issue given there are so many games and tons of competition on and off iOS?
But I disagree that consumers agree to 30% because they continue to buy expecting sideloading to be relegated from relevancy.
If polled, I doubt consumers would guess the royalty is even that high. Someone should run a survey.
I am in general, very favorable toward Apple as a company. I’ve commented before that I believe in the company’s stance toward privacy. I see Apple as a benevolent dictator in its continued security restrictions on MacOS. With some exception to his deference to Trump, I admire Tim Cook as he presents himself as a person.
However, I have also sold apps through the App Store.
And there’s no real way around Apple’s massive financial success. It’s so big, if it were a person they would be burned at the stake.
There is an upper bound on reasonable net income.
This isn’t even about tax revenue, it is about any developer getting more than 70 cents on the dollar for their work.
Getting an app into the App Store barely means anything; you have to market it. Sure it is “safe” and incredibly easy to install. But good luck thinking that because you see a Ready For Sale message your app is going to be a hit.
In my experience, Apple is snobbish in interaction with developers.
At least historically, there is very little goodwill, even when Apple magically decides to “feature“ your work. Which is again self-serving because they take their cut regardless.
I am having a hard time defending Apple’s rate. Not because of Epic but because of someone like me who wants to sell software on the best (and only other serious) mobile platform.
This is definitely the right mental model. I am fully onboard for more data.
However, to clarify my previous point when I said "customers agree" I meant customers understand and are generally accepting of "priced in" convenience. For example, in some convenience stores they offer a discount for using cash or debit. Most big stores tho, "price in the cost of credit transactions". Customers understand this and are happy for the convenience and happy for the points.
With the Apple store, digital goods are 30% more expensive, and seemingly customers are ok with it because they are making purchases, while getting the conveniences of the AppStore vetting, refunds process, permissions model, advertising model, privacy, etc.
Apple does not get to decide how the market operates. Only government gets to do that. Your statement makes it clear that they are committing anti-competitive practices.
Doesn't the Sony Playstation, or Microsoft's Xbox get to control how they operate?
Don't movie theaters get to decide which movies are shown/not?
Don't service providers like a nail salon or grocery store get to deny service? Other than for "protected categories" like sex, race, religion. e.g. "No shirt, no shoes, no service".
Fortnite is a clear example of a success story of competition on the iOS platform. Epic has been making tons of money (billions in profit) for years thanks for Fortnite and in some part to iOS and the AppStore.
This current battle between Epic and Apple is about profit sharing and that's all. Have you seen the number of successful games on the iOS platform? Competition is thriving! But I do agree both companies are greedy.
Its not for consumers. Consumers will always feel safe with what they have.
Its to not stifle the competition.
Look what happened to vine.
A competitor bought it, twitter. Gutted it and left it. It could have been next tiktok in a few years. We would never know.
How many competitor have google and apple stiffed?
2. (Directly resulting into 1) There is no competition for distributing apps on Apple devices. You cannot sideload or implement your own app store. You cannot use any other payment processor.
ok am going to put a highly objectionable comment. I buy stuff on apple store because its easy and SAFE.
That safety point is more important than ever, if there was no app store or lets say having 10 other app stores , i wont have the same level of confidence and heck i wont even be spending any dollars out there.
Over to Apple's 30 % cut, i dont know whats the call here, to make it 0%? ,10% , 20%? what if the same fortnite (or any other company) increases the bill to $9.99 next week :)
Am saying this purely from a consumer perspective that i dont care how apple and devs split the money as long as it doesn't bite me ...
Based on the reports of how hard it is to develop for the app store and all the third party tools to help deal with signing apps, I have a hard time believing the self-proclaimed greatness of the tools Apple provides.
Apple claims level playing field, but that's obviously nonsense.
App makers could start to 'play games' like trying different pricing models that 'go outside the bounds' and the 'come back' - making sure to blame Apple for the problems.
App makers could group together and 'go black' for a few days in protes.
App makers could group together and all circumvent the rules at the same time.
I also find out obscene that Epic tried to used its size to circumvent that when its smaller competitors wouldn't dream of doing so.
But I'm more annoyed by the first bit. It's such an obscene cut to take when it's clear you are only facilitating the transaction by choice instead of by necessity.
[0]: https://twitter.com/ballmatthew/status/1293893660493455360
Apple has a monopoly on its app-store the same way Amazon has a monopoly on what (and how) it sells on AWS for services.
I think it's all about how you define the market. Is the market for "apps on the iPhone" or "computer software in general"? Apple has monopoly control of the former but not the latter.
(I personally don't agree with this viewpoint but it's how it is viewed by many. For one, I've spent $X on iOS apps, if I switch platforms I lose all of those apps. Feels unfair!)
Even if one builds for the web, apple only allows a single browser engine which is their own. They unilaterally can decide what to implement and what features to add or remove.
Reality is anyone releasing a for-profit app aiming for mass appeal can't afford to ignore either the Android or iOS ecosystem. They have to release for both, so there's no real competition involved.
Then I read the title to this post... directly under it.
What a day
Apple maintaining a stupid and unjustifiable premium forced higher prices.
Companies retaliating with this sort of posturing from Epic forces App Store removals and worse.
Epic are hypocrites. Apple are greedy. I’ll back the horse that’s neither
Literally.
Epic sells usage ("v-bucks") which would cost them nothing to supply 'unlimited'.
Apple, having a standard of "in-app sales, we get 30%", wants their cut of making a bundle via the Apple ecosystem.
I have to assume they fully expected removal. So they must have some next step in mind.
Some kind of legal action? A complaint to regulators or a lawsuit? Are either of those likely to work?
They absolutely expected this.
Unfortunately Apple's the sherrif in the app store and doesn't give a damn.
Unreal.
It doesn't take much imagination to see how different the world would be if a single corporation decided what software was allowed to be used by society. Anything that is the least bit controversial wouldn't exist. Napster, Torrents, Emulators etc are obvious and people would no doubt argue they shouldn't exist anyway, but I imagine even web browsers themselves (Apple already doesn't allow them on iOS), networking tools like IPFS, game streaming services (also banned by Apple), etc just wouldn't exist in that world. I could go on with examples but that's the point, there's a LOT of creativity and complexity out there and it's impossible for a single gatekeeper to do a good job of deciding what has a right to exist.