Hacker News Reader

Comment by NovemberWhiskey | Hacker News Reader

>to it seems to be purely a cynical piece of PR on Apple’s part.

Oh please.

Has it ever occurred in the history of the world that the selfish motives of two different parties aligned? i.e. Apple gets good press for helping smaller developers and the smaller developers get increased revenues. It happens all the times, and it's called "good business".

You can keep waiting for Apple's App Store executives to cover themselves with sackcloth and ashes and repent of their terrible policies. Let me know how that works out.

View on HN

If Apple didn't fear either Epic's lawsuit or Congressional action, or both, they'd never reduce their app store cut, for anyone, ever.

This announcement means Apple knows that neither public opinion nor the law is on their side and they're about to lose really, really big. And they're hoping if they can flip this around a bit and get control of the narrative, they can convince regulators they will self-regulate... while continuing to get a third of the revenue from all the most lucrative developers.

Google's new Gmail privacy settings fall in the same boat: They'd rather lose data from a small portion of their users if it might deter the government from taking away all of it.

> they'd never reduce their app store cut, for anyone, ever.

Why not 50%? 75%? 100%? 150%?

It could also be that they are seeking the optimal rate of return, balancing developer incentives, bringing in new developers, etc.

I think many factors play into the decision, including lawsuits and public scrutiny.

I think it will be really interesting to watch and see if google mirrors the pricing.

> they can convince regulators they will self-regulate... while continuing to get a third of the revenue from all the most lucrative developers.

So what?

Seriously, who cares if Epic earns 14 bzillionty dollars this month, or 20 bzillionty dollars?

At that scale, the 30% is such a terrible thorn in your side?

Come on. Cry me a damn river.

The 'narrative' here is Epic pretending they care about anyone except themselves and that this ridiculous song and dance is about it being 'good for everyone'.

Let's try something positive instead:

What should they have done then to make you happy?

Seriously; if this is such a cynical, terrible move, what should they have done?

> Seriously, who cares if Epic earns 14 bzillionty dollars this month, or 20 bzillionty dollars?

The narrative here is amazing, because you're not sympathizing with Epic because they're so big and have so much money... but they're still the little guy compared to Apple. The scale of Apple's monopoly profit makes Epic look like a corner pharmacy in Montana.

"Little guy"?

Epic is fore casting earning something like 5 billion dollars this financial year.

You'll have to try a bit harder to get a bit of sympathy for them than 'they're smaller than apple'.

...

5 billion dollars.

...

And you want me to care that another company is shaking you down for a couple of million?

Boo hoo. Poor epic. I wonder how they pay the bills.

Oh, I know! They use some that 5 billion dollars they made to do it.

I think maybe there are some, you know, real people, who will get some tangible benefits from these rate cuts.

If Epic loses out.. or... you know, if they get them too? Really, it makes no difference to them at all. So.. I really. Do. Not. Care.

You are correct that Epic Games made 5 billion dollars in revenue in 2019, according to Venturebeat [1]. However, Apple Insider reports that Apple made 59.7 billion dollars in revenue in their third fiscal quarter (March, April, and May) of 2020 [2].

Epic's definitely not a little guy, but compared to Apple, it looks more like a respectable medium-sized company.

I find Apple's revenue numbers and market value truly staggering. Few companies seem to be able to compare.

[1] https://venturebeat.com/2020/06/15/epic-games-shareholders-s...

[2] https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/10/26/what-to-expect-fr...

Apple is the largest company in the world and sells the most successful product in human history.

Of course nobody ‘compares’.

But compared to almost any other iOS developer Epic is a giant.

And Epic isn't asking for a benefit for themselves: They're using those billions to fight for not just themselves, but thousands of smaller developers. Over two hundred of them joined Epic's little "app dev union" of sorts recently.

Yes, Apple sells one of the most successful products in human history... and they also illegally use that power to control the market and extract revenue from thousands of other companies who have no choice but to do business with them.

“ And Epic isn't asking for a benefit for themselves”

False: Epic wants to pay less commission themselves, and to be able to take a cut of other developers work.

One big difference between Apple and Epic is that Epic didn’t do any work to create the platform.

As to those smaller developers. Apple just cut the commission for them in half. A lower level than Epic was promising. Apple seems to care about the smaller developers.

Epic is not fighting for anyone but themselves.

Let’s note that more than half of Epic’s profits belong to just one man.

I think Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, and Google would also be considered iOS developers, since they publish apps on the App Store. So in terms of market value, Epic is definitely not the biggest player in the Apple ecosystem.

Although, if we're going by how popular the apps are on the store...I could see how Epic would be considered a heavyweight on the App Store.

Epic is part of TenCent which is close to having a monopoly on games these days.

But separately, the only reason to root for ‘the little guy’ is if the little guy is somehow hard done by.

We dislike the fact that Apple makes some money by charging developers 30% for payment services, software delivery, and operating a storefront that users feel safe to buy from.

We say 30% is too much to change for that, because the margin is way too high. Fair enough.

Epic on the other hand makes its money from selling in game currency to children.

That practice needs to be banned altogether.

TenCent has a stake in Epic but Tim Sweeney still is the majority shareholder

Epic has a 40% stake, and controls Epic’s access to the Chinese market. There may be other rights attached to their share.

Sweeney may technically still have the majority vote, but he can’t do anything they seriously oppose, or not do anything they are strongly in favor of without facing serious consequences.

This is entirely false. Because while Blizzard, the NBA, and every other "American" company was busy sucking up to China in the last year, Tim Sweeney blatantly stated players in his games should feel free to support Hong Kong.

Epic didn't bow to China like other American companies did. And Epic didn't even stay silent. Epic made a clear statement in opposition to China.

That should've put to bed any of this silly "it's controlled by China" nonsense. Tencent just likes having a good stake in a company that prints money.

If there is any part of what I said that is false. I invite you to point it out.

Support Hong Kong?

How is that in opposition to China? Hong Kong is part of China, and I’m pretty sure the Chinese government thinks of itself as supporting Hong Kong.

All Sweeney actually did was make some carefully worded statements about free speech and said that they wouldn’t filter messages on their platform.

He made no statement encouraging support of any particular political stance.

Why shouldn't you be able to sell toys to children? Fortnite clearly provides a lot of utility to a lot of people.

In game currency is not toys.

It’s a way to monetize addictive videogames without providing any additional value.

Do you think we should sell cigarettes to children? If not, why not?

Fortnite is absolutely a toy. It's no different than buying different outfits for your doll.

If you buy outfits for your doll, you have the outfits. You can pass them on to your own children along with the doll.

If you buy in-game currency from epic, you have nothing except the memory of a dopamine hit.

Provide an officially-sanctioned way to install alternative software sources.

macOS has that; Apple will even certify third party developers so that the system can still validate software outside of the Mac App Store. That kind of security model would be perfect for iOS and would moot pretty much all the substantive parts of Epic's complaint.

They have an officially sanctioned way. Reinstall every 7 days without cost, or pay $100/year and you don’t need to reinstall.

It’s not as convenient as the main store, of course, but there are convenience tools (altstore.io) that make it close.

I have and use AltStore. It's amazing what they did, but it's certainly not Apple-sanctioned; they have to jump through a large amount of hoops in order to get your code signing certificate and then get iTunes to install the app for you. This also requires giving AltStore your iCloud password, among other things, and it resigns the app as yours. It technically works, but it doesn't work well.

Just because it is something YOU want doesn't mean we ALL want it. I appreciate Apple's review of apps and their store policies. While no human endeavor is perfect it is at least an attempt to keep their platform more secure, safer for kids, higher quality, and more trustworthy.

Opening up the platform to other app stores means they have less control over the experience on their platform it opens more avenues for malware.

If you want a more open platform use Android.

Safer for kids who aren't in Hong Kong, presumably.

A single source of application signing will always be abused to entrench dangerous governments and prejudice. It is toxic, and needs to be outlawed.

> less control over the experience on their platform

I value the customer's ability to install programs of their choosing on a phone they purchased. It seems strange that we see it as desirable to concentrate authority over billions of devices this way. Taking a step back, it's sort of a "what could possibly go wrong" scenario.

Or, you know, you could just not use any other app store on iPhone and continue to use Apple's and it'll still work fine.

And let others use the Epic app store for Fortnight.

Why are Apple users so quick to recommend me Android when I point out this particular flaw with iOS? And yes, I do consider distrusting the owner's software installation preferences to be a flaw, especially when Apple is certainly capable of maintaining a robust and safe third-party distribution ecosystem on macOS. The Mac isn't demonstrably less secure because you have a sanctioned way to install Steam onto it. Likewise, Apple doesn't lose the ability to maintain the quality of the Mac App Store because people might get their apps on Steam.

"Safer for kids" isn't a factor here; Apple already provides tools for parents to lock down their children's devices should that be necessary. This would also presumably have an option (or default) to disable third-party apps, in the same way parents can already disable specific App Store and built-in apps.

The Mac is demonstrably less secure than iOS, and there is much less incentive for bad actors to target the Mac because of its tiny market share.

> Apple will even certify third party developers so that the system can still validate software outside of the Mac App Store. That kind of security model would be perfect for iOS and would moot pretty much all the substantive parts of Epic's complaint.

That's a really good point. Why isn't the dev community talking about getting Apple to do this on iOS?

It would allow sideloading while maintaining security, and a somewhat more fair amount of control from Apple.

Because the dev community seems to think that you shouldn't be allowed to go to the bathroom without checking in with Apple first, for "security."

If epic can spend 50 million to receive and extra "5 bzilionty" dollars plus excellent PR, that's bloody good business.

> If Apple didn't fear either Epic's lawsuit or Congressional action, or both, they'd never reduce their app store cut, for anyone, ever.

Except they have done exactly that in the past. In June 2016 Apple introduced a subscription billing model which reduces the fee to 15% after the first year a customer is subscribed.

I'm sure the developers of all 15 apps that sell multi-year subscriptions were very happy about that.

Interestingly the top benefactor is Google, as YouTube is #1 for subscription revenue in 2019 according to TechCrunch.

Subscription revenue on Apple's store was $3.6B of ~$50B in 2019, so 7.2% of app store revenue overall.

It's absolutely true that Apple doesn't have a lot of pricing pressure on their 30% fee, since their platform is so compelling and especially since most competitor App Stores charge the same amount. But it's also absolutely false that they have never lowered their rate.

Apple doesn’t fear Epic’s lawsuit for the merits of the lawsuit itself. Apple fears how Epic can use their devoted base of video game players to create a PR frenzy that turns the lawsuit into a popularity contest.

That is true for all lawsuits.

The more damning implication is that Apple, one of the world's most highly valued brands, a brand name that has historically commanded 50%+ gross profit margins on commodity goods sold as luxury goods, is losing a 'popularity' contest to a video game company. Talk of changing times!

I agree that this is good news. But let's keep "selfish motives of two different parties" in perspective to the size and power of one side over the other.

This program came in after more than decade after the app store was created and when Apple is finally under increased public scrutiny for anti-competitive behaviour. Apple made an estimated $20 billion from the app store last year alone with estimated profits from that revenue being around 90% [1]. Being able to afford to half the commission over night speaks to how disconnected the commission is to the costs in running the store.

Why were they able to take 30% and continue to take 15% commission off of all sales? Because the value of the app store is only created via continued practices of anti-competitive behaviour. Ex:

1) Banning competing app stores (restricting customers choice)

2) Banning the mention of alternate methods of payment (restricted customers harmed by paying higher fees)

The argument that the app store charged "market rate" is also not a fair comparison. Your comparing one completely closed market to other open markets that Microsoft and Google produced. Both main competitors allow for competing app stores from their own for example.

[1] https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/01/10/the-app-store-is-s...

> Why were they able to take 30% and continue to take 15% commission off of all sales? Because the value of the app store is only created via continued practices of anti-competitive behaviour.

Also, because Apple created the most valuable mobile software market in the world, by creating the iPhone, continuing to release top-notch phones year after year, and by creating the App Store itself.

It remains true that iPhone users buy software at a rate that totally dwarfs Android. This could be traced to a number of reasons, but I wouldn't dismiss the App Store monopoly as one of them.

You can describe this as anti-competitive, just keep in mind that you're assuming your own conclusion. You could make the same argument for Apple's refusal to license their OSes for hardware they don't manufacture, I would be similarly unimpressed.

As a user, I would like a stress-free way to sideload apps which don't meet Apple's standards for inclusion on the App Store. Don't see why Apple would want to give away their competitive advantage by letting other stores sell software for their phones, but I could imagine them making side-loading less onerous, that would be nice.

> Also, because Apple created the most valuable mobile software market in the world,

No, they created the possibility for the most valuable mobile software market in the world. Third-party developers were the ones that created it into the most valuable mobile software market in the world.

> by creating the iPhone

Creating the iPhone does not explain the source of the App Store's value, only that one is "tied" to the other. Which leads to my next point.

> You can describe this as anti-competitive, just keep in mind that you're assuming your own conclusion.

It's anti-competitive according to the law. The practice of selling a service (ie: commissions from App Store) as a mandatory addition to the purchase of a different product (ie: iPhone) is called tying. In the United States, most states have laws against tying, which are enforced by state governments. In addition, the U.S. Department of Justice enforces federal laws against tying through its Antitrust Division [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)

> No, they created the possibility for the most valuable mobile software market in the world. Third-party developers were the ones that created it into the most valuable mobile software market in the world.

No, they literally created the market. The products sold in my supermarket don't create the supermarket either.

Whether what Apple does meets the legal definition of tying is an open question. I doubt it, clearly you're convinced, which is to say, you're assuming your own conclusion.

It’d be a lot easier to believe if the change didn’t coincide with an incoming administration who has already signaled they’d be looking at anti-competitive practices. Those aligning incentives have an exquisite sense of timing, as it happened exactly as those talked of enforcements started becoming real.

I'm not waiting for Apple to repent. I'm waiting for the company to be broken up.

>It happens all the times, and it's called "good business".

I would have agreed with you if Apple had,

Paused and in any sort of PR, Marketing, or answer direct from the executive team that they are at least thinking about the issue. Except they double down on thinking they deserved that 30% if not more. ( Perfectly Fine )

Did not take hard stand against developers and thinking themselves as so righteous. ( Also Fine )

But then suddenly turn around and act like Santa to Help SME or smaller developers, when Apple are under pressure in multiple countries for their App Store policy.

May be Tim Cook did not realise, Apple has turned into hypocrite just like Google did in their Do No Evil era.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com