Hacker News Reader

> I rather give 30% of the money Epic takes for basically selling digital nothing to millions of teens to Apple. At least Apple is doing something with that money, maintaining the App Store, providing and developing tools like XCode and Swift.

Epic also would be spending some of their money on their own development, improvement to games etc. I don't quite follow the line of argument here - if things are 30% more expensive to cover Apples costs, then the consumer is the one losing out in the transaction.

And that's the case with the Epic suit: Epic literally dropped their prices when they went around Apple's cut, passing almost all of the savings directly on to consumers.

It's really incredible to me the lengths people will go to villanize Epic when they're known for not just advocating for consumer choice and lower prices, but have done crazy things like when dropping their cut... applying it retroactively since they started charging for it: https://marketplacehelp.epicgames.com/s/article/Unreal-Engin...

Can you even imagine Apple retroactively giving all those small businesses half the Apple cut back?

Obviously Epic dropped their prices, at first. I mean they got everyone rallied up and used their in game propaganda machine and everyone believed they are the good guys. By the end of the day, all they saw was 30 % loss of income. In a few years time their prices would have increased to their old level.

Also about that amazing fact that Epic has given part of the previously paid commision back. It's interesting to note the time of that decision compared to the popularity and online spending on Fortnite. Epic basically changed its business model, creating a precedent in the process. Using it two years later. If we can charge less, why can't you?

I mean I still think myself the 30% are too high, but Epic lining up your kids in front of a virtual stage to make them all hate Apple? It concerns me quite a bit!

Epic put the prices at the same level that they already sell V-bucks for via the Epic game store. I don't buy the argument that they would jack those prices back up to the other levels when if they had the ability to process payments themselves, would then be consistent across platforms.

> I mean I still think myself the 30% are too high, but Epic lining up your kids in front of a virtual stage to make them all hate Apple? It concerns me quite a bit!

Whilst I in principal agree mostly with Epic over Apple in this case, I completely agree with you here that the whole video approach was gaudy (at best) and a bit of unfair exposition.

> Having several app stores would water down the whole iOS ecosystem and has actually the potential to hurt the business of many app based companies. Yes, the App Store can be strict at times and quite of few of its restrictive policies need changing. But it does force you to make good stable apps.

I agree so much. A lot of people here are missing the woods for the trees.

And to the average person who probably would just use the native app store, nothing would change. But people who are more comfortable with less polished apps that do utilities that they want to play with (or experiment with), they're missing out because of Apples restrictive policies.

The App Store is a great way to get your apps out there–for certain apps. The fact that alternative app stores can exist does not mean the App Store cannot or will not be used: many developers (myself included) would probably still use it because it is simple, easy, built-in, and handles many things for you. The issue arises when it is the only app store, so it no longer has to compete on features–what incentive does the App Store have to improve the app upload experience? None, really. And, finally, the tools Apple gives you to develop your apps are the ones they use themselves, and you could argue that they should be taking this money out of their iPhone sales anyways.