The "Apple Tax" pays for the maintenance of the Apple ecosystem. Epic wants access to this amazing ecosystem, but resents having to help pay to support it.
Either "third party" app stores will also pay to support this ecosystem, in which case Epic will be paying the same amount either way; or they'll fail to support the ecosystem, in which case Apple will be forced to turn to other sources to make revenue (like selling personal information).
Right now I, as the consumer, can choose between an ecosystem whose business model is based on selling personal information (Android) or an ecosystem whose business model is based on the end user paying more (Apple). Don't take that choice away from me.
how did you work out that the amount apple gets paid (30%) is the "correct" amount? The only way to find out is via competition. But due to the monopolistic powers of apple, there cannot be competition on their platform. Thus, we do not know the true cost of maintaining this platform - only that apple is able to maintain it with at least 30%.
> Don't take that choice away from me.
nobody is forcing you to use the third party app store if it does exist. If you continued to use apple's curated store, you will continue to get the existing benefits. Adding an extra option can't possibly hurt you.
30% is industry standard.
> nobody is forcing you to use the third party app store if it does exist. If you continued to use apple's curated store, you will continue to get the existing benefits. Adding an extra option can't possibly hurt you.
It hurts the ecosystem - and all its users. Splitting the apps in multiple app stores is a nightmare
I don't get the point: the whole idea of Apple is to have everything under their control. Nobody is forcing anyone to use Apple devices
Epic will, and this is what they want
> Almost every game on steam can be purchased somewhere else, like icth.io or the game's website. 30% is industry standard among monopolistic players (Google play store, Apple app store, Steam).
That is a very different use case
Certainly false - just like with streaming video, platforms will pay for exclusives from popular developers to force users to visit their stores.
That Steam, and others you mention, charge 30% categorically undermines the whinging about Apple’s 30% being out of line.
I’m also curious about people’s thoughts on Sony pulling CDPR’s Cyberpunk 2077 from their Playstation store.
Steam is the only one on that list that takes 30% that I know of. MS store went through a period where they would pay you to put your app there.
The "correct" amount is the amount that everybody is happy to pay. If Epic doesn't want to pay 30%, then 30% is too high for them. That's OK -- nobody is forcing them to pay it.
The competition you're describing isn't the cost of running the app store; it's the cost of maintaining the entire Apple ecosystem, including iOS, new iPhone hardware, etc.
> Adding an extra option can't possibly hurt you.
Yes it can, and I just explained how. But let me try to spell it out.
1. New iOS "app store" starts up, but only charges 0.1%. This is possible because they don't write the OS or any of the infrastructure; they're a simple indexer
2. Everyone moves over to this app store because the fees are cheaper.
3. Apple's revenue drops precipitously
4. In order to maintain the OS, Apple either a) raises the prices of iPhones b) starts selling my information c) invests less in the iPhone and iOS.
All three of those possibilities hurt me; so yes, a new app store does hurt me.
Apple was already paid handsomely for OS development through the device's purchase price.
> Apple's revenue drops precipitously
Apple has some of the highest margins in the industry. They'll survive.
> In order to maintain the OS, Apple either a) raises the prices of iPhones b) starts selling my information c) invests less in the iPhone and iOS.
See my previous point.
As an iPhone user I prefer the single app store approach. Multiple app stores fragments the user experience, ultimately harming the experience of owning an iPhone. Especially when apps become exclusives to different stores, because they will.
It's one of the main reasons that I moved away from Android. I completely understand the "open system" argument for Android, but a fragmented user experience is a byproduct of that openness. The last android phone I had came with a Samsung store, Google play, and I believe a Verizon app store. As well, going from my Android phone to borrowing a friends meant learning a completely new UX almost every time. "Oh, you don't have a Samsung Android, so you don't have that particular app store, so you can't get the app... Sorry"
It's been several years now, so maybe that's changed, but the biggest thing that makes me stick with Apple is the consistency of the user experience, in both its OS and app store ecosystems.
You can tell people about apps and they know how and where to get them. See an app you like on another iPhone? You can probably install it on yours fairly easily. There's less confusion around the entire ecosystem because of its simplicity.
Boohoo, the most cash rich silicon company will have to compete. Brew or Cydia never ate into Apples profit margins, instead it allowed users to do things apple couldn't be bothered supporting (Like Bluetooth audio on the 3g iPhone on iOS 2.0). Having multiple app stores will allow users to circumvent government censorship in countries where Apple is forced to follow the governments demands.
Where does this "should" come from? Just because you don't think that's the best way to run an ecosystem doesn't mean nobody should be allowed to do it. If it's a bad model, that's Apple's problem, not yours. If you think you have a better model, start a new company with a different model.
> Not only that, without developers, there is no ecosystem. An iPhone without apps is less useful than an iPod touch with apps.
The fact that Apple has a rich and thriving ecosystem demonstrates that their business model works just fine.
> Having multiple app stores will allow users to circumvent government censorship in countries where Apple is forced to follow the governments demands.
Won't one of those government demands be, "No third party app stores"? (Or, "No third party app stores that we haven't approved"?)
It just shows it works for Apple. It doesn't show it works for everyone else. It's like slavery was a good system because it made the slave-owners rich and they thrived because of it.
This is only valid in a free market with lots of competition and information transparency. The crux of the argument is that this does not apply to the app store ecosystem.
But there are plenty of good smartphones with alternate business models. If you don't like the fact that your apps are more expensive because Apple charges a 30% commission, then buy an Android and install a third-party app store.
I really don't understand the attitude.
People need to stop saying this - it’s obvious completely false.
As soon as other app stores are involved, there will be paid exclusives. Equivalent to Joe Rogan on Spotify, or any of the streaming video services who commission studios to make content just for their platform.
It will definitely be impossible to avoid using multiple stores if you want access to the popular apps.
That isn’t true.
In order for it to be true you would need to explain how this would be possible if stores buy exclusive rights to apps.
If epic and others was allowed to use multiple payment processors in the apps, or to install different app stores such as epic games or steam, you wouldn't have fewer choices you would have more.
Apple have hundreds of billions in cash do you actually believe they're going to put ads in their services?
That's irrelevant. The issue in question is one of principle, not whether or not someone is in a certain position at this moment in time and can or can't or will or won't do something. If Apple suddenly lost all of it's money, you'd then be ok with them putting ads into their services?
Well no-one would be using it so I wouldn't care all that much - Apple losing all their money would basically require giving away iPhones for free with 0 revenue given apples financials.
No - the ~50% margin Apple makes on the phone pays for the ecosystem. Apple could charge nothing for inclusion in the app store and still be by far the most profitable electronic device maker on the planet.
By all means, keep overpaying for Spotify on the App Store so Apple can collect their 30% each month, but don't force me to. Customers already pay to use a licensed copy of iOS on supported hardware and governments have every right to protect the customer from perpetually getting screwed by Apple. At the very least, we shouldn't allow Apple to limit free speech so that developers can't mention a way for their users to save money.
Neither the Epic Store or Steam on PC are built around selling your data. Epic's PC store charges 12% (and if you use Unreal, they waive the licensing fee for that engine too), and Steam has a special tiered tax for massive companies (something like 25% for 50m+ in revenue, 20% at some higher tier)
Without the requirement that all apps able to be purchased on all stores at similar prices and still under Apple's review process then apps will flock to the store that makes them the most money and fewest rules and users will have no choice but to acquire that app via that store. If I have to go to X store for an app I need I don't really have my choice of store.
Do gamers like the current culture of having to have Origin, Steam, UPlay, Epic, GOGs, Blizzard Store, for no other reason than large middlemen playing Civ with marketshare and exclusives?
I think if this issue was solved we would see less people desiring Apple to have such tight control over their ecosystem because it would mean that for users that like Apple's store opening up isn't a strict downgrade for them.
I'm curious how this will play out in general. Android already allows side-loaded applications, and Epic allowed people to install Fortnite outside of the Play Store and it did poorly, so they begrudgingly added Fortnite back into the Play Store, so I imagine it would be the same thing on iOS. Arguably it could be even more challenging for others because Apple would likely not be forced to treat non-App Store stores the same as the App Store in some ways, which would very likely lead to a situation where users would get popups when when install the new app store and when they load an app, similar to how running a nonsigned program works on Mac now.
I don't like my game library is fragmented. But what if Steam was the only store for PC and I wasn't able to buy/play any Epic or EA games because of that? That would be worse.
Or what if the game prices had to be higher than current prices since the only place I can buy a game was steam and there was no competition?
I guess but if Steam was genuinely the only place where people bought games then Epic and EA games would have no choice but to list on Steam which makes you better off, no?
> Or what if the game prices had to be higher than current prices since the only place I can buy a game was steam and there was no competition?
This I think is the meat of the argument but I think it falls down because competition gets weird with software and copyrighted properties. There's no competition between Steam and Origin for games that are only on Origin. If Microsoft Word is only available on the Windows Store for iOS then there's nothing to compete over for a user that needs Word.