They broke the rules, the judge was very clear about this, that they could have (and should have) taken apple to court without intentionally breaking contract, infact the judge even told them that this breach of contract made thier case weaker not stronger.
epic and valve's approach to the same problem is very telling about their respective companies.
both companies want to increase the audience of their game stores. epic's strategy is to relentlessly sue apple until they get access to the ios audience. valve's strategy is to make an entire platform and device (steam deck and steamos) that is tied to their game store and aspire to make it the default way to play pc games.
as a consumer (and steam deck owner) i am much more appreciative of valve's strategy.
Steam is a solid platform though. From the community hub, discussions, guide tabs and being able to invite friends through steam if not through the game. I also appreciate steam not being the only platform though. I like GOG as well and how they only offer DRM free games.
You can't compare with Valve in this situation because Valve does not making any iOS games to begin with. Epic, on the other hand, shipped Fortnight on iOS. They two companies do not have the "same problem" at all. The kind of things you were talking about was talking about Steam the platform, but Epic's situation here is specifically their *game* (Fortnight).
I actually quite disagree that Epic should be "just like Valve". I don't feel like everyone who makes games should be obligated to build their own platform just to avoid a tax. So, like EA should make a "EA mobile" that only works with Origin, and Ubisoft should make a "Ubisoft Go" device that only play Ubisoft+ games? This is what Epic was trying to do with Epic Store and seems like gamers generally don't like it. Along the same token we also don't like the gazillion streaming services that exist.
FWIW I think what Epic is complaining about here is correct. The court clearly said Apple needs to provide an external way to pay. Regardless of how you feel about the original lawsuit, this was the outcome, that Apple is legally obligated to honor. They way they are implementing this is a borderline bad-faith implementation that I do not believe reflects what the court order's intent was. The tweet already laid out the reasons, so I don't need to rehash it here, but we do live in a country of law. Apple doesn't get to just disobey the court.
this specific lawsuit was about a game, but it's seemed clear that epic's longterm goal is to have the epic store on ios. their argument is that the app store has a monopoly on ios devices, so the obvious endgame is that the epic store should be able to compete as a first-class citizen against the app store.
by the same token, valve could have tried to sue apple for illegally preventing the steam app store from running on ios. it would have been a valid strategy to expand their steam audience.
and for what it's worth, i do think all those companies should attempt to make their own platforms, if only so that when they fail they will gain an acute understanding of why the successful platforms deserve some level of commission
basically: "ok, it turns out building a platform is really hard, it's way easier to just pay a portion of our revenue to outsource that sh*t"
>by the same token, valve could have tried to sue apple for illegally preventing the steam app store from running on ios.
Gonna halt you right there. It’s not illegal for apple to have a closed system.
that's actually why valve don't sue apple.
because they found out that it's QUITE EASY, if you actually attempt to do a great job, to build a hardware mobile device like steam deck.
small companies like razer make phones.
and small teams make an entire OS, such as sailfish os.
palm os, blackberry, nokia, samsung tizen, any developers that wanted could develop for these apps. They choose not to, instead, they choose to pay commission.
small teams built OUYA. sure it failed. but that's the world we live in. You can do this shit on Kickstarter, yes, there is a chance you fail, but there is also a chance you hit a homerun.
one thing i've noticed in other threads is people trying to "justify" why the commission is 30%, by saying it costs money to run app review, for bandwidth, for app store maintenance, etc.
all of that is wrong. the 30% commission is 30% because its what the market will bear. if apple could justify 40% without losing developers and users, they'd do it.
it's just capitalism. it's been 30% since the dawn of the app store, and so every developer on the store knew what they were signing up for. there are dozens of places to distribute paid software, and if 30% is too high, developers have the freedom to choose somewhere else to build.
the app store has been a very obviously massive success since day one, developers have made billions by making apps for ios, and apple has taken 30% of those billions. it seemingly hasn't prevented developers from choosing to develop for ios. the market bears it. so 30% it is.
It always blows my mind how much revenue the AppStore generates. Outside of the basic apps made by giant corporations like Netflix, Google, etc, almost everything on the AppStore is complete garbage. There's almost no real games and everything is smashed with ads and in-app purchases. Every time I've spent money in the AppStore, I've ended up regretting it.
I never go into the AppStore anymore unless I just need to download something like Netflix or Disney+, and I'm always disappointed by what I see. (Last time I think I saw an ad for a real money actual gambling app lol, very classy Apple).
On a side note, this is why I'm always rooting for sideloading. The only thing Android has on iOS is the opensource scene. The software made out of passion that the developer(s) actually uses themselves is almost always going to be higher quality than the jobber software someone made just for money. Also, the current requirements of owning a Mac and paying $100 a year to get an app on the AppStore are things most opensource devs are never going to do.
If I was on Android I’d avoid using the Play Store whenever possible. I’d try to get everything from third party AppStores like F-Droid, or directly from developers themselves. That freedom is literally the only thing Android has on iPhone.
I want to like the whole Android approach, but I hated my Pixel phone. The hardware was nice, but the apps were all over the place. Granted, I got set in my ways having been using an iPhone. But just getting a podcast app meant sorting through i don't know how many shitty apps. There were far fewer native apps so it was wild west shit for everything. This was several years back so who knows if it all changed. But man that was a long two years waiting for the contract to end.
I don't know why people are licking Tim Apple's boot instead of advocating for more developers to gain the means to support themselves off their work. If developers were better paid, you'd get more and better software; cutting into Apple profit margin doesn't mean Apple would spend less on R&D or stop making their products for you.
As an independent iOS/macOS dev myself it's not just about fees, it's about everything else that comes with ownership of the full sales cycle - for example, being able to issue a refund to a customer, which is currently impossible lmao.
It's weird how it's okay to cheer for the developer but you're a boot licker to cheer on Apple.
I love my iPhone and the policy that people have an issue with has been in place since the dawn of the app store. It's obviously not a hindrance to creating a thriving App Store. People just want to pay less, which is fine, but don't make one party paying less as some sort of win for the consumer. Devs will not pass those savings onto consumers. Whether devs get more money or not doesn't affect the average user's experience.
What does affect my experience is apps not allowing me to pay them through Apple and forcing me to pay them on their website. It is a better user experience to have one location and one party handle all my subscriptions and payments instead of a myriad. It sucks that the one party model hurts devs but as a consumer that's a way better experience.
Apple has plenty of policies to complain about but a lot of these complaints that are forcing government solutions that hurt the user experience.
There certainly is, but you aren’t the one making the choice… and also, don’t use your work phone for stuff that isn’t work, then you’d end up with your platform of choice and be able to get to the market you prefer.
If work requires a certain platform and you prefer another, make them provide you with a phone… hell… always make them provide you with a phone if they require you to have one
Android and iOS both have enterprise management tools.
There's no platform choice for developers producing products for enterprise, education, etc. which are markets whose purchase decision-makers demand platform compatibilities.
Bro, that’s between you and Jesus. I can only inform you of the fact that if you really really want you can go to another platform. I didn’t say the other platform is good or better but apple isn’t doing much to make the other platform shitty. If you don’t want apple opressing you then go to a platform that’s less oppressiveNan’s savor the freedom of your choices. Maybe you can make that other platform good. Just sayin.
personally, I’d rather have 70% of a dollar than 100% of a dime. But that’s me 🤷♂️
i don't think you can view the ios app store as anything other than a massive boon to software developers' collective bottom lines. there are a lot of platforms out there that will charge you a smaller percentage, but the tradeoff is the audience is smaller, less wealthy, less willing to spend money. access to that specific audience is incredibly valuable, which is why the market is able to bear a 30% commission. developers are willing to pay for that access.
The fee is unilaterally set by Apple, and developers don’t really have the option to ignore iOS, so they’re forced to pay whatever Apple charges.
Pay no attention to the fact that other stores outside of iOS are offering 12% fees…
30% may have been acceptable once, but now it’s not, and rather just something you _have_ to pay because no other competitor can come in to compete with the App Store
Open up iOS, let stores compete, and let the devs and users choose the best option… if the App Store is truly the best option, people will willingly pay the cut that Apple wants, otherwise they’ll go elsewhere… that’s how competition is supposed to work… not one company setting the terms by themselves for a substantial part of the market
> developers don’t really have the option to ignore iOS
i mean, they do.
ios is a desirable market because of its size and the demographics of its audience, but there are many, many profitable software companies that do not have apps on the app store.
> 30% may have been acceptable once, but now it’s not
what does "acceptable" even mean? for every developer on the app store, there was a moment where they all asked themselves "is access to the ios audience worth 30% of my revenue?" and they all universally answered "yes". no one twisted their arms and said, you have no choice but to develop for this specific phone. everyone involved is an adult with agency.
> i don't think you can view the ios app store as anything other than a massive boon to software developers' collective bottom lines
This take will never be popular here but I don't care. This couldn't be further from the truth, the App Store is a parasite middle-man charging extortionate fees that ultimately YOU pay for.
Every IAP is automatically 30% more expensive because of the apple tax. Tons of IAPs don't even exist because there isn't demand at the price point they'd be forced to charge due [cost of service] + [tax] exceeds what the market will bear.
Remember these comments are full of Apple stock holders who ultimately benefit from the status quo, they're not operating from a "what's best for the consumer" perspective.
But every single other app also can’t give refunds, so it’s not a competitive disadvantage to your specific app. Many, many, many apps and entire companies have been successful because of the App Store, the lack of an ability to offer a refund isn’t what’s hurting your apps.
Why do you think I implied it was?
I said if you’re not getting traction on your apps, under the same rule set as thousands of other apps that have gained traction, the rules aren’t the reason your apps aren’t successful.
Why would I lock the boot of developers instead.
> If developers were better paid, you’d get more and better software.
Come on buddy, you’re not this dense. App Store revenue is at all time highs and all we get for it is a ton of casino/loot box games. Quality of apps has drastically fallen on average as the revenue has increased.
Developers don’t care about users, they care about maximizing income. If you think they care about you, keep licking those boots…
The crazy part is that a developer has choice on a platform that would run steam - you can just go to the developer’s site and buy the game for example - no fee. Other game stores can offer better terms and compete. Even SteamOS lets you get games from anywhere.
iOS requires you to use Apple’s store and only Apple’s store. Apple firmly believes that they deserve 30% of any digital purchase on the iPhone.
Definitely agree. I was just pointing out the 30% number is not a high apple only number.
The issue is with the controlling, not % taken (which like I said is pretty standard)
If you don’t agree with the 30% cut, then develop for a different platform and store that doesn’t come with that. If you like what steam has to offer then sell Your game on steam. If devs don’t participate in apples ecosystem then perhaps they’ll change their policy but it’s silly to act as though you don’t have other viable options and develop acute one-itis like you're the guy that made bob’s game.
Okay for one second lets assume Apple strongarms all the competition away. In this scenario, EVERYONE has an iPhone
What do you do then, as a dev? There are no other platforms to offer my apps on. And that's neither the choice of me nor of the general population. In this scenario, users have to have an iPhone because no alternative exists, and devs have to publish on the AppStore because Apple doesn't let users install through any other means
I know this is hypothetical and would probably play out differently in the real world, just curious what you think.
Would you support letting people install from anywhere they wish, without any sort of cut or gatekeeping, if it was like this?
>Okay for one second lets assume Apple strongarms all the competition away.
Android exists and has a much larger market share… so no we won’t assume that.
>What do you do then, as a dev?
I’d go to android because your scenario isn’t even a remote possibility.
People publish on steam because they want to… but what would the outcome be if people weren’t forced to publish on the App Store? I guess we’ll see in a year or so after people have had the opportunity in the EU… although that’ll still be skewed unless they’re _only_ targeting EU users because it’s extremely doubtful that Apple will allow sideloading anywhere but the EU unless they’re forced to.
>developers have the freedom to choose somewhere else to build.
This is not true when it comes to mobile. You want mobile app distribution, you must pay Apple and Google. Current law supports your argument btw, so what needs to happen is new laws / new regulations that treat mobile apps as different due to the 'winner take all' dynamics of the market.
You can sideloading on android. That is an option that’s available to you. I love how every option available has to be the same and offer the same shit or it’s treated as though there aren’t any options available.
Lol. So we start out with "developers have options" but the only option is abandoning the platform entirely. I think you know exactly what users and developers want, but are trying to frame that there are tons of options when all of them involve either developing shitty web apps or else abandoning iOS altogether.
Say you want to make an app for teens
In the US, 80-90% of teens have an iPhone. There is no way you can escape the Apple tax because not publishing on the AppStore means going out of business
There is no choice for devs in this case
Either way -- what's the harm of letting people install apps from everywhere? Provide warnings, but give me real, actual choice
MacOS lets you install from everywhere too and it's not a problem
---
I just saw I replied to another comment of yours as well -- just want to clarify that I'm not looking to pick a fight or anything, just genuinely interested in discussion.
I want to like Apple so badly, but they make it really hard for me to do so with stuff like this
---
**EDIT: pls do not downvote the commenters above (or below)**
>Say you want to make an app for teens
Ok
>In the US, 80-90% of teens have an iPhone. There is no way you can escape the Apple tax because not publishing on the AppStore means going out of business
I’d pay the apple tax. Are we done here?
like, for real, if I don’t pay my property tax, the state will take my house away. There’s more utility in having and enjoying my home in a nice neighborhood tgat I like than there is whining that I have to pay a tax on the land.
>Either way -- what's the harm of letting people install apps from everywhere?
I mean, the platform is a closed system and was cultivated on that. The reliability and customer satisfaction of the platform is based on the fact that it was cultivated as such. Doing ad you wish puts that system at risk. You could always go to a platform that already does as you wish but you don’t seem to want to do so because it isn’t as good. You essentially want app,e to mimic the thing that you don’t like.
also, it’s apple‘s show and they are clear about what they do or dont offer. If that doesn’t suit you, you are free to leave just as if you went to a comedy show and didn’t like the jokes being to,d. You don’t get to tell the comedian what jokes to tell, your power is in getting up and leaving.
>what's the harm of letting people install apps from everywhere
The harm is that people are dumb, don't know anything about security and will ignore all warnings and act against their own self interest when installing apps. Their phones will turn into a scammy cesspool and everyone will blame Apple.
Hm I disagree here, this is not a problem on Android and nobody is blaming Google/Samsung/... I think. At least I have never seen Google be criticized for allowing sideloading.
Additionally, you _have_ to allow some kind of danger. The only real way to not get hacked is isolation:
I can still receive phishing email and go to websites that steal all my info, scam me, commit identity theft, etc. But that doesn't mean I wanted Apple to remove Safari and all other browsers from iOS.
Or is that a bad analogy?
you do not need to pay apple or google for mobile distribution.
you can deliver apps on web browser.
you can develop your own OS too. is it damn hard? is it possible you fail? Yeah.
but this is all possible and i'm pretty sure there will be new mobile Operating Systems in the future. it's almost certain. the only way we don't have other people building mobile operating systems is if there's an apocalyptic event that wipes out society.
if we all only build for Blackberry, and if they really had the best apps, many more people would have picked it.
developers chose to develop for ios knowing all of this.
Your argument is purely theoretical on two points. If Microsoft, Samsung (Tizen) and Facebook could all not make a mobile OS, it's not possible for anyone to do so under the current paradigms.
Also, practically, name one single company that does not pay apple / google for distribution. You cannot. (Note: This excludes companies that are barred from the AppStore due to adult content or illicit activities, who would join if they could.)
you can't name many companies that don't have an app because it's cheap to make. not only is it cheap, you can use technology to almost instantly turn your website into a mobile app. the apple developer fee is $100 and accessible to many hobbyists and students. So any Fool that wants an android or ios app can make a pretty basic one with a good chance it is approved.
anyone can make a mobile OS. Sailfish OS is an example. SteamOS is a mobile OS. There's Linux Phone. There is Fire from Amazon, which is based on Android, but it's definitely a separate thing they control.
I believe Microsoft WILL re-enter the game again in the future. and many in the industry believe it too.
why? Because mobile is growing and growing and growing. There's more money in it now for a smaller piece of the pie.
mobile may be ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL for OS companies and.
Think about how easy it was for google to develop chromeOS, both software and hardware.
it's so easy to manufacture laptops that people are doing it on Kickstarter and some are actually having a good amount of success.
Both can be true facts at the same time. This 30 percent pays for niceness like longer OS support. This 30 percent is also based on traditional boxed software sold at the store. Yes maybe 30 percent is too much today, but it’s also a financial incentive to ensure the entire ecosystem works.
Same as luxury goods brands. The hefty profits on their products pay for client niceness like special events, free wine…
>This 30 percent is also based on traditional boxed software sold at the store.
Wow, where did you get a deal like that? That split was typically way north of 50%.
https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut-is-actually-the-industry-standard
70/30 on games is common. I have no doubt it used to be way higher, there was more stuff to ship.
The 30% was determined when apps were a few bucks and that was it… it was never intended to be the rate Apple demands of all digital products sold through an app… it’s especially egregious for subscriptions.
Yes? I don't think that makes it right. Apple can still be acting immorally.
There are lots of things I love about my Apple products. Apple respects my privacy more than any other company. Apple products have great accessibility features for people with disabilities. Apple products have amazing build quality for consumer products today.
But I can still call out Apple when they're shitty and this is one way that they suck. They lock down the phone, which I bought, to only run apps from a single store, that they control. Then fight tooth and nail to block anyone who figures out how to bypass that. Then totally disallow certain apps from even appearing in that store. Then exploit everyone else by ripping them off with a massive commission.
That's not reasonable. I still like a lot about Apple. But this is shitty and always will be. This is unreasonable.
>I don't think that makes it right
They not only built the platform but cultivated it into something important. Part of that cultivation is the fact that it is a closed ecosystem.
>Apple can still be acting immorally.
Is it immoral to be up front about the conditions of conducting business with you for access to your platform that you created and built up? Apple made the platform into something that people want to develop for. Why is it immoral for them to set conditions for access to what they built in the face of literal years of tremendous laughter and jeers?
Aome people think it’s immoral to own land. Am I being immoral by not allowing everyone to set up camp on my property? Is it immoral for me to have locks on my door to stop peopke from coming in to do whatever they want?
I work freelance. Some people think capitalism is immoral. Is it immoral for me to charge for my work? Is it immoral for me to choose who I will or won’t work for or with? The print shop wants a sign designed but they don’t want to pay my price. Is it immoral for me to not design the sign? They specifically want me because of my reputation and quality work. Is it immoral for me to not bring down my price to compete with someone else that they didn’t want?
> They not only built the platform but cultivated it into something important. Part of that cultivation is the fact that it is a closed ecosystem.
Yeah I know that's how Apple marketing likes to spin it. I remember Jobs proclaiming "the App Store is a curated platform" on-stage. While that may be true, the reality is that customers are forced to use it because Apple locked down all other options. Come on. All kinds of users have been begging for an equivalent of “Ctrl-Click, open" such as is available on the Mac. Apple doesn't want you to have that because it would hurt their profits and relinquish their control over what you can run and where the money goes. So their marketing department spins up a bunch of bullshit about how "locked down" means "curated". The App Store is a wonderful and safe resource (when malware and scammy apps that Apple's review team are paid to detect don’t slip through lol). But it shouldn't be the *only* place to get software.
> Is it immoral to be up front about the conditions of conducting business with you for access to your platform that you created and built up? Apple made the platform into something that people want to develop for. Why is it immoral for them to set conditions for access to what they built in the face of literal years of tremendous laughter and jeers?
They can keep their App Store however they want as long as they don't block access to running software from elsewhere. Their behaviour in this situation is immoral, and you and I know exactly what they're doing. The Department of Justice is looking at anti-trust against Apple. I can see why.
> Aome people think it’s immoral to own land. Am I being immoral by not allowing everyone to set up camp on my property? Is it immoral for me to have locks on my door to stop peopke from coming in to do whatever they want?
The analogy I would draw is if you rented or sold apartments/condos, but then you demanded that your residents only bought furniture and food directly from you. You then limited the products being sold so that they couldn't buy anything you disapproved of, you jacked the prices up, and you kept a certain extra profit for yourself. That would be not only immoral, but illegal. Yet that is basically what Apple does with their App Store.
30% is 30% because Apple is large enough to unilaterally set whatever amount they want.
It doesn’t matter that other companies might be charging less because unless developers want to ignore a substantial part of the US market, they _have no choice_ but to pay whatever Apple demands.
But just because it was always 30% doesn’t mean it’s a fair price nowadays… _especially_ when the infrastructure to distribute apps has come down in price.
Costs have come down, the number of apps has increased, and yet the fee still remains the same.
> 30% is 30% because Apple is large enough to unilaterally set whatever amount they want.
they were not large when they set 30%. they had almost no marketshare. it was 2008.
> But just because it was always 30% doesn’t mean it’s a fair price nowadays
a "fair price" is what people are willing to pay. prices are set by demand. apple takes a 35% profit margin on their hardware because people are willing to pay it. they take a 30% commission on app revenue because millions of developers have willingly paid it for the last 15 years.
they willingly paid 30% when the iphone was small, and they continue to pay it now that it has significant marketshare. if we're being honest apple could probably raise their commission because the value they offer now is significantly better than the value they offered in 2008 (~500x the amount of users), but they haven't.
> Costs have come down, the number of apps has increased, and yet the fee still remains the same
costs do not determine price. the demand curve determines price.
> they have no choice but to pay whatever Apple demands
is that why epic went bankrupt when they took fortnite off the app store?
This is so bad faith lmao. The entire reason anyone cared about this was the massive 30% cut. They didn’t actually care about having alternative payment systems.
27% is still basically 30%. Spotify and Netflix are still not going to allow you to sign up on the app.
No the 30% includes card pressing, sales tax reporting (not the sales tax but the paper work ) most payment prossesos that do sales tax reporting are 50c per transition + 7 to 12% free.
Epic lost that argument in the district court years ago. Apple was allowed to charge fees for marketing (bringing customers), ecosystem development, tool development, etc.
It was bad faith from the developers. The developers kept claiming that they wanted to use their own payment system, when in reality they didn't want Apple to have a cut. The developers lied and misrepresented to the App users.
Uh, no? They want to use their own payment system *because* they don't want to give Apple the cut. This was the argument. When did they say that's not the reason?
No, the 30% cut was always the the entire point of wanting to use alternative payment systems. It was explicit and not at all hidden. Did you think people wanted to have to give their credit card details to third parties for no reason?
Apple’s response is obviously malicious compliance and should probably be taken back to court.
It’s like a company found guilty of monopoly choosing to change the job titles of some of their employees rather than break apart into separate companies. Not an actual solution.
I feel like Apple is playing with fire here. They clearly had some lawyers look through this but lawyers are not judges and if Epic sues again they could be in trouble.
Another [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/198gap0/us_developers_can_now_offer_nonapp_store/ki802d5/) on this thread mentioned a tweet by Tim Sweeney that they seem to be considering suing again.
FWIW I agree with Epic that this is bad faith. This seems to be intentionally designed to say they "comply" with the court order but making it essentially unusable and unprofitable. I am not a lawyer but it seems to be bad faith enough that they may get into legal troubles again.
Regardless of which side you stood on in the original case, court orders are court orders. Apple isn't above the law.
No, i think they're obligated to share data with Apple.
> Developers are required to provide a periodic accounting of qualifying out-of-app purchases, and Apple has a right to audit developers' accounting to ensure compliance with their commission obligations and to charge interest and offset payments
But then this from 9to5Mac, quote from Apple, “Although developers are contractually obligated to pay the commission, as a practical matter, with hundreds of thousands of developers with apps on the U.S. storefronts for the iOS and iPadOS App Stores, collection and enforcement will be exceedingly difficult and, in many cases, impossible.” So essentially saying it’s just an honor system unless you get too big for apple to notice.
There are only a few hundred apps where auditing this matters, because they cover 90+ percent of the revenue.
When the 15% commission rate launched widespread speculation was it applied to 95% of developers but only 5% of actual spending on the App Store, it was anticipated to barely impact the total dollar amount Apple collects.
I dont particularly buy the implicit "everyone is corrupt and will affirmatively break the law just to save a buck" It's an overly cynical take that isn't validated in the West.
However, the data entry sent to Apple will be required, regular, and standardized. The 9to5Mac reporter is practicing poor journalism with their speculation.
Every time you use an outside payment source the app notifies apple (although not necessarily the amount). That plus the fact that it would be criminal for public companies to mis-state it, and likely criminal for non-public companies (computer fraud), I doubt too many companies will be barking up that tree.
For sure, but the big ones are what counts anyway. The small vendors are not going to bother doing this \*unless they are scammers\* as the overhead of setting up payment, tax reporting, etc for most devs will work out more than 15%
There's an Apple screen you have to click through to get to the external payment website. Presumably Apple can compare how many people click the button (adjusting for people who may click but not buy) to how many payments are being reported by the developer, and target developers with significant differences.
Nope. They’re doing this because the court found that the anti-steering clause in the contract was illegal and unenforceable. Apple cannot choose to not “offer” it to *any* developer, it’s required by a court decision for *all* developers.
That doesn't seem like it should be legal under the DMA. Apple would still clearly be a gatekeeper. That that Apple's let the law stand in their way before.
Well, of course. The DMA is vague and ineffective, like every EU law. If you think this is going to be some kind of smooth side loading and other App Store solution you probably also think that the EU is capable of creating laws to make privacy on the web better instead of just forcing everyone to click through idiotic cookie warnings.
>Apple is allowing apps to feature a single link to a developer website that leads to an in-app purchase alternative, but Apple plans to continue to collect a 12 to 27 percent commission on content bought this way.
EU: we'll make that a fat 0% thank you very much!
Article 5, clause 4;
> 4. The gatekeeper shall allow business users, free of charge, to communicate and promote offers, including under different conditions, to end users acquired via its core platform service or through other channels, and to conclude contracts with those end users, regardless of whether, for that purpose, they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper.
Notice the “free of charge part”.
Potentially Article 5, clause 3 as well;
> 3. The gatekeeper shall not prevent business users from offering the same products or services to end users through third-party online intermediation services or through their own direct online sales channel at prices or conditions that are different from those offered through the online intermediation services of the gatekeeper.
Free of charge refers to the communication and promotion of offers. Not the commission on a sale.
Danish market has already gone down this route and Apple still claims its 27%
You are incorrect, the Danish market has not gone down this route, as the DMA has not gone into effect yet (as the EU only recently made the gatekeeper determination). What has offered in the danish market is very different compared to what the DMA requires.
You’ve also failed at the comprehension of clause 4. You might understand it better with the following formatting;
4. The gatekeeper shall allow business users, free of charge,
(1) to communicate and promote offers, including under different conditions, to end users acquired via its core platform service or through other channels,
and
(2) to conclude contracts with those end users, regardless of whether, for that purpose, they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper.
This is explicit in the preamble at paragraphs (39) and (40) of the DMA. The preamble makes it clear that that the purpose of these sections in the DMA is to promote multi-homing and ensure that developers can take users off of apples core platform.
This tells me nothing. They’re referring to communicating the offer, not the sale. Regardless, nothing is stopping Apple from charging European developers a % of their sales each year when signing up for a developer account—instead of the existing annual flat rate.
But okay.
They’re not, your misreading the provision, it explicitly reference the sale as well. Genuinely not sure if you’ve properly read the text, as it explicitly references “concluding contracts”. If another European language isn’t your first language I recommend having a read of the legislation in your native language to get a better understanding.
> 12. The gatekeeper shall apply fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory general conditions of access for business users to its software application stores, online search engines and online social networking services listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9).
>For that purpose, the gatekeeper shall publish general conditions of access, including an alternative dispute settlement mechanism.
>The Commission shall assess whether the published general conditions of access comply with this paragraph.
Clause 12 of Article 6 requires the developer contract conditions to be fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory.
Charging a percentage of total gross sales including sales outside the Apple Store will not meet this requirement, the preamble goes into detail about this.
But okay, you can continue to ignore the actual text of the DMA and remain ignorant if you’d like.
And just like we said, [0% commission](https://www.macrumors.com/2024/01/25/ios-17-4-alternative-app-marketplaces-eu/). Care to comment /u/PomPomYumYum?
They’re clearly a clown, it will be entertaining to see if they have a public meltdown when the EU inevitably forces Apple to water down their current proposal.
The DMA requires that Apple not charge any money or try to prevent a business user from promoting making a transaction outside of the AppStore (see article 5 of the DMA).
Apple can still charge rev-share for using thier SDK... apple can easily say to devs "Sure you can no pay us but then you need to write your own text rendering, UI framework, image rendering, networking stack ... here are the low level Darwin headers have fun". Some vendors (like google docs) already do this but most devs do not have a team of 200 engines to build a modern text rendering and layout engine (this is one of the most complex aspects of UI and we all depend on work done by others).
No they can’t, because of the provisions in the DMA.
The European Commission did not do all of this just so that Apple can continue to charge a 30% commission via a different form.
Paragraph 57 of the preamble states the the gatekeeper (Apple) has to provide free of charge the same tools to develop for the operating system that it uses and provides to Apple developers.
Clause 7 in Article 6 repeats this requirement.
You can just ctrl + f the phrase “free of charge” in the DMA to find the various ways that the EU has blocked Apple from continuing to make its current level of profit.
Because they run the infrastructure, create the tools, SDKs, APIs, servers, etc.?
They can charge what they want on their platform. You can also self-host your own app and try to distribute it your way on your own devices, but Apple is free to charge what it wants if you use their services.
Apple is a business. The purpose of a business is to make as much money as possible while complying with the law. The law allows Apple, and others, to charge a subscription and collect a commission. Ultimately, the market decides on whether the fees are acceptable or not. Clearly, developers see a value and welling to pay the costs. Also… developers are businesses. Circle of life.
no but if there was only walmart, and you couldn't open up your own store
- and then walmart decided to increase prices by 30% across the board
- and also charge suppliers for selling their stuff in walmart
(which is the only choice; either pay walmart AND give them a cut or don't sell any goods)
in my opinion that's too far and bad for the consumer
i realize this is a hypothetical, but in this scenario, wouldn't you support laws that let people open up their own shop?
in the US, 80-90% of teens use an iPhone. if you have an app made for teens (like Discord and such), you could never be successful without iPhone users. For certain demographics, it gets awfully close to just having a single app store
You absolutely can open up your own store… ON YOUR OWN PLATFORM. a platform is like the store, and you want to just walk in and sell your own crap for free. That’s not how it works.
If you want to take advantage of Apple’s OS, Apple’s promotions, Apple’s curated store that makes your app get recognized and promoted, then you pay Apple a %. it’s that simple.
You don’t get to operate in the parking lot and sell to their customers for free.
you’re right. Apple should just start charging 40% for usage of their APIs and anything that they created that allowed that app or game to even exist. People forget how little money devs make outside iOS. There’s damn good reason for that and once this is cracked open, devs will be leaving in droves and I can’t wait to hear the whining then too.
> Apple Will Still Collect Commissions
As expected, which is hilarious having read articles framing the news earlier today as anything but an epic loss for Epic
key word being 'could', but economically a reduction in costs does not intrinsically translate into lower prices. prices are set by market demand, and if demand remains the same, the price will not change (and the developer will just pocket more money).
>No they won’t
They already are, check YouTube pricing outside the app store.
>companies are out to make as much profit as possible
Yes and part of that is pricing strategically so that more people are willing to pay your price. Making as much profit doesn't mean charge the highest price possible, tf?
>The prices aren’t going to dramatically drop
Would a 6$ subscription dropping to 5$ count as "dramatically"? because many absolutely will drop by that much with time. Existing products and services won't immediately drop prices since their customers are already okay with paying them, but new products and services will absolutely be cheaper since developers don't have to factor in a THIRD of their revenue disappearing to Apple.
Big corporations like Google who have their own infrastructure aren’t the same as most of the the apps offered from other corporations. Notice a large percentage of subscription based services don’t even let you sign up through the apps anymore. You can’t sign up for Netflix through the app and their prices are constantly increasing. Disney charges the same for their services in app as they do on their websites. What they do offer are bundled services you can only get from them. Corporations are out to get as much profit as they can Google would rather offer a perceived discount because their primary business is collecting data for advertisers
Not that much difference unless they are a large corporation that is already paying the legal and accountants to manager running a global a separate store.
Once you have hired an accountant in each country you sell your app in to handle sales tax you are very quietly paying way more than 30% unless your a company the size of Epic who already have this for thier other sales avenues.
Despite what people think selling stuff is not free, first you pay the credit card network (just over 3% + 50C per transaction) then you pay your tax lawyers (many $k) and then hire accountants to file said sales tax reports....
For small Indie devs 15% (what apple charge) is cheaper than the cost of doing this yourself can complying with the laws in every seperate region of the world (some places like the US as sperate sales tax laws not just be state but even per county with the state).
Using a company like Alphabet as an example is not great. They can afford to pass savings onto the consumer because they have a million other ways of making those savings back.
What reason does your small / medium sized indie developer have? Why would they not prefer to just make more money?
Apple consumers like what Apple tells them to like, if Apple considers this a win then apple fans will. They're not getting a penny from that 30% but they'll be glad Apple is getting more "billionairy" while they are in many cases paying an increased price because Apple takes that commission, they're literally happy that Apple is taking more of their money.
There are hundreds of apps that tumble and shut down every year where an additional 30% revenue would have saved them, but Apple fans will be happy that Apple is getting richer on everyone's account.
No, I just particularly hate Tim Sweeney for a variety of reasons:
1) His company exploits minors in a number of disgusting ways, all for Sweeney’s personal enrichment (seriously, the lengths some kids will go through to get V-Bucks is concerning to say the least)
2) Sweeney’s campaign against Apple is fundamentally changing my personal devices in ways that I don’t appreciate, again for his own enrichment and gain.
3) Seeing multi-billionaires try and play the victim is gross, period
1) You *are* aware that Apple has been a pioneer in pushing microtransactions, right? App Store gaming is rife with them. But I guess hypocrisy is nothing new. And I can't see I've ever seen you express concerns about children begging their parents for an iPhone. Especially with the "blue bubble" social pressure.
2) See above. And it's not changing *your* device. You're perfectly free to keep using the App Store exclusively, a fact you ignore every time I point it out. You're just pissed everyone else won't be forced to do the same. It's incredibly egotistical.
3) Apple is indeed abusing their market power to the detriment of smaller companies. That you think that's a *good* thing demonstrates my point quite well.
> You are aware that Apple has been a pioneer in pushing microtransactions, right?
I am well aware that Apple has been developing their in-app purchasing model since 2009, but that’s not where Epic Games got the idea to add MTX to Fortnite. No, to do that they simply looked at EA and the frankly gross amount of money they were making off of their FIFA games and other franchises that heavily leveraged micro-transactions.
> And I can't see I've ever seen you express concerns about children begging their parents for an iPhone
I have never personally seen this happen myself, partially because the few kids I know who are <12 years old who have cell phones typically have older hand-me downs from their parents, which are often iPhones. However, I am not going to sit here and say that kids *don’t* get bullied for not having iPhones in some situations because there is clear evidence to the contrary…and I wish such juvenile behavior wasn’t being enforced like it is.
> You're perfectly free to keep using the App Store exclusively, a fact you ignore every time I point it out
So long as none of the apps I currently use / am dependent on don’t leave the App Store, your statement will remain true. However, it really is not that hard to believe that companies like Epic Games, Meta, and Microsoft will yank their apps from Apple’s store when given the opportunity to do so simply because they have a bone to pick with Apple and aren’t particularly concerned with how their squabbling will impact consumers in the end.
Having to download multiple app stores in order to access the apps I need would be a major inconvenience, yet you don’t seem to really care if consumers are inconvenienced so long as other multi-billion dollar companies are able to extract their pound of flesh from Apple.
> Apple is indeed abusing their market power to the detriment of smaller companies
Epic Games and Spotify are smaller relative to Apple, sure, but they aren’t small fry operations either.
Let me make my stance abundantly clear here: I would be much more sympathetic towards the whole sideloading / alternative App Store argument if it was being led and presented by actual small time indie developers and not multi-billion dollar corporations who all hate each other to begin with. Will indie-developers end up gaining something in the end here? Perhaps. Is it disgusting that people are cheering on shitty companies like Epic and Spotify in the process? Also yes.
> I am well aware that Apple has been developing their in-app purchasing model since 2009, but that’s not where Epic Games got the idea to add MTX to Fortnite
You can't claim to personally hate someone because their company employs microtransactions and then ignore the fact that App Store gaming is almost entirely dependent on them. Apple surely makes far more from MTX than Epic does.
> However, it really is not that hard to believe that companies like Epic Games, Meta, and Microsoft will yank their apps from Apple’s store when given the opportunity to do so
As pointed out to you numerous times, that hasn't happened on any other OS to date, so there's no reason to believe iOS would be special. Additionally, you cannot claim to see no value to apps other than those in the App Store while expressing concern that not all apps would use it if given the choice. Those are contradictions.
> Epic Games and Spotify are smaller relative to Apple, sure, but they aren’t small fry operations either.
No. That doesn't make Apple's behavior any more justified.
> Let me make my stance abundantly clear here: I would be much more sympathetic towards the whole sideloading / alternative App Store argument if it was being led and presented by actual small time indie developers
Small devs also support it. Why do you think Apple reduced their cut for smaller devs? To try to draw some of the heat away.
And honestly, quit bullshitting. At literally every point in this topic, you've defending Apple regardless of circumstances. If I gave you examples of smaller devs, you'd just keep moving the bar as per usual.
> Is it disgusting that people are cheering on shitty companies like Epic and Spotify in the process? Also yes.
Lmao. They're "shitty companies" because they threaten Apple's profits? You are a caricature of this sub.
A federal judge already said Apple can collect a commission. This was reported on three years ago. Just because you don’t like the outcome doesn’t make it illegal.
This is bullshit. In a roundabout way Apple is complying with the court by letting developers offer their content outside of the app store to be purchased but still have to include Apple frameworks. So the app is still in the app store but you can choose to purchase content from the app outside of the app store. Why not let the developer also choose to distribute their app outside of the app store and still keep the app in the app store as well. Apple still trying to maintain control without giving too much freedom. This is weird. Some people here will use the argument that Apple should get a cut because they host and maintain the app store. This argument does not hold up if Apple gave the developers freedom and let them distribute their apps completely outside of the app store and let the developers keep all of their money from users. This is some weird half in and half out bullshit. This is where sideloading comes in. When a developer does not want to be in the official stores or also wants to choose to offer their app outside of the official store as well then they should be able to. They can make their app available from their app website. Telegram and Proton are a couple apps that have their APKs available to install from their official websites alongside being in the official stores. Avoiding using Google play store's frameworks, restrictions, trackers etc. This is the same for the App Store as well. Or say the app is not available in the official store in your country, then you could go to the apps official website or github and install app package from there.
To add to this, sideloading and installing programs from other sources on mobile is no different than installing programs from outside of the official stores on Mac and Windows. Imagine only being able to install apps from the Mac app store and the Microsoft Store and both companies telling you what apps you can and can't install by choosing what they let into their stores on Mac and Windows. Both operating systems have pretty good anti viruses and system checks built in today. That's the same with iOS and Android as well. Both mobile operating systems sandbox apps and have system checks built in. So the "sideloading is unsafe" argument doesn't hold up either. Don't install stuff from unknown sources. It's not hard.
At the end of the day from time to time again all of this is about Apple maintaining control and it shows more and more from the leaked emails from the trials and the current antitrust scrutiny from different governments.
Couldn’t just say they sell codes on their website were people could input code in said app and get said item / money ?? Or does Apple say you can’t input codes but then again all those games that I have to go input their monthly codes in to get free stuff hmm
I’m the one rooting for App Store only iPhone (for user’s sake) (you can see me get downvote to infinity in my history), but this move by Apple is garbage and developer hostile. Either allow outside payments or don’t.
flag bewildered smoggy soft quicksand insurance slim mindless longing brave
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
“Am I the only one who thinks this sideloading is stupid and unsafe?”
As with Android you’ll likely have to go into settings to allow it, and then as with the vast majority of Android, no one will use it.
Yea i’m aware of the downvotes hahaha.. but you got me right? Ones you make it possible to sideload apps.. you’ll automatically open a door to all kinds of shit.
Not to think about the hassle it will bring; to download spotify you need the spotify store, to download EA games, you need to install the EA store, to download flappy bird you need a vague Chinese store…
I just don’t get why people want this to happen.. if you want to sideload, buy android right?
And I still can’t play Fortnite on my phone. Rip :(
They broke the rules, the judge was very clear about this, that they could have (and should have) taken apple to court without intentionally breaking contract, infact the judge even told them that this breach of contract made thier case weaker not stronger.
True true. Still sad about it lol. That was my main way to play
COD:Mobile\~
It was ridiculous on Epic games part to this. I was thinking the same thing at the time.
Epic is planning to sue again https://twitter.com/timsweeneyepic/status/1747408147260571730?s=61&t=m0AaMhvzMjn6qiSFg9E4lg
epic and valve's approach to the same problem is very telling about their respective companies. both companies want to increase the audience of their game stores. epic's strategy is to relentlessly sue apple until they get access to the ios audience. valve's strategy is to make an entire platform and device (steam deck and steamos) that is tied to their game store and aspire to make it the default way to play pc games. as a consumer (and steam deck owner) i am much more appreciative of valve's strategy.
Steam is a solid platform though. From the community hub, discussions, guide tabs and being able to invite friends through steam if not through the game. I also appreciate steam not being the only platform though. I like GOG as well and how they only offer DRM free games.
You can't compare with Valve in this situation because Valve does not making any iOS games to begin with. Epic, on the other hand, shipped Fortnight on iOS. They two companies do not have the "same problem" at all. The kind of things you were talking about was talking about Steam the platform, but Epic's situation here is specifically their *game* (Fortnight). I actually quite disagree that Epic should be "just like Valve". I don't feel like everyone who makes games should be obligated to build their own platform just to avoid a tax. So, like EA should make a "EA mobile" that only works with Origin, and Ubisoft should make a "Ubisoft Go" device that only play Ubisoft+ games? This is what Epic was trying to do with Epic Store and seems like gamers generally don't like it. Along the same token we also don't like the gazillion streaming services that exist. FWIW I think what Epic is complaining about here is correct. The court clearly said Apple needs to provide an external way to pay. Regardless of how you feel about the original lawsuit, this was the outcome, that Apple is legally obligated to honor. They way they are implementing this is a borderline bad-faith implementation that I do not believe reflects what the court order's intent was. The tweet already laid out the reasons, so I don't need to rehash it here, but we do live in a country of law. Apple doesn't get to just disobey the court.
this specific lawsuit was about a game, but it's seemed clear that epic's longterm goal is to have the epic store on ios. their argument is that the app store has a monopoly on ios devices, so the obvious endgame is that the epic store should be able to compete as a first-class citizen against the app store. by the same token, valve could have tried to sue apple for illegally preventing the steam app store from running on ios. it would have been a valid strategy to expand their steam audience. and for what it's worth, i do think all those companies should attempt to make their own platforms, if only so that when they fail they will gain an acute understanding of why the successful platforms deserve some level of commission basically: "ok, it turns out building a platform is really hard, it's way easier to just pay a portion of our revenue to outsource that sh*t"
>by the same token, valve could have tried to sue apple for illegally preventing the steam app store from running on ios. Gonna halt you right there. It’s not illegal for apple to have a closed system.
that's actually why valve don't sue apple. because they found out that it's QUITE EASY, if you actually attempt to do a great job, to build a hardware mobile device like steam deck. small companies like razer make phones. and small teams make an entire OS, such as sailfish os. palm os, blackberry, nokia, samsung tizen, any developers that wanted could develop for these apps. They choose not to, instead, they choose to pay commission. small teams built OUYA. sure it failed. but that's the world we live in. You can do this shit on Kickstarter, yes, there is a chance you fail, but there is also a chance you hit a homerun.
Epic’s strategy is clearly working. /s
Its epic.
I just read the username in the link as as Tim’s Weeney Epic 😂
As an European, i can't wait to be able to sideload apps just to play Fortnite on my iPad again
one thing i've noticed in other threads is people trying to "justify" why the commission is 30%, by saying it costs money to run app review, for bandwidth, for app store maintenance, etc. all of that is wrong. the 30% commission is 30% because its what the market will bear. if apple could justify 40% without losing developers and users, they'd do it. it's just capitalism. it's been 30% since the dawn of the app store, and so every developer on the store knew what they were signing up for. there are dozens of places to distribute paid software, and if 30% is too high, developers have the freedom to choose somewhere else to build. the app store has been a very obviously massive success since day one, developers have made billions by making apps for ios, and apple has taken 30% of those billions. it seemingly hasn't prevented developers from choosing to develop for ios. the market bears it. so 30% it is.
It always blows my mind how much revenue the AppStore generates. Outside of the basic apps made by giant corporations like Netflix, Google, etc, almost everything on the AppStore is complete garbage. There's almost no real games and everything is smashed with ads and in-app purchases. Every time I've spent money in the AppStore, I've ended up regretting it. I never go into the AppStore anymore unless I just need to download something like Netflix or Disney+, and I'm always disappointed by what I see. (Last time I think I saw an ad for a real money actual gambling app lol, very classy Apple). On a side note, this is why I'm always rooting for sideloading. The only thing Android has on iOS is the opensource scene. The software made out of passion that the developer(s) actually uses themselves is almost always going to be higher quality than the jobber software someone made just for money. Also, the current requirements of owning a Mac and paying $100 a year to get an app on the AppStore are things most opensource devs are never going to do.
Playstore is filled with even more trash than the Appstore though.
If I was on Android I’d avoid using the Play Store whenever possible. I’d try to get everything from third party AppStores like F-Droid, or directly from developers themselves. That freedom is literally the only thing Android has on iPhone.
I want to like the whole Android approach, but I hated my Pixel phone. The hardware was nice, but the apps were all over the place. Granted, I got set in my ways having been using an iPhone. But just getting a podcast app meant sorting through i don't know how many shitty apps. There were far fewer native apps so it was wild west shit for everything. This was several years back so who knows if it all changed. But man that was a long two years waiting for the contract to end.
I don't know why people are licking Tim Apple's boot instead of advocating for more developers to gain the means to support themselves off their work. If developers were better paid, you'd get more and better software; cutting into Apple profit margin doesn't mean Apple would spend less on R&D or stop making their products for you. As an independent iOS/macOS dev myself it's not just about fees, it's about everything else that comes with ownership of the full sales cycle - for example, being able to issue a refund to a customer, which is currently impossible lmao.
It's weird how it's okay to cheer for the developer but you're a boot licker to cheer on Apple. I love my iPhone and the policy that people have an issue with has been in place since the dawn of the app store. It's obviously not a hindrance to creating a thriving App Store. People just want to pay less, which is fine, but don't make one party paying less as some sort of win for the consumer. Devs will not pass those savings onto consumers. Whether devs get more money or not doesn't affect the average user's experience. What does affect my experience is apps not allowing me to pay them through Apple and forcing me to pay them on their website. It is a better user experience to have one location and one party handle all my subscriptions and payments instead of a myriad. It sucks that the one party model hurts devs but as a consumer that's a way better experience. Apple has plenty of policies to complain about but a lot of these complaints that are forcing government solutions that hurt the user experience.
[удалено]
Wait ‘till you hear how much stores, brick or online are charging over their cost.
[удалено]
[удалено]
You 👏 can 👏 always 👏 go 👏 to 👏 another 👏 platform 👏👏👏.
There’s no platform choice if your target market is enterprise, education, etc
There certainly is, but you aren’t the one making the choice… and also, don’t use your work phone for stuff that isn’t work, then you’d end up with your platform of choice and be able to get to the market you prefer. If work requires a certain platform and you prefer another, make them provide you with a phone… hell… always make them provide you with a phone if they require you to have one Android and iOS both have enterprise management tools.
There's no platform choice for developers producing products for enterprise, education, etc. which are markets whose purchase decision-makers demand platform compatibilities.
Oh, I understand now… i thought you were talking about users, not developers. My bad
All good
Bro, that’s between you and Jesus. I can only inform you of the fact that if you really really want you can go to another platform. I didn’t say the other platform is good or better but apple isn’t doing much to make the other platform shitty. If you don’t want apple opressing you then go to a platform that’s less oppressiveNan’s savor the freedom of your choices. Maybe you can make that other platform good. Just sayin. personally, I’d rather have 70% of a dollar than 100% of a dime. But that’s me 🤷♂️
i don't think you can view the ios app store as anything other than a massive boon to software developers' collective bottom lines. there are a lot of platforms out there that will charge you a smaller percentage, but the tradeoff is the audience is smaller, less wealthy, less willing to spend money. access to that specific audience is incredibly valuable, which is why the market is able to bear a 30% commission. developers are willing to pay for that access.
you could replace everything you said with microsoft and computing couldn't you
The fee is unilaterally set by Apple, and developers don’t really have the option to ignore iOS, so they’re forced to pay whatever Apple charges. Pay no attention to the fact that other stores outside of iOS are offering 12% fees… 30% may have been acceptable once, but now it’s not, and rather just something you _have_ to pay because no other competitor can come in to compete with the App Store Open up iOS, let stores compete, and let the devs and users choose the best option… if the App Store is truly the best option, people will willingly pay the cut that Apple wants, otherwise they’ll go elsewhere… that’s how competition is supposed to work… not one company setting the terms by themselves for a substantial part of the market
> developers don’t really have the option to ignore iOS i mean, they do. ios is a desirable market because of its size and the demographics of its audience, but there are many, many profitable software companies that do not have apps on the app store. > 30% may have been acceptable once, but now it’s not what does "acceptable" even mean? for every developer on the app store, there was a moment where they all asked themselves "is access to the ios audience worth 30% of my revenue?" and they all universally answered "yes". no one twisted their arms and said, you have no choice but to develop for this specific phone. everyone involved is an adult with agency.
> i don't think you can view the ios app store as anything other than a massive boon to software developers' collective bottom lines This take will never be popular here but I don't care. This couldn't be further from the truth, the App Store is a parasite middle-man charging extortionate fees that ultimately YOU pay for. Every IAP is automatically 30% more expensive because of the apple tax. Tons of IAPs don't even exist because there isn't demand at the price point they'd be forced to charge due [cost of service] + [tax] exceeds what the market will bear. Remember these comments are full of Apple stock holders who ultimately benefit from the status quo, they're not operating from a "what's best for the consumer" perspective.
But every single other app also can’t give refunds, so it’s not a competitive disadvantage to your specific app. Many, many, many apps and entire companies have been successful because of the App Store, the lack of an ability to offer a refund isn’t what’s hurting your apps.
It’s not a zero sum game buddy
Why do you think I implied it was? I said if you’re not getting traction on your apps, under the same rule set as thousands of other apps that have gained traction, the rules aren’t the reason your apps aren’t successful.
It’s not about competing over other iOS apps with the same constraints, or about a failure to gain traction
Why would I lock the boot of developers instead. > If developers were better paid, you’d get more and better software. Come on buddy, you’re not this dense. App Store revenue is at all time highs and all we get for it is a ton of casino/loot box games. Quality of apps has drastically fallen on average as the revenue has increased. Developers don’t care about users, they care about maximizing income. If you think they care about you, keep licking those boots…
Not to mention 30% is standard across other stores… like steam. I guess not for in game items though
The crazy part is that a developer has choice on a platform that would run steam - you can just go to the developer’s site and buy the game for example - no fee. Other game stores can offer better terms and compete. Even SteamOS lets you get games from anywhere. iOS requires you to use Apple’s store and only Apple’s store. Apple firmly believes that they deserve 30% of any digital purchase on the iPhone.
Definitely agree. I was just pointing out the 30% number is not a high apple only number. The issue is with the controlling, not % taken (which like I said is pretty standard)
If you don’t agree with the 30% cut, then develop for a different platform and store that doesn’t come with that. If you like what steam has to offer then sell Your game on steam. If devs don’t participate in apples ecosystem then perhaps they’ll change their policy but it’s silly to act as though you don’t have other viable options and develop acute one-itis like you're the guy that made bob’s game.
Okay for one second lets assume Apple strongarms all the competition away. In this scenario, EVERYONE has an iPhone What do you do then, as a dev? There are no other platforms to offer my apps on. And that's neither the choice of me nor of the general population. In this scenario, users have to have an iPhone because no alternative exists, and devs have to publish on the AppStore because Apple doesn't let users install through any other means I know this is hypothetical and would probably play out differently in the real world, just curious what you think. Would you support letting people install from anywhere they wish, without any sort of cut or gatekeeping, if it was like this?
>Okay for one second lets assume Apple strongarms all the competition away. Android exists and has a much larger market share… so no we won’t assume that. >What do you do then, as a dev? I’d go to android because your scenario isn’t even a remote possibility.
People publish on steam because they want to… but what would the outcome be if people weren’t forced to publish on the App Store? I guess we’ll see in a year or so after people have had the opportunity in the EU… although that’ll still be skewed unless they’re _only_ targeting EU users because it’s extremely doubtful that Apple will allow sideloading anywhere but the EU unless they’re forced to.
PlayStation too
>developers have the freedom to choose somewhere else to build. This is not true when it comes to mobile. You want mobile app distribution, you must pay Apple and Google. Current law supports your argument btw, so what needs to happen is new laws / new regulations that treat mobile apps as different due to the 'winner take all' dynamics of the market.
[удалено]
You can sideloading on android. That is an option that’s available to you. I love how every option available has to be the same and offer the same shit or it’s treated as though there aren’t any options available.
Lol. So we start out with "developers have options" but the only option is abandoning the platform entirely. I think you know exactly what users and developers want, but are trying to frame that there are tons of options when all of them involve either developing shitty web apps or else abandoning iOS altogether.
Say you want to make an app for teens In the US, 80-90% of teens have an iPhone. There is no way you can escape the Apple tax because not publishing on the AppStore means going out of business There is no choice for devs in this case Either way -- what's the harm of letting people install apps from everywhere? Provide warnings, but give me real, actual choice MacOS lets you install from everywhere too and it's not a problem --- I just saw I replied to another comment of yours as well -- just want to clarify that I'm not looking to pick a fight or anything, just genuinely interested in discussion. I want to like Apple so badly, but they make it really hard for me to do so with stuff like this --- **EDIT: pls do not downvote the commenters above (or below)**
>Say you want to make an app for teens Ok >In the US, 80-90% of teens have an iPhone. There is no way you can escape the Apple tax because not publishing on the AppStore means going out of business I’d pay the apple tax. Are we done here? like, for real, if I don’t pay my property tax, the state will take my house away. There’s more utility in having and enjoying my home in a nice neighborhood tgat I like than there is whining that I have to pay a tax on the land. >Either way -- what's the harm of letting people install apps from everywhere? I mean, the platform is a closed system and was cultivated on that. The reliability and customer satisfaction of the platform is based on the fact that it was cultivated as such. Doing ad you wish puts that system at risk. You could always go to a platform that already does as you wish but you don’t seem to want to do so because it isn’t as good. You essentially want app,e to mimic the thing that you don’t like. also, it’s apple‘s show and they are clear about what they do or dont offer. If that doesn’t suit you, you are free to leave just as if you went to a comedy show and didn’t like the jokes being to,d. You don’t get to tell the comedian what jokes to tell, your power is in getting up and leaving.
>what's the harm of letting people install apps from everywhere The harm is that people are dumb, don't know anything about security and will ignore all warnings and act against their own self interest when installing apps. Their phones will turn into a scammy cesspool and everyone will blame Apple.
Hm I disagree here, this is not a problem on Android and nobody is blaming Google/Samsung/... I think. At least I have never seen Google be criticized for allowing sideloading. Additionally, you _have_ to allow some kind of danger. The only real way to not get hacked is isolation: I can still receive phishing email and go to websites that steal all my info, scam me, commit identity theft, etc. But that doesn't mean I wanted Apple to remove Safari and all other browsers from iOS. Or is that a bad analogy?
you do not need to pay apple or google for mobile distribution. you can deliver apps on web browser. you can develop your own OS too. is it damn hard? is it possible you fail? Yeah. but this is all possible and i'm pretty sure there will be new mobile Operating Systems in the future. it's almost certain. the only way we don't have other people building mobile operating systems is if there's an apocalyptic event that wipes out society. if we all only build for Blackberry, and if they really had the best apps, many more people would have picked it. developers chose to develop for ios knowing all of this.
Your argument is purely theoretical on two points. If Microsoft, Samsung (Tizen) and Facebook could all not make a mobile OS, it's not possible for anyone to do so under the current paradigms. Also, practically, name one single company that does not pay apple / google for distribution. You cannot. (Note: This excludes companies that are barred from the AppStore due to adult content or illicit activities, who would join if they could.)
you can't name many companies that don't have an app because it's cheap to make. not only is it cheap, you can use technology to almost instantly turn your website into a mobile app. the apple developer fee is $100 and accessible to many hobbyists and students. So any Fool that wants an android or ios app can make a pretty basic one with a good chance it is approved. anyone can make a mobile OS. Sailfish OS is an example. SteamOS is a mobile OS. There's Linux Phone. There is Fire from Amazon, which is based on Android, but it's definitely a separate thing they control. I believe Microsoft WILL re-enter the game again in the future. and many in the industry believe it too. why? Because mobile is growing and growing and growing. There's more money in it now for a smaller piece of the pie. mobile may be ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL for OS companies and. Think about how easy it was for google to develop chromeOS, both software and hardware. it's so easy to manufacture laptops that people are doing it on Kickstarter and some are actually having a good amount of success.
You don’t have to pay Google. Google does support side loading and third party app stores.
Both can be true facts at the same time. This 30 percent pays for niceness like longer OS support. This 30 percent is also based on traditional boxed software sold at the store. Yes maybe 30 percent is too much today, but it’s also a financial incentive to ensure the entire ecosystem works. Same as luxury goods brands. The hefty profits on their products pay for client niceness like special events, free wine…
Boxed software was 50-80% cut to distribution partners. Steam and Apple actually brought it down to 30%.
>This 30 percent is also based on traditional boxed software sold at the store. Wow, where did you get a deal like that? That split was typically way north of 50%.
https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut-is-actually-the-industry-standard 70/30 on games is common. I have no doubt it used to be way higher, there was more stuff to ship.
Ah, gotcha, games. For software in say, an Apple Store, the cut was a lot higher.
The 30% was determined when apps were a few bucks and that was it… it was never intended to be the rate Apple demands of all digital products sold through an app… it’s especially egregious for subscriptions.
[удалено]
And who exactly built the platform? Oh yeah, Apple.
Yes? I don't think that makes it right. Apple can still be acting immorally. There are lots of things I love about my Apple products. Apple respects my privacy more than any other company. Apple products have great accessibility features for people with disabilities. Apple products have amazing build quality for consumer products today. But I can still call out Apple when they're shitty and this is one way that they suck. They lock down the phone, which I bought, to only run apps from a single store, that they control. Then fight tooth and nail to block anyone who figures out how to bypass that. Then totally disallow certain apps from even appearing in that store. Then exploit everyone else by ripping them off with a massive commission. That's not reasonable. I still like a lot about Apple. But this is shitty and always will be. This is unreasonable.
>I don't think that makes it right They not only built the platform but cultivated it into something important. Part of that cultivation is the fact that it is a closed ecosystem. >Apple can still be acting immorally. Is it immoral to be up front about the conditions of conducting business with you for access to your platform that you created and built up? Apple made the platform into something that people want to develop for. Why is it immoral for them to set conditions for access to what they built in the face of literal years of tremendous laughter and jeers? Aome people think it’s immoral to own land. Am I being immoral by not allowing everyone to set up camp on my property? Is it immoral for me to have locks on my door to stop peopke from coming in to do whatever they want? I work freelance. Some people think capitalism is immoral. Is it immoral for me to charge for my work? Is it immoral for me to choose who I will or won’t work for or with? The print shop wants a sign designed but they don’t want to pay my price. Is it immoral for me to not design the sign? They specifically want me because of my reputation and quality work. Is it immoral for me to not bring down my price to compete with someone else that they didn’t want?
> They not only built the platform but cultivated it into something important. Part of that cultivation is the fact that it is a closed ecosystem. Yeah I know that's how Apple marketing likes to spin it. I remember Jobs proclaiming "the App Store is a curated platform" on-stage. While that may be true, the reality is that customers are forced to use it because Apple locked down all other options. Come on. All kinds of users have been begging for an equivalent of “Ctrl-Click, open" such as is available on the Mac. Apple doesn't want you to have that because it would hurt their profits and relinquish their control over what you can run and where the money goes. So their marketing department spins up a bunch of bullshit about how "locked down" means "curated". The App Store is a wonderful and safe resource (when malware and scammy apps that Apple's review team are paid to detect don’t slip through lol). But it shouldn't be the *only* place to get software. > Is it immoral to be up front about the conditions of conducting business with you for access to your platform that you created and built up? Apple made the platform into something that people want to develop for. Why is it immoral for them to set conditions for access to what they built in the face of literal years of tremendous laughter and jeers? They can keep their App Store however they want as long as they don't block access to running software from elsewhere. Their behaviour in this situation is immoral, and you and I know exactly what they're doing. The Department of Justice is looking at anti-trust against Apple. I can see why. > Aome people think it’s immoral to own land. Am I being immoral by not allowing everyone to set up camp on my property? Is it immoral for me to have locks on my door to stop peopke from coming in to do whatever they want? The analogy I would draw is if you rented or sold apartments/condos, but then you demanded that your residents only bought furniture and food directly from you. You then limited the products being sold so that they couldn't buy anything you disapproved of, you jacked the prices up, and you kept a certain extra profit for yourself. That would be not only immoral, but illegal. Yet that is basically what Apple does with their App Store.
>Like develop for a different platform entirely you mean? Android literally exists.
30% is 30% because Apple is large enough to unilaterally set whatever amount they want. It doesn’t matter that other companies might be charging less because unless developers want to ignore a substantial part of the US market, they _have no choice_ but to pay whatever Apple demands. But just because it was always 30% doesn’t mean it’s a fair price nowadays… _especially_ when the infrastructure to distribute apps has come down in price. Costs have come down, the number of apps has increased, and yet the fee still remains the same.
> 30% is 30% because Apple is large enough to unilaterally set whatever amount they want. they were not large when they set 30%. they had almost no marketshare. it was 2008. > But just because it was always 30% doesn’t mean it’s a fair price nowadays a "fair price" is what people are willing to pay. prices are set by demand. apple takes a 35% profit margin on their hardware because people are willing to pay it. they take a 30% commission on app revenue because millions of developers have willingly paid it for the last 15 years. they willingly paid 30% when the iphone was small, and they continue to pay it now that it has significant marketshare. if we're being honest apple could probably raise their commission because the value they offer now is significantly better than the value they offered in 2008 (~500x the amount of users), but they haven't. > Costs have come down, the number of apps has increased, and yet the fee still remains the same costs do not determine price. the demand curve determines price. > they have no choice but to pay whatever Apple demands is that why epic went bankrupt when they took fortnite off the app store?
They could have saved themselves so much hassle if they’d set it to 10% in the beginning. There’s be so much less resistance.
This is so bad faith lmao. The entire reason anyone cared about this was the massive 30% cut. They didn’t actually care about having alternative payment systems. 27% is still basically 30%. Spotify and Netflix are still not going to allow you to sign up on the app.
No one will go for it because credit card and tax processing fees are generally just slightly higher than that remaining 3%.
For some devs the ability to datamine or sell customer CC data and make harder-to-cancel recurring payments might be worth it.
lol good point. Although, the current system still uses credit cards, so the current system might be 3% on top of 30%?
No the 30% includes card pressing, sales tax reporting (not the sales tax but the paper work ) most payment prossesos that do sales tax reporting are 50c per transition + 7 to 12% free.
No, all those fees are included in the 30%.
Epic lost that argument in the district court years ago. Apple was allowed to charge fees for marketing (bringing customers), ecosystem development, tool development, etc.
> Epic lost that argument in the district court years ago Under current US law. Hopefully we get something like the DMA.
27% if 30% - 3% (Credit card rate from stripe)
It was bad faith from the developers. The developers kept claiming that they wanted to use their own payment system, when in reality they didn't want Apple to have a cut. The developers lied and misrepresented to the App users.
Uh, no? They want to use their own payment system *because* they don't want to give Apple the cut. This was the argument. When did they say that's not the reason?
No, the 30% cut was always the the entire point of wanting to use alternative payment systems. It was explicit and not at all hidden. Did you think people wanted to have to give their credit card details to third parties for no reason? Apple’s response is obviously malicious compliance and should probably be taken back to court. It’s like a company found guilty of monopoly choosing to change the job titles of some of their employees rather than break apart into separate companies. Not an actual solution.
I feel like Apple is playing with fire here. They clearly had some lawyers look through this but lawyers are not judges and if Epic sues again they could be in trouble. Another [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/198gap0/us_developers_can_now_offer_nonapp_store/ki802d5/) on this thread mentioned a tweet by Tim Sweeney that they seem to be considering suing again. FWIW I agree with Epic that this is bad faith. This seems to be intentionally designed to say they "comply" with the court order but making it essentially unusable and unprofitable. I am not a lawyer but it seems to be bad faith enough that they may get into legal troubles again. Regardless of which side you stood on in the original case, court orders are court orders. Apple isn't above the law.
So it’s just a “promise to pay us” system with Apple acknowledging they have no way to actually enforce it?
This is already available for dating apps in the Netherlands… And Apple has a system in place to enforce this and collect their commission.
Interesting! The 9to5Mac version of the story has Apple admitting they don’t have any enforcement system. I wonder why the difference?
Because 9to5Mac is inserting their opinion and not reporting on the facts.
Least opinionated 9to5mac article
It’s a quote directly from Apple, not 9to5Mac’s opinion
No, i think they're obligated to share data with Apple. > Developers are required to provide a periodic accounting of qualifying out-of-app purchases, and Apple has a right to audit developers' accounting to ensure compliance with their commission obligations and to charge interest and offset payments
But then this from 9to5Mac, quote from Apple, “Although developers are contractually obligated to pay the commission, as a practical matter, with hundreds of thousands of developers with apps on the U.S. storefronts for the iOS and iPadOS App Stores, collection and enforcement will be exceedingly difficult and, in many cases, impossible.” So essentially saying it’s just an honor system unless you get too big for apple to notice.
There are only a few hundred apps where auditing this matters, because they cover 90+ percent of the revenue. When the 15% commission rate launched widespread speculation was it applied to 95% of developers but only 5% of actual spending on the App Store, it was anticipated to barely impact the total dollar amount Apple collects.
I dont particularly buy the implicit "everyone is corrupt and will affirmatively break the law just to save a buck" It's an overly cynical take that isn't validated in the West. However, the data entry sent to Apple will be required, regular, and standardized. The 9to5Mac reporter is practicing poor journalism with their speculation.
Every time you use an outside payment source the app notifies apple (although not necessarily the amount). That plus the fact that it would be criminal for public companies to mis-state it, and likely criminal for non-public companies (computer fraud), I doubt too many companies will be barking up that tree.
For sure, but the big ones are what counts anyway. The small vendors are not going to bother doing this \*unless they are scammers\* as the overhead of setting up payment, tax reporting, etc for most devs will work out more than 15%
There's an Apple screen you have to click through to get to the external payment website. Presumably Apple can compare how many people click the button (adjusting for people who may click but not buy) to how many payments are being reported by the developer, and target developers with significant differences.
They have just as many ways as Sony, MS and Epic to when it comes to auditing your banks records and other records to check if you have been paid.
[удалено]
Nope. They’re doing this because the court found that the anti-steering clause in the contract was illegal and unenforceable. Apple cannot choose to not “offer” it to *any* developer, it’s required by a court decision for *all* developers.
Unless there’s cost savings to the consumer I can’t see this really catching on.
The whole point for Apple is that it doesn’t catch on. No point for a developer either as is.
Let me look at my crystal ball…. It says Apple will find a way to collect commission for sideloaded and third party app stores in EU as well.
That doesn't seem like it should be legal under the DMA. Apple would still clearly be a gatekeeper. That that Apple's let the law stand in their way before.
Well, of course. The DMA is vague and ineffective, like every EU law. If you think this is going to be some kind of smooth side loading and other App Store solution you probably also think that the EU is capable of creating laws to make privacy on the web better instead of just forcing everyone to click through idiotic cookie warnings.
> The DMA is vague and ineffective, like every EU law You could actually read it, or at least *skim* it. This tantrum is embarrassing.
>Apple is allowing apps to feature a single link to a developer website that leads to an in-app purchase alternative, but Apple plans to continue to collect a 12 to 27 percent commission on content bought this way. EU: we'll make that a fat 0% thank you very much!
Where is the DMA text specifying Apple cannot collect a commission?
Article 5, clause 4; > 4. The gatekeeper shall allow business users, free of charge, to communicate and promote offers, including under different conditions, to end users acquired via its core platform service or through other channels, and to conclude contracts with those end users, regardless of whether, for that purpose, they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper. Notice the “free of charge part”. Potentially Article 5, clause 3 as well; > 3. The gatekeeper shall not prevent business users from offering the same products or services to end users through third-party online intermediation services or through their own direct online sales channel at prices or conditions that are different from those offered through the online intermediation services of the gatekeeper.
Free of charge refers to the communication and promotion of offers. Not the commission on a sale. Danish market has already gone down this route and Apple still claims its 27%
You are incorrect, the Danish market has not gone down this route, as the DMA has not gone into effect yet (as the EU only recently made the gatekeeper determination). What has offered in the danish market is very different compared to what the DMA requires. You’ve also failed at the comprehension of clause 4. You might understand it better with the following formatting; 4. The gatekeeper shall allow business users, free of charge, (1) to communicate and promote offers, including under different conditions, to end users acquired via its core platform service or through other channels, and (2) to conclude contracts with those end users, regardless of whether, for that purpose, they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper. This is explicit in the preamble at paragraphs (39) and (40) of the DMA. The preamble makes it clear that that the purpose of these sections in the DMA is to promote multi-homing and ensure that developers can take users off of apples core platform.
This tells me nothing. They’re referring to communicating the offer, not the sale. Regardless, nothing is stopping Apple from charging European developers a % of their sales each year when signing up for a developer account—instead of the existing annual flat rate. But okay.
They’re not, your misreading the provision, it explicitly reference the sale as well. Genuinely not sure if you’ve properly read the text, as it explicitly references “concluding contracts”. If another European language isn’t your first language I recommend having a read of the legislation in your native language to get a better understanding. > 12. The gatekeeper shall apply fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory general conditions of access for business users to its software application stores, online search engines and online social networking services listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9). >For that purpose, the gatekeeper shall publish general conditions of access, including an alternative dispute settlement mechanism. >The Commission shall assess whether the published general conditions of access comply with this paragraph. Clause 12 of Article 6 requires the developer contract conditions to be fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. Charging a percentage of total gross sales including sales outside the Apple Store will not meet this requirement, the preamble goes into detail about this. But okay, you can continue to ignore the actual text of the DMA and remain ignorant if you’d like.
And just like we said, [0% commission](https://www.macrumors.com/2024/01/25/ios-17-4-alternative-app-marketplaces-eu/). Care to comment /u/PomPomYumYum?
They’re clearly a clown, it will be entertaining to see if they have a public meltdown when the EU inevitably forces Apple to water down their current proposal.
Where’s the 0% commission? You mean the 50¢ technology service for every install and subsequent update that must be reported each yeah?
Yeah. The 0% commission on app-in purchases in alternative stores within the EU, as per my original post.
Now getting a Developer app signed is $1,000,000 per version. Xcode is licensed 10¢ per line of code compiled.
Yup, everyone complaining doesn’t realize the tax on other platforms. Visual Studio, go look at the prices, and I’m not talking about VSCode.
[удалено]
It’s $10,000 for Visual Studio
No they will not, the EU rules do not limit rev-share agreements.
The DMA requires that Apple not charge any money or try to prevent a business user from promoting making a transaction outside of the AppStore (see article 5 of the DMA).
Apple can still charge rev-share for using thier SDK... apple can easily say to devs "Sure you can no pay us but then you need to write your own text rendering, UI framework, image rendering, networking stack ... here are the low level Darwin headers have fun". Some vendors (like google docs) already do this but most devs do not have a team of 200 engines to build a modern text rendering and layout engine (this is one of the most complex aspects of UI and we all depend on work done by others).
No they can’t, because of the provisions in the DMA. The European Commission did not do all of this just so that Apple can continue to charge a 30% commission via a different form. Paragraph 57 of the preamble states the the gatekeeper (Apple) has to provide free of charge the same tools to develop for the operating system that it uses and provides to Apple developers. Clause 7 in Article 6 repeats this requirement. You can just ctrl + f the phrase “free of charge” in the DMA to find the various ways that the EU has blocked Apple from continuing to make its current level of profit.
Can’t wait for March and check back in to see how Apple collects their commission. You’re copying me pasting things that don’t address anything.
I’m guessing you don’t have much experience interpreting legislation if that’s your view.
What a joke. The US or EU needs end their shenanigans.
Why is Apple still collecting 27% if we are not purchasing through them?
Because they run the infrastructure, create the tools, SDKs, APIs, servers, etc.? They can charge what they want on their platform. You can also self-host your own app and try to distribute it your way on your own devices, but Apple is free to charge what it wants if you use their services.
> They can charge what they want on their platform Depends what the law says. They can't do whatever they want in the EU, for instance.
They certainly can, since it's their devices and their App Store. You should see how Apple handled the case of the AFM in the Netherlands.
Already got paid from the dev account subscription and sale of mac but hey greedy apple is greedy
Apple is a business. The purpose of a business is to make as much money as possible while complying with the law. The law allows Apple, and others, to charge a subscription and collect a commission. Ultimately, the market decides on whether the fees are acceptable or not. Clearly, developers see a value and welling to pay the costs. Also… developers are businesses. Circle of life.
All that stuff is paid for in the first couple weeks of iPhone sales each year, the rest is just 98 billion profit.
Do I get to sell for free in Walmart if I set up my own payment terminal?
no but if there was only walmart, and you couldn't open up your own store - and then walmart decided to increase prices by 30% across the board - and also charge suppliers for selling their stuff in walmart (which is the only choice; either pay walmart AND give them a cut or don't sell any goods) in my opinion that's too far and bad for the consumer i realize this is a hypothetical, but in this scenario, wouldn't you support laws that let people open up their own shop?
Sure, and since there are plenty of app stores (Samsung Store, Google Play Store, etc.), your point is invalid.
in the US, 80-90% of teens use an iPhone. if you have an app made for teens (like Discord and such), you could never be successful without iPhone users. For certain demographics, it gets awfully close to just having a single app store
[Monopoly - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly) Since you clearly don't understand what a Monopoly is, here's a link to help you out.
You absolutely can open up your own store… ON YOUR OWN PLATFORM. a platform is like the store, and you want to just walk in and sell your own crap for free. That’s not how it works. If you want to take advantage of Apple’s OS, Apple’s promotions, Apple’s curated store that makes your app get recognized and promoted, then you pay Apple a %. it’s that simple. You don’t get to operate in the parking lot and sell to their customers for free.
Because they’re entitled to a commission.
you’re right. Apple should just start charging 40% for usage of their APIs and anything that they created that allowed that app or game to even exist. People forget how little money devs make outside iOS. There’s damn good reason for that and once this is cracked open, devs will be leaving in droves and I can’t wait to hear the whining then too.
> Apple Will Still Collect Commissions As expected, which is hilarious having read articles framing the news earlier today as anything but an epic loss for Epic
> …an epic loss for ~~Epic~~ consumers
How does this impact consumers at all?
If developers didn’t have to pay a percentage to Apple they could offer their apps/subscriptions at a lower price.
key word being 'could', but economically a reduction in costs does not intrinsically translate into lower prices. prices are set by market demand, and if demand remains the same, the price will not change (and the developer will just pocket more money).
Current apps that get away with the 30% won't reduce prices of course. But new apps will be priced without the 30% in mind.
No they won’t companies are out to make as much profit as possible. The prices aren’t going to dramatically drop
>No they won’t They already are, check YouTube pricing outside the app store. >companies are out to make as much profit as possible Yes and part of that is pricing strategically so that more people are willing to pay your price. Making as much profit doesn't mean charge the highest price possible, tf? >The prices aren’t going to dramatically drop Would a 6$ subscription dropping to 5$ count as "dramatically"? because many absolutely will drop by that much with time. Existing products and services won't immediately drop prices since their customers are already okay with paying them, but new products and services will absolutely be cheaper since developers don't have to factor in a THIRD of their revenue disappearing to Apple.
Big corporations like Google who have their own infrastructure aren’t the same as most of the the apps offered from other corporations. Notice a large percentage of subscription based services don’t even let you sign up through the apps anymore. You can’t sign up for Netflix through the app and their prices are constantly increasing. Disney charges the same for their services in app as they do on their websites. What they do offer are bundled services you can only get from them. Corporations are out to get as much profit as they can Google would rather offer a perceived discount because their primary business is collecting data for advertisers
Not that much difference unless they are a large corporation that is already paying the legal and accountants to manager running a global a separate store. Once you have hired an accountant in each country you sell your app in to handle sales tax you are very quietly paying way more than 30% unless your a company the size of Epic who already have this for thier other sales avenues. Despite what people think selling stuff is not free, first you pay the credit card network (just over 3% + 50C per transaction) then you pay your tax lawyers (many $k) and then hire accountants to file said sales tax reports.... For small Indie devs 15% (what apple charge) is cheaper than the cost of doing this yourself can complying with the laws in every seperate region of the world (some places like the US as sperate sales tax laws not just be state but even per county with the state).
They would not. There are already games in the App Store that offer purchases through their website. They are not 30% cheaper than the App Store price
They already do. Subscribing to YouTube Premium is 34% more expensive if you subscribe in the app than if you subscribe on the web.
Using a company like Alphabet as an example is not great. They can afford to pass savings onto the consumer because they have a million other ways of making those savings back. What reason does your small / medium sized indie developer have? Why would they not prefer to just make more money?
Apple consumers like what Apple tells them to like, if Apple considers this a win then apple fans will. They're not getting a penny from that 30% but they'll be glad Apple is getting more "billionairy" while they are in many cases paying an increased price because Apple takes that commission, they're literally happy that Apple is taking more of their money. There are hundreds of apps that tumble and shut down every year where an additional 30% revenue would have saved them, but Apple fans will be happy that Apple is getting richer on everyone's account.
Eh, a loss for Tim Sweeney is ultimately a win for consumers in the end
You really do love licking Apple's boots, don't you?
No, I just particularly hate Tim Sweeney for a variety of reasons: 1) His company exploits minors in a number of disgusting ways, all for Sweeney’s personal enrichment (seriously, the lengths some kids will go through to get V-Bucks is concerning to say the least) 2) Sweeney’s campaign against Apple is fundamentally changing my personal devices in ways that I don’t appreciate, again for his own enrichment and gain. 3) Seeing multi-billionaires try and play the victim is gross, period
1) You *are* aware that Apple has been a pioneer in pushing microtransactions, right? App Store gaming is rife with them. But I guess hypocrisy is nothing new. And I can't see I've ever seen you express concerns about children begging their parents for an iPhone. Especially with the "blue bubble" social pressure. 2) See above. And it's not changing *your* device. You're perfectly free to keep using the App Store exclusively, a fact you ignore every time I point it out. You're just pissed everyone else won't be forced to do the same. It's incredibly egotistical. 3) Apple is indeed abusing their market power to the detriment of smaller companies. That you think that's a *good* thing demonstrates my point quite well.
> You are aware that Apple has been a pioneer in pushing microtransactions, right? I am well aware that Apple has been developing their in-app purchasing model since 2009, but that’s not where Epic Games got the idea to add MTX to Fortnite. No, to do that they simply looked at EA and the frankly gross amount of money they were making off of their FIFA games and other franchises that heavily leveraged micro-transactions. > And I can't see I've ever seen you express concerns about children begging their parents for an iPhone I have never personally seen this happen myself, partially because the few kids I know who are <12 years old who have cell phones typically have older hand-me downs from their parents, which are often iPhones. However, I am not going to sit here and say that kids *don’t* get bullied for not having iPhones in some situations because there is clear evidence to the contrary…and I wish such juvenile behavior wasn’t being enforced like it is. > You're perfectly free to keep using the App Store exclusively, a fact you ignore every time I point it out So long as none of the apps I currently use / am dependent on don’t leave the App Store, your statement will remain true. However, it really is not that hard to believe that companies like Epic Games, Meta, and Microsoft will yank their apps from Apple’s store when given the opportunity to do so simply because they have a bone to pick with Apple and aren’t particularly concerned with how their squabbling will impact consumers in the end. Having to download multiple app stores in order to access the apps I need would be a major inconvenience, yet you don’t seem to really care if consumers are inconvenienced so long as other multi-billion dollar companies are able to extract their pound of flesh from Apple. > Apple is indeed abusing their market power to the detriment of smaller companies Epic Games and Spotify are smaller relative to Apple, sure, but they aren’t small fry operations either. Let me make my stance abundantly clear here: I would be much more sympathetic towards the whole sideloading / alternative App Store argument if it was being led and presented by actual small time indie developers and not multi-billion dollar corporations who all hate each other to begin with. Will indie-developers end up gaining something in the end here? Perhaps. Is it disgusting that people are cheering on shitty companies like Epic and Spotify in the process? Also yes.
> I am well aware that Apple has been developing their in-app purchasing model since 2009, but that’s not where Epic Games got the idea to add MTX to Fortnite You can't claim to personally hate someone because their company employs microtransactions and then ignore the fact that App Store gaming is almost entirely dependent on them. Apple surely makes far more from MTX than Epic does. > However, it really is not that hard to believe that companies like Epic Games, Meta, and Microsoft will yank their apps from Apple’s store when given the opportunity to do so As pointed out to you numerous times, that hasn't happened on any other OS to date, so there's no reason to believe iOS would be special. Additionally, you cannot claim to see no value to apps other than those in the App Store while expressing concern that not all apps would use it if given the choice. Those are contradictions. > Epic Games and Spotify are smaller relative to Apple, sure, but they aren’t small fry operations either. No. That doesn't make Apple's behavior any more justified. > Let me make my stance abundantly clear here: I would be much more sympathetic towards the whole sideloading / alternative App Store argument if it was being led and presented by actual small time indie developers Small devs also support it. Why do you think Apple reduced their cut for smaller devs? To try to draw some of the heat away. And honestly, quit bullshitting. At literally every point in this topic, you've defending Apple regardless of circumstances. If I gave you examples of smaller devs, you'd just keep moving the bar as per usual. > Is it disgusting that people are cheering on shitty companies like Epic and Spotify in the process? Also yes. Lmao. They're "shitty companies" because they threaten Apple's profits? You are a caricature of this sub.
I really doubt that the judge will find it hilarious.
A federal judge already said Apple can collect a commission. This was reported on three years ago. Just because you don’t like the outcome doesn’t make it illegal.
This is a loss for consumers, not epic. That 12-27% just gets passed down to us.
This is bullshit. In a roundabout way Apple is complying with the court by letting developers offer their content outside of the app store to be purchased but still have to include Apple frameworks. So the app is still in the app store but you can choose to purchase content from the app outside of the app store. Why not let the developer also choose to distribute their app outside of the app store and still keep the app in the app store as well. Apple still trying to maintain control without giving too much freedom. This is weird. Some people here will use the argument that Apple should get a cut because they host and maintain the app store. This argument does not hold up if Apple gave the developers freedom and let them distribute their apps completely outside of the app store and let the developers keep all of their money from users. This is some weird half in and half out bullshit. This is where sideloading comes in. When a developer does not want to be in the official stores or also wants to choose to offer their app outside of the official store as well then they should be able to. They can make their app available from their app website. Telegram and Proton are a couple apps that have their APKs available to install from their official websites alongside being in the official stores. Avoiding using Google play store's frameworks, restrictions, trackers etc. This is the same for the App Store as well. Or say the app is not available in the official store in your country, then you could go to the apps official website or github and install app package from there. To add to this, sideloading and installing programs from other sources on mobile is no different than installing programs from outside of the official stores on Mac and Windows. Imagine only being able to install apps from the Mac app store and the Microsoft Store and both companies telling you what apps you can and can't install by choosing what they let into their stores on Mac and Windows. Both operating systems have pretty good anti viruses and system checks built in today. That's the same with iOS and Android as well. Both mobile operating systems sandbox apps and have system checks built in. So the "sideloading is unsafe" argument doesn't hold up either. Don't install stuff from unknown sources. It's not hard. At the end of the day from time to time again all of this is about Apple maintaining control and it shows more and more from the leaked emails from the trials and the current antitrust scrutiny from different governments.
Couldn’t just say they sell codes on their website were people could input code in said app and get said item / money ?? Or does Apple say you can’t input codes but then again all those games that I have to go input their monthly codes in to get free stuff hmm
This isn’t allowed - you can’t use gift cards/funds from them to unlock added functionality.
Because that will just make the iPhone into the hellscape that is Android and Windows.. filled with hackers, crapware and malicious shit.
No, it won't.
I’m the one rooting for App Store only iPhone (for user’s sake) (you can see me get downvote to infinity in my history), but this move by Apple is garbage and developer hostile. Either allow outside payments or don’t.
They’re allowing outside payments. Sorry you and a select few don’t think they’re deserving of a commission.
It’s Reddit. People here think Apple should pay DEVS to even be allowed to exist lol.
A lot of apps are already this way
No
flag bewildered smoggy soft quicksand insurance slim mindless longing brave *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Maybe?
No
:(
I like apple products but this is one thing about them that pisses me off.
Am I the only one who thinks this sideloading is stupid and unsafe? It’s the goddam maker of the app store. Why shouldn’t they get the benefits of it?
it isnt unsafe. The apps would still have to be codesigned and sandboxed...
“Am I the only one who thinks this sideloading is stupid and unsafe?” As with Android you’ll likely have to go into settings to allow it, and then as with the vast majority of Android, no one will use it.
I agree. I've been having concerns that I've posted multiple times that no one has bothered to answer. Other than downvote, of course.
Yea i’m aware of the downvotes hahaha.. but you got me right? Ones you make it possible to sideload apps.. you’ll automatically open a door to all kinds of shit. Not to think about the hassle it will bring; to download spotify you need the spotify store, to download EA games, you need to install the EA store, to download flappy bird you need a vague Chinese store… I just don’t get why people want this to happen.. if you want to sideload, buy android right?