3 ms·

That is inaccurate. Your comparison would be closer if the purchase of pods was handled by Amazon Any comparison with physically shipped goods isn't going to b

That is inaccurate. Your comparison would be closer if the purchase of pods was handled by Amazon Any comparison with physically shipped goods isn't going to be particularly relevant here

fastball 6y ago
Ok, so to make the analogy near perfect, we need to add in the detail that Amazon doesn't allow Nespresso machines with this touch screen + subscription service to be sold on Amazon at all if Nespresso doesn't use Amazon to process the payment. But that is exactly how Amazon would require a 30% cut for a service they have no hand in. I wouldn't be happy about Amazon saying you can't sell a Nespresso machine with that feature on Amazon. It would be a ridiculous thing to do. Epic providing digital currency to their users costs Apple literally nothing. Apple does not participate in it. If Apple wants to charge Epic for whatever it costs them to distribute Fortnite to users (e.g. bandwidth costs) then power to them.
- BillinghamJ 6y ago
  > Epic providing digital currency to their users costs Apple literally nothing It's important to understand that this definitely isn't true. It probably doesn't cost them (anywhere near) 30%, but fraud, handling upset parents, providing a ubiquitous gift card system, etc etc. does have real operational and monetary cost. It's not just basic payment processing
  - fastball 6y ago
    No, the whole point is that Epic wants to be able to handle payments themselves. Their app, as they submitted it to the App Store, does not have Apple involved in the purchasing of digital currency at all. And Apple is saying there cannot be an app that doesn't have them as the payment provider. Just like if Amazon said Nespresso couldn't sell a machine on Amazon that doesn't use Amazon as the payment processor when handling pod subscriptions.
emsy 6y ago
It’s a good enough analogy. Even with Amazon handling transactions two points hold up: 1) It’s none of Amazon’s business what I do with my machine after I bought it. 2) 30% for handling transactions and shipping is ludicrous.
krrrh 6y ago
It would be even more accurate if Nespresso gave away free machines on amazon that could only heat water, expected Amazon to advertise them, ship them free to prime customers and handle returns and customer support, and also insisted that pods required to do anything with the machine were exclusively available direct from Nespresso. Though, in the real world of physical goods Amazon also sells generic pods from all sorts of manufacturers, which Nespresso can’t prevent. Yet Epic demands that they are the only company that can sell hats on Fortnite.
- fastball 6y ago
  Epic isn't demanding anything. Apple's involvement has nothing to do with who can sell hats on Fortnite. Epic also isn't "expecting" Apple to do all that. Apple does all that as part of paying for an Apple Developer License. If their costs are not being recouped by that, they should charge what it's actually costing them to deliver those services. They should not be charging 30% on transactions they don't need to have any hand in, and the only reason they can is because they are using their monopoly position to force participants to use them as the payment processor.
  - krrrh 6y ago
    The point about hats is where do you draw the line on restricting access to a market? When does Fortnite become a platform that locks out hat designers or is perceived as taking too large of a cut from the hat store? If Apple did enforce fee-for-service on developer accounts you’d see HN light up in a way that would make this thread look tame in comparison. Consumers benefit massively from free and open source apps getting access to App Store, APNS, Game Center, etc. This makes the platform more valuable for giant companies like Epic. Perhaps you think sidewalks should be reserved for those who pay property taxes? Or that people should make per-step micropayments? Or tourists and children should require credits to access parks? > … the only reason … A statement like this is bound to be false. Ecosystems are complex.
    - fastball 6y ago
      Apps are different from hats. Apps for iOS would exist without the iOS App Store, as evidenced by the fact that people were literally creating apps for iOS before the App Store existed. Hats cannot exist without coordination from Epic. Sidewalks and parks are a public good... the App Store is not.

That is inaccurate. Your comparison would be closer if the purchase of pods was handled by Amazon Any comparison with physically shipped goods isn't going to be particularly relevant here

fastball 6y ago

Ok, so to make the analogy near perfect, we need to add in the detail that Amazon doesn't allow Nespresso machines with this touch screen + subscription service to be sold on Amazon at all if Nespresso doesn't use Amazon to process the payment. But that is exactly how Amazon would require a 30% cut for a service they have no hand in. I wouldn't be happy about Amazon saying you can't sell a Nespresso machine with that feature on Amazon. It would be a ridiculous thing to do. Epic providing digital currency to their users costs Apple literally nothing. Apple does not participate in it. If Apple wants to charge Epic for whatever it costs them to distribute Fortnite to users (e.g. bandwidth costs) then power to them.

BillinghamJ 6y ago
> Epic providing digital currency to their users costs Apple literally nothing It's important to understand that this definitely isn't true. It probably doesn't cost them (anywhere near) 30%, but fraud, handling upset parents, providing a ubiquitous gift card system, etc etc. does have real operational and monetary cost. It's not just basic payment processing
- fastball 6y ago
  No, the whole point is that Epic wants to be able to handle payments themselves. Their app, as they submitted it to the App Store, does not have Apple involved in the purchasing of digital currency at all. And Apple is saying there cannot be an app that doesn't have them as the payment provider. Just like if Amazon said Nespresso couldn't sell a machine on Amazon that doesn't use Amazon as the payment processor when handling pod subscriptions.

emsy 6y ago

It’s a good enough analogy. Even with Amazon handling transactions two points hold up: 1) It’s none of Amazon’s business what I do with my machine after I bought it. 2) 30% for handling transactions and shipping is ludicrous.

krrrh 6y ago

It would be even more accurate if Nespresso gave away free machines on amazon that could only heat water, expected Amazon to advertise them, ship them free to prime customers and handle returns and customer support, and also insisted that pods required to do anything with the machine were exclusively available direct from Nespresso. Though, in the real world of physical goods Amazon also sells generic pods from all sorts of manufacturers, which Nespresso can’t prevent. Yet Epic demands that they are the only company that can sell hats on Fortnite.

fastball 6y ago
Epic isn't demanding anything. Apple's involvement has nothing to do with who can sell hats on Fortnite. Epic also isn't "expecting" Apple to do all that. Apple does all that as part of paying for an Apple Developer License. If their costs are not being recouped by that, they should charge what it's actually costing them to deliver those services. They should not be charging 30% on transactions they don't need to have any hand in, and the only reason they can is because they are using their monopoly position to force participants to use them as the payment processor.
- krrrh 6y ago
  The point about hats is where do you draw the line on restricting access to a market? When does Fortnite become a platform that locks out hat designers or is perceived as taking too large of a cut from the hat store? If Apple did enforce fee-for-service on developer accounts you’d see HN light up in a way that would make this thread look tame in comparison. Consumers benefit massively from free and open source apps getting access to App Store, APNS, Game Center, etc. This makes the platform more valuable for giant companies like Epic. Perhaps you think sidewalks should be reserved for those who pay property taxes? Or that people should make per-step micropayments? Or tourists and children should require credits to access parks? > … the only reason … A statement like this is bound to be false. Ecosystems are complex.
  - fastball 6y ago
    Apps are different from hats. Apps for iOS would exist without the iOS App Store, as evidenced by the fact that people were literally creating apps for iOS before the App Store existed. Hats cannot exist without coordination from Epic. Sidewalks and parks are a public good... the App Store is not.