3 ms·

If Epic was fighting only for itself to get a special deal (which they are not), they would not have the moral high ground. But if they are fighting for a proc

If Epic was fighting only for itself to get a special deal (which they are not), they would not have the moral high ground. But if they are fighting for a process change (which they are), then they absolutely have the moral argument on their side. An App Store without competing stores and payment systems ultimately hurts the consumer, because Apple is not forced to compete on quality and price. As someone who paid for and owns the hardware, I should not be in any way inconvenienced in my ability to choose what to install on it. Apple is only part of the equation of what makes the iPhone great. 3rd party apps are the other part, and today, is the more important part.

m11a 6y ago
It doesn't really matter for Epic whether only they get a cut, or if everyone else does too. I imagine the former would be preferable to have an edge over competitors, but it's also unrealistic and they'd be unable to play that card and have a chance in court. Epic isn't being altruistic here. > An App Store without competing stores and payment systems ultimately hurts the consumer, because Apple is not forced to compete on quality and price. Apple, as a payment processor, shouldn't have to compete on price on the App Store. The fees from the App Store/IAP subsidise other operations. If they were competing solely as a payment processor it'd be impossible to charge more than 3% frankly, so they'd have to hike up prices elsewhere to make up the loss. App Store payments accounted for 6% of their 2019 revenue. I think Apple is entitled to decide on the pricing structure to fund its operations. There's only a competition issue when it comes to Spotify v Apple Music, or Netflix v TV+, or other competing products. That said, 30% is a little ridiculous, imo, and it should be lower. Still, Apple isn't unique in charging merchants a %, which is done by many orgs from the Steam Store to the payment networks themselves, and fixed charges are even more common in many B2B situations.
zepto 6y ago
This ‘not competing on quality and price’ argument is bogus. They are competing with Android on both. It’s pretty obvious what would have happened if Apple had simply stopped competing for even a few years. Having multiple stores will simply increase the costs for developers, and make the user experience worse. A bunch of publishing companies will compete for a slice of the action using all the normal marketing practices. What will they contribute to the development of the platform? Nothing.
- simonklitj 6y ago
  Hypothetically (and jokingly), in this scenario, Apple should limit Xcode to only be for developers publishing on App Store, and let the other guys work out their own tools.
  - zepto 6y ago
    There is at least a little bit of truth to this joke in that Apple absolutely prioritizes their efforts with XCode based on the needs of App Store developer. This is also true about their APIs too.

m11a 6y ago

It doesn't really matter for Epic whether only they get a cut, or if everyone else does too. I imagine the former would be preferable to have an edge over competitors, but it's also unrealistic and they'd be unable to play that card and have a chance in court. Epic isn't being altruistic here. > An App Store without competing stores and payment systems ultimately hurts the consumer, because Apple is not forced to compete on quality and price. Apple, as a payment processor, shouldn't have to compete on price on the App Store. The fees from the App Store/IAP subsidise other operations. If they were competing solely as a payment processor it'd be impossible to charge more than 3% frankly, so they'd have to hike up prices elsewhere to make up the loss. App Store payments accounted for 6% of their 2019 revenue. I think Apple is entitled to decide on the pricing structure to fund its operations. There's only a competition issue when it comes to Spotify v Apple Music, or Netflix v TV+, or other competing products. That said, 30% is a little ridiculous, imo, and it should be lower. Still, Apple isn't unique in charging merchants a %, which is done by many orgs from the Steam Store to the payment networks themselves, and fixed charges are even more common in many B2B situations.

zepto 6y ago

This ‘not competing on quality and price’ argument is bogus. They are competing with Android on both. It’s pretty obvious what would have happened if Apple had simply stopped competing for even a few years. Having multiple stores will simply increase the costs for developers, and make the user experience worse. A bunch of publishing companies will compete for a slice of the action using all the normal marketing practices. What will they contribute to the development of the platform? Nothing.

simonklitj 6y ago
Hypothetically (and jokingly), in this scenario, Apple should limit Xcode to only be for developers publishing on App Store, and let the other guys work out their own tools.
- zepto 6y ago
  There is at least a little bit of truth to this joke in that Apple absolutely prioritizes their efforts with XCode based on the needs of App Store developer. This is also true about their APIs too.