8 ms·

Apple says Epic is ‘putting the entire App Store model at risk’

26 points by screpy 6y ago

maydemir 6y ago
Apple has some rules. Epic Games has accepted this. Now, when Epic suddenly makes an illegal move, it is very normal to remove it from the AppStore. If Apple accepts this, it has to apply it for all apps. This means a very serious loss of income. So I mean, I know Apple charges a lot of commission. But Apple has to apply his own rules too.
- screpy 6y ago
  Epic CEO Tim Sweeney has called Apple’s characterization of the series of events leading up to Fortnite’s removal as “misleading,” as he initially requested in an email that the App Store exemptions Epic sought be made available to all iOS developers.
  - donarb 6y ago
    He actually requested the exemptions be made for Android developers. He cut/pasted his letter to Apple from his Google letter and forgot to change the platform. https://twitter.com/rsgnl/status/1296907639952224264?s=10 https://twitter.com/rsgnl/status/1296907639952224264?s=10
- ThrowawayR2 6y ago
  Odd, HN usually hates middlemen tacking on additional costs and 30% is an unjustifiably deep cut by any measure. Your Apple and Android apps could be 20% cheaper than they are now. Your Steam games could have 20% more going to the developers, software creators just like you and I, to enable more people to make a living by creating indie games. If Epic wants to dent the walled garden app store model, more power to them.
  - maydemir 6y ago
    Yes, you're right. Apple charges a lot of commission. But Epic Games accepted this rule and entered the store. And Epic can't make changes without a deal with Apple. If Apple accepts this, it should do so for all apps. And it goes into 30% loss.
    - screpy 6y ago
      Yes, but everyone knows that Apple charges a lot of commission now.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        Apple has been charging 30% since 2003 with the iTunes Store. This is no secret.
  - Someone 6y ago
    I think the App market is like that of pop songs: a few developers make lots of money, a few make decent money for a short time, and most of them think they are working on a career but are lucky if they can scrape by. Main reason, I think, is the same in both industries: more people have the ability for the craft than are needed to satisfy demand, and they’re willing to do it for peanuts and/or tricking themselves to think success and, with it, monetary compensation, will eventually come their way. And compared to the music industry, 30% doesn’t seem that bad. https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/news/music-artists-make-12-percent-from-music-sales-706746/ https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/news/music-artists-make-12-...: “Musicians Get Only 12 Percent of the Money the Music Industry Makes” So, are musicians being preyed upon by the music industry, or is selling music harder work than making music? I would think it’s a bit of both. I also think that applies to apps, too.
    - ThrowawayR2 6y ago
      > "And compared to the music industry, 30% doesn’t seem that bad." I don't really think pointing that other professions have it worse is a justification for abuses in our own.
- anfilt 6y ago
  Honestly, a locked down device is the problem not the app store. Let users sideload.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    It does wonders on game consoles, which Epic isn't suing, rather they even proudly do PS5 demos.
    - Apocryphon 6y ago
      They've fought game consoles before: https://www.polygon.com/2018/9/26/17905770/fortnite-cross-play-ps4-nintendo-switch-xbox https://www.polygon.com/2018/9/26/17905770/fortnite-cross-pl...
      - pjmlp 6y ago
        2 years ago, and now do PS5 exclusive demos.
  - maydemir 6y ago
    Yes, I wish it was a little more flexible. But there are good points in this. I think they create a better quality and performance product in this way.
- salawat 6y ago
  Epic Games finally realized that what Apple was doing with the App Store was a text book case of anti-competitive behavior for the scale on which Apple operates. You're not allowed to set rules in such a way as the end consumer is ultimately harmed, and you are entrenched in a dominant market position as a gatekeeper. Contracts are not meant to be vehicles through which violation of of other legal tenets are committed, and that is exactly what Apple's rules are. Violations of anti-trust law. It sucks being big. Being big carries with it a whole bunch of nasty implications because suddenly the number of people nor okay with you doing whatever you want starts to out pace the organized efforts you can muster to make everyone agree you should be able to do whatever you want. Hell, Google does the same stuff with Google Play. Just not with as much of a parasitic model as the Apple Store. Enough I think they'd squeak by a bit longer without notice, but Apple has absolutely gone off the deep end.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    I bet Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft are much bigger at world scale.
    - newbie578 6y ago
      Considering Apple is the world's biggest company and their whole business model rests on their walled garden, there isn't anyone bigger at world scale
      - scarface74 6y ago
        And MS is the third largest company...
      - pjmlp 6y ago
        Apple is nonexistent outside North America and a couple of tier 1 countries.
- throwaway189262 6y ago
  Because 30% is an extraordinary amount of money. Apple is user-hostile on this too, not sure why their users would ever defend it. Think of it this way, every time you buy something on the store you're paying 30% of your money to Apple. You're paying 30% of your money to Apple for the right to install the app on your phone You are allowed to charge more to make up for the fees. But you cannot tell your users this. If you say "sign up on our website to save" you will be banned from the store. Tons of people pay 30% more for subscriptions because they bought them through apple store. I'm tired of all the locked down bullshit and you should be too. It's my device, I should be able to install whatever I want
  - ben_w 6y ago
    I wonder what markup supermarkets generally charge over the wholesale rates, and if any of them would stock products with labels saying “buy this product direct from us and save $$$!”
    - manquer 6y ago
      Supermarkets loose money if goods do not sell, storage is expensive and limited shelf space , will also promote your product visibility or even give exclusivity etc . Apple takes no risk and does none of the above, so not remotely the same. Sure if Apple is willing to buy apps from Epic in bulk and speculate in addition to distribute, Epic or any other dev is not going to say no. Fulfilled by Amazon is much better comparison, you get paid only if the customer actually buys, you get penalized for returns etc. Providing the market place, the customer, the delivery service, storage service and payment gateway. Amazon does not charge even close to 30% in most SKUs.
    - notyourday 6y ago
      Supermarket's profit margins are in low single digits.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    It is peanuts compared with what J2ME, Symbian, Brew, Windows CE, Pocket PC, Blackberry stores used to ask for.
- abc-xyz 6y ago
  Because Tencent (along with all Chinese companies) risk getting banned from all Apple devices worldwide, so they use whichever proxies they can (such as 40% Tencent-owned Epic Games) to try to force Apple to allow third-party app installations.
t0mmyb0y 6y ago
Just commenting on the title. Good for them.
anupamchugh 6y ago
I just read the barrage of email exchanges between Epic Games CEO and Apple before the incident took place. It's clear that Sweeney was acting as a self-entitled guy--asking for an under the table deal in a rather immature way. Apple's strong response to the lawsuit by putting out the facts only goes on to show how Epic Games' PR stunt was a lame effort. It'll hurt them in the long run. I'm on Apple's side.
- _qulr 6y ago
  > asking for an under the table deal How is it under the table? Apple's secret 15% deal with Amazon can go unnoticed, but everyone in the world would notice if Epic suddenly came out with an alternative app store on iOS.
  - Bud 6y ago
    If Apple's deal with Amazon is "secret", how do we all know about it?
    - _qulr 6y ago
      Because the US Congress forced it out of Apple. It's long been rumored, but public proof came only a few weeks ago.
- jsnell 6y ago
  Those emails were purely grandstanding on both sides. Neither side was trying to convince the other. Epic knew that Apple would drop them from the store, Apple knew that Epic would try to get dropped and then sue. The real audience was the public.
  - anupamchugh 6y ago
    True. In hindsight, Apple played a smart move by letting the legal team respond to Sweeney's emails. They perhaps saw this coming from a mile.
allears 6y ago
If some other business is "putting your business model at risk," isn't that called competition? Since when is Apple's business model sacred? I don't think Sweeney is some kind of good guy, butI know for sure Apple is a predatory bully who would love to own the world, just like some other giant tech companies we could all name.
- ChrisLomont 6y ago
  What if the other business is taking benefits and agreeing to contracts, then breaks that contract? Isn’t that called a contract violation? Epic could make their own platform to sell games on, but they want the market Apple has built and the devices Apple has created. The courts will decide, and since for decades courts have sided with platform creators being allowed to police content and charge access fees (SEGA, Nintendo, and later Sony, all have such cases), I think Epic will lose. Despite some claims Apple has some monopoly, their share of mobile is far too small to count as such. I expect the courts to tell Epic to sell Android only if they don’t like Apple terms.
  - mrgordon 6y ago
    Of course Google also kicked them out of their store for the same reason...
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    >Epic could make their own platform to sell games on, but they want the market Apple has built and the devices Apple has created. logic also works the other way around. Without software smartphones are expensive scrap metal. Every popular piece of software that runs on the phone adds value to it.
    - ChrisLomont 6y ago
      So that means third parties have the legal right to put on Apple phones whatever they please? I think not. As such, the contract between the companies is the legally binding method to access Apple hardware. Apparently Apple has designed the contract so millions of apps got developed for the phones. Epic wanted different terms, but has no legal right to unilaterally break contracts to do so. The courts will likely side with Apple. There’s ample precedent for platform owners to have wide latitude on fees to publish.
throwbackThurs 6y ago
My main gripe with apple is their tactics around subscription fees. You can't direct your customers to sign-up via your website, circumventing apple to receive a 30% discount. Ultimately the customer suffers. They should have consumer awareness and choice, it's their right. Then they give Netflix special sweetheart treatment, why? I find these examples both deceptive and anti-competitive.
- scarface74 6y ago
  Every company gives better deals to large companies than consumers. This is no different than any other industry. A starving singer discovered at a night club is not going to get the same deal from a label as Beyonce or Taylor Swift.
- drivingmenuts 6y ago
  Probably because Netflix is a more predictable income and was well-established before being available on iOS. There’s no way to know if your average fly-by-night 5$ app is going to be worth the disk space it’s stored on in the long haul. It may sell well, thereby justifying the expense of vetting it or it may be a total dud, in which case you’ve wasted staff time and energy putting it through the process allowing it to be sold. Netflix also fills a very broad niche, so big that it can’t really be called a niche. Giving them some leeway makes sense.
ArkVark 6y ago
I'm a developer who sells on Steam. With a 12% commission instead of 30%, my actual profits would be about 50% higher and I would invest more money into post-release updates and support, and pay my staff bonuses. People are generally supportive of gamedev workers getting better deals and paid more - let me tell you the quickest way that could happen is if all these platform commissions were lowered.
- screpy 6y ago
  Yes, but unfortunately there is no power to control the commissions of all these platforms yet.
- je42 6y ago
  If you sell on steam you could also, not sell there and sell directly to you customers, right ? Could you host your own webstore and implement a cheap key system. That way you need to a lot less for the transactions.
  - ArkVark 6y ago
    There are many things you can do like that - that basically just represent increased overhead and non-game activities. If you follow all of that logically enough - you start to wonder, why even work in game development? Indie development right now is basically a mirage, because the only people making sustainably good profits are those with access to lower commissions by owning their own platforms or by getting better deals from platform owners due to their size. There is a huge survivor bias. I am only still operational because I am in Ukraine. It would be impossible in a 1st world country.
    - je42 6y ago
      True, but then steam does provide value to you. I would assume a revenue share of 30% is acceptable albeit painful in your case, since otherwise you wouldn't do it.
    - solipsism 6y ago
      > the only people making sustainably good profits are those with access to lower commissions by owning their own platforms What are some examples of this? What do you mean by "platform"?
altdatathrow 6y ago
Why can I order takeout though restaurant apps on my iphone and Apple doesn’t take a cut? Does the 30% only apply to digital goods/services that can be delivered or accessed through device?
- Barrin92 6y ago
  even funnier imagine if Windows had only allowed people to install software through the Windows Store and siphoned 30% of all revenue from every developer who has ever written commercial software for Windows simply for participating. Imagine if we had grown up like this let alone anyone defending it
- Jare 6y ago
  Pretty much yes.
- JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
  Perhaps apps could actually ship you something IRL, and give the digital item away 'for free'. Example: Wordpress sends you a letter with an activation code. Then it's a physical good you're paying for. Kind of like how people sell coupons on eBay, but you aren't paying for the coupon, but for the lister's time/effort to list it. Apple's fee is draconian and people are happy to manage these things via plain web applications. There is nothing special about apps. If anything, with all the extra special access they get (contacts, camera, gyroscope) they're a liability.
  - threatofrain 6y ago
    People could also simply signup over the web and login through iOS. Far less hassle than physically shipping people digital goods.
    - JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
      Apple is not letting apps do that anymore. You can have payment through your web app, but you must also permit payment via the iOS app, where Apple gets 30%.
Udik 6y ago
I have been thinking lately that the app stores, the food delivery apps and others, are reproducing on a b2b scale what happened with the industrial revolution, when factory owners became effectively monopolists of the job market and, in a framework without rules, forced everyone to work on the terms most profitable to them. Perhaps then what we miss now is the possibility to unionize businesses with respect to the tech/ internet giants. Form providers unions (e.g. restaurants, app developers, etc.). Force every single web or internet store to provide a switch to allow each provider to stop and restart their sales/ deliveries at will and display messages explaining why. Organise coordinated strikes in which those businesses halt their sales en masse until their demands have been met.
- solipsism 6y ago
  Good luck picketing, pressuring scabs, leveraging local politics. I'm not convinced this model could possibly work at the global scale.
  - Udik 6y ago
    True, it's not the same as masses of workers picketing factories. Not everything transfers from one case to the other. But the fact is that today app developers, or restaurants, are as fungible as factory workers used to be in the nineteenth century. Don't like the pay and the hours? F.. off then, there's the queue at the gates of the factory of people trying to be hired for the day. You can look for a job somewhere else (I'm sorry if the factories are all mine here). Granted, it might not work. But it could be tried, and it would need to be enforced by regulation as workers right were. Where's the right to strike and to let the reasons for the strike be known, in these environments? Can I force Apple to stop and restart the sales of my app at will, without consequences? Can I inform my customers of the reasons I did it? Can the restaurants of a city organize and stop deliveries in a coordinated way for a week?
bohuim 6y ago
I literally use Apple devices for everything except my gaming desktop, but I can't defend for Apple in this case, and for the game streaming block. It's like if Apple built houses, it would make no sense for them to force house owners to only buy furniture/services from Apple verified entities and take 30% of the cut. The most it should be able to do is just provide a list of services it thinks are safe to use. I would ask why can't Apple just allow other app stores, and just say any apps not from "the" app store may not be secure. But ultimately it's probably just because Apple doesn't want to let go of the ridiculous 30% cut, since if other app stores had a lower cut, why would developers release on the official app store.
- solipsism 6y ago
  Google does exactly that for Android. You can sideload anything you want. Doesn't get them any sympathy around here, though.
dang 6y ago
The underlying story (Apple's response to Epic's lawsuit) was discussed yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24238096 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24238096.
compsciphd 6y ago
I wonder if apple could have their cake and eat it too. i.e. if you don't want to pay their normal rates, you can get lower rates, but you are not discoverable in the app store. i.e. you are in the app store, there is a way for companies to directly link to it, and open in store (or perhaps itunes, and perhaps only itunes if apple really wants to make it difficult). So you lose all the advertising value of the app store, but you get to pay apple lower rates. For companies like Epic with fortnite, perhaps that would be a reasonable tradeoff, but I'd imagine its not a tradeoff most app makers would be willing to make. I wonder how much revenue apple would lose from apps that are willing to opt out of discoverability.
drivingmenuts 6y ago
I would definitely like to see other App Stores, so that the low-dollar, shifty shovelware apps get moved out of the Apple App Store. It would allow Apple to focus on the true nest-in-class apps that follow the design cues and security guidelines to make usable, truly secure apps on their platform. They could market it as Trusted by Apple and if you’re not in the Apple App Store, you don’t get that mark. Heck, make it such that software not from the Apple store doesn’t get the digital signature that allows apps to start up with one touch. Require user consent before starting a non-approved app.
- scarface74 6y ago
  I would absolutely love to see this. All ad supported games and games with in app consumables get kicked off the App Store and are forced to use a ghettoized third party store. The only games allowed on the App Store are pay up front and demos with a one time fee to unlock all content like Nintendo’s games. Then charge 10% for all the apps that are on the App Store at most.
IdontRememberIt 6y ago
Are companies allowed to have openly written the "Apple fee" in the description? App price: 10$, Apple Fee:3$: Total: 13$
neximo64 6y ago
Finally, it's only 'at risk' of Apple putting some more effort into the poor experience that it is so far to get an app and ability to explore and find apps that aren't in the top 200.

26 points by screpy 6y ago

Apple has some rules. Epic Games has accepted this. Now, when Epic suddenly makes an illegal move, it is very normal to remove it from the AppStore. If Apple accepts this, it has to apply it for all apps. This means a very serious loss of income. So I mean, I know Apple charges a lot of commission. But Apple has to apply his own rules too.

screpy 6y ago
Epic CEO Tim Sweeney has called Apple’s characterization of the series of events leading up to Fortnite’s removal as “misleading,” as he initially requested in an email that the App Store exemptions Epic sought be made available to all iOS developers.
- donarb 6y ago
  He actually requested the exemptions be made for Android developers. He cut/pasted his letter to Apple from his Google letter and forgot to change the platform. https://twitter.com/rsgnl/status/1296907639952224264?s=10 https://twitter.com/rsgnl/status/1296907639952224264?s=10
ThrowawayR2 6y ago
Odd, HN usually hates middlemen tacking on additional costs and 30% is an unjustifiably deep cut by any measure. Your Apple and Android apps could be 20% cheaper than they are now. Your Steam games could have 20% more going to the developers, software creators just like you and I, to enable more people to make a living by creating indie games. If Epic wants to dent the walled garden app store model, more power to them.
- maydemir 6y ago
  Yes, you're right. Apple charges a lot of commission. But Epic Games accepted this rule and entered the store. And Epic can't make changes without a deal with Apple. If Apple accepts this, it should do so for all apps. And it goes into 30% loss.
  - screpy 6y ago
    Yes, but everyone knows that Apple charges a lot of commission now.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      Apple has been charging 30% since 2003 with the iTunes Store. This is no secret.
- Someone 6y ago
  I think the App market is like that of pop songs: a few developers make lots of money, a few make decent money for a short time, and most of them think they are working on a career but are lucky if they can scrape by. Main reason, I think, is the same in both industries: more people have the ability for the craft than are needed to satisfy demand, and they’re willing to do it for peanuts and/or tricking themselves to think success and, with it, monetary compensation, will eventually come their way. And compared to the music industry, 30% doesn’t seem that bad. https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/news/music-artists-make-12-percent-from-music-sales-706746/ https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/news/music-artists-make-12-...: “Musicians Get Only 12 Percent of the Money the Music Industry Makes” So, are musicians being preyed upon by the music industry, or is selling music harder work than making music? I would think it’s a bit of both. I also think that applies to apps, too.
  - ThrowawayR2 6y ago
    > "And compared to the music industry, 30% doesn’t seem that bad." I don't really think pointing that other professions have it worse is a justification for abuses in our own.
anfilt 6y ago
Honestly, a locked down device is the problem not the app store. Let users sideload.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  It does wonders on game consoles, which Epic isn't suing, rather they even proudly do PS5 demos.
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    They've fought game consoles before: https://www.polygon.com/2018/9/26/17905770/fortnite-cross-play-ps4-nintendo-switch-xbox https://www.polygon.com/2018/9/26/17905770/fortnite-cross-pl...
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      2 years ago, and now do PS5 exclusive demos.
- maydemir 6y ago
  Yes, I wish it was a little more flexible. But there are good points in this. I think they create a better quality and performance product in this way.
salawat 6y ago
Epic Games finally realized that what Apple was doing with the App Store was a text book case of anti-competitive behavior for the scale on which Apple operates. You're not allowed to set rules in such a way as the end consumer is ultimately harmed, and you are entrenched in a dominant market position as a gatekeeper. Contracts are not meant to be vehicles through which violation of of other legal tenets are committed, and that is exactly what Apple's rules are. Violations of anti-trust law. It sucks being big. Being big carries with it a whole bunch of nasty implications because suddenly the number of people nor okay with you doing whatever you want starts to out pace the organized efforts you can muster to make everyone agree you should be able to do whatever you want. Hell, Google does the same stuff with Google Play. Just not with as much of a parasitic model as the Apple Store. Enough I think they'd squeak by a bit longer without notice, but Apple has absolutely gone off the deep end.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  I bet Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft are much bigger at world scale.
  - newbie578 6y ago
    Considering Apple is the world's biggest company and their whole business model rests on their walled garden, there isn't anyone bigger at world scale
    - scarface74 6y ago
      And MS is the third largest company...
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      Apple is nonexistent outside North America and a couple of tier 1 countries.
throwaway189262 6y ago
Because 30% is an extraordinary amount of money. Apple is user-hostile on this too, not sure why their users would ever defend it. Think of it this way, every time you buy something on the store you're paying 30% of your money to Apple. You're paying 30% of your money to Apple for the right to install the app on your phone You are allowed to charge more to make up for the fees. But you cannot tell your users this. If you say "sign up on our website to save" you will be banned from the store. Tons of people pay 30% more for subscriptions because they bought them through apple store. I'm tired of all the locked down bullshit and you should be too. It's my device, I should be able to install whatever I want
- ben_w 6y ago
  I wonder what markup supermarkets generally charge over the wholesale rates, and if any of them would stock products with labels saying “buy this product direct from us and save $$$!”
  - manquer 6y ago
    Supermarkets loose money if goods do not sell, storage is expensive and limited shelf space , will also promote your product visibility or even give exclusivity etc . Apple takes no risk and does none of the above, so not remotely the same. Sure if Apple is willing to buy apps from Epic in bulk and speculate in addition to distribute, Epic or any other dev is not going to say no. Fulfilled by Amazon is much better comparison, you get paid only if the customer actually buys, you get penalized for returns etc. Providing the market place, the customer, the delivery service, storage service and payment gateway. Amazon does not charge even close to 30% in most SKUs.
  - notyourday 6y ago
    Supermarket's profit margins are in low single digits.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  It is peanuts compared with what J2ME, Symbian, Brew, Windows CE, Pocket PC, Blackberry stores used to ask for.
abc-xyz 6y ago
Because Tencent (along with all Chinese companies) risk getting banned from all Apple devices worldwide, so they use whichever proxies they can (such as 40% Tencent-owned Epic Games) to try to force Apple to allow third-party app installations.

t0mmyb0y 6y ago

Just commenting on the title. Good for them.

anupamchugh 6y ago

I just read the barrage of email exchanges between Epic Games CEO and Apple before the incident took place. It's clear that Sweeney was acting as a self-entitled guy--asking for an under the table deal in a rather immature way. Apple's strong response to the lawsuit by putting out the facts only goes on to show how Epic Games' PR stunt was a lame effort. It'll hurt them in the long run. I'm on Apple's side.

_qulr 6y ago
> asking for an under the table deal How is it under the table? Apple's secret 15% deal with Amazon can go unnoticed, but everyone in the world would notice if Epic suddenly came out with an alternative app store on iOS.
- Bud 6y ago
  If Apple's deal with Amazon is "secret", how do we all know about it?
  - _qulr 6y ago
    Because the US Congress forced it out of Apple. It's long been rumored, but public proof came only a few weeks ago.
jsnell 6y ago
Those emails were purely grandstanding on both sides. Neither side was trying to convince the other. Epic knew that Apple would drop them from the store, Apple knew that Epic would try to get dropped and then sue. The real audience was the public.
- anupamchugh 6y ago
  True. In hindsight, Apple played a smart move by letting the legal team respond to Sweeney's emails. They perhaps saw this coming from a mile.

allears 6y ago

If some other business is "putting your business model at risk," isn't that called competition? Since when is Apple's business model sacred? I don't think Sweeney is some kind of good guy, butI know for sure Apple is a predatory bully who would love to own the world, just like some other giant tech companies we could all name.

ChrisLomont 6y ago
What if the other business is taking benefits and agreeing to contracts, then breaks that contract? Isn’t that called a contract violation? Epic could make their own platform to sell games on, but they want the market Apple has built and the devices Apple has created. The courts will decide, and since for decades courts have sided with platform creators being allowed to police content and charge access fees (SEGA, Nintendo, and later Sony, all have such cases), I think Epic will lose. Despite some claims Apple has some monopoly, their share of mobile is far too small to count as such. I expect the courts to tell Epic to sell Android only if they don’t like Apple terms.
- mrgordon 6y ago
  Of course Google also kicked them out of their store for the same reason...
- Barrin92 6y ago
  >Epic could make their own platform to sell games on, but they want the market Apple has built and the devices Apple has created. logic also works the other way around. Without software smartphones are expensive scrap metal. Every popular piece of software that runs on the phone adds value to it.
  - ChrisLomont 6y ago
    So that means third parties have the legal right to put on Apple phones whatever they please? I think not. As such, the contract between the companies is the legally binding method to access Apple hardware. Apparently Apple has designed the contract so millions of apps got developed for the phones. Epic wanted different terms, but has no legal right to unilaterally break contracts to do so. The courts will likely side with Apple. There’s ample precedent for platform owners to have wide latitude on fees to publish.

throwbackThurs 6y ago

My main gripe with apple is their tactics around subscription fees. You can't direct your customers to sign-up via your website, circumventing apple to receive a 30% discount. Ultimately the customer suffers. They should have consumer awareness and choice, it's their right. Then they give Netflix special sweetheart treatment, why? I find these examples both deceptive and anti-competitive.

scarface74 6y ago
Every company gives better deals to large companies than consumers. This is no different than any other industry. A starving singer discovered at a night club is not going to get the same deal from a label as Beyonce or Taylor Swift.
drivingmenuts 6y ago
Probably because Netflix is a more predictable income and was well-established before being available on iOS. There’s no way to know if your average fly-by-night 5$ app is going to be worth the disk space it’s stored on in the long haul. It may sell well, thereby justifying the expense of vetting it or it may be a total dud, in which case you’ve wasted staff time and energy putting it through the process allowing it to be sold. Netflix also fills a very broad niche, so big that it can’t really be called a niche. Giving them some leeway makes sense.

ArkVark 6y ago

I'm a developer who sells on Steam. With a 12% commission instead of 30%, my actual profits would be about 50% higher and I would invest more money into post-release updates and support, and pay my staff bonuses. People are generally supportive of gamedev workers getting better deals and paid more - let me tell you the quickest way that could happen is if all these platform commissions were lowered.

screpy 6y ago
Yes, but unfortunately there is no power to control the commissions of all these platforms yet.
je42 6y ago
If you sell on steam you could also, not sell there and sell directly to you customers, right ? Could you host your own webstore and implement a cheap key system. That way you need to a lot less for the transactions.
- ArkVark 6y ago
  There are many things you can do like that - that basically just represent increased overhead and non-game activities. If you follow all of that logically enough - you start to wonder, why even work in game development? Indie development right now is basically a mirage, because the only people making sustainably good profits are those with access to lower commissions by owning their own platforms or by getting better deals from platform owners due to their size. There is a huge survivor bias. I am only still operational because I am in Ukraine. It would be impossible in a 1st world country.
  - je42 6y ago
    True, but then steam does provide value to you. I would assume a revenue share of 30% is acceptable albeit painful in your case, since otherwise you wouldn't do it.
  - solipsism 6y ago
    > the only people making sustainably good profits are those with access to lower commissions by owning their own platforms What are some examples of this? What do you mean by "platform"?

altdatathrow 6y ago

Why can I order takeout though restaurant apps on my iphone and Apple doesn’t take a cut? Does the 30% only apply to digital goods/services that can be delivered or accessed through device?

Barrin92 6y ago
even funnier imagine if Windows had only allowed people to install software through the Windows Store and siphoned 30% of all revenue from every developer who has ever written commercial software for Windows simply for participating. Imagine if we had grown up like this let alone anyone defending it
Jare 6y ago
Pretty much yes.
JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
Perhaps apps could actually ship you something IRL, and give the digital item away 'for free'. Example: Wordpress sends you a letter with an activation code. Then it's a physical good you're paying for. Kind of like how people sell coupons on eBay, but you aren't paying for the coupon, but for the lister's time/effort to list it. Apple's fee is draconian and people are happy to manage these things via plain web applications. There is nothing special about apps. If anything, with all the extra special access they get (contacts, camera, gyroscope) they're a liability.
- threatofrain 6y ago
  People could also simply signup over the web and login through iOS. Far less hassle than physically shipping people digital goods.
  - JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
    Apple is not letting apps do that anymore. You can have payment through your web app, but you must also permit payment via the iOS app, where Apple gets 30%.

Udik 6y ago

I have been thinking lately that the app stores, the food delivery apps and others, are reproducing on a b2b scale what happened with the industrial revolution, when factory owners became effectively monopolists of the job market and, in a framework without rules, forced everyone to work on the terms most profitable to them. Perhaps then what we miss now is the possibility to unionize businesses with respect to the tech/ internet giants. Form providers unions (e.g. restaurants, app developers, etc.). Force every single web or internet store to provide a switch to allow each provider to stop and restart their sales/ deliveries at will and display messages explaining why. Organise coordinated strikes in which those businesses halt their sales en masse until their demands have been met.

solipsism 6y ago
Good luck picketing, pressuring scabs, leveraging local politics. I'm not convinced this model could possibly work at the global scale.
- Udik 6y ago
  True, it's not the same as masses of workers picketing factories. Not everything transfers from one case to the other. But the fact is that today app developers, or restaurants, are as fungible as factory workers used to be in the nineteenth century. Don't like the pay and the hours? F.. off then, there's the queue at the gates of the factory of people trying to be hired for the day. You can look for a job somewhere else (I'm sorry if the factories are all mine here). Granted, it might not work. But it could be tried, and it would need to be enforced by regulation as workers right were. Where's the right to strike and to let the reasons for the strike be known, in these environments? Can I force Apple to stop and restart the sales of my app at will, without consequences? Can I inform my customers of the reasons I did it? Can the restaurants of a city organize and stop deliveries in a coordinated way for a week?

bohuim 6y ago

I literally use Apple devices for everything except my gaming desktop, but I can't defend for Apple in this case, and for the game streaming block. It's like if Apple built houses, it would make no sense for them to force house owners to only buy furniture/services from Apple verified entities and take 30% of the cut. The most it should be able to do is just provide a list of services it thinks are safe to use. I would ask why can't Apple just allow other app stores, and just say any apps not from "the" app store may not be secure. But ultimately it's probably just because Apple doesn't want to let go of the ridiculous 30% cut, since if other app stores had a lower cut, why would developers release on the official app store.

solipsism 6y ago
Google does exactly that for Android. You can sideload anything you want. Doesn't get them any sympathy around here, though.

dang 6y ago

The underlying story (Apple's response to Epic's lawsuit) was discussed yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24238096 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24238096.

compsciphd 6y ago

I wonder if apple could have their cake and eat it too. i.e. if you don't want to pay their normal rates, you can get lower rates, but you are not discoverable in the app store. i.e. you are in the app store, there is a way for companies to directly link to it, and open in store (or perhaps itunes, and perhaps only itunes if apple really wants to make it difficult). So you lose all the advertising value of the app store, but you get to pay apple lower rates. For companies like Epic with fortnite, perhaps that would be a reasonable tradeoff, but I'd imagine its not a tradeoff most app makers would be willing to make. I wonder how much revenue apple would lose from apps that are willing to opt out of discoverability.

drivingmenuts 6y ago

I would definitely like to see other App Stores, so that the low-dollar, shifty shovelware apps get moved out of the Apple App Store. It would allow Apple to focus on the true nest-in-class apps that follow the design cues and security guidelines to make usable, truly secure apps on their platform. They could market it as Trusted by Apple and if you’re not in the Apple App Store, you don’t get that mark. Heck, make it such that software not from the Apple store doesn’t get the digital signature that allows apps to start up with one touch. Require user consent before starting a non-approved app.

scarface74 6y ago
I would absolutely love to see this. All ad supported games and games with in app consumables get kicked off the App Store and are forced to use a ghettoized third party store. The only games allowed on the App Store are pay up front and demos with a one time fee to unlock all content like Nintendo’s games. Then charge 10% for all the apps that are on the App Store at most.

IdontRememberIt 6y ago

Are companies allowed to have openly written the "Apple fee" in the description? App price: 10$, Apple Fee:3$: Total: 13$

neximo64 6y ago

Finally, it's only 'at risk' of Apple putting some more effort into the poor experience that it is so far to get an app and ability to explore and find apps that aren't in the top 200.