9 ms·

Apple is truly doing themselves a disservice here, if Epic wins this battle Apple will undoubtedly be painted as the bad guy, and other major companies will sme

Apple is truly doing themselves a disservice here, if Epic wins this battle Apple will undoubtedly be painted as the bad guy, and other major companies will smell blood in the water when it comes taking down a competitor. Case in point; Tinder, Microsoft, Facebook, Spotify have all openly backed Epic and started to call attention to features that are impacted by this 30% fee. Status quo isn't going to cut it, and it would be in Apple's best interest to make a small concession to look like they're not so evil.

pjmlp 6y ago
Microsoft is playing politics, they act just like Apple on XBox.
- radley 6y ago
  Really? That's so strange. I swear I thought I could buy XBox games from other stores like Amazon, Target, and Walmart if Microsoft were to kick them out of their store. I can even buy used games on CraigsList. How are they acting the same?
  - dogma1138 6y ago
    Microsoft takes about the same cut regardless of the distribution method.
    - radley 6y ago
      Hrm, that's not what their website says: > There are no fees to apply to ID@Xbox, to submit a game to certification, publish, or update your games. There is a very modest one-time cost associated with development for the Universal Windows Platform. https://www.xbox.com/en-US/developers/id https://www.xbox.com/en-US/developers/id It looks like the big costs are insurance and the ratings boards (but this post is 6 years old): https://www.ign.com/articles/2014/07/30/launching-indie-games-on-xbox-one-can-cost-up-to-5000 https://www.ign.com/articles/2014/07/30/launching-indie-game...
      - dogma1138 6y ago
        With severe limitations, you have to use all of the Xbox Live features including having multiplayer. You still need to pay for ESRB ratings and other things. The SDKs that are available for this program are also heavily limited it’s basically only for UWP compatible apps, and while they didn’t put it yet it looks like there will be further limitations down the line including ensuring full cross platform compatibility including with IOS and Android. So yes if you build a game using their more limited SDK and implement all Xbox Live features they won’t take a fee other than dev account fees. And we aren’t talking about indie devs we’re talking about fucking Epic Games.
        lostmsu 6y ago
        I made a free game, and it was totally free (apart from a regular store sign up fee): https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/rob-game/9nblggh5fkh6 https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/rob-game/9nblggh5fkh6 I don't think it is too hard to make a regular game UWP compatible. Unity just lets you do that.
        pjmlp 6y ago
        UWP applications don't have the same capabilities like XDK ones.
        lostmsu 6y ago
        Around the time that program was introduced, Microsoft was promising to eventually level the two. I am certain DirectX is fully supported. Not sure about access to all memory though.
    - Touche 6y ago
      Does Microsoft dictate what a publisher can charge for games on other platforms? Because Apple does.
      - dogma1138 6y ago
        I have no idea I know Steam is putting the same limitation no differential pricing other than bundles and sales. I won’t be surprised if Microsoft has some clauses with their publishers not to have a game for cheaper on competing platforms.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        Apple does no such thing.
        Touche 6y ago
        Yes, you can't charge more for an app on the App Store than you charge on Android. edit: this used to be the case, it's possible this has changed and I didn't know it.
        scarface74 6y ago
        It’s “possible”? Both Spotify and YouTube did exactly this before they pulled out of in app purchases entirely
        Touche 6y ago
        Apparently streaming apps can but not others, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24311230 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24311230
        scarface74 6y ago
        So your “source” is a HN post with no citation? You can simply compare prices on the NYT’s website and compare them to the iOS app price to find out that this isn’t true either.
    - echelon 6y ago
      Used games.
      - dogma1138 6y ago
        Game keys are bound to accounts these days used games are becoming quite rare.
- Bjartr 6y ago
  Microsoft gets a cut of microtransactions?
dogma1138 6y ago
Microsoft takes 30% on Xbox plus its much more expensive to develop and publish on that platform overall. Neither Tinder nor Spotify will transfer any savings to the end users. Spotify has been ramping their sub costs considerably my sub went up by like 150% in the UK over the past 3-4 years. Tinder employs discriminatory pricing by charging certain genders, age groups and sexual orientations more for their premium services. How Tinder hasn’t been sued to oblivion I’m still not sure it seems to violate even US anti discrimination laws, I guess were lucky that they don’t employ differential pricing based on race yet.
- MaximumMadness 6y ago
  To clarify, these companies are certainly not absolved of doing the same exact thing, but the current news isn't about them, it's about Apple, and they're going to make good use of that
  - dogma1138 6y ago
    These are all opportunistic companies that don’t care about consumers which have the same or worse overall practices than Apple.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  https://www.xbox.com/en-us/Developers/id https://www.xbox.com/en-us/Developers/id Indie devs can publish on Xbox for a token fee (no % of revenue taken).
  - dogma1138 6y ago
    See this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24310823 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24310823
- shajznnckfke 6y ago
  If you’re claiming that Spotify would get all the benefit of a break in the fee, you’re implicitly claiming that it bears all the economic burden of the fee (ie. it doesn’t pass on the fee to users). Spotify currently charges $13 to sign up in iOS and $10 to sign up on the web. This is strong evidence that Spotify is currently passing through the fee to users. It seems much more likely that Spotify would give iOS users a price break if the fee was cut. Music streaming is a competitive market, so they don’t have much choice if everyone gets the same break.
vernie 6y ago
Sweeney's doing a great job of portraying himself as an insufferable tool on Twitter. Keep it up, Tim!
cnst 6y ago
I'm actually happy Apple didn't make a small concession. I can't quite have the resources to sue Apple by myself as a small user being prevented from using the device I have paid for the way I see fit. I'm very glad that EPIC is doing it on my behalf. I'm also kind of glad that Apple didn't simply cut a backroom deal with EPIC, but is instead going the full-monty on this.
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  I share a different view on this. I want Apple to have as much control over as they can to keep my device safe. Obviously, this is an unpopular opinion on HN - part of me wants it super hackable and open source (my hacker self), but my average joe self wants is as tied down, closed doors as possible to avoid sniffing off my personal data, usage patterns, cookies, and a whole bunch of "soft metrics" about my device to finger print me and then auction it off in a giant data auctioning event - an evil corporation buys my data in 3 milliseconds and off it goes. Apple acts on my behalf as a security officer - they have no interest in selling me ads - they already got their revenue hunger satiated from the high price of my device and all the internal Apple services I pay for (Apple music, TV, icloud, etc). I love Apple and I love that they are willing to stand up for riffraff that's trying to invade my personal space (consider iPhone literally as the entire life's worth of information vault) by masquerading as a crusader of light and openness. I don't want Apple to open up their devices. Average Joes around the world outside of HN crowd will have everything to lose and nothing to gain. I also think that 30% share is too low. Apple should be charging way more for exclusive access to their App store. It's their turf. Why is this good? Because dev will go back to using browser apps to provide services and the browser itself is a nice sandbox to keep the riffraff out. And only high quality apps will make it through the App store.
  - drusepth 6y ago
    >I don't want Apple to open up their devices. Average Joes around the world outside of HN crowd will have everything to lose and nothing to gain. Well, they have Fortnite to gain... But seriously, I've lost count of the number of apps I've enjoyed on Androids that were either unavailable or stunted on iOS. Recommending even basic apps like Google Photos to family comes with a long list of caveats like, "oh yeah, it uploads your photos automatically... as long as you open the app manually to do it". It's icing on the cake that they're also taking such a hard stance against game streaming right now, which is IMO going to be a huge market going forward that a lot of people are going to miss out on (or maybe not, since most of the game streaming market is poorer people...). I guess the argument of dumbed-down phones for the sake of security/privacy is a reasonable one, but why wouldn't people just buy, like, actual dumb phones? Having a premium phone that you don't actually own just seems like an oxymoron to me. I don't "hack" my own phone and I'm certainly no tinkerer, but being able to actually use the apps my friends use and changing the settings I want to change makes my day to day life a little better every time I do have to use my phone. Opening up what my friends and family can do with their phones seems like it'd have a lot to gain and very little to lose.
scarface74 6y ago
Microsoft explicitly did not back Epic over the issue of the 30% cut, just taking away their developer license to use the Unreal engine.
microtherion 6y ago
> Tinder, Microsoft, Facebook, Spotify have all openly backed Epic Oh, it's going to be so much fun when Epic wins and Taylor Swift decides to apply the same legal reasoning to the cut she pays Spotify for her music…
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  Does Spotify control one of the two major mobile phone platforms and use that control to require all their users to use only their music service?
  - threeseed 6y ago
    Does Spotify control one of the two major music platforms and use that control to require artists to use only their music service (via exclusives)? And can you explain how I am using Spotify on my iPhone if Apple is "forcing" users to only use Apple Music ?
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      > Does Spotify control one of the two major music platforms and use that control to require artists to use only their music service (via exclusives)? Exclusives aren't mandatory. The artists get paid extra for that and can decline it if they want to. > And can you explain how I am using Spotify on my iPhone if Apple is "forcing" users to only use Apple Music ? The analogy to "their music service" is Apple requiring iPhone users to use exclusively their iOS app store.
- Gwypaas 6y ago
  The difference would be that the same iPhone has access to Taylor Swift through Spotify, Apple Music, Play Music (does that even exist anymore?) and so on. Put the app store on the same level of competition and level the playing field of Spotify vs Apple Music in regards to the 30% subscription fee.
  - microtherion 6y ago
slivanes 6y ago
I would like the developer to have the choice of what percent Apple gets (e.g. slider from 10% -> 30%) and that also determines the level of support (and discoverability on the App store?) that Apple gives. Would that type of system work?
- MaximumMadness 6y ago
  It certainly has the makings of a good idea. There are lots of questions around compensation equality (i.e. the big companies get richer, the poor get charged more) but something besides the blanket 30% rule based on some metric sounds feasible to me
- shajznnckfke 6y ago
  Sure, if only Apple would itemize the support costs, developers could see how much support each position on the slider will earn us. Surely this won’t reveal that it’s almost pure profit.
m3kw9 6y ago
That’s funny, it’s all calculated. Not because of them wanting the best for users, but as a side effect from them getting richer.
urda 6y ago
> if Epic wins this battle Apple That's a big IF. You will find it damn-near-impossible to have any legal standing when you willfully violate the terms of service with a provider as openly as Epic did. Apple is fully in the right here, and as a consumer I'm glad Apple isn't messing around with their software security. What Epic did was down right sneaky, and they are (rightfully) being punished for it. Epic started this mess, the law and legal judgements have made it very clear how they could have avoided this, and they didn't. Your feelings, personal device choices do not change facts.
- mantap 6y ago
  Contracts are not laws, if you breech a contract then one of the possible outcomes is that you will end up in court arguing whether the contract is valid. That is what happened in this case. The law would be especially toothless if you had to obey a contract in order to dispute its validity.
  - urda 6y ago
    > Contracts are not laws But laws govern them nonetheless https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_contract_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_contract_law for starters. The court told Epic how to get in compliance with Apple, they refused, Apple in their terms clearly states they have the right to terminate their account. That's the facts of the case, it doesn't matter what anyone feels.
  - ghayes 6y ago
    This topic has been brought up a lot in these conversations and I’ve missed the substance. Which laws do we suspect Apple may have broken with their App Store contracts?
    - mantap 6y ago
      You can read Epic's court filing but the tl;dr is that Epic alleges that the terms of the contract restrict Epic and other parties from competing with Apple, that Apple uses their market power in one area to get an unfair advantage in other areas (such as payment processing), and they cite the Sherman act as the primary legal basis of their claim that those terms are illegal. This case is likely to last for years so it is very much too soon to be predicting who will win.
whazor 6y ago
Apple is following their own rules and giving discounts or exceptions would potentially open up more legal issues.

pjmlp 6y ago

Microsoft is playing politics, they act just like Apple on XBox.

radley 6y ago
Really? That's so strange. I swear I thought I could buy XBox games from other stores like Amazon, Target, and Walmart if Microsoft were to kick them out of their store. I can even buy used games on CraigsList. How are they acting the same?
- dogma1138 6y ago
  Microsoft takes about the same cut regardless of the distribution method.
  - radley 6y ago
    Hrm, that's not what their website says: > There are no fees to apply to ID@Xbox, to submit a game to certification, publish, or update your games. There is a very modest one-time cost associated with development for the Universal Windows Platform. https://www.xbox.com/en-US/developers/id https://www.xbox.com/en-US/developers/id It looks like the big costs are insurance and the ratings boards (but this post is 6 years old): https://www.ign.com/articles/2014/07/30/launching-indie-games-on-xbox-one-can-cost-up-to-5000 https://www.ign.com/articles/2014/07/30/launching-indie-game...
    - dogma1138 6y ago
      With severe limitations, you have to use all of the Xbox Live features including having multiplayer. You still need to pay for ESRB ratings and other things. The SDKs that are available for this program are also heavily limited it’s basically only for UWP compatible apps, and while they didn’t put it yet it looks like there will be further limitations down the line including ensuring full cross platform compatibility including with IOS and Android. So yes if you build a game using their more limited SDK and implement all Xbox Live features they won’t take a fee other than dev account fees. And we aren’t talking about indie devs we’re talking about fucking Epic Games.
      - lostmsu 6y ago
        I made a free game, and it was totally free (apart from a regular store sign up fee): https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/rob-game/9nblggh5fkh6 https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/rob-game/9nblggh5fkh6 I don't think it is too hard to make a regular game UWP compatible. Unity just lets you do that.
        pjmlp 6y ago
        UWP applications don't have the same capabilities like XDK ones.
        lostmsu 6y ago
        Around the time that program was introduced, Microsoft was promising to eventually level the two. I am certain DirectX is fully supported. Not sure about access to all memory though.
  - Touche 6y ago
    Does Microsoft dictate what a publisher can charge for games on other platforms? Because Apple does.
    - dogma1138 6y ago
      I have no idea I know Steam is putting the same limitation no differential pricing other than bundles and sales. I won’t be surprised if Microsoft has some clauses with their publishers not to have a game for cheaper on competing platforms.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      Apple does no such thing.
      - Touche 6y ago
        Yes, you can't charge more for an app on the App Store than you charge on Android. edit: this used to be the case, it's possible this has changed and I didn't know it.
        scarface74 6y ago
        It’s “possible”? Both Spotify and YouTube did exactly this before they pulled out of in app purchases entirely
        Touche 6y ago
        Apparently streaming apps can but not others, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24311230 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24311230
        scarface74 6y ago
        So your “source” is a HN post with no citation? You can simply compare prices on the NYT’s website and compare them to the iOS app price to find out that this isn’t true either.
  - echelon 6y ago
    Used games.
    - dogma1138 6y ago
      Game keys are bound to accounts these days used games are becoming quite rare.
Bjartr 6y ago
Microsoft gets a cut of microtransactions?

dogma1138 6y ago

Microsoft takes 30% on Xbox plus its much more expensive to develop and publish on that platform overall. Neither Tinder nor Spotify will transfer any savings to the end users. Spotify has been ramping their sub costs considerably my sub went up by like 150% in the UK over the past 3-4 years. Tinder employs discriminatory pricing by charging certain genders, age groups and sexual orientations more for their premium services. How Tinder hasn’t been sued to oblivion I’m still not sure it seems to violate even US anti discrimination laws, I guess were lucky that they don’t employ differential pricing based on race yet.

MaximumMadness 6y ago
To clarify, these companies are certainly not absolved of doing the same exact thing, but the current news isn't about them, it's about Apple, and they're going to make good use of that
- dogma1138 6y ago
  These are all opportunistic companies that don’t care about consumers which have the same or worse overall practices than Apple.
chrisco255 6y ago
https://www.xbox.com/en-us/Developers/id https://www.xbox.com/en-us/Developers/id Indie devs can publish on Xbox for a token fee (no % of revenue taken).
- dogma1138 6y ago
  See this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24310823 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24310823
shajznnckfke 6y ago
If you’re claiming that Spotify would get all the benefit of a break in the fee, you’re implicitly claiming that it bears all the economic burden of the fee (ie. it doesn’t pass on the fee to users). Spotify currently charges $13 to sign up in iOS and $10 to sign up on the web. This is strong evidence that Spotify is currently passing through the fee to users. It seems much more likely that Spotify would give iOS users a price break if the fee was cut. Music streaming is a competitive market, so they don’t have much choice if everyone gets the same break.

vernie 6y ago

Sweeney's doing a great job of portraying himself as an insufferable tool on Twitter. Keep it up, Tim!

cnst 6y ago

I'm actually happy Apple didn't make a small concession. I can't quite have the resources to sue Apple by myself as a small user being prevented from using the device I have paid for the way I see fit. I'm very glad that EPIC is doing it on my behalf. I'm also kind of glad that Apple didn't simply cut a backroom deal with EPIC, but is instead going the full-monty on this.

systemvoltage 6y ago
I share a different view on this. I want Apple to have as much control over as they can to keep my device safe. Obviously, this is an unpopular opinion on HN - part of me wants it super hackable and open source (my hacker self), but my average joe self wants is as tied down, closed doors as possible to avoid sniffing off my personal data, usage patterns, cookies, and a whole bunch of "soft metrics" about my device to finger print me and then auction it off in a giant data auctioning event - an evil corporation buys my data in 3 milliseconds and off it goes. Apple acts on my behalf as a security officer - they have no interest in selling me ads - they already got their revenue hunger satiated from the high price of my device and all the internal Apple services I pay for (Apple music, TV, icloud, etc). I love Apple and I love that they are willing to stand up for riffraff that's trying to invade my personal space (consider iPhone literally as the entire life's worth of information vault) by masquerading as a crusader of light and openness. I don't want Apple to open up their devices. Average Joes around the world outside of HN crowd will have everything to lose and nothing to gain. I also think that 30% share is too low. Apple should be charging way more for exclusive access to their App store. It's their turf. Why is this good? Because dev will go back to using browser apps to provide services and the browser itself is a nice sandbox to keep the riffraff out. And only high quality apps will make it through the App store.
- drusepth 6y ago
  >I don't want Apple to open up their devices. Average Joes around the world outside of HN crowd will have everything to lose and nothing to gain. Well, they have Fortnite to gain... But seriously, I've lost count of the number of apps I've enjoyed on Androids that were either unavailable or stunted on iOS. Recommending even basic apps like Google Photos to family comes with a long list of caveats like, "oh yeah, it uploads your photos automatically... as long as you open the app manually to do it". It's icing on the cake that they're also taking such a hard stance against game streaming right now, which is IMO going to be a huge market going forward that a lot of people are going to miss out on (or maybe not, since most of the game streaming market is poorer people...). I guess the argument of dumbed-down phones for the sake of security/privacy is a reasonable one, but why wouldn't people just buy, like, actual dumb phones? Having a premium phone that you don't actually own just seems like an oxymoron to me. I don't "hack" my own phone and I'm certainly no tinkerer, but being able to actually use the apps my friends use and changing the settings I want to change makes my day to day life a little better every time I do have to use my phone. Opening up what my friends and family can do with their phones seems like it'd have a lot to gain and very little to lose.

scarface74 6y ago

Microsoft explicitly did not back Epic over the issue of the 30% cut, just taking away their developer license to use the Unreal engine.

microtherion 6y ago

> Tinder, Microsoft, Facebook, Spotify have all openly backed Epic Oh, it's going to be so much fun when Epic wins and Taylor Swift decides to apply the same legal reasoning to the cut she pays Spotify for her music…

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
Does Spotify control one of the two major mobile phone platforms and use that control to require all their users to use only their music service?
- threeseed 6y ago
  Does Spotify control one of the two major music platforms and use that control to require artists to use only their music service (via exclusives)? And can you explain how I am using Spotify on my iPhone if Apple is "forcing" users to only use Apple Music ?
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > Does Spotify control one of the two major music platforms and use that control to require artists to use only their music service (via exclusives)? Exclusives aren't mandatory. The artists get paid extra for that and can decline it if they want to. > And can you explain how I am using Spotify on my iPhone if Apple is "forcing" users to only use Apple Music ? The analogy to "their music service" is Apple requiring iPhone users to use exclusively their iOS app store.
Gwypaas 6y ago
The difference would be that the same iPhone has access to Taylor Swift through Spotify, Apple Music, Play Music (does that even exist anymore?) and so on. Put the app store on the same level of competition and level the playing field of Spotify vs Apple Music in regards to the 30% subscription fee.
- microtherion 6y ago

slivanes 6y ago

I would like the developer to have the choice of what percent Apple gets (e.g. slider from 10% -> 30%) and that also determines the level of support (and discoverability on the App store?) that Apple gives. Would that type of system work?

MaximumMadness 6y ago
It certainly has the makings of a good idea. There are lots of questions around compensation equality (i.e. the big companies get richer, the poor get charged more) but something besides the blanket 30% rule based on some metric sounds feasible to me
shajznnckfke 6y ago
Sure, if only Apple would itemize the support costs, developers could see how much support each position on the slider will earn us. Surely this won’t reveal that it’s almost pure profit.

m3kw9 6y ago

That’s funny, it’s all calculated. Not because of them wanting the best for users, but as a side effect from them getting richer.

urda 6y ago

> if Epic wins this battle Apple That's a big IF. You will find it damn-near-impossible to have any legal standing when you willfully violate the terms of service with a provider as openly as Epic did. Apple is fully in the right here, and as a consumer I'm glad Apple isn't messing around with their software security. What Epic did was down right sneaky, and they are (rightfully) being punished for it. Epic started this mess, the law and legal judgements have made it very clear how they could have avoided this, and they didn't. Your feelings, personal device choices do not change facts.

mantap 6y ago
Contracts are not laws, if you breech a contract then one of the possible outcomes is that you will end up in court arguing whether the contract is valid. That is what happened in this case. The law would be especially toothless if you had to obey a contract in order to dispute its validity.
- urda 6y ago
  > Contracts are not laws But laws govern them nonetheless https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_contract_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_contract_law for starters. The court told Epic how to get in compliance with Apple, they refused, Apple in their terms clearly states they have the right to terminate their account. That's the facts of the case, it doesn't matter what anyone feels.
- ghayes 6y ago
  This topic has been brought up a lot in these conversations and I’ve missed the substance. Which laws do we suspect Apple may have broken with their App Store contracts?
  - mantap 6y ago
    You can read Epic's court filing but the tl;dr is that Epic alleges that the terms of the contract restrict Epic and other parties from competing with Apple, that Apple uses their market power in one area to get an unfair advantage in other areas (such as payment processing), and they cite the Sherman act as the primary legal basis of their claim that those terms are illegal. This case is likely to last for years so it is very much too soon to be predicting who will win.

whazor 6y ago

Apple is following their own rules and giving discounts or exceptions would potentially open up more legal issues.