14 ms·

I don't think Epic is doing anything but trying to pocket more for themselves, yet I also think that the comments here overstate how "aware" average people are

I don't think Epic is doing anything but trying to pocket more for themselves, yet I also think that the comments here overstate how "aware" average people are about Apple's restrictions, tax etc. I don't think most people would consider direct payment to reputable companies like Epic to be a particular security risk. I don't think most realize why they can't subscribe to Spotify from their iPhones, they think it's simply not implemented. The thing is, Apple now holds a tremendous amount of power over a large set of the population. All the comments saying "just buy an Android" ignore the simple fact that you buying an Android does not change the fact that a significant portion of the market is elsewhere. I'd be more OK with this if Apple was OK with displaying a 30% Apple tax on checkout. But the fact that they prevent apps from showing it and actively try to conceal it shows that they know most of their customers would ask questions about it, at the very least, likely question if the "benefits" they get in return are worth it.

powerapple 6y ago
Of course Epic wants to keep more of their profit to themselves. Especially if they have to give a way tens of millions not just a few thousands. I think it is fair for Apple to cap their charges. If they need to take a percentage, they should take a percentage of profit rather than sales to be honest. Unity model is a good example in my opinion.
- trumpeta 6y ago
  I think Apple is in the “real estate”/rent business here. if you compare that to how big malls operate it’s pretty similar. They take a fixed fee plus a cut from the revenue in exchange for foot traffic.
  - hirako2000 6y ago
    And they are in a sort of Las Vegas real estate market, made global. It must be difficult for them to resist the treasure, especially when stakeholders want to see greater and greater returns.
- hirako2000 6y ago
  Afaik Unity royalties are based on revenue, not profit. Balance sheets are not difficult to mascarade, revenue is much harder to hide. Though I agree a minimum revenue threshold would make sense. But that's not apples strategy. Their strategy is to subtly charge the massive amount of indie developers (developer account fee) and take 30% from the get go.
amelius 6y ago
Informing users about the Apple tax would cause an outrage since users already paid for their phones, and own them.
- the_other 6y ago
  From some. I simply don’t care. To me, Apple are keeping my highly sensitive data (my phone is my bank card, address book, post box, todo list...) secure. I’m really grateful the tools and experience is consistently so good for so long. Whether I’m paying that 30% or the software devs are, I’m not really bothered. I want the high quality to continue. I accept that multiple app stores may improve things... but from what I hear, that’s not the case on Android. I think we only have this discussion because of Apple’s market cap. Most others are envious. Sure, Apple have a lot of power, but they do a fairly good job of using it responsibly. The interactions with the Chinese government do desire further scrutiny, however. I’m not a shareholder.
  - amelius 6y ago
    Android is a bad comparison, because they are basically an adware based product, and rightfully many people reject it as a serious tool for managing their personal information and communication. This actually makes Apple a monopolist.
    - the_other 6y ago
      I find that a fairly twisty perspective. I agree Google are adware. I disagree that tales them out of the discussion of monopoly. I also think the monopoly discussion and the 30% fees discussion are separate. This relates to my interpretation that the 30% covers “shelf space, distribution, And security”. If the fee were 5% but nothing else changed, Apple might still have a monopoly.
      - amelius 6y ago
        If the fee were 5%, then Apple wouldn't be abusing its monopoly position.
renaudg 6y ago
"if Apple was OK with displaying a 30% Apple tax on checkout" Do you know any store that adds a line showing their margin on the customer receipt ?
- rrobukef 6y ago
  A while ago, debit and visa payments often had minimal orders and additional fees.
  - jhrmnn 6y ago
    But Apple is more than a payment processor here, they are closer to a regular online store in this regard
    - romanoderoma 6y ago
      I have a different opinion Online stores profit from the difference between buying at volumes and selling at a higher price. They don't charge over the market price, they buy at a discount Apple doesn't buy anything, doesn't have a warehouse, doesn't allow publishers to discuss the terms of the agreement, they take the same fee from everyone, in this regards it is very similar to a flat tax Apple store is more similar to a market place, a mall in the physical world, in a mall businesses rent the space They pay in proportion on how much space they rent and the quality of the space they rent Apple (unfairly IMO) charges the same amount for everyone, even though some apps are promoted by the store and the vast majority of them is practically undiscoverable unless you already know what to look for. If Apple was a store it would be a store that only place orders on your behalf, just because it's the only store in town and charges a fee on every order, even if they don't do much If you had the phone number of the supplier you could place the order yourself, but Apple prohibits customers to even ask for it and if publishers try to contact customers directly, they sue them In this imaginary town people supporting the Apple business say to people sick and tired of their way of doing it "change town" I hoped we would be better than tribes in 2020
      - the_other 6y ago
abc-xyz 6y ago
> All the comments saying "just buy an Android" ignore the simple fact that you buying an Android does not change the fact that a significant portion of the market is elsewhere. All the comments saying “just allow side-loading apps/third-party stores and let people decide themselves” ignore the fact that by doing so then iOS will end up with the same virus/malware issues that you see on Windows and Android. Suddenly we’ll need to help friends and family factory reset their iPhone because their search engine got hijacked, or because they get spammed with sex notifications, etc.
- AsyncAwait 6y ago
  > All the comments saying “just allow side-loading apps/third-party stores and let people decide themselves” ignore the fact that by doing so then iOS will end up with the same virus/malware issues that you see on Windows and Android. Why? Who is forcing YOU to sideload? There's no reason why the default couldn't be status quo and you'd only opt in into sideloading, this way the users who want the walled garden still get it and the users who want to sideload can optionally opt into that. Why is it always an either/or? As for Android, I'm pretty confident in saying that F-Droid, which is a 3rd party store, is generally safer than even the Play Store. Android's problem is the lax review of apps even on the Play Store, lack of updates soon after purchase etc. Most users on Android don't even have sideloading enabled, that's not a huge vector.
  - abc-xyz 6y ago
    Because 99% of the user base isn’t tech savvy and will install all sorts of crap without realizing the consequences of doing so. I may be capable of sticking to the App Store and not side-loading apps, but many of my friends, family and non-developer coworkers are not. They’ll click on random links in their mailbox, ads from apps and when browsing the web.. the end result is that they end up accidentally having their homepage, search engine and browser hijacked, they get redirected to spam websites, links on websites gets replaced with affiliate links, their sensitive information gets stolen, etc. I’ve never had to help fix an iPhone and I don’t know anyone who’s been infected with malware (besides e.g. TikTok secretly copying clipboard and such), however for Windows and Android then I have people reach out to me on a monthly basis because they accidentally installed something that fucked up their computer/phone and they need help fixing it. As for F-Droid, I hope you realize that their store is even more locked down than the App Store, and it’s as far as I’m aware the only secure third-party store on Android.
vr46 6y ago
The word "tax", when referring to Apple's fees, is a loaded and partial term. The fact that it's clear and understood and factored into the price makes it easy to complain about, but no casual customer to my knowledge has ever seriously asked what proportion of their peppermint tea and scones pays for a café's rent - overheads are overheads and margins are margins. Both companies are invoking consumers and value in their arguments and ripostes, but I only see one of them defending their customers' interests. Many a company is upset that they have no leverage in a business deal and want to courts to hand it to them.
- paulgb 6y ago
  If a company like Spotify sells subscriptions both in the app and on the web, they have to charge 43% more to the in-app purchaser to get the same revenue, even though the user gets exactly the same experience. I would call that a tax (informally; I know it strictly doesn't meet the definition) and as a customer I would like to know about it.
  - DangerousPie 6y ago
    If a company sells coffee both in a shop and on the street it would have to charge 43% more to the in-shop purchaser to get the same revenue, even though the user gets exactly the same experience. Would you call that a tax or would you call that rent?
    - paulgb 6y ago
      I'd say the difference is that the tax is not uniformly charged by a middleman. If a mall made its profit by charging 43% on every purchase, I would think of it (informally) as a tax.
      - vr46 6y ago
        But suppose that mall didn't charge for anything else? Electricity, water, security, gravity all came free, and you just paid only if you made a sale? (Ok, there's a $100 developer fee and the cost of a Mac and iOS device.) Maybe Apple should offer two deals to publishers: 1) Pay £1,000,000 up front and keep all the revenue 2) Pay As You Earn.
aiyodev 6y ago
If you think Apple owners don’t know about this, you are mistaken. Curating the App Store is one of the main reasons why I buy Apple products. I want them to tax and restrict developers.
- AsyncAwait 6y ago
  > If you think Apple owners don’t know about this, you are mistaken. Curating the App Store is one of the main reasons why I buy Apple products. You're posting on a site called Hacker News so I'd expect you to know, but does you extended family know, without you telling them? Doubt ir, just as I would expect most people to think "Hacker News" has to do something with illegality or perhaps reporting on criminal hackers.
  - aiyodev 6y ago
    Right. Because the tens of millions of people buying Apple products are all ignorant rubes, not informed consumers purchasing superior products. /s
ksec 6y ago
I sort of agree and disagree. I will admit upfront I still cant articulate my thoughts very well on the subject matter. I dont see why collecting 30% from Games is anything off limit. I consider Gaming as Non-Essential. If you dont like the Gaming Platform. Go Elsewhere. Literally every Gaming Platform collects 30% ( if not more ) on Games being sold. That is everything from early days of Nintendo, Sega, and now Playstation and Xbox. So in the case of EPIC, why are they happy with Sony and Microsoft charging them 30% on Playstation and Xbox? Whether they are losing money on the console sales is irrelevant in this context, that is their business model, and that is how the market works and accept. Nintendo is able to compete with a profits on both console and games. However charging 30% on Apps, on productivity, business tools and when there are only One competing App Platform in the whole world ( of whole of US ) is where the question of Monopoly or Monopsony comes into play. I dont think there is an easy answer. On one hand, changing 30% of subscription for Education and Fitness App is ridiculous. Apple being the sole buyer and pitching these client / business / partners against each other while benefiting from it is precisely the definition of Monopsony. On the other hand, I would much rather paid this 30% extortion than having a platform where user can, no matter how difficult it may be, able to side load Apps. I dont want any of my family member doing it. If you really want the ability to side loads, Android it is. I think Apple should just keep the 30% on Games. 15% of One Time Purchase Apps, 10% on Subscription and call it a day. I think that is a fair deal. Payment Processing, Fraud Protection, Refund and General Admin and Store Operation would have put it close to 5%. Business aren't losing much with the 10% Rent. With the lower commission Apple can better Enforce the Sign up rules. No more "Reader" App Guidelines. You are allowed to give better deals else where like on your Website. But as a consumer I am happy with the extra 10% for the safety of going through Apple. And some additional info, it is estimated that 80% of App Store Revenue are from Gaming. So dropping the Apps and Subscription to 15% / 10% arrangement isn't going to make their services revenue collapse. Apple are also working hard on their AppleCare+ push, as you can now buy it within the first year of your purchase and Apple Store Genius has had their KPI percentage increased for AppleCare sold. ( Personally I think what is happening in Apple Retail is even worst than the App Store )
- jjcon 6y ago
  > I would much rather paid this 30% extortion than having a platform where user can, no matter how difficult it may be, able to side load Apps. I dont want any of my family member doing it. I’m confused, why are you opposed to the option of sideloading? Are you unaware that you can sideload on iOS? (see /r/sideloaded for a thriving sub on sideloadable apps) It takes a little setup but it is totally doable and doesn’t require jailbreak or anything.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
shmel 6y ago
I am so amused that this debate is very American centered all while American physical stores can't figure out how to include taxes into displayed price. And everybody is okay with that.
- paconbork 6y ago
  Businesses are incentivized to not include taxes in the price since there's no laws against it, everyone else does it, and it lets them advertise better prices then they actually have. Personally, the practice really irks me and my small act of rebellion is that I pay in cash if tax is included in the price and by card if it's not. I wish people cared about it more but I suppose there's just more important things to worry about
  - withinboredom 6y ago
    > it lets them advertise better prices then they actually have It’s a bit more nuanced than that. The issue is that cities will often have their own sales tax, or that states have different sales tax. This gets pretty complicated when you advertise a price near the border of a tax cliff. Well, not complicated for the customer, but for the business.
    - shmel 6y ago
      It is a laughable excuse. Literally every other country figured this out. It is not like borders and taxes exist only in the US.
      - withinboredom 6y ago
        Luckily, in places like here in the EU, when watching Dutch TV, I don't see prices that I'd expect in Germany. When someone buys my goods from Germany, I might pay German VAT or they might pay Netherlands VAT. It depends. Point is, I don't have to think about taxes, the business handles it. But here's the other kicker. The Netherlands VAT is ~21%, the German VAT is/was 19%. It's a pretty simple difference that's basically negligible. In Kentucky, sales tax is 6%, but in Ohio it's 5.75%, not that big of a difference. Oh wait, in Ohio it's 0% going through the drive thru. In Tennessee, sometimes there's no sales tax on clothing. Tax is a political tool in the US, not so much elsewhere.
maitredusoi 6y ago
> I don't think Epic is doing anything but trying to pocket more for themselves I agree this is the best cheapest advertising Epic has ever done !!!
II2II 6y ago
It is a messy issue. Without the in app purchase fees, developers could (and would) give away the app and take all of the revenues. With the in app purchase fees, developers (rightfully) feel as though Apple is taking a cut for something they they did not sell. If apps sold for $40 or $80 each, Apple would have a much harder time justifying the commission on in app purchases. The motivation to do so would still be there, but the pressure from consumers may have more bearing on the rates (though I doubt they would eliminate them).
danielscrubs 6y ago
The 30% tax that everyone have might actually be a good thing. This makes the market for another OS champion way more likely. Pop OS mobile? Amazon? The price to create an OS is humongous so the rewards has to be too.
- greycol 6y ago
  But that's the problem with oligopolies, the reward is fictional as all that happens is the existing market players stop taking so much. This means the ROI for a new competitor is much worse than what you'd assume on it's face, it could even be negative.

powerapple 6y ago

Of course Epic wants to keep more of their profit to themselves. Especially if they have to give a way tens of millions not just a few thousands. I think it is fair for Apple to cap their charges. If they need to take a percentage, they should take a percentage of profit rather than sales to be honest. Unity model is a good example in my opinion.

trumpeta 6y ago
I think Apple is in the “real estate”/rent business here. if you compare that to how big malls operate it’s pretty similar. They take a fixed fee plus a cut from the revenue in exchange for foot traffic.
- hirako2000 6y ago
  And they are in a sort of Las Vegas real estate market, made global. It must be difficult for them to resist the treasure, especially when stakeholders want to see greater and greater returns.
hirako2000 6y ago
Afaik Unity royalties are based on revenue, not profit. Balance sheets are not difficult to mascarade, revenue is much harder to hide. Though I agree a minimum revenue threshold would make sense. But that's not apples strategy. Their strategy is to subtly charge the massive amount of indie developers (developer account fee) and take 30% from the get go.

amelius 6y ago

Informing users about the Apple tax would cause an outrage since users already paid for their phones, and own them.

the_other 6y ago
From some. I simply don’t care. To me, Apple are keeping my highly sensitive data (my phone is my bank card, address book, post box, todo list...) secure. I’m really grateful the tools and experience is consistently so good for so long. Whether I’m paying that 30% or the software devs are, I’m not really bothered. I want the high quality to continue. I accept that multiple app stores may improve things... but from what I hear, that’s not the case on Android. I think we only have this discussion because of Apple’s market cap. Most others are envious. Sure, Apple have a lot of power, but they do a fairly good job of using it responsibly. The interactions with the Chinese government do desire further scrutiny, however. I’m not a shareholder.
- amelius 6y ago
  Android is a bad comparison, because they are basically an adware based product, and rightfully many people reject it as a serious tool for managing their personal information and communication. This actually makes Apple a monopolist.
  - the_other 6y ago
    I find that a fairly twisty perspective. I agree Google are adware. I disagree that tales them out of the discussion of monopoly. I also think the monopoly discussion and the 30% fees discussion are separate. This relates to my interpretation that the 30% covers “shelf space, distribution, And security”. If the fee were 5% but nothing else changed, Apple might still have a monopoly.
    - amelius 6y ago
      If the fee were 5%, then Apple wouldn't be abusing its monopoly position.

renaudg 6y ago

"if Apple was OK with displaying a 30% Apple tax on checkout" Do you know any store that adds a line showing their margin on the customer receipt ?

rrobukef 6y ago
A while ago, debit and visa payments often had minimal orders and additional fees.
- jhrmnn 6y ago
  But Apple is more than a payment processor here, they are closer to a regular online store in this regard
  - romanoderoma 6y ago
    I have a different opinion Online stores profit from the difference between buying at volumes and selling at a higher price. They don't charge over the market price, they buy at a discount Apple doesn't buy anything, doesn't have a warehouse, doesn't allow publishers to discuss the terms of the agreement, they take the same fee from everyone, in this regards it is very similar to a flat tax Apple store is more similar to a market place, a mall in the physical world, in a mall businesses rent the space They pay in proportion on how much space they rent and the quality of the space they rent Apple (unfairly IMO) charges the same amount for everyone, even though some apps are promoted by the store and the vast majority of them is practically undiscoverable unless you already know what to look for. If Apple was a store it would be a store that only place orders on your behalf, just because it's the only store in town and charges a fee on every order, even if they don't do much If you had the phone number of the supplier you could place the order yourself, but Apple prohibits customers to even ask for it and if publishers try to contact customers directly, they sue them In this imaginary town people supporting the Apple business say to people sick and tired of their way of doing it "change town" I hoped we would be better than tribes in 2020
    - the_other 6y ago

abc-xyz 6y ago

> All the comments saying "just buy an Android" ignore the simple fact that you buying an Android does not change the fact that a significant portion of the market is elsewhere. All the comments saying “just allow side-loading apps/third-party stores and let people decide themselves” ignore the fact that by doing so then iOS will end up with the same virus/malware issues that you see on Windows and Android. Suddenly we’ll need to help friends and family factory reset their iPhone because their search engine got hijacked, or because they get spammed with sex notifications, etc.

AsyncAwait 6y ago
> All the comments saying “just allow side-loading apps/third-party stores and let people decide themselves” ignore the fact that by doing so then iOS will end up with the same virus/malware issues that you see on Windows and Android. Why? Who is forcing YOU to sideload? There's no reason why the default couldn't be status quo and you'd only opt in into sideloading, this way the users who want the walled garden still get it and the users who want to sideload can optionally opt into that. Why is it always an either/or? As for Android, I'm pretty confident in saying that F-Droid, which is a 3rd party store, is generally safer than even the Play Store. Android's problem is the lax review of apps even on the Play Store, lack of updates soon after purchase etc. Most users on Android don't even have sideloading enabled, that's not a huge vector.
- abc-xyz 6y ago
  Because 99% of the user base isn’t tech savvy and will install all sorts of crap without realizing the consequences of doing so. I may be capable of sticking to the App Store and not side-loading apps, but many of my friends, family and non-developer coworkers are not. They’ll click on random links in their mailbox, ads from apps and when browsing the web.. the end result is that they end up accidentally having their homepage, search engine and browser hijacked, they get redirected to spam websites, links on websites gets replaced with affiliate links, their sensitive information gets stolen, etc. I’ve never had to help fix an iPhone and I don’t know anyone who’s been infected with malware (besides e.g. TikTok secretly copying clipboard and such), however for Windows and Android then I have people reach out to me on a monthly basis because they accidentally installed something that fucked up their computer/phone and they need help fixing it. As for F-Droid, I hope you realize that their store is even more locked down than the App Store, and it’s as far as I’m aware the only secure third-party store on Android.

vr46 6y ago

The word "tax", when referring to Apple's fees, is a loaded and partial term. The fact that it's clear and understood and factored into the price makes it easy to complain about, but no casual customer to my knowledge has ever seriously asked what proportion of their peppermint tea and scones pays for a café's rent - overheads are overheads and margins are margins. Both companies are invoking consumers and value in their arguments and ripostes, but I only see one of them defending their customers' interests. Many a company is upset that they have no leverage in a business deal and want to courts to hand it to them.

paulgb 6y ago
If a company like Spotify sells subscriptions both in the app and on the web, they have to charge 43% more to the in-app purchaser to get the same revenue, even though the user gets exactly the same experience. I would call that a tax (informally; I know it strictly doesn't meet the definition) and as a customer I would like to know about it.
- DangerousPie 6y ago
  If a company sells coffee both in a shop and on the street it would have to charge 43% more to the in-shop purchaser to get the same revenue, even though the user gets exactly the same experience. Would you call that a tax or would you call that rent?
  - paulgb 6y ago
    I'd say the difference is that the tax is not uniformly charged by a middleman. If a mall made its profit by charging 43% on every purchase, I would think of it (informally) as a tax.
    - vr46 6y ago
      But suppose that mall didn't charge for anything else? Electricity, water, security, gravity all came free, and you just paid only if you made a sale? (Ok, there's a $100 developer fee and the cost of a Mac and iOS device.) Maybe Apple should offer two deals to publishers: 1) Pay £1,000,000 up front and keep all the revenue 2) Pay As You Earn.

aiyodev 6y ago

If you think Apple owners don’t know about this, you are mistaken. Curating the App Store is one of the main reasons why I buy Apple products. I want them to tax and restrict developers.

AsyncAwait 6y ago
> If you think Apple owners don’t know about this, you are mistaken. Curating the App Store is one of the main reasons why I buy Apple products. You're posting on a site called Hacker News so I'd expect you to know, but does you extended family know, without you telling them? Doubt ir, just as I would expect most people to think "Hacker News" has to do something with illegality or perhaps reporting on criminal hackers.
- aiyodev 6y ago
  Right. Because the tens of millions of people buying Apple products are all ignorant rubes, not informed consumers purchasing superior products. /s

ksec 6y ago

I sort of agree and disagree. I will admit upfront I still cant articulate my thoughts very well on the subject matter. I dont see why collecting 30% from Games is anything off limit. I consider Gaming as Non-Essential. If you dont like the Gaming Platform. Go Elsewhere. Literally every Gaming Platform collects 30% ( if not more ) on Games being sold. That is everything from early days of Nintendo, Sega, and now Playstation and Xbox. So in the case of EPIC, why are they happy with Sony and Microsoft charging them 30% on Playstation and Xbox? Whether they are losing money on the console sales is irrelevant in this context, that is their business model, and that is how the market works and accept. Nintendo is able to compete with a profits on both console and games. However charging 30% on Apps, on productivity, business tools and when there are only One competing App Platform in the whole world ( of whole of US ) is where the question of Monopoly or Monopsony comes into play. I dont think there is an easy answer. On one hand, changing 30% of subscription for Education and Fitness App is ridiculous. Apple being the sole buyer and pitching these client / business / partners against each other while benefiting from it is precisely the definition of Monopsony. On the other hand, I would much rather paid this 30% extortion than having a platform where user can, no matter how difficult it may be, able to side load Apps. I dont want any of my family member doing it. If you really want the ability to side loads, Android it is. I think Apple should just keep the 30% on Games. 15% of One Time Purchase Apps, 10% on Subscription and call it a day. I think that is a fair deal. Payment Processing, Fraud Protection, Refund and General Admin and Store Operation would have put it close to 5%. Business aren't losing much with the 10% Rent. With the lower commission Apple can better Enforce the Sign up rules. No more "Reader" App Guidelines. You are allowed to give better deals else where like on your Website. But as a consumer I am happy with the extra 10% for the safety of going through Apple. And some additional info, it is estimated that 80% of App Store Revenue are from Gaming. So dropping the Apps and Subscription to 15% / 10% arrangement isn't going to make their services revenue collapse. Apple are also working hard on their AppleCare+ push, as you can now buy it within the first year of your purchase and Apple Store Genius has had their KPI percentage increased for AppleCare sold. ( Personally I think what is happening in Apple Retail is even worst than the App Store )

jjcon 6y ago
> I would much rather paid this 30% extortion than having a platform where user can, no matter how difficult it may be, able to side load Apps. I dont want any of my family member doing it. I’m confused, why are you opposed to the option of sideloading? Are you unaware that you can sideload on iOS? (see /r/sideloaded for a thriving sub on sideloadable apps) It takes a little setup but it is totally doable and doesn’t require jailbreak or anything.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

shmel 6y ago

I am so amused that this debate is very American centered all while American physical stores can't figure out how to include taxes into displayed price. And everybody is okay with that.

paconbork 6y ago
Businesses are incentivized to not include taxes in the price since there's no laws against it, everyone else does it, and it lets them advertise better prices then they actually have. Personally, the practice really irks me and my small act of rebellion is that I pay in cash if tax is included in the price and by card if it's not. I wish people cared about it more but I suppose there's just more important things to worry about
- withinboredom 6y ago
  > it lets them advertise better prices then they actually have It’s a bit more nuanced than that. The issue is that cities will often have their own sales tax, or that states have different sales tax. This gets pretty complicated when you advertise a price near the border of a tax cliff. Well, not complicated for the customer, but for the business.
  - shmel 6y ago
    It is a laughable excuse. Literally every other country figured this out. It is not like borders and taxes exist only in the US.
    - withinboredom 6y ago
      Luckily, in places like here in the EU, when watching Dutch TV, I don't see prices that I'd expect in Germany. When someone buys my goods from Germany, I might pay German VAT or they might pay Netherlands VAT. It depends. Point is, I don't have to think about taxes, the business handles it. But here's the other kicker. The Netherlands VAT is ~21%, the German VAT is/was 19%. It's a pretty simple difference that's basically negligible. In Kentucky, sales tax is 6%, but in Ohio it's 5.75%, not that big of a difference. Oh wait, in Ohio it's 0% going through the drive thru. In Tennessee, sometimes there's no sales tax on clothing. Tax is a political tool in the US, not so much elsewhere.

maitredusoi 6y ago

> I don't think Epic is doing anything but trying to pocket more for themselves I agree this is the best cheapest advertising Epic has ever done !!!

II2II 6y ago

It is a messy issue. Without the in app purchase fees, developers could (and would) give away the app and take all of the revenues. With the in app purchase fees, developers (rightfully) feel as though Apple is taking a cut for something they they did not sell. If apps sold for $40 or $80 each, Apple would have a much harder time justifying the commission on in app purchases. The motivation to do so would still be there, but the pressure from consumers may have more bearing on the rates (though I doubt they would eliminate them).

danielscrubs 6y ago

The 30% tax that everyone have might actually be a good thing. This makes the market for another OS champion way more likely. Pop OS mobile? Amazon? The price to create an OS is humongous so the rewards has to be too.

greycol 6y ago
But that's the problem with oligopolies, the reward is fictional as all that happens is the existing market players stop taking so much. This means the ROI for a new competitor is much worse than what you'd assume on it's face, it could even be negative.