4 ms·

This news doesn't mean people shouldn't continue to put pressure on Apple and legislators to address the core issue (app store competition), but it's still real

This news doesn't mean people shouldn't continue to put pressure on Apple and legislators to address the core issue (app store competition), but it's still really good news for small developers. It should also solidly put down all of the arguments we were seeing about whether indie devs and lawsuits putting pressure on Apple and legislators are at all worthwhile. A drop in app fees by 15% is a substantial win, and the reason that drop happened is because Apple is now scared of critics, bad PR, and how that might impact future legislation against them. The number of hot takes I was seeing about how the Apple/Epic fight benefited literally no one and it was just two companies arguing about who got to take all the money... it's very clear from this program that the overall pressure on Apple has been making a difference. It's not so large a difference that devs should now stop fighting for better terms, but it's positive to see Apple at least partially show signs of cracking, or at least acknowledge on some level that they're frightened about the potential outcome of this fight. And there are a lot of small devs who are going to be making a lot more money just because of this minor victory.

whimsicalism 6y ago
> The number of hot takes I was seeing about how the Apple/Epic fight benefited literally no one and it was just two companies arguing about who got to take all the money... Most of the people I saw who I knew using these takes had a substantial vested interest in Apple prevailing, so I doubt it'll change their opinion. It's good news unless it diffuses the momentum for more.
enos_feedler 6y ago
Solidly? Not really. Still believe the Epic and Apple fight is all about Tim Sweeney being a greedy business man. Zero proof this 15% reduction has anything to do with pressure from that legal battle. Apple has made rev share changes in the past unprovoked (like 15% for sustained subs). How long do you think this change was in the works for? If this change was a response that’s great. But I would bet in that case Apple did it to take wind out of Epic’s sails around standing up for little devs. Apple just showed they cared about them in a single change. Will Epic back away now? Fat chance.
- friedman23 6y ago
  Maybe Tim Sweeney is greedy but 30% cut on revenue is exorbitant.
- ROARosen 6y ago
  > Apple just showed they cared about them in a single change. Apple just showed they care about their image. If they really cared about small devs, they can allow third-party app stores or platforms like Epic's, which would really help developers by bringing down processing costs.
  - enos_feedler 6y ago
    I agree that the concept of a store within a store should exist for Epic and for users. I think “processing costs” is not really the issue. Apple’s revenue sharing business agreements just happen to be collected at processing time. They could easily invoice later. The core issue is: how much should Epic pay to have their own store on the iPhone?
  - zepto 6y ago
    If bringing down processing costs is the issue, Apple just did that. Allowing multiple stores would increase costs doe small developers, because of the overhead of dealing with many stores and many sets of rules. Any cost saving would disappear into one or two levels of middlemen, otherwise known as publishing companies.
- whywhywhywhy 6y ago
  >is all about Tim Sweeney being a greedy business man Tim Sweeney provides one of the most advanced game engine technologies in the world completely for free for all revenue under 1 million. After 1 million you pay 5% on revenue over that, if your game makes $1,200,000 you pay Tim Sweeney $10,000. If you make 2 games and both games equally make 600K you pay Sweeney nothing. It's definitely a business but not sure "greedy" describes this.
  - carlosdp 6y ago
stale2002 6y ago
> I was seeing about how the Apple/Epic fight benefited literally no one and it was just two companies arguing about who got to take all the money... it's very clear from this program that the overall pressure on Apple has been making a difference. Very true! This new change by Apple, although obviously a PR move, is still evidence that these legal fights against Apple are working. This is a very clear example of why the lawsuit against Apple was a good thing, and why people should continue to put on more pressure against Apple. Because it forces them to make changes like this.

whimsicalism 6y ago

> The number of hot takes I was seeing about how the Apple/Epic fight benefited literally no one and it was just two companies arguing about who got to take all the money... Most of the people I saw who I knew using these takes had a substantial vested interest in Apple prevailing, so I doubt it'll change their opinion. It's good news unless it diffuses the momentum for more.

enos_feedler 6y ago

Solidly? Not really. Still believe the Epic and Apple fight is all about Tim Sweeney being a greedy business man. Zero proof this 15% reduction has anything to do with pressure from that legal battle. Apple has made rev share changes in the past unprovoked (like 15% for sustained subs). How long do you think this change was in the works for? If this change was a response that’s great. But I would bet in that case Apple did it to take wind out of Epic’s sails around standing up for little devs. Apple just showed they cared about them in a single change. Will Epic back away now? Fat chance.

friedman23 6y ago
Maybe Tim Sweeney is greedy but 30% cut on revenue is exorbitant.
ROARosen 6y ago
> Apple just showed they cared about them in a single change. Apple just showed they care about their image. If they really cared about small devs, they can allow third-party app stores or platforms like Epic's, which would really help developers by bringing down processing costs.
- enos_feedler 6y ago
  I agree that the concept of a store within a store should exist for Epic and for users. I think “processing costs” is not really the issue. Apple’s revenue sharing business agreements just happen to be collected at processing time. They could easily invoice later. The core issue is: how much should Epic pay to have their own store on the iPhone?
- zepto 6y ago
  If bringing down processing costs is the issue, Apple just did that. Allowing multiple stores would increase costs doe small developers, because of the overhead of dealing with many stores and many sets of rules. Any cost saving would disappear into one or two levels of middlemen, otherwise known as publishing companies.
whywhywhywhy 6y ago
>is all about Tim Sweeney being a greedy business man Tim Sweeney provides one of the most advanced game engine technologies in the world completely for free for all revenue under 1 million. After 1 million you pay 5% on revenue over that, if your game makes $1,200,000 you pay Tim Sweeney $10,000. If you make 2 games and both games equally make 600K you pay Sweeney nothing. It's definitely a business but not sure "greedy" describes this.
- carlosdp 6y ago

stale2002 6y ago

> I was seeing about how the Apple/Epic fight benefited literally no one and it was just two companies arguing about who got to take all the money... it's very clear from this program that the overall pressure on Apple has been making a difference. Very true! This new change by Apple, although obviously a PR move, is still evidence that these legal fights against Apple are working. This is a very clear example of why the lawsuit against Apple was a good thing, and why people should continue to put on more pressure against Apple. Because it forces them to make changes like this.