6 ms·

Feels like Apple is really tempting fate at this point. They essentially won v. Epic (as of yesterday, SCOTUS rejected the appeal). I'm not sure why they feel s

by dvt 3y ago

Feels like Apple is really tempting fate at this point. They essentially won v. Epic (as of yesterday, SCOTUS rejected the appeal). I'm not sure why they feel so emboldened to add a 27% tax on web purchases as well. Completely wild, but I guess shareholder value must always go up.

grishka 3y ago
> I'm not sure why they feel so emboldened Because they feel like they own the relationship between the user and the developer by virtue of it happening on a device they made, regardless of how much their contribution, if any, was to the formation of that relationship in the first place.
- insane_dreamer 3y ago
  the same could be said of any game developed on Unreal and required to pay an (admittedly lower) percent to Epic
  - jchook 3y ago
    That's not an apt comparison because Apple banned alternative app stores from their devices.
  - grishka 3y ago
    You have a choice to use a different engine to build your game (including rolling your own). You don't have a choice to not use the app store to distribute your iOS app.
    - dkonofalski 3y ago
      Yes, you do. You have the choice to put your App on Google Play or host it yourself and make it available for Android.
      - grishka 3y ago
        I'm talking about iOS apps specifically. Don't pretend that not making your app available for the second most popular mobile OS is acceptable.
        dkonofalski 3y ago
        You're not forced to make apps for iOS or any Apple product. Making your app for the second most popular OS is acceptable because that's what iOS is. I know you tried to make it seem like Android is but, worldwide, Android is far more popular than iOS. The fact that there even is a 2nd most popular mobile OS proves that Apple doesn't have a monopoly.
        grishka 3y ago
        That doesn't make it any easier for people who have iPhones but can't install your app because your app is incompatible with whatever Apple demands. Trust me, most people who buy iPhones are completely oblivious to the app store rules and review process.
        dkonofalski 3y ago
        That's irrelevant. Both iPhone users and app developers have options on both sides. Developers can ignore Apple's platform and end-users have lots of options for phones that aren't iPhones.
        grishka 3y ago
        You keep pretending that this problem can be solved if everyone "just" ditched iPhones for Android or Windows Phone or Symbian or whatever. Sorry to disappoint you, but this is not how the world works.
        dkonofalski 3y ago
        I’m not the one pretending. You’re pretending like people don’t have a choice in what phones they buy. They do.
threeseed 3y ago
Because this isn't a tax on web purchases. As a developer you need to pay the 30% commission similar to how if you're using Unreal Engine you need to pay 5%. You can legitimately argue this fee is way too high but the courts have already said that they are allowed to charge it.
- ado__dev 3y ago
  I don't think the issue is how high the fee is, the issue is Apple forcing developers to use their payments platform. Apple is within its right to charge whatever they want. Unreal Engine is free to charge whatever fee they want. But you're not forced to use UE. You are forced to use Apple IAP system, or their alternative now, is to allow you to use your own system, but still pay them a ridiculous fee, for what exactly?
  - threeseed 3y ago
    As a developer I am not forced to write iOS apps. Just like I am not forced to use Unreal Engine. Apple charges 30% if you do choose. Epic charges 5%. Apple argues that what you're paying for includes SDKs. Epic does too.
    - cyberax 3y ago
      > As a developer I am not forced to write iOS apps. Yes, you are. If you're writing a mobile app, you HAVE to support iOS or go bankrupt. There are no other options. Welcome to the land of monopolies.
  - insane_dreamer 3y ago
    > you're not forced to use UE. you are forced to pay Epic 5% of sales (if your game makes more than $1 million), so pretty much like Apple (fees are lower of course)
    - ado__dev 3y ago
      But again, you have the choice of not using Epic. You can use Unity, or any other game engine, or even make your own if you're so inclined. With Apple, you don't have a choice if you want to be on iOS (which has close to 60% marketshare in the US). And I'm not arguing that apple needs to reduce the fee. They can charge whatever they want for their IAP system. But, other companies that have software/services that are cross-platform, should be allowed to use their own payment processors without paying additional fees to apple imo. Apple should be able to put up the message that hey, you're leaving our ecosystem, you're on your own, blah blah. But I don't see a reason why they should also get a cut at that point.
jasode 3y ago
> I'm not sure why they feel so emboldened to add a 27% tax on web purchases as well. Because the judge's ruling still left the option open for Apple to continue to charge a commission fee for external payment processors. Over 2 years ago, observers correctly predicted that Apple would still charge 30% for external payments. Example story: https://9to5mac.com/2021/09/14/apple-can-still-charge-its-app-store-30-fee-even-after-epic-ruling-analysts-say/ https://9to5mac.com/2021/09/14/apple-can-still-charge-its-ap... So Apple's new policy in 2024 is no surprise and the only difference is that Apple is charging 27% instead of the predicted 30%.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
KingLancelot 3y ago
[dead]
lolinder 3y ago
They feel emboldened because the judge specifically called out that this was the most likely outcome from them being forced to unbundle their payment processor: > First, and most significant, as discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple’s intellectual property. Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission. > In such a hypothetical world, developers could potentially avoid the commission while benefitting from Apple's innovation and intellectual property free of charge. The Court presumes that in such circumstances that Apple may rely on imposing and utilizing a contractual right to audit developers annual accounting to ensure compliance with its commissions, among other methods. Of course, any alternatives to IAP (including the foregoing) would seemingly impose both increased monetary and time costs to both Apple and the developers. https://casetext.com/case/epic-games-inc-v-apple-inc-2 https://casetext.com/case/epic-games-inc-v-apple-inc-2

by dvt 3y ago

grishka 3y ago

> I'm not sure why they feel so emboldened Because they feel like they own the relationship between the user and the developer by virtue of it happening on a device they made, regardless of how much their contribution, if any, was to the formation of that relationship in the first place.

insane_dreamer 3y ago
the same could be said of any game developed on Unreal and required to pay an (admittedly lower) percent to Epic
- jchook 3y ago
  That's not an apt comparison because Apple banned alternative app stores from their devices.
- grishka 3y ago
  You have a choice to use a different engine to build your game (including rolling your own). You don't have a choice to not use the app store to distribute your iOS app.
  - dkonofalski 3y ago
    Yes, you do. You have the choice to put your App on Google Play or host it yourself and make it available for Android.
    - grishka 3y ago
      I'm talking about iOS apps specifically. Don't pretend that not making your app available for the second most popular mobile OS is acceptable.
      - dkonofalski 3y ago
        You're not forced to make apps for iOS or any Apple product. Making your app for the second most popular OS is acceptable because that's what iOS is. I know you tried to make it seem like Android is but, worldwide, Android is far more popular than iOS. The fact that there even is a 2nd most popular mobile OS proves that Apple doesn't have a monopoly.
        grishka 3y ago
        That doesn't make it any easier for people who have iPhones but can't install your app because your app is incompatible with whatever Apple demands. Trust me, most people who buy iPhones are completely oblivious to the app store rules and review process.
        dkonofalski 3y ago
        That's irrelevant. Both iPhone users and app developers have options on both sides. Developers can ignore Apple's platform and end-users have lots of options for phones that aren't iPhones.
        grishka 3y ago
        You keep pretending that this problem can be solved if everyone "just" ditched iPhones for Android or Windows Phone or Symbian or whatever. Sorry to disappoint you, but this is not how the world works.
        dkonofalski 3y ago
        I’m not the one pretending. You’re pretending like people don’t have a choice in what phones they buy. They do.

threeseed 3y ago

Because this isn't a tax on web purchases. As a developer you need to pay the 30% commission similar to how if you're using Unreal Engine you need to pay 5%. You can legitimately argue this fee is way too high but the courts have already said that they are allowed to charge it.

ado__dev 3y ago
I don't think the issue is how high the fee is, the issue is Apple forcing developers to use their payments platform. Apple is within its right to charge whatever they want. Unreal Engine is free to charge whatever fee they want. But you're not forced to use UE. You are forced to use Apple IAP system, or their alternative now, is to allow you to use your own system, but still pay them a ridiculous fee, for what exactly?
- threeseed 3y ago
  As a developer I am not forced to write iOS apps. Just like I am not forced to use Unreal Engine. Apple charges 30% if you do choose. Epic charges 5%. Apple argues that what you're paying for includes SDKs. Epic does too.
  - cyberax 3y ago
    > As a developer I am not forced to write iOS apps. Yes, you are. If you're writing a mobile app, you HAVE to support iOS or go bankrupt. There are no other options. Welcome to the land of monopolies.
- insane_dreamer 3y ago
  > you're not forced to use UE. you are forced to pay Epic 5% of sales (if your game makes more than $1 million), so pretty much like Apple (fees are lower of course)
  - ado__dev 3y ago
    But again, you have the choice of not using Epic. You can use Unity, or any other game engine, or even make your own if you're so inclined. With Apple, you don't have a choice if you want to be on iOS (which has close to 60% marketshare in the US). And I'm not arguing that apple needs to reduce the fee. They can charge whatever they want for their IAP system. But, other companies that have software/services that are cross-platform, should be allowed to use their own payment processors without paying additional fees to apple imo. Apple should be able to put up the message that hey, you're leaving our ecosystem, you're on your own, blah blah. But I don't see a reason why they should also get a cut at that point.

jasode 3y ago

> I'm not sure why they feel so emboldened to add a 27% tax on web purchases as well. Because the judge's ruling still left the option open for Apple to continue to charge a commission fee for external payment processors. Over 2 years ago, observers correctly predicted that Apple would still charge 30% for external payments. Example story: https://9to5mac.com/2021/09/14/apple-can-still-charge-its-app-store-30-fee-even-after-epic-ruling-analysts-say/ https://9to5mac.com/2021/09/14/apple-can-still-charge-its-ap... So Apple's new policy in 2024 is no surprise and the only difference is that Apple is charging 27% instead of the predicted 30%.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

KingLancelot 3y ago

[dead]

lolinder 3y ago

They feel emboldened because the judge specifically called out that this was the most likely outcome from them being forced to unbundle their payment processor: > First, and most significant, as discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple’s intellectual property. Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission. > In such a hypothetical world, developers could potentially avoid the commission while benefitting from Apple's innovation and intellectual property free of charge. The Court presumes that in such circumstances that Apple may rely on imposing and utilizing a contractual right to audit developers annual accounting to ensure compliance with its commissions, among other methods. Of course, any alternatives to IAP (including the foregoing) would seemingly impose both increased monetary and time costs to both Apple and the developers. https://casetext.com/case/epic-games-inc-v-apple-inc-2 https://casetext.com/case/epic-games-inc-v-apple-inc-2