5 ms·

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 whatev

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.
  - dkonofalski 3y ago
    iOS is not a market segment. Smartphones is the segment and so you do have a choice. The courts have already ruled that Apple doesn't have a monopoly in their segment.
    - asadotzler 3y ago
      That's not what the courts have been saying lately. iOS app distribution and Android app distribution have both been called relevant markets in recent trails.
      - dkonofalski 3y ago
        I think you're conflating their designation as "markets" because they are marketplaces of apps with the economic term "markets" which has a specific definition for a sector of industry.
        asadotzler 3y ago
        no conflation at all. read up on some of the trials for Google and Apple over the last couple years. The anti-trust trials aren't talking about a "super market", they're talking about a relevant market in anti-trust context.
        dkonofalski 3y ago
        You’re discussing this in the context of a case that deemed that it wasn’t an anti-trust violation because it was determined Apple doesn’t have a monopoly, though. They’re not considered their own markets.
      - nodamage 3y ago
        The first half of your claim is false, "iOS app distribution" was not accepted as a valid "relevant market" in the very court case being discussed. But I think you knew that already.
  - 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
insane_dreamer 3y ago
> You are forced to use Apple IAP system only if you want to release your app on Apple's platform; you're free to release it on Android, Windows, Linux, Unreal, etc., each of which has their own set of fees (or none)
matthew-wegner 3y ago
From apps. That Apple is hosting, and providing testing and updating machinery for, along with many backend services, SDKs, etc. What is the fair price for that? 27% is absurdly high, for sure, but you seem to be arguing from a position that it should be free...? The other large discussion thread has already been linked with more specifics. The very short version is that Apple has been arguing the fees are to run their services, and the commission has historically been a convenient way to collect them. This is them collecting those fees outside of their payment systems, because legally they have to allow such a thing. So you could release an app for "free" on the app store, and require side channel payment to really use it. You're just going to have to pay for the quotation marks.

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.
- dkonofalski 3y ago
  iOS is not a market segment. Smartphones is the segment and so you do have a choice. The courts have already ruled that Apple doesn't have a monopoly in their segment.
  - asadotzler 3y ago
    That's not what the courts have been saying lately. iOS app distribution and Android app distribution have both been called relevant markets in recent trails.
    - dkonofalski 3y ago
      I think you're conflating their designation as "markets" because they are marketplaces of apps with the economic term "markets" which has a specific definition for a sector of industry.
      - asadotzler 3y ago
        no conflation at all. read up on some of the trials for Google and Apple over the last couple years. The anti-trust trials aren't talking about a "super market", they're talking about a relevant market in anti-trust context.
        dkonofalski 3y ago
        You’re discussing this in the context of a case that deemed that it wasn’t an anti-trust violation because it was determined Apple doesn’t have a monopoly, though. They’re not considered their own markets.
    - nodamage 3y ago
      The first half of your claim is false, "iOS app distribution" was not accepted as a valid "relevant market" in the very court case being discussed. But I think you knew that already.
- 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

insane_dreamer 3y ago

> You are forced to use Apple IAP system only if you want to release your app on Apple's platform; you're free to release it on Android, Windows, Linux, Unreal, etc., each of which has their own set of fees (or none)

matthew-wegner 3y ago

From apps. That Apple is hosting, and providing testing and updating machinery for, along with many backend services, SDKs, etc. What is the fair price for that? 27% is absurdly high, for sure, but you seem to be arguing from a position that it should be free...? The other large discussion thread has already been linked with more specifics. The very short version is that Apple has been arguing the fees are to run their services, and the commission has historically been a convenient way to collect them. This is them collecting those fees outside of their payment systems, because legally they have to allow such a thing. So you could release an app for "free" on the app store, and require side channel payment to really use it. You're just going to have to pay for the quotation marks.