I'm not saying the Fortnight player themselves looks like dorks. I'm saying that the avatar they are stuck with, when not paying for a cool outfit, looks like dorks. And that's to be expected, as Epic wants players to pay for cool looking outfits. If the free avatars looks cool to begin with, there would be less need for player to pay for cool looking outfits.
So you're STILL trying to insult Epic's customers?
Tell the third party retailers selling to Amazon customers in Amazon MarketPlace, that in the real world, they don't have to go through Amazon checkout payment method.
Is the only way you can defend your argument to make irrelevant or incorrect comparisons? A third party retailer can also create their own website and sell to those same customers without using Amazon's checkout or paying any fees to Amazon. A developer on the App Store cannot without paying fees to Apple.
paying through an iTunes account, the customer can fund their account with a CC (including American Express and Discover), Apple Pay, debit card, PayPal and gift cards paid for with cash. You think Epic is going to allow as many options? Plus iTunes gift cards can often be purchased at a discount.
Why is this even relevant? Again, you don't seem to be able to defend your position without making irrelevant arguments.
This has nothing to do with a retailer having the right to use what payment method they want or giving the customers more choices as to how to pay. This is about Epic not wanting to pay Apple and Google a commission for access to iOS and Android platform customers. You don't hear Epic making the same demand on Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo platforms. Or Amazon MarketPlace sellers demanding to use other payment methods, other than Amazon checkout, so they can avoid paying Amazon a commission for accessing customers on Amazon's market platform.
If this is nothing to do with payment methods, why do you mention payment methods above? You really should get your argument together before you start to repond. I will agree though, it isn't to do with payment methods, and it isn't about Epic paying commission on the relevant App Stores, it's about Epic not being allowed to use their own App Store on one platform. And you don't hear Epic complaining about Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo because they CAN distribute their software through other means without paying fees to those companies for using their app stores.
If Epic were to lower the cost across all platforms based on the savings they get from not having to pay the 30% "tax" on iOS and Android platforms, then that would mean the Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo 30% "tax" would amount to less money for them, as Fortnight Bucks would cost less. Good for Fortnight players on all platforms, but Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo are not going to be too happy with that. That's why Epic can not pass on their savings if they were to lower their overall cost by not having to pay the iOS and Android 30% "tax". They will keep the savings for themselves. Or Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo will have to charge Epic more than a 30% "tax", for hosting Fortnight on their platforms, to make up for the loss of Fortnight players spending less to play.
How do you know what Epic will do with the savings? I've already explained how Epic could reduce prices across all platforms.
I'm not saying the Fortnight player themselves looks like dorks. I'm saying that the avatar they are stuck with, when not paying for a cool outfit, looks like dorks. And that's to be expected, as Epic wants players to pay for cool looking outfits. If the free avatars looks cool to begin with, there would be less need for player to pay for cool looking outfits.
So you're STILL trying to insult Epic's customers?
Tell the third party retailers selling to Amazon customers in Amazon MarketPlace, that in the real world, they don't have to go through Amazon checkout payment method.
Is the only way you can defend your argument to make irrelevant or incorrect comparisons? A third party retailer can also create their own website and sell to those same customers without using Amazon's checkout or paying any fees to Amazon. A developer on the App Store cannot without paying fees to Apple.
paying through an iTunes account, the customer can fund their account with a CC (including American Express and Discover), Apple Pay, debit card, PayPal and gift cards paid for with cash. You think Epic is going to allow as many options? Plus iTunes gift cards can often be purchased at a discount.
Why is this even relevant? Again, you don't seem to be able to defend your position without making irrelevant arguments.
This has nothing to do with a retailer having the right to use what payment method they want or giving the customers more choices as to how to pay. This is about Epic not wanting to pay Apple and Google a commission for access to iOS and Android platform customers. You don't hear Epic making the same demand on Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo platforms. Or Amazon MarketPlace sellers demanding to use other payment methods, other than Amazon checkout, so they can avoid paying Amazon a commission for accessing customers on Amazon's market platform.
If this is nothing to do with payment methods, why do you mention payment methods above? You really should get your argument together before you start to repond. I will agree though, it isn't to do with payment methods, and it isn't about Epic paying commission on the relevant App Stores, it's about Epic not being allowed to use their own App Store on one platforms. And you don't hear Epic complaining about Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo because they CAN distribute their software through other means without paying fees to those companies for using their app store
If Epic were to lower the cost across all platforms based on the savings they get from not having to pay the 30% "tax" on iOS and Android platforms, then that would mean the Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo 30% "tax" would amount to less money for them, as Fortnight Bucks would cost less. Good for Fortnight players on all platforms, but Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo are not going to be too happy with that. That's why Epic can not pass on their savings if they were to lower their overall cost by not having to pay the iOS and Android 30% "tax". They will keep the savings for themselves. Or Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo will have to charge Epic more than a 30% "tax", for hosting Fortnight on their platforms, to make up for the loss of Fortnight players spending less to play.
How do you know what Epic will do with the savings? I've already explained how Epic could reduce prices across all platforms.
A third party retailer can also create their own website and sell to those same customers without using Amazon's checkout or paying any fees to Amazon. A developer on the App Store cannot without paying fees to Apple.
The whole point is that if the third party seller on the Amazon MarketPlace wants direct access to customers that shop at Amazon, they have to pay a commission and can only use Amazon check out. You're the one that said that clearly stated that in the real world, sellers can choose what payment method they want to use. Well, Amazon MarketPlace is in the real whole and sellers there can not use whatever payment system they want. You claiming that third party sellers in the Amazon MarketPlace can sell on their own website and use whatever payment system they want is totally irrelevant. They can not use whatever payment system they want when selling to consumers that shop on Amazon. I dare you to show me where Amazon allows third party sellers to pay for sales made in the Amazon MarketPlace, to checkout at their own website. It doesn't matter that third party sellers has access to Amazon shoppers outside of amazon MarketPlace.
The whole point is that if developers want to access to Apple platform to sell to iDevice owners, they have to pay Apple a commission. Just like how if third party sellers want to use Amazon MarketPlace platform to sell to Amazon shoppers, they have to pay a Amazon a commission and a fee. And both must use the payment system of those platforms. It really doesn't matter that there is no other way to sell to Apple customers for iDevices. That doesn't not give iOS developers the right to demand that they should be allow to process their own sales using whatever method they want. The commission is paying for access to the users of those platforms. Platforms that the developers and third party sellers do not own, didn't create, don't maintain and are not monopolies. No way that sellers on the Amazon MarketPlace should get to use Amazon platform, to make money and paying Amazon nothing for attracting consumers to shop at Amazon. And the same for developers on iOS.
Why is this even relevant? Again, you don't seem to be able to defend your position without making irrelevant arguments.
It's relevant because iTunes allow the customers to choose how they want to pay. iTunes is not just only one way for a customer to pay. By accepting iTunes payment system, developers are allowing their customers to pay with CC, PayPal, cash, debit and gift cards. Those are choices that Apple would like their users to have when purchasing from their app stores. It has work for nearly 20 years with the Apple Music store. It's Apple's platform, Apple's rules.
And you don't hear Epic complaining about Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo because they CAN distribute their software through other means without paying fees to those companies for using their app store.
But Epic CAN NOT distribute their software into any of the game console platforms, without paying Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo a fee. Even if they sell their software on a disc. That is an irrelevant issue. The issue is that if Epic sells their software through a game console store, they still have to pay a 30% commission and use the store payment system. The fact that they don't have to use a game console store to get their software onto to a game console has absolutely nothing to do with having to pay Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo their 30% commission for sales made in their stores. Nothing what so ever. Plus there is no way to "distribute" in-app purchases, other than using the game consoles owner stores and paying the 30%. You don't see Epic trying to avoid the 30% for that, on an X-Box or PlayStation.
Now, there might very well be reasons why iOS developers should be allowed to use their own payment system but just because iOS developers can only use iTunes going through the Apple App Store and there is no other way for them to get their software into an iDevice other than though the Apple App Store, are not going to be any of them. Those are irrelevant issues as far as why iOS developers should be allowed to use their own payment system.
No where have you shown where developers or sellers using someones else platform to make money selling their products, have the right to use whatever payment system they want or not pay a commission for doing so. You only pointed out where they can use whatever payment system they want and not pay a fee or commission, when not selling through someone else's platform. Now the platform owner might allow for it and maybe not charge a commission or fee, but it is not a right that sellers and developers have when using someone else's platform to make money. And I have no idea why being able to distribute their software other than by an app store, has anything to do with them having the right to use whatever payment system they want, when selling their products on someone else's platform. One has nothing to do with the other.
How do you know what Epic will do with the savings? I've already explained how Epic could reduce prices across all platforms.
And I already explained why Epic can not reduce prices across all platforms. iOS is just a fraction of where Epic make their money from games and with in-app purchases. Game consoles accounts for 70% of all game players. Only 20% play games on mobile devices. The ONLY way Epic is going to be able to reduce prices across all platforms with any savings from not paying a commission (of less of one), is to not have to pay the 30% commission to Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo. And as I explained, they will have to reduce prices across all platforms if they reduced the price for iOS game players. Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo have the same rule as Apple and Google, when it comes to software that the purchasers can access across all or other platforms ...... that the developer can not reduce the price on one platform or their own platform and not reduce it on the others where the purchasers has access to it. It's the reason why Epic do not sell cheaper Fortnight Bucks on their own website, where they don't have to pay the 30% 'tax". And the reason why subscriptions to Netflix, Microsoft 365, Spotify, Apple Music, publishers with e-Books, news, magazines, etc., cost the same on all platforms, even if one pays for it on a website. I do not get a discount for paying for my Netflix subscription with automatic CC charges every month, even though Netflix do not have to pay the 30% when I do this.
BTW- Sorry for the format I used to reply. I still can't figure out how you (and some others here) did it, the way you did.
The reason Epic can make so much money, is that Apple, Google, Microsoft and Sony …
Remember before Apple invented this lucrative AppStore scam, games and software were downloaded and paid directly to the developer. Then Google & Microsoft followed as the service is very lucrative. The gov needs to step in to protect the consumers and developers from these draconian anticompetitive and monopolistic practices.
On the other hand Epic acted out of desperation and not in a very wise and strategic manner.
Hear, hear …the consumer’s voice in all this debacle:
I really, really do not want a mobile device with an “open app store” philosophy — not available to me myself, not to other users, developers, or any part of that ecosystem.
Notice, I’m not saying that I don’t want to use such alternative app stores, or that I don’t want to see them. Rather, I don’t want an OS where they are even allowed. I want a device ecosystem with a single trusted app store. It’s my consumer demand, and what I would spend money on.
There are multiple reasons for this, but that’s irrelevant. I want such a device, and it’s not an impossible or even difficult demand because I actually have one already today.
• Now, where on the market will I be able to find me such a smartphone if Apple is forced to open up? • Who will be able to supply this consumer demand? • How is that not the ultimate limitation of my consumer choice, since it’s basically reduced from one to zero?
Imagine having to rent your house from only Teo landlords available in the entire world.... How does that situation sound to you? Not great, right?
Well, that’s happening with mobile App Stores.
People are comparing this with retail publishing structures from the 90’s is just silly. And the anti-Epic rhetoric... This is bigger than Epic Games!
I am 100% behind Epic’s initiative here.
Side-loading should be possible, third party stores should be possible. If Apple indeed has the “most advanced OS” in the world they should be able to offer apps running in their own secure container.
Apple doesn’t have to curate or provide support in any way if I download my content elsewhere. They can keep running their stores and market it as a curated platform just fine. I mean, if the App Store is so great, the consumer will use it anyway. I just want to be able to work with an alternative install/download source whenever I want to.
People comparing this to PlayStation doing the same thing... Yeah sure, that’s problematic too, but the mobile space is the most clearly monopolized one due to sheer market size. If Epic would win, no doubt the entire model would change for all platform owners.
Hey dude, have you heard of web browsers? Safari fulfills all of your requirements above …already today. So wtf are you complaining about?
…or wait, it doesn’t have a popular market place that somebody else built and maintained for you …a market place where your product will be seen by real consumers who are willing to spend real money on it.
Hey Sweeny, I have a great idea for you. You should open up the Item Shop in Fortnite to a 3rd-party market. So that external designers and developers can sell their skins, emotes etc in there …through their own payment services, and at no commission fee of course.
Btw, I patented this idea but you can license it for a fee of 30% on your sales. It’s a real bargain, because you wont owe me a cent when you’ve used it for a while.
as I explained, they will have to reduce prices across all platforms if they reduced the price for iOS game players. Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo have the same rule as Apple and Google, when it comes to software that the purchasers can access across all or other platforms ...... that the developer can not reduce the price on one platform or their own platform and not reduce it on the others where the purchasers has access to it. It's the reason why Epic do not sell cheaper Fortnight Bucks on their own website, where they don't have to pay the 30% 'tax".
Isn't that exactly what happened to provoke all this though?
Does this mean that Epic's $7.99 discounted rate was not only in contravention of Apple's App Store rules for alternative payment methods, but it also broke contracts with Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo and Google?
BTW- Sorry for the format I used to reply. I still can't figure out how you (and some others here) did it, the way you did.
Your post is extremely long and I'm not going to comment on most of it. But I have a question for you. If an iOS user obtains an app through a third party (Epic) store, which means Apple didn't get any fee from it (but Epic did), and that app tries to communicate with Apple's online services (eg, CloudKit, HomeKit, NotificationKit) should Apple have to provide those services to the user, or should Apple be able to say "you didn't pay us anything, so we won't provide these services"? Is it fair to restrict online services to users who paid? Simple question.
I for one support Epic's stance on this. I went down to my local Apple Store and asked to sell used Android tablets in a little used part of the store, and manager kicked me out. I think it's absurd that Apple is exerting its monopoly over its own retail space to exclude other sellers from offering competing products.
I also side with Epic. I do not buy the "Poor Apple has spent so much to develop it's ecosystem and now Epic wants to play for free" defense. First, the iPhone would fail if not for apps. The iPhone does not exist for developers, the developers exist to keep the hardware fresh, new, and usable. All the amazing things the iPhone can do is because of the developers. Without them, would you buy a $1000 device to make calls?
Second, I think it's absolutely highway robbery to charge 30% for in-app purchases...purchases that actually have nothing to do with Apple except them processing the payment. Thank God that when you walk into a store and whip out your CC, the store doesn't add 30% onto your purchase just for using their payment processing system. As it is, most stores eat 3% of the purchase right there by their CC payment system.
Third, if Apple has spent so much on R&D and their ecosystem, then why do developers who offer FREE apps get a pass? Are they not using the same marketing and distribution network as those that are charging for their apps? (minus the payment processing system, which comes back to Apple charging 30% to process a payment vs industry standard 3%). Is Apple losing BILLIONS in revenue by allowing free apps or are they overcharging paid app developers to make up for the free ones?
In the end, to make things fair, I think Apple needs to change the base developer rules. Instead of charging everyone $99 to be a developer, raise the initial fee to developers who are developing an apps that they charge for. And charge even more if your app has in-app purchases. Then, either charge the industry-standard fee to process purchases for and IN the app, or allow the app developers to process their own IN APP payments.
You know when you believe sarcasm is truth and agree, you're definitely on the wrong fucking side, as usual for you, well played!
It appears legal experts generally believe that Epic has a weak case, and moreover, if Epic loses it will reduce the likelihood and impact of a federal case against Apple. I certainly hope it plays out this way (and the market responds appropriately.
Both app stores are monopolies. You have zero choice to purchase any games/apps/etc on iOS except through the app store; same with Google Play store. One gatekeeper to rule them all and control everything.
With PC's, you purchase the hardware, install your choice of software. This should be the same with mobile devices. Crazy to think we have devolved so far in mobile computing when we should have learned our lesson in 2001 with Microsoft.
Brand loyalty has become blind loyalty, allowing and excusing monopolistic practices.
I for one support Epic's stance on this. I went down to my local Apple Store and asked to sell used Android tablets in a little used part of the store, and manager kicked me out. I think it's absurd that Apple is exerting its monopoly over its own retail space to exclude other sellers from offering competing products.
One of the first rules of Retail is that you succeed or fail mainly on the range of 'stuff' that you sell. It is your business what you stock and what you don't. You choose.
Apple choose a range of own brand and 3rd parties for their retail space.
If you think that Walmart would even consider stocking a brand of 'thing' with SafeWay labels and at a price that directly competes with their own brand of 'thing' then you are living in a fantasy world.
He was being sarcastic but these analogies aren’t even as bad as reality.
A better analogy would be Wal-Mart allowing a Safeway INSIDE their store while contributing $0 to Wal Mart who pays for and owns the retail space.
The alternative would be for Epic to sell their game currency at a flat fee across all platforms and ADD a transaction fee based on the platform the user is purchasing from, but all the platforms would HATE that because Epic would be forcing pricing transparency and the end users would see clearly how much the platform is taking for every one of their sales.
I believe Apple has, or at least had, a rule saying that content purchases could not be offered at a cheaper price outside of the Apple Store. Which is another thing that developers have complained about, as it forces them to raise prices across the board to accommodate Apple's 30% take (or else potentially take a loss on IAP sales).
I believe that rule only applies to digital goods that are accessible to the purchasers on all or any other platforms. All platforms owners have the same rule, under the same circumstances. And since nearly all the major platforms charges the same 30% "tax", the cost of these software should already reflect that and no single platform can be singled out as a reason to raise its price, due to a 30% "tax".
This is what the rule essentially does. It prevents developers from selling their software that runs on all or other platforms, at a cheaper price on their own website, because they are saving on the 30% "tax" that they would have to pay, if purchased from the other platforms.
For example, a person with a Netflix subscription can access their same Netflix account from an Android device, an iDevice, an X-Box, a PlayStation, a computer, a TV box, etc.. It doesn't matter what platform the subscriber uses to pay for their subscription. So all the platforms have this same rule, to prevent Netflix from lowering the cost of their subscription when paying for it on their own web site, while the purchaser can still watch Netflix with the free app on the the other platforms. Thus Netflix can avoid the 30% "tax" on all the other platforms. That's why developers like Epic don't like it. And this is why Epic can not deliver any promised of lower cost to iOS game players, if they were to win.
Why shouldn't Netflix be able to charge less when it is not forced to pay the 30%? Shops sometimes pass the cost of CC transactions onto customers, and that's apparently fine, so how is it fair that Netflix has no choice but to absorb the 30% that Apple takes on iOS, because Apple's rules stipulate they can't sell the same service for more on the App Store than elsewhere? As gc_uk said, Netflix could charge iOS users 30% more through IAPs, making Apple's 30% cut obvious. Most users would then just get a subscription via the Netflix website instead, and Apple's nigh-on 100% profits on subscription IAPs would evaporate overnight. That is really why they don't allow different prices elsewhere for the same product.
If that rule still exists, that is really the biggest example of anticompetitive behaviour by Apple IMO. Apple effectively is controlling prices for not only the App Store but entirely unrelated markets outside. If they decide to change their take to say 35%, either the dev has to suck up the extra cost, or every service by every developer that is available on and outside the App Store would have to increase their prices within and outside the App Store by 5%.
I think for this very reason, Netflix removed IAPs from the Netflix app some time ago so Netflix as an example is kinda moot, but it does apply to other apps/subs.
Both app stores are monopolies. You have zero choice to purchase any games/apps/etc on iOS except through the app store; same with Google Play store. One gatekeeper to rule them all and control everything.
With PC's, you purchase the hardware, install your choice of software. This should be the same with mobile devices. Crazy to think we have devolved so far in mobile computing when we should have learned our lesson in 2001 with Microsoft.
Brand loyalty has become blind loyalty, allowing and excusing monopolistic practices.
Ridiculous. There’s no law that says computing devices are required to be open to allow software installs from anywhere. It’s literally a choice by the company, and Apple chose to make iOS closed.
The only reason Windows and macOS allow installs from other sources is because they have ALWAYS been open, not because they are somehow required to.
The reason Epic can make so much money, is that Apple, Google, Microsoft and Sony have put a lot of R&D and marketing into iOS, Android, Xbox and Playstation. If Epic wants to sell direct to the consumer, they should make their own hardware. They want to leech off Apple and Google, but are willing to pay 30% to Microsoft and Sony (for now).
The shoplifting analogy that Apple uses isn't very good. It is more like Epic setting up shop and selling things inside an Apple Store without paying any rent; Epic cries in the store that they made the products they are selling not Apple, so Apple should let them stay there for free.
Remember before Apple invented this lucrative AppStore scam, games and software were downloaded and paid directly to the developer. Then Google & Microsoft followed as the service is very lucrative. The gov needs to step in to protect the consumers and developers from these draconian anticompetitive and monopolistic practices.
On the other hand Epic acted out of desperation and not in a very wise and strategic manner.
RE: the first point, that’s only true on PC’s. On gaming consoles the concession has always been 30%. Only now is MS considering lowering that to 12%. Apple’s App Store business isn’t any different from gaming consoles.
I'm not saying the Fortnight player themselves looks like dorks. I'm saying that the avatar they are stuck with, when not paying for a cool outfit, looks like dorks. And that's to be expected, as Epic wants players to pay for cool looking outfits. If the free avatars looks cool to begin with, there would be less need for player to pay for cool looking outfits.
So you're STILL trying to insult Epic's customers?
Tell the third party retailers selling to Amazon customers in Amazon MarketPlace, that in the real world, they don't have to go through Amazon checkout payment method.
Is the only way you can defend your argument to make irrelevant or incorrect comparisons? A third party retailer can also create their own website and sell to those same customers without using Amazon's checkout or paying any fees to Amazon. A developer on the App Store cannot without paying fees to Apple.
paying through an iTunes account, the customer can fund their account with a CC (including American Express and Discover), Apple Pay, debit card, PayPal and gift cards paid for with cash. You think Epic is going to allow as many options? Plus iTunes gift cards can often be purchased at a discount.
Why is this even relevant? Again, you don't seem to be able to defend your position without making irrelevant arguments.
This has nothing to do with a retailer having the right to use what payment method they want or giving the customers more choices as to how to pay. This is about Epic not wanting to pay Apple and Google a commission for access to iOS and Android platform customers. You don't hear Epic making the same demand on Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo platforms. Or Amazon MarketPlace sellers demanding to use other payment methods, other than Amazon checkout, so they can avoid paying Amazon a commission for accessing customers on Amazon's market platform.
If this is nothing to do with payment methods, why do you mention payment methods above? You really should get your argument together before you start to repond. I will agree though, it isn't to do with payment methods, and it isn't about Epic paying commission on the relevant App Stores, it's about Epic not being allowed to use their own App Store on one platform. And you don't hear Epic complaining about Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo because they CAN distribute their software through other means without paying fees to those companies for using their app stores.
If Epic were to lower the cost across all platforms based on the savings they get from not having to pay the 30% "tax" on iOS and Android platforms, then that would mean the Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo 30% "tax" would amount to less money for them, as Fortnight Bucks would cost less. Good for Fortnight players on all platforms, but Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo are not going to be too happy with that. That's why Epic can not pass on their savings if they were to lower their overall cost by not having to pay the iOS and Android 30% "tax". They will keep the savings for themselves. Or Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo will have to charge Epic more than a 30% "tax", for hosting Fortnight on their platforms, to make up for the loss of Fortnight players spending less to play.
How do you know what Epic will do with the savings? I've already explained how Epic could reduce prices across all platforms.
“ A developer on the App Store cannot without paying fees to Apple.”
That’s incorrect. I can subscribe to & pay for Netflix right on Netflix’s website & then just login to the iOS / iPad app. In this situation, Apple wouldn’t get a cut of my Netflix subscription. Only if I use Apple’s in-app purchase will Apple get a cut. And this doesn’t apply only to Netflix.
canukstorm said: That’s incorrect. I can subscribe to & pay for Netflix right on Netflix’s website & then just login to the iOS / iPad app. In this situation, Apple wouldn’t get a cut of my Netflix subscription. Only if I use Apple’s in-app purchase will Apple get a cut. And this doesn’t apply only to Netflix.
Exactly. This is what doesn't really make sense about the complaints per the App Store. iPhone users have access to the App Store and the internet with their device. Apple controls the transactions on the former and not the latter. Doing individual internet payments may not be as convenient for users as paying in-app, but that's part of what Apple is charging a commission for per the App Store. Convenience has always been a major part of the draw for stores. Go to one place to look at a range of products instead of having to visit every product maker individually.
Comments
Is the only way you can defend your argument to make irrelevant or incorrect comparisons? A third party retailer can also create their own website and sell to those same customers without using Amazon's checkout or paying any fees to Amazon. A developer on the App Store cannot without paying fees to Apple.
Why is this even relevant? Again, you don't seem to be able to defend your position without making irrelevant arguments.If this is nothing to do with payment methods, why do you mention payment methods above? You really should get your argument together before you start to repond. I will agree though, it isn't to do with payment methods, and it isn't about Epic paying commission on the relevant App Stores, it's about Epic not being allowed to use their own App Store on one platform. And you don't hear Epic complaining about Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo because they CAN distribute their software through other means without paying fees to those companies for using their app stores. How do you know what Epic will do with the savings? I've already explained how Epic could reduce prices across all platforms.
The whole point is that if the third party seller on the Amazon MarketPlace wants direct access to customers that shop at Amazon, they have to pay a commission and can only use Amazon check out. You're the one that said that clearly stated that in the real world, sellers can choose what payment method they want to use. Well, Amazon MarketPlace is in the real whole and sellers there can not use whatever payment system they want. You claiming that third party sellers in the Amazon MarketPlace can sell on their own website and use whatever payment system they want is totally irrelevant. They can not use whatever payment system they want when selling to consumers that shop on Amazon. I dare you to show me where Amazon allows third party sellers to pay for sales made in the Amazon MarketPlace, to checkout at their own website. It doesn't matter that third party sellers has access to Amazon shoppers outside of amazon MarketPlace.
The whole point is that if developers want to access to Apple platform to sell to iDevice owners, they have to pay Apple a commission. Just like how if third party sellers want to use Amazon MarketPlace platform to sell to Amazon shoppers, they have to pay a Amazon a commission and a fee. And both must use the payment system of those platforms. It really doesn't matter that there is no other way to sell to Apple customers for iDevices. That doesn't not give iOS developers the right to demand that they should be allow to process their own sales using whatever method they want. The commission is paying for access to the users of those platforms. Platforms that the developers and third party sellers do not own, didn't create, don't maintain and are not monopolies. No way that sellers on the Amazon MarketPlace should get to use Amazon platform, to make money and paying Amazon nothing for attracting consumers to shop at Amazon. And the same for developers on iOS.
Why is this even relevant? Again, you don't seem to be able to defend your position without making irrelevant arguments.
It's relevant because iTunes allow the customers to choose how they want to pay. iTunes is not just only one way for a customer to pay. By accepting iTunes payment system, developers are allowing their customers to pay with CC, PayPal, cash, debit and gift cards. Those are choices that Apple would like their users to have when purchasing from their app stores. It has work for nearly 20 years with the Apple Music store. It's Apple's platform, Apple's rules.
And you don't hear Epic complaining about Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo because they CAN distribute their software through other means without paying fees to those companies for using their app store.
But Epic CAN NOT distribute their software into any of the game console platforms, without paying Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo a fee. Even if they sell their software on a disc. That is an irrelevant issue. The issue is that if Epic sells their software through a game console store, they still have to pay a 30% commission and use the store payment system. The fact that they don't have to use a game console store to get their software onto to a game console has absolutely nothing to do with having to pay Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo their 30% commission for sales made in their stores. Nothing what so ever. Plus there is no way to "distribute" in-app purchases, other than using the game consoles owner stores and paying the 30%. You don't see Epic trying to avoid the 30% for that, on an X-Box or PlayStation.
Now, there might very well be reasons why iOS developers should be allowed to use their own payment system but just because iOS developers can only use iTunes going through the Apple App Store and there is no other way for them to get their software into an iDevice other than though the Apple App Store, are not going to be any of them. Those are irrelevant issues as far as why iOS developers should be allowed to use their own payment system.
No where have you shown where developers or sellers using someones else platform to make money selling their products, have the right to use whatever payment system they want or not pay a commission for doing so. You only pointed out where they can use whatever payment system they want and not pay a fee or commission, when not selling through someone else's platform. Now the platform owner might allow for it and maybe not charge a commission or fee, but it is not a right that sellers and developers have when using someone else's platform to make money. And I have no idea why being able to distribute their software other than by an app store, has anything to do with them having the right to use whatever payment system they want, when selling their products on someone else's platform. One has nothing to do with the other.
How do you know what Epic will do with the savings? I've already explained how Epic could reduce prices across all platforms.
And I already explained why Epic can not reduce prices across all platforms. iOS is just a fraction of where Epic make their money from games and with in-app purchases. Game consoles accounts for 70% of all game players. Only 20% play games on mobile devices. The ONLY way Epic is going to be able to reduce prices across all platforms with any savings from not paying a commission (of less of one), is to not have to pay the 30% commission to Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo. And as I explained, they will have to reduce prices across all platforms if they reduced the price for iOS game players. Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo have the same rule as Apple and Google, when it comes to software that the purchasers can access across all or other platforms ...... that the developer can not reduce the price on one platform or their own platform and not reduce it on the others where the purchasers has access to it. It's the reason why Epic do not sell cheaper Fortnight Bucks on their own website, where they don't have to pay the 30% 'tax". And the reason why subscriptions to Netflix, Microsoft 365, Spotify, Apple Music, publishers with e-Books, news, magazines, etc., cost the same on all platforms, even if one pays for it on a website. I do not get a discount for paying for my Netflix subscription with automatic CC charges every month, even though Netflix do not have to pay the 30% when I do this.
BTW- Sorry for the format I used to reply. I still can't figure out how you (and some others here) did it, the way you did.
I really, really do not want a mobile device with an “open app store” philosophy — not available to me myself, not to other users, developers, or any part of that ecosystem.
Notice, I’m not saying that I don’t want to use such alternative app stores, or that I don’t want to see them. Rather, I don’t want an OS where they are even allowed. I want a device ecosystem with a single trusted app store. It’s my consumer demand, and what I would spend money on.
There are multiple reasons for this, but that’s irrelevant. I want such a device, and it’s not an impossible or even difficult demand because I actually have one already today.
• Now, where on the market will I be able to find me such a smartphone if Apple is forced to open up?
• Who will be able to supply this consumer demand?
• How is that not the ultimate limitation of my consumer choice, since it’s basically reduced from one to zero?
…or wait, it doesn’t have a popular market place that somebody else built and maintained for you …a market place where your product will be seen by real consumers who are willing to spend real money on it.
I have a great idea for you. You should open up the Item Shop in Fortnite to a 3rd-party market. So that external designers and developers can sell their skins, emotes etc in there …through their own payment services, and at no commission fee of course.
Btw, I patented this idea but you can license it for a fee of 30% on your sales. It’s a real bargain, because you wont owe me a cent when you’ve used it for a while.
Does this mean that Epic's $7.99 discounted rate was not only in contravention of Apple's App Store rules for alternative payment methods, but it also broke contracts with Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo and Google?
It appears legal experts generally believe that Epic has a weak case, and moreover, if Epic loses it will reduce the likelihood and impact of a federal case against Apple. I certainly hope it plays out this way (and the market responds appropriately.
With PC's, you purchase the hardware, install your choice of software. This should be the same with mobile devices. Crazy to think we have devolved so far in mobile computing when we should have learned our lesson in 2001 with Microsoft.
Brand loyalty has become blind loyalty, allowing and excusing monopolistic practices.
A better analogy would be Wal-Mart allowing a Safeway INSIDE their store while contributing $0 to Wal Mart who pays for and owns the retail space.
If that rule still exists, that is really the biggest example of anticompetitive behaviour by Apple IMO. Apple effectively is controlling prices for not only the App Store but entirely unrelated markets outside. If they decide to change their take to say 35%, either the dev has to suck up the extra cost, or every service by every developer that is available on and outside the App Store would have to increase their prices within and outside the App Store by 5%.
I think for this very reason, Netflix removed IAPs from the Netflix app some time ago so Netflix as an example is kinda moot, but it does apply to other apps/subs.
The only reason Windows and macOS allow installs from other sources is because they have ALWAYS been open, not because they are somehow required to.