Regardless of the merits of the case, Epic is right about one thing: APPLE IS THE NEW IBM!
In the 80's IBM was known for unsurpassed, unequivocal quality. And it led the world in technology. Where IBM went others followed.
Now that same crown is worn by Apple. For good or for bad. But I think its mostly good -- despite Steve's disparagement, IBM did the world a lot of good!
Now that they're also Google's crosshairs, Epic may have overplayed its hand. Cutting off a considerable user base overnight is not going to sit well with those users in the medium to long run, and may expose negatives Epic doesn't want others to see. An Epic clusterf*ck, so to speak.
I own a hotel and pay Booking.com 18% (plus 20% Value Added Tax) for the total value of any guests they send us. Which works out to about a quarter of the value of the stay, just for advertising!
Apple’s 30% for hosting, advertising and providing the tools to create the apps, to me, seems a jolly good deal!
Does anyone know how the in-app purchases work on Playstation and Xbox, do Sony and Microsoft have a similar system and take a percentage?
Yes, Sony and MS both take 30% for games.
Here's a link to the paid study that Apple had done for the recent House hearings. It has a ton of info about typical charging structures for all sorts of digital commerce, and also has a section about brick/mortar practices. One of the interesting tidbits that relates to the is-it-or-is-it-not antitrust stuff: Amazon, which has dominant control of the ebook market (over 80% of total sales), charges a 30-35% cut for ebook publishing.
Does anyone know how the in-app purchases work on Playstation and Xbox, do Sony and Microsoft have a similar system and take a percentage?
Yes, Sony and MS both take 30% for games.
Here's a link to the paid study that Apple had done for the recent House hearings. It has a ton of info about typical charging structures for all sorts of digital commerce, and also has a section about brick/mortar practices.
Thanks, but it's not entirely clearly if the 30% mentioned also applies to in-app purchase. In fact Playstation and Xbox (unless the latter is covered by "Microsoft") are notable omissions from this paragraph:
The most prominent app stores and software distribution platforms (Google Play Store,
Amazon Appstore, Samsung's Galaxy Store, Microsoft Store, App Store) all use policies
that require developers to pay commission fees, and use the platform’s in-app payment
system to purchase in-app digital products, with certain carve-outs for multi-platform
apps.
crowley said: Thanks, but it's not entirely clearly if the 30% mentioned also applies to in-app purchase. In fact Playstation and Xbox (unless the latter is covered by "Microsoft") are notable omissions from this paragraph:
Go to the Appendix at the end of the document. That has more detailed info for all the different comparisons. MS does take a 30% cut of in-app purchases.
Oh and don't go around saying if they don't like it they can go elsewhere, to Android for example. Apple has the only store where developers make significant money. The profits from the android store is a fraction.
I was following your argument until I hit the above statement. So you're saying that Apple has every right to completely define and prescribe the rules by which they operate their store, one that they totally created on their own dime, one that entailed substantial risk, one created in a vacuum where no comparable store for third party mobile apps was in-place, but only to a point. That point apparently occurs when something that Apple created becomes wildly successful for not only Apple, but third party developers who signed-up to reap the rewards that are now possible only if they are a paying passenger on Apple's App Store gravy train.
Riding on the Android train is a dead-end deal, so you're saying that Apple is now obligated to cut their passengers a special new deal because Apple's competitors totally blow chunks when it comes to providing a benefit for their passengers. That kind of sounds like you're saying that because Apple is successful and actually delivers value for paying passengers, as you clearly say "the only store where developers make significant money," they can no longer set the rules for how they run their business.
There used to be a time when investors, risk takers, and entrepreneurs were rewarded for their efforts. Now you're saying that with success comes an obligation to forfeit part of your success to offset the failures of your competitors. If Apple had failed at its App Store experiment (which Steve Jobs was initially opposed to) I'd bet these same developers wouldn't be donating a chunk of their money to help offset Apple's losses. They'd be jumping off the Apple train as quickly as they possibly could and seeking a better deal from whatever train they can hitch a ride on. Problem is, unless they own the other train, they're going to have to pay to ride the other one as well, and they'll be complaining about that one too.
The App Store is not a public utility. The reality is that Apple could shut down or sell the App Store and reinvest all the savings into building a product line around Apple Car cupholders. It's their store and they get to define the rules.
Regardless of the merits of the case, Epic is right about one thing: APPLE IS THE NEW IBM!
In the 80's IBM was known for unsurpassed, unequivocal quality. And it led the world in technology. Where IBM went others followed.
Now that same crown is worn by Apple. For good or for bad. But I think its mostly good -- despite Steve's disparagement, IBM did the world a lot of good!
And IBM got humiliated, at least on the software front, by a tiny startup in Seattle who ate their lunch by taking advantage of IBM's panic to get into the microcomputer market and selling a chunk of their soul to that tiny startup. Being the market leader today doesn't guarantee a thing, especially in the face of disruption. Epic could be a disruptor if they really wanted to be, rather than just being a hanger-on riding on Apple's coattails and complaining about it the whole time. Funny how you never hear the winners complaining.
I mean amazon takes up to 25% of each transaction on their store. For books it’s worse and can be above 50%. Movie theaters, retail stores. All do something similar. You’re paying for access to their customer base, their r&d to create, develop, maintain, update, expand the platform, space, brand, store, theater. You pay a fee to rent a space at a flea market, or sell something on eBay (remember eBay?). Google charges a similar amount as does steam, Uber, it’s a modern business model. I bet if fortnite had its own App Store they’d charge a similar amount to third party titles, too. Maybe they could make it work with less, but it certainly cannot be free. While I feel for them and always like the plight of the so-called “little guy” they’ve kneecapped themselves on both iOS and android platforms with this move.
I bought and use iPhone because Apple have proved over and over that Apple can be trusted to put resources to verify Apps in App store so all Apps abide by rules openly set by Apple to protect users and bad actor Apps don't steal your private info and sell it to evil entities operating from some part of earth..
Epic can create it's own App store and stick it's App there. Epic can also make it free there App on IOS and Android so they don't have to pay anything to Apple and Google.
Tencent owns 40% of Epic. The connection is obvious. Payback in the form of generating chaos seems obvious to me. Also, how much does Tencent charge on WeChat (just curious).
Ah. Didn’t know that. I think there’s an increased chance now the Administration could ban Fortnite as a national security risk. Bye, bye Epic.
I don't play Fortnight but I agree with Epic I've never agreed with Apple claiming a portion of all sales from an app even if those sales don't go through the AppStore. Some have compared it to having rules for stocking things in your own store. That's not it Some have said that Epic and others are trying to profit while not paying for the store. Not right either Look at it this way. I have a store. You want to sell something, a computer let's say, in my store. I can and should get a cut of the price for my trouble of hosting your product That's fair. But should I then demand a cut of everything else that is bought with that computer? I sell a Dell computer so anything purchased from Dell on that computer has to pay a toll back to me even if you're a thousand miles away from my store? Of course not, that would be absurd. Yet Apple is demanding a slice of everything bought on Amazon Prime, and Kindle, and all in game purchases, and more, even if those transactions have nothing to do and go nowhere near Apple's store. That has never felt right to me. Apple should get a cute of sales in their store. But that should be the end of it. Oh and don't go around saying if they don't like it they can go elsewhere, to Android for example. Apple has the only store where developers make significant money. The profits from the android store is a fraction. It's like saying if you don't want to pay my forever cut on sales you can go to the other store in the poor section of town where nobody can afford your stuff. Not really a choice for most developers. It's this kind of behavior that's getting Apple in trouble with antitrust hawks.
I don’t agree with you, and I think you have misunderstood the business model pattern for in-app purchases in free apps. In principle, what you are saying is it’s perfectly ok to circumvent all store fees by making any app free, and then charge in-app for an activation key or similar. Do you see the flawed logic in your reasoning?
The complaint alleges that Apple has become a "behemoth seeking to control markets, block competition and stifle innovation," and claims that the company's size and reach "far exceeds that of any technology monopolist in history."
A behemoth with how much of the mobile phone market exactly? Of the desktop market? Of the laptop market? Epic just wants free access to customers. This is a dead suit. Every reseller/store pays a wholesale price. And in grocery stores you also pay a shelving fee. If I won't pay that Safeway won't carry my product. So good luck here...
If Epic wins I’m going to start a business selling popcorn and other snacks in movie theater lobbies. Without paying the cinemas a dime. Maybe I’ll setup kiosks in malls to sell products, rent free. And maybe I’ll even sell bottles of wine inside restaurants.
There might be some way of working it out if they offer such a service for any other company. Do movie theatres allow 3rd party food distribution? if so perhaps they have a distribution contract you could sign. It might require some kind of distributor fee, agreement to certain stipulations as to how your popcorn is produced, and have your product vetted with the proper health agencies.
Of course if they have no provisions for allowing 3rd party food distribution in the first place it's a moot point. Even Apple wasn't required to institute any method of allowing 3rd party products, but now that they have...
IMO this movie theatre scenario you mentioned before is hardly comparable in any sense of the word.
The complaint alleges that Apple has become a "behemoth seeking to control markets, block competition and stifle innovation," and claims that the company's size and reach "far exceeds that of any technology monopolist in history."
A behemoth with how much of the mobile phone market exactly? Of the desktop market? Of the laptop market? Epic just wants free access to customers. This is a dead suit. Every reseller/store pays a wholesale price. And in grocery stores you also pay a shelving fee. If I won't pay that Safeway won't carry my product. So good luck here...
If Epic wins I’m going to start a business selling popcorn and other snacks in movie theater lobbies. Without paying the cinemas a dime. Maybe I’ll setup kiosks in malls to sell products, rent free. And maybe I’ll even sell bottles of wine inside restaurants.
There might be some way of working it out if they offer such a service for any other company. Do movie theatres allow 3rd party food distribution? if so perhaps they have a distribution contract you could sign. It might require some kind of distributor fee, agreement to certain stipulations as to how your popcorn is produced, and have your product vetted with the proper health agencies.
Of course if they have no provisions for allowing 3rd party food distribution in the first place it's a moot point. Even Apple wasn't required to institute any method of allowing 3rd party products, but now that they have...
IMO this movie theatre scenario you mentioned before is hardly comparable in any sense of the word.
Not comparable at all as you say but in Spain cinemas cannot stop you taking in your own food and drink if you wish.
They will try to tell you can't take it in but as soon as you request the complaint book, they change their tune.
The App Store has two core functions. it is a market but also an app installer - the only (and closed) practical app installer for idevices, and likely soon for macs too, as things seem to be going. Apple prides itself on offering a safe (government agencies aside) computing environment, which is now a paramount selling point.
Apple has the right to do whatever they please with their market. Epic can choose whatever business model they wish too, but legally they have to comply with App Store rules if they want their stuff on the App Store shelves.
the issue is that Apple defends that only the App Store process guaranties system security while this has nothing to do with the market aspect of the matter. Anti-trust laws state you cannot obstruct 3rd party operations for comercial motives. In this case this would mean that Apple can defend the rules on their App Store market at will, but they cannot prevent a user from installing an App on their purchased device - for this reason jailbreaking was ruled legal. The problem is that Apple claims that allowing this themselves on the platform dayzero constitutes a security risk to the platform itself, their brand image, and product reputation - and they have a good point.
This whole issue here is the real behemoth. way beyond Epic’s case, and even Apple, and any other company - this will affect the course of all things digital and realworld inevitably, and it will likely mean that the law has to adapt in someway. globally too. if Epic wins, the whole digital world will be less safe for all in time (not just governments, facebooks and celebrites anymore), not just for idevices - it would be a major loss for the whole world. but make no mistake that if Apple wins we will be very close to paying to breathe at some point in time as monopolies become legal, and we never know if we our our kids will have money then. this is not just another case of “go somewhere else if you are not happy” - whatever is decided here will transfer and expand to the Android platform, to Microsoft and the Windows environment, to really all things in this new economy. this will likely be as big as the damn virus when we remember 2020.. and the way Epic acted.. this was clearly planned. this the big opportunity for governments, official laws - and ultimately countries’ as a concept - to remain relevant. this is a battle for power, for legislation, and no matter how bad governments are, im not sure companies can be trusted to rule the world. very interesting times we are living - in the old chinese insult way.
Comments
Here's a link to the paid study that Apple had done for the recent House hearings. It has a ton of info about typical charging structures for all sorts of digital commerce, and also has a section about brick/mortar practices. One of the interesting tidbits that relates to the is-it-or-is-it-not antitrust stuff: Amazon, which has dominant control of the ebook market (over 80% of total sales), charges a 30-35% cut for ebook publishing.
https://www.analysisgroup.com/globalassets/insights/publishing/apples_app_store_and_other_digital_marketplaces_a_comparison_of_commission_rates.pdf
Riding on the Android train is a dead-end deal, so you're saying that Apple is now obligated to cut their passengers a special new deal because Apple's competitors totally blow chunks when it comes to providing a benefit for their passengers. That kind of sounds like you're saying that because Apple is successful and actually delivers value for paying passengers, as you clearly say "the only store where developers make significant money," they can no longer set the rules for how they run their business.
There used to be a time when investors, risk takers, and entrepreneurs were rewarded for their efforts. Now you're saying that with success comes an obligation to forfeit part of your success to offset the failures of your competitors. If Apple had failed at its App Store experiment (which Steve Jobs was initially opposed to) I'd bet these same developers wouldn't be donating a chunk of their money to help offset Apple's losses. They'd be jumping off the Apple train as quickly as they possibly could and seeking a better deal from whatever train they can hitch a ride on. Problem is, unless they own the other train, they're going to have to pay to ride the other one as well, and they'll be complaining about that one too.
The App Store is not a public utility. The reality is that Apple could shut down or sell the App Store and reinvest all the savings into building a product line around Apple Car cupholders. It's their store and they get to define the rules.
Of course if they have no provisions for allowing 3rd party food distribution in the first place it's a moot point. Even Apple wasn't required to institute any method of allowing 3rd party products, but now that they have...
IMO this movie theatre scenario you mentioned before is hardly comparable in any sense of the word.
They will try to tell you can't take it in but as soon as you request the complaint book, they change their tune.
The App Store has two core functions. it is a market but also an app installer - the only (and closed) practical app installer for idevices, and likely soon for macs too, as things seem to be going. Apple prides itself on offering a safe (government agencies aside) computing environment, which is now a paramount selling point.
Apple has the right to do whatever they please with their market. Epic can choose whatever business model they wish too, but legally they have to comply with App Store rules if they want their stuff on the App Store shelves.
the issue is that Apple defends that only the App Store process guaranties system security while this has nothing to do with the market aspect of the matter. Anti-trust laws state you cannot obstruct 3rd party operations for comercial motives. In this case this would mean that Apple can defend the rules on their App Store market at will, but they cannot prevent a user from installing an App on their purchased device - for this reason jailbreaking was ruled legal. The problem is that Apple claims that allowing this themselves on the platform dayzero constitutes a security risk to the platform itself, their brand image, and product reputation - and they have a good point.
This whole issue here is the real behemoth. way beyond Epic’s case, and even Apple, and any other company - this will affect the course of all things digital and realworld inevitably, and it will likely mean that the law has to adapt in someway. globally too. if Epic wins, the whole digital world will be less safe for all in time (not just governments, facebooks and celebrites anymore), not just for idevices - it would be a major loss for the whole world. but make no mistake that if Apple wins we will be very close to paying to breathe at some point in time as monopolies become legal, and we never know if we our our kids will have money then. this is not just another case of “go somewhere else if you are not happy” - whatever is decided here will transfer and expand to the Android platform, to Microsoft and the Windows environment, to really all things in this new economy. this will likely be as big as the damn virus when we remember 2020.. and the way Epic acted.. this was clearly planned. this the big opportunity for governments, official laws - and ultimately countries’ as a concept - to remain relevant. this is a battle for power, for legislation, and no matter how bad governments are, im not sure companies can be trusted to rule the world. very interesting times we are living - in the old chinese insult way.