The fact of the matter is that both developers and consumers chose Apple's business model and the walled garden approach. It is Apple hardware, Apple software and Apple services through and through and it's been that way since day one of the App Store. There were rules, standards and a 30% fee and pricey iPhone hardware at a time when Apple had zero marketshare and zero leverage. They got to where they are by creating fantastic products and experiences that consumers want and those same consumers voted time and again with their money to support.
This entire argument by the nit-wit at EPIC is nothing more than sour grapes. His sense of entitlement to freely use other people's creations is astonishing by itself. Contrary to Sweeney's disingenuous, self-serving tripe, consumers are getting EXACTLY what they want.
Lest we all forget, there was hysteria over the free fall collapse of app pricing for years in the App Store, so the idea that somehow Apple's model harms consumers is ridiculous. What it has done is create tremendous competition in a marketplace full of discerning consumers who value quality and all of the other attributes that come along with freely choosing to participate.
I am consistently taken aback by the disrespectful selfishness of those who want to whine their way into other people's pockets. If you don't want to play by the rules, go somewhere else. Consumers will pick the winners and losers just like they always have.
App Store is a platform that Apple built, i don't care about your stupid game, i want my Apps to be strictly curated and I want Apple to make some money off it. If a customer disagrees with the policy and gets angry about it, then don't buy and iPhone, it's that simple.
That's fine but did you know Apple would be the middleman to everything, and that they would decide what you could download or not?
Except that Apple does not decide that. It is really up to the developer to decide. The only thing the developer has to do is to adhere to the App Store rules.
App Store is a platform that Apple built, i don't care about your stupid game, i want my Apps to be strictly curated and I want Apple to make some money off it. If a customer disagrees with the policy and gets angry about it, then don't buy and iPhone, it's that simple.
That's fine but did you know Apple would be the middleman to everything, and that they would decide what you could download or not?
Except that Apple does not decide that. It is really up to the developer to decide. The only thing the developer has to do is to adhere to the App Store rules.
Rules that Apple establishes and hence the final decision is Apple's.
This, in itself, isn't the problem. The problem is that other app stores are not allowed to exist on iOS devices and even that, in turn, might prove to be a non-issue if users explicitly accept these limitations at purchase.
There have been numerous EU rulings in other areas which have boiled down to, not so much the restrictions themselves, but how clearly they were communicated to the users.
Amazon,walmart,etc are middleman. Where you draw line ? Epic CEO is middleman where CEO makes way more than it's rest of employees where those employees are the one who creates products. He is hypocrite.
Gruber has it right -- the business model for iPhone/iPad is more like a video game console, but instead of being just games, it's an "app console." Or, "mobile app console."
Gruber has it right -- the business model for iPhone/iPad is more like a video game console, but instead of being just games, it's an "app console." Or, "mobile app console."
Wake me when Epic sues Sony.
I the iPhone/iPad is like a video game consoles, then they should allow others stores like Sony and MS did with EA Access, right?
Well EPIC Games, if you don't like the service the store provides you, set up your own distribution and payment system. I bet it will work out far more expensive than the percentage Apple or Google charge to create, manage and maintain a store front for you, let alone advertise your game.
Just don't forget that the majority of users are keen to be protected by a safe and secure payment process, how many will download from an untrusted source and give their payment card details over, or more importantly, how many parents will agree to it.
While you whinging about "middle men" you'd best stop using PayPal, Mastercard, VISA, AMEX etc ... they all charge to use the system.
I don’t think this is just about money...I think this is also about data collection (and resale?) on the part of Epic...and others...of the iOS customer base. Epic will also complain about apple and App Store policies preventing them from “connecting” to their customers. “You” are the buyer and “you” are the product.
EA Access (which is now EA Play) is a subscription service that offers early access to newer full price games that you still have to purchase (so Sony and MS still get a 30% cut on those) as well as a "vault" of older EA games that you can play for free. If you want to play games online, obviously you're going to need to purchase that capability from Sony and Microsoft as well. So it's not really a store like xCloud and it's not really a way for EA to avoid paying a cut.
According to Forbes Tim Sweeny has a net worth of 5.3 Billion. Making him #383 on their list.
Yet the guy is seated in an office with sparse decorations, and looks more like the gaming room of one of his typical customers. That's not an accident, it's engineered to help you forget that this is literally a Billionaire trying to get richer at the expense of the hard work of others.
I’m 100% OK with billionaires and if any ever appear, I’ll be OK with trillionaires. Wealth isn’t the issue. The issue is Tim Sweeney is a blithering idiot, despite being wealthy.
"we're fighting for the freedom of people ... to install apps from sources of their choosing" says the guy who locked some of the most anticipated titles as Epic Store Exclusives. It's not about money, it's about freedom. And let me guess, if his end game plays out, we won't have any Epic iOS App Store Exclusives. No way, this guys is all about freedom! It's not like he's holding all mobile Fartnight players as virtual hostages atm, so he can push his own... ugh... freedom... agenda. They are all free... to play something else.
As an iOS user I'm perfectly happy to be getting my apps from one single place, knowing that they wen't trough some screening.
I wish this was the case on macOS too.
As far as (Windows) games go, I do hate having 15 launchers/stores. I wish all my games would be in Steam (as it's the most feature rich).
So if this guys is fighting for my freedom, he's on the wrong side of the battle.
EA Access (which is now EA Play) is a subscription service that offers early access to newer full price games that you still have to purchase (so Sony and MS still get a 30% cut on those) as well as a "vault" of older EA games that you can play for free. If you want to play games online, obviously you're going to need to purchase that capability from Sony and Microsoft as well. So it's not really a store like xCloud and it's not really a way for EA to avoid paying a cut.
My post was about the comparison of Apple devices as "app consoles" compared to gaming consoles. If that was the case, then Apple should not have any problem allowing 3rd party stores.
About your post about fees, I think Apple should get what they deserve, considering it's their app store. At the same time, developers, big and small, have valid points about Apple App Store fees and other restrictions, for example with cloud gaming. Maybe Epic suing Apple and Google was too drastic, but that's what we have today.
I saw some guy on the TV being interviewed about this, and he said Apple is acting as a rent-collector, milking their tenants rather than innovating. Idiot. Anyway, he suggested that Apple should reduce their cut to maybe 10-15% rather than 30%. So, this guy *knows* exactly how much Apple need to spend to maintain and improve the App Store, iOS, the development tools, etc.? He *knows* that Apple can afford to halve their App Store income and will still be able to cover it? Unlikely.
It's not about being a monopoly or exhibiting monopolistic behaviour, it's about money.
Apple charges 30%. You knew that when you developed for iOS. That's the deal. Don't like it, then don't put your game on iOS.
Right on the money <rim shot>.
Apple Store charges 30% Sony PSN Store charges 30% Microsoft Game Store charges 30% both for PC and for XBOX Galaxy Store charges 30% Samsung Store charges 30% Steam charges 30% Google Play charges 30% Bestbuy charges 30% Amazon charges 30% Nintendo Switch Store charges 30% Gamestop charges 30%
The only exceptions for Humble Bundle (15% + 10% for charity) and Epic Game Store 12%
Tim Sweeney is picking a fight with one store that would most likely result in a cascading effect across all app stores. This wouldn't get nearly as much press or attract as much engagement if he went after XBOX or PSN or Nintendo individually and it would be costly to engage them separately. This allows him to get an audience, throw his punches and the impact of a win would likely have a cascading effect across the industry.
EA Access (which is now EA Play) is a subscription service that offers early access to newer full price games that you still have to purchase (so Sony and MS still get a 30% cut on those) as well as a "vault" of older EA games that you can play for free. If you want to play games online, obviously you're going to need to purchase that capability from Sony and Microsoft as well. So it's not really a store like xCloud and it's not really a way for EA to avoid paying a cut.
My post was about the comparison of Apple devices as "app consoles" and gaming consoles. If that was the case, then Apple should not have any problem allowing 3rd party stores.
About your post about fees, I think Apple should get what they deserve, considering it's their app store. At the same time, developers, big and small, have valid points about Apple App Store fees and other restrictions, for example with cloud gaming. Maybe Epic suing Apple and Google was to drastic, but that's what we have today.
"Most if not all of the complaints Epic makes against Apple and Google seem to apply to Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo in the console space as well. All three console makers also take a 30-percent cut of all microtransaction sales on their platforms, for example.
On mobile platforms, Epic is calling the same kind of 30-percent fee "exorbitant" and says it wants to offer a more direct payment solution so it can "pass along the savings to players." On consoles, though, Epic happily introduced a permanent 20-percent discount on all microtransaction purchases, despite there being no sign that the console makers have changed their fee structure.
"Bingo. This is exactly the point I’ve been trying to make since the Xbox Game Pass controversy last week. Microsoft wants Apple to allow on iOS something they themselves will not allow on Xbox.
If you think Epic is right in principle about iOS and Android, then they ought to be making the same argument about Xbox, PlayStation, and Switch. A computer is a computer. “Consoles” are a business model and user experience design choice, and the iPhone and iPad are effectively app consoles, where games are just one type of app. It’s a shame (in more ways than this) that Apple TV isn’t a bigger player, because it’s just another variant of iOS.
But instead of fighting the game consoles, Epic is taking more of a hit: Fortnite players on Xbox, PlayStation, and Switch get the 20 percent reduction in price while Epic still pays the 30 percent cut of each transaction to the platform vendor. It’s a stunt, pure and simple."
Tim Sweeney's response to to a similar question back in June,
"Consoles are unique in that the hardware is sold at or below the cost of manufacturing, and is subsidized by software sales, whereas iOS and Android are insanely profitable for Apple and Google from just hardware sales and ads."
Re: “ At the most basic level, we're fighting for the freedom of people who bought smartphones to install apps from sources of their choosing”
No.
So now he wants to say smartphones are a generic public domain appliance, like a toaster?
I bought an iPhone expressly to install apps from Apple’s App Store. The iPhone and Apple’s App Store are inseparable components of the same product and ecosystem.
This guy can say whatever he wants in whatever alternative reality he wants to create for himself. Doing so does not have any bearing on the reality that the iPhone and App Store exist within, one created and owned by Apple, one in which he is free to participate in as a guest who must follow the rules of its owner.
By agreeing to Apples terms they’re paying 30% and have access to over 1 billion IPhones There are no Winners here. Why did Epic AGREE to the 30% and now they want to go it alone Greed?
Having read the law suit, I think Epic's point is that Apple has an exclusive gateway to iOS which is unfair. Also Epic feels the service fee is too high (despite the fact it is industry standard rate), and in his case, he does not want or need a billing service. So the solution is simple. Apple should let him have what he wants.
Apple should create another app store, which allows for side loading. On this app store, Apple will not do any advertising for developers, curate the programs or do the billing. So next to the App Store, there will be the "Crap Store." Epic, and any other freeloading developers, should be allowed to put his game in the Crap Store. If an iPhone user buys any program from the Crap store, they will have to sign a waiver that states if anything happens to their iPhone related to these side loaded programs, Apple will not be held responsible to fix the problem. Basically, it allows anyone to institutionalize jail breaking the phone with the condition of caveat emptor.
The value proposition of the iPhone and App Store is it is dependable and safe place to do business. It's the biggest reason why iPhone has crushed Android in profits. Once this becomes implemented, Epic will be begging to come back to the App Store, as he sees his sales go down the tubes.
Having read the law suit, I think Epic's point is that Apple has an exclusive gateway to iOS which is unfair. Also Epic feels the service fee is too high (despite the fact it is industry standard rate), and in his case, he does not want or need a billing service. So the solution is simple. Apple should let him have what he wants.
Apple should create another app store, which allows for side loading. On this app store, Apple will not do any advertising for developers, curate the programs or do the billing. So next to the App Store, there will be the "Crap Store." Epic, and any other freeloading developers, should be allowed to put his game in the Crap Store. If an iPhone user buys any program from the Crap store, they will have to sign a waiver that states if anything happens to their iPhone related to these side loaded programs, Apple will not be held responsible to fix the problem. Basically, it allows anyone to institutionalize jail breaking the phone with the condition of caveat emptor.
The value proposition of the iPhone and App Store is it is dependable and safe place to do business. It's the biggest reason why iPhone has crushed Android in profits. Once this becomes implemented, Epic will be begging to come back to the App Store, as he sees his sales go down the tubes.
Other people in the tech media have pointed out that Epic's largest audience for Fortnite is on consoles, which is also a single store system with 30% cuts, and Epic isn't filing any lawsuits. Mobile, on the other hand, is the smallest of their Fortnite markets, smaller than for desktops/laptops. So Sweeney has a couple of obvious problems with the lawsuit...Apple isn't really a dominant player in the market for this game AND Epic appears to be operating under a double-standard for "freedom".
Comments
This entire argument by the nit-wit at EPIC is nothing more than sour grapes. His sense of entitlement to freely use other people's creations is astonishing by itself. Contrary to Sweeney's disingenuous, self-serving tripe, consumers are getting EXACTLY what they want.
Lest we all forget, there was hysteria over the free fall collapse of app pricing for years in the App Store, so the idea that somehow Apple's model harms consumers is ridiculous. What it has done is create tremendous competition in a marketplace full of discerning consumers who value quality and all of the other attributes that come along with freely choosing to participate.
I am consistently taken aback by the disrespectful selfishness of those who want to whine their way into other people's pockets. If you don't want to play by the rules, go somewhere else. Consumers will pick the winners and losers just like they always have.
This, in itself, isn't the problem. The problem is that other app stores are not allowed to exist on iOS devices and even that, in turn, might prove to be a non-issue if users explicitly accept these limitations at purchase.
There have been numerous EU rulings in other areas which have boiled down to, not so much the restrictions themselves, but how clearly they were communicated to the users.
Wake me when Epic sues Sony.
https://www.playstation.com/en-us/explore/games/ea-access/
https://www.xbox.com/en-US/entertainment/xbox-one/live-apps/ea-access
About your post about fees, I think Apple should get what they deserve, considering it's their app store. At the same time, developers, big and small, have valid points about Apple App Store fees and other restrictions, for example with cloud gaming. Maybe Epic suing Apple and Google was too drastic, but that's what we have today.
Sony PSN Store charges 30%
Microsoft Game Store charges 30% both for PC and for XBOX
Galaxy Store charges 30%
Samsung Store charges 30%
Steam charges 30%
Google Play charges 30%
Bestbuy charges 30%
Amazon charges 30%
Nintendo Switch Store charges 30%
Gamestop charges 30%
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/08/as-epic-attacks-apple-and-google-it-ignores-the-same-problems-on-consoles/
and comments on the article;
"Most if not all of the complaints Epic makes against Apple and Google seem to apply to Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo in the console space as well. All three console makers also take a 30-percent cut of all microtransaction sales on their platforms, for example.
This DLC fee represents a big chunk of those console makers' revenues, too. "Add-on content" was a full 41 percent of Sony's Game and Network revenue in the latest completed fiscal quarter. Microsoft saw a 39-percent increase in gaming revenue the quarter after Fortnite was released, too, coyly attributing the bump to "third-party title strength." And the Switch saw similar post-Fortnite digital revenue increases after Nintendo announced that fully half of all Switch owners had downloaded Fortnite.
On mobile platforms, Epic is calling the same kind of 30-percent fee "exorbitant" and says it wants to offer a more direct payment solution so it can "pass along the savings to players." On consoles, though, Epic happily introduced a permanent 20-percent discount on all microtransaction purchases, despite there being no sign that the console makers have changed their fee structure.
https://daringfireball.net
"Bingo. This is exactly the point I’ve been trying to make since the Xbox Game Pass controversy last week. Microsoft wants Apple to allow on iOS something they themselves will not allow on Xbox.
If you think Epic is right in principle about iOS and Android, then they ought to be making the same argument about Xbox, PlayStation, and Switch. A computer is a computer. “Consoles” are a business model and user experience design choice, and the iPhone and iPad are effectively app consoles, where games are just one type of app. It’s a shame (in more ways than this) that Apple TV isn’t a bigger player, because it’s just another variant of iOS.
But instead of fighting the game consoles, Epic is taking more of a hit: Fortnite players on Xbox, PlayStation, and Switch get the 20 percent reduction in price while Epic still pays the 30 percent cut of each transaction to the platform vendor. It’s a stunt, pure and simple."
Tim Sweeney's response to to a similar question back in June,
"Consoles are unique in that the hardware is sold at or below the cost of manufacturing, and is subsidized by software sales, whereas iOS and Android are insanely profitable for Apple and Google from just hardware sales and ads."
Rationalization at work, but stinks like shit.
There are no Winners here. Why did Epic AGREE to the 30% and now they want to go it alone Greed?
Apple should create another app store, which allows for side loading. On this app store, Apple will not do any advertising for developers, curate the programs or do the billing. So next to the App Store, there will be the "Crap Store." Epic, and any other freeloading developers, should be allowed to put his game in the Crap Store. If an iPhone user buys any program from the Crap store, they will have to sign a waiver that states if anything happens to their iPhone related to these side loaded programs, Apple will not be held responsible to fix the problem. Basically, it allows anyone to institutionalize jail breaking the phone with the condition of caveat emptor.
The value proposition of the iPhone and App Store is it is dependable and safe place to do business. It's the biggest reason why iPhone has crushed Android in profits. Once this becomes implemented, Epic will be begging to come back to the App Store, as he sees his sales go down the tubes.