Apple’s response is absurd and I hope Epic will win this battle.
Apple: "This is stuff you can't do, these are the penalties if you do it anyway." Epic: [does it anyway] Apple: "OK, that's your first infraction, we're going to apply this minor penalty. Keep in mind we can do even more; please go back to following the rules." Epic: "You can't do this! You're a monster! I'm going to tell all my friends what you did! And the police! And they're going to believe me because I'm so special!" Apple: "... well, now we've looked even more closely at what you've been doing and how many more rules you've, uh, 'bent.' Go back to following the rules, or we're going to apply this major penalty." Epic: "See, everyone? I told you they were mean!" Epic's friends, and Apple's enemies: "Yeah! YEAH! You are _SO_ right!" Apple: "..."
@CheeseFreeze: You may want to adjust your perspective when you're raising children.
A small percentage is fair but Apple charges these 30% fees like mafia mob. Shame on them.
imagine Visa and MasterCard charging 30% per transaction for using their system;)
The credit card companies get a small percentage of every purchase, but if you do not make a full payment on time, you are paying a fee that is about 1000% greater than the current inflation rate -- but they will not break your knees if you do not pay.
Visa doesn’t charge late fees. That’s the unscrupulous banks that lend the money.
BTW, imagine paying 30% interest on a mortgage
You mean like in the 1980s? Or various other times throughout history where property speculation ran rampant?
It will never cease to amaze me how people will run to Apple’s defense when they could easily come to the table and work with developers on adapting their policies to reflect today’s world vs the one from over 10 years ago when these policies were put in place. It also fascinates me when these same tactics are applied by other organizations they are somehow acting our-of-line. Typical American bullshit of when it’s my agenda it’s absolutely the right thing but if it doesn’t fit in to your delicate sensibilities it’s disgusting and has to be changed...
There's a US policy of not negotiating with terrorists. It's probably part of the culture.
And you can make the same argument about Epic. They could easily have gone to the negotiating table like grown-ups, teaming up with other disgruntled parties and showing a united front to Apple. But instead they went on a marketing campaign and now they're discovering that the consequences of not planning ahead are going to be REALLY painful.
Apple is clearly abusing its dominance and by the way as far as I can see when your software costs $5,99 on the AppStore you are not allowed to sell it for $4,99 somewhere else.
What are you talking about? There is only one iPhone/iPad App Store. Where else are you going to sell it for less?
Apple is clearly abusing its dominance and by the way as far as I can see when your software costs $5,99 on the AppStore you are not allowed to sell it for $4,99 somewhere else.
So what you’re saying is that if I sell an app for $5.99, then I’m not allowed to sell it $4.99 on my own site, even though many companies are giving their customers 30% discounts for buying direct?
You are actually saying that Apple tells developers they can’t sell apps for cheaper on Android, where customers don’t like paying for apps?
There goes (estimated) 30% of your revenue, morons.
Also to the morons who say "Epic doesn't need Apple and Apple is not responsible for it's success".
Epic disagrees. From the lawsuit:
""The iOS userbase is enormous. There are nearly a billion iPhone users worldwide and over 1.5 billion active iOS devices, including both iPhones and iPads.
"Typically, these users will use only iOS devices and will not also use mobile devices with a different OS. In addition to its size, the iOS user base is also uniquely valuable in that its user base spends twice as much money on apps as Android users.
"This is consistent with Epic's experience, as the average iOS Fortnite user spends significantly more on in-app purchases than the average Android Fortnite user. iOS users are therefore a "must have" market for app developers to compete in; an app developer that chooses to develop apps for Android but not iOS forgoes the opportunity to reach over one billion high-paying app users."
Apple isn’t responsible for their success. 12% of their customers play this game on mobile. That’s total mobile players not just IOS. This is still very much a console dominant game.
Your quote points to the dollar signs in Epic’s eyes caused by IOS’ huge number of active devices. Epic sees 1.5 billion active devices with users who are known to actually spend money on apps, and wants as many of those devices/users as possible playing and spending money on their games.
I agree with you but think Epic is the wrong company to fight it was it seems they charge devs a percentage of the sales themselves. There needs to be a way to install apps on the phone / pad without going through the AppStore if you don’t want to. Those who only want to use the AppStore are free to do so but those who want to get it from another source can too much like you can with your Mac. Apple could even put up a nice little warning about the dangers of 3rd party apps etc.
Yes and Wal Mart should allow 3rd party vendors in and be responsible for heir actions too.
The entitlement is riduculous.
You mean what the online “marketplaces” do? Amazon, NewEgg, etc...
You do know that Amazon and other host of online "marketplaces" takes a cut from all of their third party vendors sales, right? It can easily be more than 30%. Go look up Amazon marketplace seller policies. Or do you actually think these third party marketplace vendors get to list their products for free and don't need to pay a commission to the entity hosting them, for any sales made to the host customers? That would be like if you being able to open a store in a shopping mall and take advantage of the foot traffic, without paying any rent to the owner of the mall.
So even if Apple allowed Epic to open a store in iOS, Apple can still collect a 30% cut of Epic store sales like what Amazon does in their marketplace or Apple can charge "rent" for having a store in their "mall". Add that to what it would cost Epic to operate their own app store and just how will this save iOS users any money? It could cost Epic more to open their own app store in iOS, than it would to just list their app in the Apple App Store.
So you think it would be a big benefit to iOS users, if they had the choice to pay more for an app from a third party store? Epic is telling iOS users how much they can save on Epic software, only if they get to operate a store in iOS, for free and not pay Apple a commission for having access to Apple customers on iOS. That's not going to happen. Any ruling allowing such would also affect MS with their X-Box, Sony with their PlayStation, Nintendo with their Switch, Google with their Play Store and Amazon with their Marketplace and Amazon Appstore, just to name some of the big players getting a 30% cut.
There goes (estimated) 30% of your revenue, morons.
Also to the morons who say "Epic doesn't need Apple and Apple is not responsible for it's success".
Epic disagrees. From the lawsuit:
""The iOS userbase is enormous. There are nearly a billion iPhone users worldwide and over 1.5 billion active iOS devices, including both iPhones and iPads.
"Typically, these users will use only iOS devices and will not also use mobile devices with a different OS. In addition to its size, the iOS user base is also uniquely valuable in that its user base spends twice as much money on apps as Android users.
"This is consistent with Epic's experience, as the average iOS Fortnite user spends significantly more on in-app purchases than the average Android Fortnite user. iOS users are therefore a "must have" market for app developers to compete in; an app developer that chooses to develop apps for Android but not iOS forgoes the opportunity to reach over one billion high-paying app users."
Apple isn’t responsible for their success. 12% of their customers play this game on mobile. That’s total mobile players not just IOS. This is still very much a console dominant game.
Your quote points to the dollar signs in Epic’s eyes caused by IOS’ huge number of active devices. Epic sees 1.5 billion active devices with users who are known to actually spend money on apps, and wants as many of those devices/users as possible playing and spending money on their games.
It seems that it is almost 10X more profitable for Epic to have Fortnight listed in the Apple App Store and pay Apple a 30% cut, than to have Fortnight side loaded in Android devices and getting to keep 100% of the sale. Evidently, the huge number of Android devices that are 85% of the mobile device marketshare, is not where the money is.
The dollar signs Epic is seeing is not the dollars they see themselves making but the dollars they see Apple making for their 30% cut. And they want to pay Apple as little as possible, for being able to have Fortnight available to players on iOS devices. Never mind that Apple 30% cut can easily be made up by iOS players spending more on the game.
Beside the fact that I don't like Epic - I'm crossing my fingers hoping that Epic wins. 30% was once reasonable in the beginning - nowadays it is just a sign that there is something wrong with the AppStore and that there is no competition. Apple is clearly abusing its dominance and by the way as far as I can see when your software costs $5,99 on the AppStore you are not allowed to sell it for $4,99 somewhere else.
If Apple is sued to pay back all the money it pirated over the last years - this would be a huge pay check for me (just dreamin) ... Go Epic!!!
That is wrong. You are confusing the cost of a subscription, for the cost of an app.
Like Netflix can not sell a monthly subscription for less elsewhere, than they charge iOS customers from inside the app, even if an iOS customer chooses to pay for their subscription from outside the iOS app. The Netflix app itself is free on iOS.
For instance, Netflix can not give me a 10% discount because they don't have to pay Apple a 30% (15% by now) cut on my subscription cost. I have auto pay with a CC set up with my Netflix account from way back when Netflix was just renting out DVD's. Way before there was even an Apple App Store. If Netflix gave subscription payers like me a discount for paying from outside the app, they have to give all iOS subscribers the same discount, even if they pay with their iTunes account from inside the app.
This is no different than Amazon having the right to lower the cost of an eBook, if the publisher sells it lower elsewhere. Even if it's from the publisher's own site. The publisher has to agree to this arrangement, if they want to sell their eBooks on Amazon. And AFAIK, Amazon been doing this for as long as they've been selling eBooks. Even though Amazon controls over 90% of the eBook market, no anti-trust suit has ever been levied on Amazon over this. At least not one that Amazon has ever lost.
If you don't know this simple "fact", then the "fact" that you don't like Epic, might be in question here.
Apple’s response is absurd and I hope Epic will win this battle.
Apple: "This is stuff you can't do, these are the penalties if you do it anyway." Epic: [does it anyway] Apple: "OK, that's your first infraction, we're going to apply this minor penalty. Keep in mind we can do even more; please go back to following the rules." Epic: "You can't do this! You're a monster! I'm going to tell all my friends what you did! And the police! And they're going to believe me because I'm so special!" Apple: "... well, now we've looked even more closely at what you've been doing and how many more rules you've, uh, 'bent.' Go back to following the rules, or we're going to apply this major penalty." Epic: "See, everyone? I told you they were mean!" Epic's friends, and Apple's enemies: "Yeah! YEAH! You are _SO_ right!" Apple: "..."
@CheeseFreeze: You may want to adjust your perspective when you're raising children.
I have two children and you better stay out of the subject of my children, friendo.
Interesting. This may impact iOS/macOS gaming even further, potentially making third party developers choose to drop support of iOS/macOS or find a new game engine.
It told Epic that by August 28, Apple will cut off Epic’s access to all development tools necessary to create software for Apple’s platforms—including for the Unreal Engine Epic offers to third-party developers, which Apple has never claimed violated any Apple policy. Not content simply to remove Fortnite from the App Store, Apple is attacking Epic’s entire business in unrelated areas.
If the Unreal Engine can no longer support Apple platforms, the software developers that use it will be forced to use alternatives.
Apple would lose out on Unreal Engine 5 as well it sounds like.
A recent mainstream game for the Mac is Borderlands 3, but it requires a graphics card of 8 GB on the Mac ! What a game engine is that !
So not many people will miss them once they are gone, and the whole affair will be forgotten in a couple of months even in the blogosphere that feeds it and life will continue as usual...
The Wikipedia article is just showing a few examples. There are 1000s of games using the engine. It is very popular for both Indies and big studios.
I wonder what Epic charges for an Unreal license? Is it (mostly) free if the licensee doesn’t charge for the software using Unreal? Is it a % of sales if the resulting software is purchased?
If I remember correctly Unreal is free below 1 million revenue and 5% of revenue above that. And if you want to sell your stuff in their store they want 12%, which might be what it costs to host.
That is interesting. So Epic isn't against the idea of a "Tax" form of revenue? They just wish they didn't have to be a payer of the "Tax"? Who can blame them, it's better to get paid passively than pay out passively. Maybe I'm just a crazy capitalist, but it seems to me that if the business model itself isn't in question, what leg does Epic have to stand on?
There are other ways to charge for business services. I charge by the project. A client comes to me with a bunch of work. I figure out how much it should cost to pay me what I'm worth, cover expenses and leave some profit margin so I can reinvest in the business and build some wealth myself. My client can then take that work and do whatever they want with no further obligation to me. That's a classic business transaction model. No "Tax".
If Epic is so against the idea of the "Tax", perhaps they should lead the way by offering Unreal for a flat fee (let's be real, though, probably tiered with more support for higher fees). Membership in their store could be by flat fee, again, probably tiered. But remove the "tax" % payments.
I would have SIGNIFICANT concerns about entering into a % revenue "Tax" arrangement with a vendor. Count me as skeptical of the % revenue split concept. But if I charge my clients via the same method, what standing do I have to go around grandstanding about the unfairness of the practice?
For the love of...
To everyone using this “tax” word... it’s not a TAX. It’s a COMMISSION.
This whole issue would be a lot less messed up if people could understand that.
Comments
Epic: [does it anyway]
Apple: "OK, that's your first infraction, we're going to apply this minor penalty. Keep in mind we can do even more; please go back to following the rules."
Epic: "You can't do this! You're a monster! I'm going to tell all my friends what you did! And the police! And they're going to believe me because I'm so special!"
Apple: "... well, now we've looked even more closely at what you've been doing and how many more rules you've, uh, 'bent.' Go back to following the rules, or we're going to apply this major penalty."
Epic: "See, everyone? I told you they were mean!"
Epic's friends, and Apple's enemies: "Yeah! YEAH! You are _SO_ right!"
Apple: "..."
@CheeseFreeze: You may want to adjust your perspective when you're raising children.
There's a US policy of not negotiating with terrorists. It's probably part of the culture.
And you can make the same argument about Epic. They could easily have gone to the negotiating table like grown-ups, teaming up with other disgruntled parties and showing a united front to Apple. But instead they went on a marketing campaign and now they're discovering that the consequences of not planning ahead are going to be REALLY painful.
You are actually saying that Apple tells developers they can’t sell apps for cheaper on Android, where customers don’t like paying for apps?
So even if Apple allowed Epic to open a store in iOS, Apple can still collect a 30% cut of Epic store sales like what Amazon does in their marketplace or Apple can charge "rent" for having a store in their "mall". Add that to what it would cost Epic to operate their own app store and just how will this save iOS users any money? It could cost Epic more to open their own app store in iOS, than it would to just list their app in the Apple App Store.
So you think it would be a big benefit to iOS users, if they had the choice to pay more for an app from a third party store? Epic is telling iOS users how much they can save on Epic software, only if they get to operate a store in iOS, for free and not pay Apple a commission for having access to Apple customers on iOS. That's not going to happen. Any ruling allowing such would also affect MS with their X-Box, Sony with their PlayStation, Nintendo with their Switch, Google with their Play Store and Amazon with their Marketplace and Amazon Appstore, just to name some of the big players getting a 30% cut.
It seems that it is almost 10X more profitable for Epic to have Fortnight listed in the Apple App Store and pay Apple a 30% cut, than to have Fortnight side loaded in Android devices and getting to keep 100% of the sale. Evidently, the huge number of Android devices that are 85% of the mobile device marketshare, is not where the money is.
The dollar signs Epic is seeing is not the dollars they see themselves making but the dollars they see Apple making for their 30% cut. And they want to pay Apple as little as possible, for being able to have Fortnight available to players on iOS devices. Never mind that Apple 30% cut can easily be made up by iOS players spending more on the game.
Like Netflix can not sell a monthly subscription for less elsewhere, than they charge iOS customers from inside the app, even if an iOS customer chooses to pay for their subscription from outside the iOS app. The Netflix app itself is free on iOS.
For instance, Netflix can not give me a 10% discount because they don't have to pay Apple a 30% (15% by now) cut on my subscription cost. I have auto pay with a CC set up with my Netflix account from way back when Netflix was just renting out DVD's. Way before there was even an Apple App Store. If Netflix gave subscription payers like me a discount for paying from outside the app, they have to give all iOS subscribers the same discount, even if they pay with their iTunes account from inside the app.
This is no different than Amazon having the right to lower the cost of an eBook, if the publisher sells it lower elsewhere. Even if it's from the publisher's own site. The publisher has to agree to this arrangement, if they want to sell their eBooks on Amazon. And AFAIK, Amazon been doing this for as long as they've been selling eBooks. Even though Amazon controls over 90% of the eBook market, no anti-trust suit has ever been levied on Amazon over this. At least not one that Amazon has ever lost.
If you don't know this simple "fact", then the "fact" that you don't like Epic, might be in question here.
To everyone using this “tax” word... it’s not a TAX. It’s a COMMISSION.
This whole issue would be a lot less messed up if people could understand that.